I watched a bunch of YouTube videos about the ogl by a lot of creators, and sure enough, YouTube started suggesting me some WOTC gone woke content. SMH. I love the OSR stuff, but more in a low magic fantasy kind of way, but man is that fanbase full of a certain kind of middle aged white guy.
Unfortunately, yeah. There’s a way to do OSR stuff without being an ass about it, but there’s definitely a set of dudes that use OSR as a retreat from the “wokeness” of modern TTRPG writing.
I mean, there is definitely a line to walk when doing content. The homebrew I am running certainly is set in a world with vices, racism, greed, etc. But, you present it in a way that makes sense. I am going for a more 1803 USA and less a Conan the barbarian skimpy metal bikini chick. Like, if you are a Dwarf trying to buy something from an Elf, they might try to upcharge you due to … historical distrust, to put it lightly.
There is even a young Elon analog, who runs one of the free companies, and is someone I am hoping the players befriend, so I can test their willingness to put money and progress before “good”. He’ll spout a lot of information about how the world can be changed for the better… it will just happen off of the backs of the most vulnerable.
Unfortunately my players are definitely all goody goody. I will see how far I can go to break them. Already had some infighting over following their orders to save the men (and get paid) they were hired to save, over the women and children (and lose out on money) left vulnerable by their kidnapping.
I am evil. I am capitalism the DM.
Thanks for telling us this - I was certain for some reason, that Lamentations was actually a great RPG that had won some awards not long ago - This seems a far cry from anything I want to support.
On the other end of that spectrum, and speaing of Old school, I kickstarted the OSE and should be getting ALL THE BOOKS soon which will be awesome :-) (Unless someone tells me they are evil too, in which case I will probably cry a bit…!)
I’ve scanned up a bit, but I can’t find the definition – what is “OSR”?
I guess “Old School [Something]”?
Old School Roleplaying, maybe? But is this a YouTube channel, as opposed to just… the 1980s?
Old School Revival.
I think it’s Old School Revival. Basically Gygaxian RPGs. Deadly monsters and traps, whack-a-doodle monsters, insane wizards, buried UFOs, and lots and lots of dead PCs.
I’ve also seen Old School Renaissance, as in, the flowering of the community with new content and creators (especially about 10 years ago when things really took off). There’s a lot of neat stuff there, if you’re into those vibes. And a modest number of crappy people who wanna stew in the less savory parts of the 70s experience. C’est le vie.
Goodman Games released some 5e modules in the OSR theme if you want to check them out. They also re-published a bunch of the old AD&D modules, in the original formats and updated for 5e. Those books are really beautiful. I ran the first one, Into the Borderlands, twice with different groups and it was an experience for sure. They had a good time, but one group TPKd on the first encounter against some kobolds. They were like “they’re just kobolds!” The next set of PCs took them more seriously when they saw their original characters heads mounted on spears outside the nest.
More on topic, but the heavily modified “playtest” of the new OGL is now up, with some light commentary from their current fall guy. They’re proposing moving most of the SRD content to a CC license, claiming previously published works under OGL 1.0a will remain valid, but that they still plan to deauthorize it and leave themselves opening to “deauthorize” any works published under 1.2 that violate their content policies (e.g., racist content). I think this is gonna appease a handful of folks, but that a lot of creators are going to be very wary of WotC here and scan the text carefully for loopholes that can be used to fuck them in the future, if they haven’t just written off D&D fully as an untrustworthy source of future revenue.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest
This still feels iffy to me. “content policy” is a broad term. Their intent is good right now, but what happens in 10 years when someone else is in charge. They are using current bad actors to give themselves an “out” with very loosely based definitions. They burned any bridges of trust with the leaked OGL draft a few weeks ago, as it is clear there are parts of their company ready to throw their customers under the bus at a moment’s notice.
Time will tell, and we will see how well they spell out that policy in the finalized OGL 1.2.
The linked OGL draft looks pretty good, and basically the opposite of what they were doing before. Adding in the creative commons license seems like a good way to get around the SRD content that can’t be copyrightable. I mean, you still don’t need a license to use the vast amount of SRD content, but at least this is a show of good faith of “we won’t sue you”
VTT license also looks good as well, and appears to have walked back a ton, giving very specific details on what can and can’t be done in a VTT under the license.
Call me crazy but that seems pretty much a total reversal of their original draft. The community got everything they wanted.
When we say ‘forever’ we mean it this time. I’d like to see some iron-clad ‘we can’t reneg on this’ wording if I were a developer, but maybe this is strong enough for that. hashtag: notalawyer as the youth of today say.
It is very hard to pick out bad parts of the OGL 1.2 draft.
It seems very friendly. Makes the revocation of 1.0a less bad, as 1.2 appears to be just as free.
The only concern to me is the “content policy” needs to be spelled out better.
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.
“harmful” to who? Harmful to WOTC? You also give up any rights in this to a jury trial or class action.
I see where the intent is from this, but I just don’t trust WOTC here. It still seems like they have a reason to cancel the license to any licensee for any reason they want to. I think adding in definitions as to what is covered under their content policy is important.
Discriminatory, harassing, illegal - those are very clear, as discriminatory is speaking protected classes, harassing is protecting individual, and illegal is pretty clear on laws.
Harmful, obscene - this is very gray.
Are swear words out? What is the line? Can a brothel exist in my pirate adventure? Where is the line? I bring up brothel, because Paizo’s Pathfinder Kingmaker update removed brothels and re-named them “dance halls” in the city building part of the game. Which we all found hilarious, and we, as a group, renamed them to “broth halls” where people were served delicious soup.
This is a really tough line to walk though, as they don’t want to be associated with any content that would look bad, and there are surely people that would create some really abhorrent shit tied to DND, but, as a creator, I would be worried about what the line would be, because WOTC in the license say they solely get to decide what that is, and you can’t argue it.
But, overall, it looks great.
The VTT part is still fucked up. You can simulate the table but can’t have a special visual effect for spells on your VTT? Foundry has tons of mods especially for this.And now, if that’s available, they can kill the license for you.
There is also language that says “if you sue us you loose your license” and that seems… fishy at least. A lot makes it clear that Wizards is in charge and you are allowed to make stuff until they decide you cannot. And this time they do not even have to kill the license again because they have provisions inside the license that let them kill your work! And there is nothing you can do! At least that’s how those sections feel for me.
Well, duh. Though shall (also) not mention drugs or sex, because they’re hateful to sponsor agreements and sales.
Which is fine, i guess.
Yeah, it does seem overly restrictive. Depending on how I read it, can we even have animated dice rolls and movement? I get their goal to make sure a VIDEO GAME gets licensed and they get their cash, but the line they drew is too far to one side.
All that said . . .
I agree.
edit - I also agree they really need to spell out definitions for “No Hateful Content or Conduct.”
The problem, as this non lawyer understands it, is in legal terms “forever” is like 30 years. Rule Against Perpetuities or some such nonsense.