How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Reynard]

So it looks like WoTC were going to stream on Twitch today, but now not until Tuesday. Screenshot from my PC just now:

View attachment 272202

It looks like that is a regularly scheduled stream.

 

[DarkCrisis]

In response to Jadeite's post that I cant actually quote

 

[CapnZapp]

Pretty much everyone disputes (not necessarily repudiates, but disputes) WotC's right to terminate 1.0a, and the only change that is possible is by creating a new version of the OGL, which, according to the OGL 1.0a, doesn't do anything to the OGL 1.0a.

No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.

Not that this matters, since the OGL was only ever as good as the trust licensors put in the license.

Which today is zero.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.

No, that's a classic No True Scotsman logical fallacy of the googlefarbing silliest kind. You're not presenting argument, or even really an opinion, you're just No True Scotsman'ing.

Mod Note: Language

 

[Henadic Theologian]

No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.

Not that this matters, since the OGL was only ever as good as the trust licensors put in the license.

Which today is zero.

Actually some experts that make the better arguments suggest that revoking OGL 1.0a would never survive.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, that's a classic No True Scotsman logical fallacy of the goddamn silliest kind. You're not presenting argument, or even really an opinion, you're just No True Scotsman'ing.

Even if WotC completely pulled back, it would not change a thing.

Even if WotC is legally 100% right, or 100% wrong... nothing changes.

The value of the OGL was in its ability to make 3PPs trust WotC.

That's gone, no matter what any court will say.

The entire notion of "they can't do this" or "the courts will stop them" is entirely beside the point.

(I'm not going to repeat my stance on whether the deauthorization is legal, I'm moving on to say it doesn't matter)

 

[Greg Benage]

No, being worse of because of OGL 1.1 is because your existing rug is pulled from beneath you with little warning.

Nobody is getting scared away from the millions of fantasy gamers. Just scared away from doing business with WotC.

I agree that it's better to be able to plan your exit from the D&D ecosystem than it is to be booted with no warning. But at the end of the day, you're still out. I don't think that's a beneficial position for 3PP. That's why I'd like to see an explicitly irrevocable 1.0b, even if I'm not hopeful.

 

[S'mon]

Just seen this on therpgsite - veracity unknown but looks plausible to me:

 

[Nikosandros]

Just seen this on therpgsite - veracity unknown but looks plausible to me:

View attachment 272206

Yes, it's making the rounds. IIRC, it has been confirmed as authentic. In any case, it does look quite plausible.

 

[Nikosandros]

The value of the OGL was in its ability to make 3PPs trust WotC.

I agree fully with this.

 

[Umbran]

Nobody (nobody that counts anyway)

Mod Note:
Perhaps you didn't realize, but you are now putting value on people. That's apt to come across.. poorly. Maybe don't do that, please.

 

[Umbran]

IIRC, it has been confirmed as authentic.

If you cannot state who confirmed it, it isn't really confirmed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you cannot state who confirmed it, it isn't really confirmed.

I mean, with journalists from like actual news sources (which would include Linda Codega), you don't necessarily expect named confirmations of the identities of sources, especially as an identity could be confirmed in a number of ways, and because the new source has some kind of reputation to protect (and lawyers, and so on)

I would say if a rando claims it without saying anything more then sure.

 

[S'mon]

I see Gizmodo says WoTC are delaying - Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire

 

[Umbran]

I mean, with journalists from like actual news sources (which would include Linda Codega), you don't necessarily expect named confirmations of the identities of sources, especially as an identity could be confirmed in a number of ways, and because the new source has some kind of reputation to protect (and lawyers, and so on)

Yes, that's exactly why you need to say who confirmed it. Our confidence in the piece of information lies in our confidence in the news source. Vaguely asserting that someone confirmed it is insufficient.

Even if it feels repetitive - there's a bazillion threads and posts on the general topic, and any particular bit you've seen may have not been noted by someone else.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't matter. It's dead now. Not because of any legal argument, because nobody trusts it anymore.

I would reply, but I fear I have to go to the hospital for the whiplash from this sudden change of direction.

"Nobody doubts their legal right to do so!"

"What about all the people doubting it?"

"It doesn't matter, now let's talk about something completely different!"

Ow, my neck.

 

[Nikosandros]

If you cannot state who confirmed it, it isn't really confirmed.

OK, fair enough. I went back and looked. Linda Codega confirmed it, for one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yet Pathfinder came into existence because WotC chose a similar path to what they're choosing now.

And you still choose to dismiss upcoming games as heartbreakers? You must be just as smart as the bigwigs over at WotC!

Mod Note:

You‘re drifting into making personal attacks, CZ. That, plus your language choices indicate you may need to cool off a bit before posting, Voluntarily, one would hope. Involuntarily if need be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, that's exactly why you need to say who confirmed it. Our confidence in the piece of information lies in our confidence in the news source. Vaguely asserting that someone confirmed it is insufficient.

Even if it feels repetitive - there's a bazillion threads and posts on the general topic, and any particular bit you've seen may have not been noted by someone else.

I mean, I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't know how you could keep sources confidential and say who confirmed it, especially if they confirmed it with materials/evidence they themselves possessed. What am I not getting?

If you mean the journo, Linda did, and so did two of the podcasting guys - Mark Seifer I want to say is one of them, not sure about the spelling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't know how you could keep sources confidential and say who confirmed it, especially if they confirmed it with materials/evidence they themselves possessed. What am I not getting?

Might not be the same thing, but I often hear things like "According to sources close to the company who asked to not be identified".