Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 8899881" data-attributes="member: 2642">For the same reason he produced the OP, which is, to be as charitable as possible, poor reading comprehension.He was ostensibly responding to arguments against his take that the OGL was some kind of trick to drive people to DM's Guild. There are many reasons that have been brought up why this is not only wrong, but obviously wrong.  (Morrus already knows all this, of course; this part isn't so much a response to him as an attempt to summarize as much of OP's almost fractal wrongness as possible in a single post.)<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It's chronologically impossible given that DM's Guild didn't exist at the time the OGL debuted and wouldn't for over 15 years.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The DM's Guild doesn't even use the OGL, but a completely different license unique to itself.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ryan Dancey and others have been extremely clear about the purpose of the OGL both at the time of its creation and since, especially over the course of this month. It's been very consistent and no-one has given any specific, detailed reason to doubt the particulars of their accounts. The only objection to them seems to be that they don't fit the narrative certain people would like to push.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The people responsible for the two are completely different; I can't think of anyone at a management level at WotC who would have been there in 2000, much less had any responsibility for the OGL in particular.</li> </ol>The OP seems to have read the various arguments to this effect, and somehow concluded that people were denying WotC had anything to do with DM's Guild at all, something nobody actually claimed.Set aside, for the moment, the hundreds of pages of discussion on these topics, much of it among actual lawyers with relevant expertise. Let's even overlook that (contrary to OP's claims) a fair amount of that discussion does directly address the "you can't copyright game rules" point, and demonstrate that it's nowhere near as simple as OP thinks it is. After all, that's quite a slog to go through. I've read a lot of it, but probably less than a third of what exists. So I can't entirely blame OP for missing points buried deep in those threads.But that doesn't cover the four points above. I don't understand how OP can consider himself in a position to make pronouncements like this while being ignorant of things this basic. The first two in particular pretty much drum him clean out of the "people who deserve to be taken seriously" category. I mean, I thought it was bad that there were people (plural) in the ORC thread who didn't understand the difference between a license and an SRD, but some of them were making good points in spite of this rather remarkable blind spot. But when someone with a list of blind spots like that also thinks that image is a good response to the points being raised in this thread?Bleh. I've already put more effort into this than it's worth, and frankly, more effort than this person put into the OP. This is the last time I plan on acknowledging this particular poster's existence.</blockquote>

Verification