And no. Business owners aren't bad people if they don't have plans for what to do if another party arbitrarily decides to renege on their contract.
Bad people? There is no need to inject hyperbole into this discussion. I'm saying that you take on the responsibility of employing others, you take on the responsibility of getting in front of problems that affect your business. It's just the ethical thing to do. If there is a rent increase on the property you run your business on... do you immediately pass that rent increase on to your employees by dropping their salaries? I hope not! Ideally, you take responsibility and see if there is another aspect of your business you can adjust so that your employees don't take the impact. You might take action against those who initiated the rent increase if there is something nefarious behind it, absolutely, but that's something completely different.
If a producer rents a theater to put on a theatrical production, they're not a bad person if they don't book a second theater in case the owner of the first one decides to renege on their contract. That's just silly. (And where would it end? Because maybe both the first and second theater owners might attempt to dissolve their contracts, so the product would need to book a third theater, ad infinitum.)
Not what I said. I said on the off chance that happens, be nimble. When a problem comes up, be on top of it. You're responsible for the livelihoods of others.
At this point, what you're saying is so divorced from reality that I have to wonder if you're trolling or engaged in some kind of bit.
Wow. I'm sure you're a better person than this comment makes you appear. I'm going to chalk this up to an emotional attachment to this argument.
I see a double standard emerging.
No, you don't. Well, you might see it, but it isn't actually there.
On the one hand, you imply that third-party publishers are bad people (or at least not "actively being good [people]") if they enter into a contract with WotC in good faith, abide by the terms of that contract, and expect WotC to do the same. They should be prepared in case WotC acts in bad faith, and if they're not, it's on them.
No, I did not imply that. Nor did I say that directly.
On the other hand, you keep asking us to look at things from the point of view of WotC and put their motivation and actions in the best possible light. If they acted in bad faither, well... The deal was unfair! Of course, they wanted to renegotiate! Wouldn't anyone?
Well, yes, objectively, anyone would. Really.
First of all, the theory that WotC saw the deal as unfair, or felt that they were unfairly saddled with it, is something that people who decided to defend WotC came up with back in late 2022 or early 2023, presumably in an attempt to garner sympathy for them (which is what I believe you to be doing here). To the best of my knowledge, WotC has never claimed that they attempted to revoke the OGL because they felt it was unfair.
Of course they saw it as unfair! They purchased a product, and because they weren't paying attention, the OGL was released. The OGL was actually good for the hobby, and good for their business; it was extremely short-sighted of them to rail against it. That doesn't change the fact that the OGL could be perceived to someone who hasn't done their homework that, as an owner of a property, they have given away the farm. 'I paid a lot of money for this, but other people can use it for free??!!??'
But, yeah, it's possible that they felt it was unfair.
There you go.
However, it's also possible that they saw a bunch of successful OGL-based crowdfunding campaigns and told their lawyers to find a way to let them wet their beaks. There are also other possible motivations, such as the ones that they actually did put forward and virtually no one bought, like not wanting third parties to make D&D NFTs. I see no reason to privilege the theory that WotC felt aggrieved by the contract's unfairness over any of those other potential motivations.
Okay. You are circling back to my central point. You have entered the world of business. You will encounter other businesses that will make decisions that may be ethically suspect. Or they are not objectively suspect, but you perceive those decisions as such because they negatively impact your business and you get very upset. Humans are very egocentric that way.
If you are a good and ethical person, and you are running a business, you will deal with these situations and protect your people.
What you also might and should do is to take action to prevent this sort of behaviour in the future. What you should absolutely not do though, is move in that direction without understanding what actually happened. With all due respect, that's the mistake I think you are making. You look at your side, and how you feel it hurt you, and think about the pain it caused you, and let that colour your view of what has actually happened. Look at the bigger picture. The motivations of both sides. If you don't do that, you don't have an accurate understanding of what drove the situation you are examining. Which means that the solution you are pushing for is just going to result in more problems for others down the road.
Second, I don't think their motivation matters as much as what they ended up doing. Which was not, as you have claimed, renegotiating the OGL. What they actually did was attempt to revoke the existing OGL and replace it with a completely different license, one that was open in name only, and they planned to do it in an underhanded way. If things had gone as intended, the vast majority of existing licensees would have learned about the new license just seven business days before they were expected to agree to it and the old one was revoked.
WotC acted in a way that made sense to those who made that (misguided IMO) decision. The way they went about it was pretty terrible to boot (for the reasons that you mentioned). These are things that misguided people do. Or maybe they are ethically corrupt. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. If you have started a business, you have to be prepared to deal with these situations.
Of course it matters. Running a company doesn't somehow exonerate you from ethical responsibilities, nor does it mean you have to quietly take the actions of those who harm you lying down. We'll complain as much as we feel we need to, and work to protect ourselves in whatever ethical way we deem necessary, thanks very much.
"Don't complain." Jeez. Thank goodness we weren't asking for permission.
(And in the post credit sting? The complaining worked; WotC changed course.)
I think you're making the same error in reading my argument that
@The Scythian is. I'm not saying 'don't complain' or 'don't take action to change an unjust situation'. I'm saying do that, but: a) fully understand the situation first and b) whether what's happened is right or wrong, whether a) fixes it or not, take care of the people you are responsible for.
