beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

drive.google.com/file/d/1BXYQJ

This is the worst deal anyone could ever take. Essentially, any content you make for D&D can be taken and sold by Wizards of the Coast for ANY reason and you aren't allowed to sue them for it. They can also revoke your license for what amounts to ANY reason and you aren't allowed to sue them for it. This is incredibly predatory in using the fans to generate content that they can then turn around and sell or adapt to not be "racist" and then sell. All while you make no money off of their profits using your content, but if you make enough money, they can make profits off of your content.

"We know this may come off strong, but this is important: If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly
racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers
these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed. To be clear, We want to, and will always, support creators who are
using the OGL to help them explore sensitive subjects in a positive manner, but We will not tolerate materials We
consider to be in any way counter to the spirit of D&D. Additionally, You waive any right to sue over Our decision on
these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these
clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that
We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy so WOTC is allowed to be a bad actor but if they deem at their sole discretion you are then don't sue us pls

i would say that kind of clause would not hold up in court but this is clown world so
1
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn the problem is that you sign up for the license, so you agree to their terms. it's like how some businesses now are requiring their employees to not take them to court and go to mediation instead with a mediator appointed by them. it's pretty disgusting.

not like you'd want to sue WotC/Hasbro anyway, even if you won you'd be up to your ass in lawyer fees for the rest of your life.

1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy i'm sorta :blobcatthink: on mediators.

but yeah i'd never sign anything this asymmetric.
1
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn mediators are good if they are a total third party. but if they're selected by the people you have an issue with then there is a huge potential for bias.

1+
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy yea i'm aware. there's been bitching about the moral hazard for mediators to side with companies because that's how they get paid.

i don't know that US courts are any better because it's a massive die roll if your judge is woke or if he's just a classical retarded judiciary.
1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy when i'm being disparaging to the judge i mean specifically retardation of the Amazon v Parler where they deem a "permanent suspension" somehow is materially different from "termination" because that would have put Amazon in breach and there was a penalty-on-termination clause the judge bailed them out of.

only a judge could be that level of idiotic to straight face that kind of thing.
1
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ
Follow

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn it's not just about the judge, it's about the jury too. with a mediator it's just one person paid specifically by the people you take issue with, but at least with a jury you have a group of people that are specifically selected to have no stake in the matter, and they all have to come to an agreement by debating with each other.

· · 1 · 0 · 0
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy you don't always get a jury
1+
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy ex. in election cases like kari lake the judge will just bail the defendant out wholesale by dismissing all the charges or pigeon holing them to the point they can't be proven and then dismissing them and you'll never make it to jury selection
1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy vic micnogna's defamation case had a similar treatment where the texas judge was a classical retard and ran the entire anti slapp portion as a bench trial even though the texas law *specifically says all deference goes to the plantiff* because the anti-slapp is a screening hearing and he was like :blobcatlobster: i'll just run the whole fucking trial by myself i guess
0
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn yeah for sure, i'd rather roll the dice on a judge than have to battle with a "mediator" chosen by whoever i'm suing lmao.

1
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn but that's neither here nor there, with the new OGL you aren't allowed to sue WotC PERIOD because you're supposed to know what you're getting into lol.

1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy yea they can write that but it doesn't actually make it legal
1+
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy there is a doctrine called "consideration" which means the court looks at the contract to determine if the parties are actually performing an exchange and if the court deems the contract to be absurdly unfair they can strike it or those clauses.

this is why people get paid token 1$. it's actually not legal to have a contract that says "i get all your shit and you get nothing."
1
Q.U.I.N.N.

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@beardalaxy but yes you shouldn't sign it because the contract is stupid. i'm just saying they can write dumb bullshit on paper and courts have been dealing with that for decades.
0
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn and people could sue them if it in fact was not legal, but then they're fighting a pointless battle imo instead of just dropping D&D altogether and going to a different game. or in the case of something like Pathfinder which uses the OGL currently, just update your rules to no longer include any D&D content. which they're going to do anyway, because they don't want WotC using any of their own material and they don't want a huge chunk of their gross revenue to be taken by WotC either.

1
beard :meru_amogus: ひげ

re: The new "Open" Game License for Dungeons & Dragons 

@icedquinn whoever sues fucking hasbro is doing it as a martyr xD

0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

gameliberty.club

More…

v3.5.19 · Privacy policy