OGL 1.1 live chat with a lawyer at Roll for Crit.

[Greg Benage]

And what better way to do so with an eventual acceptance of terms than to go insane with a massive patch to begin with to draw the ire that was going to be coming regardless... and then walking back and making it seem like they're doing everyone favor by being more reasonable?

I'd be very surprised if this is all four-dimensional chess. It has all the hallmarks of decision-making by committee, or more appropriately, decision-making distributed across several functional silos.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

3PPs and streamers are simultaneously stealing all of poor widdle WotC's rightful money and so irrelevant that nothing they say or do can stop the invincible D&D juggernaut.

I have it on good authority that david was the bully too... and poor goliath.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd be very surprised if this is all four-dimensional chess. It has all the hallmarks of decision-making by committee, or more appropriately, decision-making distributed across several functional silos.

Heh heh... well, I wouldn't exactly call "starting high and negotiating down" to be 4-Dimensional chess either. It's the bog standard technique for negotiation. I'm pretty sure someone at Hasbro has taken Business 101.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have it on good authority that david was the bully too... and poor goliath.

You don't wanna mess with Davey...

 

[Greg Benage]

Heh heh... well, I wouldn't exactly call "starting high and negotiating down" to be 4-Dimensional chess either. It's the bog standard technique for negotiation. I'm pretty sure someone at Hasbro has taken Business 101.

I think there's a distinction between negotiating tactics and image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think there's a distinction between negotiating tactics and image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press.

I don't see one myself. All of that is eventually a part of negotiation. The only difference is which side can make the most out of the "image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press".

 

[Greg Benage]

I don't see one myself. All of that is eventually a part of negotiation. The only difference is which side can make the most out of the "image-damaging legal documents leaked to the press".

I don't see how it makes any sense as a negotiating tactic. Consider two alternatives:

1. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 but we won't deauthorize 1.0a." And third parties say, "Uh, fine."

2. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, "Uh, fine."

Which of those two do you consider the shrewder negotiating tactic?

 

[Scars Unseen]

There are multiple D&D-related subreddits. I haven't seen any kind of support for this at all on any I've checked.

It also hit the main /r/games subreddit with over a 1000 comments so far (which is pretty good considering how quickly stuff can slide off the first page on major subreddits). There are definitely more people being made aware than just the core tabletop crowd.

Yeah and we're still at the stage where WotC could easily back out of it. The obvious approach is:

< Read this in as silly a voice as you like > "This was an early draft of merely one approach we were merely considering some months ago and it's very unfortunate that someone chose to create this kerfuffle by so cruelly leaking it! Here's what we were always actually going with!"

Then put out something more resembles what WotC said on Beyond, and doesn't do any "deauthorizing" or similar craziness, just links access to the 1D&D SRD and possibly other perks to OGL 1.1.

The issue is, if WotC is anything like other corporations (and all signs are that they are), working out what they want in it/changed, drafting, sending it back and forth for approval, double-checking, and making ready a new, less offensive OGL 1.1 could easily take a week. And probably at least 2-3 days absolute best case, and that's assuming every could agree on what they needed to change on day 1 of those 2-3 days (and it'd probably be closer to 3). And that's business days. I know the US works more hours than the UK, but still usually don't work on weekends, and it's nearly the weekend.

Honestly, the only thing that could really "redeem" WotC in my eyes after this is creating a new OGL that explicitly closes the loopholes they think they have in the old ones. They can call it a "legacy" OGL to cover all past editions, 4E included now that it's no longer current.

At that point they can be as exploitative as they want with D&DOne. It's their good will to throw out if they wish. But the legacy of better people needs to be protected first. What was the word being thrown around? "Irrevocable." Yeah, that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see how it makes any sense as a negotiating tactic. Consider two alternatives:

1. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 but we won't deauthorize 1.0a." And third parties say, "Uh, fine."

2. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "Here's the new license but you can still use 1.0a if you want." Third parties say, "Uh, fine."

Which of those two do you consider the shrewder negotiating tactic?

You forgot the possibility of...

3. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "Oh, okay."

Or

4. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 and deauthorizing 1.0a but the money you have to give us will be less." And third parties say, "Well, that still sucks, but it's better than it was, so I guess we have to go along with it because we don't really have a choice in the matter, do we?"

Or

5. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "This sucks" and leak the document, leading to public backlash against WotC. So WotC says, "Fine, we're still doing 1.1 and deauthorizing 1.0a, but if you individual companies want to each negotiate a separate deal with us, we're down with that." And select third parties say, "Uh, fine" and their deals make them happy and that happiness is spread to all the people for whom they directly influence.

And these are only a few of the possible scenarios. But the point is... they never would have known what the other companies and public would have accepted had they not risked the whole "leading to public backlash" thing. But that's more often than not not that much of an issue because all us nerds often have short memories when things we really like end up getting made.

How are all those people who "swore off Star Wars" when the Extended Universe got cancelled I wonder? They still off the train or did they eventually find their way back like everyone expected?

 

[ReshiIRE]

3. WotC shares the draft of 1.1 and says, "We're deauthorizing 1.0a and you will like it." Third parties say, "Oh, okay."

It's not really a possibility considering third parties are already against it and nobody are enthusiastic about something that, at the very least, is confirmed to affect royalties in a manner that is wholely negative to third parties and gives them zero value comapred to previous agreements.