And if you wanted to sell your bad content on dndbeyond or wizards web sites then you'd have to sign their ToS just like Amazon.
I think I know how the morality clause acceptable(+)
- Thread starter MoonSong
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Yes.
That shouldn't surprise you. DriveThru and Kickstarter have a much better history with this kind of thing than WotC, and Visa/MC/PayPal have a chequered record for sure, but only BIG MONEY makes them take notice. They're never going to care about 3PP RPG material one way or another. So they're irrelevant.
WotC keep saying they want to do the best possible job, so they should do that - get a third party to manage this, tighten up the wording, and put in a formal and transparent right of appeal. I thought you liked that idea?
It's what we're doing already. If you don't like the current system, that's another conversation that is not WotC specific.
FormerLurker
Adventurer
Exactly.
So people are already signing a morality clause. What's the problem with adding one more that protects WotC and the hobby from bad actors and closes the loophole of people selling on their own website?
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I mean it's this conversation... the one where I want the change that was suggested.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ (He/Him)
I don't. I don't trust any corporation—not even the ones that I have to interact with. LOL
That said, this is kind of a different issue. With things as they stand in the nOGL 1.2, WotC is asking us to trust them with policing their (potential) competition. There's a conflict of interest right there. (Which is why I want tighter language and third-party arbitration).
Last edited:
FormerLurker
Adventurer
This is the crux of the issue for me.
It's become less about Open Gaming and actually ensuring the livelihood of 3rd Party Publishers and morphed into an excuse to attack and bash WotC. To the point where people are willing to defend and choose Amazon and MasterCard over Wizards of the Coast just to performatively make their point...
The new clearly OGL has issues.
It's not really Open and needs to have some guidelines on how to declare content Open and Closed for the use of other parties. The morality clause needs some better definitions and an appeals process. It needs to be clearly irrevocable. Digital platforms and non-static mediums like blogs, message boards, and Wikis need to be included in the acceptable places to post OGL content. The SRDs shared under the old version of the OGL need to be shared here as well.
But WotC seems willing to fix these problems, and bringing up the problems that need to be fixed is infinitely more productive that beating the dead horse that is revoking the OGL 1.0a.
And, really... the worst thing that could happen to 3rd Party Publishers is killing D&D.
That would destroy their back catalogue, and seriously hurt future sales. Depending on the month, 3PP 5e products are the #3 or #2 RPG on the market and for those publishers, losing those books would hinder or kill their business. Because if everyone switches over to 13th Age or Pathfinder then no one is going to back Deep Magic 2 from Kobold Press and no one is going to buy Flee Mortals! when it's released.
A healthy and successful 5e (and 6e in a year) means healthy and successful 3rd Party Publishers.
No they're not.
They only sign if they're trying to profit on Wizard's web sites.
FormerLurker
Adventurer
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.)
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
No, it isn't; I believe you're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue if that's what you think.
People are mad because their basic senses of justice and fairness are offended by what WotC is doing. There's no aspect of this which was necessary, nor can be justified under any ethical framework beyond "maximize profits (at any cost)."
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.
The fact that this could be characterized as simple business practices is not an excuse in this regard, nor is it a justification, particularly since it's highly questionable how much this would have helped WotC's revenues (and that's without taking into account the fan backlash and loss of DDB subscriptions). WotC was doing just fine without undercutting the OGL, and trying to do so causes disproportionate harm to others compared to what they're going to gain. Competition by trying to make the best product you can is ethical; pursuing unbalanced legal strategies to scare competitors off is not.
It shouldn't be surprising that people get upset when they see a bad actor doing bad things, and want to know that they'll not only have their misdeeds ameliorated, but that they'll take responsibility for their actions.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
