D&D 5E Who tried to end the OGL?

[Alzrius]

I have to say, Penny Arcade's take on things suddenly seems quite relevant again:

 

[Alzrius]

So what, exactly will you do about it?

I should point out that "you shouldn't care about this" and "what are you going to do about it?" are very different goalposts. How much someone cares about something isn't predicated on how much they're able to affect a situation. There are a lot of things I care about that I can't personally change; I'm honestly confused at the suggestion that not being able to change them means that I shouldn't care.

What does theoretically identifying the person potentially behind it (and as others pointed out, he obviously knew) change?

Leaving aside that others have pointed out the flaw in assuming that the CEO necessarily knows everything that his or her subordinates are about to do before they do it, for me it changes my impression of Chris Cocks himself, e.g. with regard to his trying to portray himself as a "not just the president, but also a member" part of the gaming community.

 

[Oofta]

I should point out that "you shouldn't care about this" and "what are you going to do about it?" are very different goalposts. How much someone cares about something isn't predicated on how much they're able to affect a situation. There are a lot of things I care about that I can't personally change; I'm honestly confused at the suggestion that not being able to change them means that I shouldn't care.

Leaving aside that others have pointed out the flaw in assuming that the CEO necessarily knows everything that his or her subordinates are about to do before they do it, for me it changes my impression of Chris Cocks himself, e.g. with regard to his trying to portray himself as "not just the president, but also a member" part of the gaming community.

It was not just a minor decision, proposals were sent to outside companies. I see no way he didn't know about it. Even if he did make the decision, we don't know all the reasons for his decision. For example he may have been doing the best he could based on pressure from above. I know I've done things I personally disagreed with because of pressure from above while doing the best I could to follow the edict.

Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean he is not a member of the gaming community. If agreeing with everyone there would be no community.

This news doesn't substantively change anything.

 

[TiQuinn]

My wife is corporate upper management. Not all CEOs micromanage. Sometimes the CEO presents his/her vision to the chiefs who then go to the VPs and instruct them to make the vision happen relatively independently.

The details at a high level (and removal of the OGL would be a big enough detail) are still always available for the executives because responsibility ultimately is theirs, regardless of how they delegate. Further, given that Cocks came out of the WotC side of the business, he was more cognizant than another executive would be about the particulars of WotC and D&D line.

 

[Alzrius]

It was not just a minor decision, proposals were sent to outside companies. I see no way he didn't know about it.

That point is moot now, since I find Riggs credible in his saying that Cocks was the one who came up with the idea, but I disagree with you here as per the reasoning that others have mentioned with regard to how much a CEO is necessarily aware of what their subordinates are doing.

Even if he did make the decision, we don't know all the reasons for his decision.

And he's free to share them, if he's so inclined, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't react to what we've been told.

For example he may have been doing the best he could based on pressure from above. I know I've done things I personally disagreed with because of pressure from above while doing the best I could to follow the edict.

Riggs' report suggests that Cocks was the one who came up with the idea. If there's additional information that would shed new light on that, I'm happy to adjust my position in reaction to it, but by that same token I'm going to have a response based on what's been put forward currently, rather than a "may have" or "what if" with nothing to support it. (And as I've said before, Riggs has enough credibility in terms of insider sources that I don't see cause to dismiss what he's saying out of hand.)

Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean he is not a member of the gaming community. If agreeing with everyone there would be no community.

I didn't say that his disagreeing with me meant that he wasn't part of the gaming community. I said that I look askance on his claims that he's part of the community while also deciding to kill something that the vast majority of said community holds in such high regard. You'd think someone in tune with their own community would have realized beforehand how wildly unpopular such an action would be, and the harm it would cause.

This news doesn't substantively change anything.

For you. For other people, with different values and priorities, it's much more salient. And that's okay.

 

[overgeeked]

Thanks for posting that! Though I'll note that Riggs is wrong about who broke the story; Mark Seifter and Stephen Glicker of Roll for Combat broke the story almost twenty-four hours before Linda Codega.

And they got it from IndestructoBoy.

 

[Maxperson]

And they got it from IndestructoBoy.

Who got it from Deep Throat. That guy breaks everything of importance.

 

[Umbran]

If this had been cooked up, say, two levels lower, someone would have gotten fired over this…

But we would not have heard about it if they were.

 

[Umbran]

So...DnDBeyond?

You do know that D&D Beyond has free accounts, right?

 

[Velderan]

Unnamed sources, no clue if it's been verified. It's a rumor.

When do sources ever get named in news stories regardless of platform the information appears on? That's probably the quickest way to become an unemployed former source.