Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9574552" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Yeah, he's got a pretty equivocal take on it (please correct me if I'm wrong):1. Wizards was likely motivated not so much by fear of small developers as by the prospect of someone like Lucasfilm (his example) coming in and using the free rules to basically do a Star Wars D&amp;D, &quot;make a bazillion dollars&quot; and cut Wizards out.2. The license that was being sent out for feedback actually was being sent out for feedback, and not basically an ultimatum, which is how it was ultimately received.3. That Wizards felt &quot;stabbed in the face&quot; by one of their partners leaking the proposal as if it was a threat rather than a request for feedback.4. But that Wizards badly misread how the situation looked like a threat, especially coming on the heels of the announcement of the 2024 rules, so that the proposal looked like an ultimatum to agree or be cut out of the new &quot;edition.&quot;5. And that it looked particularly bad in light of how Wizards actually had handled the 4e OGL/GSL situation, so folks had good reason to be doubtful.6. But to Wizards credit they changed course and actually did put the rules in the Creative Commons, though not before first giving themselves a black eye that they should've seen coming.Basically, he describes it more as ineptitude than malice.(that's as far as I've parsed so far).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9574552, member: 7035894"] Yeah, he's got a pretty equivocal take on it (please correct me if I'm wrong): 1. Wizards was likely motivated not so much by fear of small developers as by the prospect of someone like Lucasfilm (his example) coming in and using the free rules to basically do a Star Wars D&D, "make a bazillion dollars" and cut Wizards out. 2. The license that was being sent out for feedback actually was being sent out for feedback, and not basically an ultimatum, which is how it was ultimately received. 3. That Wizards felt "stabbed in the face" by one of their partners leaking the proposal as if it was a threat rather than a request for feedback. 4. But that Wizards badly misread how the situation looked like a threat, especially coming on the heels of the announcement of the 2024 rules, so that the proposal looked like an ultimatum to agree or be cut out of the new "edition." 5. And that it looked particularly bad in light of how Wizards actually had handled the 4e OGL/GSL situation, so folks had good reason to be doubtful. 6. But to Wizards credit they changed course and actually did put the rules in the Creative Commons, though not before first giving themselves a black eye that they should've seen coming. Basically, he describes it more as ineptitude than malice. (that's as far as I've parsed so far). [/QUOTE]

Verification