Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New OGL survey
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8908369" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>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 <em>permanently</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>design</em> 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 <em>shapeshifters</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We don't even need to speculate. As I said in another thread, we have examples <em>literally right now</em> where, in other media things, ANY depiction of LGBTQ+ characters is portrayed as being <em>inherently obscene</em>, 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.</p><p></p><p>Even if I believed the WotC of today would genuinely never, <em>ever</em> 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 <em>would</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>at the very least</em> incredibly unfortunate gaffes...if not dogwhistles) or the use of the anti-gay pogroms in Chechnya as a <em>plot point</em>? (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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8908369, member: 6790260"] 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 [I]permanently[/I] 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 [I]design[/I] 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 [I]shapeshifters[/I] 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. We don't even need to speculate. As I said in another thread, we have examples [I]literally right now[/I] where, in other media things, ANY depiction of LGBTQ+ characters is portrayed as being [I]inherently obscene[/I], 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, [I]ever[/I] 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 [I]would[/I] 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 [I]at the very least[/I] incredibly unfortunate gaffes...if not dogwhistles) or the use of the anti-gay pogroms in Chechnya as a [I]plot point[/I]? (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.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New OGL survey
Top