Entirely Too Fond Of Banter

Like to charge, Reblog to Cast

POV: you and your wife are the hottest, smartest people in the room and that is but a cold comfort cuz none of these assholes know how to do their jobs and thus, the shit-talking is the most you'll get done today

guys i did it it took forever but i did it

theyre gonna go home and bang and then be responsible realm saving noblefolk after this mark my words

also some more doodles and the timelapse under the cut, if you like please GOD tell me in the tags i beg of u. pretty pretty please, also if you rly rly like the tip option is open, slide ya girl a dolla if u so choose

So, WOTC has presented a new (DRAFT) of the OGL, now named OGL 1.2. Called it a “Playtest”, to keep the whole weird idea of friendly language. They have made a lengthy text (Again, brought to you by Kyle Brinks, a person who (according to LinkedIn) has been in the company for 3 months) explaining what is in it, and then, they present you the actual document. (Of course, do not harass individual employees, they are trying to find scapegoats.)

And as expected, the entire thing is full of holes and sneaky workarounds that do not actually fix most of the issues. They insist a whooping total of 4 times this is to prevent “hateful content” in the announcement, which is one of the shields they are using to actually pull some terrible policies. I am someone who deeply cares about avoiding bigotry and such. I am absolutely furious about how “hateful content” is used here as a buzzword to actually pull very awful stuff. 

I will address the main problematic points. You can check the OGL document in the link itself, I will be copypasting segments here instead of screenshots to make it easier for screen readers. 

Let’s get started.

About the mechanics being now licensed under Creative Commons.

Literally means nothing. Mechanics are something you can’t actually copyright, and this has been true forever. Rolling a d20 is not something you can defend in court as part of your IP. Saying they “are releasing the mechanics under Creative Commons” is like “we are now releasing Breathing Oxygen under Creative Commons”. This is just an attempt to appear friendly, by releasing something they… couldn’t copyright in the past.

(6.f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

They can still put a stop from your content up to their discretion. This paragraph is purposefully ambiguous. None of these words does actually define anything in a tangible manner, and may be used to stop any sort of content they can label in this way. I mentioned in a previous post this case where they gave trouble to a module named “Eat the Rich” from DM’s Guild because it used the word “anti-capitalist”, because it was not considered appropriate for them. Let’s also recall “obscene” is a word that has historically been used against LGBTQ+ works. (I am not saying they may go there, but these words can be twisted heavily.)

This wording is not about stopping bigotry of any kind. This isn’t about stopping racism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia or xenophobia. This is just a well-hidden clause that allows them to stop any project using the OGL from going further. And furthermore, it also makes it impossible for you to sue them over it, because by agreeing to this license, you lose the rights to actually fill a lawsuit. So: Yeah, they can control what gets published.

(3) You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:

(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.

(b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.

Under this new OGL, they don’t automatically get to own the content you create. However, they reserve the full right to produce very similar content, and you can only sue if you have specific proof of them “intentionally” doing so. Which means they can copy your entire project, but if you don’t have proof they are actually “intentionally” doing it, you can’t do anything. Furthermore, you can only sue for money damages, not for stuff such as copyright infringement and such. Which pretty much means: Yeah, they still can use whatever content you make under this license, they just have to come up with the copy themselves. (Also, good luck doing a lawsuit against a billion dollar company. Saying this as someone who had their art stolen and sold in the thousands but has no money to actually fill a lawsuit internationally.)

(5) YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT. You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available.

So, “you own your content” is section 5. There are two sections of the OGL they reserve the right to change: Section 5 and 9. (Section 2 mentions this: “ It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices. “)

Which means the fact you own your content is subject to change. They can potentially change how you can actually use or distribute your work.

The VTT (Virtual Table Top) policy

Okay, this is a massive can of worms. They effectively separated the OGL 1.2 from the VTT policy, which means the policy for VTTs is not subject to the guidelines from the OGL, but they put it in the same document to make it appear like it is. This means, majorly, one massive thing:

The VTT policy is up to change anytime. What they wrote there is not subject to any of the previously stated clauses.

What is permitted under this policy?

Using VTTs to replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends. […]

 What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.

I skimmed a bit of information in this paragraph, since I want to focus on the last section. The last section is doing two things: The first one is to pull the NFT buzzword again, which is unrelated to this entire situation, just because it’s a good way to divert attention. (Btw, Hasbro is not against NFTs, they have made NFTs themselves. WOTC belongs to Hasbro.) The important part is the “Magic Missile animation”. Now, how do you know how is an animation of a spell specifically about magic missile? It’s a ball of light hurled from point A to point B.

What constitutes the “experience of sitting around the table?” Where do they cut the line? Why is a spell animation not allowed? I can hurl a rubber ball to a player and call it “fireball”. I can put lights at the table. I can use cotton as fog of war. Where do they cut the line? 

(These policies are, obviously, an attempt to fight any competition when they release their own VTT).

May I make my VTT Owlbear token look like the one from the Monster Manual?

No. We’ve never licensed visual depictions of our content under the OGL, just the text of the SRD. That hasn’t changed. You can create a creature called an Owlbear with the stat block from the SRD. You cannot copy any of our Owlbear depictions. But if you’ve drawn your own unique Owlbear, or someone else did, you can use it.

This also brings me to this point. This point is incredibly vague. What constitutes an “owlbear depiction”? What is an “unique owlbear”? The drawing of an owlbear you made based on the MM, as it is written here, could not be used on a VTT, according to this rule. Again, this VTT policy is very vague and not really a legal document per se. It’s hard to draw conclusions because it’s some undefined draft at best, but it’s not looking promising.

And look: I like animations. I like the idea of animations in VTTs. I have made animated tokens and bosses and battlemaps for Foundry VTT, which this what this policy is aiming for. I have no clue on how this is actually, realistically, affecting me. If I do an animated token I use in a 5e game, am I in trouble? If I sell it, what happens? Right now, said policy does not say anything about it. 

This is an animated token I made of a boss fight FoundryVTT. We used it in a session of a DnD 5e game. Apparently, WOTC considers it to be “a videogame” and falling out of the “VTT policy” they want to use. An animated token is not what makes a VTT become a videogame. We need to stay wary of how the wording for this evolves, be aware that (so far) the VTT policy could potentially be subject to changing anytime, as it is not included in the OGL itself. But right now, it’s looking poorly.

The take-away:

The new OGL is not fixing most of the crucial problems, they have just made things more subtle. It is not definitive, so potentially more harmful things could be added once they feel it is safe to do so. They can still stop your content for arbitrary reasons, and your ownership of the content is up to change. The VTT policy is an undefined mess.

This is my new hamster, Buster, falling asleep on the drive home from the vet today.

NAME YOUR LOVE OVER AND OVER

LUXURIATE IN TEXTILES AND CITRUS

WORSHIP THE BODY

ENJOY A LITTLE DANGER

ACCEPT KINDNESS

KNEEL AND SMELL THE EARTH

BE MORE GAY

GROW A FLOWER GARDEN

BUILD SOMETHING

BREAK BREAD WITH FRIENDS AND STRANGERS

Let’s get this little blog started with one of the littlest birds that there is - the wren. These beautiful birds are called ‘Zaunkönig’ in German, meaning ‘king of the fence’. The royal name comes from an old fable by the Greek storyteller Aesop. In the fable, the birds decided to crown the bird who can fly the highest their new king. The wren tricked the eagle into carrying him up into the sky on his back, and only started flying by himself when the eagle was too tired to fly any higher.