OneDnD New leak looks real bad

Bagpuss

Hero
This seems far fetched, to be honest. How could WotC be liable for OGL content?

Because they have given them a license to use their work which it is based off. They have said it's okay it's official OGL content licensed under OGL1.0a

Now if your are going to sue about product do you go after the small 3 party with limited resources, or do you go after the bigger corp that will settle out of court to avoid having their brand associated with whatever product is objectionable?

They don't even need to be liable they just don't want it getting in the press and tarnishing the brand. They are looking for D&D to be the next Marvel/Disney they need to make it family friendly and clean it up. It's daft but it likely is how lawyers and execs that came up with this mess are thinking.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Haplo781

Legend
Because they have given them a license to use their work which it is based off. They have said it's okay it's official OGL content licensed under OGL1.0a

Now if your are going to sue about product do you go after the small 3 party with limited resources, or do you go after the bigger corp that will settle out of court to avoid having their brand associated with whatever product is objectionable?

They don't even need to be liable they just don't want it getting in the press and tarnishing the brand. They are looking for D&D to be the next Marvel/Disney they need to make it family friendly and clean it up.
The OGL doesn't make the brand available, full stop. This is a straw man.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Such an urgent issue they waited 23 years to address it

Not exactly true, to the point of being misleading.

The d20 System Trademark license, for example, had terms enforcing quality standards, in including standards of decency. The DMs Guild agreement includes the ability to terminate your participation at any time - including because your work is a pile of racism or sexism.

WotC has effectively addressed such materials multiple times in the past, just in different agreements. So, this is hardly a new concern for them.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
Not exactly true, to the point of being misleading.

The d20 System Trademark license, for example, had terms enforcing quality standards, in including standards of decency. The DMs Guild agreement includes the ability to terminate your participation at any time - including because your work is a pile of racism or sexism.

WotC has effectively addressed such materials multiple times in the past, just in different agreements. So, this is hardly a new concern for them.
The d20 license was a trademark license. It is natural that WotC wanted to control what was published under it.
 

Bagpuss

Hero
No. There is no approval whatsoever by WotC. And actually, this is a fundamental part of the "O" in OGL.

You are right, but you are informed, doesn't help much if investors and shareholders are hearing from the press that WotC are supporting and providing content to Nazi publishers. Which is my point about it being suits and lawyers that don't understand the point and advantages of an open license being behind these moves.

You can see other terms in the OGL1.1 that are about these fears...

"A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You’re responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorney’s fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.

B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense."

It's all about protecting the WotC and D&D brand.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
So no shenanigans and no going off the rails, basically. So not even getting close to the experience of actually playing a tabletop RPG.
Yeah, I don't think we're at that stage with automation yet. And when we get closer, I would expect point crawls, with wandering monsters and light shenanigans, but ultimately, a game built around set pieces that can be largely pre-scripted.

That said, I think AI will get there. But I wouldn't be building a business model around it for at least 10 years.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
To you.

Them doing the OGL 1.1 was not breaking any promise they made in my opinion. A bunch of you just decided that.
"You" being an entire industry and actual WotC employees at the time of the OGL's drafting.

I get that this doesn't matter to you, but you're being dismissive of a rational response on the part of many (but obviously not all) people.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
If Blizzard was launching WoW now and/ or could get away with increasing prices, do you still think they'd be charging $15?
They launched Classic several years ago without raising the price and have introduced optional cosmetic items in a game store to increase revenue streams instead of raising the price point, which they seem to view as important to keep at $15/month. They've also offered incentives to pay for six months or 12 months at a go, rather than raising prices.

So yeah, I would say they would.

Blizzard has well-documented problems, but right now, it seems to be pretty clearly better-run than Hasbro/WotC.
 
Last edited:

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
Once the OGL is revoked those VTTs and online tools without special agreements go away.
I'm not sure the VTTs are going anywhere. Leaving aside the fact that they might just be working with the expression of the rules, rather than reproducing them, most VTTs also support a variety of games. I'm sure some of them are running with low enough profit margins that they might close, but there are a lot of choices out there right now, some of which are free to use for the basic version, which is a very tough price point for WotC to beat.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
So despite my little shadowplay earlier, there is a real nagging question about the AI DMs:

How are they being trained?

AI's as they exist now... aren't. They're not intelligent and sapient. They don't generate their own thoughts, they construct responses based on scenarios they've been fed previously.

That means, to get an AI DM, you need to feed it thousands of D&D sessions and adventures.

So... where are those games coming from?
So ... much ... Critical ... Role.
 


The Costco guy kept the hotdogs a buck fifty. Even got into a fist fight over it allegedly. They can choose to not be terrible, there's just so much environmental pressure to do so.
Well said. And the reason to keep them were was because, as dumb as it might, be those hotdogs being $1.50 is a part of "Costco lore" and what makes Costco Costco. Dumb Brits like me know about it all the way across the pond. I've only ever been inside a Costco twice lol (my wife's stepfather - a cool guy - had a card).

The OGL was the same for D&D, but WotC didn't realize it.
 

You are right, but you are informed, doesn't help much if investors and shareholders are hearing from the press that WotC are supporting and providing content to Nazi publishers. Which is my point about it being suits and lawyers that don't understand the point and advantages of an open license being behind these moves.

You can see other terms in the OGL1.1 that are about these fears...

"A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You’re responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorney’s fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.

B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense."

It's all about protecting the WotC and D&D brand.
No.

This is eating their propaganda.

Why haven't we seen "White Power the 5E-compatible RPG" on store shelves, on DriveThru?

Why?

I can tell you - because DriveThru, stores, DM's Guild, Kickstarter and so on don't permit that.

WotC is just saying it wants the opportunity to bow to public pressure AFTER something is released, and stop it. But that's not going to be "White Power: The RPG", and just it's just a fantasy to believe that.

Realistically it's going to be "Transgender Katana Mice: The 5E compatible RPG" or something, which some bunch of angry moms from Florida (or Britain!) has decided is "transing" their children, and have written angry letters to WotC about.
 
Last edited:

Bagpuss

Hero
Realistic it's going to be "Transgender Katana Mice: The 5E compatible RPG" or something, which some bunch of angry moms from Florida (or Britain!) has decided is "transing" their children, and have written angry letters to WotC about.

The point is it it could be anything, could be swearing in the first 15 seconds pages. Whatever makes the money scared.
 

The point is it it could be anything, could be swearing in the first 15 seconds pages. Whatever makes the money scared.
Exactly. So this isn't really about any kind of "anti-bigotry" or whatever, this is about what makes them scared.

And sometimes not being a bigot is scarier than giving in to a bigot. Hence them banning Transgender Katana Mice or whatever, because it made the normies scared, even though it was perfectly appropriate.
 

If you don't want someone printing "White Power the RPG compatible with 5E" it's not just about greed.
That's really not up to WotC, though. You have to accept that if you're going to have open content, people will do stuff it you don't like. That's a drawback of open gaming. Does it outweigh the benefits?
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top