Sly Flourish is ANGRY

[darjr]

Well then let me assure you that sly isn’t “performing” outrage. He’s truly f’ing outraged.

 

[Aldarc]

Well then let me assure you that sly isn’t “performing” outrage. He’s truly f’ing outraged.

Yeah, if SlyFlourish is known for anything when it comes to his video content, it's his clickbait outrage videos.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Did the actual clickbait guy (D&D shorts or soemthing like that) post his “expose” on wizards yet?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Did the actual clickbait guy (D&D shorts or soemthing like that) post his “expose” on wizards yet?

At this point that would actually be a good Youtube channel name wouldn't it?

"Actual D&D Clickbait Guy"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At this point that would actually be a good Youtube channel name wouldn't it?

"Actual D&D Clickbait Guy"

Id prolly watch a video to check that channel out lol

 

[darjr]

He delayed it

 

[Bolares]

Did the actual clickbait guy (D&D shorts or soemthing like that) post his “expose” on wizards yet?

yeah, that was weird. First he posted that he was finally done with the video. A day later he says he will not be able to post today and it will be delayed.

 

[Staffan]

Yet every one of these things I read or watch (I don't watch many) start from the assumption that WOTC is going to shut everyone else down, that anything they say is a lie. Proof that everything they say is a lie? We just told you it was a lie!

The original post on D&D Beyond in response to rumors before the holidays lied to us. It claimed the OGL was intended to "allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property."

Sure, NFTs were not imagined by Dancey in 2000. But other than NFTs being generally horrible, I don't see how you could use them with the OGL anyway, since the OGL relies on copying while NFTs are an attempt to limit copying. And if you were going to do a D&D-based NFT, it would not be of a rules element of the kind you have in the SRD, it'd be of something in a setting, like a bored Elminster or something. And as for the second point: yes, allowing other businesses to "exploit" your intellectual property WAS the point.

It also talks about the OGL as if it is something D&D-exclusive. It's not. The OGL was always intended to be used for a variety of games, and plenty of games that have nothing to do with D&D have used it to establish regimens for third-party creations.

It then goes on to say that the OGL is only intended for "material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files." That is a whole lot of bull. The original authors of the OGL always said it could be used for whatever you felt appropriate.

So after that, you might excuse people for not giving Wizards the benefit of doubt if their statements stretch the truth.

It's impossible to know what the real impact of the OGL 2.0 would be because the rhetoric feels so over the top. But saying that I think the rhetoric is over the top, that WOTC is not attempting to "deauthorize third party publishers ability to write [product] for D&D" based on what they've said and released, is not the same as saying that there are no concerns. It's trying to understand a balance that isn't reflected in virtually everything being published.

Yes, they are. Even in the leaked revised version, they still maintain the right to revise it at any time, and no-one in their right mind would agree to a deal like that. That is the same as denying 3PP the ability to write material.

 

[Oofta]

It sounds like you have your heart set on winning the aforementioned competition. I hope winning the competition is worth it.

What competition? I'm trying to have a reasoned conversation and explain why I find statements videos like this exaggerated and to me they do not add anything.

I'm just pointing out the facts as we know them

• WOTC believes it can revoke the OGL 1.0a. Whether they can or not (if an OGL is even needed) is uncertain.
  • That means that if they truly wanted to shut down 3PP, they could have simply revoked the OGL 1.0a without providing an alternative.
• They wanted to replace 1.0a with OGL 1.1 which amongst other things asked for royalties. You can't get royalties from companies that don't publish anything.
• There was tremendous backlash against an inexplicable error in the Spelljammer book with the hadozee. One of the goals of the anniversary edition (parts of which we've already seen with MotM) is to clean some of that stuff up. However, some people have complained that it just pushes D&D to being bland and generic.
• We haven't seen 2.0 yet, but we know you will be able to use the 5E SRD, they've clarified that WOTC doesn't own your stuff but ask that you don't sue if they make something similar. Sharing stuff is probably similar to 1.0a, but I'm not sure we have the details yet. They've stated that they will only ask for change if the material is objectionable.
• They retain the right to change the OGL in the future. Which, if they can revoke the OGL 1.0a, then they can revoke any new license as well.

What I also believe to be true

• HASBRO f***d up big time. This was a major unforced error on their part
• They may well have been concerned about the Hadozee mistake could happen again, but worse. While it's true that you can't put the label "D&D" on OGL 1.0a licensed material, many people would not care. For them it's used to play D&D, it's labeled "5E", it's sold next to and as a supplement to D&D, it is D&D. The brand can be harmed by other companies because they are associated with D&D.
• They may be trying to limit what VTTs and character creation software can do without negotiating a separate specific contract.
• HASBRO is a corporation. Like virtually all corporations they don't have my personal enjoyment or life experiences in mind when they make decisions.

 

[mamba]

This man has destroyed lives (multi) in ways WotC seems to have not even come close...

yet, give this some time. If you count how many people and careers are negatively impacted by this vs Vince, I doubt Vince comes out ahead