Washington Post: The WOTC dragon is “to be slain.”

[Benjamin Olson]

If you tried to publish an adventure based on this story under the new "O"GL, would the Wizards be able to shut you down using the "hate speech" clause?

My dad, found out about the whole controversy (presumably through this article) today, and asked me about it. When I mentioned the hate speech thing he said not having something that someone considers hate speech in a game about killing things seems pretty impossible.

 

[overgeeked]

My dad, found out about the whole controversy (presumably through this article) today, and asked me about it. When I mentioned the hate speech thing he said not having something that someone considers hate speech in a game about killing things seems pretty impossible.

Yeah. It’s really wild. D&D is basically home-invasion murder-time the RPG. You don’t even have to squint to see the colonizers at play angle. The idea of a morality clause is laughable.

 

[guachi]

People who play games where they fight evil wizards have a Wizard to slay. People who rules lawyer for fun have new rules to lawyer over.

Tens of thousands of people getting to do in real life what they've been doing with a fantasy game for years. How did WotC think this was ever going to play out?

 

[Remathilis]

I could put "puppies are wonderful" onto social media, they could cite it as hate speech against cats and revoke my license if they think it's worth their effort and the public backlash they take for doing it won't hurt them

I find statements like the unhelpful hyperbole. Lots of companies police user generated content. This very website could ban you for hate speech. So can a lot of other websites. DTRPG and Kickstarter both have provisions on what is acceptable speech. I have no problems with WotC wanting some moderation on games that use its rules as well. I just think they need some method to dispute rulings. If YouTube yanks my video, I can file a motion to dispute it. I want WotC too work with either a meditation system or the legal system to have a third party arbiter to dispute rulings.

 

[Yaarel]

I was thinking again the other night just how funny it is that at least two of those have RPGs not developed by WotC and not using 5e. I'm guessing the plans for restricting D&D and 5e date back to when these were first proposed.

Do you mean to focus on medievalesque branding for the D&D product? Good point.

 

[Yaarel]

Im honestly shocked they haven't just scratched the whole idea at this point and said "NM no new OGL" Which means they are betting on those who stay to pay more.

The reason Hasbro-WotC refuses to back down about the OGL 1.0a is:

Hasbro-WotC seeks to kill the OGL 1.0a in order to lay the legal foundation for much worse attacks against the gaming community.

 

[Jer]

I find statements like the unhelpful hyperbole. Lots of companies police user generated content. This very website could ban you for hate speech. So can a lot of other websites. DTRPG and Kickstarter both have provisions on what is acceptable speech. I have no problems with WotC wanting some moderation on games that use its rules as well. I just think they need some method to dispute rulings. If YouTube yanks my video, I can file a motion to dispute it. I want WotC too work with either a meditation system or the legal system to have a third party arbiter to dispute rulings.

It's not hyperbole - read what I wrote again. They can jn fact just do whatever they want with that clause as long as they're willing to deal with the pr consequences. The question you have to ask when buying into accepting their license is whether you trust them to act in good faith.

There's that word again - trust. That's what it all boils down to. I trust Morrus to not abuse the tos here. I don't have the same trust for wizards anymore.

 

[guachi]

Fatigue will set in and so reasonable-from-the-right-angle OGL will defuse a lot of anger, and then small, incremental changes that dont' cause much individual uproar will occur.

At the point people give up and accept what Hasbro is doing will also be the same time many of them accept they won't be buying any more D&D.

It's the seven (or five. I've listed seven) stages of grief. Fans and Hasbro are in Stage 3. If Hasbro backs down they will go through the other 4 stages. If Hasbro doesn't then fans will go through the final 4 stages. At the "upward turn" stage, many fans will look to other RPGs, and stage 6 and 7 is where they will write off Hasbro and adopt some other gaming system.

• Shock and denial
• Pain and guilt
• Anger and bargaining
• Depression
• The upward turn
• Reconstruction and working through
• Acceptance and hope

 

[Minigiant]

The reason Hasbro-WotC refuses to back down about the OGL 1.0a is:

Hasbro-WotC seeks to kill the OGL 1.0a in order to lay the legal foundation for much worse attacks against the gaming community.

No.

Hasbro-WotC refuses to back down about the OGL 1.0a is the biggest obstacle is easy financial growth. All other options for year on year growth now that the global disaster is over are risky or unreliable.

And WOTC has recently proved that they aren't good enough to do most of them.

 

[Jer]

No.

Hasbro-WotC refuses to back down about the OGL 1.0a is the biggest obstacle is easy financial growth.

I think someone in wizards thinks this, but that's because they're bad at their job and don't understand the tabletop rpg market. Because it's not true.