MonsterEnvy
Legend
So what?If they backpedal now, it just means they are looking for a different strategy to accomplish the same thing. The OGL is not safe.
So what?If they backpedal now, it just means they are looking for a different strategy to accomplish the same thing. The OGL is not safe.
So "de-authorization" is not off the table, it is just back burnered until they find a way to do it without kicking the hornet's nest. So if that is your bugbear, as you indicated, then them dropping it from OGL 1.1 doesn't actually mean anything.So what?
Ok.So "de-authorization" is not off the table, it is just back burnered until they find a way to do it without kicking the hornet's nest. So if that is your bugbear, as you indicated, then them dropping it from OGL 1.1 doesn't actually mean anything.
I dunno the fact that they backed down could weaken their case in the future. It depends somewhat on how they back down. If they make no concessions that is one thing, if they offer some concessions on the 1.0 OGL that is another thing.So "de-authorization" is not off the table, it is just back burnered until they find a way to do it without kicking the hornet's nest. So if that is your bugbear, as you indicated, then them dropping it from OGL 1.1 doesn't actually mean anything.
If the OGL 1.1 comes out looking different than the leak, you can be certain they will not say "We heard the community and we changed course." They will say, "That was a very early draft that wasn't ever really seriously considered and this is what we were really going for all along. Oh, and hey, look, we signed Kobold. Southlands 1D&D, y'all!"I dunno the fact that they backed down could weaken their case in the future. It depends somewhat on how they back down. If they make no concessions that is one thing, if they offer some concessions on the 1.0 OGL that is another thing.
Maybe, it really depends on, who they sign, how mad the community is, and how much they value the goodwill.If the OGL 1.1 comes out looking different than the leak, you can be certain they will not say "We heard the community and we changed course." They will say, "That was a very early draft that wasn't ever really seriously considered and this is what we were really going for all along. Oh, and hey, look, we signed Kobold. Southlands 1D&D, y'all!"
This is a (+) thread. If you aren't interested in talking about what we'd find acceptable in a new license, please find another discussion.
Dies… or abandons it. For people who are fans of Paizo’s efforts, it’s not a case of betrayal. It’s a case of keeping a version of the game alive while the owner diverts itself to a very different version.That's not the argument being made.
The OGL 1.0 allows you to design a form of D&D with WOTC's system and compete against WOTC's current and future systems.
It was designed to allow the system to live in case the caretaker dies, not allow the system betray and attempt to kill the caretaker.
That's exactly my point.That's the opposite of what happened from Paizo's perspective, and apparently A LOT of D&D fans agreed. Whether it is accurate or even reasonable for people to feel that 4E and the GSL was an attempt to kill the "real" D&D is irrelevant. Some people felt that way and used the OGL to "save" D&D. Multiple companies in fact -- Castles and Crusades is another example -- but only Paizo succeeded at any level worth WotC's concern.
The core thing is as a community we have to argee to what we offer WOTC.Dies… or abandons it. For people who are fans of Paizo’s efforts, it’s not a case of betrayal. It’s a case of keeping a version of the game alive while the owner diverts itself to a very different version.
Besides, the betrayal term is a better fit for WotC’s actions with licensing in the run up to 4e with respect to their protégé. They spin off products they no longer want to create or manage to former employees striking out on their own then, when it suits them, rip the rug out from under them. They may have had the legal right to do it, but legal isn’t the same as good and decent.