Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8869614" data-attributes="member: 12251">No, I was very specifically not saying that.I am saying people's motivations are complex. I am saying that people's understanding of their own motivations are often flawed. I am saying that people emphasise different aspects of their motivations to different audiences. I am saying that even if we did have a perfect understanding of Dancey's motivation, he was not the only one involved. And for all those reasons, I am saying that you were overreaching when you said we know exactly what the motivations behind the original OGL were just because of one person's public statements.So just to be clear, you responded to my asking "For example, do you really think that Dancey presented it to WotC senior management in the presented way he sold it to the D&D-playing public (as in, exactly the same terms, with identical emphasis and nuance)?" with a "yes"? do think his communcation with you was identical his communication with whichever WotC executives he had to sell on the idea, down to the microexpression?Because I struggle to believe that. That question was rhetorical. It was deliberately hyperbolic to the point that I could not imagine anybody believing the answer was "yes", let alone someone with your knowledge and experience.Also, if you genuinely believe that the answer is "yes", I have a bridge to sell you.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />EDIT: Given the amount of push back I am getting, I get the feeling both of you guys think I am saying much more than I am. The last sentence of my response to Reynard, that we do not know exactly & entirely what motivated the OGL just because one person involved has made extensive public statements on the matter, is the whole point. Everything else I have said is in support of that.</blockquote>

Verification