How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, I'm British but I don't know, but I was under the impression the best law school in the US was Yale not Harvard. And like that had been the case for decades?

I am from the Boston area. It was a joke about social class (Harvard is a pretty blue blood, Boston Brahmin school)

 

[xiphumor]

Y’all seem rather concerned about OA. I’m admittedly not super familiar with them or their reach, but they aren’t the only law-centric content producers in town. Legal Eagle is also coming out with a video that sounds like it will be anti-OGL 1.1.

Also, the longer this debacle lasts, the more larger media channels and influencers will comment on it, and not only are legal opinions on this point far from unanimous, but the real damage that can be done at this stage is reputational, and it’s not hard to see that it’s an act of bad faith, legal or not.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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?

Well, define "support."

As a preliminary matter, we don't know who wrote the FAQ. We don't know who at Hasbro (if anyone at Hasbro) authorized the FAQ. The FAQ is what is considered extrinsic to the OGL and is post hoc (after the faq heh ... fact,/event).

You ask why they would "support" the OGL if they never wanted it? Well, look at the timeline!

In 2000, the OGL was published.
Until the latter part of 2001, WoTC was independent (autonomous). Then they were folded into Hasbro. It usually takes time for the higher-ups to start paying attention.
In 2003, they did the first distancing from the OGL (and 3e) be releasing 3.5e.
By 2007 they had already announced the development of (non-OGL) 4e. Remeber that 4e is when Hasbro put a bunch of resources into D&D.

In other words, after a relatively stable edition from 1974-1999 (OD&D-2e were largely compatible), they released a half edition within three years, and a fill new edition within seven just to try and get away from the OGL.

Hasbro has never supported the OGL. People within the subsidiary, WoTC, have.

That's why I say that things are a happy accident. Once it was out in the wild, it was hard to contain. I would guess that we have gotten to the point that Hasbro thinks it is worth the PR and legal fees to try and put the genie back in the bottle. Who knows?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not too positively, if I can be honest.

Yeah that's increasingly my feeling. Kind of seems like it's 50/50 odds at this point between:

1) WotC largely backs down, Paizo was just being quiet because they were the primary negotiators.

2) Paizo announces it has a new agreement with WotC, can continue to publish PF indefinitely, will now also be making books for 5E, and suggests we all cheer for them and look away as Kobold et al are lead to the slaughter.

 

[Art Waring]

It usually takes time for the higher-ups to start paying attention.

Actually, according to the interview with RD, it took them 20 years to notice! I think you should just watch the interview with Ryan Dancey, it would answer a lot of of these things without me having to explain.

Hear it from the guy who had it all drafted in the first place.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I pointed out in a different thread here, at the end of the article the journalist does indeed take one piece of quoted material totally out of context. That's very bad form, and to be honest it's hard not to see it as a deliberate misrepresentation. But that's a relatively minor part of the article, and it's not one I've seen anyone, anywhere, focusing on. I can find nothing else in the article that isn't verified by the now-available leaked document.

which part of the article ? (Just curious)

And I am sure there are going to be assertions in the article that can be debated. Maybe there are even issues around context. But the podcast says something to the effect that whole article is riddled with errors and simple ignorance of the law doesn’t explain the mistake (seeming to imply much more sinister motives). Personally I don’t think journalists are above critique, and this journalist isn’t someone I am familiar with, but as I said in another post, I have seen other lawyers agree with the points raised in her article, so I am having trouble squaring that fact with the podcast’s claim here. Not saying the article is 100 percent right (not a lawyer do I am watching this unfold like everyone else). I just don’t get the whole “ignorance of the law doesn’t explain” bit (paraphrasing here).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Actually, according to the interview with RD, it took them 20 years to notice! I think you should just watch the interview with Ryan Dancey, it would answer a lot of of these things without me having to explain.

Hear it from the guy who had it all drafted in the first place.

As I wrote in another thread, and as you also noted, he left WoTC in 2002. He now works for a competitor.

While I have now reason to trust his general honesty (and, again, I appreciate the solid that he did for the TTRPG community!), we all tend to have our own rose-colored glasses on when we review history, especially the stuff we are not as familiar with.

TLDR; he was laid off just after Hasbro folded in WoTC and they were no longer autonomous; I don't think think he has anything valuable to say about Hasbro's legal or commercial considerations after that.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

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

Honestly I'm not surprised by either.

I feel that CR is in a "don't rock the boat" situation right now and i honestly don't expect them to provide any statements of substance regardless of which side they choose.

Paizo, while not surprising, is a bit disappointing in their silence. Paizo and WOTC are bit more entwined than most 3rd party companies are based on what I've heard, even with the changes to PF2E. That said having PF2E gives them some leverage already. They don't have to scramble to create a system from scratch.

I'm assuming they're circling the wagons and checking everything with legal 50 times over and we'll hear from them once WOTC makes their comments.

 

[Branduil]

Yeah that's increasingly my feeling. Kind of seems like it's 50/50 odds at this point between:

1) WotC largely backs down, Paizo was just being quiet because they were the primary negotiators.

2) Paizo announces it has a new agreement with WotC, can continue to publish PF indefinitely, will now also be making books for 5E, and suggests we all cheer for them and look away as Kobold et al are lead to the slaughter.

I'm having a really hard time seeing #2 happening. Like, not only would that massively enrage a large portion of their own fanbase, some of whom have made it a personality trait to hate D&D, but it would be really weird for them to tie themselves to a company which clearly wants them dead.

Also, Brian Lewis linking to Paizo in his blog about working on a new Open RPG License seems like a tell, so it'd be even weirder for Paizo to suddenly heel turn like that.

 

[kenada]

But they reach a lot of people and have the power to shift the momentum back toward WotC’s side. If WotC is stalling, this is exactly the kind of thing they would be waiting for.

Assuming WotC didn’t reach out to them to start a counter-narrative.