| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 05:41:27
|
| Give it some time, and AIs will be able to come up with good enough stories. But damn, $30/month per player? At this point, someone who wants a VG-like experience would probably rather go for a much cheaper MMORPG subscription. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 17 Jan 2023 05:42:06 |
 |
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
89 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 02:09:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I could be mistaken, but I can't see this move being well-received by the fanbase.
I've noticed a huge surge in people checking out Pathfinder 2e. Which I'm sure is perfectly coincidental.
|
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 22:35:46
|
They seem to still be planning to deauthorize 1.0 for all future works. Maybe this is phase II of "the big ask" tactics.
Moreover, the feedback thing sounds like a trick to me. Not many people are going to be able to read a 9000 words legalese document and provide meaningful feedback or find loopholes that WotC's lawayers will surely hide in it. At that point WotC will have a major psychological weapon on their side, i.e. "but you contributed to this document too, and you said this was ok!".
I'd still not set back for anything less than 1.0 being still in place, and the new OGL just covering 6e+ |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 18 Jan 2023 22:53:29 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 22:46:46
|
Wizbro has already tipped their hand, revealed their ultimate intent.
Whether they follow through now or later or not at all isn't really relevant anymore - the people who relied on the old OGL (the same people Wizbro is trying to screw with the new OGL) have already been planning their own OGL counterpart/replacement. A smarter, safer, cheaper alternative to dragging the "irrevocable" "de-authorized" OGL1.0a through court.
OGL 2.0 (or whatever) is coming. Wizbro might make it an evil, greedy catastrophe. Or they might make it a friendly, altruistic masterpiece. But their "target audience" have already learned that accepting it is an unacceptable and potentially costly risk. Betrayal of implied trust broke the bubble forever.
If/when there's a better alternative to OGL 2.0 then I wonder who exactly would choose to publish under OGL 2.0? WotC itself would be the only publisher interested in it (even though it doesn't apply to them), everyone else will obviously prefer the truly open, shared, perpetual, safe, and free license. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 18 Jan 2023 23:18:39 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 23:38:04
|
Btw, this isn't just the suits, it's also the lead game designers now.
A comment regarding the "we don't read surveys" thingy:
quote:
I worked for Wizards in 2011-2012, as a contractor in the now-defunct Game Support department. During that time we had a wall up, on which we were directed to print out and post 'feedback emails'. These emails would not be reviewed by anyone. Instead, they would be posted for us to laugh at. These emails were anything from a young child earnestly asking for us to put Batman in D&D, all the way to skilled DMs sharing issues with balance, accessibility, and content discrepancies in the hopes of improving the game. Again, these emails would be printed to make fun of. Was this a behavior that was mandated by the C-Suite executives? Of course not. Was it something other departments, including upper management, were aware of and ignored? Absolutely.
At no point in the R&D process did we review player feedback. We didn't even have feedback channels available at any of the actually important development stages! When feedback was solicited it was automatically filtered by our email system. We, the staff, literally never saw feedback unless it came through the wrong channels, at which point it would be ridiculed. I'm glad it was mentioned, but it needs to be reiterated for folks thinking this is a new trend under new leadership - it's not. WotC has a long history of not only ignoring but making a joke of player feedback, while soliciting it as a way to control communication.
Yeah man, maybe calling WotC evil isn't particularly useful, but you can't deny it makes a lot of sense. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 18 Jan 2023 23:46:25 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 23:45:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615806825198194708/photo/1
This is gold. I'm ashamed and I know it's awful of me, however I can't help but enjoy this drama.
I've known that for a long time. Back before I was banned from the WotC forums, there was a discussion on some of the free web content they gave us back then. A lot of people, myself included, were talking about article series that we'd enjoyed but had been ended.
And then I suggested that maybe WotC could do a survey, and simply ask what people wanted. I was answered almost immediately by a WotC staffer who said they didn't need surveys, they had their own ways of deciding what we wanted.
I thought that was an incredibly arrogant statement then, and I still think that.
And this was in like 2004ish. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 23:54:32
|
| A fun idea could be taking the survey, typing "make 1.0 irrevocable" in every field, screenshot every answer, then send it to WotC through all possible social media. JUst to see them annoyed and unable to manipulate results. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2428 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 16:53:30
|
Heh. Jo is poking fun at the dragon, too.
But also, consider: why would anyone need OGL to begin with?
Because they use some D&D materials... but they do not write for D&D settings (then they would need more than OGL).
This usually means they are churning out products that are:
A. unimaginative, generic cookie-cutter, and/or
B. so uninteresting they are likely to be purchased only when hitched to a huge bandwagon, i.e. as a form of lottery.
Does this sound like a great loss? |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 19 Jan 2023 17:00:06 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 19:02:26
|
quote:
they do not write for D&D settings (then they would need more than OGL).
This usually means they are churning out products that are:
A. unimaginative, generic cookie-cutter, and/or
B. so uninteresting they are likely to be purchased only when hitched to a huge bandwagon, i.e. as a form of lottery.
Does this sound like a great loss?
To be fair, most D&D stuff kinda is the definition of generic, cookie-cutter fantasy. Those creators may also be writing for their own setting, like Pathfinder does.
Regardless, that's kinda beyond the point. Setting a precedent where a company can randomly walk back on a decades old agreement, and claim to have the rights to everything that people will make (commercial or not) and have made, that just so happen to have any ties with said decades old agreement, isn't good. Setting a precedent where a company can just decide one day to put creators out of business, isn't good either.
You or I may not care about the TTRPG scene, but there are people who've been hit hard by this. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Jan 2023 19:06:51 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 19:03:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Heh. Jo is poking fun at the dragon, too.
But also, consider: why would anyone need OGL to begin with?
Because they use some D&D materials... but they do not write for D&D settings (then they would need more than OGL).
This usually means they are churning out products that are:
A. unimaginative, generic cookie-cutter, and/or
B. so uninteresting they are likely to be purchased only when hitched to a huge bandwagon, i.e. as a form of lottery.
Does this sound like a great loss?
There's a lot of value in being able to be a third-party gaming company and not having to develop and publish your own ruleset.
As Privateer Press explained it:
"The value in the OGL has never been about tapping into a free game system. The advantage to publishing under the OGL is about reaching a community that speaks a common language. This language gives players the ability to explore realms far and wide without restriction. It gives publishers the ability to introduce players to new worlds without the friction of learning a whole new language. The OGL provides the infrastructure for an ecosystem that supports community, creators, and ultimately, its origin."
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 19:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
"The value in the OGL has never been about tapping into a free game system. The advantage to publishing under the OGL is about reaching a community that speaks a common language. This language gives players the ability to explore realms far and wide without restriction. It gives publishers the ability to introduce players to new worlds without the friction of learning a whole new language. The OGL provides the infrastructure for an ecosystem that supports community, creators, and ultimately, its origin."
The main advantages of the OGL - the "language", the "community", the "infrastructure", etc - would still be provided by any open license.
But (if Wizbro has their way) the OGL is not "free" anymore. In terms of money, in terms of ownership, in terms of control.
So now it's polarizing into Wizbro vs everyone else, each side with their own "open" license. WotC's competitors are not even bothering to challenge WotC's "irrevocable" "de-authorized" OGL 1.0a - it would cost time and resources, it would never settle the conflict forever.
Wizbro screwed itself, I expect they'll get exactly what they deserve. Wizbro's competitors suffered a setback but are gaining a better foundation to stand on, I expect they'll recover and emerge stronger than before.
But what bothers me is that this polarization trickles from top to bottom. The RPG consumer just wants a good RPG product but will soon be forced to choose which one of two (legally) incompatible product lines they'll keep buying into. Consumer fragmentation always sucks, always introduces segregated fans and basic incompatibilities in what should (ideally) be a single unified market. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 19 Jan 2023 20:41:01 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 20:48:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
So now it's polarizing into Wizbro vs everyone else, each with their own "open" license. They're not even bothering to waste time and resources challenging the "irrevocable" "de-authorized" OGL 1.0a.
It's understandable why most companies won't challenge it in court -- it's all about the money it takes to fight it.
WotC has got the financial resources to fight for years. Most other gaming companies would not be able to afford to fight that long -- so even if they had a very solid case, WotC could keep appealing until the other side ran out of money and wasn't able to fight any more. It's a preferred legal tactic, in the US, sadly -- just prolong things until one side has to drop the suit for one reason or another.
Also, even if one of these third parties was to successfully challenge WotC on this and win -- what would be the point? WotC has already shown their colors, here -- they've decided the OGL is a problem that must be removed. If they lost a court case on it, they'd simply try another tactic to get rid of it. (That's the beauty of the ORC -- that it's going to be in the hands of a non-profit and not under any company's control)
What we're looking at here is the same situation Lando Calrissian found himself in, on Bespin, in The Empire Strikes Back. WotC is Darth Vader, telling Lando that the terms of the deal have been altered. Third party gaming companies are Lando, realizing they've either got to leave the OGL behind or be forever under the Empire's boot. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 19 Jan 2023 20:49:51 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 22:34:11
|
| but does WotC get to tell Paizo.... "Paizo, I am your father"... and then chop off their hand? Does Paizo get to replace the missing hand with a cooler one? Will we find out that kobold press is Paizo's sister? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 22:47:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
but does WotC get to tell Paizo.... "Paizo, I am your father"... and then chop off their hand? Does Paizo get to replace the missing hand with a cooler one? Will we find out that kobold press is Paizo's sister?
Congratulations, you have made me facepalm.
(although, given the number of WotC alumns at Paizo, and the fact that Paizo made it big by capitalizing on something WotC had abandoned, it really could be said that Paizo is the offspring of WotC) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 19 Jan 2023 22:49:24 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
89 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 23:11:17
|
A lot of shady stuff in there.
The deauthorisation of the OGL 1.0a is still in there, and some of the stuff on hateful content has loopholes that could go after politically divisive content.
If I wanted to publish, say, a Pride of Faerûn sourcebook that detailed queer culture in the Realms that could be something that might go after for political points in the current atmosphere having become very adversarial towards LGBTQ+ people under Republican and Conservative governments on both sides of the Atlantic. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 00:06:50
|
They decide what is hateful. You have to put the badge on your product that is trademarked by WotC (could they later claim it as their content since their trademark is on it?). They are still trying to deauthorize 1.0a, and using the excuse of it being a loophole that hateful/discriminatory works could avoid the 1.2 OGL and still publish. BUT, they are releasing the base rules under Creative Commons, so people won't even need the 1.0a OGL to make a D&D-like game.
Never mind that you can't copyright or trademark game rules. That's the reason you are able to see things from The Op Games like Britney Spears Monopoly, Scooby-Doo Clue, or even DUNGEONS & DRAGONS TRIVIAL PURSUIT. Copyright law does not allow you to copyright mechanics. You can copyright "Clue", "Mr. Boddy", "Community Chest", etc. but you can't copyright going around a board, collecting money and paying rent. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 20 Jan 2023 00:07:47 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 00:41:24
|
Bah!
I'm done with them.
EDIT: this is what they want for me to even sign into my Publisher's page now...
PUBLISHER AGREEMENT
PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. IF YOU USE OBS'S DIGITAL MARKETPLACES OR APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLISHING SERVICES IN ANY MANNER, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MAY NOT USE OBS'S PUBLISHING SERVICES IN ANY WAY. IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY, ORGANIZATION, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND THAT ENTITY. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY OR ARE NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, YOU MAY NOT ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT AND YOU MAY NOT USE OBS'S PUBLISHING SERVICES IN ANY WAY.
THIS PUBLISHER AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made by and between the publisher accepting this Agreement on behalf of itself or its organization ("Licensor") and OneBookShelf, Inc., a Georgia corporation ("OBS").
WHEREAS, Licensor owns and/or controls world-wide rights in and to certain books, graphic novels, games, comic books, software, accessories, music, cards, and/or other creative works, and such other like works created from time to time by or on behalf of Licensor, and which are uploaded, submitted, and/or otherwise provided by Licensor to OBS through OBS's digital marketplaces or applications (the "Submitted Works").
WHEREAS, Licensor desires to have OBS publish, distribute, and sell through OBS's digital marketplaces and applications such Submitted Works on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Licensor's Grant of Rights; License. Licensor hereby grants to OBS during the Term (as defined below) the transferable, sublicensable right and license throughout the world to produce, reproduce, integrate, encode, and encrypt the Submitted Works and publish, market, display, perform, rent, license, sell, exploit, transmit, and distribute the Submitted Works by and through all means now known or hereinafter developed through OBS's digital marketplaces and applications in the formats specified by Licensor.
2. Royalties; Payments.
(a) Royalties. OBS shall pay to Licensor as royalties on sales receipts (i.e., the amount actually received by OBS from a third-party less only the items detailed below) 65% of all sales receipts received from the Submitted Works ("Royalties"). Sales receipts shall not include (i) amounts charged for freight, sales tax, or value added tax (which taxes OBS may, where applicable, collect and remit as seller of record) or (ii) sales resulting in payment chargeback, customer refund, or fraud. Sales receipts of print-on-demand format titles shall also be reduced by the current print cost amount for the Submitted Works sold in printed format; such print cost amount shall be listed on OBS's website and periodically updated by OBS.
(b) Payments. OBS will use commercially reasonable efforts to make Royalties available for payment within 30 days after the date of sale ("Available Royalties"). At OBS's sole discretion, OBS may change the Licensor to verified status which will result in OBS using commercially reasonable efforts to make Available Royalties within 15 days after the date of sale. Available Royalties will be paid by Licensor's choice of US dollar check, PayPal, or other payment service that OBS may add in the future. OBS will use commercially reasonable efforts to mail check payments or PayPal payments on or before the 15th of each month based on Available Royalties as of the end of the prior month. If such payment would not exceed $100 in any month ("Minimum Payment"), then OBS shall have the right to maintain and accrue such Royalties until such month where such Available Royalties exceed the Minimum Payment. PayPal payments and payments from services added in the future are subject to an electronic payment fee of one dollar (or such higher amount as periodically updated on OBS's website) deducted from each payment. Licensor shall be solely responsible for all taxes based upon Licensor's income.
(c) Payments to Others. In the event of Licensor's death, OBS agrees to continue the payment of Royalties, to Licensor's estate, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, until termination as set forth herein. OBS agrees to make payments of the Royalties to another person or entity, in the event that OBS is directed to do so by Licensor in writing, duly executed by Licensor or Licensor's legally authorized representative.
3. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of first use of the publisher interface and services of OBS's digital marketplaces or applications, and shall continue until terminated as set forth herein (the "Term"). Either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice: (i) if the other party materially breaches the Agreement and does not cure such breach within thirty (30) days after receiving notice of such breach; (ii) if the other party files a petition under the bankruptcy laws, makes an assignment of its assets for the benefit of its creditors, or otherwise liquidates its business; or (iii) for convenience upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice.
4. Reversion of Rights to Licensor. Upon termination of this Agreement, all rights in the Submitted Works granted to OBS in this Agreement will revert back to Licensor, provided that (a) any license or contract previously granted to a third-party purchaser under this Agreement will remain in effect and (b) OBS shall continue to have the right to provide previous third-party purchasers of Licensor's Submitted Works access to such Submitted Works via the OBS digital marketplaces and applications.
5. Rights Surviving Termination. Upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement, any rights reverting to Licensor will remain subject to all licenses and other grants of rights made by OBS to third parties under this Agreement. Any rights or obligations of the parties in this Agreement that, by their nature, should survive termination or expiration of the Agreement, will survive any such termination or expiration, including any and all rights of OBS under such third-party licenses and grants.
6. Use of Licensor's Name and Likeness. OBS, and any licensees or assigns of OBS's rights under this Agreement, have the right to use Licensor's name and approved image, likeness, and biography, as well as product logos, illustrations, cover images, and short excerpts of or related to Submitted Works for advertising, promotion, and other exploitation of the Submitted Works and other rights granted under this Agreement.
7. Permissions and Clearances. Licensor shall obtain, at Licensor's expense, all permissions and other clearances that OBS deems necessary for the inclusion of any textual, illustrative, or other material in the Submitted Works selected by Licensor.
8. OBS's Representations and Warranties. OBS represents and warrants to Licensor that it has the right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all obligations in this Agreement.
9. Licensor's Representations and Warranties. Licensor represents and warrants to OBS that: (a) Licensor has the full right, power, and license to enter into this Agreement and convey the rights granted to OBS; (b) the Submitted Works do not and shall not infringe upon or violate any copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property or privacy right of any other person or entity; and (c) the Submitted Works contain no material that is obscene, libelous, in violation of any right of privacy or publicity, or harmful so as to subject OBS to liability to any third party, or otherwise contrary to law. Licensor acknowledges and agrees that OBS shall be under no obligation to register the copyright for any Submitted Work in any country or countries and shall not be liable to Licensor for any acts or omissions by OBS in connection therewith.
10. Licensor's Indemnities. Licensor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless OBS, its affiliates and parents, and its and their respective employees, directors, managers, officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns for, from, and against any losses, damages, liabilities, deficiencies, claims, actions, judgments, settlements, interest awards, penalties, fines, costs, or expenses of whatever kind, including attorneys' fees and the cost of pursuing any insurance providers arising out of or in connection with any third-party claim, suit, action, or proceeding (each, an "Action") relating to any actual or alleged breach by Licensor of its representations, warranties, covenants, or other obligations hereunder.
11. Indemnification Procedure. OBS shall promptly notify Licensor in writing of any Action and cooperate with Licensor at Licensor's sole cost and expense. Licensor shall immediately take control of the defense and investigation of such Action and shall employ counsel of its choice to handle and defend the same, at Licensor's sole cost and expense. Licensor shall not settle any Action in a manner that adversely affects OBS's rights without OBS's prior written consent. OBS's failure to perform any obligations under this Section will not relieve Licensor of its obligations under this Section except to the extent that Licensor can demonstrate that it has been materially prejudiced as a result of such failure. OBS may participate in and observe the proceedings at its own cost and expense.
12. Assignment. This Agreement is binding on and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their heirs, successors, and assigns. Licensor shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its obligations under this Agreement, in each case whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law, or otherwise, without OBS's prior written consent. Any purported assignment in violation of the foregoing shall be null and void. OBS may assign this Agreement or its rights hereunder, or delegate its obligations hereunder, at its sole discretion.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the sole and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein, and amends, restates, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations, and warranties, both written and oral, regarding such subject matter, including, without limitation, any prior license agreement, publisher agreement, or other form of agreement entered into by or on behalf of OBS and Licensor.
14. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, and nothing herein, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any other person any legal or equitable right, benefit, or remedy of any nature whatsoever, under or by reason of this Agreement.
15. Amendment and Modification. OBS may revise this Agreement at any time for any reason, and OBS may provide Licensor notice of these changes by any reasonable means, including by providing notice through OBS's digital marketplaces and applications. By continuing to use OBS's digital marketplace for publishing services, Licensor confirms acceptance of any revised Agreement(s) and all the terms incorporated herein by reference.
16. Waiver. No waiver by any party of any of the provisions hereof (a) will be effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by the party so waiving or (b) operate or be construed as a waiver about any failure, breach, or default not expressly identified by such written waiver, whether of a similar or different character, and whether occurring before or after that waiver. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, no failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power, or privilege arising from this Agreement operates or will be construed as a waiver thereof; nor does any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power, or privilege hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power, or privilege.
17. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect any other term or provision of this Agreement or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction.
18. Notices. All notices, waivers, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and addressed to the address specified by each party from time to time.
19. Governing Law; Submission to Jurisdiction. This Agreement and all related documents including all schedules attached hereto, and all matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, whether sounding in contract, tort, or statute are governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to the conflict of laws provisions thereof. Any legal suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be instituted exclusively in the federal courts of the United States of America or the courts of the State of Nevada, in each case located in Clark County, Nevada, and each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such legal suit, action, or proceeding. Service of process, summons, notice, or other document by mail to such party's address set forth herein is effective service of process for any suit, action, or other proceeding brought in any such court.
20. Licensor agrees to receive OBS's publisher newsletter email. Licensor shall have the option to opt-out of such email under OBS website account settings.
By checking "I agree" below and setting-up your publisher account, you acknowledge that you have read, understand, and agree to be bound by the terms above. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
Edited by - Dalor Darden on 20 Jan 2023 00:43:35 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 00:48:12
|
| My point only being, that is already too much. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 02:32:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Well, the new OGL is out....
That is all I am going to say about it for now.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest
I think, had they released this version initially, that we'd not be discussing the ORC or Project Black Flag.
As others have pointed out, the part about "we decide what is bad, mmmkay?" is problematic, and I find some of the stuff about lawsuits and such questionable.*
Overall, though, I think this isn't too bad... But I also think that they're trying to undercut the ORC and Project Black Flag, and I'd not be surprised if the final version has a couple of subtle tweaks that benefit WotC and no one else. I'm disinclined to trust WotC, and I think they've got something else up their sleeve.
*I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. That stuff may be boilerplate and something no lawyer would blink at. Also, I'm not a content creator and I skimmed over the file pretty quickly. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 03:11:49
|
I'm also wondering if "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content" has really been that much of an issue. I know there's been recent issues with Star Frontiers and that dude Justin LaNasa, but that seems to be over trademark infringement and blatantly racist content, and not involving the OGL in any way.
I'll ready admit to not having delved deeply into all the available OGL content, but I don't know of anything else that could be considered questionable, except maybe for The Book of Erotic Fantasy. And honestly, from flipping through that book and the 3E Book of Vile Darkness from WotC, I found the latter to have more questionable content.
(It must be noted, though: I am not the target audience for Book of Vile Darkness; I don't care for that kind of content, in any media. I had a copy of that book before the fire, but it was something I did not bother to replace. And I'm not really the target audience for The Book of Erotic Fantasy, either; if a game has to have sex, I prefer to fade to black and move onto the next thing.) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 04:30:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What we're looking at here is the same situation Lando Calrissian found himself in, on Bespin, in The Empire Strikes Back. WotC is Darth Vader, telling Lando that the terms of the deal have been altered. Third party gaming companies are Lando, realizing they've either got to leave the OGL behind or be forever under the Empire's boot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 08:03:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm also wondering if "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content" has really been that much of an issue. I know there's been recent issues with Star Frontiers and that dude Justin LaNasa, but that seems to be over trademark infringement and blatantly racist content, and not involving the OGL in any way.
I'll ready admit to not having delved deeply into all the available OGL content, but I don't know of anything else that could be considered questionable, except maybe for The Book of Erotic Fantasy. And honestly, from flipping through that book and the 3E Book of Vile Darkness from WotC, I found the latter to have more questionable content.
(It must be noted, though: I am not the target audience for Book of Vile Darkness; I don't care for that kind of content, in any media. I had a copy of that book before the fire, but it was something I did not bother to replace. And I'm not really the target audience for The Book of Erotic Fantasy, either; if a game has to have sex, I prefer to fade to black and move onto the next thing.)
Yes, it has been a problem. WotC put out a lot of content that is problematic according to their own standard. Oh wait... |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 08:41:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Has anyone checked the new "draft" to see if there is anything to stop them from changing the terms again in the future.
If not then i would expect the additional charges and WoTC claim to 3rd party content to be added back in in a few months or years time.
There's nothing saying that they can't revoke the license and replace it with a different one. There's also a part about non-reliance. According to a lawyer, it means that if they revoke the license, you won't be able to say that you relied on it for your published material. As far my understanding goes, it means that if they choose to revoke this, you'll be SOL and forced to agree to the new stuff. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"One D&D" is coming
