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

MGibster

Legend
wait so you trust DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, but not WotC...
I don't think any of them are trying to produce an open license save for WotC. But people have been critical of Visa and other credit card companies in regards to their policies on allowing their cards to be used for adult websites. There were complaints in the 1990s about Walmart's refusal to allow any album with the parental warning label from being sold in their stores. On one hand, yes, Walmart should absolutely have the right to refuse to sell something they don't want to sell. On the other hand, Walmart had such a stranglehold on the market that this made it more difficult to sell those albums.
that seems like the goal of deplatforming hate speech
Can you define hate speech? Next, are you sure the morality clause only applies to hate speech? If I publish a game with races, racial ability score increases, and orcs that are alway evil would that be deemed to violate the morality clause? Maybe? I don't know because it's not defined, but I bet I can find people on this message board who would say yes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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.
1st I am trying to be pretty simplistic with my answers... I'm a numbers guy, I have been a sales and a customer service guy, I even (and god willing never again) been a retail guy... I am NOT even close to a law guy.

I am saying hate speech as a catch all.

I don't think having women take a -2 to str and a +2 to cha (cause chicks ain't strong but they are hawt) is dumb, should not be associated with D&D in 2023, but most likely is not Hate Speech but I WOULD want it shut down too.

I am not 100% sold on races having traits like ability score mods is racisist... but the common zietguist says it is, and I will not argue it isn't. If that means some 3rdpp that puts out a book about dwarves with +2 con and -1 cha gets the book stopped I wont feel TOO bad. But again I'm not REALLY sure hate speech is the right term even if I am grouping it.

Let me go 100% real example here... Book of Erotic Fantasy. I bought it at Gencon. I bought it cause I was a very immature kid in my 20's and got a laugh. I read it and found things I liked... Today I am a VERY immature old man that still has that book and still sees value in it. there is a cantrip that I used in my worlds through out 3e and 4e... and ironicly enought WotC kind of brought back just for a subclass... there are also a dozen or so spells I use, a magic item or two.
I THINK WotC got it wrong calling it out to be stopped. I think that it was ahead of it's time on being sex positive, and a;though it could for sure use some more play test and a few more passes in editing it has some good ideas.

I was NOT then and I don't think NOW in anywhere close to the majority opionon on it... if it happened again it would be shut down and i would disagree with that.


I am under no illusion that WotC is going to get this right 100%. I am under no illsuion that MY OWN thoughts on what should and should not be stopped will at some point magickly align with any company.

So maybe the first 1 or 2 times they stop something I say "Darn, the BoEf was a good idea" or "I really like the eat the rich adventure" but I have to look at if it is reasonable that they disagree with me (and in both cases I think they were okaish to be as wrong as they were)


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.
I would prefer we avoid using language as loaded as WW2 so I will sit out this analogy but say lots of things I would have done different in power in the early 1900s... but like the above East the rich and book of erotic fantasy, I can understand why they (people in charge of USA Brittan, and other allied powers) did what they did even if I disagree.
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.
here is the thing... when they do super bad stuff (and they tried just now) we ALL agreed to stand up. We didn't all agree on what was the line they crossed... for some I am sure they only put there foot over the line. For a lot (I will include myself) they took several steps past that line. for still others (and I believe that this is where you fall) they ran past that line and can't even make it out when they turn they are so past it.

They can't do there worst (say "all you guys are shut down cause we said so" without justification without blowing past that line again... maybe some of us would be willing to accept something before others... but that is the balanceing act we will force on them "How far can we push before we hit that wall?"
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 have kept an open mind, and moved my goal multi times. I however do NOT think it likely I will ever have my goal be as far as some here (and there are people worse... or at least saying worse on other social media)

If we lined up 30 enworld members, and we all drew our lines in the sand, I would be VERY shocked to see more then 3-5 of us have the same line... BUT wotc DID push all 30 of us past them and now they are backing down (a bit) and some of us are saying "I can live with this"
And apologists will be apologists.
i find it funny that you would say that.
You say this, but you are seemingly ignorant of their previous outrages and contract battles.
when I am ignorant I ask questions.
I always reserve the right to modify or out right change my stance based on new information.
I have made modifications to my stance multi times this week.

However not only have I been insulted for my stances... I have been insulted for my questions.... and called a 'flip flopper' or worse when I modify my stances based on new information or arguments.

I also got blocked by someone after they presented me with evidence I had asked for... and I thanked them and changed my stance to be more in line (but still not exactly) with there own...

so ignorant isn't what you think it is...
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.
what you call crumbs some of us call the point.

if I make $200 a week. and you make $9,000 a week and both of us get our pays cut in half (so $100 me and $4,500 to you) and then we stand togather and fight... both geting no pay for a week, then the company comes back and says "We will give you guys back up to $300 a week to a max of where you were before" I am made hole,,, I am back to making $200 a week. You how ever are now at $4.800 a week, It would be fair for YOU to call that scraps, and me to call it my point.
In fact at that point I might point out YOU got more then I did... and if I can live at $200, it's no longer my fight for you to get more then $4,800,

If a person broke in took my dog, my computer my TV and $10,000, and the police being OH SO HELPFUL took a report and told me they had next to no chance of finding out who did it... but then a mobster that likes me comes to me and says "Hey, I think I can get your dog and computer back...but I get to keep that 10k if you agree" it sucks... $10k would be most of my wedding savings... but my choices are limited. Should I take that deal? I don't know I think getting my dog back alone might be my biggest concern.
Lets now say YOUR house go robbed too, and that same mobster gave you a similar offer... and YOU thought "I dont want those scraps, I want it all"
We would BOTH be right no matter what we choose.
 

But you see, they have to have a Death Star. How else will they be able to keep order in the galaxy? And I'm told they will only use it for good, so...
The USS Enterprise can destroy a planet.
The USS Defiant more or less did

AN Imperil star destroyer given a few hours could do it too...

Just because a tool CAN be a weapon doesn't mean it will be.
 

MGibster

Legend
I am not 100% sold on races having traits like ability score mods is racisist... but the common zietguist says it is, and I will not argue it isn't. If that means some 3rdpp that puts out a book about dwarves with +2 con and -1 cha gets the book stopped I wont feel TOO bad. But again I'm not REALLY sure hate speech is the right term even if I am grouping it.
It's not really a big deal for you to just lump everything in with hate speech. But, holy cow, do you realize how goddamn frightening it would be for someone with actual power to have that attitude? It essentially boils down to "What I don't like is hate speech." You say it's not the same, but if you treat it so, well, it must be hate speech.
 

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.
nope... I respect you (and anyone else) that differs in opinion (on things like this). We both are trying to make the most good we can out of a bad situation. I am presenting my thoughts while gather others thoughts and facts.
As I gather these things my mind IS changing, sometimes closer to your side sometimes farther.
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.
not exactly how I would put it but close enough... if us complaining if they do something bad with this "death star" tool wont do anything then complaining now that they should make the tool is moot.

the tool is supposed to be used to stop bad people from getting a foot hold. It can in theory be turned on good people and force them out.

If someone believes that today we can complain to make them not build the tool then I don't see why it would matter now but not then.
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.
again, I am presenting that I am happish right now (although I do have a list of my own complaints I am going to be writing in... in fact instead of playing D&D tonight we as a group worked on our answers so we can fill out that survey.)
 

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.
Money is what I do understand... if you go back about a week you will find it is the main thing I was posting about. The money people need to live, the money it would cost to oppose this if it went through and the money that would effect down the line any/all creators...

Those money issues have been rolled back, and as such my desire to continue has diminished.
What you think of as table scraps I thing of as "The reason we did this"
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:

View attachment 273394

and they'll accept it as gospel.
lol... Even at my hight of supporting the companies that have owned D&D that wasnt true... and today MIGHT be pretty close to my LOWEST amount of support I have ever shown them (worse earlier this week)
 

I mean, Amazon is pretty gross, but at least they are openly gross. WoTC tried to convince people they were a good company before this.

So as far as 'least trustworthy' yeah, its Wizards, the ones who as of Friday, continue to lie.
I trust NO company (not even ones I work for/with) to do anything but try to make money.
 

There were complaints in the 1990s about Walmart's refusal to allow any album with the parental warning label from being sold in their stores.
I actively was involved in protest over that in my college years.
On one hand, yes, Walmart should absolutely have the right to refuse to sell something they don't want to sell.
yes
On the other hand, Walmart had such a stranglehold on the market that this made it more difficult to sell those albums.
also yes
Can you define hate speech?
not on this board without examples that I am not sure anyone wants here... again I have been useing it as short hand and even if You and I (or anyone else here) do not 100% agree I bet we all have 1 of 2 understandings...
1 we general have a pretty good idea what we are refuting to
2 we are the problem the rule is meant to stop
Next, are you sure the morality clause only applies to hate speech?
nope... again I am useing it as shorthand.
If I publish a game with races, racial ability score increases, and orcs that are alway evil would that be deemed to violate the morality clause? Maybe?
and if they did we as the market get to decide "did they do teh right thing, did they over step"
TBH my gut says some of use would agree, some disagree and some on both sides would be closer to not caring 1 way or the other.

Me personally, I would see what others said before I spoke up... Where I am not a fan of that style I also am not sure I would go so far as to say it is harmful.
I don't know because it's not defined, but I bet I can find people on this message board who would say yes.
no bet... there are at least 3 posters here that would say yes and I believe a fourth who has a position of authority.
 


SoonRaccoon

Explorer
If someone believes that today we can complain to make them not build the tool then I don't see why it would matter now but not then.
If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.
 

It's not really a big deal for you to just lump everything in with hate speech.
right because I really don't want to type a paragraph or two with disclaimers to talk about the over all concept.
But, holy cow, do you realize how goddamn frightening it would be for someone with actual power to have that attitude? It essentially boils down to "What I don't like is hate speech." You say it's not the same, but if you treat it so, well, it must be hate speech.
I don't like LWQF. not only is it not hate speech, but it is not anywhere NEAR what I am grouping together.
I hate when a new spell or feat or ability comes out and the rules are hidden mid flavor text so you might miss something... That is not ANYWHERE near what I am grouping together here.
I hate when DMs play what I call word games (they understand both what the player wants to do and how they want to do it, but it isn't phrased the right way for the game so they make them restate it) THAT is not anywhere near what I am grouping here.

I am not grouping "Everything I hate" and you know it.
 

SoonRaccoon

Explorer
where I understand why you don't think the changes are enough, I find it hard to understand or empathize with thinking that the situation has not evolved over the last 2 days.
The new license is still revocable at a whim by WotC. WotC is still going to try to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a, whatever that actually means. Is the 1.2 draft better than the leaked 1.1 draft? I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but I don't think that's the metric we should be using. Is the license anywhere near acceptable? No, absolutely not. In that respect, nothing has changed. WotC is still going to try to create its walled garden where it can milk customers for ever increasing monthly subscription fees and where no one can compete with them.
 

1st I am trying to be pretty simplistic with my answers...

Snip

This entire tangent is meaningless and I just have no interest in engaging with it. It is just not addressing anything we are talkinga bout.

I would prefer we avoid using language as loaded as WW2 so I will sit out this analogy but say lots of things I would have done different in power in the early 1900s... but like the above East the rich and book of erotic fantasy, I can understand why they (people in charge of USA Brittan, and other allied powers) did what they did even if I disagree.

I'll point out that Britain changed leadership because of this, but it's an accurate comparison: taking a liar at their word and giving up because it's not you getting hurt.

here is the thing... when they do super bad stuff (and they tried just now) we ALL agreed to stand up. We didn't all agree on what was the line they crossed... for some I am sure they only put there foot over the line. For a lot (I will include myself) they took several steps past that line. for still others (and I believe that this is where you fall) they ran past that line and can't even make it out when they turn they are so past it.

They can't do there worst (say "all you guys are shut down cause we said so" without justification without blowing past that line again... maybe some of us would be willing to accept something before others... but that is the balanceing act we will force on them "How far can we push before we hit that wall?"

We all agreed to stand up now and we largely have agreed to continue standing up, and yet here you and others are, telling us that we should just accept this (a terrible deal) and make sure to fight hard if they do it again.

You have no cache to make such a proposal. You are the one who is giving up first. Why would I trust your ability to actually step up and push back when you have immediately given up and are actively defending perhaps the worst aspect of the whole deal? Your words here have little weight because they don't reflect your current actions. Talking about how "we" can do this again misses that you aren't part of the we, you are the one who is actively trying to deal when many of us are standing firm.

I have kept an open mind, and moved my goal multi times.

And this is a good reason as to why people really don't take your whole "We can stop them if this happens again": you've changed your position multiple times.

I however do NOT think it likely I will ever have my goal be as far as some here (and there are people worse... or at least saying worse on other social media)

If we lined up 30 enworld members, and we all drew our lines in the sand, I would be VERY shocked to see more then 3-5 of us have the same line... BUT wotc DID push all 30 of us past them and now they are backing down (a bit) and some of us are saying "I can live with this"

And I think, having read most of the conversations on here and elsewhere, that you'd probably be very wrong. We might have some different lines, but I think there would be some that are pretty common.
  • No touching 1.0a unless it is to make it completely irrevocable
  • No morality clause that allows them to unilaterally destroy someone's content
  • A redoing of their VTT policy to not be harmful to other VTTs in the business.
Outside of yourself and a few others, these seem to be pretty popular and universal lines. They just aren't your lines. I would recognize the reality of the situation if I were you and realize that your position is the minority/fringe one, and that the vast majority seem to have a pretty consistent goal.

i find it funny that you would say that.

I don't, but we all find humor in different things, I suppose.

when I am ignorant I ask questions.
I always reserve the right to modify or out right change my stance based on new information.
I have made modifications to my stance multi times this week.

Yeah, and that's why people don't want to listen to you. You're not consistent, you change your mind all the time. Saying that "Oh, we'll stand up next time!" is not reassuring when it's the guy who has changed his opinions multiple times and landed on "I, for one, welcome our new OGL 1.2 overlords!"

However not only have I been insulted for my stances... I have been insulted for my questions.... and called a 'flip flopper' or worse when I modify my stances based on new information or arguments.

I mean, when you flipflop on things that is a risk you take. It really depends on what and how you change your mind. I would say that the way you have done it, you have limited how many people take your opinion seriously. That's the nicest way I can put it.

I also got blocked by someone after they presented me with evidence I had asked for... and I thanked them and changed my stance to be more in line (but still not exactly) with there own...


so ignorant isn't what you think it is...

tommy-lee-jones-i-dont-care.gif


what you call crumbs some of us call the point.

That is incredibly sad. I don't even know how you admit to that. :oops:

if I make $200 a week...
Snip

This entire hypothetical is unnecessarily complex because we can literally just refer to the reality we are in and the situation currently at hand. We keep doing this and you keep getting into long, weird tangents instead of actually addressing what we are talking about.

The long and short is this: we are standing up because the deal right now is no deal, and that anything we currently gain (which is very little) can simply be taken away.

If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.

78c5rr.jpg


But more seriously, this is exactly it. We haven't won anything. WotC is still trying to play games and thankfully it looks like vast majority of the community is not falling for it. We need to continue on, comment and engage, but be aware that Wizbro will almost certainly try to hard-sell 1.2 after the "playtest".
 



If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

except what you are calling a death star is a phaser bank on the Enterprise E. It is powerful and scary, and can be MISSUSED to blow up a planet. It can also save mutliplanets by defending them, or stopping asteroids, or being adjusted with the gleep gloop to stop the wormhole.

I respecet that if they build this tool YOU and others may choose to say "too far"
If they build this tool do you respect that I (and at least some) will say "as long as you aren't blowing up planets it's Okay"

if you are okay with the above are you okay if they use that tool to blow up a rogue planet that is going to throw off gravity in a neighboring inhabited planet, and we say "We told you not to blow up planets... but that was a bad one so okay" will you respect our choice then too?

If after all that they do turn around and blow up alderan (or even just threaten too) and we say "Knock it off, we are leaving we warned you" and they try some feeble excuses "They had stat mods on race instead of background" or some such... I am sure SOME will stay... some will walk. Will you welcome those that walk or mock them for taking longer then you?

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.
I am... on the parts I most care about.

I also am here at 3am my time talking about it to make sure I have everyone's thoughts and give people a chacne to tell me what THEY think I should do... but I want them to respect that at the end of the day we all make this choice ourselves.
 


The new license is still revocable at a whim by WotC.
not on a whim... if you have something hateful or harmful and try to bring that into our community.
WotC is still going to try to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a, whatever that actually means.
YUp, and if they tried to do so alone I was with you... with the realse (or promise of) of the basics to teh commons I think that has mitigated some (but not all) of that issue... I do have notes on how I think this needs to still be fine tuned
Is the 1.2 draft better than the leaked 1.1 draft? I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but I don't think that's the metric we should be using.
things changed. THey changed in reaction to us and our reaction.
Is the license anywhere near acceptable? No, absolutely not.
disagree... if it went thought 100% as is I would not be happy (I have pages of notes about all the tweeks I want) The morality clause needs to be filled out more and go through a few more passes with legal and us teh community... but I still feel it is a good idea.
In that respect, nothing has changed. WotC is still going to try to create its walled garden where it can milk customers for ever increasing monthly subscription fees and where no one can compete with them.
Hey I am with you on not likeing the Subscription model... but I will be honest my group is torn on this... it is the biggest thing we do not speak with 1 voice on.
 

except what you are calling a death star is a phaser bank on the Enterprise E...

Okay, so we use the whole idea of the "Death Star" as an easy-to-understand metaphor for what the morality clause can do, as well as commenting on Wizbro's status as a bad and dangerous actor.. Doing massive, extended metaphors about it outside of the actual reality of the situation bad for a lot of reasons:
  • They confuse the issue for a hypothetical fictional one
  • They are generally meaningless and useless when you expand them out in a broad, complicated fashion
  • Yours seem to have a habit of missing critical points: for example, Death Stars can also be used for good. The point being made when used is not only that they can destroy, but that Wizards itself is a bad actor and can't be trusted with this power.
So please, just address the reality instead of trying to go off on extended tangents. It is not helping discussion.

I am... on the parts I most care about.


I also am here at 3am my time talking about it to make sure I have everyone's thoughts and give people a chacne to tell me what THEY think I should do... but I want them to respect that at the end of the day we all make this choice ourselves.

Then get off and stop talking about it. No one is making you stay on.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top