D&D General New OGL survey

I have responded to the survey as best I am able. I reiterated, at every opportunity, my concerns and what needs to be done to address them. And in the final feedback window, I at least attempted to say, "Hey, you, whoever's reading this, thanks," because I really am trying to separate the corporation from the boots on the ground.

Until we hear more, I will of course continue agitating elsewhere. The survey is one prong, it does not a fork make.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
IE you want to use WOTC IP, for free, and are angry they won't give it to you without signing a license which...says you can have it for free, and is actually irrevocable and not changeable, for...reasons?

What is it you cannot do with the new license or the CC license which you could do under 1.0a, other than hateful content?
The CC license is extremely limited in what you can use with it so it is nothing like OGL 1.0 while the new "O"GL is revocable even though it says it's irrevocable since it says that WotC can veto any of your work if they find it objectionable and you are prohibited from challenging their decision. That by itself means it's not an open license at all because the whole point of an open license is to be able to freely use the license without any corporation being able to review and deny your work.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I completed the survey. I tried to be constructive and polite. Most of my feedback comes down to:

1. Keep the OGL 1.0a and clarify that it is not revocable.

2. Clarify the VTT restrictions. I already use animated spell effects in Foundry. If that is not allowed, than it is just one more thing that could have me moving to another system.

3. Section 6(f) ("no hateful content or conduct") needs to go. Get rid of the badges if needed to further distance yourself from third-party creators and content. This section means that this is not an open gaming license. They have separate agreements they can impose for publishing for DMs Guild, D&D Beyond, or their future VTT to have more curated and monitored content. They don't need this provision in the OGL. Given the current culture wars in its main markets and that it is an increasingly global brands, this can lead to unintended consequences and cause WotC to get entangled unnecessary controversy. Various interest groups will pressure WotC to police third-party content they don't like. Further, it will have a chilling effect on creators and lead to less risk taking and blander content. If I'm going to publish game content, I would rather be beholden to my own conscience, the market, public and peer pressure, and the law--not current or future Hasbro/WotC staff.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
I can understand the part about to nothing of hateful speech, but here we can't agree about the limits.
I don't think they are even trying to pretend the wider community will agree - they will use that clause to nuke stuff they think makes them or their brand look bad.

And I can sort of see the point. On the other hand, I can see the point about them being pressured to police content - but won't that likely happen anyway? Once a true moral panic begins they will be thrown on the pyre.
I don't see how they can retain control over some parts but then not be held responsible for what some 3pp might do - and I don't see them relinquishing full control.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I completed the survey. I tried to be constructive and polite. Most of my feedback comes down to:

1. Keep the OGL 1.0a and clarify that it is not revocable.

2. Clarify the VTT restrictions. I already use animated spell effects in Foundry. If that is not allowed, than it is just one more thing that could have me moving to another system.

3. Section 6(f) ("no hateful content or conduct") needs to go. Get rid of the badges if needed to further distance yourself from third-party creators and content. This section means that this is not an open gaming license. They have separate agreements they can impose for publishing for DMs Guild, D&D Beyond, or their future VTT to have more curated and monitored content. They don't need this provision in the OGL. Given the current culture wars in its main markets and that it is an increasingly global brands, this can lead to unintended consequences and cause WotC to get entangled unnecessary controversy. Various interest groups will pressure WotC to police third-party content they don't like. Further, it will have a chilling effect on creators and lead to less risk taking and blander content. If I'm going to publish game content, I would rather be beholden to my own conscience, the market, public and peer pressure, and the law--not current or future Hasbro/WotC staff.
I agree with all of this completely, and hope that if that message is sent by enough of the community for a sufficient time, we'll make it clear that these are points upon which we will not back down. Especially with regard to keeping the OGL v1.0a, which makes it possible to maintain open gaming no matter how bad WotC's new OGL is. That's something which needs to be protected, even if it comes down to a court challenge.

PlaintiveNervousAnnelida-size_restricted.gif
 


haakon1

Adventurer
… would be enough of an olive branch that I could accept some of the other terms.
Even if I believed the WotC of today would genuinely never, ever abuse this "we have sole absolute discretion
With you on most of this, but I don’t think “walk back #2” is enough.

Revert to OGL 1.0a and admit it’s permanent is the goal - nothing less. Leave 3e, 5e, and all the stuff piggybacking on them (PF1, OSR) to the community.

OGL 1.2 with Creative Commons for One D&D I could accept. I suspect “6e” will be the “One“ D&D edition I never play. We’ll see.

Maybe I’m extra mad because the survey site crashed after I answered the first question - would I like to participate - and then wouldn’t let me back in. Seems like that was their feedback to me - didn’t hear a peep yet, but suspected I wasn’t gunna say things they wanted to hear. :)
 

With you on most of this, but I don’t think “walk back #2” is enough.

Revert to OGL 1.0a and admit it’s permanent is the goal - nothing less. Leave 3e, 5e, and all the stuff piggybacking on them (PF1, OSR) to the community.

OGL 1.2 with Creative Commons for One D&D I could accept. I suspect “6e” will be the “One“ D&D edition I never play. We’ll see.

Maybe I’m extra mad because the survey site crashed after I answered the first question - would I like to participate - and then wouldn’t let me back in. Seems like that was their feedback to me - didn’t hear a peep yet, but suspected I wasn’t gunna say things they wanted to hear. :)
It's worth noting, you don't need an account to give feedback. So if it's borked and you weren't able to give proper feedback the first time, consider opening a different browser so you can give proper feedback. Normally I would not suggest such a thing (because I consider it underhanded at best to give multiple responses to the same survey), but you were denied the opportunity to actually give any of the feedback you wanted to give, so this is a chance to correct that problem.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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 ...

Of course not! 1.2 isn't released yet. It is a draft for commentary. When they do release, expect a re-release of the 5.1 SRD with appropriate license.
 



Stormonu

Legend
Of course not! 1.2 isn't released yet. It is a draft for commentary. When they do release, expect a re-release of the 5.1 SRD with appropriate license.
I know, it's just funny.

However, with the Termination clause in the new OGL stating that if something can't be enforced/valid the whole thing can be cancelled, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if they pointed to a SRD version that was valid from the onset, as wouldn't trust them saying "oh, don't worry about it, we'll fix that later."
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top