D&D General New OGL survey

Since IANAL, I can't comment on the specifics of the legality of any of this, concerning the bolded ...

Isn't this better in many ways for content providers? If someone wants to give away all their stuff, great. But if I put out Bob's Bean Booms with a list of spells with a theme of exploding beans, no one can copy it without my permission. I don't see this as a bad thing since I would assume (again IANAL) I can always grant rights to anyone who wants to copy just by saying so.
I'm specifically talking the open gaming content portions.

Hence why I said "containing new open game content" (emphasis in original.) Under OGL 1.0a, if you create something including new OGC, other people can use that OGC themselves. If I understand the legal termionlogy correctly, the license is "transferable." I believe that a transferable license is important--it means both (1) WotC is not the only one who can sample from everyone's pies, and (2) iterating on open content can occur, which encourages creators to make their non-open content as good as it can be while allowing baseline awesome ideas to proliferate across the ecosystem. (And that word is EXTREMELY important, it really does need to be baseline, concepts like the Escalation Die from 13A for example.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
I'm specifically talking the open gaming content portions.

Hence why I said "containing new open game content" (emphasis in original.) Under OGL 1.0a, if you create something including new OGC, other people can use that OGC themselves. If I understand the legal termionlogy correctly, the license is "transferable." I believe that a transferable license is important--it means both (1) WotC is not the only one who can sample from everyone's pies, and (2) iterating on open content can occur, which encourages creators to make their non-open content as good as it can be while allowing baseline awesome ideas to proliferate across the ecosystem. (And that word is EXTREMELY important, it really does need to be baseline, concepts like the Escalation Die from 13A for example.)

Which is why I would think you could label your product OGC if you want to do so. In the past it was the other way around, to protect something you have to mark it as PI. Currently OGL 1.0a pretty much forces you to share, under 1.2 (once again, IANAL) you could choose to share.
 

Which is why I would think you could label your product OGC if you want to do so. In the past it was the other way around, to protect something you have to mark it as PI. Currently OGL 1.0a pretty much forces you to share, under 1.2 (once again, IANAL) you could choose to share.
Well that's the thing. Because it only talks about "Your Content" (made by the licensed creator) and "Our Content" (made by WotC), it doesn't allow you to share. Ever. Whether you want to or not. That's why I'm saying I want more clarity.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Yes, I recognize the Arkhosia stuff isn't open...I explicitly said so.

I'm JUST talking dragonborn. Dragon-people with +Cha, +Str (if +stats are even relevant anymore), a dragon breath, and maybe some other stuff too. The term "dragonborn." Nothing else. No cultural data, no history, none of their depictions (though permission to make your own, as is the case with the owlbear--you cannot copy WotC's images, but you can draw your own owlbear images if you wish.) JUST the dragonborn itself.

Likewise, JUST "there is a class called 'Fighter,' which is really good at fighting. There is a class called 'sorcerer,' which gets power from a blood connection to magic. [etc., etc.]" I don't need nor want ANY of the specific details. JUST the super duper ultra basic terms and framework.

Edit: Also, you seem to have a confusion here. Something could be licensed under 1.0a (which dragonborn are, via the 5e SRD) but NOT licensed under the new CC stuff. Which dragonborn would not be. I want dragonborn to be CC. I want sorcerer and paladin and druid to be CC. Most of those things already are out of WotC's control anyway--Blizzard has had shapeshifting druids and holy-warrior paladins for literally decades at this point. Making those ultra-fundamental ideas (again, ZERO cultural, nominative, etc. content)

I genuinely do not believe that such basic rules for something like "dragonborn" (again, EXCLUSIVELY "this is a dragon-person with good Str/Cha who has a dragon breath and maybe a couple other physical features" and likewise for other PHB races/species) are so horrifically precious to D&D that they would be harmed by making such things CC.
Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?
 

Oofta

Legend
Well that's the thing. Because it only talks about "Your Content" (made by the licensed creator) and "Our Content" (made by WotC), it doesn't allow you to share. Ever. Whether you want to or not. That's why I'm saying I want more clarity.

If someone comes onto my property and takes my bicycle, it's theft. If I put it on the street corner and put on a sign "Take me I'm free" (or put it up on freesite) and someone take it, it's no longer theft. I can always choose to give something away as long as I own it free and clear.

But this might be a question for the lawyers on the other thread.
 

Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?
They are in the proposed OGL. I want them to be in the Creative Commons. That's all.
 

If someone comes onto my property and takes my bicycle, it's theft. If I put it on the street corner and put on a sign "Take me I'm free" (or put it up on freesite) and someone take it, it's no longer theft. I can always choose to give something away as long as I own it free and clear.

But this might be a question for the lawyers on the other thread.
Again, that's the issue. If the "open gaming content" is only shared between WotC and each individual person, then no, you WOULD NOT be "free and clear" to let someone else use it. It would be a violation of the terms of the license for you to allow someone else to use your bicycle, in this metaphor--you can modify your bicycle as much as you want, and any mods you declare free-use could be used by WotC, but not by anyone else.

As I said, this is not necessarily forbidden, but it goes completely unmentioned, and thus could be considered forbidden by way of not being explicitly permitted. (That is, after all, how most licenses work--anything you aren't explicitly allowed to do is forbidden.) Hence, I want clarity; I am genuinely of the opinion that they want people to be able to share what parts of their work they declare to be Open Game Content. This is just making sure it is explicit and understood that you can do so, that the license is in fact transferable.
 


Which, again, the only meaningful difference being you cannot publish hateful content with the OGL but you can with CC. Is that your objection?
No. Why do you keep asking? Are you seriously accusing me of being a racist, bigot, etc.? Why this incredibly hostile questioning?

I literally just want dragonborn to be CC licensed so they can be used no matter what happens to WotC! For God's sake, I'm just a fanboy!
 



haakon1

Adventurer
Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?

So, if you don’t like OGL 1.2, it must because you want “hateful” content.

I’m not falling for WotC gaslighting the D&D community. Hard pass.
 

haakon1

Adventurer
My chief objection … my two chief objections ... my three chief objections:

1) It revokes 1.0a and allows only SRD 5.1. In other words, it bans new content for 3e, 3.5e, PF1, and anything else built on OGL 1.0a, probably including OSR variants and smaller games. 3.5e is my favorite edition, so they are banning content for me.

2) They are gaslighting the D&D community, setting us up to pretend this is gamergate. “We’re only against them because we’re hateful” is the spin they’re planning. You saw it already in this thread. Like the NFT thing, it’s a red herring.

3) The precedents of they can change it at will is set. This is the lull us draft part, before the slink back and do it again part.

… and an almost fanatically devotion to supporting the 3rd party community!

 


I can understand the part about to nothing of hateful speech, but here we can't agree about the limits. For example the vampires from Ixalan setting wear helms as the morrion used by the Spanish conquerors. Then I can say a story where the villains are ersatz of Spanish conquerors are promoting the Hispanophobia and the black legend against the Spanish empire. Not everybody would agree, of course, but here we have enough troubles and a pain in the neck. Or a story set in Ravenloft where the antagonist is a "dark sinnister" style cardenal Richelieu with dark powers. Then other could say if the evil character was based in the leader or founder of a Protestant sect then that wouldn't be OK. Double standards, to use to different sticks to measure? I feel seriously offended with the image of the Vatican church in the rpg 7th Sea. Those tropes aren't only annoying, but potentially dangerous.

Something allowed in 2020 could be offensive for the generation of 2035. Let's remember for example now in the current movies the characters shouldn't be smokers, but this was normal in older productions from previous decades.

And the entertaiment industry should worry about to be enough ideologically neutral. One thing is to promote ethical values as the respect for the human dignity to stop bigotry, and an other different thing is to use the speculative fiction for propaganda in the cultural war.
 

I can understand the part about to nothing of hateful speech, but here we can't agree about the limits. For example the vampires from Ixalan setting wear helms as the morrion used by the Spanish conquerors. Then I can say a story where the villains are ersatz of Spanish conquerors are promoting the Hispanophobia and the black legend against the Spanish empire. Not everybody would agree, of course, but here we have enough troubles and a pain in the neck. Or a story set in Ravenloft where the antagonist is a "dark sinnister" style cardenal Richelieu with dark powers. Then other could say if the evil character was based in the leader or founder of a Protestant sect then that wouldn't be OK. Double standards, to use to different sticks to measure? I feel seriously offended with the image of the Vatican church in the rpg 7th Sea. Those tropes aren't only annoying, but potentially dangerous.

Something allowed in 2020 could be offensive for the generation of 2035. Let's remember for example now in the current movies the characters shouldn't be smokers, but this was normal in older productions from previous decades.

And the entertaiment industry should worry about to be enough ideologically neutral. One thing is to promote ethical values as the respect for the human dignity to stop bigotry, and an other different thing is to use the speculative fiction for propaganda in the cultural war.
There is no reason that, if in 2035 something that was OK in 2020 is viewed as hateful, the OGL wouldn't restrict it.
What will serve to limit NuTSR's content in 2024 will work against hateful content in the 2035 as well, as long as WotC can make it stick.
 

With all the respet, if you can't guess what is going to happen before the end of this year, you can't know how will be the society of 2035. The rules about politically corectness could change again. Maybe they are going to have a different opinion about what is hate speech and what no.

Other example, the anime "Ramma 1/2", a comedy of martial arts, some times showed partially nudity of 16y characters. Today this couldn't be allowed because they are underage.

In the older movies of Far West the native Northamericans, the "redskins", were the antagonists, the bad guys, but today people these suffered a true genocide in the hands of the WASPs. Maybe in the next years we could see reports by Spanish-speaker community about the image of the Spanish empire in Hollywood production and the black legend created by the propaganda war.

Any elements of the sitcom "Friends" aren't tolerated in the eyes of youngest generations.

Maybe 20 years in the future the society is more conservative.
 

My chief objection … my two chief objections ... my three chief objections:

1) It revokes 1.0a and allows only SRD 5.1. In other words, it bans new content for 3e, 3.5e, PF1, and anything else built on OGL 1.0a, probably including OSR variants and smaller games. 3.5e is my favorite edition, so they are banning content for me.

2) They are gaslighting the D&D community, setting us up to pretend this is gamergate. “We’re only against them because we’re hateful” is the spin they’re planning. You saw it already in this thread. Like the NFT thing, it’s a red herring.

3) The precedents of they can change it at will is set. This is the lull us draft part, before the slink back and do it again part.

… and an almost fanatically devotion to supporting the 3rd party community!

While I very much appreciate the humor (albeit with some chagrin at how applicable it is), we are getting a chance to address these concerns. We can, both publicly and privately, tell WotC that them being the sole arbiter of such things is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Further, we can push for just that little bit more to be put into the Creative Commons, so that it no longer matters what WotC chooses to do or what hypothetical dark futures, be they abusive or absent (e.g. WotC collapses and the rights go into copyright hell)--I don't begrudge WotC seeking to protect stuff like spells (a lot of those are pretty clearly tied to D&D specifically, such as the "named wizard" spells), monsters (many of which were Product Identity under OGL 1.0a), and cultural/setting details. Having a clear "safe haven" for the really ultra-fundamental stuff, though, one that is genuinely and permanently free of the fear that WotC could bring suit that a little publisher could never afford to defend even if they'd almost certainly win, would be enough of an olive branch that I could accept some of the other terms.

If someone did the work of drafting up all their own spells, subclasses (and new base classes), monsters, backgrounds, non-baseline species, etc., and gave them all their own genuinely distinct cultures and contexts etc., that sounds like doing all the real design work and simply borrowing an effective framework for doing so. I, personally, see the inclusion of the really really basic classes and races in the Creative Commons as perfectly cromulent, and realistically, a recognition of the already existing state of affairs. As I said...I dunno if it was in this thread or another, but D&D has already failed to enforce a claim on many of its classes and races anyway, particularly classes: Druids as shapeshifters is a quintessentially D&D concept, but World of Warcraft has been doing that for nearly 20 years and there's been nary a peep about that being a problem. Same goes for things like Paladins and Warlocks, but even a few other things like dragon-people (which WoW has like...five variations thereof), friendly dark elves, human(oid)s that can shift between human and beast form, etc.

Recognizing that these things have become part of the RPG cultural zeitgeist is simply being practical about it. That doesn't mean WotC should give up their copyright on things like Arkhosia (much as I would LOVE for that to become Creative Commons, I know it never will) or the history of Shifters in Eberron or the unique twists of (say) minotaurs in Krynn. Just means that the fundamental ideas like "dragon person who breathes fire/ice/whatever" or "person who can use magic because great-granddad had a fling with a dragon" have grown bigger than WotC and become part of the general lexicon in the same way that the concept of a "feat" which provides a hefty chunk of well-defined mechanical benefits is sufficiently generic that anyone should be able to use it.

Maybe 20 years in the future the society is more conservative.
We don't even need to speculate. As I said in another thread, we have examples literally right now where, in other media things, ANY depiction of LGBTQ+ characters is portrayed as being inherently obscene, corrupting the youth, etc. It doesn't take more than a couple people in leadership positions to have things suddenly take a very, very dark turn.

Even if I believed the WotC of today would genuinely never, ever abuse this "we have sole absolute discretion to determine whether you or any of your employees have done wrong, and if you have, to terminate your license permanently, and you can never challenge or appeal these determinations" power, I cannot trust that there will never be a future WotC that would abuse it. And because the proposed license is irrevocable and (for all but a couple relatively trivial sections) unalterable, we'd be handing over this power permanently and without ANY ability to fix it if something goes wrong.

Or, if people would like a real-world, TTRPG example: What would you do if Hasbro went belly-up, and the rights to D&D got bought by White Wolf Games--you know, the people who literally included "neo-Nazi" as an example for characters of Clan Brujah (with some at the very least incredibly unfortunate gaffes...if not dogwhistles) or the use of the anti-gay pogroms in Chechnya as a plot point? (Note: this is mostly old news, Paradox basically fired most if not all of the employees of White Wolf once they stopped having a hands-off policy regarding WW's game development, and WW is now just a holding company for the license.) There are way too many plausible ways for someone to be crappy and abuse the power given by the proposal as written.

That doesn't mean I'm totally opposed to WotC having remedy for people using their game content to make horrible things. I just want the determination to come from a court of law, not one of the two participants nor a closed-door arbitration (which almost always amounts to the same thing as just letting the powerful corporate participant dictate the terms themselves, just with more steps.)
 
Last edited:

My chief objection … my two chief objections ... my three chief objections:

1) It revokes 1.0a and allows only SRD 5.1. In other words, it bans new content for 3e, 3.5e, PF1, and anything else built on OGL 1.0a, probably including OSR variants and smaller games. 3.5e is my favorite edition, so they are banning content for me.
Just to be clear: the OGL 1.2 draft does not revoke or de-authorize OGL 1.0(a). WotC is doing that under a separate action.
 

Stormonu

Legend
Waiting for the survey, but one funny thing I noticed. The OGL 1.2 says it uses the 5.1 SRD, and the 5.1 SRD says it is ONLY usable through the OGL 1.0a ...

SRD-OGL_V5.1 said:
Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top