WotC WotC President Cynthia Williams Resigns

Oofta · Apr 18, 2024

Alzrius said:
The expiration date is when the residual harm caused by that move ceases to have an impact on the industry. So, when the balkanization caused by having multiple different open licenses ceases to be a thing, and all the companies that stopped using the OGL because they don't trust it anymore decide that it's now safe to use again.

So ... basically never?

Alzrius · Apr 18, 2024

Oofta said:
So ... basically never?

That's a rather uncharitable way of putting it.

The rubric here is really quite simple: is there still lingering harm from their actions? If the answer is yes, then WotC doesn't get a pass. If that's not the hoped-for answer, then as the ones who inflicted said harm, it means that WotC should do more to assuage it.

Now, there are some extremely disingenuous people out there who'll interpret that as "you just don't want to EVER forgive WotC!" Which is of course nonsense; I just want them to get the industry back to where it was (in terms of open gaming) before they embarked on that ill-considered scheme. Once they do, I'm more than happy to move on.

Oofta · Apr 18, 2024

Alzrius said:
That's a rather uncharitable way of putting it.

The rubric here is really quite simple: is there still lingering harm from their actions? If the answer is yes, then WotC doesn't get a pass. If that's not the hoped-for answer, then as the ones who inflicted said harm, it means that WotC should do more to assuage it.

Now, there are some extremely disingenuous people out there who'll interpret that as "you just don't want to EVER forgive WotC!" Which is of course nonsense; I just want them to get the industry back to where it was (in terms of open gaming) before they embarked on that ill-considered scheme. Once they do, I'm more than happy to move on.

What else could they possibly do?

_Michael_ · Apr 18, 2024

Yeah, I'm not sure there's any coming back from that. I'm not even sure the industry can ever return to that.

Alzrius · Apr 18, 2024

Oofta said:
What else could they possibly do?

You mean besides the aforementioned release of the older SRDs into the Creative Commons?

They could release an OGL v1.0b, which would be exactly the same as the OGL v1.0a, except that it adds the word "irrevocable" to Section 4, and is released into the public domain (the same way Paizo did for the ORC License). That would not only give it the same (perceived) stability/reliability as the Creative Commons, but also allow for extant Open Game Content to be used (which you don't get with the Creative Commons).

That's the big one. I'd say it would also be worthwhile to make new SRDs for previous editions which don't have them (or don't have useful ones, i.e. 4E), and open up the DMs Guild so that books compatible with previous editions can be made (though OneBookShelf should make a new storefront for it, rather than having it be part of the DMs Guild page itself; given how easily they throw up mirror sites like Pathfinder Infinite or the Storyteller's Vault, that should be easy).

I think things like that would go a very, very long way to repairing the harm they caused, and wouldn't take much effort on WotC's part either (the only thing that would require any sort of dedicated effort would be making new SRDs for earlier editions).

dbolack · Apr 18, 2024

Ruin Explorer said:
And I disagree re: "not customers", that's a truly short-sighted way of looking at it. You're confusing the people who would be pleased with the people who really, really want this. The reality, most of D&D's playerbase who heard about this would react positively, even though 90% of them might never play a game based on the new CCBY SRDs, and it would change perceptions of WotC in a fairly long-term way, and make it harder to argue them as an "oppressive force" (unless whatever screw-up was something truly horrid like another OGL 2.0).

Yes. It is shortsighted. But ultimately, they care more about paying customers than pleasing past customers. Even though, ironically, are the reason their biggest customers ( licensors ) value the property. But it won't change perception long term. I do t it would trend upward for more than a quarter.

Ruin Explorer said:
I'm not saying that they "NEED 2 MAKE IT PRIO #1" or something, indeed it might even be worth holding on to it as "ammo" lol, as I've said, but my point is pretty clear - it would benefit them significantly PR-wise.

And really, that's what I'm dubious on. I doubt it moves the needle. And even if it does move the needle, there are likely few in decision-making capacities altruistic enough about the idea that something with minimal to no fiscal return gets budget.

dbolack · Apr 18, 2024

Oofta said:
What else could they possibly do?

Nothing. Those goalposts are in the back of a speeding earth-mover.

mamba · Apr 18, 2024

Henadic Theologian said:
No we do know, she was the President of WotC, no way she was not invovled in that decision. If it came from below, she had to have approved it, if it came from CEO Chris Cocks (I doubt he did, he never made any such moves as President), he'd have consulted her on it and she could have pushed hard against it, or it was her idea to begin with.

agreed, I meant we have no idea what her stance on it was or what she did for / against that change. Obviously she was aware of it and in the discussions surrounding it

Oofta · Apr 18, 2024

Alzrius said:
You mean besides the aforementioned release of the older SRDs into the Creative Commons?

They could release an OGL v1.0b, which would be exactly the same as the OGL v1.0a, except that it adds the word "irrevocable" to Section 4, and is released into the public domain (the same way Paizo did for the ORC License). That would not only give it the same (perceived) stability/reliability as the Creative Commons, but also allow for extant Open Game Content to be used (which you don't get with the Creative Commons).

That's the big one. I'd say it would also be worthwhile to make new SRDs for previous editions, and open up the DMs Guild so that books compatible with previous editions can be made (though OneBookShelf should make a new storefront for it, rather than having it be part of the DMs Guild page itself; given how easily they throw up mirror sites like Pathfinder Infinite or the Storyteller's Vault, that should be easy).

I think things like that would go a very, very long way to repairing the harm they caused, and wouldn't take much effort on WotC's part either (the only thing that would require any sort of dedicated effort would be making new SRDs for earlier editions).

The number of customers that ever cared about the OGL is small. The number that still care is a smaller. The number of people that care about changing the OGL for older versions is smaller yet. The number of people who would change their mind? A rounding error.

I just don't see the offended minority changing their minds. Should HASBRO have done it in the first place? No. Did some suits not understand what the issue was? Sure, which explains the slow recognition of the gravity of the problem.

Based on other responses, it still wouldn't matter, once a mistake is made there can be no forgiveness. So at this point they may well not bring attention to it.

Henadic Theologian · Apr 18, 2024

mamba said:
agreed, I meant we have no idea what her stance on it was or what she did for / against that change. Obviously she was aware of it and in the discussions surrounding it

She was WotC President, at the end of the day it was her final say, if she was against it, it would not have happened, it was not just her invovlement in the dicussion, it is that the final decision on trying to do the OGL was hers, he chose it, there is not getting around it, hers is not a passive role, hers is the final decision as President of WotC.

WotC WotC President Cynthia Williams Resigns

Oofta

Legend

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

Oofta

Legend

_Michael_

Explorer

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

dbolack

Adventurer

dbolack

Adventurer

mamba

Legend

Oofta

Legend

Henadic Theologian

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles