NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 1124427" data-attributes="member: 88">OK. It was all a lot of needless fretting and a case of the vapors. Happy now? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I resent the implication that I do not care about this situation. I care deeply for the state of our hobby and this particular license. As a person that would love to someday make writing for RPGs his primary source of income, I care as much (if not more) than most people about this topic.But I can admit when something was simply a matter of two parties not seeing things from each other's points of view.OK. I am listening (reading?).Define "many." For that matter, define "front-runner." In a field with so few players (and so short a race), I fail to see how any can be considered a front-runner. Until a major player in this game adopts an alternate logo, there is no "front runner" in my estimation.It does.Then you are far too sensitive. Because, although there are some areas that need further clarification and some tweeking of the language -- there is no problem with the d20 STL. I disagree with you -- this is allowed in a free society.Please cite references to such behavior. Also, please explain to me why someone at (say...) Sword & Sorcery Studios should care if you do not like the content restrictions portion of the d20 license that they are working to abide by, any more than they should care that the average readership of Pyramid Magazine does not like the system restrictions involved with the d20 license?But are you not doing the same thing in reverse? You are obviously upset with (and a bit dismissive of; and arrogantly seeing our possition as having no merit) at people like me because we do not share your view that things have such a huge problem involved with them.I was upset with WotC. I am still a bit upset with the timing, and the wording. But I can see that they were not intended with malice; the minor problems involved were caused by the vantage point from which they view the situation, not sime sinister plot. In that light, I have no trouble giving them a few months to look at the reactions, figure out the best course of action and iron out the wrinkles in their plan.In other words, this is a tempest in a teapot.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So what you are saying is that, you would rather cause waves in the pool based on your perception that WotC might cause waves in the future... and you are willing to justify this because of the fact that WotC is.... what? Going to rock the boat for you if you don't?I don't get it.So far, all they have done (and yes, I was upset, and read far too much into this at first too) is make the d20 license mor elike all other licenses they issue. Unifying things for ease of legal understanding. What, exactly, have they done wrong?This is dubious logic at best; over the course of this post you have used a multitude of falacies in your argument, such a: a red herring, two (or more) straw men, an appeal to indignation (repeatedly), a slippery slope, and have managed to board a bandwagon that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. Not to mention several exagerations, some factualy dubious statements, and a multitude of falacies I am sure I missed (I only took two college level logic courses, sorry).Nope... this road has a lot of cracks, major potholes, leads to nowhere in particular, and appears to be illusionary at best. I fail to see why I should drive down it.OK.</blockquote>

Verification