Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?

[Corjay]

Then I can't help but chuckle because we lost many great RPG designers through many past layoffs.

Speaking of relevancy. That's the second thing you've said that had no relevance, as even you admit in your next statement. The first round was due to acquiring a bunch of employees from TSR. The second round was due to cutting down the staff for the same reason after 3.5 was finished. Is there a third that I don't know about between that one and this one?

Of course, feel free to say that is also moot. All hail to the present WotC corporate regime.

And corporate is all it is or ever will be. It's called a "business". Businesses are run by people and people are imperfect. Name one corporation that has never made a mistake.

It seems your whole argument about WOTC relies solely on the fact that it's a business. Maybe you should take your considerations beyond skin deep and see if you can come up with a real reason to question WOTC's motives. And if you're going to point fingers at WOTC's president, then you're going to need some valid proof that he is the one responsible for whatever it is you use as an example.

Yes, I'm taking the apologist's view, but only until some validity is provided to statements regarding WOTC's motives or their president's decisions. I suppose I take that side so often because I have had plenty of unfounded accusations tossed at me in the past so that I question every time someone makes such statements.

EDIT: Summary: Your point has been that WOTC can't be trusted to do the GSL right because it's a business. Now I'm saying WOTC was a business when it instituted the OGL, which every 3pp seems to love, so the argument makes no sense. Were they somehow not a business when they decided to institute the OGL? Businesses make mistakes because they are run by people. Businesses choose to do things that involve the bottom line. The lawyers that those businesses hire want to create contracts that favor their employer/client. Put all that into a bowl and stir it up, and what you have is what happened with the first version of the GSL. When the bottom line involves pleasing a community, it complicates the equation. Put those people, business, community, and lawyers into a bowl and stir them up, and what you get is the current wait (heck, even the wait prior to the first version), because they're all pulling in different directions. It's the nature of group endeavors.

You say you have no trust that the second GSL will be any better just because WOTC is a business, but I say you should expect something more BECAUSE it's a business. The first result was rejected by all but two (or three?) 3pps and the community at large. This cost WOTC lots of money. You can be sure they have no interest in losing more money. So either they aren't actually going to change the GSL at all, or they're going to make it more palatable, not worse. If they are indeed rethinking the GSL, then they're not doing it to waste their efforts for no change at all. The longer it takes, the better. Because the committee resolving the contract has to ratify each section and subsection in the document until they come to 2/3 majority approval (the amount needed to alter an already ratified document) on each one. If the contract were done in a matter of a week, it wouldn't likely reflect many changes at all.

 

[jmucchiello]

Because the committee resolving the contract has to ratify each section and subsection in the document until they come to 2/3 majority approval (the amount needed to alter an already ratified document) on each one.

Source?

 

[Ranger REG]

Is striking that out somehow supposed to lighten the statement?

No. I could have edited it out.

 

[Corjay]

Source?

Robert's Rules of Order (as I remember it. Could be remembering a different part. If it's not 2/3, then it's 100% vote, which I doubt. A simple majority only works for preliminary approvals). Roberts Rules of Order is the standard handbook for most committees, business or otherwise.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Robert's Rules of Order (as I remember it. Could be remembering a different part. If it's not 2/3, then it's 100% vote, which I doubt. A simple majority only works for preliminary approvals). Roberts Rules of Order is the standard handbook for most committees, business or otherwise.

I think the question is how do you know that that is the method they are using. That works great for committees of equals but corporate environments aren't that. It could well be 1 lead lawyer delegates parts to junior associates then he puts together a revision from their parts that hopefully matches what the president said to change. The Rouse then gets to look it over to see if it is what he wanted. He then gives comments to both the lawyers and the president who then gets to make a unilateral decision as to whether the new version is acceptable or needs to go back for another revision. This may or may not be the way it actually is, but as far as I know corporations act much more as dictatorships than democracies (except for the board of directors).

 

[Corjay]

You're correct. It is an assumption that a committee is working on it, but judging by the update regarding the revised GSL, it would seem that what you are pointing out is how it's being done, instead of by committee.

 

[dmccoy1693]

but as far as I know corporations act much more as dictatorships than democracies (except for the board of directors).

Really, because IME large corporations act like someone that's drunk. Sometimes its really easy to convince a person to do something, even if it is totally against what they'd do when they're sober (quite reasonable). Sometimes they are present enough in mind to know the right thing to do and attempt to do it but are physically impared to do it properly. The analogy kind of breaks down after that, but that much works.

And before a mod mods me, this is not about WotC specifickly. This is just my nebulous, anti-large corporation, cynical, dilbert-esque opinion showing though about large corporations in general.

 

[Corjay]

Well, the analogy is almost accurate, but it breaks down at the point that you assume that the corporation has chosen to get drunk. The reality is that a corporation is more like a person with condition-induced somnolence. Yes, they act like they're drunk, but in reality are fighting desperately to maintain control. Hating a drunk is easy, because you know they can change their state, but is it right to hate someone who has no choice over their state? You say yourself that the state is a part of being a corporation. Therefore it is beyond the corporation's control. So the reason to hate any particular corporation should be over what that corporation can control, and not what it can't.

 

[Orcus]

You're correct. It is an assumption that a committee is working on it, but judging by the update regarding the revised GSL, it would seem that what you are pointing out is how it's being done, instead of by committee.

[Actually, nevermind]

Clark

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Well, the analogy is almost accurate, but it breaks down at the point that you assume that the corporation has chosen to get drunk. The reality is that a corporation is more like a person with condition-induced somnolence. Yes, they act like they're drunk, but in reality are fighting desperately to maintain control. Hating a drunk is easy, because you know they can change their state, but is it right to hate someone who has no choice over their state? You say yourself that the state is a part of being a corporation. Therefore it is beyond the corporation's control. So the reason to hate any particular corporation should be over what that corporation can control, and not what it can't.

Absolutely, it doesn't matter whether they can control it, the state itself is worthy of hate. If they are not capable of breaking up and reorganizing into more effective units then the group collectively and leadership individually are responsible for this inability and may be hated for such.

As for the motives of WoTC? I assume that collectively they are no different than any other large corporation. While individually there are many people in the company that love D&D and RPGs the company long ago grew past the stage when it reflected the individual employees. WoTC and it's parent company Hasbro want to gain as much money as possible on their product lines and increase value to the shareholders. The problem with that is RPGs are a niche market with a different dynamic than those big corporations arose to support. What's good for the community and members of the community is not necessarily what's good for WoTC.

I believe WoTC is acting for it's own benefit and potentially harming the community as a whole. That the market itself is antithetical to and cannot support such a large business in the long term. And that it would probably be better if WoTC folded and smaller more responsive companies like SJG and the current 3PP took over the market.