Faolyn
(she/her)
"Starting"? C'mon, we know you've felt that way for a while now!
It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.
- Thread starter ECMO3
- Start date
Faolyn
(she/her)
Only because they were stopped.
They didn't stop themselves. They didn't say "hey, maybe this is a bad idea." Instead, there was an overwhelming show of support against them, a show that not only made it to major news outlets but caused many other big gaming companies to effectively form an alliance against them, which forced WotC to back down or lose money. They would have merrily continued doing "something that made people upset" if there hadn't been such a unified show of support.
Yeah, the status quo is gone, and WotC is at fault for breaking it. A world where they never used the word "deauthorized" is the better world we could have had, and that they crossed that line is the the thing they need to make up for.
The CC release is great, but I don't think it's completely restorative.
The CC release is great, but I don't think it's completely restorative.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Yeah, and...? That's who they've always been, didn't stop me from buying hobby products from them before when I want them.
Here's an attempt at a better analogy: they are like a homeowner who has a pear tree in the front yard by the sidewalk. They have an understanding with their neighbors that anyone can pick pears, whenever they happen by, without asking first the homeowner is considering putting a fence up, and keeping all the pears to sell. Their neighbors get upset, petition them to stop, vow to never buy any pears if they try it, and threaten to ostracize them in public for being cheap. So, the homeowner backs off, and keeps the tree up and free to access.
Except they had engraved a sign next to the tree saying "help yourself, just make sure you call them Bob's Pears if anyone asks, we planted this tree specifically to feed the public."
This analogy game sucks. We're just arguing whether or not we think WotC's reaction and apology means we're back to the state we were before they ever made an attempt at this. The camps are that trying to do it at all was the injury, and that not actually doing it means they haven't injured anyone.
The former position wants some guarantee they won't ever do it again and restitution, the latter I don't agree/empathize with with to be able to present in a fair way. "The world is bad and we should expect to be screwed a little from time to time and it's nice it wasn't that bad", is my best attempt?
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
True enough.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
And that sign could be taken down at any time. In fact, that is pretty much exactly the real deal legal analogy I've seen floating around for WotC standing here in deauthorization (h/t @pemerton )
The CC is a stone-cold, rock-solid guarantee, in my book: WotC has no play to use if they wanted to at any point in the future.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Well, right now I would like to hear from Kyle Brink that some heads rolled for this.
I honestly don't care about the legalities, this is a question of ethics. They clearly presented it as forever, and I took them at their word, there is no argument that will persuade me their behavior was acceptable.
We could argue about whether the CC release is adequately restorative, I personally don't think we're there yet. I'm honestly more interested in hearing how they plan to change to not do this in the future, though I'd probably take a release of older SRDs as an effective solution. Leadership changes would also salve things, or heck, even a clear communication about how this idea arouse internally and how new policies are in place to make such a proposal untenable in future night work, if they could bear to air that much dirt laundry.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I mean, all the OGL is, is legalities. Ethically, it's always been above and beyond what they needed to do. I never felt owed "Open Gaming" by them.
The CC release effectively kneecaps WotC: there isn't much they can do again, ever. More would be nice, we'll see what they say.
teitan
Legend
Member last year when everyone was all “never forgive Paizo” and “Paizo treats workers poorly” and “Paizo is bad”. Pepperidge Farms members. That whole unionizing thing went on longer with silence from Paizo for longer than the OGL thing did with WOTC. So, that’s why I moved on. They listened. In both cases.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Yes, improvements are to be celebrated. I don't think anyone is unreasonable for moving on with getting Paizo products after they made those corrections, even though oppressing workers is, like, super terrible.
Clint_L
Hero
And yet most corporations wouldn't have shared the IP to begin with, or reversed course so completely. So, again, not sure what more we should want at this point. A pound of flesh? At what point do we take "yes" for an answer?
Faolyn
(she/her)
How about in a year or so, after they've shown they can be trusted. Putting 5e into the CC isn't going to be terribly useful if it turns out that they are going to make One has it's own SRD and/or isn't actually compatible.
Except they didn't just remove access to the pears. They were also trying to stop people from having access to completely different trees--e.g., those companies who use the SRD but don't produce 5e/d20-based games, like Fate. And they wanted to disallow the use of animated assets on VTTs that weren't even owned by them, just so D&D players would have to use the D&D VTT (whenever that comes out), even though that would very likely cause those VTTs to lose so much money they might have to shut down or raise prices significantly for people who want to use them for non-D&D games.
And your "pear tree" analogy isn't quite as apt as you think anyway for another reason, because people have used that license to make many different games under their own companies. It would be more like if the people who picked the pears planted the pear's seeds and grew their own trees, using their own labor and on their own property, and then WotC tried to cut them all down, and also tried to burn down every fruit stand and grocery store so that the only place one could get pears was from them.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
If your game is different, why use OGL at all? Yes, back in 2001, it was the only available license... but today, just use CC.
I also don't think wotc tried to burn them all down. They tried to burn down a few specific ones, and porbably didn't mind all others catching fire too.
mamba
Hero
They are not giving their product away for free. The SRD is not the PHB + DMG + MM. It is the bare minimum example of D&D so others can create D&D compatible content. Sure you can play a basic version of D&D with it, but the PHB contains a ton more information, so pretty much no one does, and WotC knows that.
As to expecting them to not revoke the OGL, damn right I expect them to, they told us for 20 years that it is irrevocable.
mamba
Hero
The first is obviously true, the second part is pure speculation. I am pretty sure that throughout this WotC was mostly looking out for what they perceived to be their best interest, that what that is changed so drastically is not something they get credit for.
Last edited:
Scribe
Legend
It's amusing at this stage that people seem dead set on convincing folks that Wizards did nothing wrong.
If they actually had spent the last what 8 years of near uncontested position of power to actually develop an IP, where would they be now?
8 years, with the money printing titan of MtG at their back, and what development of the actual IP of "Dungeons and Dragons" has Wizbro done, if you remove all the 3PP, including CR? Where would Wizards be if they actually did their jobs?
Not fretting over a dry as bones SRD, I can tell you that much.
If they actually had spent the last what 8 years of near uncontested position of power to actually develop an IP, where would they be now?
8 years, with the money printing titan of MtG at their back, and what development of the actual IP of "Dungeons and Dragons" has Wizbro done, if you remove all the 3PP, including CR? Where would Wizards be if they actually did their jobs?
Not fretting over a dry as bones SRD, I can tell you that much.
Clint_L
Hero
Yes, I agree they were looking out for their (perceived) best interest. That’s what corporations do. That’s what 3PP do. I don’t really give them credit for the first part, either. I’m just pointing it out for the sake of those who want this to be a moralistic battle.
I don’t have an ongoing relationship with Hasbro that is anything more than transactional. If I was a 3PP I might have some lingering resentment over a few weeks of stress they caused, but they can speak for themselves. I won’t presume.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
It is also interesting how people at this stage say that Wizards is never to be trusted again and that they are the most despicable companie out there.
Maybe the truth lies in the middle...
Then, I don't know what you want to try to say about: develop an IP.
Last I checked, they have an IP.
It is not their fault that it took that long to gain control of movie rights. Creating a great PC game also takes time.
Similar Threads
