D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Vaalingrade]

If you're hanging your hat on a thing as precarious as that... you maybe should be prepared. If you have purchased a house and have kids who are depending on you for their education... be prepared. If you have entered a career that has risks, be an adult and recognise those risks and have a backup plan.

This is not an excuse.

This feels like an excuse being made for the actual bad actors against those who were affected by the bad acts.

 

[TheSword]

Both of you are incorrect.

Indestructoboy was the first to leak WotC's intent to gut the OGL on November 10th, 2022. This is easily verifiable. He was vague about the specifics in order to protect his source, but he stated that he was told that the OGL would effectively go away and that WotC would release more information in January. (Both claims turned out to be true, as WotC originally intended to release OGL 1.1 on January 4th.) That resulted in conversations and arguments online that continued for close to a month and a half before WotC responded on December 21st, 2022. Again, this is easily verifiable. That was two weeks before Linda Codega's January 5th Gizmodo article. By the time that article came out, the controversy had been going on for nearly two months. WotC would eventually back down three weeks later, putting the total time from the first leak to WotC's capitulation pretty close to three months.

The point is not whether the idea was mooted in Nov, but when did the substantial pushback occur, particularly from the fanbase. Which was when Linda Condega’s article came out in early January.

 

[TheSword]

Saying that it only hurt the little guys might not be the winning argument you think it is.

I have no idea how many of the bigger licensees shut down. What I do know is that a lot of the bigger licensees were the first to be contacted, and they spent the better part of three months not knowing if their businesses would be viable after January 4th. Some of those bigger licensees were making pay-your-mortgage-and-put-your-kids-through-school money. Some of the bigger licensees were making pay-your-employees-who-are-paying-their-mortgages-and-putting-their-kids-through-school money. Even if WotC ended up backing off and those businesses ended up not shutting down, they were forced into a period of intense and distressing uncertainty. All for the "crime" of agreeing to and abiding by the terms of a license freely offered by WotC.

But here's the thing: licensees are licensees are licensees. It doesn't matter if they're Sony securing a license to make Spider-Man films, or publishers of any size agreeing to the terms of the OGL, their rights within those legal agreements should be honored as long as they abide by the terms of those agreements, whether it's one guy in his study making enough to buy a coffee every two months, or Paizo, or even WotC (as they're a party to the agreement too).

I’m not saying it only hurt the little guys. I’m asking the question if there was a single substantial company that shut down over this dispute - as has been suggested. I was merely making sure that the response wasn’t someone saying my Uncle Bob couldn’t release his ‘Adventurer’s Guide to Farming Tools’ pdf.

 

[mamba]

I’m not saying it only hurt the little guys. I’m asking the question if there was a single substantial company that shut down over this dispute - as has been suggested.

The suggestion was they would if WotC had pushed through the OGL 1.1. They did not, so this never happened.

Some certainly went through some difficult times with wondering whether to pivot and delaying KS they had worked towards for a long time. Some walked away from creating D&D products altogether.

Did anyone fold because of three months or so of uncertainty, no idea, but that was not the proposition anyway

 

[mamba]

IANAL, so have no idea idea if it can be legally revoked. Right off the bat not impressed with this 'laughed out of the room' comment. Are you a lawyer? Is there something you know that I don't?

lawyers landed on both sides of this, I just never felt that the ones arguing for WotC’s case were all that convincing / knew what they were talking about / made some factual errors. Law is a big field…

What I do know is that the GPL has the exact same wording and that WotC was very clear that there was no way to revoke it for a long time, until they no longer believed it was convenient and were looking for an excuse to get rid of it. Also that courts frequently follow the stated intent when in doubt, and that was clear and available here, and did not support WotC’s case.

I doubt they stood a chance, but courts do not get it right every time either, so there is always some risk. Add to this that WotC can outspend you and basically attempt to bankrupt you with the trial, and there is some doubt that you would prevail, even if you were legally absolutely in the right. I saw that as their only realistic chance, bully / scare everyone so they do not even go to trial, and drag out the ones that do, until they can no longer afford to fight on

That I would agree with. I would add though that they were coming from the position of being the injured party.

not sure, for one, see 1), for another Kyle later claimed it was meant to prevent Disney or Facebook to use it to create their own spinoff. In that case it never was about being an injured party the 3pps took advantage of

The initial deal was pretty awful. In other circumstances (see above), I would be pretty hard on an individual human being who did that. I would not expect anyone to accept that deal. I would, however, expect them to counter.

with the power dynamics as they were, I do not expect a decent deal was to be had. Add to this that I believe they were trying to bully their way out of a legally binding contract, and I am not impressed with anything they did until they suddenly folded and released the SRD under CC

Maybe. I would hope that 3rd party companies would have enough business sense and fortitude to weather a request like that on their own, without the 'help' of the general public.

you cannot weather something that skims more off the top than there is top, and you cannot live in uncertainty for a year or so either, until things get hashed out in negotiations, not knowing whether anything you are working on can be sold at the end of the day.

I hope what I've said puts that in a different light for you.

not really, none of this is new, I considered all of this a year ago already and ended up at the position I am holding today. They had no case, they tried intimidation as the only means available to them, and all of that due to some misguided paranoia

I doubt you learned anything new / changed your mind either

 

[The Scythian]

If you're hanging your hat on a thing as precarious as that... you maybe should be prepared. If you have purchased a house and have kids who are depending on you for their education... be prepared. If you have entered a career that has risks, be an adult and recognise those risks and have a backup plan.

This is not an excuse.

You are hooking your livelihood to a dream. How fun would it be for your hobby to pay your bills? It would, actually, be awesome. But you need to be prepared for the possibility (actually, likelihood) that it doesn't pan out.

You're conflating two things here: the risk inherent in running a business, and the harm caused by a party to a contract acting in bad faith.

Obviously, there is significant risk involved in running your own business, but the major licensees that I'm talking about were companies that were making things work. We don't know who they were exactly, but based on what we know about the aborted OGL 1.1, they would presumably have been companies with revenue of $750,000 or more. I'm sure that many, if not all, of those companies had backup plans for various normal contingencies they might expect. What they didn't expect was that WotC would attempt to unilaterally dissolve an existing legal agreement.

And why would they expect that? It's not like WotC had a history of attempting to renege on contracts or anything, and the OGL had been in use for close to twenty years with no problems. Why should these people who entered into a good faith agreement with WotC have assumed that WotC would act in bad faith?

Most adults enter into contracts pretty regularly. Cell phone contracts. Contracts with utility companies. Contracts with credit card companies. Loans. Leases. Mortgages. Gym memberships. Streaming service subscriptions. They enter into these contracts in good faith and do not expect the other party to attempt to dissolve the contract on a whim. I mean, do you have a backup cellphone in case your cellphone provider arbitrarily decides to revoke your contract? Do you have a plan in case the bank holding your mortgage thinks they can get away with dissolving it? Do you subscribe to streaming services assuming that they will take your money and not give you any service because they decided they didn't feel like abiding by the terms of their agreement with you anymore? If not, why should people who entered into this particular agreement have assumed that WotC would attempt to renege on it?

What's the point you are trying to make here? I read: the whoever you are, when you agree to a contract, your rights are equal to the big spenders. For sure, agreed. Is there some point you're trying to make that I'm missing?

I was responding to a post that I saw as drawing a distinction between smaller and larger licensees.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You're conflating two things here: the risk inherent in running a business, and the harm caused by a party to a contract acting in bad faith.

One of the risks inherent in running a business is encountering those operating in bad faith. Or even those operating under a belief that they are operating in good faith, but aren't. Or those that are operating in good faith, but in a situation, for whatever reason, that someone has to lose.

In other words, be prepared. Part of your responsibility if you are running a business, big or small.

Obviously, there is significant risk involved in running your own business, but the major licensees that I'm talking about were companies that were making things work. We don't know who they were exactly, but based on what we know about the aborted OGL 1.1, they would presumably have been companies with revenue of $750,000 or more. I'm sure that many, if not all, of those companies had backup plans for various normal contingencies they might expect. What they didn't expect was that WotC would attempt to unilaterally dissolve an existing legal agreement.

And why would they expect that? It's not like WotC had a history of attempting to renege on contracts or anything, and the OGL had been in use for close to twenty years with no problems. Why should these people who entered into a good faith agreement with WotC have assumed that WotC would act in bad faith?

Maybe that was malicious on Hasbro's part. Maybe they didn't think of that. Either way, it doesn't matter if you are running a company. Be prepared for every eventuality. Do right by your employees by being prepared. It's part of your job. The world will not be fair to you. Sometimes the reasons are justified. Sometimes the reasons are that you are dealing with a complete scumbag. Either way, don't complain. Figure it out. If you are responsible for the livelihoods of others, I would hope that you step up and figure out this problem instead of sitting down and complaining about it.

Most adults enter into contracts pretty regularly. Cell phone contracts. Contracts with utility companies. Contracts with credit card companies. Loans. Leases. Mortgages. Gym memberships. Streaming service subscriptions. They enter into these contracts in good faith and do not expect the other party to attempt to dissolve the contract on a whim. I mean, do you have a backup cellphone in case your cellphone provider arbitrarily decides to revoke your contract? Do you have a plan in case the bank holding your mortgage thinks they can get away with dissolving it? Do you subscribe to streaming services assuming that they will take your money and not give you any service because they decided they didn't feel like abiding by the terms of their agreement with you anymore? If not, why should people who entered into this particular agreement have assumed that WotC would attempt to renege on it?

I see your point. But look at it from their point of view. They entered an agreement (that they should have been more on top of at the time) that they felt was hurting them. And legitimately so. At face value, this agreement looks like a terrible deal for Hasbro. That opinion was misguided in my opinion and Hasbro should have kept with the status quo, for many reasons (although the outcome of this debacle did benefit smaller publishers in the long run, so maybe this nonsense was good for them, perversely).

If you had signed a cell phone contract, with all kinds of sweet benefits, but later realised that as part of your contract, you were being asked to share your number with telemarketers or some equally horrible thing... would you not want the opportunity to renegotiate that contract?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This feels like an excuse being made for the actual bad actors against those who were affected by the bad acts.

This feels like an excuse for those employing others not putting in the work to look after their employees. You know, actively being a good person, instead of complaining after the fact about all the bad people out there.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

lawyers landed on both sides of this, I just never felt that the ones arguing for WotC’s case were all that convincing / knew what they were talking about / made some factual errors. Law is a big field…

Well, I'm not a lawyer either. Not going to formulate an opinion based on air! And by air, I mean my opinion.

What I do know is that the GPL has the exact same wording and that WotC was very clear that there was no way to revoke it for a long time, until they no longer believed it was convenient and were looking for an excuse to get rid of it. Also that courts frequently follow the stated intent when in doubt, and that was clear and available here, and did not support WotC’s case.

I understand that. But I also understand that any agreement entered into which states 'this will never change, regardless of whatever future circumstances arise' is a trap. If you agreed to this, you did so foolishly. If you wrote the agreement, you set that trap, whether that was intentional or not. If you, as the signee, agree to something like this, be prepared to have this challenged in the future. If you, as the creator of the contract, stipulate this, be prepared to have this challenged in the future as well. If you put blinders on, that's on you.

Situations change, for individuals and for corporations. That's the reality of life. A statement in a contract like 'this will never change, don't worry about it' is too good to be true. Have the wisdom to recognise that this is a pit of vipers before you sign/create the agreement.

Having said that, this is not an excuse to willy-nilly renege on agreements. What I'm saying is that anyone who has signed a contract has a right to have the terms of that contract revisited if circumstances arise that don't align with the intent of the contract. There are many real world examples of this.

I doubt they stood a chance, but courts do not get it right every time either, so there is always some risk. Add to this that WotC can outspend you and basically attempt to bankrupt you with the trial, and there is some doubt that you would prevail, even if you were legally absolutely in the right. I saw that as their only realistic chance, bully / scare everyone so they do not even go to trial, and drag out the ones that do, until they can no longer afford to fight on

That's true. Not something I love about the American judicial system. Can't really discuss that further without delving into politics, but I agree.

not sure, for one, see 1), for another Kyle later claimed it was meant to prevent Disney or Facebook to use it to create their own spinoff. In that case it never was about being an injured party the 3pps took advantage of


with the power dynamics as they were, I do not expect a decent deal was to be had. Add to this that I believe they were trying to bully their way out of a legally binding contract, and I am not impressed with anything they did until they suddenly folded and released the SRD under CC


you cannot weather something that skims more off the top than there is top, and you cannot live in uncertainty for a year or so either, until things get hashed out in negotiations, not knowing whether anything you are working on can be sold at the end of the day.


not really, none of this is new, I considered all of this a year ago already and ended up at the position I am holding today. They had no case, they tried intimidation as the only means available to them, and all of that due to some misguided paranoia

The paranoia was misguided, for sure, in my opinion. But yet, it was there, in the opponent. Is the solution to complain about it, or actually deal with it, productively?

I doubt you learned anything new / changed your mind either

That's okay... I am loving hearing other points of view!

 

[mamba]

Maybe that was malicious on Hasbro's part. Maybe they didn't think of that. Either way, it doesn't matter if you are running a company. Be prepared for every eventuality. Do right by your employees by being prepared. It's part of your job. The world will not be fair to you. Sometimes the reasons are justified. Sometimes the reasons are that you are dealing with a complete scumbag. Either way, don't complain.

and this is where you are losing me. Are you prepared for the zombie apocalypse, an alien invasion, world war 3, the mafia getting an interest in you and starting to shake you down?

You prepare for the likely issues, not for literally anything, and you have every right to complain.