D&D (2024) Lifetime boycott of D&D-branded products?

[S'mon]

@DavyGreenwind @S'mon @Snarf Zagyg @Steel_Wind - Could one of you pop over here and say this isn't how licenses work at all and that 1.1 isn't in effect today (or surprise everyone else on here by agreeing that it is in effect I guess)? Non-lawyer types saying it doesn't seem to cut it. Thanks!

OGL 1.1 was never released and is not in effect, obviously.

Looks like they are planning to release OGL 2.0 on the 16th and have it go into effect immediately, is my impression.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@DavyGreenwind @S'mon @Snarf Zagyg @Steel_Wind - Could one of you pop over here and say this isn't how licenses work at all and that 1.1 isn't in effect today (or surprise everyone else on here by agreeing that it is in effect I guess)? Non-lawyer types saying it doesn't seem to cut it. Thanks!

As far as I know, all we have of the OGL 1.1(a) was a leak. There has never been a public version that was released.

To put it nicely- some random, unformatted, leaked, document that no one will say who or where it came from? It has no effect.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't understand you. You are saying that the words "we won’t be able to release the new OGL today" means "we have released the new OGL today"?

There are three OGLs in play here.

The "true" OGL 1.0a is now dead.

The Anti-OGL is now in effect, under the cloak of NDAs. (Apparently signed by some.)

A future Anti-OGL with irrelevant adjustments − that will keep the true OGL dead − hasnt been released yet.

 

[S'mon]

There are three OGLs in play here.

The "true" OGL 1.0a is now dead.

The Anti-OGL is now in effect, under the cloak of NDAs. (Apparently signed by some.)

This is wrong, and WoTC is not claiming this.

 

[Yaarel]

This is wrong, and WoTC is not claiming this.

Suppose Kickstarter already signed the Anti-OGL.

Its terms are now in effect.

The document is legal, even if away from the public eye, under NDAs.

 

[Yaarel]

The same "douchie" commentary in the Anti-OGL is the same in the statement today.

It is the same lawyers crafting both.

They are the same deceptive tricks.

The word "already", confirms their killing the OGL 1.0a.

 

[billd91]

I have to agree with @Umbran on this one. If someone declares they're never going to buy D&D products ever again, why would WotC care what you think? A boycott works by applying pressure, if you're not a customer you've got no way to apply pressure.

How exactly are you applying more pressure by talking about your disapproval but STILL buying their product? They've got your money, which is apparently not where your mouth is. A one person boycott, true, isn't going to do much. But a broadly followed and publicized boycott that actually applies a significant effect on their returns on a product? That's probably going to have more of an effect than well publicized complaint but not effect on their return.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Suppose Kickstarter already signed the Anti-OGL.

Its terms are now in effect.

The document is legal, even if away from the public eye, under NDAs.

And suppose the moon is made of green cheese, and all the Hasbro executives were mice, and Elon Musk had a working rocket that could send them to the moon. Do you know what would happen then? Hasbro would destroy the moon, that's what!

That's not how things work. We can suppose anything. But there is nothing that would let us believe that there is any agreement- plus, you can't bind third parties to agreements that they aren't even aware of.

 

[billd91]

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I think we are only in this situation because Hasbro/WotC actually behaved a little better than most corporations by creating and supporting the OGL for two decades. You think Disney would ever do that? So, yeah, the change sucks. If there is a change, that is. I don't like it. But I find it illogical to suddenly act like Hasbro are incredible supervillains for doing what most of us totally ignore from other corporations every day.

The analogies with Disney can only go so far. Disney (and subsidiaries like Marvel) are protecting stories and characters that they write. That's a bit different from protecting the rules to a game, which generates a completely different outcome each time it's played. This isn't to say that the expression of the rules themselves aren't worth some degree of protection, but the management of the IP is different because the nature of the IP is different and is used differently with respect to derivative works.

1. Read the thread title again.

2. I agree that it doesn't have to, but it's harder for me to respect a moral stance when it seems predicated more on personal inconvenience than a consistent ethical framework.

3. I was referring to the hyperbolic posts. Of which there are plenty. I'm not huge fan of cancel culture.

4. I don't think it's a terrible justification at all. Consistency and proportionality are hallmarks of most ethical systems. If I am willing to tolerate worse behaviours from other actors, why should I make an exception here? Because this situation affects me personally? That seems kind of ethically entitled, from my perspective.

All of that is just a recipe for inaction. There's no way someone can consistently and ethically boycott everything that's worthy of boycotting. So we pick and choose which ones to prioritize. That's not unethical or entitled.

 

[Yaarel]

And suppose the moon is made of green cheese, and all the Hasbro executives were mice, and Elon Musk had a working rocket that could send them to the moon. Do you know what would happen then? Hasbro would destroy the moon, that's what! That's not how things work. We can suppose anything.

Nonsequitur.

But there is nothing that would let us believe that there is any agreement- plus, you can't bind third parties to agreements that they aren't even aware of.

Hasbro-WotC doesnt seek an agreement.

They believe they can unilaterally "de-authorize" the OGL 1.0a

WITHOUT AGREEMENT BY THIRD PARTIES.