Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9244525" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay.&nbsp; It is not clear to me how we are supposed to have known that, but I'll accept it now.I find the connotations of your words to be wholly different from what I am saying.There is a world of difference between, &quot;I am not paying attention,&quot; and &quot;I am aware of what you are doing, but allowing you to go ahead without interference.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; One implies lack of awareness, the other does not.&nbsp; Again, I am pushing back on the &quot;slipped&quot; part, and its connotations.&nbsp; We don't see the details, but there's no particular reason to assume this &quot;slipped&quot;.&nbsp; That a company tries to change its approach years later does not imply the original approach was somehow a process failure.The OGL came out a quarter century ago, and companies are not static or unified in outlook.&nbsp; So, the OGL may have been acceptable in 2000.&nbsp; But, 8 years later when 4e came out, there was a different decision made, possibly by a different person.&nbsp; Then, in 2014 when 5e came out, again a different decision.&nbsp; Then, last year, a decision to try to shift again, quickly followed by a retraction, and the Creative Commons release.Each of these decisions may have been made by different people, with different information (or lack thereof) and different goals in mind.&nbsp; There is a tendency to speak of Hasbro as if it were monolithic beast with a unified will, but in reality we should not think of Hasbro/WotC as a unit when it comes to their decision making.In general, I agree with you.&nbsp; But, the characteristics of the events during that fiasco suggest to me that it was not &quot;Hasbro&quot; as a whole, who saw it one way or another.&nbsp; Those events had some signs of internal struggle over how the licensing should be handled.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9244525, member: 177"] Okay. It is not clear to me how we are supposed to have known that, but I'll accept it now. I find the connotations of your words to be wholly different from what I am saying. There is a world of difference between, "I am not paying attention," and "I am aware of what you are doing, but allowing you to go ahead without interference." One implies lack of awareness, the other does not. Again, I am pushing back on the "slipped" part, and its connotations. We don't see the details, but there's no particular reason to assume this "slipped". That a company tries to change its approach years later does not imply the original approach was somehow a process failure. The OGL came out a quarter century ago, and companies [I]are not static or unified[/I] in outlook. So, the OGL may have been acceptable in 2000. But, 8 years later when 4e came out, there was a different decision made, possibly by a different person. Then, in 2014 when 5e came out, again a different decision. Then, last year, a decision to try to shift again, quickly followed by a retraction, and the Creative Commons release. Each of these decisions may have been made by different people, with different information (or lack thereof) and different goals in mind. There is a tendency to speak of Hasbro as if it were monolithic beast with a unified will, but in reality we should not think of Hasbro/WotC as a unit when it comes to their decision making. In general, I agree with you. But, the characteristics of the events during that fiasco suggest to me that it was not "Hasbro" as a whole, who saw it one way or another. Those events had some signs of internal struggle over how the licensing should be handled. [/QUOTE]

Verification