It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Faolyn]

Can we please stop equating revoking the OGL with murder... seriously they aren't comparable and it actually makes your position, in my eyes, seem even more overblown.

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, here's the thing: it wasn't criminal (quite the opposite, it seems to have been very above board on the law), just self-destructive. But more importantly, it wasn't a personal decision, but corporate policy. We don't know who wanted to do it, and who wanted to stop it (who succeded)succeeded, so actual forgiveness or assignment of blame isn't really feasible. In the end, it's good that the suboptimal action was stopped, and prevented from being a viable option in the future. Hopefully better decision makers are empowered from this. But there isn't anything personal or criminal in this.

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.


OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

Yes, why? And seriously,  what does that mean?

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't have to be criminal or personal. It's still an expletive-deleted move.

That's business for you. Fortunately, deeper thinking won out this time.

OK, tell me this: why should I get "back onboard" with WotC, as the thread's title insists?

I don't think that anyone should be "on board" with any company, I think that's unhealthy parasocial bonding. I just put a pre-order on Keys from the Golden Vault because it looks interesting, and I'll buy any other books that look interesting, from any company.

 

[Faolyn]

That's business for you. Fortunately, deeper thinking won out this time.

"An extremely high percentage of people, based on this poll, are very upset with us. This means we'll lose money."

That's not exactly deep thinking there.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not the same level of criminal awfulness, no. But WotC did try to "kill off" a lot of 3pps and VTTs. And they only backtracked because they realized they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn't, not because they realized or cared that what they were doing was greedy and harmful.

And that's where the analogy comes in. They tried to do an awful thing. They were stopped. That doesn't mean the attempt just gets ignored. Trying to kill a person and not being able to do it is still a crime. Trying to kill off games is still an explitive-deleted move. Personally, I see no reason to forgive them for trying to be an explitive-deleted.

I mean, I'm not going to organize a boycott or anything like that. I'm just going to enjoy my non-D&D games from now on.

Yeah. An analogy is mean to help with understanding, not represent one thing equating to another. Claiming we're equating what WotC with murder is a Red Herring. It avoids acknowledgement of what we're really saying.

 

[Maxperson]

Every day their attention must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate. Sometimes the subject was a war criminal, but other times it was someone who made a heinous substitution in guacamole.

Guacamole itself is heinous.

 

[Parmandur]

"An extremely high percentage of people, based on this poll, are very upset with us. This means we'll lose money."

That's not exactly deep thinking there.

"Releasing the game into Crestive Commons ultimately benefits out business", however, us pretty high level thinking. And somebody had to make thst case.