How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Bedrockgames]

Q. How do you know someone went to school at Harvard?

A.

Spoiler

Oh, don't worry. They'll tell you soon enough.


....at an old firm, one of my friends used to call this the "H Bomb." You'd be talking to someone, and they'd always steer the conversation to where they went to school. And then they'd feign modesty ... "Oh, you know, just a school in the Boston area. Across the river."

Until you "forced" them to tell you.

Anyway, I kid. While not the sole indicator of quality, the difficulty in getting into the T10 Law Schools (YHS etc.) is the reason why it's usually a decent indicator of some kind of quality, and why they are taken up by BigLaw and Federal Clerkships.)

Lol. I used to work in a bakery and one of the regulars’ kids went to Harvard and was upset his son got a B on his report card. I remember being confused and asking the owner why it was such a big deal. He said “Because it’s a ‘Harvard B’: that’s like a D or an F at other schools. They don’t give out F’s at Harvard!”. Not sure how true that is but have heard it a lot since

 

[Ibrandul]

which part of the article ? (Just curious)

In the leaked draft, WotC admits it might “receive community pushback and bad PR,” and says “We are more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.” The Gizmodo article quotes this. But in the draft, these lines are about any judgments the company might make about licensors who are found to have engaged in hate speech, etc., to terminate the license for individual licensees, whereas Codega frames it to sound like that quote is an admission regarding the OGL 1.1 itself—with the implication that WotC admits in advance that they predicted a possible outcry and might consider changing course.

It’s a crystal-clear example of distorting a Deliberate or not, the author distorts the quotation’s meaning by taking it out of context.

(Edited for greater precision about the draft, and to adopt the most charitable view of the journalist’s choices.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Lol. I used to work in a bakery and one of the regulars’ kids went to Harvard and was upset his son got a B on his report card. I remember being confused and asking the owner why it was such a big deal. He said “Because it’s a ‘Harvard B’: that’s like a D or an F at other schools. They don’t give out F’s at Harvard!”. Not sure how true that is but have heard it a lot since

Well, there's serious grade inflation at almost all schools- pretty sure Harvard is among them.

While most law schools don't have that kind of grade inflation (still grading on a curve, especially for first years), many of the most prestigious have begun to ... well, get rid of grades completely. First year at Yale is credit/no credit (pass/fail).

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this specific question is best detached from the more general threads.

I have a friend with a team of writers working on a big 3PP Kickstarter/publication, planned to be for 5e using the OGL. She and the team, with my advice, are now working on a non-OGL version. But I suggested that before doing too much work on this - it will be a lot of work - she wait to see if WoTC makes an announcement reassuring 3PPs that they are not trying to revoke OGL 1.0. I suggested waiting until Monday 16th before pressing forward. But I wanted to see what other people think. How long should the community wait on WoTC to speak? Or should we not be waiting? A lot of people already seem set on abandoning the OGL, just from the threat that's been raised.

They have already opened Pandora's box and no matter what they say, including "we'll forget about the new OGL entirely", it is high time to abandon ship.

WotC will never save this. They have already lost the industry's confidence.

Edit: as I have said elsewhere, just about the only way they'll save this is by announcing OGL 1.1 as an actually completely open license. Not "like" Creative Commons (or such), but actually legally bound to CC. But the probability of the current leadership going this way is exceedingly small. So again: don't wait at all, if you ask random internet users - which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, I agree that this is the first attempt by Hasbro to go nuclear. Which is why I suspect that they have been plotting this out for a while.

The only thing that would truly shock me at this point is to learn that this was some sort of mistake on Hasbro's part, or poorly considered. Which is why, despite the community being in an uproar, I don't know that they're likely to back down. But I've been wrong about many things before, so we'll see!*


*Who's going to see Titanic? We all know how it ends!

What I have been told by a friend whose father was an executive is that big companies dont usually send in a new CEO with a mission like this unless that person is basically assured the plan is locked and will be taken to completion. This is anecdotal information of course. I know nothing of these things personally

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If they're willing to do this to all of them, what are they planning to do to me?

Well, if you're a baby seal .... I'd be worried.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd just like to mention that my law degree is from Oxford.

At least it's not Cambridge, there's that!

I maybe haven't caught up on all the "OA" stuff and have never heard of them until now, but, while they apparently disagree on the legalities, they don't seem to disagree with our hero, Ryan Dancey, on the ethics. Ryan was rather matter-of-fact in that interview yesterday that the decision-makers at Wizards and Hasbro are "good people" and that they're just making a business decision (whether that business decision is good or bad) that they think will return the greatest value for Hasbro shareholders.

I don't really care?

Ryan Dancey's vague opinions don't determine my or your ethics, and more importantly, whether you're "good people" or not, or your business decisions "return value to the shareholders" very rarely is determinative of what the law is regarding a licence/contract.

And the OA people are clearly scumbags, regardless of any opinions on this, because they're literally instructing people to attack an individual journalist, who, at worst is guilty of a legal misunderstand shared by a ton of lawyers.

 

[humble minion]

Honestly I'm not surprised by either.

I feel that CR is in a "don't rock the boat" situation right now and i honestly don't expect them to provide any statements of substance regardless of which side they choose.

Paizo, while not surprising, is a bit disappointing in their silence. Paizo and WOTC are bit more entwined than most 3rd party companies are based on what I've heard, even with the changes to PF2E. That said having PF2E gives them some leverage already. They don't have to scramble to create a system from scratch.

I'm assuming they're circling the wagons and checking everything with legal 50 times over and we'll hear from them once WOTC makes their comments.

I'm just flat-out assuming that both are legally bound to silence (or at least very limited in what they can say) at this time. Presumably they are both under NDAs of some sort, it's pretty low-class of all the people I see on Twitter etc to be calling out Mercer etc for 'betrayal' or selling out with increasing stridency. I mean, the CR guys are literal business partners of WotC and have published several books with them, one of which was in the past year, besides their association with DnDBeyond. That sort of thing almost certainly comes with non-disparagement clauses etc. Paizo too will have signed the NDA, and tt's not like ALL Paizo people have been completely silent on the matter. Mona's made some comments, and so has the lawyer guy whose name i forget who helped draft the thing originally. They just have to be circumspect. Abusing someone when they don't comment on stuff they almost certainly can't legally comment on is just way over the top. Mercer's laid a few likes etc on twitter which makes his feelings pretty clear, a formal statement will come in time.

Remember that even Kobold Press, in their Black Flag announcement or anywhere else, have carefully said nothing directly about the leaked OGL whatsoever. They just announced Black Flag, said it was an open content set of core rules, and let everyone else draw their own conclusions. That's their way of giving their opinion on the OGL 1.1 terms without actually talking about it, because they have signed the NDA too.

Besides, everything is still very much in flux right now. Nobody knows which way Wizards are going to jump when their vaunted response drops and I've got no doubt that EVERYONE in the industry is trying to get in their ears about it, KP and MCDM etc are making and remaking their own OGL core projects in real time, and given the amount of burning bridges around the place right now, nobody's keen to set alight to any more by saying anything irreversible or unforgiveable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the leaked draft, WotC admits it might “receive community pushback and bad PR,” and says “We are more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.” The Gizmodo article quotes this. But in the draft, these lines are about any judgments the company might make about licensors who are found to have engaged in hate speech, etc., whereas Codega frames it to sound like that quote is an admission regarding the OGL 1.1 itself—with the implication that WotC admits in advance that they predicted a possible outcry and might consider changing course.

It’s a crystal-clear example of distorting a quotation’s meaning by taking it out of context.

Yeah, but the question is it a misunderstanding or intentional? It seems far more likely to be basically a misunderstanding, and it's re: a COMMENT, not the legalese. If anything it's being slightly kind to WotC, too, by essentially suggesting they're open to being reasonable on this!

 

[Greg Benage]

Well, if you're a baby seal .... I'd be worried.

I'm worried they think I'm a baby seal!