Support NeoGAF

[NecrosaroIII]

Maybe all this D&D stuff has to do with this?

http://[URL]https://www.bizjournals...utm_source=sy&utm_medium=nsyp&utm_campaign=yh

[/URL]

Hasbro COO departs as company slashes 15% of workforce​

Hasbro Inc. plans to slash 15% of its global workforce over the year, and layoffs of approximately 1,000 workers will start in the coming weeks, the company announced Thursday.

The news came as the Pawtucket-based toymaker (Nasdaq: HAS) reported a weak fourth quarter and a disappointing year. The company saw Q4 2022 revenue of around $1.68 billion, down 17% from the same period last year. Full-year revenue was pegged at around $5.86 billion, down 9% compared to 2021.

I think so. WotC actually put up good numbers, but I think DND has gotten a lot of visibility lately from hasbro corporate, so there is pressure to squeeze more out of it by any means

 

[jason10mm]

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.

I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:

1. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.

I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:

1. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?

When it comes to contracts of what is and isn't included, it's better to outline what is included, then immediately follow it up with an exceptions or violations list. Skimming the link you provided, they spliced the license and hateful bullet points in totally different prargraphs.

It's like a stores return policy. It's typically done like: You got 30 days to return any item with exception: electronics are 7 days, used underwear is not refundable, gift cards not refundable etc...

 

[Pagusas]

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.

I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:

1. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?

I mean what do people honestly want the to do? They HAVE to protect their brand somehow. If someone were to take key elements, make a giant stink with the public, the associative back lash will harm the brand. I can’t blame them for that rule.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I mean what do people honestly want the to do? They HAVE to protect their brand somehow. If someone were to take key elements, make a giant stink with the public, the associative back lash will harm the brand. I can’t blame them for that rule.

The OGL had restrictions in place already to protect against that. You couldn't just publish an adventure where you have to murder Drizzt Do'urden and Strahd von Zarovich for having a gay affair. Specific characters and iconic monsters were already barred from use. It was just the more generic stuff like Elves and Dwarves that were open access

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

I mean what do people honestly want the to do? They HAVE to protect their brand somehow. If someone were to take key elements, make a giant stink with the public, the associative back lash will harm the brand. I can’t blame them for that rule.

This looks more like a cash grab for the stakeholders or whatever to maximize profits as much as possible, than protecting the brand.

 

[Wildebeest]

I mean what do people honestly want the to do? They HAVE to protect their brand somehow. If someone were to take key elements, make a giant stink with the public, the associative back lash will harm the brand. I can’t blame them for that rule.

What would all those poor hobbyists do without Hasbro protecting the IP they took from them for nothing.

 

[Pagusas]

What would all those poor hobbyists do without Hasbro protecting the IP they took from them for nothing.

But the hobbyists never owned the IP, right?

 

[Wildebeest]

But the hobbyists never owned the IP, right?

Correct. That was their mistake, giving everything away thinking they were contributing to a common good, not a for profit media empire.

 

[Clear]

then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?

This is a catch-all clause. They can terminate your license at will because their definition of "harmful content" is entirely undefined outside of any legal framework. That they extend their policing of this to any public conduct is a giant red-flag.

I'd flat out refuse this. Its unacceptable to impose such a potentially destructive sanction for a definitionaly ambiguous transgression. Especially when the culture favours the purveyors of claimed harm over the presumption of innocence in regards to alleged offenders.

Sign this and its open-season for any bad-faith actor to take you down.

 

[LordCBH]

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.

I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:

1. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?

This ain’t the first time they’ve tried to fuck everyone and it won’t be the last. I’m not coming back to their products. It’s still Pathfinder for me going forward.

 

[GardenOfAbbylon]

Is this going to effect roll20.net in any way? I wouldn't think so. I just started a campaign with friends online with this and I am just curious.