Hey Horace (and other D&D folks)

LuFins Dad

Did OGL 1.0 just cover game mechanics or did it also cover Trademarks?

Aqua Letifer

@LuFins-Dad said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

Did OGL 1.0 just cover game mechanics or did it also cover Trademarks?

No, what they did was they generalized some of the content. So for example, the spell "Tasha's Mind Whip" references Tasha, which is a protected IP and outside of the SRD. So for the SRD, they changed content like that to something more generic, like "Arcane Mind Whip" but kept the mechanics.

LuFins Dad

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@LuFins-Dad said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

Did OGL 1.0 just cover game mechanics or did it also cover Trademarks?

No, what they did was they generalized some of the content. So for example, the spell "Tasha's Mind Whip" references Tasha, which is a protected IP and outside of the SRD. So for the SRD, they changed content like that to something more generic, like "Arcane Mind Whip" but kept the mechanics.

Then I assume that they did have other licenses available? It seemed like D&D Beyond content contained WOTC Campaign Specific content…

LuFins Dad

I mean before they were bought by TSR.

Aqua Letifer

@LuFins-Dad said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

I mean before they were bought by TSR.

No idea; the OGL goes back only to 2000.

Aqua Letifer

My contribution to the ongoing dumpster fire.

Artboard 1.png

Aqua Letifer

...annnnnd Paizo answers.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v

This the rough equivalent of McDonald's attaching a user agreement to its McRib, saying you can't reference the McRib in any books, movies, live streams or podcasts or they'll sue the shit out of you.

...and then, Burger King

making a similar product,
telling McDonald's they're ready to fight them in the courts over it, and
calling on Wendy's, Arby's and Hardees to do the same and make their own.

In other words it's insane.

Aqua Letifer

Interestingly, CriticalRole banhammered any talk of the new OGL in their Twitch stream yesterday. ...But they didn't ban "#opendnd" which was spammed like mad during the whole thing. I think it's pretty clear at this point that they're bound in some WotC agreement and can't talk publicly about it, but they do support the backlash. (Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Horace

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

Horace

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

(Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Are you talking about the so-called "Mercer effect"?

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

(Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Are you talking about the so-called "Mercer effect"?

Not even that—although yeah, that is certainly a problem.

Celebrity D&D is an abomination. The whole point of the fucking hobby is that you get to be the hero in your own story, not watch other people be the hero in theirs. I absolutely fucking hate that about D&D's popularity. But Mercer has said many times the point of watching CR is to have fun and get inspired with your own games, so at least he gets it. He actually is a huge supporter of people doing their own thing.

Still find CR annoying as fuck, though. (Then again, I'm old and that's what old D&D players say. But I don't think that makes me wrong.)

Horace

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

(Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Are you talking about the so-called "Mercer effect"?

Not even that—although yeah, that is certainly a problem.

Celebrity D&D is an abomination. The whole point of the fucking hobby is that you get to be the hero in your own story, not watch other people be the hero in theirs. I absolutely fucking hate that about D&D's popularity. But Mercer has said many times the point of watching CR is to have fun and get inspired with your own games, so at least he gets it. He actually is a huge supporter of people doing their own thing.

Still find CR annoying as fuck, though.

I've never successfully enjoyed any live-play video or podcast from CR or anybody else. Everything moves so slow. And if my attention is divided, I can't jump in at a random point and make any sense of anything that's happening. It takes 10 minutes of serious listening to get back on track. But by then my attention trails away again.

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

(Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Are you talking about the so-called "Mercer effect"?

Not even that—although yeah, that is certainly a problem.

Celebrity D&D is an abomination. The whole point of the fucking hobby is that you get to be the hero in your own story, not watch other people be the hero in theirs. I absolutely fucking hate that about D&D's popularity. But Mercer has said many times the point of watching CR is to have fun and get inspired with your own games, so at least he gets it. He actually is a huge supporter of people doing their own thing.

Still find CR annoying as fuck, though.

I've never successfully enjoyed any live-play video or podcast from CR or anybody else. Everything moves so slow. And if my attention is divided, I can't jump in at a random point and make any sense of anything that's happening. It takes 10 minutes of serious listening to get back on track. But by then my attention trails away again.

I hate its very nature. D&D was outside of any kind of bullshit dominance hierarchy for decades. Who gave a shit what other groups were doing, you had yours and your campaign. Now with this shit, everyone's getting on Twitch and placating to a nonexistent audience instead of just playing the fucking game. I refuse to take part in any of those shenanigans.

Horace

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

(Which makes sense. I hate what CR has done to playing D&D but it's kinda not their fault, and to their credit, they hate what it's done, too.)

Are you talking about the so-called "Mercer effect"?

Not even that—although yeah, that is certainly a problem.

Celebrity D&D is an abomination. The whole point of the fucking hobby is that you get to be the hero in your own story, not watch other people be the hero in theirs. I absolutely fucking hate that about D&D's popularity. But Mercer has said many times the point of watching CR is to have fun and get inspired with your own games, so at least he gets it. He actually is a huge supporter of people doing their own thing.

Still find CR annoying as fuck, though.

I've never successfully enjoyed any live-play video or podcast from CR or anybody else. Everything moves so slow. And if my attention is divided, I can't jump in at a random point and make any sense of anything that's happening. It takes 10 minutes of serious listening to get back on track. But by then my attention trails away again.

I hate its very nature. D&D was outside of any kind of bullshit dominance hierarchy for decades. Who gave a shit what other groups were doing, you had yours and your campaign. Now with this shit, everyone's getting on Twitch and placating to a nonexistent audience instead of just playing the fucking game. I refuse to take part in any of those shenanigans.

yeah, feeling competitive with groups of celebrities who play parts for a living, would seem to be a fun-sucking perspective to have.

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

Horace

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.

OH YEAH. That was definitely not lost on me, either. And what's amazing to me is that they think the community works like they do: a few "loud voices" at the top forcing everyone else to follow suit. Like, they don't understand any other kind of communication structure.

At the start of all this madness, most of the prominent voices in the community have said they didn't want to cover this shit. Then a lot of misinformation got thrown around, which they tried to stamp out at which point they just said fuck it and started making videos. A lot of this has started from the bottom going up.

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.

More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.

Horace

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.

More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.

I like how they hit the "we must protect woke values from bigots" a couple times. Then this last part where they really want to let everybody know that they didn't lose. Jesus that is so on the nose. Idiots.

Aqua Letifer

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Aqua-Letifer said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

@Horace said in Hey Horace (and other D&D folks):

This guy is amusing:

Link to video

I watched the Roll for Combat livestream for the WotC announcement that didn't happen. They said about a dozen WotC employees reached out to them to tip them off that an announcement would be coming. Then WotC management got wind of the leak and so shut it down.

And now this one.

This guy's right, there's a crazy ass war going on in that company right now.

I was interested to see that part of WotC's aborted response was that they are not bowing to pressure, and only listening to feedback, as they always said they would. Some powerful person at that company has their ego completely entangled in this, and that's where the funny is going to come from.

More funny:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.

I like how they hit the "we must protect woke values from bigots" a couple times. Then this last part where they really want to let everybody know that they didn't lose. Jesus that is so on the nose. Idiots.

Hilariously, it was only by bowing to the fans that they made those changes in the first place. Their fans have always been the source of woke ideology creeping in, and their fans know that. This revisionist history is sure going to piss off a lot of people.

The New Coffee Room

Hey Horace (and other D&D folks)