Can anyone explain the "NFT" argument they're putting forward? What in the new license protects them more than existing copyright law, trademark law or OGL 1.0 does not?
The OGL does not allow people to use the D&D branding, nor any famous monsters or named spells (i.e. no Tasha's Anything or Beholders) and so if anyone made a D&D NFT they'd already be in conflict.
I guess that shows that they think we're stupid. The NFT bubble has burst and no one cares any more. Maybe 6-12 months ago when they started planning this internally it was a big thing but it just shows how behind they are.
This statement is a baldfaced lie in PR crisis template form. Gaslighting that the community are overreacting and they were just protecting us from the racists that play d&d, and NFTs, and big scary corps (who? they don't say). It was clear people were expected to sign this, so the reporting says, so the entire statement is callow and untrustworthy. Nobody should believe WOTC, now the fibbing has started, to try to save reputation.
The community really wants to turn the screws, start challenging their trademark on DND and Dungeons and Dragons on what has clearly become Generic for this sort of game.
The OGL does not allow people to use the D&D branding, nor any famous monsters or named spells (i.e. no Tasha's Anything or Beholders) and so if anyone made a D&D NFT they'd already be in conflict.