Alternate Alignment system

[pemerton]

It shows no such thing. It shows that there are different people in charge with different ideas about the direction the company should be going. It does not show that OGL was flawed in any way.

I think Corjay's point is that, if we assume that those in charge of WoTC are rational economic actors, then we can infer from their changes to the licence that the OGL was not believed by them to be economically beneficial to WoTC. If we also assume that their beliefs are likely to be well-founded (given that they have the best access to relevant data) then we can infer that the OGL actually was not economically beneficial to WoTC.

Now some people appear to believe that either (i) those in charge of WoTC are not rational economic actors, or (ii) their beliefs are not well-founded. I think Corjay is also questioning the foundation for those beliefs. In particular, I don't think that Corjay accepts that you can show someone is irrational just by labellling them a "suit". For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Corjay on that point.

 

[Corjay]

I think Corjay's point is that, if we assume that those in charge of WoTC are rational economic actors, then we can infer from their changes to the licence that the OGL was not believed by them to be economically beneficial to WoTC. If we also assume that their beliefs are likely to be well-founded (given that they have the best access to relevant data) then we can infer that the OGL actually was not economically beneficial to WoTC.

Now some people appear to believe that either (i) those in charge of WoTC are not rational economic actors, or (ii) their beliefs are not well-founded. I think Corjay is also questioning the foundation for those beliefs. In particular, I don't think that Corjay accepts that you can show someone is irrational just by labellling them a "suit". For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Corjay on that point.

Thank you, pemerton. That's exactly what I'm saying (among other things), though not near so eloquently.

 

[Corjay]

It shows no such thing. It shows that there are different people in charge with different ideas about the direction the company should be going. It does not show that OGL was flawed in any way.

First, "different ideas about the direction" is a variable being introduced that cannot be assumed. Second, businesses don't change practices for the sake of change. Change is expensive. If they changed, it's because the potential income would be benefited by the change. The amount of change depends on how much information being changed was determined to be a detriment to improving the financial benefit. Third, what's being assumed here is that a change in one or two managers in the company affects the decisions made by the company's lawyers, financial advisers, and marketing. It would take a substantial overhaul of its management to accomplish such a grand change, and frankly, I see no evidence that such a fundamental shift in WOTC's operations has occurred. As far as I know, the same people are in charge that were in charge 7 years ago. They simply have shifted positions. You all are going to have to come up with better claims than "the people who matter" or "suits". Name some names and show how it has affected the decision making regarding this document. What is so different about the new person's view that's different from the old person's view, and show how they have the influence to change this document.

You see, these are huge variables. My view doesn't requires such great infusions of external factors. My logic is: the document was bad, therefore it got drastically changed. Lots of avenues got cut off, showing that the cut off avenues were as bad for profits as I suspected (confirmation of a theory I had before the GSL was revealed).

I've made no claim beyond the evidence of a changed document. You all, however, are tossing in external factors based on claims that have nothing to do with the document itself. So, while I can infer that a contract costs money to change and therefore has to have a bottom line for people to change, you all are declaring that a new unknown employee in an unknown position on the third floor of your place of work sent a memo to your boss to make your job harder, just because the new employee has different views about how your job is run than the person that used to be in his job, based on no evidence at all but daydreaming. The assumption there is: He's new, therefore this new change is his fault.

 

[Lizard]

As far as I know, the same people are in charge that were in charge 7 years ago. .

If this is "as far as you know", you don't know very far, and that pretty much calls your ability to make useful judgments about the OGL into serious doubt.

Try "none of the same people are involved". Not Peter Adkison, not Ryan Dancey, not Anthony Valterra. Pretty much everyone who supported the OGL is gone.

Your assumption that this is a rational plan based on sales analysis is suspect; it has all the hallmarks of the new alpha males marking their territory, nothing more.

Given that one of 4e's biggest boosters, Clark Peterson, has said he cannot work with the GSL, and that other quality producers, such as Green Ronin and Atlas Games, have said likewise, if the goal of the GSL was to guarantee high-quality, top-tier, support for 4e, it is an objective failure at this point. Mongoose and Goodman are the only major players who have expressed a firm commitment. It will be interesting to see what the market looks like a year from now.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

If this is "as far as you know", you don't know very far, and that pretty much calls your ability to make useful judgments about the OGL into serious doubt.

Try "none of the same people are involved". Not Peter Adkison, not Ryan Dancey, not Anthony Valterra. Pretty much everyone who supported the OGL is gone.

Your assumption that this is a rational plan based on sales analysis is suspect; it has all the hallmarks of the new alpha males marking their territory, nothing more.

Given that one of 4e's biggest boosters, Clark Peterson, has said he cannot work with the GSL, and that other quality producers, such as Green Ronin and Atlas Games, have said likewise, if the goal of the GSL was to guarantee high-quality, top-tier, support for 4e, it is an objective failure at this point. Mongoose and Goodman are the only major players who have expressed a firm commitment. It will be interesting to see what the market looks like a year from now.

Thank you for that.

I will also point out that companies make radical changes to direction all the time based on the belief of those in charge. Companies regulary swap positions about focusing on core competecies or diversification. This does not make one or the other the correct decision but rather normally reflects the views of whoever is in charge and is often the result of a new leader coming in and setting up shop his way. Lets also not make the assumption that just because someone is put in charge of a company that they are always making the most rational decision possible. I am not calling them irrational for being a suit, but that neither rationality or irrationality can be assumed based on someones position in a company.

 

[Corjay]

If this is "as far as you know", you don't know very far, and that pretty much calls your ability to make useful judgments about the OGL into serious doubt.

Try "none of the same people are involved". Not Peter Adkison, not Ryan Dancey, not Anthony Valterra. Pretty much everyone who supported the OGL is gone.

Your assumption that this is a rational plan based on sales analysis is suspect; it has all the hallmarks of the new alpha males marking their territory, nothing more.

Given that one of 4e's biggest boosters, Clark Peterson, has said he cannot work with the GSL, and that other quality producers, such as Green Ronin and Atlas Games, have said likewise, if the goal of the GSL was to guarantee high-quality, top-tier, support for 4e, it is an objective failure at this point. Mongoose and Goodman are the only major players who have expressed a firm commitment. It will be interesting to see what the market looks like a year from now.

Well, you see, that's called "information". I now have names associated with it. Now there's something to hang a hat on that didn't exist in this argument before you pointed out the names and clearly identified the situation. Even still, I seriously doubt it's about people pissing their name in the snow. It could very well be that the new people have a more objective view of it and have no vested interest in championing a dead horse. Thus, we're all correct, but for the motive of money, not territory marking.

By the way, I was thinking post-layoffs, but I forgot that 3e was designed by the old TSR crew.

Yes, Brown, companies do make the type of changes you're pointing out, but you'll find it happens because the one company that buys the other company already has a successful means of operation, and usually, the one who gets bought out is being bought out because their method of operation wasn't working, so it makes sense to change everything to the more fiscally effective method. But a license is a contract, not just a way of operating a business. Contracts are designed, not to reflect a business ideology, but to make the most money possible. The ideology only defines what type of contracts and how low the business is willing to stoop. This will affect contracts very little unless the business has a skewed ethic. The fact is, the OGL was indeed a poorly thought out document. The reason the GSL is being rejected, as I said, is because of subsection 6.1. I guarantee these businesses would swallow every drop of the GSL outside of 6.1 if 6.1 gave them more agreeable freedom. The OGL was so favored by those businesses, because it gave them license to hump WOTC. The GSL is hated because it not only doesn't let them hump WOTC anymore, but 6.1 humps them back.

 

[jgbrowning]

The fact is, the OGL was indeed a poorly thought out document.

I disagree.

joe b.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, you see, that's called "information". I now have names associated with it. Now there's something to hang a hat on that didn't exist in this argument before you pointed out the names and clearly identified the situation.

Corjay, we (excluding you) have been discussing the OGL for 8 years now. We assume everyone knows that 8 years of history like the back of their hand. When we disagree with you, it apparently is because you are misinformed and we don't realize it. This is not an indictment against you. But several times in several threads we have disagreed with you and many times it came out 20 posts later that you lacked some key piece of information that was the basis of our argument. Can I ask you to consider asking questions before you state an opinion since you seem to make decisions based on limited information? Seriously, it would benefit those of us who don't want to rehash all the old OGL arguments from 2001 and 2002 again today.

Even still, I seriously doubt it's about people pissing their name in the snow.

You are lucky if you've never seen a new management team come in and just obliterate everything that happened before. This happens all the time. And not just in mergers. Someone departs the company and the person moved into his spot (whether laterally or from below) decides his predecessor was an idiot and changes all the operating procedures. All the time.

The OGL was so favored by those businesses, because it gave them license to hump WOTC.

I can't take any argument seriously which involve companies having carnal knowledge of one another.

This I assume refers to the bleeding of money. The only way to assume WotC lost as much money as 3pps gained is by assuming that RPG sales are a zero-sum game. I do not think they are and I doubt many others arguing with me do either. If you do think RPG sales are zero-sum, we must agree to disagree.

 

[Corjay]

Corjay, we (excluding you) have been discussing the OGL for 8 years now. We assume everyone knows that 8 years of history like the back of their hand. When we disagree with you, it apparently is because you are misinformed and we don't realize it. This is not an indictment against you. But several times in several threads we have disagreed with you and many times it came out 20 posts later that you lacked some key piece of information that was the basis of our argument.

Actually, that is an indictment, and unfounded to point it out of me and not everyone else, because everyone gets on the wrong side of a point. I'm just one of the few that actually admits it. Everyone else just drops out when they find they're wrong in a conversation, so you can't actually say "they said oops". And I also challenge you to point out all 20, because I know it hasn't been more than a handful of times.

You are lucky if you've never seen a new management team come in and just obliterate everything that happened before. This happens all the time. And not just in mergers. Someone departs the company and the person moved into his spot (whether laterally or from below) decides his predecessor was an idiot and changes all the operating procedures. All the time.

You have misinterpreted my disagreement. I didn't challenge that people come in and change things. What I challenge is that someone changes a contract for the sake of change. Doing it for financial reasons is solid. Doing it to mark their territory, on the other hand, is not common.

I can't take any argument seriously which involve companies having carnal knowledge of one another.

This I assume refers to the bleeding of money. The only way to assume WotC lost as much money as 3pps gained is by assuming that RPG sales are a zero-sum game. I do not think they are and I doubt many others arguing with me do either. If you do think RPG sales are zero-sum, we must agree to disagree.

That whole last paragraph is beyond me. I have no idea what "3pps" is. I also don't know what you're asking with if I "think RPG sales are zero-sum". If you're asking if I think RPG's don't make money, then no, I think they DO make money. But if you're asking if I think the sales themselves are a "zero-sum game", then I have no idea what you're asking.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, that is an indictment, and unfounded to point it out of me and not everyone else, because everyone gets on the wrong side of a point. I'm just one of the few that actually admits it. Everyone else just drops out when they find they're wrong in a conversation, so you can't actually say "they said oops". And I also challenge you to point out all 20, because I know it hasn't been more than a handful of times.

No, it isn't. The fact that you have acknowledged your errors is why it isn't. I said you have made assumptions without all the facts at hand. It has happened several times. All I'm asking is that you avoid making statements like "The heads of WotC's D&D department hasn't changed in 7 years" unless you are sure that's a fact.

All 20? Read what I wrote again. I said "it comes out 20 posts later...." indicating that after you make an assumption it take 20 posts back and forth before someone else figures out your assumption. I didn't say you made 20 mistakes.

You have misinterpreted my disagreement. I didn't challenge that people come in and change things. What I challenge is that someone does it without financial reasons.

And I say people do come in and make changes without financial reason. I say they make changes just because. I say they make changes so they can say to their boss, "I'm doing something." If you've never seen this in business, I envy you.

I have no idea what "3pps" is, so that whole last paragraph is foreign to me.

3rd party publishers. I will grant that 3pp is not an 8 year old term. Still, it was created during the run up to the GSL release. I thought you were that current.