Has Anyone Listened to the Opening Arguments Podcast on the Gizmodo coverage?

[Mercurius]

I listened to it. It's terrible.

They take the original Gizmodo article to task, mention that Wizards are on "the same side as us" (they mean in terms of progressive politics, clearly they missed the Hadozee debacle), and focus on all the wrong issues. At one point they discuss other media but one host isn't aware of the upcoming movie, and neither mention the recently announced TV series. Overall they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the TTRPG community in 2023 and the OGL's role over the last 23 years. Avoid, for the good of your blood pressure!

I don't want to derail the thread (too much), but this touches upon a problem that I think clarifies why this WotC OGL is something that people should unite on, regardless of which "side" they're on in other issues. For one, there is no singular correct (or even "progressive") view on issues like the "Hadonzee debacle." One can not see it as a debacle and still be politically progressive, because there are different ways to interpret the phenomena in question. Progressivism does not (or should not) mean we all have to agree on how we interpret things, or what the "right way" to address something is.

The OGL is different. It relates to a clear demarcation and tension between corporate entities and human beings, especially smaller publishers and creators. It is not (or far less) a matter of hermeneutics (that is, how you interpret something) but more a matter of economics and creative control. I think there is plenty of room to discuss different responses, how one personally chooses to support (or not) WotC going forward, but a more restrictive OGL means "we the people" all suffer for it.

 

[raniE]

I think lawyers are going to have different takes on all of this. This podcast essentially dismisses the idea that the OGL is truly "open". They aren't going off context or history or what have you - the host is looking at the document itself. He's not the first person in the last 23 years to draw a similar conclusion, Dancy's statements to the contrary. So to me this is not done in bad faith.

The focus on the Gizmodo article I find more persuasive. Codega's initial article and (particularly) the follow-ups, do misrepresent things, and seem meant to provoke outrage and even seem to have calls to action. These might seem minor, but they've made me question the motivation of the writer and the accuracy/legitimacy of the anonymous sources.

No it doesn't. What does it misrepresent? Because the stuff the podcast says it does is simply not true. Codega's point about the OGL 1.1 being more restrictive on content is entirely true, the podcast just chose to decide that Codega meant something else by content so they could smear them.

 

[Haplo781]

I dunno if this was meant for me.

Just replying because I have said things like "they didn't even know about the movie or tv show".

I say that not as disparagement on the presenters but to point out that the OGL debacle looks to be bigger news than either the movie or tv series.

Which frankly is surreal.

And incredibly bad for both Wizards and Paramount.

 

[Xethreau]

It makes me wonder, "Is it unusual though?" or is it a lack of listener knowledge over covered subjects that makes it seem unusual? ie. If a person were a well-informed listener on all the other subjects covered, would this seem unusual, or would it be a pattern?

joe b.

Indeed --- it appears that a general lack of public knowledge of this situation presents WotC with a first-striker advantage. By which I mean, if they present their new "OGL" as being a baseline contract, people unfamiliar with the history of the matter will look at it and presume it is reasonable. I've actually seen this happen several times over the weekend on Facebook.

 

[lvl20dm]

No it doesn't. What does it misrepresent? Because the stuff the podcast says it does is simply not true. Codega's point about the OGL 1.1 being more restrictive on content is entirely true, the podcast just chose to decide that Codega meant something else by content so they could smear them.

This is not about true statements - it's about the way the facts are presented. The podcast host, for example, honed in on the statement that the original OGL was 900 words and the new OGL was 9,000. This was delivered without context - the implication is that the extra length is because WotC has made the OGL more complicated in order to trick the reader. That's one example of a fact being presented in a misleading fashion.

Follow ups on this have been even more egregious, in my opinion. Takes this passage, from the article titled "Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hands", for example:

Wizards of the Coast stated in the unreleased FAQ that it wasn’t making changes to the OGL just because of a few “loud voices,” and that’s true. It took thousands of voices. And it’s clear that Wizards of the Coast didn’t make the latest changes purely of their own accord. The entire tabletop ecosystem is holding Wizards of the Coast to the promises that they made in 2000. And now, the fans are setting the terms.

So, to me, this lacks a certain journalistic tone to inspire confidence in a lack of bias. Now, admittedly, I don't read game journalism with any kind of frequency, so maybe this is standard.

 

[Iosue]

People need to stop saying this, especially if they are not trying to defend Wizards.

Cow excrement is the most delicious thing in the world, if you remove everything more delicious than cow excrement from consideration. This idea that the new closed license can be assessed outside the context of the existing OGL is nonsense and a distraction.

The quoted statement is not my own view, but I view I can see reasonable people holding. It’s also a view we have to deal with if we want to convince people outside the D&D/RPG playing sphere.

 

[raniE]

This is not about true statements - it's about the way the facts are presented. The podcast host, for example, honed in on the statement that the original OGL was 900 words and the new OGL was 9,000. This was delivered without context - the implication is that the extra length is because WotC has made the OGL more complicated in order to trick the reader. That's one example of a fact being presented in a misleading fashion.

No, it is absolutely about true statements. Opening arguments lied. They made false statements. They said untrue things. They uttered falsehoods. The article also doesn't imply what you or Opening arguments says it does at all. Here's the full text of the entire paragraph about the length of the thing:

What is in the new OGL 1.1?​

A lot, actually. While the original open gaming license is a relatively short document, coming in at under 900 words, the new draft of the OGL 1.1, which was provided to io9 by a non-WotC developer, is over 9,000 words long. It addresses new technologies like blockchain and NFTs, and takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.”

So, where do you see any such implication that this was done to trick the reader? It says it's longer, and then talks about all the stuff that's in it that wasn't in the original OGL, like talking about blockchains and NFTs. Maybe it's me, maybe I can't see what you see, so please point it out. Where in that paragraph is codega implying that the extra length is to trick the reader?

Follow ups on this have been even more egregious, in my opinion. Takes this passage, from the article titled "Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hands", for example:

Wizards of the Coast stated in the unreleased FAQ that it wasn’t making changes to the OGL just because of a few “loud voices,” and that’s true. It took thousands of voices. And it’s clear that Wizards of the Coast didn’t make the latest changes purely of their own accord. The entire tabletop ecosystem is holding Wizards of the Coast to the promises that they made in 2000. And now, the fans are setting the terms.

So, to me, this lacks a certain journalistic tone to inspire confidence in a lack of bias. Now, admittedly, I don't read game journalism with any kind of frequency, so maybe this is standard.

That's true though, it's just written well. Journalists are allowed to write evocative prose.