How about a deadline to WotC?

[justanobody]

Following the discussion via the

button, where did Imaro ask if something was childish? I just cannot seem to find it?

This.

Why is it that some people believe that because WOTC decided to close up their product, and provide a different 3PP use license, that WOTC has violated their rights?

It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.

A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.

This is where I see the "childish" line begin....

 

[Morrus]

I repeat - let's keep the thread on track please, people. It's about a deadline to WotC, not about whether Imaro thinks I think he's childish. Let's drop that line of conversation, please. It's just fanning the flames of a burgeoning argument.

 

[justanobody]

Well I likewise am offended by the comment and it was brought up in context of the thread topic and plays an important role in it when it is said that anyone wanting to give WotC a deadline is considred to be childish.

So I think it is very on topic, personally. Is this also how WotC and/or ENW Publishing views customers that disagree with them, as childish?

If that is the case then maybe a deadline for the GSL is not the thing, but complete stopping buying and using all products and letting consumers know this is how a company feels about them is the best course of action, so rescend my agreement that a deadline criteria is important as something else has come up that takes a higher priority of importance.

 

[Morrus]

Well I likewise am offended by the comment and it was brought up in context of the thread topic and plays an important role in it when it is said that anyone wanting to give WotC a deadline is considred to be childish.

So I think it is very on topic, personally. Is this also how WotC and/or ENW Publishing views customers that disagree with them, as childish?

If you continue to bring it up, you will be asked to leave the thread. We are NOT turning this thread into an argument. I've now said so three times; this will be the last time. I hope I have made myself clear. This goes for everyone.

If you have any further questions about it, feel free to email me. But this thread will return to the original topic.

 

[Mark]

The definition of "Product Identity" in paragraph 1?

That's a new one, AFAIAC.

 

[WayneLigon]

1. Rant and rave like an idiot, but knowing all the while that nothing will really come of it, AND BE MISERABLE.

Well, except for the fact that we know that if enough people rant and rave about something, change usually will occur. They can either literally rant and rave about it, or vote with their dollars. This does occassionally happen and companies back down and try a different tactic - the New Coke debacle is a good case in point. TV shows have been saved by the same sort of thing. Products have ceased production or changed because enough people ranted and raved. The tactic, really, isn't without merit.

However ....

The anger you can see in a lot of the posts comes from the realization - even if they won't admit it - that there are not enough people displeased with the way things have gone.

 

[Dire Bare]

The anger you can see in a lot of the posts comes from the realization - even if they won't admit it - that there are not enough people displeased with the way things have gone.

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

I'd prefer if WotC had the "final" GSL ready way back before August, when they originally planned on releasing it to interested publishers. If they had, more publishers might have jumped on the 4e wagon and we'd have more products available to us right now by some of our favorite companies. I'm disapointed that it did not happen . . . but I don't feel the rage that some seem to here. I still think WotC is overall a pretty solid company with some solid individuals working for them putting out overall solid products I like to spend my money on. They seriously miscalculated with the release of the GSL, and also the Digital Initiative. It happens.

I think trying to impose some sort of deadline to the company with all the power (the D&D IP) is wrong-headed, unnecessarily vindictive, foolish, and would be doomed to have no positive effect. It's their IP, they don't have to share at all, but they do because they feel it strengthens the hobby as a whole which in turn benefits them.

 

[Delta]

I dont know who wrote it, nor do I care; and I don't agree with it; and that, unless that quote is taken out of context, the author does not understand what "freedom of speech" means. If they want to come and say it here, I'll happily say so. I don't associate ethics with free RPG content.

If you have an opinion, feel free to offer it here. I'm not really interested in the opinion of some random person who is not involved in this conversation, just the opinions of those who are here and involved in the conversation.

The "random person" in question was Ryan Dancey, writing in the Open Game Definitions FAQ, published at Wizards.com: Open Game Definitions:Frequently Asked Questions

So my point is this: You may not associate ethics with free RPG content. But the author of the OGL did; the head of WOTC did so at the time of the OGL's release; and it was included as part of the official "Definitions" of Open Gaming.

So at the very least you've got to admit that there's a real difference of philosophy around the issue, and while calling it "childish" may be useful for your business case at the moment, it isn't really intellectually rigorous.

 

[pemerton]

I'm with those who don't really understand all the WoTC-directed hostility.

The GSL has two main components: the bit that says that you may publish a product that uses the D&D trademark, and that such a product may refer to but not substantially reproduce or alter the text in the 4e rulebooks; and the bit that say that, if you do this, you have to drop publication of similar products that contain content derived from the SRD.

The first bit is a pretty functional replication of the OGL for those publishers who wish to provide supplementary material for D&D (leaving aside details like the stat-block problem - I assume that this is the sort of thing the revision is intended to address). It is a functional departure from the OGL for those who want to exploit the market's familiarity with the D&D rules (as incorporated into the SRD) in order to produce RPG material that is not supplementary to D&D. I can see why WoTC have decided to withdraw support for this second sort of endeavour. They have decided that Dancey was wrong in thinking (i) that d20 will conquer the gaming world, and (ii) that this will always be to the financial benefit of WoTC. That's not an absurd conclusion to reach after nearly a decade of experience with the OGL.

The second bit is an attempt to force publishers to choose between supporting 3E or non-D&D RPGs, or supporting 4e (at least on a per-product line basis). By the standards of a commercial licencing agreement that seems only very moderately aggressive to me, but then I'm not involved in the entertainment industry, so that is a purely outsider's perspective.

Those who are defending WoTC by appealing to a libertarian theory of the contract I think are going to far - even those with a much more norm-governed notion of the contract (eg like Xechnao, I think, who seems to reflect something closer to the European notion of the contract) can still agree that it is entirely WoTC's prerogative to decide on what terms it wishes to licence D&D IP to other commercial entities. This is not a case of anti-competitive or otherwise anti-social behaviour, as far as I can tell. No one is being prohibited from participating in the RPG market.

Those who think that WoTC has a moral duty to make the text of the 4e rulebooks reproduceable by other for free I think ought to explain why the 4e rulebooks are different in this respect from every other RPG ever published, or indeed from every other text ever published. Why is WoTC uniquely prohibited from enjoying the benefits that IP law confers on publishers? Why is WoTC uniquely precluded from determining the terms on which it licences the reproduction by others of its text or trademarks?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

The "random person" in question was Ryan Dancey, writing in the Open Game Definitions FAQ, published at Wizards.com: Open Game Definitions:Frequently Asked Questions

So my point is this: You may not associate ethics with free RPG content. But the author of the OGL did; the head of WOTC did so at the time of the OGL's release; and it was included as part of the official "Definitions" of Open Gaming.

So at the very least you've got to admit that there's a real difference of philosophy around the issue, and while calling it "childish" may be useful for your business case at the moment, it isn't really intellectually rigorous.

I believe that A) someone might support open gaming for ethical reasons. I also believe that B) no matter how much someone enjoys somebody else's support of open gaming, it is unreasonable to assume that this support must continue forever. I don't think that beliefs A and B are inconsistent. Statement B certainly doesn't imply (in any intellectually rigorous way) that I believe that ethical motivations for open gaming are unreasonable.