Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Scythian" data-source="post: 9244045" data-attributes="member: 6875986">I'm more than happy to stop talking about this, but I'm also willing to distill my post down to the three questions I asked.  You're welcome to address them or not, but I am legitimately curious as to your answers.1.) You've used loaded language when talking about business owners, suggesting there are things they should do to "actively [be] good people", or to be a "good and ethical person" with respect to preparing for the possibility that another party in a contract will try to renege on that contract.  You've been light on specifics.  In the context of this thread, the business owners we're talking about are OGL licensees, the contract is the OGL, and the other party is WotC.  What specific, concrete steps could licensees have taken, beyond agreeing to the license in good faith and abiding by its terms, to prepare for the possibility that WotC might try to unilaterally dissolve the contract?  (Keep in mind that the OGL was close to 20 years old, lawyers had reviewed it and said it seemed sound, a FAQ on WotC's own site explained what licensees could do if WotC ever tried to change the license, and Ryan Dancey has explained the intent of the OGL numerous times over the years.)2.) In this thread, you've tried to get others to see things from WotC's side, claiming that they somehow ended up party to the OGL without realizing it and came to believe that it hurt them, and you've indicated that it's important for people to understand that.  Do you have any evidence for that claim?  Who dropped the ball there and didn't realize what the OGL was or that the SRDs for 3e and later 5e were being released under it?  The OGL was the cornerstone for WotC's new direction back when they released 3e, and its architect, Ryan Dancey, was both Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons and a tireless advocate for open gaming.  I'm sure that 5e was approved by various executives, and I can't imagine that the WotC legal department didn't do a pass on the book, given that it included a license.You're saying now that you were just describing different scenarios, but that's the only scenario you've really given credence to, and you've indicated that it's important to understanding why WotC wanted to renegotiate the OGL.3.) In the post I previously responded to, you lectured me, stating that my "pain" was clouding my view of what actually happened.  You asked me to consider the motivations of both sides in order to get an accurate view of what took place, and because I don't have an accurate view the "solution" I am "pushing for" is just going to cause problems in the future.I'd like to know which fact or facts I would see differently if my supposed pain wasn't keeping me from seeing things clearly.  Assuming that you convinced me that WotC actually did believe they were saddled with an agreement that was hurting them, how would considering that motivation change my view of the facts of the case?  Finally, how is what I've been advocating (which is basically that contracts are good and parties should not attempt to renege on them) going to cause problems?And now, based on your most recent response, I have one additional question:4.) You're saying now that all you've been trying to get across is that attempting to see things from both sides leads to better solutions than going all Lord of the Flies.  But who in this thread has actually been advocating for going Lord of the Flies?  I don't have a problem with the hyperbole (although I'm surprised to see you engage in it), I just don't know who you're referring to.You can address these questions, or not.  No hard feelings if you don't.  However, they're important enough to me that I wanted to restate them with a little more clarity.  (Sometimes it's tough to tell how long a post is getting in the little edit window.)  Well, except for number four, which is obviously new and makes me wonder if we've been involved in two completely different conversations.</blockquote>

Verification