It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Parmandur]

Things did happen. They had, in fact, started to destroy the OGL, bully companies into bad deals, and destroy VTTs.

You can't say that they didn't do those things. They may have said "whoops, OK, the masses have spoken, guess we won't go through with it," but they had, in fact, started to do it, and it's completely ridiculous to assume that they would have stopped on their own out of what, the goodness of their collective hearts or something?

People are literally trying to say that because WotC tried but failed to do something that would hurt people financially, had to be convinced by a very large number of people that what they were trying to do was bad, then we should just ignore the fact that they tried in the first place.

Even though they have a history of having done similar things in the past.

And that not only should we ignore that fact, but that we should reward them by giving them our money.

I just don't get this mentality.

As you point out, WotC has a history of this sort of behavior: thisnis about what I expect of them, as a collective. I'm not rewarding any behavior by buying things that I want...I'm buying things that I went. WotC dumb actions only have an impact on that if it involves making something I don't want, or create a vondotion where my purchase involves a proximate or formal cooperation with evil. I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to feel outrage over officer's of a corporation I'm not involved in almost making a suboptimal decision.

I said it was greedy. No, I don't think they were rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee while petting a white cat. But just because it was dumb doesn't make it OK. If anything, it makes it rather worse because how else will this stupidity and short-sightedness manifest?

All sorts of creative ways, I'm sure. That's part of the adventure of human society.

 

[rgard]

3.5? You mean .... the Devil's Edition?

Which devil? My name is Legion: for we are many.

 

[Faolyn]

As you point out, WotC has a history of this sort of behavior: thisnis about what I expect of them, as a collective. I'm not rewarding any behavior by buying things that I want...I'm buying things that I went. WotC dumb actions only have an impact on that if it involves making something I don't want, or create a vondotion where my purchase involves a proximate or formal cooperation with evil. I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to feel outrage over officer's of a corporation I'm not involved in almost making a suboptimal decision.

Except that even if you're buying what you want, you're rewarding them by buying from them. You're showing them that their actions don't matter because you're still spending your money on them. If you're OK with that, then go ahead. I'm not going to stop you from spending money on them.

To me, they went too far this time. It doesn't matter if I would have wanted the upcoming books or not. I can get what I want by other publishers.

 

[Parmandur]

Except that even if you're buying what you want, you're rewarding them by buying from them. You're showing them that their actions don't matter because you're still spending your money on them. If you're OK with that, then go ahead. I'm not going to stop you from spending money on them.

To me, they went too far this time. It doesn't matter if I would have wanted the upcoming books or not. I can get what I want by other publishers.

There is no relationship between my purchase and their actions here. And in the end, their actual actions were positive, despite what was attempted. That's far more remarkable to me, a corporation changing track and doing the smart and brave thing, no matter what the motivation is (again, corporations are not people, they don't have motivations, only the people inside them do).

Not too far for me, since all that actually happend was that 5E become more open. That's the only real takeaway in my book: 5E is open source now.

YMMV, and I'm not terribly concerned with what you feel like buying or not: but there is no moral obligation to be outraged by a botched licensing plan.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

There is no relationship between my purchase and their actions here. And in the end, their actual actions were positive, despite what was attempted. That's far more remarkable to me, a corporation changing track and doing the smart and brave thing, no matter what the motivation is (again, corporations are not people, they don't have motivations, only the people inside them do).

Not too far for me, since all that actually happend was that 5E become more open. That's the only real takeaway in my book: 5E is open source now.

YMMV, and I'm not terribly concerned with what you feel like buying or not: but there is no moral obligation to be outraged by a botched licensing plan.

Pretty simple for me—-I never felt warm fuzzies about WOTC. They made stuff I wanted.

They did some stuff that hat I thought would limit my choices so I was willing to withhold my fun money from them—with the hope that when coupled with others it would inspire them to alter course.

They did alter course…I bought some minis. But I don’t have a big emotional change of heart. It’s business. They are no better or worse than they were last year.

I however am finding less I want to buy…so am glad there will be ready access to any 3rd party stuff that might fill my gaming needs.

They are not a charity and neither am I. This is totally a transactional relationship and always was. They care about my fandom right up to where it stops bringing them money directly or indirectly.

 

[Parmandur]

Pretty simple for me—-I never felt warm fuzzies about WOTC. They made stuff I wanted.

They did some stuff that hat I thought would limit my choices so I was willing to withhold my fun money from them—with the hope that when coupled with others it would inspire them to alter course.

They did alter course…I bought some minis. But I don’t have a big emotional change of heart. It’s business. They are no better or worse than they were last year.

I however am finding less I want to buy…so am glad there will be ready access to any 3rd party stuff that might fill my gaming needs.

They are not a charity and neither am I. This is totally a transactional relationship and always was. They care about my fandom right up to where it stops bringing them money directly or indirectly.

Exactly! And product tonproduct, tastes are going to vary.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except that even if you're buying what you want, you're rewarding them by buying from them. You're showing them that their actions don't matter...

No. He is showing them, that there actions do matter. You show, that no good deed goes unpunished. So going by your morality standards, it would have made no sense to stop what they are doing. If the thought* about doing something is as punishable than actually doing something, then why hold back?
*Or after an attempt that was stopped early enough, if you are punished as if you succeeded, you can as well run amok and try to maximize the damage...

 

[Clint_L]

Things did happen. They had, in fact, started to destroy the OGL, bully companies into bad deals, and destroy VTTs.

You can't say that they didn't do those things. They may have said "whoops, OK, the masses have spoken, guess we won't go through with it," but they had, in fact, started to do it, and it's completely ridiculous to assume that they would have stopped on their own out of what, the goodness of their collective hearts or something?

People are literally trying to say that because WotC tried but failed to do something that would hurt people financially, had to be convinced by a very large number of people that what they were trying to do was bad, then we should just ignore the fact that they tried in the first place.

Even though they have a history of having done similar things in the past.

And that not only should we ignore that fact, but that we should reward them by giving them our money.

I just don't get this mentality.

One of the two main schools of ethics, consequentialism, judges actions based on consequences (as you might expect). It is quite influential - it is why we don't punish recklessly running a stop sign the same way we prosecute recklessly running a stop sign and killing a pedestrian. From a consequentialist perspective, outcomes are what matter, not motives. Hasbro should be applauded for ultimately doing the right thing.

You, on the other hand, seem to be espousing a fairly hardline deontological perspective, for which motives are all that matter. Thus, Hasbro are terrible villains for even thinking about rescinding the OGL, and the fact that they didn't go through with it is irrelevant. Fair play to you.

I'm generally more of a consequentialist. From my perspective, when it comes to sharing its D&D IP, Hasbro is in practice miles better than the vast majority of entertainment corporations are with any of their IP. They tried to backslide but got busted, so the result is they wound up with a policy even more generous than what they started with (irony!). They actually took in feedback and did a 180 on their policy. That's objectively great - don't we want more corporations to do that? What even is the point of protesting if we get what we want and still have beef with the folks who acceded to our demands? That just seems petty to me.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I am not writing Hasbro/WotC off entirely, they have permanently altered my spending habits. I will be buying less D&D and more ORC, and I will design for ORC first and D&D second. Their backing off means I won't write them off completely, but based on my spending habits I expect it cost them at least $2,000 of my money for this generation and even more for next given I was going to make D&D a family bonding thing with my sibling and their kids.

 

[Parmandur]

One of the two main schools of ethics, consequentialism, judges actions based on consequences (as you might expect). It is quite influential - it is why we don't punish recklessly running a stop sign the same way we prosecute recklessly running a stop sign and killing a pedestrian. From a consequentialist perspective, outcomes are what matter, not motives. Hasbro should be applauded for ultimately doing the right thing.

You, on the other hand, seem to be espousing a fairly hardline deontological perspective, for which motives are all that matter. Thus, Hasbro are terrible villains for even thinking about rescinding the OGL, and the fact that they didn't go through with it is irrelevant. Fair play to you.

I'm generally more of a consequentialist. From my perspective, when it comes to sharing its D&D IP, Hasbro is in practice miles better than the vast majority of entertainment corporations are with any of their IP. They tried to backslide but got busted, so the result is they wound up with a policy even more generous than what they started with (irony!). They actually took in feedback and did a 180 on their policy. That's objectively great - don't we want more corporations to do that? What even is the point of protesting if we get what we want and still have beef with the folks who acceded to our demands? That just seems petty to me.

Neither her nor there, but there us a third option, virtue ethics...but corporations do not have personal virtues or habits, so that boils down more to questions of our own habitual responses and questions of the Form Of Justice, and before you know it we've all been forced to drink Hemlock by the Vox Populi.