WotC Shannon Appelcline the layoffs and the OGL fiasco.

[Dire Bare]

It can easily be both.

It can be. But not in this case.

Making a commitment to someone else and not meeting it is a falsehood.

No, it's not. It's failing to meet a goal.

If WotC decides not to release the SRDs into the Creative Commons at all . . . even that isn't a falsehood, but rather a reversal. It certainly would not go over well with the community, deservedly so. If WotC releases the SRDs, but later than they initially planned, that is not even remotely a falsehood, just a delay. Happens all the time in publishing . . . books, movies, really anything and everything.

Your ideas regarding dishonesty are strange.

 

[Mark Craddock]

And once having switched to the GSL, why bring back the OGL for 5e? That doesn't support the narrative that they have actively been trying to kill the OGL.

Hasbro gave a very small team the task of a do or die edition of 5E. Because they weren't very important they were able to look at DnD's history, the OSR (which makes a LOT of money), and then playtest it publicly. Once it hit really big Hasbro took notice. It hit big because the people who made it understood it and listened to its community. Critical Role was the "killer app" needed to blow 5E wide open and Hasbro simply thinks they can milk DnD into a "lifestyle brand". Sadly, the hard working group of creatives who do this job as much out of passion as anything else are rewarded by being fired. If you think the OGL situation is resolved...well...we will see.

Hasbro has reinvigorated interest in Pathfinder 2 and Critical Role & Matt Coliville will make alternatives to DnD. The OSR is still making new version of B/X DnD seemingly on a weekly basis and Shadwodark & OSE are very popular. In a lot of ways the publishers took the OGL into their own hands and decided not to use it. My prediction is that a certain portion of 5E and/or 5.5E publishers will take the option to sell on DnD Beyond if it is given to them. I expect Dnd Beyond to replace DMs Guild to some degree once 5.5 releases. I think OneBookShelf had seen the writing on the wall and that was part of their decision to merge with Roll20.

History has shown that Hasbro isn't great about plans like these though. They bout eOne Productions to make their own films and then sold it after DnD the movie premiered and right before Transformers Rise of the Beasts.

I expect we will never see their VTT in a finish form. I think they will abandon these plans as they seem to start division and end them almost willy nilly. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mark Craddock]

It can be. But not in this case.



No, it's not. It's failing to meet a goal.

If WotC decides not to release the SRDs into the Creative Commons at all . . . even that isn't a falsehood, but rather a reversal. It certainly would not go over well with the community, deservedly so. If WotC releases the SRDs, but later than they initially planned, that is not even remotely a falsehood, just a delay. Happens all the time in publishing . . . books, movies, really anything and everything.

Your ideas regarding dishonesty are strange.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse and argumentative. Do you happen to work for Hasbro?

 

[Mark Craddock]

This is part of why I'm happy that WotC raised the cost of their products to bundle DnDBeyond with them. I don't use DnDBeyond, but if they raise their book prices, all of the other TTRPG publishers can as well.

Meanwhile, Local Game Stores, like mine are now not only competing against Amazon but also against WotC. Their purchase of DnD Beyond, mirrors how they have taken similar stands with toys using HasbroPulse & Arena for Magic: the Gathering. A key thing to know though is that HasbroPulse and Arena aren't meeting their projections and they are now trying to better utilize the distribution networks they competed with.

 

[MGibster]

Worth mentioning Mark Seifter mentioned Washington state has a law that prevents companies from laying off employees and then immediately bringing them back as freelancers. I guess companies like Microsoft are pretty bad about that sorta thing, so they couldn't let a designer they need to finish the books go and then give them a freelance gig to finish what they were working on.

The feds started cracking down on this a few years ago as well. Misclassification of an employee as a contractor can land a company in trouble with both the Department of Labor as well as the IRS leading to fines. Not only that, but the "contractor" might have grounds to sue for all the benefits they should have received as an employee. If the IRS sees a worker was a W-2 employee one year and a 1099 contractor for the same company the next, someone might be in trouble.

When Hasbro started paying attention again, they stated cooking up a way to get rid of the OGL, again. This wasn't from a lack of institutional knowledge, at all. Like I said, I don't buy the thesis. There were people in WoTC that knew that people would react badly- but Hasbro wanted to monetize it further. They decided that the blowback would be worth it. They decided wrong.

I'm with you on this one. It was a deliberate effort on WotC to herd their customers into a walled garden. They probably knew it would be unpopular but underestimated the blowblack.

I'm friends with a lot of people who worked for WotC and were let go. For the overwhelming number of them, "other things" means getting a job outside the industry like the rest of us, while working on rpg stuff as a hobby or secondary income (like me and many others who never worked for WotC or "made it big").

This seems to be a common story among those who work in the RPG market. Even luminaries like Mike Pondsmith went and got jobs outside of RPGs.

 

[billd91]

You're pretty much making my point for me. In short, their is no reason to cite wikipedia, even if it's accurate. Because if the article is any good, it will have sources, and you can cite those.
It's like quoting your Mom on medical advice when she is quoting Uncle Dr. Bob. Just quote Uncle Dr. Bob.

Because most people looking at Wikipedia probably don’t have the sources to track back and confirm the content, and no messageboard seriously needs that level of citation when you could have checked the Wikipedia article and tracked it back yourself if you were curious.
Would you have accepted a reference from an Encyclopedia Britannica at face value or expected someone to cite the reference Britannica cited?

 

[gban007]

As a parent, I have words that Eric's grandmother shouldn't hear. I shall try to put them aside and answer calmly.

Would you accept from your child: "No, I didn't do my chores. I intended to, but Bobby had a cool new game and it didn't shake out to leave me time to do them."

Because if you wouldn't, then you definitely shouldn't pull the same on your own child. You own up to it, instead of teaching them a double standard. That the person with the authority can do things they shouldn't question, but they can't.

Try instead:

"You're right, I did promise to take you to the store so you could get the next book with your birthday money, but my D&D game ran late and the store will be closed before we get there. I'm sorry about that. Can we do it tomorrow instead?"

Acknowledged that you said something and then didn't come through, apologized for, and a rectification suggested.



True/false is a boolean. "This isn't true, but don't describe it using the word falsehood" is meaningless for something boolean. And a "I will do this by the end of the year", if it is not done by the end of the year is a falsehood. That word is merely descriptive, not too strong.

Now, to undermine a lot of what I'm saying:
I understand from other posters they have it in their Community Update, which is something I didn't know when I posted originally. From my perspective it was promised, with a date they gave themselves so it should be achievable, and then I heard nothing. This Community Update is much better than I originally thought - they are effectively saying "I have not forgotten about this, it's still on my list". That's decent. The original promise is still a falsehood if not done by year end, but this is much more like owning up and having a rectification.

I think there is a difference between breaking a promise you had an intention to keep, then making a promise you never intended to keep- the latter is a falsehood, the first isn't to my mind. Yes it turned out wrong, and people should explain why / look to rectify where can, but it doesn't make the initial statement a falsehood.
'We will go to store tomorrow' - that night an earthquake happens and store is damaged and won't open - 'you told a falsehood!' - well to my mind no, they haven't, circumstances changed , doesn't mean they shouldn't try to get to store at next available opportunity.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah, stuff like that tmeans that they probsvly need to take their time to go over any further SRD release witha. Fine tooth comb.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean they need to do many passes with said comb.

The older SRDs were deliberately constructed to only have nothing but Open Game Content in them, whereas the 5E SRD was apparently doing double-duty as not just an SRD, but also the "basic" version of 5E, and so had Product Identity as well.

The 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern SRDs don't do that; they're pre-constructed to just be rules and other mechanics that WotC was already fine with putting out there (although the d20 Modern SRD does have a few organizations and individual characters that it releases, apparently deliberately so).

 

[LordEntrails]

Well, no, a falsehood involves intentionality

Depends on your definition of falsehood. If you are thinking of it as a boolean, then intent does not matter. It either is or is not. If you add the common conception of deceit, then intention matters.

Because most people looking at Wikipedia probably don’t have the sources to track back and confirm the content, and no messageboard seriously needs that level of citation when you could have checked the Wikipedia article and tracked it back yourself if you were curious.

Everyone looking at Wikipedia has the source to track back to the content when it is cited. It's a friggin hyperlink on the wiki article itself. Maybe they don't have access to the full source, but if there is a source, it is known and linked. Again, Uncle Dr. Bob, not Mom.

Would you have accepted a reference from an Encyclopedia Britannica at face value or expected someone to cite the reference Britannica cited?

Yes, because despite human errors, every EB article has been vetted by a "professional". Not every Wikipedia article has. But again, all you have to do is cite the citation instead of being lazy and saying someone on the internet said...

 

[Parmandur]

Depends on your definition of falsehood. If you are thinking of it as a boolean, then intent does not matter. It either is or is not. If you add the common conception of deceit, then intention matters.

Thinking about complex longterm projects in Boolean terms makes no sense. Missing a deadline us not an active lie (which is what falsehood means) if there was an intention to meet it originally.

Let us consider two somewhat ridiculous scenarios:

A. They release an SRD for every edition of D&D ever made on 12/31/2023

B. They release an SRD for every edition of D&D ever made on 1/1/2024

If the latter happens, would that mean the original goal was a "falsehood" because it arrived a day late...?

No, that's absurd. Projects miss deadlines all the time, that doesn't mean the original deadline was a falsehood.