I think I know how the morality clause acceptable(+)

[MoonSong]

that's the thing NuTSR is dumb... and doing the hate thing.
But there are smart people that can totally get away with it... Having that clause at least will make them second guess, and at most will be something we can bring to WotC attention to stop.

No, at best it'll be a speedbump, and at worse will do nothing while being a tool of control where a very privileged group gets to be offended on my behalf while preventing me from taking part in the market as an equal.

Edit: but again, people this is a + thread. Let's discuss how could this clause could be made less potentially harmful not whether it belongs or not in the OGL. (With a few exceptions we all seem to agree the answer is no. The point is if we are stuck with a morality clause, let's at least try to make it a good one that actually helps people instead of the blunt stick of oppression it is right now)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, at best it'll be a speedbump,

speed bumps slow traffic... we use them places where we need people to slow down. This is the best analogy. A speed bump isn't a wall, it wont stop you dead. A speed bump is both a physical deterrent and a mental one.

and at worse will do nothing while being a tool of control where a very privileged group gets to be offended on my behalf while preventing me from taking part in the market as an equal.

the suggestion of third party moderation was made in another thread and I like that and want it implemented... however unless its "ME" makeing the final choice it will never line up 100% with my values... I have to except that sometimes they will get it wrong, but also trust it can't be weaponized without causeing the blow back they don't want

Edit: but again, people this is a + thread. Let's discuss how could this clause could be made less potentially harmful not whether it belongs or not in the OGL. (With a few exceptions we all seem to agree the answer is no. The point is if we are stuck with a morality clause, let's at least try to make it a good one that actually helps people instead of the blunt stick of oppression it is right now)

the answer is we need to as a community pay attention to every single thing they use it for, and call them out when we disagree... and disagree we will. Good people can disagree on these things.
However I doubt ANY of us will be for weaponizing it for no reason, so that is when we will speak out with 1 voice.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Snarf, Section 6(f) also cites conduct as well as content, as I noted in a previous post:

So, first I apologize for being snitty. I am getting frustrated with the sheer number of people who aren't bothering to look at documents, and in my haste and aggravation, I wrote something unduly dismissive. I'm sorry.

To answer your question, you have to first read the contract in pari materia (that's fancy talk for "altogether") and then you have to construe in light of the laws of the jurisdiction (it is in Washington state). As a general rule, morality clauses in contracts have to provide some kind of guidance as to what would constitute a breach, even if the determination of the breach is in the sole discretion of one party. Based on the other contractual language and the rules construing the contract, the only way to read that provision is that the conduct would have to be have some relation (nexus) to the license or to the property.

It could be clearer, but it isn't.

The issue with these types of clauses (morality clauses- clauses that go to conduct as opposed to content) is that you can both understand why they are used, as well as immediately conjure reasons why they shouldn't be used. They are most common in employment and personal services, but are also used when there is a possibility of not just the product, but the company/individual becoming so toxic you don't want that association anymore. Think of, oh, Bill Cosby writing TTRPGs. Maybe it's just a good ol' Pudding Pop ttrpg, but there might be a reason to disassociate from him.

All of this is to say that I think that this will likely be a continuing feature of OGL 2.0 Electric Boogaloo, but I think it would behoove the community to at least demand further transparency and a process regarding these determinations.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Like, even Clark Kent gets exposed to the wrong kind of Kryptonite from time to time, and turns into a colossal jerk. And they ain't no good-hearted Kent farmboy.

This is why I think both All Star Superman, and Batman V Superman/man of steel have a place in the understanding of superman... even though they are VERY different (although my fav take is super dad from the dan jurgeons runs)

IF you read superman comic's, you know he is the hero... you get a full 360 of his origins his powers his inner thoughts... so when Lex stands up and says "No one can be trusted with this power" we all know that is bunk... he can, cause he is the hero

IF someone in the real world had 5% of that power the amount of oversight we would need of them would be insane... and we still couldn't ever fully trust them.


However the show andrmoada has this great line "I trust Tyr to be Tyr"
the capof the titular ship has a first amte who is at BEST lawful Evil (most likely closer to Neutral Evil) and can't be trusted to dot eh right thing cause it is teh right thing EVER... so why does the cap trust him? because as long as that NE 1st mate's best interest line up with the ship and crews best interest, he will do every and anything to get that interest protected.

We can't trust WotC (or any company or any person we don't know super well) to just 'do teh right thing' unless that also aligns with there best interest.
We do this because they want $$$ and the IP/brand to grow... so as long as they play nice we give them $$ by buying products and movies and such.... and we grow the IP/Brand by playing talking about and generally useing D*D. When/if they weaponize it we have to all stand up and say "We wont keep supporting you then" to force them to not. We already showed we can do this (this week)

 

[Alzrius]

So, first I apologize for being snitty. I am getting frustrated with the sheer number of people who aren't bothering to look at documents, and in my haste and aggravation, I wrote something unduly dismissive. I'm sorry.

No worries, dude. It's a tense time for all of us, and there's a lot of information and new developments coming at us very fast, resulting in a lot of dialogue happening all at once. We're all pretty stressed out by it.

With regard to the termination clause, I don't want to get too much deeper into the weeds regarding the specifics (save to note that WotC seems to be trying to grant themselves much broader latitude than what you mention), but rather I think there's a broader point to be taken into account, which is that any potential revision to the OGL shouldn't be looked at in terms of general practices with regard to drawing up contemporary contracts. Rather, such revisions (and the conversations surrounding them as such) are, I think, best viewed by taking the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a as the status quo.

Open gaming, as a concept (i.e. as facilitated by the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a), has been a bedrock principle of the tabletop RPG community for over twenty years now. The OGL's terms to date have long since become the de facto against which any other tabletop RPG compatibility licenses are judged; rightly or wrongly, it has become the standard. To that end, saying that the OGL v1.2 is normal, or even generous, with regard to other licenses in general strikes me as wrongheaded. How something functions in some other context isn't helpful, because we're talking about this context.

In that regard, the fact that the restrictions the OGL v1.2 wants to have are standard practice in most other contracts doesn't alter that they're a net loss compared to how things have been for a long time now. The OGL v1.2 is therefore something to be measured in terms of loss, rather than gain, at least based on the current draft. This is something which a lot of the people who seem satisfied with what WotC is doing don't seem to acknowledge, and it confuses me; we all had a reasonable expectation that the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a would be perpetual, because that's what we were told. How, then, is a less-open license acceptable?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In that regard, the fact that the restrictions the OGL v1.2 wants to have are standard practice in most other contracts doesn't alter that they're a net loss compared to how things have been for a long time now. The OGL v1.2 is something to be measured in terms of loss, rather than gain, at least based on the current draft. This is something which a lot of the people who seem satisfied with what WotC is doing don't seem to acknowledge, and it confuses me; we all had a reasonable expectation that the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a would be perpetual, because that's what we were told. How, then, is a less-open license acceptable?

To be clear- I don't think it will ever be acceptable to you. I think that Hasbro's desire is to change the OGL, they are changing it for a reason (well, reasons- control and money), and that by definition any change will be worse than what was before, because any future "OGL" will not be "O."

The question, then, is whether to agitate for "force as much into the CC license as possible and force a favorable OGL 2.0 Electric Boogaloo," or it's "We will not stop until Hasbro says that the OGL1.0a is irrevocable and people can continue to use it as before."

Personal call.

 

[Zardnaar]

that's the thing NuTSR is dumb... and doing the hate thing.
But there are smart people that can totally get away with it... Having that clause at least will make them second guess, and at most will be something we can bring to WotC attention to stop.

There's already safeguards for it and if someone is hell bent on publishing they don't have to use the OGL afaik NuTSR has not.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's already safeguards for it and if someone is hell bent on publishing they don't have to use the OGL afaik NuTSR has not.

They wanted to use the OGL, but they couldn't spell it.

Even after they were spotted the "O," and the "G."

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not about another Satanic Panic. I was just explaining that it wasn't correct that this hasn't happened.

I've already been through this. It's about whether D&D wants to allow people to have unfettered ability to use its brand in ways that might be offensive.

That might be an argument if the new OGL allowed them to use their brand at all. To the best of my reading, it doesn't. So, in essence, they're wanting the right to decide who can keep using their mechanics. If that suddenly translates into "brand" in any general sense, I think we have a lot of big problems.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's already safeguards for it and if someone is hell bent on publishing they don't have to use the OGL afaik NuTSR has not.

people speed through parking lots isnt a good reason to never have a speed bump