How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[S'mon]

Exactly. I dont do grudge, it cost too much energy.

If they came out with an apology saying:
''sorry, we did not realize the reach of our actions, what benefits our brand cant be the only the only justification when you are an industry leader. We've burned bridges with our esteemed community which is the foundation of the game and we want to apologize for it. D&D is your game and we are the caretaker of of it; in the past week, we've failed our duty. Trying to mend our relationship will take time and we'll try our utmost to do so. Know that the OGL will stay intact; we'll contact our leading partners creating under the OGL to see what we can do for them. yadayada''

I'd be ok. And the next time they try to pull the same crap? Well we'll sharpen the pitchforks once more until they apologize once again.

I think if they had come out with that on Monday (9th) they could have undone most of the damage. It's increasingly getting too late to rebuild bridges, I think.

 

[Ibrandul]

Unpopular opinion- OA (as you described) is right. Well, not the part were they are attacking a journalist. But in describing how a corporation works.

I went over this in my own thread (describing the 3e/4e transition), but Hasbro never wanted the OGL. It is completely a (happy) accident of history. Championed by Dancey and WoTC and released before Hasbro folded WoTC in completely.

So what happened next? First, Hasbro releases 3.5e! In order to differentiate their product from the OGL.
Next ... 4e. And 4e doesn't use the OGL, but used a non-open license.
When 5e was released, it was under the radar and with a small team. But even then, it is any understanding that Hasbro's lawyers fought to keep the OGL restricted to the prior version- not to expand it to make it more "5e friendly."

If you think of any major corporation and any major brand, you don't see open licensing. D&D is the exception. And now that it's making major money, they likely want that exception to end.

(Again, not a defense of Hasbro screwing over 3PP at all. Just that this was unfortunately foreseeable.)

You're right about all of this, of course. But I can't figure out what it has to do with OA's tweet-opinions as I summarized them, except the part about how unusual it is for Pathfinder not to have to pay WotC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unpopular opinion- OA (as you described) is right. Well, not the part were they are attacking a journalist. But in describing how a corporation works.

They're right on it being predictable, but expressing an opinion or whether it's okay or not ethically/morally (which they are) is going entirely outside of their remit and talking crap (doesn't matter if you're a "Harvard lawyer", your opinion is no more valid than anyone else on that), and attacking a journalist? That's outright messed-up. That is itself unethical - suggesting pitchforks particularly is creepy.

But even then, it is any understanding that Hasbro's lawyers fought to keep the OGL restricted to the prior version- not to expand it to make it more "5e friendly."

I'm interested by this, because what, did Hasbro's lawyers fail? The fact that WotC intentionally released not one, but two SRDs for 5E strongly suggests that, what, WotC overruled Hasbro here?

Silence is rarely a sign that someone is reconsidering, its more of a brief moment of inner dialogue to brace themselves and bolster their resolve.

The question is, if you interpret WotC's silence that way, how do you interpret Paizo and CR's silence?

Other big 3PPs, including Kobold, who were undoubtedly part of any "secret negotiations" and NDA, have stopped being silent, but those two still are. Those closest we've had to breaking it is Paizo suggesting a guy redoing PF2 intro videos hold off.

 

[delericho]

It's already too late, IMO, and every hour that passes just makes it worse.

I'll give them until the close of Friday. If they haven't spoken by then, I'm assuming they're sticking by OGL1.1, and even if they backpedal later they've lost my custom permanently.

 

[Ibrandul]

attacking a journalist? That's outright messed-up. That is itself unethical - suggesting pitchforks particularly is creepy.

OA didn't write the word "pitchforks" themselves. In response to a question from someone else ("I want to know if I need to dig out my pitchfork"), OA responded: "against that gizmodo writer? yes."

I don't think the distinction matters in this case, but the long-buried professional journalist in me demands that I clarify.

 

[Art Waring]

Unpopular opinion- OA (as you described) is right. Well, not the part were they are attacking a journalist. But in describing how a corporation works.

I went over this in my own thread (describing the 3e/4e transition), but Hasbro never wanted the OGL. It is completely a (happy) accident of history. Championed by Dancey and WoTC and released before Hasbro folded WoTC in completely.

So what happened next? First, Hasbro releases 3.5e! In order to differentiate their product from the OGL.
Next ... 4e. And 4e doesn't use the OGL, but used a non-open license.
When 5e was released, it was under the radar and with a small team. But even then, it is any understanding that Hasbro's lawyers fought to keep the OGL restricted to the prior version- not to expand it to make it more "5e friendly."

If you think of any major corporation and any major brand, you don't see open licensing. D&D is the exception. And now that it's making major money, they likely want that exception to end.

(Again, not a defense of Hasbro screwing over 3PP at all. Just that this was unfortunately foreseeable.)

Have to disagree on one important point:

Ryan Dancey left wotc in 2002, and in the interview yesterday with roll for combat he explained that the wotc FAQ was not made by him, it was made after he left.

That means that wotc, not Ryan Dancey, wrote the FAQ & included the decision to allow things like video games with the OGL 1.0a. Its in the FAQ. After RD left, they still supported the FAQ until they released 4th edition.

If they never wanted the OGL, why did they support it for six years?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

OA didn't write the word "pitchforks" themselves. In response to a question from someone else ("I want to know if I need to dig out my pitchfork"), OA responded: "against that gizmodo writer? yes."

I don't the distinction matters in this case, but the long-buried professional journalist in me demands that I clarify.

It's a distinction without a difference. Saying yes to that is agreeing that it's good, and that's obviously, like genuinely grotesque, especially as they pointed it at the individual writer, not even the publication. In fact it's not only grotesque, it's unprofessional and anti-journalistic.

 

[Composer99]

The over-the-top denigrating of Codega is really not a good look.

 

[Branduil]

Regardless of what WotC eventually says, I have to imagine the morale on the D&D team is at a historic low. This is likely a dream job for many of them, getting to work on designing a D&D edition, and it's been utterly ruined by the clowns upstairs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They're right on it being predictable, but expressing an opinion or whether it's okay or not ethically/morally (which they are) is going entirely outside of their remit and talking crap (doesn't matter if you're a "Harvard lawyer", your opinion is no more valid than anyone else on that), and attacking a journalist? That's outright messed-up. That is itself unethical - suggesting pitchforks particularly is creepy.

I'm interested by this, because what, did Hasbro's lawyers fail? The fact that WotC intentionally released not one, but two SRDs for 5E strongly suggests that, what, WotC overruled Hasbro here?

The question is, if you interpret WotC's silence that way, how do you interpret Paizo and CR's silence?

Other big 3PPs, including Kobold, who were undoubtedly part of any "secret negotiations" and NDA, have stopped being silent, but those two still are. Those closest we've had to breaking it is Paizo suggesting a guy redoing PF2 intro videos hold off.

Also following the discussion they say the article is completely wrong but when people ask pointed questions about if the biggest concerns aren't true, they say 'nope' (meaning we should still presumably be concerned). Then when pressed further they just say "Friday's Show!". I don't know this podcast. Maybe there is humor here I am missing, but it doesn't seem like their criticism of the article necessarily means the concerns about the OGL are unwarranted. Also I have watched tons of lawyers comment on this whole thing, and many seem to agree with the Gizmodo article (so their assertion about the journalists intent seems weird), and opinions are also all over the map among them. So I am just not sure why I should take this particular legal podcasts opinions more seriously than the other lawyers I've heard speak on it.