The OGL, Ravenloft and You

[Five]

That's the part I get. It's brilliantly simple really. They "give" their game to their fans, but maintain a legally-binding option for quality control (it's not self-help if somebody else wrote the book all the same, so gifting the game like this is equally subject to the harsh judgement of universal truth haha). And I don't really have that much of a problem with it. You sign up and play by their rules through fine print. Or, get a chance to make some dough if you colour inside the lines.

The part that itches my head a bit is probably best put in the form of a question.

Can you imagine where fantasy or science fiction would be if there were such (overt) limitations put on all authors? You can write about A, B, and C, but not X, Y, or Z. Publisher boxheadedness aside...

It's the difference between cable TV shows and those found on streaming sites; daytime TV (prime time) and late night; food based on numbers and food based on flavour, etc, etc.

That's not to say that mature themes (and such) are one hundred percent needed, it's just that it is (or should be) a friggin' crime to bind a creator's imagination! Heh.

Now, nothing's to stop any gamer from walking the 5E streets after sundown, but it's rather unfortunate that options don't exist (inside the community; the CC license looks, at a glance, to be a bit of a bypass) for those more...visceral stories that are in the heads of some of D&D's fanbase to get let out for public consumption (and for the really talented ones to make a few coins offa it).

That's all. Vanilla ice cream is good (classic for a reason), but going down to the parlour to see and taste the other forty flavours is great too.

If WotC didn't try to bind authors as such and somebody wrote something terribly rotten that was gane compatible, then could they -fairly- be accused to sharing similar rotten views?

If you don't like alcohol or drugs then you just don't buy them, and go out of your way to avoid them right?

Why is this any different, outside of official WotC products and vision?

Meh. What do I know?

Also, even mainstream comic companies dip into stories and characters that are found (and belong) outside of PG13. Been doing it for decades.

Using (and "abusing") official characters to skeet some coin off of and spiritually using a game's set of rules to sell (a series of) otherwise completely unrelated ideas are vastly different matters. Trademark, copyright, etc.

I see what you mean, all the same Jester.

[tomokaicho]

If you're curious why D&D and WotC wanted to start "censoring" and having the ability to revoke the OGL, I can explain it in one big image:



Those are books I'm currently adding to my library at work. D&D is really, really trying to become an All Ages brand like Marvel and accessible in Middle Schools and up.

Imagine if Marvel comics had released a license that let anyone publish a comic book using some of their characters and release them in comic stores. Beside their official comics on the shelf.
You can bet they'd want to be able to restrict certain content to prevent kids buying a book they think is official but isn't...

This is totally nonsensical. The OGL specifically prohibits what you are claiming.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.

I am assuming good faith and you are simply mistaken, but we've already been through this earlier in the thread.

If you want a decency clause, great. Let's not distort what the OGL 1.0a is actually about.

[Jester of the FoS]

If you're curious why D&D and WotC wanted to start "censoring" and having the ability to revoke the OGL, I can explain it in one big image:

Those are books I'm currently adding to my library at work. D&D is really, really trying to become an All Ages brand like Marvel and accessible in Middle Schools and up.

Imagine if Marvel comics had released a license that let anyone publish a comic book using some of their characters and release them in comic stores. Beside their official comics on the shelf.
You can bet they'd want to be able to restrict certain content to prevent kids buying a book they think is official but isn't...

This is totally nonsensical. The OGL specifically prohibits what you are claiming.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.

I am assuming good faith and you are simply mistaken, but we've already been through this earlier in the thread.

If you want a decency clause, great. Let's not distort what the OGL 1.0a is actually about.

It was an analogy.
Because to make a "Marvel compatible comic" you'd need to use the characters; adult comics are a thing but not mistaken for comics. But to make a "D&D compatible book" you just need to use the OGL and rules but not IP. It'd be exceedingly easy to make a product that looks very, very much like a D&D product (to limit of Trademark law) and is hyped as being for 5e but is super offensive in some way.

My point was that WotC is really focusing on younger and younger players. As demonstrated by the books aimed at grades 3-5. And as a brand aimed at kids, they're increasingly wary of being associated with adult content.

[Jester of the FoS]

Kyle Brink, a WotC Executive Producer has been doing interviews, doing damage control:





He says that the royalties were supposed to discourage big companies moving in (e.g. Meta or Disney) and making monetized content via the OGL v1.0a. And the faster the audience grew the bigger the risk that hateful content or scams would arise, so there was a rising sense of urgency to take action.

[alhoon]

I have to admit that those things make sense. Perhaps it's a spin, but they DO make sense. Also the part about not being liable to lawsuits of "Hey! I had a talking plate armor named Ralf in my adventure! WotC stole my idea!" is increasingly necessary as the company grows. They will accidentally step on toes. With thousands of people publishing, there will be some that would have made things you also thought of and it is impossible for WotC to keep track of everything everyone made.

[Rock of the Fraternity]

At the risk of being cynical, this is what they're saying NOW, when they're in need of damage control and want to draw back the people who cancelled their subscriptions and have made it clear (and very public) that they're done with WotC.
And do keep in mind what the whistleblowers said.

[tomokaicho]

At the risk of being cynical, this is what they're saying NOW, when they're in need of damage control and want to draw back the people who cancelled their subscriptions and have made it clear (and very public) that they're done with WotC.
And do keep in mind what the whistleblowers said.

All of these excuses are belied by their subsequent actions. By putting the D&D mechanics in a permissive Creative Commons license, people will be able to use D&D 5th edition mechanics, sans WotC product identity.

The idea that WotC was worried (as claimed by WotC ) about a major company producing a movie under the OGL is just absurd on so many levels. WotC does not own the basic fantasy tropes. There is no reason or need to use the OGL, as a movie does not use mechanics.

Ditto this stuff about consumers being confused about non D&D products being D&D. We've had 23 years of OGL, and there was no such confusion and no reason to believe there will be confusion in the future.