D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Great. Now I'm envisioning this showing up
View attachment 343353

I think I just hired these guys to shovel my driveway.

 

[mamba]

Here's a question for you: do you think that there are ever more sides to an argument than your own?

yes, at least initially. I then evaluate the different sides / arguments and arrive at a conclusion, and unless you present new information I likely will stick to that one (which can be different from where I started).

Maybe you can make a better case with the same information than the last guy did and still change my opinion, but the more arguments already inform my current position, the harder that gets

Is it possible that you are right, but maybe the side you are arguing against has valid points too?

see above, initially certainly, but the valid points then become part of my understanding, so after a while what is left are the points I consider invalid / not convincing

Is it possible to reach a consensus, or do you have to win at all costs?

consensus is possible in general, but that also depends on both sides, not just one

Is 'winning' even the point of a discussion?

if it were, I would not have any here, it never seems to work out that way for anyone

 

[mamba]

Err... what? I feel you might be taking this over the line here.

probably, do not think anything here was bullying, it was a reaction to

Honestly I am seriously contemplating quitting the forums due to this.

and me lacking a better term

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Hey @mamba ! Not trying to ignore you, but your last few posts have been more of the 'hot under the collar' variety and less of the 'something I can respond to' kind. Not in keeping with your normal posting style. If you can reframe your thoughts in a cooler and more cogent manner... happy to respond.

 

[mamba]

Hey @mamba ! Not trying to ignore you, but your last few posts have been more of the 'hot under the collar' variety and less of the 'something I can respond to' kind. Not in keeping with your normal posting style. If you can reframe your thoughts in a cooler and more cogent manner... happy to respond.

maybe I could, but I am not really interested in rehashing the OGL drama and derailing this thread, so I am not sure I should / want to

In broad strokes

1) I believe WotC benefited quite a bit from the OGL

2) I do not think that they can legally revoke it, their argument for that was barely enough to not be laughed out of the room when they showed up with version 1.1

3) they tried to bully/ strongarm everyone into signing on to 1.1

4) the fact that they failed despite their size shows how awful that deal really was. No one could afford to, even at the risk of being bankrupted in dragged out court proceedings

5) the only thing that prevented a catastrophe was the public stepping in, without that the 3pps would have died

So WotC is not getting any praise from me for how they handled it. The SRD in CC became a requirement to keep any 3pps, because no one trusted the OGL / WotC any more

I do not see this as WotC renegotiating what they considered to be a bad deal in a fair, legal, and respectful manner, the way @TheSword is painting it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

maybe I could, but I am not really interested in rehashing the OGL drama and derailing this thread, so I am not sure I should / want to

I thought I was not interested in rehashing year old nonsense either, but here we are!

In broad strokes

1) I believe WotC benefited quite a bit from the OGL

As do I.

2) I do not think that they can legally revoke it, their argument for that was barely enough to not be laughed out of the room when they showed up with version 1.1

IANAL, so have no idea idea if it can be legally revoked. Right off the bat not impressed with this 'laughed out of the room' comment. Are you a lawyer? Is there something you know that I don't?

3) they tried to bully/ strongarm everyone into signing on to 1.1

That I would agree with. I would add though that they were coming from the position of being the injured party. They bought a company, then had a subsidiary push out an agreement i.e. the OGL that they perceived as hurting them. In my opinion (and I think yours), it helped them. But that aside, they did not pay attention to what was happening within their own enterprise, and poof! here is this thing that gave away their IP (again, I think this was a good thing in the long run, but please look at it from the perspective of the folks who actually owned the property!).

That being said, they didn't approach this in a conciliatory manner. Which does aggravate me, as a person, but I understand it. In these sorts of discussions, you are often dropped into a pool of sharks. You have to approach teeth first, or you lose some important meat. I would ask you to remember the context of these corporate discussions.

4) the fact that they failed despite their size shows how awful that deal really was. No one could afford to, even at the risk of being bankrupted in dragged out court proceedings

The initial deal was pretty awful. In other circumstances (see above), I would be pretty hard on an individual human being who did that. I would not expect anyone to accept that deal. I would, however, expect them to counter.

5) the only thing that prevented a catastrophe was the public stepping in, without that the 3pps would have died

Maybe. I would hope that 3rd party companies would have enough business sense and fortitude to weather a request like that on their own, without the 'help' of the general public. If they would have folded otherwise, I would suggest that they didn't have enough knowledge to run a business to stay afloat regardless.

I do not see this as WotC renegotiating what they considered to be a bad deal in a fair, legal, and respectful manner, the way @TheSword is painting it.

I hope what I've said puts that in a different light for you.

 

[bedir than]

I'm still confused about this sidebar conversation regarding last year's OGL issues.

How are they related to not playing 5e by Kobold or EN or SlyFlourish or your own table?
Yes, I see that there are a few voices vigorously engaging in debate about that time period.

But the concept in this thread is about playing 5e without WotC.
So what WotC did and does is meaningless to this conversation.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm still confused about this sidebar conversation regarding last year's OGL issues.

How are they related to not playing 5e by Kobold or EN or SlyFlourish or your own table?
Yes, I see that there are a few voices vigorously engaging in debate about that time period.

But the concept in this thread is about playing 5e without WotC.
So what WotC did and does is meaningless to this conversation.

I think what you wanted to say was 'I'm bored with this sidebar, let's stick to the main topic'. Fair enough, I can respect that. But, worried that you might cause 'offense', you acted like you were 'confused'. That, I have less respect for.

 

[The Scythian]

Are there any companies that actually closed down because of the OGL situation? Any, that weren’t just one guy operating out of the study in their spare time.

Saying that it only hurt the little guys might not be the winning argument you think it is.

I have no idea how many of the bigger licensees shut down. What I do know is that a lot of the bigger licensees were the first to be contacted, and they spent the better part of three months not knowing if their businesses would be viable after January 4th. Some of those bigger licensees were making pay-your-mortgage-and-put-your-kids-through-school money. Some of the bigger licensees were making pay-your-employees-who-are-paying-their-mortgages-and-putting-their-kids-through-school money. Even if WotC ended up backing off and those businesses ended up not shutting down, they were forced into a period of intense and distressing uncertainty. All for the "crime" of agreeing to and abiding by the terms of a license freely offered by WotC.

But here's the thing: licensees are licensees are licensees. It doesn't matter if they're Sony securing a license to make Spider-Man films, or publishers of any size agreeing to the terms of the OGL, their rights within those legal agreements should be honored as long as they abide by the terms of those agreements, whether it's one guy in his study making enough to buy a coffee every two months, or Paizo, or even WotC (as they're a party to the agreement too).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Saying that it only hurt the little guys might not be the winning argument you think it is.

I have no idea how many of the bigger licensees shut down. What I do know is that a lot of the bigger licensees were the first to be contacted, and they spent the better part of three months not knowing if their businesses would be viable after January 4th. Some of those bigger licensees were making pay-your-mortgage-and-put-your-kids-through-school money. Some of the bigger licensees were making pay-your-employees-who-are-paying-their-mortgages-and-putting-their-kids-through-school money. Even if WotC ended up backing off and those businesses ended up not shutting down, they were forced into a period of intense and distressing uncertainty. All for the "crime" of agreeing to and abiding by the terms of a license freely offered by WotC.

If you're hanging your hat on a thing as precarious as that... you maybe should be prepared. If you have purchased a house and have kids who are depending on you for their education... be prepared. If you have entered a career that has risks, be an adult and recognise those risks and have a backup plan.

This is not an excuse.

You are hooking your livelihood to a dream. How fun would it be for your hobby to pay your bills? It would, actually, be awesome. But you need to be prepared for the possibility (actually, likelihood) that it doesn't pan out.

But here's the thing: licensees are licensees are licensees. It doesn't matter if they're Sony securing a license to make Spider-Man films, or publishers of any size agreeing to the terms of the OGL, their rights within those legal agreements should be honored as long as they abide by the terms of those agreements, whether it's one guy in his study making enough to buy a coffee every two months, or Paizo, or even WotC (as they're a party to the agreement too).

What's the point you are trying to make here? I read: the whoever you are, when you agree to a contract, your rights are equal to the big spenders. For sure, agreed. Is there some point you're trying to make that I'm missing?