Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 8907421" data-attributes="member: 2013">I completely disagree that it is "incredibly" reasonable and fair. I will grant that it is more reasonable than the leaked OGL 1.1 draft but the word "incredibly" is not a word I would use to describe it.Even if we were to assume that I was not going to create something racist or offensive (we'll get to that in a moment), if I were to assent to the terms of OGL 1.2 as presently constituted, I would have far less freedom to create things than I would have under the current OGL 1.0a and the only thing I would have received in return is the ability to put a special creator logo on my product. Is it reasonable and fair for me to give up that creative freedom in exchange for a logo? I actually used the d20 STL back in the day, which put additional restrictions on what I could do with the OGL 1.0a in exchange for the use of the logo, and I felt at the time the restrictions were in fact worth the use of the logo so I am familiar with the pros and cons of making a decision like this. I do not feel the restrictions imposed by the proposed OGL 1.2 are a fair exchange for use of that today, much less "incredibly fair."Whether or not you or I want people making racist and offensive games is not the right question. The problem is, "who gets to decide what is racist and/or offensive?" What happens when you personally don't agree with the person who makes that call about whether something is offensive? By its nature, "what is offensive" is a SUBJECTIVE call, and it can change in a single person over time. I will suggest you watch Tom Scott's excellent video, "There is no algorithim for truth" which spells out a lot of the problems on getting someone to admit their deeply held beliefs may in fact be wrong when there is incontrovertible OBJECTIVE evidence, let alone subjective disagreements: [MEDIA=youtube]leX541Dr2rU[/MEDIA] I agree, putting that language in the OGL 1.2 is a good change.But... what's to say they don't attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.2 when they release the OGL 1.3? That they are deliberately ignoring contemporaneous evidence from their own OGL 1.0a FAQ, interviews with Ryan Dancey during and after his tenure as VP of D&D that all point to the intent of 1.0a being "irrevocable" (and "un-de-authorizable") makes me uneasy. Who's to say the next set of heads at WotC won't hire lawyers and instruct them to find a way to weasel out of OGL 1.2?What they have defined as "Core Rules" is extremely limited and not exactly suitable to make a fully-functional game, as others have pointed out. They are also trying to withdraw the 3e, 3.5e, Modern, and several other SRDs.This isn't really productive. You seem to already have your mind made up.Would I like WotC to just drop this whole charade and leave the OGL 1.0a alone, or that OGL 1.3 should be OGL 1.0a with the addition of "irrevocable" and "can never be deauthorized?" Of course. But I like to feel I'm reasonable. If WotC is willing to release 3.0, 3.5, Modern, and all other SRDs prior to 5.1 released to this point (stuff they aren't currently supporting and should be willing to let go) under a license that is at least as generous as the OGL 1.0a and then they want to make some slight changes around the way the 5.1 SRD - the currently supported version - is accessed, I can be convinced those changes are reasonable... especially if they make it an "opt-in" where you agree to the changes in exchange for the right to use the Creator Logo. I'm even willing to cede them a license that says something like, "if you publish something we feel is offensive, you agree to third-party arbitration" (provided there is a provision for the arbiter to be neutral) if they feel so strongly about combatting offensive content (for reasons outlined above, I think it's a fool's errand).WotC hasn't gotten to the point where I think this is a "good deal" (or even a "fair one") for creators yet, but I am not going to say "leave the OGL 1.0a or bust" - I think there are minor changes they can propose to the 1.0a OGL which I would find reasonable, but to me, the changes need to be an incremental step or two from the OGL 1.0a and while the proposed 1.2 is closer than 1.1, it's still too far away.</blockquote>

Verification