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

FormerLurker

Adventurer
No, it isn't; I believe you're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue if that's what you think.
Jesus wept dude.
I said This is the crux of the issue for me.

It was about the OGL a week or two ago. But now it's not.
Not really.
Almost nobody here is actually discussing or providing feedback. This was meant to be a goddamn plus thread and even here people keep picking fights.
To see a huge multinational corporation inflict needless anxiety on numerous small publishers, hobbyists, and fans, all on legally-shaky ground, for reasons that amount to little more than trying to squeeze competitors (who don't really present that much competition) further toward the edge of the market, all to prop up their own bottom line, offends people. Taking that into account, it's no wonder that people want there to be more than just a return to the status quo; there's an intrinsic expectation that trying to do something that awful, even if they fail to pull it off, should have consequences.
I'm not arguing WotC didn't mess up with the first attempt at a new OGL.
That was then, this is now.
Dwelling on hurt feelings doesn't fix things in the future, and doesn't ensure those small publishers everyone SAYS they're so concerned about have healthy careers and successful books in the future.

If people actually cared about 3PP and not their own hurt feelings, they'd be focused on making the new license as solid and airtight and beneficial to 3PP as possible.
As I said in my post that you apparently didn't read, if people actually cared about the health of the small publishers, they'd put their bruised egos and victim complexes aside and forgive D&D. Because a successful D&D means successful 3rd Party publishers.
But they're NOT. People just want to rant about morality clauses and whine about how betrayed the feel.

But I think I'm done with this discussion as this is a plus thread and I don't wish to derail it further...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Jesus wept dude.
I said This is the crux of the issue for me.

It was about the OGL a week or two ago. But now it's not.
Not really.
And I'm asserting that the manner in which you've characterized this issue is not an accurate description of what's happening. Quite the contrary, I don't think the concerns that you've raised are at all correct in their premises.
Dwelling on hurt feelings doesn't fix things in the future, and doesn't ensure those small publishers everyone SAYS they're so concerned about have healthy careers and successful books in the future.
Again, pointing towards people's being upset at a blatant miscarriage of justice – particularly when it looks like they might actually get away with it, let alone do anything to demonstrate remorse – and calling it "hurt feelings" does not reflect the reality of what's happening. Expressing outrage is the only way most people have to contribute to a pushback (beyond a few very specific things such as cancelling a DDB sub if they have one), and while it lends itself to hyperbole (which shouldn't be taken literally in terms of the specifics articulated), it comes from a very real sense that an entity with that much power shouldn't be able to abuse it so flagrantly and get away with it. To whatever extent that can convince WotC to back off does help those smaller publishers.
If people actually cared about 3PP and not their own hurt feelings, they'd be focused on making the new license as solid and airtight and beneficial to 3PP as possible.
This overlooks that a simpler way to help publishers would be to simply return to the previous state of affairs, and that there's no compelling reason for WotC not to do exactly that beyond simple greed. There is no need to cede the central issue regarding the OGL v1.0a being revoked/de-authorized, especially since WotC's assertion that they can do that is far from solid.
As I said in my post that you apparently didn't read, if people actually cared about the health of the small publishers, they'd put their bruised egos and victim complexes aside and forgive D&D. Because a successful D&D means successful 3rd Party publishers.
Your premise, here, does not stand up to scrutiny. Even leaving aside the counterintuitive nature of forgiving someone who's wronged you for their own gain, especially when they've demonstrated remorse only after receiving pushback (which makes their motives suspect), and who continues to ignore the most obvious path toward making amends (i.e. backing off on revoking/de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a), the fact of the matter is that preservation of the old license is far and away healthier for small publishers than trying to fix the inherently-problematic new license WotC is pushing for.

People do not need to forgive D&D in order to secure the health of the smaller publishers; they need a license that actually allows them to publish without anxiety that WotC might suddenly terminate their business. That's easy for WotC to do, and they have yet to do it. Ergo, the best thing for those other publishers is not forgive WotC until that forgiveness is earned.

Any idea that D&D must be uplifted, regardless of the misdeeds of its corporate owners, in order for third-parties to thrive is misplaced.
 

Dustin_00

Explorer
That makes zero sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

Are you saying people will only sign the OGL to sell on D&D's sites. But... you don't sell OGL content on WotC's sites. DnDBeyond is free homebrew that doesn't need a license beyond the ToS. (And its not like racist and offensive content isn't already removed from there.)
1. Wizards should not be the final arbitrator of what is offensive
2. People can create anything
3. Consumer platforms should not platform anything that violates the ToS they already had to create -- the system we already have
 

SoonRaccoon

Explorer
wait so you trust DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, but not WotC...
Two answers. Yes, and these are apples and oranges.

My trust of WotC is about as low as it can get right now. I have no specific reason to place a lot of trust in listed companies, but it's certainly more than WotC.

Also, if DriveThru doesn't like your book, you lose access to that one store front. You could turn around and go to Itch, Ebay, etc. If everyone kicks you out, then there's a good chance it was warranted, and even then, you can still sell directly from your own web site.

If D&D SRD content is central to your book and WotC kills your license, your book is dead. Gone. You can't sell it, period.
 


SoonRaccoon

Explorer
But that's also how you deplatform speech you happen to not like or find inconvenient, for example, if it competes too heavily with your own books.

People have been talking about putting together a committee to determine what should and should not be available. If you leave it to store fronts, there's your de facto committee. You may not be able to deplatform something completely, but that would be the price you pay for defending against the whims of a company that may have conflicting interests when choosing what to deplatform.
 



Azzy

KMF DM
for hate speech....
Again, we fall back to the issue that we're just supposed to trust WotC to be honorable and to not use the killswitch arbitrarily. Despite the fact that, by trying to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a (which WotC itself assured everyone that it was perpetual and irrevocable) WotC has proven to be entirely untrustworthy. That's a tall order.

the ability to kill anyone that uses hate speech's company at any given time.
Well, that escalated quickly. ;)
 

SoonRaccoon

Explorer
for hate speech....

... which only WotC gets to define...

... and only WotC gets to decide what fits that definition...

... and you are given no notice to change your content...

... and you can't contest it...

... and WotC doesn't even have to tell you what you did wrong.

At any point, you could get an email from WotC saying that your license to use the SRD is revoked for harmful conduct. And that's all there is to it.

Do you trust WotC to wield that power responsibly? I sure don't.
 

Again, we fall back to the issue that we're just supposed to trust WotC to be honorable and to not use the killswitch arbitrarily.
no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...
Despite the fact that, by trying to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a (which WotC itself assured everyone that it was perpetual and irrevocable) WotC has proven to be entirely untrustworthy. That's a tall order.
I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.
Well, that escalated quickly. ;)
okay i may have worded that badly
 

At any point, you could get an email from WotC saying that your license to use the SRD is revoked for harmful conduct. And that's all there is to it.
and if you think that it was unfair come here, go to twitter, and make a tic tok... get the word out and we will all be BLASTING WotC and D&D for it. People will then cancle subs and WotC will have to go back or lose money.
Do you trust WotC to wield that power responsibly? I sure don't.
I trust Tyr to be Tyr
 

Azzy

KMF DM
no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money
By that time, though, it's too late—the damage is already done for whomever they went after. Yes, we can make angry noises, but they've already achieved what they wanted to.

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....
Assuming enough of us unite and there's enough backlash.

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...

I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.
I prefer something more solid to hold on to. If they persist on using a morality clause, I want guardrails—like dropping the nebulous, non-specific terms, using third-party arbitration, et al. I want these guardrails OSHA-approved. ;)
okay i may have worded that badly
I'm glad you did, that gave me a chuckle.
 

for hate speech....

the ability to kill the company that uses hate speech's company at any given time.

Not just hate speech, but anything they deem harmful or offensive. You talk only about hate speech, but it encompasses so much more... in fact, anything since they get to define it how they like and you give up any legal recourse to dispute it.

Taking Wizards at their word that they are only going to use it for good when they were just trying to bully the industry into taking their plan is like thinking Hitler only wants the Sudetenland: farcical and inane on its face. We know who they are, and we've seen what they do. It's dumb to think otherwise.

and if you think that it was unfair come here, go to twitter, and make a tic tok... get the word out and we will all be BLASTING WotC and D&D for it. People will then cancle subs and WotC will have to go back or lose money.

Why would that work when people like you are already seeking to deal? At that point, they'll have what they want, and they'll know that giving table scraps will be enough for some people to forgive them. You can't go around saying how we beat them and we can do it again when the fight has barely begun.

The people who want to immediately compromise are the last people who should be making this argument, because they are the same people who are attempting to undo any sort of momentum this whole thing has.

I trust Tyr to be Tyr

And apologists will be apologists.

You say this, but you are seemingly ignorant of their previous outrages and contract battles. Wizards will be Wizards, and they will live and die by how many fight back and how many cower and deal. That's the long and short of it. If you accept crumbs now, you will accept crumbs later.
 

By that time, though, it's too late—the damage is already done for whomever they went after. Yes, we can make angry noises, but they've already achieved what they wanted to.
yes and no... the threat of it, the very act of us being vigilant will keep them (in the short term form abusing it... and most likely IF at some future point they plan to abuse it they will have to find justification...
Assuming enough of us unite and there's enough backlash.
correct. I have thoughts and opinions that are not universally held by the community, no matter how much I huff and puff my minority can make little difference.
This last week has shown though, if they go nuke happy and weaponize this, we do have a footing to stand on, and there is a coalition of the willing.
Of course like any coalition we all have different red lines... you can see already some of us (like me) are ready to say "good enough" while many of you are not.

However I still am digging in and reading and open to having my mind changed (infact it has multi times in the last 7 days)
I prefer something more solid to hold on to. If they persist on using a morality clause, I want guardrails—
100% agree. I want more solid wording, and the write up me and the guys made tonight instead of gaming mentions there needs to be an appeal process for this.
like dropping the nebulous, non-specific terms, using third-party arbitration, et al. I want these guardrails OSHA-approved. ;)
both of these sound great to me... (and unlike my buddy who works in safety I love osha)
I'm glad you did, that gave me a chuckle.
I'm glad that at least we can laugh togather even if we are not all eye to eye.
 



HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...

I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.

okay i may have worded that badly
You are arguing that people should not complain about WotC trying to force everyone to agree to a license that puts major restrictions on the community without any meaningful benefit to the community. Instead you are saying that everyone should just roll over and accept the agreement with the rationale that if WotC abuses their powers people can just... complain.

But if people give in now then the lesson WotC will take from this is that if they hold their ground and give token scraps for appeasement eventually the complaints will go away and WotC will get what they want. So, no, telling people to be quiet now and only complain after the new license takes effect does not make sense.
 

You are arguing that people should not complain about WotC trying to force everyone to agree to a license that puts major restrictions on the community without any meaningful benefit to the community. Instead you are saying that everyone should just roll over and accept the agreement with the rationale that if WotC abuses their powers people can just... complain.

But if people give in now then the lesson WotC will take from this is that if they hold their ground and give token scraps for appeasement eventually the complaints will go away and WotC will get what they want. So, no, telling people to be quiet now and only complain after the new license takes effect does not make sense.

Ultimately the problem is that our ardent apologist doesn't realize that minor monetary loss for a stronger market position is absolutely an acceptable tradeoff. This is especially when it allows you to destroy the VTT market in the process as well as completely control your own gaming garden. For some, all WotC needs to say is:

78c3pz.jpg


and they'll accept it as gospel.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top