# Any word on the GSL?



## joethelawyer (Jan 19, 2009)

It's been a few weeks since last I read something about it's progress.


----------



## Najo (Jan 19, 2009)

I want to second this request. Scott, where we at? We understand weather and holidays got in the way with the end of the year release of the GSL. But now we are at Jan 19th here, and last I remember you said we would have something in the first part of Jan. 

Please just give us an update at least. 

thanks 

Nate


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 19, 2009)

Well it was 1 week from being done before Gen Con and 2 days from being done before Christmas, so I figure it might be done by the GAMA Trade Show in April.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 19, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Well it was 1 week from being done before Gen Con and 2 days from being done before Christmas, so I figure it might be done by the GAMA Trade Show in April.




I didn't think 4.5e would be announced so that soon..*



*I have a long standing fool's bet that GSL would be released when 4.5e or 5e would be announced.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jan 19, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> I didn't think 4.5e would be announced so that soon..*
> 
> 
> 
> *I have a long standing fool's bet that GSL would be released when 4.5e or 5e would be announced.




I think they have thier bases covered on the 4.5 issue. With PHB and DMG sequils, they can fix all their mistakes while not making a new edition. That way they can write up 5th ed by 2020


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 19, 2009)

Personally, regardless of when/if it's revised, I think that ship has sailed.  Given the initial delay/limbo, the larger companies needed to keep products moving to run the business.  The lack of advances on the rules and the uncertainty surrounding the license effectively forced all but Goodman to move in directions that didn't rely on 4e or the GSL.  The change from OGL to GSL and its much more restrictive nature only solidified their decisions.

WotC has no financial interest in modifying the GSL.  It may help from a market perception perspective but I strongly suspect that 4e is successful enough that the legacy idea behind the OGL that 3rd-party product would drive more WotC content is considered insignificant.  On the rare chance 4e is not as successful as hoped, it would be a foolish business plan for WotC to bank on a friendlier GSL driving 3rd-party product and in turn, driving WotC sales.

Even if we see an updated GSL, I don't think publishers will be lining up around the corner like with 3e.

Also, if I look into my dollar-store crystal ball, I also wouldn't be surprised that when 5e is announced it's closed.  I also see the lack of 3rd-party participation in 4e being held up as a reason for not having any kind of OGL/GSL aside from perhaps a specific license for writing adventures.  Hopefully, I'm wrong.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 19, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Personally, regardless of when/if it's revised, I think that ship has sailed.  Given the initial delay/limbo, the larger companies needed to keep products moving to run the business.  The lack of advances on the rules and the uncertainty surrounding the license effectively forced all but Goodman to move in directions that didn't rely on 4e or the GSL.  The change from OGL to GSL and its much more restrictive nature only solidified their decisions.
> 
> WotC has no financial interest in modifying the GSL.  It may help from a market perception perspective but I strongly suspect that 4e is successful enough that the legacy idea behind the OGL that 3rd-party product would drive more WotC content is considered insignificant.  On the rare chance 4e is not as successful as hoped, it would be a foolish business plan for WotC to bank on a friendlier GSL driving 3rd-party product and in turn, driving WotC sales.
> 
> ...



It might or it might not change if some companies decide to support 4e. Anything is assumptions at this point. 

However, a changed GSL might change what the companies who do support can do, and how they can do things, and that is very important to those of us who play 4e and like 3pp products.


----------



## primarchone (Jan 20, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Personally, regardless of when/if it's revised, I think that ship has sailed.  Given the initial delay/limbo, the larger companies needed to keep products moving to run the business.  The lack of advances on the rules and the uncertainty surrounding the license effectively forced all but Goodman to move in directions that didn't rely on 4e or the GSL.  The change from OGL to GSL and its much more restrictive nature only solidified their decisions.
> 
> WotC has no financial interest in modifying the GSL.  It may help from a market perception perspective but I strongly suspect that 4e is successful enough that the legacy idea behind the OGL that 3rd-party product would drive more WotC content is considered insignificant.  On the rare chance 4e is not as successful as hoped, it would be a foolish business plan for WotC to bank on a friendlier GSL driving 3rd-party product and in turn, driving WotC sales.
> 
> ...




Hi!

The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.

You'll see a lot of speculation on this, but no official word.

My suspicion is that it didn't. I base that on 4e being GSL and much more closed in comparison to OGL. If OGL had been some sort of cash cow, it would not have been scrapped.

Corporations do all sort of weird things (to us non-corporate people anyway). But one thing you can always count them to do without fail is that which generates money. In my view the powers that be within WOTC decided that OGL didn't impact their bottom line and thus was changed.

I agree that the GSL, at this point is moot. Whatever sales expectations WOTC have for 4e are probably being met. Note that WOTC doesn't care or particularly benefit from a market full of competing product.

As things stand now, its actually quite a good situation for them. The majority of whats out there for 4e is their own stuff, so its far easier for them to hit a sales expectation than a market crowded with many more non wizards products. Thus GSL is low priority.

Some may view this as bad for the "hobby". But that's irrelevant to WOTC's bottom line. They'll take a much tighter market with fewer variety of products for consumers in which their products can make even better use of their already huge market presence advantage.

Primarchone


----------



## SteveC (Jan 20, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It might or it might not change if some companies decide to support 4e. Anything is assumptions at this point.
> 
> However, a changed GSL might change what the companies who do support can do, and how they can do things, and that is very important to those of us who play 4e and like 3pp products.



I pretty much agree with this 100%. There are a lot of companies out there who made excellent 3X products that would do very well in the 4E era, but most of them aren't willing to jump in without a very firm set of legal legs to stand on.

A new GSL (or, if I can dream, an extension of the OGL) would bring a lot more folks home to D&D, since you'd have the opportunity to purchase products with a very different feel than what's coming out from WotC. As a simple example, I love the Paizo "look and feel" for their adventures, and I'd love to see them do something with 4E, but we're just not going to see that until there's a better license for them to work with. I'm sure for other people it's companies like Green Ronin, or Necromancer, or other companies altogether.

For me, when I was running a module, which I did for quite some time, I didn't use WotC's products, but rather ran *Age of Worms* and *Shackled City*. I'd love to run EN World's own *War of the Burning Sky* as well, but I'm looking to do so in 4E. If I get to the point where my own creative resources are tapped for 4E, and there aren't other alternatives, it will be time to move on to another game. I'm sure I'm not alone in that area either.

So I'd say that it really IS in WotC's best interest to get a revised GSL out there, and I hope they will. At this point, I'm not really expecting it anymore, so there you go.

--Steve


----------



## The Lost Muse (Jan 20, 2009)

I agree completely that if WotC is going to actually offer licencing, the licence should be made available as quickly as possible. 



SteveC said:


> (or, if I can dream, an extension of the OGL)




Not to nitpick, but the OGL needs no extension. WotC could release an SRD for 4e under the OGL, and then everyone would be able to use that information along with the open game licence. Arguably, someone could create an OSRIC-like product for 4e, and release that under the ogl, and then publishers would be able to use that... but I would imagine there would be a lawsuit before anyone could safetly do so.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 20, 2009)

Timmundo said:


> Not to nitpick, but the OGL needs no extension. WotC could release an SRD for 4e under the OGL, and then everyone would be able to use that information along with the open game licence. Arguably, someone could create an OSRIC-like product for 4e, and release that under the ogl, and then publishers would be able to use that... but I would imagine there would be a lawsuit before anyone could safetly do so.



...and that's exactly what I meant. WotC either needs to expand the GSL or simply release 4E under the OGL by extending it to their new product line. There's no way they'll do the latter, which is why it's only a dream. That's a pity, because I firmly believe 4E would be better adopted if there was a broader base for the game to attract.

--Steve


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jan 20, 2009)

primarchone said:


> Hi!
> 
> The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.
> 
> ...




I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales _as a result of _the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers. 

The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D. 

Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 20, 2009)

Varianor Abroad said:


> I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales _as a result of _the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers.
> 
> The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D.
> 
> Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.



It's Android vs. the iTunes App store. I suspect that by the time 5E is announced, the general business climate will be much more inclined toward the open source model (as a result of so many businessmen having smartphones running Android or WebOS in their pockets), but that will likely be way too late for many of the D20 companies.

We'll see if the OGL fork folks come back in 5E, if it ends up OGL in the end. That'll probably be determined by just how big of a splash Pathfinder ends up making.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jan 20, 2009)

The GSL saga was such a comedy of errors that it was funny, but now it's just sad.


----------



## Wik (Jan 20, 2009)

Varianor Abroad said:


> I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales _as a result of _the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers.
> 
> The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D.
> 
> Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.




Except, how many people just used the SRD?  There is, in fact, a PbP forum _on this very site_ that is based entirely off the SRD... and not the Core Rulebooks.  The difference, of course, being that some monsters are not in the SRD, and there are psionics in the SRD.

What about when Mongoose released the Player's Handbook in a paperback format?  Or the other companies releasing their own PHB's that can effectively replace the corebooks?  (Iron Heroes did something close, and there was Monte's own Arcana Unearthed.... not to mention Paizo's upcoming PHB).  

All those people were skimming money off the "third party sales encourage sales to the core books" theory.


----------



## Wik (Jan 20, 2009)

For the record, I'm all for wotc keeping things to themselves. or letting things carry on as they already are.  I think, in fact, that it'll be good for the hobby.  

There are already a few "open" RPGs out there that be developed, hassle-free, until the end of time:  d20, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future... and I know Savage Heroes and (possibly) Castles and Crusades are "Semi-Open".  Just because there's a new D&D, doesn't mean it has to be "open". 

One thing I didn't like about the 2e boom was that it caused many of the game companies to converge and become, well, similar.  Those that weren't dealing in d20 either collapsed, or had a strong product line of their own (Rifts or Vampire, really... Shadowrun and Earthdawn had to get picked up by third parties).  

Personally, I want to see a bunch of independant RPGs, with their own systems, coming up like before the d20 boom.  And we're beginning to see that again.  Nowadays, only half the shelf at my FLGS is d20-related (both 3e and 4e), while the other half has some great smaller-scale games just begging to be given a spin.  

d20 is great and all, but sometimes, I want to roll a d6 to make an attack roll.  And I want to be able to say "My character has absolutely no class."


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 20, 2009)

I predict that there will be another annoucent from Scott saying that the GSL will be done by D&DXP but will not actually release it then. This will keep the fans from complaing at D&DXP. I then predict that it will be done by the GAMA Trade Show because the publishers and retailers there will demand something. A lack of GSL revision by that point will be taken as no GSL revision ever and business decsisions will be based on that.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jan 20, 2009)

Wik said:


> All those people were skimming money off the "third party sales encourage sales to the core books" theory.




I disagree. Gamers are collectors. The more the market stayed focused on d20/OGL, the better it was for Wizards and D&D. (There's a separate issue of saturation, of course.) The collectors bought more books, and the alternate setting games still used a lot of core material. I've seen gamers in every d20 setting out there adapting books from Wizards.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm w/ Wik on this one. Like it or not, a lot of folks used the OGL to make material that used the D&D engine, but never needed the core books. I think this is why the GSL is so restrictive.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 20, 2009)

primarchone said:


> The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.
> 
> You'll see a lot of speculation on this, but no official word.
> 
> My suspicion is that it didn't. I base that on 4e being GSL and much more closed in comparison to OGL. If OGL had been some sort of cash cow, it would not have been scrapped.




Is there not a middle option? "Wizards made money off the OGL, but also saw some cash slip out by way of rip-offs" ?

This seems the logical reason for the "open --- but really tightly open" license we have for the GSL.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 20, 2009)

primarchone said:


> Hi!
> 
> The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.
> 
> ...




This is false reasoning. Corporations do things for many reasons: out of fear of competition, out of a greater fear of losing than of turning a bigger profit, out of a desire for control, out of blind adherence for tradition, out of a blind desire for change for its own sake, as part of an exec's ploy to control a company by beating office rivals, as reaction to a new management fad, out of sheer incompetence, as a loss leader... many reasons.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 20, 2009)

Another vote for a GSL update.

As far as reasoning goes, it is all speculation.

As far as fact goes, (and as of my posting right now) Scott's last entry on his blog was this, here: Scott Rouse's Blog - Wizards Community



> So as many of you know I had hoped that the revised GSL would be done before I went on Christmas Holiday. My last day of work was scheduled to be on the 19th and it was my hope that we could publish the revision by tomorrow.
> 
> On Tuesday of this week I handed off my final revision recommendation of the SRD, GSL, and Statement of Rejection. There were a couple outstanding yes/no decisions/questions to be answered. Specifically: 1)What, if any PHB 2 classes do we include? 2) Do we add the pantheon? 3) Do we add the cosmology? I had included my thoughts (yes on all as well as a few added monsters) in the revised SRD I handed off.
> 
> ...





Emphasis by me. Since it was just a day or two of more work, I'd hope that he's just polishing it off and will, instead of an update, be issuing a press release that it has been finalized.


----------



## Mark (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, another month come and gone.  We have a pretty good idea from SR's posts and blog (and email) what he might like to see happen with the GSL but we also have a pretty good idea from the time that has passed that WotC doesn't feel it is either necessary or a priority.  If we do not get anything more than promises this week, I'm going to have to write it off as not ever going to happen in any actually satisfying manner.  Honestly, when a company dicks around this much, you cannot really trust being in business with them, particularly with a license structured as the GSL is, and likely will continue to be, because you simply cannot take them at their word as to what they will do in the future.  The OGL had provisions against that but even the revised GSL purportedly never will, so the point is probably moot.


----------



## phloog (Jan 20, 2009)

With respect to making money 'off' the OGL/d20 way of working.  This is an incredibly complex system, and I would wager that WOTC has neither the time nor the mathematical / financial horsepower to ever truly establish whether or not the OGL was in total a good/bad thing.  

You could model with with one set of assumptions and show that it helped, and another set of assumptions and it looks like a loser.  It comes down to how you quantify things like word of mouth, good will, number of people drawn in from product X, number of people drawn AWAY from competitive products, etc.

And IF they were somehow able to decisively state one way or another whether or not it helped, that calculation would likely be invalid in the world that exists now...in part DUE TO their delays/inaction.

The financial calculation to arrive at a go/no-go decision for an open license has changed precisely because it would no longer be the first.  OGL D&D exists NOW...so everything is different.  Even if they could say it was a positive then doesn't mean it would be a positive now...it could be a negative, it could be an even bigger good guy.

They've stalled, and stammered and delayed, and now we have Pathfinder and other options coming out.  4E is successful to some degree, I'm sure, but I don't know that they'll be able to justify ever 'opening it' anymore than it is now.  

I'm no longer so much waiting for WOTC to get off the pot or 'make bears' as I am getting impatient at 3pps who seem to be in stasis awaiting the new GSL....I didn't like 4e the couple of times I tried it, and so as soon as possible I'd like to know which companies' web sites I can stop checking for new 3.x stuff.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 20, 2009)

Sorry nothing to report. 

Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas. I have had other important priorities to focus on for the past couple of weeks. 

I am getting back to it on Thursday after some time sensitive work is behind me.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jan 20, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry nothing to report.
> 
> Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas. I have had other important priorities to focus on for the past couple of weeks.
> 
> I am getting back to it on Thursday after some time sensitive work is behind me.




Guess that's all the answer we need.


----------



## phloog (Jan 20, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Guess that's all the answer we need.




Perhaps reading more into it than I should, but it appears, then, that the GSL is not 'time sensitive'...I would think that something that has been expected by many partners and customers and has been announced as days away for months, would be time sensitive, even if originally it was not a priority.  Even something trivial in my business becomes a priority if you've promised it and it's long overdue.

I don't know that a good GSL would bring enough talent into the fold to draw me into 4e, but it would be wonderful if the GSL revisions were considered a priority at some point.

But, as Drkfathr said, that may be a complete answer.


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 20, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry nothing to report.
> 
> Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas. I have had other important priorities to focus on for the past couple of weeks.
> 
> I am getting back to it on Thursday after some time sensitive work is behind me.



Thanks for the update! 

I know I'm no Clark Peterson or Joseph Goodman by any stretch of the imagination, but I've finally been catching the 4e bug and would love to publish some material for it, but, sorry, the current GSL doesn't interest me enough. Plus I am interested in seeing if the PHB2, MM2, and such will be added at some point (indicating a nice trend of updating the SRD) or if it'll stay with just the original core books.

So, if you are getting back to it Thursday, and there were 2 "day or twos" left before...


----------



## Voadam (Jan 21, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas.




I believe you.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry nothing to report.
> 
> Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas. I have had other important priorities to focus on for the past couple of weeks.
> 
> I am getting back to it on Thursday after some time sensitive work is behind me.




Scott,

Thank you for the update and we look forward to seeing your work when it is done. I sure alot of things within Wotc takes your time everyday, just do your best to keep all of the fans and potential D&D partners in loop when you can!

Keep up the good work and thanks again,

Nate


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 22, 2009)

GSL?  ZZZzzzz....


----------



## Mark (Jan 22, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry nothing to report.
> 
> Honestly, I haven't touched it since I last posted before Christmas. I have had other important priorities to focus on for the past couple of weeks.
> 
> I am getting back to it on Thursday after some time sensitive work is behind me.





Getting back to what?  What is left to do but get approval on the changes previously discussed?  If this cannot be done by this week I can only conclude that nothing of useful significance will ever truly come of your efforts.  All of the deadlines and snow days have seemingly come and gone.  I hope to see something conclusive today or tomorrow.  Either way, thank you for all of your efforts on the open gaming movement and even the GSL such as it is.  Please do not think that anyone blames you directly for the failure of your company to properly handle the concerns of the third party publishing community.  There have been a lot of good things to come out of the last eight or nine years and I am sure that most third party publishers would have liked to move forward as partners in open gaming with WotC.  Some publishers have already moved on and others have awaited concrete results from WotC who has repeatedly made it plain that the existing continuing partnership with third party publishers, and their collective concerns over the wording of certain GSL sections, simply was not going to be a priority.  I am sure everyone appreciates your candor in that regard.  I look forward to your response.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 23, 2009)

Mark said:


> Getting back to what?  What is left to do but get approval on the changes previously discussed?  If this cannot be done by this week I can only conclude that nothing of useful significance will ever truly come of your efforts.  All of the deadlines and snow days have seemingly come and gone.  I hope to see something conclusive today or tomorrow.  Either way, thank you for all of your efforts on the open gaming movement and even the GSL such as it is.  Please do not think that anyone blames you directly for the failure of your company to properly handle the concerns of the third party publishing community.  There have been a lot of good things to come out of the last eight or nine years and I am sure that most third party publishers would have liked to move forward as partners in open gaming with WotC.  Some publishers have already moved on and others have awaited concrete results from WotC who has repeatedly made it plain that the existing continuing partnership with third party publishers, and their collective concerns over the wording of certain GSL sections, simply was not going to be a priority.  I am sure everyone appreciates your candor in that regard.  I look forward to your response.




I can empathize with the frustration you must be feeling over this.  I appreciate the support. 

So you understand where I am coming from: among my other duties, since my return from the holiday break on January 5th I have been preparing for our annual meetings with all of our core hobby distributors. This is a one day event, so yesterday I spent the day presenting our 2009 brand strategies and product line to all of these very important customers. I know you can appreciate the importance of such a meeting.

With that behind me, today after going to a writing celebration at my son's school (he's in kindergarten and is just starting to read and write short stories) I went to work and had several meetings including kicking off development of the 5 year D&D Brand global strat plan, 2009 marketing campaign kickoff and review of the GSL revision with Brand, R&D, and Legal. Legal was out with a sick family but brand and R&D signed off on the changes. I'll review with legal on Monday with two outstanding questions: can we add cosmology? can we add pantheon? yes or no we'll move forward with the rest of the changes and start adding it to the SRD. We'll need to see if the person who did the first  SRD has bandwidth to take this on now otherwise we'll figure something else out. I am not opposed to putting out the revised license before the revised SRD but it would be nice to get them out together.

edit: oh ya, I also spent about an hour today tracking down and logging links for pirated copies of D&D books and magazines on a sharing site with about 9,000 apparent violations


----------



## Rechan (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott acts as if he _didn't_ personally walk up to every third party publisher and spit in their eye. C'mon now. WotC hates everyone and wishes all non-WotC businesses would die of terminal hemroids. They also send crack commando units into houses to burn all notes of non-traditional D&D homeworlds and ruin games that aren't approved of by the Gaming Committee department of WotC. They are more evil than rainy days and tooth aches. 

How dare you, Mr. Rouse, to act innocent. You have destroyed the happiness and livelihood of all gamers everywhere. 



All sarcasm aside, reading some posts here, it's like people actually think this way. It's as though WotC and the GSL ran over their dog. The level of conspiracy-theories and hate pumping through the threads has eaten through a portion of my screen. It gets really difficult to actually read information on the GSL without the massive hateon some have for the sorcerers on the beach.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks Scott, we are looking forward seeing the beast.


----------



## Mark (Jan 23, 2009)

Well, fair enough, Scott.  Obviously you cannot get the support within the current corporation to get this done in a timely manner with an eye toward the obvious concerns of many third party publishers.  You've done the best you can and your efforts have been appreciated.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I can empathize with the frustration you must be feeling over this.  I appreciate the support.
> 
> So you understand where I am coming from: among my other duties, since my return from the holiday break on January 5th I have been preparing for our annual meetings with all of our core hobby distributors. This is a one day event, so yesterday I spent the day presenting our 2009 brand strategies and product line to all of these very important customers. I know you can appreciate the importance of such a meeting.
> 
> ...




Hmm, all interesting, and I empathize (I'm in a similar spot at times, I think), but largely irrelevant.  As a professional, you have an understanding of your own workload, and you should not have gotten as far as you have without being able to come up with good estimates of when work can get done.

Also, the bit about adding new content doesn't work.  You will have new content arriving at a near continuous pace, for the next two years, at least, as books for new power sources come out, and other material as provided through the DDI.  If you don't have a system for releasing updates to the SRD in pace with the new content, then you basically have a broken delivery mechanism.

Now, I understand about workload (I really really do), and at times there is work that one really doesn't know when it will get done, and folks are asking for dates and estimates all of the time.  At the same time, eventually, you'll have to tell folks who ask for those estimates that you don't have one, and the product will be ready when it's ready.  That may mean breaking a commitment -- but the commitment has already been made and broken -- and all that is left is to either clear the air and work to re-establishing your word.  Or turtle, which is basically giving up.


----------



## johnnype (Jan 23, 2009)

"WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"

Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays". 

Regardless it's obvious the GSL is low priority for WotC. Then again they lost me months ago.


----------



## Pramas (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays".




It's actually one of the coolest things about working at WotC. I wish all my employers had done that. It does not count as your regular vacation time. It's a nice thank you to the staff for working hard all year and a recognition that not a lot of work really gets done between Xmas in New Year's anyway.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays".




That's actually fairly common in Germany in small companies that don't provide some services that _must_ be run uninterrupted.

Of course, even if this isn't the case, most people around here will spend some vacation time to get the entire period off. I mean, what the heck - most of us get around 30 paid vacation days, so it's not that much of a drain on our vacation budget (especially considering the many public holidays in that period). As a result, nobody tries to push any serious project through in this period since hardly anyone works during that time anyway...


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays".
> 
> Regardless it's obvious the GSL is low priority for WotC. Then again they lost me months ago.



Man, I wish I was able to do that!

Actually, once I had 2 weeks paid time off during that time, but that's because I was laid off with severance pay. *sigh* Spent that whole time just playing in the snow with my kids and working through one of the X-Men Legends games with my wife. One of the funnest couple weeks ever (especially since I thankfully had another job lined up already)!

As annoyed as I admit I am with GSL delay after delay, hey, a job is a job, it's not a life. Some things are more important - like kindergarteners. My youngest is at that point and she's far more excited about reading than her older siblings right now. Just gotta build her up to being able to spell dexterity and constitution.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays".




It's incredibly common; though WotC appears to be unusual in that they gave paid time off for the whole break, instead of requiring employees to take vacation or unpaid time off except for the actual holidays and a corporate/floating holiday or two. My employer's North American and European offices were all pretty much shut down both weeks this year (with four paid holidays); before we were acquired by a much larger company, it was pretty much standard policy to shut down between Christmas and New Year's.


----------



## Turjan (Jan 23, 2009)

Pramas said:


> It's actually one of the coolest things about working at WotC. I wish all my employers had done that. It does not count as your regular vacation time. It's a nice thank you to the staff for working hard all year and a recognition that not a lot of work really gets done between Xmas in New Year's anyway.



My last workplace did the same. This was not a contractually fixed bonus, but our boss just officially announced that we got the time off as compensation for overtime. This happened every year.

I don't see any damages here. As everyone did more or less the same, there really wasn't much you could do during that time, anyway.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> edit: oh ya, I also spent about an hour today tracking down and logging links for pirated copies of D&D books and magazines on a sharing site with about 9,000 apparent violations




Bad pirates.  Go Scott.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 23, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Bad pirates.  Go Scott.




I agree with you. But seriously, Scott, couldn't you guys find someone with maybe say a little less on his plate than you to do these kind of things? I mean, googling or whatnot is hardly rocket science, isn't this what interns are for?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 23, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I agree with you. But seriously, Scott, couldn't you guys find someone with maybe say a little less on his plate than you to do these kind of things? I mean, googling or whatnot is hardly rocket science, isn't this what interns are for?





Yes you are right, the work is pretty menial and since an hour was 1/50th of the work on one of hundreds of sites I will never tackle the problem in that way myself.

What I may do is get on a plane and fly to the sites office and spend a day with an attorney dealing with it in person.


----------



## glass (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule.



Generous? It's the bare minimum I'd expect! 

FWIW, our office closed on 19th December, although that was a little earlier then usual.


glass.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Yes you are right, the work is pretty menial and since an hour was 1/50th of the work on one of hundreds of sites I will never tackle the problem in that way myself.
> 
> What I may do is get on a plane and fly to the sites office and spend a day with an attorney dealing with it in person.




Sounds like you guys are going all out against the pirates. I hope you have more luck (skill) than the music and movie industry.

Cheers


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sounds like you guys are going all out against the pirates. I hope you have more luck (skill) than the music and movie industry.




They're doing one thing better than the RIAA and MPAA: they're not going after the downloaders themselves, they're going after the providers of the pirated material. Instead of suing college students, single mothers, and 15-year-old kids, they're just working on shutting down the sites instead of seeking outrageous damages.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jan 23, 2009)

Interesting note on the piracy issue. 

A longstanding problem or just coming to a head recently? 

I know there's alot of debate over how much of an impact piracy really has in terms of revenue. Some say that those that download weren't going to buy anyways, or do it to sample before they do buy. 

But a lot of industries often come to the conclusion that lagging sales/revenue are a direct result of rampant downloading. 

I suppose that piracy is going to be more of an issue in the current economic condition.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 23, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> They're doing one thing better than the RIAA and MPAA: they're not going after the downloaders themselves, they're going after the providers of the pirated material. Instead of suing college students, single mothers, and 15-year-old kids, they're just working on shutting down the sites instead of seeking outrageous damages.




Sounds wise enough.



Drkfathr1 said:


> Interesting note on the piracy issue.
> 
> A longstanding problem or just coming to a head recently?
> 
> ...




I think it has something to do with the DDI perhaps. /shrug


----------



## ProfessorPain (Jan 23, 2009)

This may be a stupid question, but who has actually signed on to the GSL at this point? I was under the impression that the 3rd party publishers have just gone ahead and published without signing the GSL, on the grounds that you can't copyright a game. And, are the GSL terms as harsh as people are saying?


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> What I may do is get on a plane and fly to the sites office and spend a day with an attorney dealing with it in person.




You're doing better than the RIAA, I'll happily grant you that. Of course depending on how hardcore they go after pirates, if it affects other stuff by places getting shut down, I also wonder if we'll eventually see Wizards mentioned in a footnote in the wiki entry for Anonymous.


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 23, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This may be a stupid question, but who has actually signed on to the GSL at this point? I was under the impression that the 3rd party publishers have just gone ahead and published without signing the GSL, on the grounds that you can't copyright a game.



Mongoose is probably the biggest name definitely signed on. Many new small companies like One Bad Egg (great stuff, by the way!) have also signed on.

Goodman started off non-GSL (partly to avoid the Oct 1 start date and actually get product to Gen Con), and I thought they said they were going GSL but I can't find evidence on their website. Same with Adamant. Started non-GSL and I thought were going GSL, but I don't see anything offhand. But I might not have looked close enough.

_(Edit: As per Jack99 below - Goodman is GSL now.)_

Current big names decidely NOT GSL - Paizo, Necromancer, and Green Ronin. Of them, only Green Ronin is going the "copyright" route, and even then only with their Character Record Folio.



ProfessorPain said:


> And, are the GSL terms as harsh as people are saying?



Depends on who you ask, obviously. Opinions range from "it's good they are even letting us use the rules" to "it's utter filth". Gut feeling from the actual professionals who aren't using seems to be more in the range of "it needs some serious fixes" rather than the entire license being useless.

So, personally, I'd say, yeah it's bad, but fixable with some minor but very important changes.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 23, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Current big names decidely NOT GSL - Paizo, Necromancer, and Green Ronin. Of them, only Green Ronin is going the "copyright" route, and even then only with their Character Record Folio.




Kenzer Co. has also gone the "copyright" route with their new Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E setting.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 23, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Goodman started off non-GSL (partly to avoid the Oct 1 start date and actually get product to Gen Con), and I thought they said they were going GSL but I can't find evidence on their website. Same with Adamant. Started non-GSL and I thought were going GSL, but I don't see anything offhand. But I might not have looked close enough.



Seems like everything released in 09 by GG is GSL. At least all the books I have bear the D&D official logo thing on the back.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 23, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?




Not me, but then I support companies that treat their employees well.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 23, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Yes you are right, the work is pretty menial and since an hour was 1/50th of the work on one of hundreds of sites I will never tackle the problem in that way myself.
> 
> What I may do is get on a plane and fly to the sites office and spend a day with an attorney dealing with it in person.





Can't you just get one of your attorneys to send one of their attorneys a cease and desist letter?  I mean, why fly there, unless the site or sites are based in Jamaica of something...


Anyhow, I found some form legal letters you might want to use to send to these sites...no charge.

Date:    Thu, 28 Jul 94 17:28:59 -0400
From:    TSRInc@aol.com
To:      postmaster@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
Subject: TSR Copyrighted Material

SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR:

Your site was recently included in a list of noted FTP sites for DUNGEONS AND
DRAGONS and ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS gaming material. You should be
aware that DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and all related marks and properties are
copyrighted by TSR, Inc. of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

You should also be aware that any items created without a specific license
are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not
limited to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rules
modifications which contain elements from our copyrighted properties,
including characters, settings, realm names, noted magic items, spells,
elements of the gaming system, such as ARMOR CLASS, HIT DICE, and so forth.
To date, TSR has not licensed any of these net publications.

On behalf of TSR, Inc. I ask that you examine your public net sites at this
time and remove any material which infringes on TSR copyrights.

Our intention is to find a way to license these and future creative efforts.
In the meantime, remove them from your sites without delay.

Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. I will refer any
pertinent queries to our legal department as soon as I receive them.

Rob Repp                           | InterNet: tsrinc@aol.com
Manager, Digital Projects Group    | InterNet: mobius@mercury.mcs.com
TSR, Inc.                          | CompuServe: 76217,761
__________________________________ | GEnie: TSR.Online  AOL: TSR Inc
All opinions are my own, not TSR's | 414-248-3625    Fax 414-248-0389

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 11:53:57 -0500
To: fred@LOKI.CC.PDX.EDU
From: mobius@Mercury.mcs.com (Rob Repp)
Subject: jove.cs.pdx.edu
Cc: JANAKA@EE.PDX.EDU

Mr. Fred Dayton
cc: Mr. Janaka Jayawardena
Portland State University

Mr. Dayton,

My name is Robert Repp. I work for TSR, Inc., makers of DUNGEONS AND
DRAGONS products. In the course of looking through the public FTP site at
Portland State, I came across a directory pub\frp\*. This directory appears
to contain an older mirror of the MPGNet FTP site. Contained within this
directory are several files which contain trademarks and copyrights owned
by TSR, Inc.

Among these files are several PLAYER'S HANDBOOK entries reproduced in their
entirety, several net.books which contain TSR copyrights and trademarks,
and properties owned by several other publishers.

While I cannot speak for other companies, on behalf of TSR, Inc. I must ask
you to remove all of these files from your site. They infringe on TSR
copyrights and trademarks, and should not be published from your site. We
have licensed MPGNet's FTP site at ftp.mpgn.com to be the sole carrier of
TSR trademarks and copyrights on the Internet at this time. If you wish to
contact them regarding moving your collection to their site, please email
David Brooks (dbj@mpgn.com) for information.

Please feel free to contact me at any of the addresses listed below, or by
voice from 9am to 5pm CST. I will gladly try to answer any questions you
may have regarding this matter.

Rob Repp                           | InterNet: tsrinc@aol.com
Manager, Digital Projects Group    | InterNet: mobius@mercury.mcs.com
TSR, Inc.                          | CompuServe: 76217,761
__________________________________ | GEnie: TSR.Online  AOL: TSR Inc
All opinions are my own, not TSR's | 414-248-3625    Fax 414-248-0389

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Fiarito
cc: Janaka Jayawardena
    Fred Dayton
    Constance Lindman, TSR Legal Dept.

Mr. Fiarito

I connected to jove.cs.pdx.edu today, and was dismayed to find that your
administrative staff has still not removed several files which infringe on
TSR trademarks and copyrights. Further, I found a notice (see below) which
states the administrator's intention to keep and disseminate several of
these files. I must warn you that these files clearly contain
infringements, and that they cannot lawfully be published from your site.

For your convenience, I have listed several sample files which infringe on
TSR copyrights and trademarks. This is not a complete list, but rather
meant to give you some idea of the material in question. Also, your site
appears to be mirroring a European site which is carrying several
questionable files. I will direct an appropriate note that site's
administrator. In the meantime, you should be aware that these files remain
problematic, regardless of their country of origin. Republishing foreign
files doesn't abrogate the need to comply with domestic regulations.

I remind you that we have licensed a site to carry TSR trademarks and
copyrights on the Internet (ftp.mpgn.edu). If you wish to keep your
collection intact and public, I suggest that you email Rob Miracle at
rwm@mpgn.com and make arrangements to transfer your holdings en masse.
Otherwise, they should be made inaccessible to the public.

I am in anticipation of your prompt reply.

Rob Repp                           | InterNet: tsrinc@aol.com
Manager, Digital Projects Group    | InterNet: mobius@mercury.mcs.com
TSR, Inc.                          | CompuServe: 76217,761
__________________________________ | GEnie: TSR.Online  AOL: TSR Inc
All opinions are my own, not TSR's | 414-248-3625    Fax 414-248-0389


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 24, 2009)

Why the hell did you post those?!  

That's not comparable--Scott's going after people who scan the rules and offer them on-line, not anybody who has a fan site.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 24, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Why the hell did you post those?!
> 
> That's not comparable--Scott's going after people who scan the rules and offer them on-line, not anybody who has a fan site.




I know.  It's a joke probably only a few people from ENWorld who were on the Internet back then, and who also knew me back then, would get.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I know.  It's a joke probably only a few people from ENWorld who were on the Internet back then, and who also knew me back then, would get.



I thought they were pretty funny...


----------



## Mark (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I know.  It's a joke probably only a few people from ENWorld who were on the Internet back then, and who also knew me back then, would get.





_Surely it's not _that_ joke!_


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 24, 2009)

Let's keep this thread on the GSL, please, and someone can fork the piracy discussion into a new thread if they wish to continue discussing.

I worked at two companies that automatically gave paid vacation for the week between Christmas and New Year's. It was a wonderful perk that everyone enjoyed. Sigh...


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> _Surely it's not _that_ joke!_




Off the piracy topic and back to the GSL/OGL:

I feel that since I was the first person on the Internet to propose a form of the OGL, back in 1995 during the Usenet Wars, and that post obviously resulted in the OGL and the whole RPG market developing into what it is today, if anyone made any money off the OGL, I demand 10% of all profits.

Retroactively of course, going back to the OGL's inception.


Proof:
Nasty letters exchanged with T$R over Intellectual Property - rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups


Only cash accepted.


Thx.


----------



## Mark (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Off the piracy topic and back to the GSL/OGL:
> 
> I feel that since I was the first person on the Internet to propose a form of the OGL, back in 1995 during the Usenet Wars, and that post obviously resulted in the OGL and the whole RPG market developing into what it is today, if anyone made any money off the OGL, I demand 10% of all profits.
> 
> ...





Gems like -



> The net is not accessed by about 95% of the American population. There is no way in which the net can be the instrument through which the entire gaming community gains rights to use your trademarked system and the terms associated with it.




- make me wonder at your powers of prophesy.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> Gems like -
> 
> 
> 
> - make me wonder at your powers of prophesy.





   In 1995 that was more of a true statement than it is now. No napster-like stuff, no torrents, it was mostly ftp and gopher sites, straight text.  The web was new and untested.  And we had blazing fast 56k modems. Scanning technology was really bad, and not many people had access to a system that could scan a book.   Even if they could who hd 3 days to download the PHB?  

Whoulda Thunk we would get to where we are today?

But still, that doesn't change the fact that most of the 3pp RPG market owes me serious money.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I feel that since I was the first person on the Internet to propose a form of the OGL, back in 1995 during the Usenet Wars, and that post obviously resulted in the OGL and the whole RPG market developing into what it is today, if anyone made any money off the OGL, I demand 10% of all profits.




And pants. Don't forget how you also invented pants.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 24, 2009)

johnnype said:


> "WotC offices being closed between December 25th and January 4th"
> 
> Am I the only one who has a problem with this?  Is this in addition to regular PTO? Because if it is that is incredibly generous and if it isn't its ridiculously draconian to force employees into a fixed vacation schedule. Either way someone is being screwed (shareholders or employees). I find it a bit strange for a public company to shut down simply because "it's the holidays".



The last 3 companies I worked for did this too.  They all gave time off between the xmas and new year holidays and it didn't count against your vacation time or other PTO.

It was pretty cool.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 24, 2009)

Scribble said:


> And pants. Don't forget how you also invented pants.




And since I invented buttons, snaps, zippers and waistbands, his silly "pant" product is obviously derivative of my excellent components.

Therefore he owes ME for all the pant revenue. 

(wait... he didn't sign the PSL. he went the copyright route.  dangit! )


----------



## darjr (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> In 1995 ... we had blazing fast 56k modems




That's impressive considering I didn't get mine until much later... after they were invented in 1996... 

(uh... I think...)

The deep dark history of the internet and the OGL converge in such an interesting way.

back on topic

I must admit frustration that the GSL continues to be an issue. I am interested in the revision getting done and out.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> But still, that doesn't change the fact that most of the 3pp RPG market owes me serious money.


----------



## Roman (Jan 24, 2009)

It is too late - the damage has been done. The GSL fiasco has had a liquidating effect on the third party market - even if it comes later today third party companies have already been forgotten by many consumers in the interim. I am not generally one to attribute malice where incopetence can be an explanatory factor, but I am beginning to suspect that dragging out the GSL promises has been the deliberate attempt of WotC to liquidate 3PP in a manner that would not generate as much outrage as an overt policy (after all, the revised GSL is still coming...). I am not yet certain that was the case, the thought certainly seems more and more probable to me.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 24, 2009)

Of course Wizards want to kill off the 3PP market.

If they actually wanted the GSL to succeed, don't you think they'd assign more than a single over-worked employee on the job?


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 25, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Of course Wizards want to kill off the 3PP market.
> 
> If they actually wanted the GSL to succeed, don't you think they'd assign more than a single over-worked employee on the job?




If they wanted to kill off the 3PP market, they wouldn't still be working on the GSL. Lawyers cost money. They'd either have released the last version of the GSL and told everyone "Take it or leave it," or not released a GSL at all.

My guess is that WotC sees the GSL as a potential positive for the company, but only a small one; hence it is given very low priority.


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 25, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> If they wanted to kill off the 3PP market, they wouldn't still be working on the GSL. Lawyers cost money. They'd either have released the last version of the GSL and told everyone "Take it or leave it," or not released a GSL at all.
> 
> My guess is that WotC sees the GSL as a potential positive for the company, but only a small one; hence it is given very low priority.



How dare you bring reason into an internet messageboard debate? That makes it so much harder to presume mean things about faceless corporations!

In all fairness to the various posts above, it's human nature when faced with ambiguity to make a theory and try to interpret the evidence in light of that theory. Spent a couple years in PhD-level philosophy courses looking at exactly that - unfortunately, there is no view from nowhere. If you believe WotC is trying to kill the 3PP market, their actions could be construed to fit that.

However, Occam's Razor really does seem to agree with Dausuul. There are far easier - and more effective - ways of eliminating the 3PP market. Besides what's worse for PR - one big outcry over a year ago announcing 4e would be closed - or an entire year of constant outcries over all of the delays? Personally, I think ripping the band-aid off all at once feels better than slowly peeling it away.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 25, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> If they wanted to kill off the 3PP market, they wouldn't still be working on the GSL. Lawyers cost money. They'd either have released the last version of the GSL and told everyone "Take it or leave it," or not released a GSL at all.
> 
> My guess is that WotC sees the GSL as a potential positive for the company, but only a small one; hence it is given very low priority.




Its my impression by Scott's posts here that Wotc employs a legal advisor. Furthermore changes have the potential to alienate people. It is very possible they have decided that a more drastic and "in your face" aproach would have bad results especially regarding the line's momentum.

What is certain is that Wotc wanted to distance d&d from OGL. My initial impression was that so they did due to market reasons (and let me say that I agree something needed to be done to avoid another cycle of D20 bloat) but now I am thinking it was also due to strategic brand value reasons. D&D IP rights will have more value if its popularity is not associated with anything else that may not make part of such rights. Furthermore they open the possibility to be able to exploit their own IPs indipendently, such as Forgotten Realms while still maintaining the rest of their brand name values. If D&D was under OGL and they selled Forgotten Realms, the buyer could develop a line under the same system of D&D and thus D&D could lose of its value due to direct competition from FR. OTOH, if the independent line of FR had to come with a different system, D&D could still maintain much of its identity.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Its my impression by Scott's posts here that Wotc employs a legal advisor. Furthermore changes have the potential to alienate people. It is very possible they have decided that a more drastic and "in your face" aproach would have bad results especially regarding the line's momentum.
> 
> What is certain is that Wotc wanted to distance d&d from OGL. My initial impression was that so they did due to market reasons (and let me say that I agree something needed to be done to avoid another cycle of D20 bloat) but now I am thinking it was also due to strategic brand value reasons. D&D IP rights will have more value if its popularity is not associated with anything else that may not make part of such rights. Furthermore they open the possibility to be able to exploit their own IPs indipendently, such as Forgotten Realms while still maintaining the rest of their brand name values. If D&D was under OGL and they selled Forgotten Realms, the buyer could develop a line under the same system of D&D and thus D&D could lose of its value due to direct competition from FR. OTOH, if the independent line of FR had to come with a different system, D&D could still maintain much of its identity.




I agree with this post. Not only would the in your face approach in the form of a definitive "screw you" last year to the 3pp's have been bad PR in general, it would have hurt the launch of 4e because of the bad feelings it would engender amongst the 3pp fans.  They definitely don't want the 3pp's to have as much of an ability to play in their sandbox with 4e as they did with the OGL.

Also, I am of the opinion that there was a directive from on high that the design of 4e should be substantively different enough from what is covered under the OGL that no one could ever make a competing product line off of 4e, as has happened with C&C, Pathfinder, True20, etc with 3e.  I think that why we have such a different approach to the game taken in 4e.  It wasn't as much designer choice, as it was a decision from on high to be very different.  

Hasbro is not WOTC from the old days.  There is no way a big company like Hasbro would have done anything like the OGL.  I think at this point they are trying to do everything they can to recover from it.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 25, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Also, I am of the opinion that there was a directive from on high that the design of 4e should be substantively different enough from what is covered under the OGL that no one could ever make a competing product line off of 4e, as has happened with C&C, Pathfinder, True20, etc with 3e.




I would credit this, if I'd ever seen evidence suggesting that the sale of those games ever posed any credible competition to D&D.  "On high" has shown decades worth of decent business sense, and I don't see them having a knee-jerk protectionist reaction if none were called for.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 25, 2009)

I think it is unwise to assume that business is somehow conducted scientifically, and that all decisions are based on data or are rational.

Whilst many business' may think this about themselves, I think the truth is that this is rarely the case (Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac,  etc are some recent examples of how good business is at convincing itself that their business plan fits some kind of scientific model, when in fact it is based on greed and sometimes, fear).

Hasbro is no different to any other large company; it is run by people, and people are capable of emotional and irrational decisions. As indeed are their customers!

It doesn't matter if C&C etc posed a credible threat to D&D; what matters is what the guys running Hasbro felt about it. I suspect they saw all the combined 3PP sales and starting saying to themselves, "Hey, that's money we should have had".

I am not saying they want to KILL 3PPs, but the GSL is certainly not designed to spread goodwill and love either.


----------



## Roman (Jan 25, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I would credit this, if I'd ever seen evidence suggesting that the sale of those games ever posed any credible competition to D&D.  "On high" has shown decades worth of decent business sense, and I don't see them having a knee-jerk protectionist reaction if none were called for.




There is certainly evidence that the "on high" sees those other games as either posing a credible competition to D&D or at least potential credible competition to D&D. If that weren't the case, we would have seen the OGL extend to the 4th edition.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 25, 2009)

The irony of all this for me is that a liberal and open GSL would have probably mitigated the problems that 4E is now experiencing (at least with respect to this community). More than one vision of the D&D world, using the same mechanics, is and always was a good idea. I think WoTC is particularly bad at producing adventures and that this is a real deficiency. There is also no-where near enough material, in terms of expansions, to fill the demand, and the 3PPs could have helped with this.

Now, I suspect, other companies will be seeing the money of people who have decided 4E is not for them. 

But then that is often what you get when you try to be too controlling. I am not saying GSL should have been as open as OGL; I don't think WoTC needed to have allowed other companies to produce whole new game systems. I just think they should have allowed them to produce expansions, adventures, settings and other things that make the D&D world richer.

After all, most of what Hasbro calls "their IP" in fact started life in the head of a fan. So it is a bit rich to start getting shirty with us when we feel some ownership of D&D.

They needed to crack down on abuse not on use of 4E D&D; a pity that they seem to have gone too far, at least on the first try.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 25, 2009)

Ydars said:


> Whilst many business' may think this about themselves, I think the truth is that this is rarely the case (Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac,  etc are some recent examples of how good business is at convincing itself that their business plan fits some kind of scientific model, when in fact it is based on greed and sometimes, fear).
> 
> Hasbro is no different to any other large company; it is run by people, and people are capable of emotional and irrational decisions. As indeed are their customers!
> 
> ...




Hasbro is different. The business of those other companies is the structure of economic competition (financial sector). Without proper control they would eventually do bad things. 
Hasbro is about entertainment. Without control they could screw people over by using cheap toxic matterials in their toys if they could gain a profit for example. 
And as I said above I do not believe GSL is directly about sales competition. It is rather about securing as much as possible the consumer's trust or confidence to the brands of the 800lb gorilla or leader capitalist of the market.

I do believe that D&D needs an rpg market of various different products and I am sure it helps it but this market should rather be with products and brands different than D&D so the market can maintain itself and D&D can maintain the power and value of its identity. 

I think that the guys behind the GSL were very reasonable about what they were doing. It was not irrational.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jan 25, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I would credit this, if I'd ever seen evidence suggesting that the sale of those games ever posed any credible competition to D&D.  "On high" has shown decades worth of decent business sense, and I don't see them having a knee-jerk protectionist reaction if none were called for.





I think it is correct that there was a directive from on high to make 4E different, but it wasn't connected heavily to the reasoning behind the GSL.


----------



## Mark (Jan 25, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I would credit this, if I'd ever seen evidence suggesting that the sale of those games ever posed any credible competition to D&D.  "On high" has shown decades worth of decent business sense, and I don't see them having a knee-jerk protectionist reaction if none were called for.





There have been decades of changes to the people who make the decisions regarding the destiny of the IP known as D&D, some have made good decisions and others have made decisions that were less than stellar.  Time will tell if leaving the OGL behind, the foot dragging toward the new licensing and subsequent community reaction to the GSL has been better for the brand than some alternative approach.  As a gamer since pre-D&D days and fan of the game through these days, I can tell you that I think this has been a poor series of decisions for a number of reasons, some of which other people might discount because of my last 7 years as a occasional publisher of supportive material for the game but also because I have always been a fan of the game and I see it moving forward less strongly than it has been in recent memory.  I find that to be a shame.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> There have been decades of changes to the people who make the decisions regarding the destiny of the IP known as D&D, some have made good decisions and others have made decisions that were less than stellar.  Time will tell if leaving the OGL behind, the foot dragging toward the new licensing and subsequent community reaction to the GSL has been better for the brand than some alternative approach.  As a gamer since pre-D&D days and fan of the game through these days, I can tell you that I think this has been a poor series of decisions for a number of reasons, some of which other people might discount because of my last 7 years as a occasional publisher of supportive material for the game but also because I have always been a fan of the game and I see it moving forward less strongly than it has been in recent memory.  I find that to be a shame.




I doubt time will tell. The destiny of the IP does not solely depend on the existance of OGL or not. There are many factors, some more important than others. Inferior product, the effect of new phenomena like MtG 10 years ago, investments gone bad...


----------



## Mark (Jan 25, 2009)

> Time will tell if leaving the OGL behind, the foot dragging toward the new licensing and subsequent community reaction to the GSL has been better for the brand than some alternative approach.







xechnao said:


> I doubt time will tell. The destiny of the IP does not solely depend on the existance of OGL or not. There are many factors, some more important than others. Inferior product, the effect of new phenomena like MtG 10 years ago, investments gone bad...





Years ago I might be inclined to agree but with the interconnectivity that exists in today's world, I feel I will be able to make a determination in regard to my statement above.  In my mind, if enough people (and I admit this is a sliding scale that I will not have a handle on until sometime has gone by) claim that they are not moving on with the new edition, and if I am of the belief that they have not done so because they either outright reject the new edition because they are content with the previous edition or dislike not having OGL support or even if they feel the new edition is not to their liking rules-wise (but perhaps might have been with some OGL support that could inlcude some alternate rules to fix those problems), then I'll feel as if I can make such a determination.  Mind you it doesn't seem scientific and there are a great many variables I have mentioned (and their are more than that to consider, as well, I am sure), but I am only making this determination to satisfy my own concerns one way or another, not as part of a job as an executive tasked with protecting the IP of D&D.  Of course, I am but one longtime D&D fan and gamer who has many more options than I did 35+ years ago and even less time to take advantage of those options, but I also have the ability to spend a great deal more annually than I did in the past, so perhaps my opinions and concerns mean a bit more now than they did years ago.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 26, 2009)

Mark said:


> As a gamer since pre-D&D days and fan of the game through these days, I can tell you that I think this has been a poor series of decisions for a number of reasons




That's fair.  I don't claim to know if it were an explicit decision from "on high", or if it was a good or bad choice.  I just find little evidence supporting the idea that it was specifically done to squash competition.  That's ascribing to malice that which can be easily be explained otherwise.


----------



## Mark (Jan 26, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I just find little evidence supporting the idea that it was specifically done to squash competition.  That's ascribing to malice that which can be easily be explained otherwise.






I do not believe that a corporate directive to employees, should one exist, suggesting they do what they legally can to try to remove or curtail competition would necessarily be a matter of malice by any in particular or all involved in such a corporate policy.  It would certainly be much less communally inclusive of other corporations and companies that otherwise split, if ever so little, the available market share than what has existed over the past eight years.

Also of note, when someone is doing something in one circumstance that could be taken as a matter of survival, in another set of circumstances it could be viewed less charitably.  Victor Hugo has schooled us all well on that.  I am as apt to believe that someone can make a bad decision, if it is indeed their decision to make in the first place, with good or bad intentions, and can even believe that someone can choose to make no decision with similar intentions.

In any event, and without ascribing any actual, particular plan or motives, I believe it is best to simply look at the actions of those involved, and consequences that come from the actions (or inaction), and deal with things in the manner best serving the situation.


----------



## francisca (Jan 28, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Off the piracy topic and back to the GSL/OGL:
> 
> I feel that since I was the first person on the Internet to propose a form of the OGL, back in 1995 during the Usenet Wars, and that post obviously resulted in the OGL and the whole RPG market developing into what it is today, if anyone made any money off the OGL, I demand 10% of all profits.
> 
> ...




WOW!  That's serious business.  You even used T$R!!!!111!!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 3, 2009)

Bump


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 5, 2009)

Any hints/rumors/info from DDXP as to the current status?


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> edit: oh ya, I also spent about an hour today tracking down and logging links for pirated copies of D&D books and magazines on a sharing site with about 9,000 apparent violations



 Out of everyone with whom I played 4th edition, (8 people all together) only 3 of us bought the core books (I was one of them).  The rest all went to pirate sites to get the books and printed them out all fancy (not condoning it).  

WOTC will have a tough time with pirate sites.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 6, 2009)

February.


----------



## vic20 (Feb 6, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Out of everyone with whom I played 4th edition, (8 people all together) only 3 of us bought the core books (I was one of them).  The rest all went to pirate sites to get the books and printed them out all fancy (not condoning it).
> 
> WOTC will have a tough time with pirate sites.




How much did they pay to print them "fancy"? I can't imagine that they saved much over the cost of just buying the actual books...


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 6, 2009)

vic20 said:


> How much did they pay to print them "fancy"? I can't imagine that they saved much over the cost of just buying the actual books...





Maybe they used their office's color printer...


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 7, 2009)

From here



> I have my asbestos underwear on
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No ETA but it feels close


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 7, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> From here
> 
> 
> 
> No ETA but it feels close




Thanks for the update.


----------



## danir (Feb 7, 2009)

Hi scott,
Thanks for the update, it will be great if you can release it soon (I want to release a 4e book next month, duh  ). 

Also, regrading the statement of acceptance, do I have to snail mail it? or is there an email option as well?

Thanks,
Daniel


----------



## Rechan (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks a bunch, Scott.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Feb 7, 2009)

Looking forward to it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2009)

Mark said:


> I do not believe that a corporate directive to employees, should one exist, suggesting they do what they legally can to try to remove or curtail competition would necessarily be a matter of malice by any in particular or all involved in such a corporate policy.




Perhaps - that way leads the debate of "what counts as moral/ethical action for a business".  That's a goodly pool of quicksand there, and it was not my intention to step in it...

I'll restate and rephrase below, in a manner to sidestep that particular puddle.



> Also of note, when someone is doing something in one circumstance that could be taken as a matter of survival, in another set of circumstances it could be viewed less charitably.




True.  However, I am not sure it is relevant - simply because I have never seen or heard any cogent evidence that there is any "matter of survival" at hand.  Does anyone here have any _real evidence_, or even solid argument, that a 3rd party product ever took a real bite out of WotC sales?  If not, then there's no "matter of survival".  Third party publishers do not seem to be any threat to WotC.

On the other hand, I am not sure there's much hard evidence that 3pp were a particular asset to WotC's overall bottom line, either.  We here, who are _a small group of atypical gamers_ may collectively love and buy things from 3pp, but I am not sure that translates into significant benefits to WotC. The original intent of the OGL was to have it be a major benefit, but I strongly suspect that the benefit turned out to be questionable.

So, lacking evidence that it is either a strong benefit or detriment, it is reasonable to expect the upper management to be... uninterested.  Current progress is consistent with this simply not being a major priority.  Rather than being quick and clean, it is turning into a slow, complicated beast.  That is normal corporate behavior, no?

So - don't ascribe to particular intent what can be reasonably explained by apathy


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 7, 2009)

'Where's the Print?'

From--Where's the Beef?



Scott_Rouse said:


> From here
> 
> 
> 
> No ETA but it feels close


----------



## Shroomy (Feb 7, 2009)

Scott's update sounds good.  I like that they are going to introduce additional content to the SRD.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 7, 2009)

danir said:


> Hi scott,
> Thanks for the update, it will be great if you can release it soon (I want to release a 4e book next month, duh  ).
> 
> Also, regrading the statement of acceptance, do I have to snail mail it? or is there an email option as well?
> ...




Snail mail since we need the original signed copy.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 11, 2009)

Bump.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 16, 2009)

Bumpity bump bump.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 16, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Bumpity bump bump.





These boards really need an audio component so we can at least pipe in some hold music.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 16, 2009)

Muzak would be fine, just so long as we don't get: 

"We're sorry, the number you dialed has been disconnected..."


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 17, 2009)

Or the vaguely eastern-european message on my cell phone: 

"Tha membar you arr callink is currently not availlable!"


----------



## Angellis_ater (Feb 17, 2009)

Jokes, but no GSL


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 17, 2009)

It's either laugh or cry!


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 17, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> It's either laugh or cry!




I vote apathy - it takes less effort.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Feb 17, 2009)

It seems pointless to keep rezzing this thread. Clearly WotC is going to revise the GSL at its own pace. When it's done, they'll make an announcement and everyone will hear about it. What more is there to say right now?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 18, 2009)

-packing bags-


----------



## Azgulor (Feb 18, 2009)

Maybe it doesn't need to be said, but still near and dear to my heart.

*OGL is still the shizzle.*

WHAT? 

Kidding aside, I agree.  Today - no news.  Someday - maybe some new news.  In the meantime, GSL still stinks.  

And no, that isn't a snark.  Given the lackluster support it's garnered thus far combined with the fact that it's under revision on some level, it's reality.  Obviously, that may change but I still think most publishers have moved on - by choice, for survival, or both.  A revised GSL may improve things but I don't think it will be on the scale some people think/hope it will be.


----------



## joethelawyer (Feb 18, 2009)

CaptainChaos said:


> It seems pointless to keep rezzing this thread. Clearly WotC is going to revise the GSL at its own pace. When it's done, they'll make an announcement and everyone will hear about it. What more is there to say right now?





not really pointless.  as the guy who started the thread, i am going for the record for the creator of the most rezzed thread on enworld.  so a special thanks goes out to wotc for the delay.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 18, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> A revised GSL may improve things but I don't think it will be on the scale some people think/hope it will be.




QFT

I certainly hope the delay in getting this out hasn't created over-hyped expectation that this is going to be the second coming. The revised GSL won't walk on water, fix the financial industry, do windows, help you move, drive you home from the bar, tell you that you are good looking, or love you unconditionally. 

In fact you may look at it and say "it took them that long for this?". Yes, it is a lot more friendly, adds some new stuff (a few classes, races, monsters, and templates) and fixes some problems for the first pass (like art use) but it is not going to be OGL 2.0.

But it should be good enough. Good enough that Clark starts making some of that "1e feel, 4e rules" you've all been hoping for.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> But it should be good enough. Good enough that Clark starts making some of that "1e feel, 4e rules" you've all been hoping for.



Has Clark looked at it and approved yet?

Cuz if Clark's happy, I'm happy.  

Btw, thanks for dropping by, The Rouse.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 18, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Has Clark looked at it and approved yet?
> 
> Cuz if Clark's happy, I'm happy.
> 
> Btw, thanks for dropping by, The Rouse.




Clark has seen a draft version.

I'll let Clark speak for himself about his feelings on it.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Clark has seen a draft version.
> 
> I'll let Clark speak for himself about his feelings on it.




While I am a great Orcus fan, I have got an even better idea. How about you show us see the new GSL and let us decide for ourselves? 

(almost kidding)


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 18, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> While I am a great Orcus fan, I have got an even better idea. How about you show us see the new GSL and let us decide for ourselves?
> 
> (almost kidding)




  Tomorrow 

(almost serious)


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 18, 2009)

Has it begun snowing yet?


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Tomorrow
> 
> (almost serious)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 18, 2009)

It seems the GSL is


----------



## phloog (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Tomorrow
> 
> (almost serious)




Scott,

It's like some hellish SAT question - - 

"Soon" is to "Months and Months and Months" as "Tomorrow" is to...?

It's like there's some insane bistromathics going on, and I can't wrap my head around it enough to do the calculations.  Is "Tomorrow" sooner than "Soon"?  Does the modifying emoticon act as a straight modifier, or a multiplier to the base time?

This is all way beyond my processing power, so I'm just going to go relax by figuring out the carrying capacities of a bunch of Villains and Vigilantes characters.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Feb 18, 2009)

_Coming TOMORROW to a Game Publisher near YOU!_
*The GSL 2.0 - The Second Coming!*

It's so awesome-tastic hyperkewl that it will walk on water, fix the financial industry, do windows, help you move, drive you home from the bar, tell you that you are good looking, and love you unconditionally.

Get your tickets now, before they run out! Limited seats available.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Feb 18, 2009)

So, is that a today tomorrow? Or a tomorrow tomorrow?


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 18, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Has it begun snowing yet?




I for one am glad that it has stopped snowing around here for the time being. I can't speak for the weather in Hell, though.


----------



## rkwoodard (Feb 18, 2009)

*from memory*



phloog said:


> Scott,
> 
> 
> This is all way beyond my processing power, so I'm just going to go relax by figuring out the carrying capacities of a bunch of Villains and Vigilantes characters.





From memory

(1/10 str cubed + 1/10 end) * 1/2 weight  so a character with 12 str and 12 end that weighs 200 lbs would have a Carry Capacity of 292.8 with a basic hand to hand damage of 1d6

On track.....GO SCOTT, Thanks for the update.

RK


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 18, 2009)

greatamericanfolkher said:


> So, is that a today tomorrow? Or a tomorrow tomorrow?



Actually, I believe that is a soon tomorrow.


----------



## Phaezen (Feb 18, 2009)

greatamericanfolkher said:


> So, is that a today tomorrow? Or a tomorrow tomorrow?




[Aterix] Tomorrow never comes [/Asterix]


----------



## Scribble (Feb 18, 2009)

The GSL comes out... tomorrow...

Betcha bottomdollar that tomorrowwwww they'll be 3pp...

Tommorrow tomorrow I love you tomorrow you're only a  day awayyyyyyyyyy





ok yeah that was lame.


----------



## darjr (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Clark has seen a draft version.
> 
> I'll let Clark speak for himself about his feelings on it.




That is cool news. Err... and a sign of progress.

Thanks for that bit of news.


----------



## jephlewis (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Clark has seen a draft version.
> 
> I'll let Clark speak for himself about his feelings on it.



Paging Orcus; will Mr. Orcus please report to the forums?

I've been itching for some tomes o' horror, and 'Rappan Athuk; re-re-loaded'.

What can you tell us about any 4E products you've got planned, Clark?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 19, 2009)

Yes, yes...it was.



Scribble said:


> The GSL comes out... tomorrow...
> 
> Betcha bottomdollar that tomorrowwwww they'll be 3pp...
> 
> ...


----------



## darjr (Feb 19, 2009)

Truth Seeker said:


> Yes, yes...it was.




And I laughed anyways.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 19, 2009)

darjr said:


> And I laughed anyways.




As long as you're laughing at me... err wait.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Feb 19, 2009)

That must have been one hell of a snow storm to change the definition of “Tomorrow”.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 19, 2009)

Note that it was "tomorrow" with a wink and an "almost serious" qualifier.

I imagine, in all seriousness, that it means that it's on it's way, and that Clark just might like what he sees.  And even if it takes a bit longer, that is a good sign.

I'll bet that once Necro jumps on board, there will be a deluge of 3PP products announced.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 20, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I'll bet that once Necro jumps on board, there will be a deluge of 3PP products announced.




Are you SURE you want that, catsclaw227?  How fat's your wallet these days?


----------



## Wicht (Feb 20, 2009)

greatamericanfolkher said:


> That must have been one hell of a snow storm to change the definition of “Tomorrow”.





Considering that the GSL was only "two days" away right before Christmas, now that it is less than "one day" away I fully expect a definitive announcement concerning the GSL around the first of April.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm betting on Gencon. Although the cons usually provide good excuses for NOT releasing such things!


----------



## SteveC (Feb 20, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I'm betting on Gencon. Although the cons usually provide good excuses for NOT releasing such things!




I have to agree with you here: GenCon is going to have the release of Pathfinder (or it should, it's slated for an August release) so a revised GSL would be a nice counterexample to get a buzz going at the con. Also, having something to go for Gen Con avoids a lot of annoying questions from the fanbase.

I would hope to see something done earlier, to allow companies to actually produce product for Gen Con, but that might be too optimistic. I'd love to be able to pick up some of the items Necromancer was talking about, but I doubt it will happen.

--Steve


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 20, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I'm betting on Gencon. Although the cons usually provide good excuses for NOT releasing such things!




I figure the GAMA Trade show in mid-April. That's when all the publishers will be in the same room as them asking questions face to face.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Ahhhh, good point! Perhaps by mid-April then. 

We may yet see our beloved Necromancer products.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Feb 20, 2009)

Wow. It is six months to the day since my position was eliminated. I thought I'd just check on how things are going, and what do I see? No GSL yet? Perhaps my position shouldn't have been eliminated. 

Now, I no longer have inside knowledge as to what is going on at WotC, so don't let my post indicate such, but knowing what I do know, and knowing Scott, when he says something will come out Tomorrow or Soon, he really means it. There are circumstances he cannot foresee or control. 

It's the way it is. And it's a shame.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 20, 2009)

Welcome back, lurkinglidda!  I hope things are going well for you.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 20, 2009)

Never mind the GSL, how are _you_ doing lurkinglidda? I miss your posts and insights, and I'd love to know how life is treating you nowadays.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> Wow. It is six months to the day since my position was eliminated*. I thought I'd just check on how things are going, and what do I see?



Could this lead to: Less lurking, more lidda? 


*) I suppose I speak for most on these boards if I say that this was one of several unfavorable decisions WotC made at the end of the last year.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> Wow. It is six months to the day since my position was eliminated. I thought I'd just check on how things are going, and what do I see? No GSL yet? Perhaps my position shouldn't have been eliminated.
> 
> Now, I no longer have inside knowledge as to what is going on at WotC, so don't let my post indicate such, but knowing what I do know, and knowing Scott, when he says something will come out Tomorrow or Soon, he really means it. There are circumstances he cannot foresee or control.
> 
> It's the way it is. And it's a shame.




Nice to see you here again Linae!


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> *) I suppose I speak for most on these boards if I say that this was one of several unfavorable decisions WotC made at the end of the last year.




Fixed that for you, you accidently used a small font size, when you should obviously have used a much bigger one


----------



## xechnao (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 20, 2009)

Hey, Linae - you're missed amongst the RPG and minis crowds... Nice to hear from you.

As for the GSL, I kind of feel like everyone is holding their breath waiting for the Gorgon to breath...


----------



## lurkinglidda (Feb 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> lurkinglidda



I think I've been away too long: what does the melee icon mean? Am I challenged to a duel? My int score is like 5 today.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> I think I've been away too long: what does the melee icon mean? Am I challenged to a duel? My int score is like 5 today.




Don't worry. I am here every day, and I have no clue either what he means.
(it's the melee attack symbol from 4e though)


----------



## xechnao (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> I think I've been away too long: what does the melee icon mean? Am I challenged to a duel? My int score is like 5 today.




lol

people are asking how things are going about you-
so what do you think, fair or less then fair?


----------



## lurkinglidda (Feb 20, 2009)

xechnao said:


> lol
> 
> people are asking how things are going about you-
> so what do you think, fair or less then fair?




Depends. 

Job Search = less than fair. There are few jobs available and thousands of folks competing for them. The other day I heard that 1000 people applied for one meter-maid job in Seattle. Could be an urban legend, but it is pretty telling of the current job market.

Home Life = way more than fair. It's awesome, in fact. I love spending time with my kiddos, giving them all the mommy time they deserve. They're one and three years old and I'm grateful to be around during this time in their lives.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 20, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> Depends.




That is what the sword charm was for. To tell you I guess, we want you to keep your faith -or courage or whatever you want to call it-  whenever you may need it. 

Kids? Kids are good


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 21, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> Depends.
> 
> Job Search = less than fair. There are few jobs available and thousands of folks competing for them. The other day I heard that 1000 people applied for one meter-maid job in Seattle. Could be an urban legend, but it is pretty telling of the current job market.
> 
> Home Life = way more than fair. It's awesome, in fact. I love spending time with my kiddos, giving them all the mommy time they deserve. They're one and three years old and I'm grateful to be around during this time in their lives.




Enjoy that time with the kids. I was fortunate enough to be able to become a stay-at-home parent in 2000, leaving a full-time career in management. They grow up fast. Don't blink.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Feb 21, 2009)

Ghostwind said:


> Enjoy that time with the kids. I was fortunate enough to be able to become a stay-at-home parent in 2000, leaving a full-time career in management. They grow up fast. Don't blink.





Ditto. Being self employed and able to be at home full time with my kids has been wonderful.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 21, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Kids? Kids are good




Indeed they are, particularly with horseradish on a sesame seed bun.


----------



## Blastin (Feb 21, 2009)

great to see ya back Linae and glad to hear you are at least getting something good out of the situation. Time with the kids>any job.


----------



## Plissken (Feb 21, 2009)

With the current GSL is it possible to create my own campaign setting? 

Also, I noticed in the GSL that you cannot redefine terms. I understand that it means that I probably can't say that shift means 5 squares instead of 2 but am I not allowed to change what the Feywild is like? Like, my own version of what the Feywild is like?

Can I create my own origin stories as to where the races come from?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> With the current GSL is it possible to create my own campaign setting?




Yes



> Also, I noticed in the GSL that you cannot redefine terms. I understand that it means that I probably can't say that shift means 5 squares instead of 2 but am I not allowed to change what the Feywild is like? Like, my own version of what the Feywild is like?




Feywild is not part of the GSL



> Can I create my own origin stories as to where the races come from?




You can extend the definition by adding origin as long as you don't redefine it. I would create a sub-race that has branched of the original


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2009)

*All of the time.*

Childrens are all of the times asking me, 

"Who that man?"

That mans speak his name Stephen, but yous and I both know that nothing are Stephens ever and time. 

More likes the Raoul or Edward Philbert Jaime Paul. Wutnevers. That man eat food like a robot.

*GSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSL*





*GSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSL*​


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2009)

From WotC's boards, posted yesterday night (GMT)



			
				Scott Rouse said:
			
		

> I have someone adding the content to the SRD right now. 4 new classes, about 50 monsters and a couple new templates (including vehicles).
> 
> PR is cleaning up the FAQ.
> 
> ...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 21, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> catsclaw227 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMG... you are right...  And I was just getting used to not spending like a gluttonous pig on my RPG material.

[shaking fists] Damn you Necromancer Games!!! [/shaking fists]

Wow... I just got up in arms about a non-product produced under a non-GSL.  Ha!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 21, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Feywild is not part of the GSL



OK, Scott.  Help me understand what this will mean.  

Will it be possible for a 3PP to create an adventure in the Feywild? Or maybe a city or location in the Feywild?


----------



## Protagonist (Feb 21, 2009)

Or in the Faewild, Feyrealms, Faelands etc.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 21, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> OK, Scott.  Help me understand what this will mean.
> 
> Will it be possible for a 3PP to create an adventure in the Feywild? Or maybe a city or location in the Feywild?




Don't believe you can, or else I'd be on it already . Wizards held on to a lot of really cool properties. Rightfully, I might add, but it's still sad when you've got a great idea for a product and realize a key piece is missing cause it's not covered.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2009)

Well Goodman Games have a Eladrin book coming out. I doubt they will make such a book without mentioning the Feywild. Then again, maybe they will just use a different word, such as Fey Realm or whatnot.

Cheers


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 21, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> Don't believe you can, or else I'd be on it already . Wizards held on to a lot of really cool properties. Rightfully, I might add, but it's still sad when you've got a great idea for a product and realize a key piece is missing cause it's not covered.




Why can't your great product just have a place called 'The land of the Faeries'?

Ken


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2009)

IIRC, you simply cannot use the terms WotC uses. 

So you could place an adventure or create fey creatures that inhabit the realm where faeries live, you just can't use the word "Feywild" anywhere in there.

WotC owns the rights to the Word Feywild. They do not own rights to the notion of a place where faeries party all night long. That's an idea as old as the Celts.

Unless I am incorrect, it's just like how certain monsters were treated in 3e; "Yaun-Ti" were not in the SRD because WotC owned the rights to them. They did not own rights to the idea of cult-like, sinister snake people. Ergo why many 3rd Party Products had their own cult-like, sinister snake people by a different name.


----------



## Plissken (Feb 21, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> You can extend the definition by adding origin as long as you don't redefine it. I would create a sub-race that has branched of the original




Thank you for the reply.

You mean redefine as in, you can't make dwarves like elves? What is the original definition of a dwarf?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> You mean redefine as in, you can't make dwarves like elves? What is the original definition of a dwarf?




You can make whatever you like as long as the original definitions remain valid -in other words: as long as the original definitions do not become invalid. Its first order logic.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 21, 2009)

Rechan said:


> WotC owns the rights to the Word Feywild.



Please note that this only applies if you sign the GSL. We don't want to create the impression that WotC actually owns a word...  



> Unless I am incorrect, it's just like how certain monsters were treated in 3e; "Yaun-Ti" were not in the SRD because WotC owned the rights to them. They did not own rights to the idea of cult-like, sinister snake people. Ergo why many 3rd Party Products had their own cult-like, sinister snake people by a different name.



I think they were called "yuan-ti", but the reason people stayed away from that word was that it was defined as PI and the OGL forbade you to use PI of someone else.

Bottom line - you can't own a word. Not even a made-up one. But you can agree to not using it through a license such as OGL or GSL.


----------



## Plissken (Feb 21, 2009)

xechnao said:


> You can make whatever you like as long as the original definitions remain valid -in other words: as long as the original definitions do not become invalid. Its first order logic.




What IS the original definition? Whatever is in the 4e core books? For example, in the 4e core books, dwarves are said to be (in a general manner) short and strong and have +1 to whatever abilities.

So I can say that dwarves are long and thin and like to play tennis? But, I cannot say that the definition of dwarves that WoTC gives is invalid. Right?


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Bottom line - you can't own a word. Not even a made-up one. But you can agree to not using it through a license such as OGL or GSL.



Yes; the assumption being if you sign the GSL, then you can't use WotC's intellectual property (like Feywild), just like with the OGL, WotC had the IP for Yuan-ti.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 21, 2009)

Plissken said:


> What IS the original definition? Whatever is in the 4e core books? For example, in the 4e core books, dwarves are said to be (in a general manner) short and strong and have +1 to whatever abilities.
> 
> So I can say that dwarves are long and thin and like to play tennis? But, I cannot say that the definition of dwarves that WoTC gives is invalid. Right?




I guess that the anatomical and physical characteristics of some race should remain as defined -if they are defined. You may add though information about specific physical characteristics that have not been specified (for example hair color varieties or their limits-if something like that has not been defined in a way that what you add makes it invalid).


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> From WotC's boards, posted yesterday night (GMT)



"4 new classes"

So it's sounding like barbarian, bard, druid, and sorcerer will be in the SRD. Avenger, invoker, shaman, swordmage, and warden will all be excluded. (Assuming they would add the "old" classes, and if anything is excluded it would be the "new" ones.) Well, I can't help feeling greedy and wanting to play with all of the 4e classes, but it's certainly nice to see that some new material is in fact being added. Knowing whether future core books will be added to the SRD was one deciding factor for me. 

So... new core material will be added to the SRD? Check. 

Also, of the 50 new monsters being added, I'm curious if those are MM1, MM2, or other (Draconomicon, Open Grave). Hopefully we'll see soon.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 21, 2009)

I'll admit, it would be nice to use the term Feywild (really cool, evocative name) in my own supplements. 

I have a new race in my upcoming book that is tied to the land of the fae, but I've decided to just say "realm of the fey" and leave it at that.

If people wish to infer that as being the Feywild, cool.

If not, I'm good with that as well.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 23, 2009)

I hope they add the Alchemy rules from Adventurer's Vault too. If you ask me, those should have been in the Player's Handbook in the first place. Glad to see more classes being added in. I hope its the druid, bard, sorcerer, and barbarian. We'll see soon enough I guess...


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 23, 2009)

I just hope we get a decent GSL soon


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 24, 2009)

Bump for the day


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 24, 2009)

Hi, Linnae, great to see you here!



lurkinglidda said:


> Home Life = way more than fair. It's awesome, in fact. I love spending time with my kiddos, giving them all the mommy time they deserve. They're one and three years old and I'm grateful to be around during this time in their lives.




I had a similar experience (perhaps with less use of the word "mommy"). Laid off four weeks before a child was due--a lot of people commented on how terrible that was, but really, it was a great time to be at home.

So when are you and the little halfling coming over for a visit?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 25, 2009)

lurkinglidda said:


> Depends.
> 
> Job Search = less than fair. There are few jobs available and thousands of folks competing for them. The other day I heard that 1000 people applied for one meter-maid job in Seattle. Could be an urban legend, but it is pretty telling of the current job market.
> 
> Home Life = way more than fair. It's awesome, in fact. I love spending time with my kiddos, giving them all the mommy time they deserve. They're one and three years old and I'm grateful to be around during this time in their lives.




Just wanted to send you my best wishes, Linae. Good luck to you and your family. 

Cheers!


----------



## fissionessence (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't know if this is the correct thread in which to ask this, but while we're waiting for more updates:

I know that I can't 'redefine terms' as per the GSL . . . so I can't say elves are actually aquatic beings with tentacles and 100 claws; and I can't say that a staff is actually a small piece of wood with a long blade coming out . . . but what about using defined words and creating a _new and separate_ definition? 

As a specific example, could I take the word 'aura', which is defined in the glossary of the Monster Manual, and use it as the power word for some new class (as in: "This class's powers are called auras")? How about a class called the totemist? Could it create class features/powers called 'totems', even though that's what primal implements (PH2) are called? These definitions don't 'redefine' or directly conflict with their existing definitions, but I don't want to get a cease-and-desist when I could have just come up with secondary, if suboptimal, terms for these things.

~ fissionessence


----------



## caudor (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm wondering what impact the new GSL will have on adventure conversion efforts.  Or is that in the domain of a fan-site policy?  Oh well, I'm just confused about the whole thing.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 1, 2009)

caudor said:


> I'm wondering what impact the new GSL will have on adventure conversion efforts.  Or is that in the domain of a fan-site policy?  Oh well, I'm just confused about the whole thing.




The current GSL has very little impact on adventure conversion, so why should that change?


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

Gonna bump, because I have a really good feeling about this week month...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 2, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Gonna bump, because I have a really good feeling about this week month...




Year


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 2, 2009)

All the hints and clues feel like smoke and mirrors don't they?


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Mar 2, 2009)

Guys, it snowed in North Carolina. 

GSL delayed another month.

*edit* I knew that as soon as I posted this, the scathing satire of my words would cause the GSL to be released. You're welcome everyone.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 2, 2009)

w_earle_wheeler said:


> Guys, it snowed in North Carolina.
> 
> GSL delayed another month.




It's worse than that - a bag of rice fell in China!


----------



## freyar (Mar 2, 2009)

Don't Orcus's recent comments on the Necromancer site about doing "old school 4e" indicate that he thinks a good revision should be out soon?


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

freyar said:


> Don't Orcus's recent comments on the Necromancer site about doing "old school 4e" indicate that he thinks a good revision should be out soon?




He made recent comments about going old school?

Edit: He even made a new message board section - that is indeed interesting.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 2, 2009)

Other than Necromancer, are there any other RPG companies that are waiting on the revised GSL?


----------



## malraux (Mar 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It's worse than that - a bag of rice fell in China!




Maybe its every day that the Rouse sees his shadow, we get 6 more weeks of no GSL.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Other than Necromancer, are there any other RPG companies that are waiting on the revised GSL?




Yes. I know for a fact there is.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 2, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> The current GSL has very little impact on adventure conversion, so why should that change?




I have to disagree with you a bit here: the current GSL does impact adventures quite a bit, because it doesn't allow you to reproduce monster stats from the monster manual.

It's so convenient to be able to run an encounter using just the adventure itself that I can't believe companies will be producing them with:

"Orc Berzerker, see p XXX of the MM"

So I'm hopeful we can get away from that at least, thankyouverymuch.

--Steve


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I have to disagree with you a bit here: the current GSL does impact adventures quite a bit, because it doesn't allow you to reproduce monster stats from the monster manual.
> 
> It's so convenient to be able to run an encounter using just the adventure itself that I can't believe companies will be producing them with:
> 
> ...




Which is why I said adventure _conversion_. While it is still an issue to not be able to reproduce monsters straight out of the MM, I haven't found it a big deal. YMMV OFC.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 2, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I have to disagree with you a bit here: the current GSL does impact adventures quite a bit, because it doesn't allow you to reproduce monster stats from the monster manual.
> 
> It's so convenient to be able to run an encounter using just the adventure itself that I can't believe companies will be producing them with:
> 
> ...




I don't believe that's entirely true though. You can reprint monsters for the purpose of showing mechanical effects of a change, and you can print your own monsters. I believe you can change the monster's "powers,"  and reprint the stats to show the effect the new powers have on that monster. 

It's so easy to make the monsters different in 4e, it seems lazy to me just to drop  all "standard" monsters into a published adventure.   Changing the powers makes the monsters feel more like unique living things, and not just another monster X. The players never no what to expect no matter how many times they've faced the same monster type.

I'm not entirely sure I'm correct on that though.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 2, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Yes. I know for a fact there is.



Of the big players, who?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just curious who you are referring to and on what grounds (because I try to stay on top of these things). I suppose Paizo and Green Ronin might since both were clear in rejecting that version of the GSL but leaving open the possibility of supporting a new one. 

However, even though Paizo has mentioned on their boards they might explore some 4e options, they have also been very clear that they are always omgsocrazybusy and supporting two systems to any significant degree is pretty much out of the question. If the GSL were improved to their liking, I would expect GameMastery type products (item cards and other "tools"), but I would be surprised if they did much in the way of 4e _books_. I suppose they might eventually toss an adventure or two out there just to gauge sales numbers (they are smart enough business people to do that), but I don't see even that happening for a long ways out, and unless the sales numbers make them drool, I'd see them still focusing 95%+ of their effort on Pathfinder.

I could see Green Ronin jumping on board with a better GSL, but they were moving away from standard d20 long before 4e came out and have enough product lines going strong to probably keep them busy for a long time.

That being said, I think it would be really great to see those two produce 4e products, I'm just skeptical that it will happen to _any significant degree_ regardless of how nice the GSL is.

However, with _small_ publishers, I imagine there's plenty. Heck, if the GSL gets better, I've said I'll switch from occasional freelancer to occasional publisher. Indications of a better GSL coming out someday have been good enough that I'm writing products now. However, I'm also keeping in mind that if a better GSL doesn't materialize, then I'm producing them all for Pathfinder instead. The lack of a GSL acceptable to me is the only thing holding them back. I'm pretty small time, of course, but I imagine I'm not alone in my sentiments.

But if I've missed some clear declarations of willingness to support a better GSL, from small or large publishers, I'd like to see them. Necromancer is the only that I have seen clearly indicate that they need a better GSL (and their website update yesterday makes it pretty clear that they think the new GSL is very close and acceptable to them, which bodes well for me).


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

I never claimed it was a big third party producer. DaveMage asked about any company. Either way, as you say, plenty of the smaller ones will be (very) interested in an improved GSL.

I also agree that people hoping for lots of GR and Paizo stuff for 4e will most likely be very disappointed, no matter how open the GSL becomes.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 2, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I never claimed it was a big third party producer. DaveMage asked about any company.



That's what I assumed, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Looking back, my first question does look like I'm calling you out on it. That wasn't intended, I was mainly wondering if there was info I wasn't aware of.

I wonder how many small PDF publishers would make a resurgence with a better GSL. Personally, I'd love to see Dreamscarred kick it into gear again, but I'm probably preferring them to work on better psionics for Pathfinder, but it would be interesting to see what else they come up with for 4e. 

I'm trying to think of other small publishers still waiting in the wings. I know a TON vanished, but I figured they were just gone for good.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> I wonder how many small PDF publishers would make a resurgence with a better GSL. Personally, I'd love to see Dreamscarred kick it into gear again, but I'm probably preferring them to work on better psionics for Pathfinder, but it would be interesting to see what else they come up with for 4e.




Trust me, I am very interested in seeing what DSP are doing as well


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Gonna bump, because I have a really good feeling about this week month...



So do I.


----------



## davethegame (Mar 2, 2009)

Rumor floating around Twitter is the revision will be up today.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 2, 2009)

davethegame said:


> Rumor floating around Twitter is the revision will be up today.



Rumor? I barely know her!

Okay, that doesn't work.

But I've heard similar rumblings. If it goes live today, it'll probably be up near the end of WotC's work day. I'd say check around then.


----------



## Mark (Mar 2, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Rumor? I barely know her!
> 
> Okay, that doesn't work.





Sure it does if you have a D&D B&B.  Now _twitter_ might be a bit less workable.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 2, 2009)

New GSL is up.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome


----------



## Morrus (Mar 2, 2009)

This letter, with the new GSL attached, went out to publishers earlier today:



> [FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Publishing friends,
> 
> I just wanted to let you know that the revision of GSL that we announced back in August 2008 is going live today (it should go up around 4PM PST). I have posted a copy for your reference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scribble (Mar 2, 2009)

blink blink... no ogl clause?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 2, 2009)

Scribble said:


> blink blink... no ogl clause?




I know!  Great, innit?


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 2, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I know!  Great, innit?




From a very quick read-through, it looks like Scott delivered


----------



## Scribble (Mar 2, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I know!  Great, innit?




Looks that way! 

I'm not a contracts expert or anything, but this version looks pretty well thought out? (And less "Muuuhooohahaha we control your D&Ds!!!!")


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 3, 2009)

FWIW, after reading the GSL, SRD, and FAQ (any acronyms I missed), I'm sending in my Statement of Acceptance tomorrow. I am very happy with the updates (but will of course nitpick through the night to make sure, but unless there's any new hidden gotchas, it works for me).

Thank you, Scott!!


----------



## CaptainChaos (Mar 3, 2009)

Looks like the "you pay our legal bills if we sue you" clause is still in there. As I recall, that was a bone of contention.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 3, 2009)

Much better. Now this is a liscense that can be used! 

Whew. Hard to believe it took this long to modify that pesky section 6! 

Nice to see some stuff from PH2 and MM2 added to the SRD.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Just took a quickie look at it, and please don't take this as legal advice, just observations:

They can cancel the GSL at any time.

They can change the GSL and/or SRD at any time.

Therefore, anything people didn't like from the first version that was taken out can be put back in.

Plus, if there are any legally questionable claims of right WOTC makes in the GSL (9.1), you can't fight it if you sign the GSL.

Also, it looks like they can put out stuff similar to yours and compete against you.

Not something I would feel comfortable making long-term business decisions with.

If you are a guy who wants to put out a supplement once a year or so for 4e, and make a hundred bucks here and there, no major loss.

If you're a guy basing a business and livelihood around 4e products, seems risky to me. Your livelihood is in the hands of the Hasbro corporate executive of the month in charge over there.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket if I were a 3pp. develop your business broadly, support Pathfinder, C&C, etc., in order to have options if Goober the future new VP of WOTC who never rolled dice before has a brain fart and screws over all 3pp's.

Just my gut take on it from a fast read. Again, not legal advice, so don't take it as such. Consult a lawyer who specializes in IP and/or business contracts. I do not work in those areas.


Joe


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 3, 2009)

Its nice that you posted the same stuff into both GSL threads. Otherwise we would have missed your insight.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 3, 2009)

CaptainChaos said:


> Looks like the "you pay our legal bills if we sue you" clause is still in there. As I recall, that was a bone of contention.



As I recall, when it was originally pointed out one of the lawyers commented on how that was pretty standard boilerplate in corporate contracts, and it was subsequently ignored by everyone.


----------

