Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Nikosandros]

It has been a long time, but I'm 98% positive that D&D was no longer being published when WotC bought TSR, for a period of at least several months if not longer. No official, "We're dropping D&D" announcement, but no new books, no new magazines, no nothing for months. Was it D&D's "fault" TSR went under as opposed to other factors? D&D was TSR's flagship product. It kept TSR alive on life support long after they should have gone under due to the terrible mismanagement of the company.

That's basically my point. TSR was in such a poor shape at the end, thatit was even unable to keep printing D&D. But it wasn't like they stopped printing D&D, because they were unable to sell it. It was because they didn't have the money to pay the printer.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

You seem to equate "doing things differently" with "being out of favor". Doubt I'll change your mind with a strange understanding like that, but Charles is quite clearly saying that the overall consensus during his tenure was that OGL/d20 = good, but let's do things somewhat differently when we get the chance.

Saying the OGL was "out of favor" based on Charles posts is just as ridiculous as claiming that 3rd Edition was "out of favor" (which, of course, some angry fans have claimed). It's clear (to me at least) that currently, the overall consensus at WotC is that OGL/d20 = good and D&D 3e = good, but that given the chance they wanted to do some things differently, so GSL = better and D&D 4e = better. Not even remotely "out of favor" or anything of the sort!

Not from my personal interpretation of the marketing of 4E. 3E=Bad was what it sounded like to me. The GSL is not doing things better, it is doing things so radicly different that the GSL =/= OGL in any way. But then people differ.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think that whether the GSL was mandated to Scott is the key question, and in a corporation, a "cadre of suits" is not entirely mythical. Lawyers and managers abound. That phrase "mythical cadre of suits" seems to sidestep the key argument with a dismissive turn of phrase.

Yep. It's called "Spin". I was beginning to think I was being overly harsh about something of which it seemed I was the only one seeing it (and therefore doubting myself as to whether it really existed). But apparently I wasn't just shooting at shadows. Won't doubt myself about this again.

So, of this I'm now sure:

I'm beginning to see a consistent trend of this "Spin" from certain sources.




Also, for clarification purpose:

In Favor means that which is preferred or approved of - as in a GSL would be a preferred course.

Out of Favor means that which is no longer preferred or not approved of - as in the OGL is good, but no longer our preferred course.


So, without the "Spin", and as per the definition of the phrase - the OGL fell out of favor.


(If you don't believe me, look it up ourselves.)

 

[wedgeski]

In Favor means that which is preferred or approved of - as in a GSL would be a preferred course.

Out of Favor means that which is no longer preferred or not approved of - as in the OGL is good, but no longer our preferred course.

Oh good grief.

 

[CharlesRyan]

In a corporation, a "cadre of suits" is not entirely mythical. Lawyers and managers abound. That phrase "mythical cadre of suits" seems to sidestep the key argument with a dismissive turn of phrase.

I think you're making my point for me, but from the other side. It's the people who assume a "cadre of suits" are mandating the decisions of the hardworking custodians of D&D (Brand and R&D) which is dismissive. Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.

Let me further illustrate my point by talking about the WotC legal department. When I was at WotC, my 2-year-old daughter was best friends with the WotC legal department's 2-year-old daughter. My family and I went to the Woodland Park Zoo with the WotC legal department on Saturdays. I still consider the WotC legal department a personal friend and look forward to a chat on the rare occasions I'm back in Seattle.

So even when you look beyond the individuals you know, who deserve both the credit and the occasional blame that goes with their non-minion status, the "cadre of suits" is still a boogeyman. Yes, there are stakeholders at WotC, as in any organization, beyond the immediate decision-makers, and yes, some of those are lawyers and managers. But they're still individuals who love what WotC does and are only trying to contribute. Amalgamating them into some vague corporate evil doesn't really advance any conversation here on ENWorld, and simply isn't accurate.

Look, I'm not saying that I know who was responsible for the direction of the GSL, or any other decision made at WotC in the past three years. (In fact, let me specifically say the opposite: I don't!) What I am saying is that segregating WotC's decisions into those made by "real" people and those made my a vague cloud of "corporatrons" shifts any conversation out of the realm of substantive discussion and into the world of fiction. And if you base your opinions on a belief in this mythical cadre, your opinions just aren't reflective of reality.

 

[CharlesRyan]

You say during your time opinions about it varied. You also say that with hindsight how you (plural) might have implemented it differently.

But opinions varied since day 1.

And what major, groundbreaking initiative has ever been perfectly implemented the first time? There's virtually nothing I've ever done in my entire life, no matter how successful, that I can't look back on with the benefit of hindsight and say "if I ever do that again, I'll make a few changes." Why would the OGL be different?

Clearly, with the GSL, WotC has taken the open D&D license in a somewhat different direction. But, as xechnao cogently pointed out, it's a different time, a different edition, and a different context. No matter how happy one might be with the OGL, it might not be the right licensing model for the times for a variety of reasons (many of which might be entirely invisible to us, the outside observers).

My point is just that "fell out of favour in the Hasbro era" is simply too strong a statement to be accurate, no matter how "true" it might have become on the internet. If you think you're in a better position than me to know, then you're wrong.

(I'll also point out that the OGL was created and implemented in the "Hasbro era." I think this ties into my other point that many people have a kneejerk associate of negatives with corporate meddling.)

 

[CharlesRyan]

Yep. It's called "Spin".

Talk about sidestepping with a dismissive turn of phrase!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Clearly, with the GSL, WotC has taken the open D&D license in a somewhat different direction.

Seriously, Charles? You're really going with that?


Jeff

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Seriously, Charles? You're really going with that?

180 degrees is somewhat different.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.

And let me just say, those people deserve way more than 1hp each