How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Horwath]

Regardless of what WotC eventually says, I have to imagine the morale on the D&D team is at a historic low. This is likely a dream job for many of them, getting to work on designing a D&D edition, and it's been utterly ruined by the clowns upstairs.

This is so true.

the lot if probably updating CVs as we speak.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They're right on it being predictable, but expressing an opinion or whether it's okay or not ethically/morally (which they are) is going entirely outside of their remit and talking crap (doesn't matter if you're a "Harvard lawyer", your opinion is no more valid than anyone else on that), and attacking a journalist? That's outright messed-up. That is itself unethical - suggesting pitchforks particularly is creepy.

I think it is worth pointing out too that up until last month, everyone said what is now unfolding was not possible, was never going to happen. Even when it first leaked, people were so convinced it was legally impossible that the leak itself was presumed to be false (other reasons for that too but that was part of it). So maybe it was predictable that a big company like Hasbro would resist the OGL, but pretty much everyone in the hobby, including many lawyers, seemed to believe this was a permanent open license that could not be ended. Perhaps there was a chicken little who warned us and I never heard, that is entirely possible, but I do not recall anyone saying this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Harvard lawyer"

Where I am from this is a point against them

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe there is humor here I am missing, but it doesn't seem like their criticism of the article necessarily means the concerns about the OGL are unwarranted.

I think that's a completely correct understanding.

Everything the OA people have said basically seems to be "We think it's totally cool and rad for a corporation to do this!".

Which has nothing to do with the law. And the attacks on the journalist are beyond the pale, especially as you say, as many other lawyers (some probably better-qualified in this field than the OA guys - only one of whom is even a lawyer) agree with the conclusions drawn so far. It's just really out-of-line stuff.

Perhaps there was a chicken little who warned us and I never heard, that is entirely possible, but I do not recall anyone saying this.

About deauthorization? Nope. That's completely out of the blue.

That the OGL was a trap? Yes, but this stopped being a common opinion by like 2003/4, and it wasn't based on the legalities, just the idea that making stuff for WotC's D&D was a mistake, long-term.

That WotC didn't like the OGL? Sure. But what confused the issue there is that WotC intentionally brought back the OGL for 5E. Given that the licence had stood the test of time and WotC were themselves encouraging it, I don't think anyone was particularly concerned.

What people expected with 1D&D was GSL 2.0. But we've got is much more extreme than the GSL, especially if it's intended, as WotC have tried to suggest, deauthorize the 1.0a licence for everyone all the time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Where I am from this is a point against them

I mean, I'm British but I don't know, but I was under the impression the best law school in the US was Yale not Harvard. And like that had been the case for decades?

This seems to be supported by:

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Law school rankings in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And also just by how Americans talk about law schools (I obviously work with quite a lot of American lawyers and are friends with a couple).

Harvard is up there but like, it's not "special".

 

[Ibrandul]

Have to disagree on one important point:

Ryan Dancey left wotc in 2002, and in the interview yesterday with roll for combat he explained that the wotc FAQ was not made by him, it was made after he left.

That means that wotc, not Ryan Dancey, wrote the FAQ & included the decision to allow things like video games with the OGL 1.0a. Its in the FAQ. After RD left, they still supported the FAQ until they released 4th edition.

If they never wanted the OGL, why did they support it for six years?

Snarf (correctly, I think) wrote that Hasbro never wanted the OGL.

It's clear that WotC wanted it, at least at first. Dancey wasn't some anarchist intent on sabotaging the company's business model. The OGL was a business decision, and it achieved its intended effect—at least in the short term, at the beginning of 3e.

It did what it was supposed to, again at least in the short term—that is, WotC benefited from it in the way they expected to—when they used it again for 5e. It went a long way toward assuring the game's near-total market dominance at a time when that was in question. How long is up for debate; what's not debatable is that WotC benefited.

And so, now that the the game is dominant again, just like at the end of the 3.5 era, it was never really reasonable to expect that they would issue a 6e SRD under the OGL. Because they don't need the benefit at the moment. Yet OGL 1.1 goes far beyond that, by destroying open gaming entirely, in a way that OGL 1.0 was (faultily) drafted with the intention of disallowing.

Maybe Opening Arguments will prove me wrong on Friday—and I intend to try to put aside my prejudices and listen to their argument...er, openly—but it sure seems to me they don't understand any of this. And when anyone (not me, I haven't interacted with them) tries to explain, they're unconscionably rude and dismissive.

their assertion about the journalists intent seems weird

As I pointed out in a different thread here, at the end of the article the journalist does indeed take one piece of quoted material totally out of context. That's very bad form, and to be honest it's hard not to see it as a deliberate misrepresentation. But that's a relatively minor part of the article, and it's not one I've seen anyone, anywhere, focusing on. I can find nothing else in the article that isn't verified by the now-available leaked document.

Harvard is up there but like, it's not "special".

I'm on your side, Ruin Explorer, but the last thing we need right now is edition warring about law schools!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm on your side, Ruin Explorer, but the last thing we need right now is edition warring about law schools!

Sure but they OA people assert that they're big and special because the lawyer one went to Harvard, I just think it's kind of a funny claim.

 

[Branduil]

I mean, I'm British but I don't know, but I was under the impression the best law school in the US was Yale not Harvard. And like that had been the case for decades?

This seems to be supported by:

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Law school rankings in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And also just by how Americans talk about law schools (I obviously work with quite a lot of American lawyers and are friends with a couple).

Harvard is up there but like, it's not "special".

Not going to speak for that poster, but to me, it's not so much "Harvard" as any Ivy League school, in the sense that, especially people in the legal profession who make a big deal about graduating from them, tend to be of a certain type, and let's just say the OA people are acting true to form.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The question is, if you interpret WotC's silence that way, how do you interpret Paizo and CR's silence?

Not too positively, if I can be honest.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think if they had come out with that on Monday (9th) they could have undone most of the damage. It's increasingly getting too late to rebuild bridges, I think.

Like I said, I dont do grudges, so in my book, its never too late. Its just the actions to mend the relationship requires more and more work. That obstacle could have been a small hill, but instead they made it Mount Everest with their silence. Still, its not insurmountable, IMO.

And they need to be willing and honest about doing the work.