WotC Shannon Appelcline the layoffs and the OGL fiasco.

[Morrus]

I'm a bit skeptical about the issue of layoffs leading to the lack of institutional knowledge that allowed WotC to pull such a big boner as threatening the OGL. From the rumblings at the time, it seems that people with that institutional knowledge were arguing against the tactic... but weren't listened to. And while that may mean the lever-pullers lacked that institutional knowledge, the main issue is that they didn't listen to the institutional knowledge holders they had. And if you don't value that input or see yourself as a disrupter as a manager, it doesn't matter how much institutional knowledge you have as an organization.

The point is that those with that historical knowledge are in a minority and not numerous enough to affect such decisions. And with these layoffs, they’re even fewer in number. The result is a company with a very different outlook.

Is that good for the company? Possibly. Is it good for the hobby? That’s the conversation.

 

[Dire Bare]

We're a bit over two weeks away from changing that to "...lied about capitulating totally...". Kyle talked about having the 3.x SRDs in CC by the end of 2023. Once the public was pacified though I haven't heard anything at all about that. There are a lot of older games that rely on that material and are still vulnerable to OGL shenanigans.

A delay is not the same thing as a falsehood.

If we don't get older edition SRDs in two weeks . . . all that means is that WotC blew a deadline. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Blue]

A delay is not the same thing as a falsehood.

It can easily be both.

"I vacuumed today instead of yesterday." That's a delay.

"I promised I would vacuum yesterday because my roommate had someone coming over. I vacuumed today." That's both a delay and a falsehood.

Making a commitment to someone else and not meeting it is a falsehood.

If we don't get older edition SRDs in two weeks . . . all that means is that WotC blew a deadline. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you job decides it's going to hold your pay for an extra month, with the intention of paying you, it's not just a missed deadline. Oh look, it's illegal.

As trivially show by multiple examples, it can be more. Your point that a delay also can not hold any other meaning - "nothing more, nothing less" - is factually incorrect.

If I am looking at publishing additional books from my 3.5 OGL game and am holding off until it is in the CC so I am protected from further OGL hijinx, or looking at doing a reprinting or new edition under the CC instead of OGL, then promising by a certain date and not meeting it will definitely have an impact on me.

 

[darjr]

If he was the only one saying this, that would be one thing but he's not. Again, it's Chris Sims, Trevor Kidd, and Greg Bilsland.

There is an honest to goodness historian that disagrees with them, and Lisa Stevens who said what she said closer to the time.

The hard numbers are out there. The sales of the rpg books will come out. Well know for sure then.

 

[LordEntrails]

People have been studying Wikipedia's accuracy compared to Encyclopedia Britannica for a while now (nearly 20 years) and it holds its own. And it's far more likely to cover topics like D&D in depth to boot. There are caveats, of course, considering Wikipedia's accessibility and vulnerability to vandalism, but the crowd and mods ends up policing it pretty well. So it's always preferable to use it as a starting point in research, not the final source.
In the case of that particular article, it cites its sources. Bill Slavicsek stated they were considering design issues for 4e back in early 2005 in Wizards Presents Races and Classes.

You're pretty much making my point for me. In short, their is no reason to cite wikipedia, even if it's accurate. Because if the article is any good, it will have sources, and you can cite those.
It's like quoting your Mom on medical advice when she is quoting Uncle Dr. Bob. Just quote Uncle Dr. Bob.

 

[Parmandur]

Making a commitment to someone else and not meeting it is a falsehood.

Well, as a parent...no. Sometimes you have every intention to do X in Y conditions and timeframe, bit things don't shake out that way.

By all means, let's keep bringing it up and not let the idea be forgotten, but "falsehood" is a bit strong.

 

[jgsugden]

...I just don't know how you make the changes you are talking about without taking away the fundamental aspect of a free market; investors getting to chose where they invest their money.

Take away? Not necessary. Limit? Absolutely. In the US, and throughout the world, we recognize that there are exceptions and limitations that need to be placed in order to protect the masses. Freedom of speech - but not to yell fire in a crowded theater. Right to bear arms - with reasonable restrictions. The Fourth Amedment protecyed against UNREASONABLE search and seisure.

The types of limitations I suggest - if vetted to be as effective as I, and others, hope/believe - would be designed to protect jobs, reduce risks to the national and global economies, and reduce volatility in many markets.

As for your opinions that people can't evaluate the impact or benefits of these layoffs yet ... that is not accurate in part, at least. It is often very clear - very quickly - what the immediate impact will be to a business when staff is lost ... to the people closest to those positions. Most people that I know in Corporate America have a pretty good idea what it would mean if their groups lost 30% of the employees ... and they could identify which employees in particular would be the most impactful losses and why.

 

[Blue]

Well, as a parent...no. Sometimes you have every intention to do X in Y conditions and timeframe, bit things don't shake out that way.

As a parent, I have words that Eric's grandmother shouldn't hear. I shall try to put them aside and answer calmly.

Would you accept from your child: "No, I didn't do my chores. I intended to, but Bobby had a cool new game and it didn't shake out to leave me time to do them."

Because if you wouldn't, then you definitely shouldn't pull the same on your own child. You own up to it, instead of teaching them a double standard. That the person with the authority can do things they shouldn't question, but they can't.

Try instead:

"You're right, I did promise to take you to the store so you could get the next book with your birthday money, but my D&D game ran late and the store will be closed before we get there. I'm sorry about that. Can we do it tomorrow instead?"

Acknowledged that you said something and then didn't come through, apologized for, and a rectification suggested.

By all means, let's keep bringing it up and not let the idea be forgotten, but "falsehood" is a bit strong.

True/false is a boolean. "This isn't true, but don't describe it using the word falsehood" is meaningless for something boolean. And a "I will do this by the end of the year", if it is not done by the end of the year is a falsehood. That word is merely descriptive, not too strong.

Now, to undermine a lot of what I'm saying:
I understand from other posters they have it in their Community Update, which is something I didn't know when I posted originally. From my perspective it was promised, with a date they gave themselves so it should be achievable, and then I heard nothing. This Community Update is much better than I originally thought - they are effectively saying "I have not forgotten about this, it's still on my list". That's decent. The original promise is still a falsehood if not done by year end, but this is much more like owning up and having a rectification.

 

[Parmandur]

As a parent, I have words that Eric's grandmother shouldn't hear. I shall try to put them aside and answer calmly.

Would you accept from your child: "No, I didn't do my chores. I intended to, but Bobby had a cool new game and it didn't shake out to leave me time to do them."

Because if you wouldn't, then you definitely shouldn't pull the same on your own child. You own up to it, instead of teaching them a double standard. That the person with the authority can do things they shouldn't question, but they can't.

Try instead:

"You're right, I did promise to take you to the store so you could get the next book with your birthday money, but my D&D game ran late and the store will be closed before we get there. I'm sorry about that. Can we do it tomorrow instead?"

Acknowledged that you said something and then didn't come through, apologized for, and a rectification suggested.



True/false is a boolean. "This isn't true, but don't describe it using the word falsehood" is meaningless for something boolean. And a "I will do this by the end of the year", if it is not done by the end of the year is a falsehood. That word is merely descriptive, not too strong.

Now, to undermine a lot of what I'm saying:
I understand from other posters they have it in their Community Update, which is something I didn't know when I posted originally. From my perspective it was promised, with a date they gave themselves so it should be achievable, and then I heard nothing. This Community Update is much better than I originally thought - they are effectively saying "I have not forgotten about this, it's still on my list". That's decent. The original promise is still a falsehood if not done by year end, but this is much more like owning up and having a rectification.

Well, no, a falsehood involves intentionality: if Brinks really thought in January/February that it would happen this year, it was not a falsehood to say that was the aim. They ha e kept it on the public facing radar of "we are working on this"...but they are also writing the new rulebooks. The '24 rules SRD might be a higher priority than the older Sdition stuff, too. The D&D team promised an OGL SRD was in works fans would be for the new rules in 2014...ot came out like in 2016, IIRC. They were not lying thst it was coming, even if it took a while. Deadlines, particularly for large corporate products, can be fuzzy in my personal work experience.

 

[Mark Craddock]

And I also think it's instructive that they started 4e in 2005, which is only five years after the launch of 3e, and certainly pretty darn quick for such a massive change. Especially given that there was nothing particularly "old" about 3e at that time.

In other words, Hasbro inherited the already-in-motion 3e and OGL, and by the time they really started paying attention, they chose to move on to the OGL. I think that a case can be made that the two times that the "powers that be" ever really thought about D&D in terms of monetization, they wanted to ditch the OGL.

I hadn't realized 4E's development had been started that soon. I wonder how much of it intersected with Book of 9 Swords & Star Wars Saga Edition