SmiteWorks Official Statement about OGL 1.1 and Open Gaming Licenses

[celestian]

Update from WoTC.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license

IGnore me, fella above posted same. Feel free to delete this post.

[Griogre]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

[celestian]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

I dont think thats key to the license. I think it's something they are using to improve the chances people will accept it. They seem like they are concerned about such things w/o doing anything.

The problem we should all see in that quote tho is "Our language and requirements in the draft OGL"

When we know it wasn't a draft since it was sent out with contracts to sign. You dont have people sign a contract for a draft. I just can't take them at their word with those kind of responses.

[damned]

Any child of the OGL really should not need signing.

Re the censorship. It will be a topic that has supporters and detractors. I am against censorship. Readers/listeners should make their own choices based on what they read/hear. Other people should not be making those decisions for us.

[Neovirtus]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience...

What problem is Paizo having with their core audience?

[Griogre]

What problem is Paizo having with their core audience?

*Part* of the Paizo's followers are irritated with the Wokeness of Paizo and it's impact on their adventures and settings, particularly the latest ones. They have gotten to the point where they feel obligated to have non-straight NPCs.

I don't want to really go too far down that rabbit hole but a Google Search on "Is Paizo Woke?" will spit out some results you can look at. Keep in mind there is a lot of hyperbole in both directions.

[Kelrugem]

It's a good start but I would like to point out part of the reason WotC and Piazo are having problems with their core audience is (bolding mine):

"Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

This WOKE stuff is part of what is leading to them to try to censor who can use their IPs and once you start censoring things for one reason - its easy to start censoring for other "good reasons."

Creating an inclusive environment means increasing accessibility for everyone; nothing against a bigger variety of NPCs and a more reasonable and grown-up handling of sensible subjects and topics.

("Funnily", especially people and politicians who claim something about the "woke enemy" are usually the ones who start to censor for the "good reasons", there are many of such examples in politics right now. Having just one word where you can put all your frustration on is an easy answer, but it is usually not that easy)

So, no, the problem with WotC and its OGL stuff is certainly not based on that reference you were citing

[Griogre]

I'm against censorship, period and I don't have a problem with Paizo or any company writing however they want.

However, I don't feel the need to have my Goblins not be Evil in a fantasy world or the need to substitute the word "species" for "race" either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Redemption77]

Then dont make your goblins evil. There is not some weird overseer who comes with RPG books who forces you to play one way or another. By defination there is a big difference between race and species and it actually makes more sense to use species than race. Race is a system of classification of human beings only, whereas species is the most refined division of all life forms. Again though, call things what you want. Getting up in arms over "wokeness" seems ludicrous and its not a hill worth dying on

[Valatar]

It is, for two reasons:
1. It hands control over a product you've made to another company's arbitrary judgment with no recourse. And I'm not talking someone trying to port Racial Holy War or FATAL or any other blatantly racist or insane thing, we can look at WotC's own trainwreck over the Hadozee in the Spelljammer 5e book. Flying monkey people. In a setting with hippo people, dragon-centaurs, mantis people, and a whole host of other animal people, but there was a monkey person (who was also in the original Spelljammer) and suddenly racism and censorship and apologies all around. I would not trust those people to arbitrate a senior bingo night, much less cultural insensitivity in roleplaying books where they have unmitigated power to yank the license from whomever they choose.

2. Bad acting. If that clause was in the original OGL, how much do you want to bet that Pathfinder would've had its OGL yanked for some alleged impropriety? I bet a whole lot that as soon as Paizo started eating WotC's lunch in the market, they would've come down with a real sudden case of the bigots. WotC did not put any standard that any product had to meet to qualify for a license revocation in anything they've published thus far, all they have to do is say, "Well gee, we're pretty sure this thing is bad and makes us look bad." If you don't think they'd abuse that in a heartbeat to weed out the competition, you have not been paying attention to the things corporations do as a matter of course.