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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 8889406" data-attributes="member: 5948">I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing there.  What are you suggesting WotCs motivations behind the terms of 1.1 actually were?  Because the revocation of 1.0a is only one part of the objections to 1.1 - the enormous and extortionate percentage of revenue WotC are demanding, the ability for WotC to use content published under 1.1 without recompense or credit and then bar its creator from publishing it, and the claim that 1.1 is updateable and revocable by WotC at will and with no consultation at any time are at least as awful.  The most charitable scenario I can possibly come up with for the terms of 1.1 is that it was never really intended to be used.  Possibly WotC wanted to ensure that nobody released a Pathfinderlike set of 5e core books once OneDnD came out and created a competitor, so they dreamed up a cunning and rarther unscrupulous plan.  They assembled the bigger 3pps who were most likely to do such a thing, presented them with an clearly and totally unacceptable new OGL, but then tried to convince them to sign bespoke agreements that were much more generous and less draconian, but which firmly locked them out of releasing 5e core books based on the 5e SRD.  Once the likely competitors were hamstrung, WotC could have chucked 1.1 in the bin and either released OneD&D under 1.0a or else released a more sensible 1.0b.  But once the terms of 1.1 leaked to the wider public, things rapidly got out of WotCs control.This is ALL complete speculation, of course, and I believe the much more likely explanation is that WotC are just being jerks, having imported a bunch of executives from places like Microsoft and Amazon where monopolistic practises and abuse of market power are business plans A, B, and C.</blockquote>

Verification