bedir than
Hero
How does Chris Cocks have no RPG industry experience? How does Nathan Stewart have no RPG experience? Be specificWotC is a division of Hasbro. Both are managed by executives with no RPG industry experience.
How does Chris Cocks have no RPG industry experience? How does Nathan Stewart have no RPG experience? Be specificWotC is a division of Hasbro. Both are managed by executives with no RPG industry experience.
How does Chris Cocks have no RPG industry experience? How does Nathan Stewart have no RPG experience? Be specific
In no multi-billion dollar company, Musk-ys aside, does a single individual make a decision like this. Cocks, Stewart and Winninger's replacement would all be part of the decision. All are RPG people.Neither Chris Cocks nor Nathan Stewart isn't the head of WotC, Cynthia Williams is. . .who came to Hasbro from Microsoft where she worked on the XBox for a while, but before that she was an executive at Amazon for over a decade.
Nothing on Ms. Williams resume says anything about prior tabletop gaming experience. Some experience managing the XBox division of Microsoft isn't even remotely related.
The OGL 1.0a isn't changing (it can't), but I agree the recent statement still reads to me like WotC wants to de-authorize it with the new OGL. Stuff publish previously to the OGL 2.0 is fine, but nothing after that. The fact that they specifically didn't mention that controversy, while addressing the others implies to me that it is still their plan. Hopefully that is changed in the next draft.The language they used doesn't indicate that 1.0a is changing. They, in fact, said the opposite.
Even if I grant you this, and I'm not.The OGL 1.0a isn't changing (it can't), but I agree the recent statement still reads to me like WotC wants to de-authorize it with the new OGL. Stuff publish previously to the OGL 2.0 is fine, but nothing after that. The fact that they specifically didn't mention that controversy, while addressing the others implies to me that it is still their plan. Hopefully that is changed in the next draft.
I am not granting it either. However, WotC didn't close the door in their last statement, so it is possibleEven if I grant you this, and I'm not.
I was not suggesting that. My point is that it would mean they couldn't use the OGL 1.0a on future PF products.That's not de-authorization that results in every Paizo product now being illegal (and 100s of other companies).
That is not what I was suggesting. Where did you get that from?It's not the same and suggesting that "you can't use this in the future" is the same as "everything you did in the past is no longer legal" are the same thing is bewildering
Nothing that @dave2008 indicates he's saying that, and indeed his understanding seems to be correct, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.Even if I grant you this, and I'm not.
That's not de-authorization that results in every Paizo product now being illegal (and 100s of other companies). It's not the same and suggesting that "you can't use this in the future" is the same as "everything you did in the past is no longer legal" are the same thing is bewildering
Chris Cocks had absolutely no RPG industry experience prior to becoming president of WotC 5 years ago. Current decision-making by him suggests he didn't learn anything about D&D in that period.How does Chris Cocks have no RPG industry experience? How does Nathan Stewart have no RPG experience? Be specific
When Cynthia Williams starts having WotC selling cross-stitch and crochet kits, then I'll know the D&D party is over and call it a day.Neither Chris Cocks nor Nathan Stewart isn't the head of WotC, Cynthia Williams is. . .who came to Hasbro from Microsoft where she worked on the XBox for a while, but before that she was an executive at Amazon for over a decade.
Nothing on Ms. Williams resume says anything about prior tabletop gaming experience. Some experience managing the XBox division of Microsoft isn't even remotely related.
That's what de-auth does. If that doesn't happen then there's no de-authI am not granting it either. However, WotC didn't close the door in their last statement, so it is possible
I was not suggesting that. My point is that it would mean they couldn't use the OGL 1.0a on future PF products.
That is not what I was suggesting. Where did you get that from?
Five years of experience running Wizards is more than most of the 3pp heads.Chris Cocks had absolutely no RPG industry experience prior to becoming president of WotC 5 years ago. Current decision-making by him suggests he didn't learn anything about D&D in that period.
Not sure why you're focusing on Nathan Stewart, seems like a distraction given he was only VP of D&D very briefly and his career more about marketing than anything else - it seems very unlikely he's been closely involved with this decison-making.
Dan Rawson is VP of D&D, and he definitely has no RPG (or similar) experience.
So what product have still in print that would make a testcase. My understanding is that PF2 is somewhat removed from WoTC original material.Paizo said in their ORC announcement that they are willing to go to court against WotC over the OGL's irrevocable status.
Yeah I doubt Paizo is going to produce any new material for Pathfinder 1E, but they seem very supportive of the 3PPs that do make new stuff. There is also the Archives of Nethys site that has all the Pathfinder 1E rules, and while Paizo does not own it, I think they would come to their defense.So what product have still in print that would make a testcase. My understanding is that PF2 is somewhat removed from WoTC original material.
I kind of doubt that Wizards would sue over PF 2.
To be honest I an disappointed that no third party went all out in the defence of the OGL. I think that a third party victory on this would be of huge benefit or at least a put up or shut up challenge to WoTC.Yeah I doubt Paizo is going to produce any new material for Pathfinder 1E, but they seem very supportive of the 3PPs that do make new stuff. There is also the Archives of Nethys site that has all the Pathfinder 1E rules, and while Paizo does not own it, I think they would come to their defense.
I am not familiar with Starfinder -- any players of that want to weigh in on how similar it is to Pathfinder 1E?
Sorry, but when you quote me quoting you it doesn't save your original quotes. So I can really respond with digging a little deeper and I just don't care to do that at the moment. I mean, it really boils down to we have to wait and see what WotC really puts out for public review.That's what de-auth does. If that doesn't happen then there's no de-auth
When Paizo announced ORC they also said the were willing to go to court to defend the OGL. I don't think the can sue WotC, but if they print SF or PF2 (which is still under the OGL) products with the OGL and WotC sues them, they don't plan to settle.To be honest I an disappointed that no third party went all out in the defence of the OGL. I think that a third party victory on this would be of huge benefit or at least a put up or shut up challenge to WoTC.
They absolutely did not say the opposite. They said that existing products are safe from WotC's legal ravages. You still wouldn't be able to use the 1.0a to make anything new based on what they said.The language they used doesn't indicate that 1.0a is changing. They, in fact, said the opposite.
No, it absolutely is not.Five years of experience running Wizards is more than most of the 3pp heads.
So what?It also ignores that he's been a gamer for decades.
Again, what absolute meaningless nonsense, and no he doesn't. The most he's claimed is he played D&D when he was a kid and is maybe playing D&D with his kids. That doesn't give him any kind of insight.He has a long history of gaming.
LOL. LMAO.Considering people who have extensive experience gaming non-gamers is very gate keepey
If they were only worried about VTT, movies etc., then they could have put into OGL 1.1 that print media would remain untouched and 1.0a stuff would be grandfathered in. Made the new one irrevocable, and not put in the royalties thing. They went after the print stuff put out by 3PP as well.I completely see why they are doing it, I even believe that they really are not concerned about the third party market as it currently exists they want to nail down the IP in the VTT and computer/net application space and in the broader performance space. The mistake was in my opinion, gunning for the current open content. If they closed the licence and issued OneD&D on a 5.2 SRD there would be some smoke, heat and a little fire but I think it would have died down.
The sad bit is that the OGL proved to be quixotic at the first real test. No one defended their rights under it but everyone ran for the exits.