CapnZapp:
1. I said "If you can't establish that WOTC benefited from the OGL, then you can't discount my claim." I'm not trying to
establish my claim. I'm trying to
defend the right to it. There's a big difference.
2. I never denied it. It's not at issue here.
3. I never denied it. It's not at issue here.
You or me speculating on Wizards aims for the GSL isn't worth anything. Only Wizards changing the GSL enough to prevent it in the future from being abused by Wizards to kill off the entire 3PP market is.
Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread has a goal, and you can't just end it by saying its pointless. Someone else insisted on opening the can of worms and I forked it. If you have a problem with it, talk to the others.
Discussing the finer points of the GSL will only confuse the issue. And, heavens forbid, fool someone into thinking it is actually reasonable.
Oh, of course, problems are always solved by getting stuck going in circles on the bad points. Dump the whole thing and start over, because if there's one bad point, then everything in the document is wrong.
Look, we haven't even been going over the finer points of the GSL, so your statement is moot. Isn't this the second or third time you've said that? And here it shows up in a conversation that it doesn't even apply to. It seems like a total non sequitur here.
dmmccoy and Brown Jenkin, if you all understand me then stop taking the conversation back to theory like broken records. If you can't carry the conversation forward, then I think we can accept that one possible scenario to WOTC's motives is that WOTC failed to benefit effectively from the OGL, whether you agree or not. If you want to offer your own claims, feel free, but stop arguing against mine unless you can provide proof that WOTC did indeed benefit from the OGL. I think I did see your ideas about what WOTC's motives are for the GSL sprinkled in there while you were attacking mine, so if you want to restate those for clarification, feel free. We can put them all in a list of possible scenarios. Keep in mind that two or more scenarios could be true. Let me start the list:
Scenario 1: WOTC failed to benefit effectively from the OGL and needed a better document (Care of Corjay).
Scenario 2: WOTC wants to control the market by drawing other companies in and sinking them with contract violation accusations.
Scenario 3: WOTC wants more control in the contract.
Brown Jenkin: While it may not be impossible proof, it's not unreasonable. If you want to argue against a point, then you need to escalate the evidence. If you can't escalate it, then there's no point in arguing. As you stated, I believe that it was better management of the game itself and pimping it through things that have nothing to do with the OGL that brought the game back. After all, when you compare D&D with other games in the industry with similar licenses, then you see that the license itself does nothing to improve their situations.
dmccoy: considering your point about making it easier for old players to return, yes that may be true, because the changes ripple through the industry, and thus those players see it, but I don't think the original 1e crowd was so significant that it would affect their bottom line much at all. But the 4e GSL would not prevent the same effect if you changed the deal breakers pointed out in the other thread. Changes to the system, not the license, are what would cause the ripples to bring old players back. The license, whether the OGL or the GSL is merely a medium for those ripples to float out on. The GSL does not prevent the ripples. It simply makes adopting the GSL unattractive, which I don't believe was WOTC's goal. Interesting idea there: WOTC created a license that produces an undesired effect. Wow. What a novel concept. But here I'm getting distracted by talking about the OGL in execution instead of the theory it was based on.
