# WOTC, Scott, Where in the World is the GSL



## Arksorn (Mar 19, 2008)

WOTC, Scott, Where in the World is the GSL

We have lost one of the best adventure writing publishers due to the delay.
Please get the GSL in the hands of other publishers so we don't lose any more.


----------



## Henry (Mar 19, 2008)

I wouldn't say we've "lost" them. More like they're not going to be an early adopter for sure, and their entry into the 4e market will likely be in a smaller way, next year, assuming they enter.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 19, 2008)

My uninformed guess is that the Hasbro suits intervened.  I can't imagine any other reason why the GSL would still be missing after being promised in November.

And now it's cost 4E Paizo.  Talk about shooting one's self in the foot.

Ken


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> My uninformed guess is that the Hasbro suits intervened.  I can't imagine any other reason why the GSL would still be missing after being promised in November.
> 
> And now it's cost 4E Paizo.  Talk about shooting one's self in the foot.
> 
> Ken




Actually, I don't think it's cost 4E anything. It's cost Paizo what they would've gained by being an early adopter.

And it's going to cost them a lot of customers. Quite honestly, Paizo's decision just bumped them from near the top of my list for third-party 4E products right down to the bottom.


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 19, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think it's cost 4E anything. It's cost Paizo what they would've gained by being an early adopter.
> 
> And it's going to cost them a lot of customers. Quite honestly, Paizo's decision just bumped them from near the top of my list for third-party 4E products right down to the bottom.




I'm the opposite.  Paizo not moving to 4th Edition is really putting some pressure on my decision to move to that edition at all.  Paizo are more in line with my style of play, and I'll stick with them.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 19, 2008)

And how would you propose that Paizo be an early adopter, when they still don't even know on what terms they would be allowed to write 4E compatible products?  WoTC took that option away from them.

As for lost customers, as things stand now Paizo may end up inheriting the base of people who want to stick with 3.5.  Even if that's 10% of the total, it's a huge win for them.  

And like the previous poster, Paizo's decision to stick with 3.X makes me less likely to switch to 4E.  Their adventures were by far the best of the 3E adventures , after all.

Ken


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2008)

For me, the whole point of being a Phase 1 publisher was being there at launch (the GenCon where 4e will be released).

Once the GSL delays made that impossible, being Phase 1 didn't seem so meaningful.


----------



## rom90125 (Mar 19, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I'm the opposite.  Paizo not moving to 4th Edition is really putting some pressure on my decision to move to that edition at all.  Paizo are more in line with my style of play, and I'll stick with them.




QFT.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> My uninformed guess is that the Hasbro suits intervened.  I can't imagine any other reason why the GSL would still be missing after being promised in November.
> 
> And now it's cost 4E Paizo.  Talk about shooting one's self in the foot.
> 
> Ken




I fail to see how shunting a competitor into back-burnersville of 3e nostalgia is shooting oneself in the foot. Somehow, I think they'll survive.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Mar 19, 2008)

I agree with the OP.  WotC should be ashamed at the delay.

Paizo's move was somewhat forced upon them yet, despite that, I fear it was a very poor choice for their company and a very regrettable day for the gaming industry.

Not sure what else to say. Sorta surprised and saddened in equal measure.

W.P.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 19, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> I fail to see how shunting a competitor into back-burnersville of 3e nostalgia is shooting oneself in the foot...




Up until today, Paizo wasn't a competitor for WotC, but rather a complimentary business partner - quite simply, the adventure paths helped sell WotC hardbacks, both before and after the transition from Dungeon to Pathfinder. And while WotC didn't cause themselves real harm with the delay of the GSL, they have lost an opportunity to line up another partner to help create the killer app package that will drive 4e sales.


----------



## Stogoe (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm not going to say that I'll never buy third party products, but they play essentially zero factor in my 'switching' decision.  I hope Paizo endures their year or so of obstinance, and I hope to see them publish for 4e in the future.  I may even take a gander at their 4e products, even though I'm not in the habit of buying published adventures.

Also, WotC definitely should have got the GSL out months and months ago.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Mar 19, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> I'm not going to say that I'll never buy third party products, but they play essentially zero factor in my 'switching' decision.  I hope Paizo endures their year or so of obstinance, and I hope to see them publish for 4e in the future.  I may even take a gander at their 4e products, even though I'm not in the habit of buying published adventures.
> 
> Also, WotC definitely should have got the GSL out months and months ago.



I'll second this. It's affecting me both as a gamer and as a would-be freelance designer.


----------



## Pale (Mar 19, 2008)

They aren't being obstinant... they simply have no choice in the matter. Also, Paizo now publishes Necromancer Games products and from what we know NG will still be switching to 4E. Two markets instead of one isn't a 'bad' decision.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't know.  I think that starting your own, backwards compatible, 3.5+ RPG, marketting straight at the abused children of 3.5, that is in _open playtesting_ for the next year kinda means that they're not planning on touching 4th Ed at all.  At least not unless they're willing to eat a heck of a lot of crow a year or more down the line.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> My uninformed guess is that the Hasbro suits intervened.  I can't imagine any other reason why the GSL would still be missing after being promised in November.




The GSL delay is really puzzling. WTH is going on?



> And now it's cost 4E Paizo.  Talk about shooting one's self in the foot.




However I don't know that this delay has cost them Paizo. Erik Mona was talking about doing a possible 3.75 soon after the original 4e announcement and I don't recall much positive comment from anyone at Paizo about the new edition. They never seemed enthusiastic about it, and obviously they've been working on Pathfinder RPG for some time.

I'm more worried that it'll cost Wizards the support Necromancer Games, as Clark has shown real interest. They should just sign him up as a freelancer so he can see the rules.


----------



## Zoatebix (Mar 19, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> I agree with the OP.  WotC should be ashamed at the delay.
> 
> Paizo's move was somewhat forced upon them yet, despite that, I fear it was a very poor choice for their company and a very regrettable day for the gaming industry.
> 
> ...



I'm with Gareth Michael Skarka and Chris Pramas on this one: "I'm not exaggerating at all when I say this: Paizo has just single-handedly insured that there will be a commercially-viable audience for non-4E D&D releases, industry-wide. Bravo." From here; "I can easily envision 4E and Pathfinder both being successful for their parent companies." from here.

I sincerely hope that all of these ventures - 4th Edition, Necromancer's move to develop for 4th Edition before seeing the GSL, Pathfinder, etc. - pay off.  And, with some cautious reservation, I think they all might.


----------



## (contact) (Mar 19, 2008)

The GSL delay makes unicorns weep sparkly rainbow tears.


----------



## Kesh (Mar 19, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> The GSL delay is really puzzling. WTH is going on?




Every post I've seen by WotC employees has hinted that the legal issues are the delay. My guess is that WotC/Hasbro wants the license to be a very specific way, which means when the lawyers say "This doesn't fit what you wanted," the WotC team has to rewrite that part, and the lawyers have to start over again to determine how the change affects the _rest_ of the GSL now.

In other words, they're stuck in an infinite lawyer loop.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 19, 2008)

(contact) said:
			
		

> The GSL delay makes unicorns weep sparkly rainbow tears.




Draw us a picture!

Then we post it (as an avatar or in a sig or whatever) whenever The Rouse posts.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Every post I've seen by WotC employees has hinted that the legal issues are the delay. My guess is that WotC/Hasbro wants the license to be a very specific way, which means when the lawyers say "This doesn't fit what you wanted," the WotC team has to rewrite that part, and the lawyers have to start over again to determine how the change affects the _rest_ of the GSL now.
> 
> In other words, they're stuck in an infinite lawyer loop.




Plus, imagine what things will be like further down the road - 5th edition.  What if it's even more restrictive or there is no GSL/OGL at all? Paizo would really be in trouble then.  This way they can salvage some of their consumer base at the very least.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 19, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> I agree with the OP.  WotC should be ashamed at the delay.
> 
> Paizo's move was somewhat forced upon them yet, despite that, I fear it was a very poor choice for their company and a very regrettable day for the gaming industry.
> 
> ...




QFT

How much splintering can D&D withstand?


----------



## Henry (Mar 19, 2008)

Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison did have an advantage in that they had the Open Software license to use as a master example for the OGL, as well as probably about one to two years of lead time in lawyer-talks to get it drafted.


----------



## Khairn (Mar 19, 2008)

There seems to be little doubt that Paizo's decision ensures a significant fracture in the D&D market, at least in the short term.  This also provides a home and support into 2009 for those gamers who were not excited about the switch to 4E.

I admit my crystal ball has many cracks in it but I wonder if in a year from now we'll look back and say this event was the Healing Surge that breathed new life into 3E?  Or maybe this will be remembered as just another jarring pothole along the rocky road that the launch of 4E has taken.  Just a little mindless speculation.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 19, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> For me, the whole point of being a Phase 1 publisher was being there at launch (the GenCon where 4e will be released).
> 
> Once the GSL delays made that impossible, being Phase 1 didn't seem so meaningful.




I've heard a few publishers say that.

I think WoTC will have to offer some more carrots like extneding the exlcusitivity to next Gen Con if they want people to fork over a large sum of money for the "exclusive" privilege of missing this year's Gen Con.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 19, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> There seems to be little doubt that Paizo's decision ensures a significant fracture in the D&D market, at least in the short term.




Depends on what you mean by "significant."

If you mean "big enough to support a company as small as Paizo," yeah, probably.

If you mean "big enough to be noticed as more than a statistical glitch by a company the size of WotC," probably not.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Depends on what you mean by "significant."
> 
> If you mean "big enough to support a company as small as Paizo," yeah, probably.
> 
> If you mean "big enough to be noticed as more than a statistical glitch by a company the size of WotC," probably not.



I don't know anything about this, does anyone? I mean numbers of books sold? predicted numbers for 4E? How much is the (currently 13% pro/unsure 4E to PR on the admittedly not exhaustive poll) now opting for PF RPG than 4E going to effect WotC?


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

I posted this in General, but I'll post it here too:

If you think that Paizo is a competitor to WotC, you're fooling yourself. The majority of Paizo's customers will come from the anti-4e minority who were never really going to 4e anyway, and the rest of their customers will come from cannibalizing customers from C&C, True20, Arcana Evolved, Conan d20, and other D&D clones.

Paizo will probably do quite alright for themselves. I expect them to dominate the d20 OGL market, although Crafty Games upcoming Fantasy Craft may have something to say about that.

But seriously impacting WotC's business? I don't think so. Thats like saying a high school football team can play in the NFL. WotC has the name, the marketing power, and the brand on their side. Plus I have played 4e and I know it rocks. The problem with Pathfinder is I have played 3.5 and I know it doesn't.


----------



## breschau (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> As for lost customers, as things stand now Paizo may end up inheriting the base of people who want to stick with 3.5.  Even if that's 10% of the total, it's a huge win for them.




What? Are you serious? What percent of the total 3.5 adventures market do you think Paizo has now? The only way they come out ahead is if they don't lose customers or gain them. 

Check the poll about this. One-hundred votes that are pro 4E, fifteen that could be pro Pathfinder. Most people really liked the Pathfinder adventures. With Paizo not doing 4E, all the players that switch will be lost to Paizo. Unless the vast majority of 3.x players stick to their guns and all switch to Pathfinder, this is a losing proposition for them.

164 votes, 60-some percent going to 4E. Use that figure for the number of customers Paizo will lose. That's a severe hit to profits, not a gain.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 19, 2008)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Up until today, Paizo wasn't a competitor for WotC, but rather a complimentary business partner - quite simply, the adventure paths helped sell WotC hardbacks, both before and after the transition from Dungeon to Pathfinder. And while WotC didn't cause themselves real harm with the delay of the GSL, they have lost an opportunity to line up another partner to help create the killer app package that will drive 4e sales.




It is impossible to disagree with this.

However, please make sure that you understand that, while Wizards "lost an opportunity to line up another partner to help create the killer app package that will drive 4e sales," there is no hostility between the parties. I've talked to Erik. I've talked to Wizards. I want to make sure that no one thinks this is Paizo vs. Wizards. It isnt. Its two version of D&D, one that Paizo has decided to support for various reasons, and not exclusively I might add. Dont make this Paizo vs. Wizards. And just like when I do 4E products it isnt Necro vs. Paizo, or other 3E guys. At the top level of this, everyone here is friendly with one another and gets along great.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 19, 2008)

[edited] Oops! I goofed sorry. Ignore this post. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 19, 2008)

I look forward to seeing what the early adopters who shell out the $5k produce in those heady 20 minutes when they have the market to themselves.

Wait, now it's down to 10 minutes ...


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 19, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> [edited] Oops! I goofed sorry. Ignore this post. Nothing to see here.




Lawyer took over and realized it was impossible?


----------



## Michael Morris (Mar 19, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> What? Are you serious? What percent of the total 3.5 adventures market do you think Paizo has now? The only way they come out ahead is if they don't lose customers or gain them.
> 
> Check the poll about this. One-hundred votes that are pro 4E, fifteen that could be pro Pathfinder. Most people really liked the Pathfinder adventures. With Paizo not doing 4E, all the players that switch will be lost to Paizo. Unless the vast majority of 3.x players stick to their guns and all switch to Pathfinder, this is a losing proposition for them.
> 
> 164 votes, 60-some percent going to 4E. Use that figure for the number of customers Paizo will lose. That's a severe hit to profits, not a gain.



 As opposed to no profit at all?  If Paizo waited any longer they wouldn't be able to produce anything at all.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 19, 2008)

I hope that a lot of people take heed of what Orcus' is saying. 4E is not for some and I hope that PF will offer them a great 'DnD'esque experience. There is a good post on the Paizo boards about this very thing , he has a good viewpoint of the whole thing. We all love RPGs (and most of us here DnD styley ones) and it should not be 'all for one and damn the other'. To each their own IMO. _Although I found it amusing that he assumed all the hate would come from outside the pro-PF community and they should restrain themselves from replying in kind. Obviously no pro-PF ers would start the mud slinging _
So I am afraid I won't be buying Paizo PF any more, until it is published fully 4E compatible (I hate having to change things in my books, errata grrrrrr) not just web supplements, I wish them the best. I hope there is room enough in RPGers wallets to support them! I started the poll about where peoples future RPG tastes lie mainly 'cos I am nosey, not 'cos I have an axe to grind!
However I am also very excited about what Necromancer have up their sleeve, so keep us informed Orcus


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 19, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> [edited] Oops! I goofed sorry. Ignore this post. Nothing to see here.



Just trying to increase your post count, eh?..................


.....just like me


----------



## Orcus (Mar 19, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> However I am also very excited about what Necromancer have up their sleeve, so keep us informed Orcus




Check the "post pathfinder" thread


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 19, 2008)

Cheers, will do  
Edit: i'll say it again w00t!


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 19, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I hope that a lot of people take heed of what Orcus' is saying. 4E is not for some and I hope that PF will offer them a great 'DnD'esque experience. There is a good post on the Paizo boards about this very thing , he has a good viewpoint of the whole thing. We all love RPGs (and most of us here DnD styley ones) and it should not be 'all for one and damn the other'. To each their own IMO. _Although I found it amusing that he assumed all the hate would come from outside the pro-PF community and they should restrain themselves from replying in kind. Obviously no pro-PF ers would start the mud slinging _
> So I am afraid I won't be buying Paizo PF any more, until it is published fully 4E compatible (I hate having to change things in my books, errata grrrrrr) not just web supplements, I wish them the best. I hope there is room enough in RPGers wallets to support them! I started the poll about where peoples future RPG tastes lie mainly 'cos I am nosey, not 'cos I have an axe to grind!




This. I rather see people using their energy discussing a game they like, instead of a game they don't like... In the appropriate forum, that is.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 19, 2008)

Yes, I am serious.

10% of the 3.5 players would be hundreds of thousands of people.  And Paizo would be selling supplements to all of them, rather than just selling adventures to their DMs.

Remember, the money is in the Players Handbook and followon supplements.  That's the reason the OGL was created by WoTC in the first place.

Ken



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> What? Are you serious? What percent of the total 3.5 adventures market do you think Paizo has now? The only way they come out ahead is if they don't lose customers or gain them.
> 
> Check the poll about this. One-hundred votes that are pro 4E, fifteen that could be pro Pathfinder. Most people really liked the Pathfinder adventures. With Paizo not doing 4E, all the players that switch will be lost to Paizo. Unless the vast majority of 3.x players stick to their guns and all switch to Pathfinder, this is a losing proposition for them.
> 
> 164 votes, 60-some percent going to 4E. Use that figure for the number of customers Paizo will lose. That's a severe hit to profits, not a gain.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Yes, I am serious.
> 
> 10% of the 3.5 players would be hundreds of thousands of people.  And Paizo would be selling supplements to all of them, rather than just selling adventures to their DMs.
> 
> ...




Just wanted to give another perspective on this...

I am not what you can consider a D&D Forum regular. I have bought most of my D&D related products from local hobby-shops and a few online retailers here and there, and have been playing D&D in some form or another for years... that being said, I had never even heard of Paizo or the Pathfinder series until I started visiting the ENWorld forums a couple of months ago. And the reason I started visiting ENWorld was to get info on 4th Edition.

It may seem like a huge deal to people here, on the Paizo boards, and on other related forums... but those places are not representative of the majority of the D&D market. In order for Paizo to get sales that register as more than a blip on the radar of a marketing giant like WOTC, they're going to need to make a huge push to get some name recognition and brand identity out there.

Please dont take this as a slam against Paizo, I certainly hope that they do well. And I will most definitely be checking out their 4E supplemental products, as I have enjoyed the previous Tome of Horrors by Necromancer.  Im just giving the perspective of an observer from outside the PnP Gaming Forum Community.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 19, 2008)

Another view of this that I think a lot of us are missing is the fact that Paizo was just handed mantle of 3.5 in a little box with a bow on top.  They didn't have to pay anything for it, they just had to wait for the dust to settle and realize they were standing at the head of the pack.


----------



## Yergi (Mar 19, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> Just wanted to give another perspective on this...
> 
> I am not what you can consider a D&D Forum regular. I have bought most of my D&D related products from local hobby-shops and a few online retailers here and there, and have been playing D&D in some form or another for years... that being said, I had never even heard of Paizo or the Pathfinder series until I started visiting the ENWorld forums a couple of months ago. And the reason I started visiting ENWorld was to get info on 4th Edition.
> 
> ...




This.  I am in the same boat as BnH.  The only reason I know about Paizo is because I stumbled upon ENWorld while looking for 4e information.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> It may seem like a huge deal to people here, on the Paizo boards, and on other related forums... but those places are not representative of the majority of the D&D market. In order for Paizo to get sales that register as more than a blip on the radar of a marketing giant like WOTC, they're going to need to make a huge push to get some name recognition and brand identity out there.




The problem for WotC is that they have to compete against World of Warcraft (and the video game industry in general, which captures the most "gamer time" and the most "gamer dollars.") 

WotC has to reach, entice, and educate _brand new_ players to 4e to grow their business. They're looking for mainstream gamers. They're not looking to just "retain" or "recycle" their current D&D customer base. In fact, they're willing to alienate some portion of that existing base (creating grognards!) in order to move the ruleset forward and make it more accessible and more acceptable.

Paizo can probably do all right just by capturing that portion of the existing D&D fanbase that 4e is leaving behind in pursuit of those "mainstream" gamers. They already have all the name recognition they need with this group of gamers-- folks _already engaged_ in the hobby. They don't have to re-educate anyone. Their business model is predominately through their own storefront, though I am sure they'll get into hobby distribution if they want it. (I doubt they need it-- not sure why they'd settle for 10 cents on the dollar.)

And they're not really competing with anyone. WotC is the 800 lb. gorilla of 4e Dungeons and Dragons, but Paizo is now the 800 lb. gorilla of 3.5e. Nobody is positioned as well as Paizo to own that market. 

I believe that piece of the market is big enough to have its own "long tail."

I'm not sure exactly how long the tail is, or how long it needs to be to support a company the size of Paizo, with full time employees.

EDIT: But I am sure Paizo knows.



			
				Nytmare said:
			
		

> Another view of this that I think a lot of us are missing is the fact that Paizo was just handed mantle of 3.5 in a little box with a bow on top.  They didn't have to pay anything for it, they just had to wait for the dust to settle and realize they were standing at the head of the pack.




Yep.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Depends on what you mean by "significant."
> 
> If you mean "big enough to support a company as small as Paizo," yeah, probably.
> 
> If you mean "big enough to be noticed as more than a statistical glitch by a company the size of WotC," probably not.




I posted this elsewhere - my guess is 10%.  10% of 4E sales of the core books probably means millions of dollars to WoTC.  Whoever caused this delay at WoTC should be in danger of losing their job over this.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 19, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Every post I've seen by WotC employees has hinted that the legal issues are the delay. My guess is that WotC/Hasbro wants the license to be a very specific way, which means when the lawyers say "This doesn't fit what you wanted," the WotC team has to rewrite that part, and the lawyers have to start over again to determine how the change affects the _rest_ of the GSL now.
> 
> In other words, they're stuck in an infinite lawyer loop.




So, despite having THREE YEARS to prepare for this, and having a "plan" they announced at GenCon '07, and then an announcement of the rollout back in January (or was it December?), they're still arguing over it?

What were the lawyers doing all this time?


----------



## Toryx (Mar 19, 2008)

One of the things I think a lot of people are forgetting is just how much the OGL changed gaming. Before 3e, when it came to D&D it was either WotC or TSR. There were a number of other game companies out there, of course, but they all created their own games and as a result there was a great deal of limitations.

Then 3e came along with the open license and D&D exploded. The result is Paizo and Goodman Games and Necromancer and all the other third party companies. Those companies would not have existed without the OGL and it's thanks to 3e that Paizo has any decision to make at all.

One of the things that sets Paizo and the other 3rd parties apart, however, is that they're not headed by massive conglomerations like Hasbro. No, they don't make nearly the amount of income that WotC has been capable of, but they've been able to exist by doing what they want to do without bowing to huge corporate requirements. That's part of what makes them great, having the freedom to create without that constant presence over their shoulder.

Paizo hasn't closed the door to 4e. If anything, they've opened the door to the gaming community wider. They're sticking with the open gaming community that WotC created with 3e and are now backing away from. And they'll be working to bring new 4e products out as well. Are they going to be hugely successful and become another WotC? Most likely not, but I think that most of the customers would be happier for Paizo to stay who they are. Not every company needs to be the biggest to succeed. So long as Paizo continues to create good product and bring customers to their web site, then they'll be well. 

So long as any rpg company, 3rd party or no, is bringing players to the table, nobody is losing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> Just wanted to give another perspective on this...
> 
> I am not what you can consider a D&D Forum regular. I have bought most of my D&D related products from local hobby-shops and a few online retailers here and there, and have been playing D&D in some form or another for years... that being said, I had never even heard of Paizo or the Pathfinder series until I started visiting the ENWorld forums a couple of months ago. And the reason I started visiting ENWorld was to get info on 4th Edition.
> 
> It may seem like a huge deal to people here, on the Paizo boards, and on other related forums... but those places are not representative of the majority of the D&D market. In order for Paizo to get sales that register as more than a blip on the radar of a marketing giant like WOTC, they're going to need to make a huge push to get some name recognition and brand identity out there.



Keep in mind that at this time, Paizo only needs those people that already know them - since they are their existing customer base. And maybe they can even afford some losses, though in the long run, they surely want to expand their customer base. That might be hard. But other companies managed that, too. White Wolf or FASA/FanPro certainly did that...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, despite having THREE YEARS to prepare for this, and having a "plan" they announced at GenCon '07, and then an announcement of the rollout back in January (or was it December?), they're still arguing over it?
> 
> What were the lawyers doing all this time?



Sitting on their thumbs? I really don't know. 

But I don't need to know, either. I only want it to be out. Preferably 2 months ago.


----------



## Stormtower (Mar 19, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> So long as any rpg company, 3rd party or no, is bringing players to the table, nobody is losing.




Yes indeed.  The game is now about keeping existing tabletop RPG players at the table, and somehow drawing new so-called "mainstream" (i.e. WoW) gamers away from WoW by showing off the versatility and openness of tabletop, face-to-face social gaming.

4E plays well and is the "new shiny" D&D with WotC's marketing muscle behind it, and I believe it will accomplish this (with a big assist from Necromancer, I hope).  Paizo and Pathfinder also rock the house, and will likely help the grognard/pro-3.5E population to retain current gamers and attract new ones.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Mar 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that at this time, Paizo only needs those people that already know them - since they are their existing customer base. And maybe they can even afford some losses, though in the long run, they surely want to expand their customer base. That might be hard. But other companies managed that, too. White Wolf or FASA/FanPro certainly did that...





Ah, yes, I am not disagreeing with this at all. My post was simply on observation in response to a claim that Paizo will take 10% of the PnP gamer market... which I feel is more than a bit of an over-estimate.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 19, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I posted this elsewhere - my guess is 10%.  10% of 4E sales of the core books probably means millions of dollars to WoTC.  Whoever caused this delay at WoTC should be in danger of losing their job over this.




Yeah, but if WotC loses 10% of their sales in order to appeal to newer gamers that, even over time, bring in, let's say, 10% more sales over peak 3.x level (especially possible now that there won't be an SRD for people to mooch off of for 4e), it's a net win for WotC.


----------



## lvl20dm (Mar 19, 2008)

I am really interested in seeing how the GSL plays out. We know that it is more restrictive than the OGL, but less restrictive than the d20 license. That's quite a continuum! We don't know, for example, if people will be able to make new classes or races. They more than likely will get to make new powers and feats. Certainly new monsters. Setting stuff and adventures are wide open. How much will 3rd parties be able to tinker with the base game? We've seen hints that the DMG will actually have lots of rules for that kind of tinkering, so it might be built directly into the system.

It seems to me that the subscription-based approach to Paizo's business has necessitated their current "3.75" decision. They don't know what they can do with 4e, so they are sticking with the OGL (at least for now). Companies like Goodman Games and Necromancer have a more traditional approach to product design and they can afford to to wait for the GSL. I think that should be kept in mind when we assess this decision on the part of Paizo. And since it looks like Paizo will be publishing Necromancer's 4e adventure path, they get to jump on the 4e bandwagon without gambling too much.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 19, 2008)

lvl20dm said:
			
		

> I am really interested in seeing how the GSL plays out. We know that it is more restrictive than the OGL, but less restrictive than the d20 license. .




Actually, we don't know that at all -- the 'less restrictive' part. Can you site some examples?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> How much splintering can D&D withstand?



Plenty.  Why?  As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if *each and every group in the world* uses a different, splinter, house-ruled system.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 19, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> It is impossible to disagree with this.
> 
> However, please make sure that you understand that, while Wizards "lost an opportunity to line up another partner to help create the killer app package that will drive 4e sales," there is no hostility between the parties. I've talked to Erik. I've talked to Wizards. I want to make sure that no one thinks this is Paizo vs. Wizards. It isnt. Its two version of D&D, one that Paizo has decided to support for various reasons, and not exclusively I might add. Dont make this Paizo vs. Wizards. And just like when I do 4E products it isnt Necro vs. Paizo, or other 3E guys. At the top level of this, everyone here is friendly with one another and gets along great.




No worries - my comment wasn't meant as an indictment of either side, and I fully expect any rivalries between the two companies to be friendly in nature. But my comment was meant to highlight the unfortunate reality that the delayed GSL seems to be at fault for the loss of a partnership that could have benefited both companies more than the current scenario.


----------



## lvl20dm (Mar 19, 2008)

And while I can't speak for sales, I will say that 4e is likely to bring in new players where Pathfinder seems unlikely to do the same. As a matter of fact, I haven't purchased a 3.x game product in around 2 years or so, maybe longer. I haven't actively played a d20 game since Fall 2006. When I saw the previews for 4e following Gencon I started rounding out my dungeon tiles collection and have since preordered every 4e product be released through August. I've now run a few rough 4e demos with the quickstart rules, characters, and monsters we've gleaned from 4e. I have people showing up to game with pregenerated characters that cannot level and nobody is complaining. From what I've seen with my gaming group and a few others around town, my situation isn't exactly unique. Take from that what you will.


----------



## lvl20dm (Mar 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Actually, we don't know that at all -- the 'less restrictive' part. Can you site some examples?




Just look back at early announcements of the GSL discussed by Rouse - he discusses how the d20 License was not a success and actually bad for the parties involved - it's archived somewhere on this website. I've taken that to mean that it is less restrictive than the d20 license.


----------



## hong (Mar 19, 2008)

Where IS Scott Rouse anyway?


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 19, 2008)

hong -- killed and eaten. The roads are closed.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 19, 2008)

lvl20dm said:
			
		

> Just look back at early announcements of the GSL discussed by Rouse - he discusses how the d20 License was not a success and actually bad for the parties involved - it's archived somewhere on this website. I've taken that to mean that it is less restrictive than the d20 license.




That's an...interesting...interpretation.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 19, 2008)

Even if they got out the GSL _today_, a company would only have three to four months to produce a product to be out at about the same time as the core books ("at launch"). 

How long was this exclusivity supposed to be? 

Unless a company has a "freelace cheater" under their wing who has the rules and can work on stuff already, I think it'd be kind of dumb for anyone to pay WotC $5 grand to get the jump.

Better to wait, watch, listen, and continue on. And now that Paizo is "supporting" 3.5, it makes it viable for others to do so too, perhaps throwing n their tokens into the Pathfinder event.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 19, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Plenty.  Why?  As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if *each and every group in the world* uses a different, splinter, house-ruled system.




Yeah, that would be great for the hobby.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Mar 19, 2008)

I don't expect Scott to pop on and say more than "Sorry guys, we're working on it. It'll be out soon." He really can't say much more unless the GSL is ready to be shown and from what I've heard it isn't. 

I don't know the reason why, but I'm sure glad I didn't pony up the $5k back in January. If I had, I'd be more than a little angry. The production window is getting incredibly short for GenCon unless you're doing nothing more than an adventure or two.

Hyrum.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 19, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> I don't know the reason why, but I'm sure glad I didn't pony up the $5k back in January. If I had, I'd be more than a little angry. The production window is getting incredibly short for GenCon unless you're doing nothing more than an adventure or two.



*No one* ponied up the $5k in January. No one had to pony up the $5k until they had a look at the GSL, which no one has yet seen. All they had to do in January was indicate an interest in maybe ponying up $5k, depending on whether they liked what they saw in the GSL.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Even if they got out the GSL _today_, a company would only have three to four months to produce a product to be out at about the same time as the core books ("at launch").



I hadn't toyed with this idea before, and forgive me for the blasphemy, but might this mean that WOTC is already operating under the assumption that they're going to be releasing the core books late?  Gencon Indy is only two months further down the road.  Was there some other date the June 9th release was tied to? (aside from the bazillion pre-ordered books?)


----------



## Xorn (Mar 19, 2008)

lvl20dm said:
			
		

> And while I can't speak for sales, I will say that 4e is likely to bring in new players where Pathfinder seems unlikely to do the same. As a matter of fact, I haven't purchased a 3.x game product in around 2 years or so, maybe longer. I haven't actively played a d20 game since Fall 2006. When I saw the previews for 4e following Gencon I started rounding out my dungeon tiles collection and have since preordered every 4e product be released through August. I've now run a few rough 4e demos with the quickstart rules, characters, and monsters we've gleaned from 4e. I have people showing up to game with pregenerated characters that cannot level and nobody is complaining. From what I've seen with my gaming group and a few others around town, my situation isn't exactly unique. Take from that what you will.




Same.  I've joked with my players that I'm just going to say a huge comet smashes into the world and destroys everything because people stopped dreaming.  (Lucifer's Hammer meets Neverending Story.)  That will be the end of our 3.5 campaign.  It might as well be, because they just want to keep playing fan playtests without leveling till June!

On the topic presented, the point that keeps resonating with me, is that Paizo is going to lose everyone that goes over to 4E.  Every poll I've seen with any weight shows that more people are going to 4E than not--so it's a fair speculation that more of Paizo's market is going to move to 4E than not.  It feels pretty unlikely that Pathfinder is going to bring in more players than Paizo has leaving for 4E.

And they do make some awesome adventures, I'm not in high-school/college anymore, and I don't have time to make long, expansive campaigns up.  I learned the name Paizo when looking for pregen adventures!  But I'm going to 4E, so I'll be looking to Necro, and hoping to see Paizo when the switch is over and the dust settles.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Mar 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> *No one* ponied up the $5k in January. No one had to pony up the $5k until they had a look at the GSL, which no one has yet seen. All they had to do in January was indicate an interest in maybe ponying up $5k, depending on whether they liked what they saw in the GSL.




That's good to hear! 

The window is still getting close though if you do want to get in early. It'll be interesting to see if WotC extends the exclusivity arrangement.

Hyrum.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 19, 2008)

> I hadn't toyed with this idea before, and forgive me for the blasphemy, but might this mean that WOTC is already operating under the assumption that they're going to be releasing the core books late? Gencon Indy is only two months further down the road. Was there some other date the June 9th release was tied to? (aside from the bazillion pre-ordered books?)




Don't worry, there's no blasphemy. 

I think that Wizards is in too deep to change the release month, but that they might be close to giving up on having 3rd party support "at launch," as opposed to "Maybe by GenCon?"


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 19, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Same.  I've joked with my players that I'm just going to say a huge comet smashes into the world and destroys everything because people stopped dreaming.  (Lucifer's Hammer meets Neverending Story.)  That will be the end of our 3.5 campaign.  It might as well be, because they just want to keep playing fan playtests without leveling till June!
> 
> .




I ran a 4e playtest on Sunday and this was the question I was asked. They do not what to go back to the "old" edition and would rather play with these characters. I told them I doubt they could level up and they didn't mind. They felt like heroes already. Cool wit h me, to be honest. 

Although they will get pretty sick of Kobolds I'm thinking.

Since I have a pre-gens few left over I'll swap some out when they get bored. Just another two months until H1 anyway.

WOTC: Give us some more stuff for our pretests. It just makes us more hungry anyway.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Where IS Scott Rouse anyway?



I have it on good authority (read: I just made it up) that he is currently beating up the lawyers responsible for delaying the GSL finalisation and publication.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 19, 2008)

> I have it on good authority (read: I just made it up) that he is currently beating up the lawyers responsible for delaying the GSL finalisation and publication.




I just had an image of Scott Rouse in a puffy shirt hurling balls of fire into a screaming, scattering group of be-suited minions with briefcases.

HE IS LIKE UNTO A GOD!


----------



## amysrevenge (Mar 19, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I posted this elsewhere - my guess is 10%.  10% of 4E sales of the core books probably means millions of dollars to WoTC.  Whoever caused this delay at WoTC should be in danger of losing their job over this.





Whereas my guess is <0.01%  lol


I know a lot of gamers (when you are into the convention scene you get to know a LOT of people, far more than someone who plays in their basement with the same people for 15 years), enough to possibly approach statistical significance.  Some of the people I know, maybe 1 in 8, are not switching to 4e right away, for the various oft-repeated reasons that are well known to anyone who reads ENWorld.  The number of people for whom the reason for not switching is "the delay in releasing the GSL" is exactly zero.

Mike


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 19, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see if WotC extends the exclusivity arrangement.




I certainly hope not.   They mishandled the roll-out of GSL -- they shouldn't punish "Phase 2" (January 09) publishers because of it.

My personal view?   They should eliminate the early buy-in.   They'll lose the 5K per, sure, but they'll actually ensure more support as a result -- which is, after all, supposed to be the point.

It would be a goodwill gesture -- "we messed up the roll-out of the license, and as such we're not going to try to profit from it."    That kind of thing.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I certainly hope not.   They mishandled the roll-out of GSL -- they shouldn't punish "Phase 2" (January 09) publishers because of it.
> 
> My personal view?   They should eliminate the early buy-in.   They'll lose the 5K per, sure, but they'll actually ensure more support as a result -- which is, after all, supposed to be the point.
> 
> It would be a goodwill gesture -- "we messed up the roll-out of the license, and as such we're not going to try to profit from it."    That kind of thing.




I agree.

Phase 1 made sense when what you were buying was GenCon launch and Christmas launch, now, if they push back the window, that would be a year from launch with only limited 3rd party support.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just had an image of Scott Rouse in a puffy shirt hurling balls of fire into a screaming, scattering group of be-suited minions with briefcases.
> 
> HE IS LIKE UNTO A GOD!





I wish, I wish...

Cheers, LT.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Mar 19, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I certainly hope not.   They mishandled the roll-out of GSL -- they shouldn't punish "Phase 2" (January 09) publishers because of it.
> 
> My personal view?   They should eliminate the early buy-in.   They'll lose the 5K per, sure, but they'll actually ensure more support as a result -- which is, after all, supposed to be the point.
> 
> It would be a goodwill gesture -- "we messed up the roll-out of the license, and as such we're not going to try to profit from it."    That kind of thing.




I'd lvoe to see that happen, but to me it's looking more and more like the GSL is just an afterthought for WotC; something they're doing to avoid the PR backlash they'd get if they had just killed it.

Hyrum.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What were the lawyers doing all this time?




Getting paid by the hour?


----------



## Cintra (Mar 19, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> On the topic presented, the point that keeps resonating with me, is that Paizo is going to lose everyone that goes over to 4E.  Every poll I've seen with any weight shows that more people are going to 4E than not--so it's a fair speculation that more of Paizo's market is going to move to 4E than not.  It feels pretty unlikely that Pathfinder is going to bring in more players than Paizo has leaving for 4E.
> 
> And they do make some awesome adventures, I'm not in high-school/college anymore, and I don't have time to make long, expansive campaigns up.  I learned the name Paizo when looking for pregen adventures!  But I'm going to 4E, so I'll be looking to Necro, and hoping to see Paizo when the switch is over and the dust settles.




I'm one of the Paizo community members who has been strongly pro-4E for some time now. I'll be taking a look at Pathfinder RPG too, but my plan is to start running one of the Pathfinder adventure paths in 4E as soon as the rules come out. I'll also be posting conversion notes (along with a number of other folks) somewhere on the Paizo boards.

(Side note: one of the WotC people visited us at the Paizo boards a while back, and mentioned in passing that several groups of WotC employees were using Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords, converted on-the-fly, to run 4E in their playtest games. Apparently, while converting PCs is complex because abilities don't translate directly, converting adventures is fairly easy, because it's so easy in 4E to build exactly the monster/NPC you need. So I'm highly optimistic that the conversions will be not only possible, but very successful.)

I don't have time to make my own adventures from scratch, and frankly, I don't have the adventure crafting skills that many of Paizo's authors have demonstrated. I've been completely amazed by some of the stuff they've turned out recently - for example, "Entombed With The Pharoahs" may be one of the most imaginative, well-written adventures I've read in years. I'm also incredibly impressed by the just-released Guide to Korvosa, and the start of the newest adventure path. So whatever edition of D&D I'm ultimately playing, I fully intend to use Paizo adventures for as long as they keep publishing. (end shameless plug    )


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Mar 19, 2008)

I would be interested to see if they pull the $5K buy-in.  

AFAIK, the 5K wasn't there to make WotC any money ... it was there specifically to keep small-press publishers from producing lots of product.  

I imagine they'll push the dates out.  I've always seen it as a move specifically motivated by a desire to suppress certain elements of the hobby publishing community by requiring a certain level of dedication from larger companies to ensure relatively few, relatively high-quality products in the opening phase of 4E.  


--fje


----------



## breschau (Mar 19, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Another view of this that I think a lot of us are missing is the fact that Paizo was just handed mantle of 3.5 in a little box with a bow on top.  They didn't have to pay anything for it, they just had to wait for the dust to settle and realize they were standing at the head of the pack.




Sure, they were handed the mantle... and what was the first thing they did? Altered it. Changed it. There are people who are switching to 4E no matter what, those sales are lost to Paizo. There are people who are sticking with 3.x no matter what, those sales are now lost to Paizo. So who exactly is Paizo trying to win over here? The diehard 3.x crowd is the only possible target, but with the changes they've already announced (in the last 24 hours no less) they've made it perfectly clear that they are making changes and that there will be a need to change standard 3.x stuff to fit with Pathfinder.

They have the mantle and are giving it a shiny new paint job. Great. The 3.x crowd doesn't want a new coat of paint, they want the exact same thing they've been playing for years. Paizo is scrambling after the 1% that like 3.5 enough not to switch to 4E, but don't like 3.5 enough to continue playing it as is. That's specializing yourself out of business.

NOTE: I hope I'm wrong. I wish Paizo all the best. I had never heard of them before seeing a link to their site over on the M&M boards. I am in publishing. I know something of that side of the hobby we all love. I see it as a huge risk with very low potential for payoff. If most of Paizo's revenue comes from other things than their Pathfinder adventures, then it's not that much of a risk. But if the subscription adventure sales kept them going, just from this thread alone, we're seeing loyal customers abandon them left and right.


----------



## nothing to see here (Mar 19, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> [edited] Oops! I goofed sorry. Ignore this post. Nothing to see here.




Why do I have to ignore your post?


----------



## Lizard (Mar 19, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> They have the mantle and are giving it a shiny new paint job. Great. The 3.x crowd doesn't want a new coat of paint, they want the exact same thing they've been playing for years. Paizo is scrambling after the 1% that like 3.5 enough not to switch to 4E, but don't like 3.5 enough to continue playing it as is. That's specializing yourself out of business.




Or, they're going after those who want something newish, but not so new it completely changes the paradigm, and who would be willing to do *conversion*, but not *recreation*, of their existing campaigns.

Switching to Pathfinder is easier than switching to 4e, and the reward -- continued support of core rules which are mostly compatible -- is worth the effort. 4e appeals mostly to those who have totally given up on 3x, not to those who like it but can see areas for improvement. Given that there's plenty of active 3x campaigns out there, I think the number of people who don't see it as "broken beyond repair" is pretty large.

In other words, many people who will go to Pathfinder DO like 3e enough to keep playing it as it is, but ALSO are willing to change -- to an extent. 3.5 is good, Pathfinder is as good, or better, and the benefits (active core support) outweigh the costs (minor rules changes).


----------



## Will (Mar 19, 2008)

I suspect suits have been absolutely horrified at 3e's OGL and freely available SRD rules, and are now in a Star Trekkian battle with devs over how much freedom to give 'parasites.'

The suits have already won a few key battles, which really ing sucks (IE: no SRD rules).


----------



## xechnao (Mar 19, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> I'd lvoe to see that happen, but to me it's looking more and more like the GSL is just an afterthought for WotC; something they're doing to avoid the PR backlash they'd get if they had just killed it.
> 
> Hyrum.




Cant claim this hasn't passed from my mind too.


----------



## nothing to see here (Mar 19, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I posted this elsewhere - my guess is 10%.  10% of 4E sales of the core books probably means millions of dollars to WoTC.  Whoever caused this delay at WoTC should be in danger of losing their job over this.




Where did you get that 10% number?  Granted very few of us have up-to-date market research on the table-top RPG business, but every account we have heard from within the industry hammers home the point that there are really two tiers:  D&D.  And everyone else.

10% of D&D sales is likely massive beyond Paizo's reckoning.  D&D is the only table-top-RPG with any barnd-awareness in the non-RPG community.  D&D also has massive penetration in mainstream book channels.  

Whatever the temperature of the debate on ENWorld it is highly unlikely that there is a legion of silent grognards out there waiting stick it to the man by completely ignoring D&D in favour of a niche competitor.

I have no doubt that Paizo will do very well for itself, given their relatively small complement of employees.  To think that they will jeopardize D&D in any meaningful way is a manifestion of the common mistake  hyper-engaged people often make when they map their prejudices map on to the general public as a whole.  Happens all the time in the politics and entertianment industries.


----------



## Henry (Mar 19, 2008)

Truth be told, this thread really belongs in the OGF-List folder, so I'm moving it there.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 19, 2008)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Draw us a picture!
> 
> Then we post it (as an avatar or in a sig or whatever) whenever The Rouse posts.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 19, 2008)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see if they pull the $5K buy-in.
> 
> AFAIK, the 5K wasn't there to make WotC any money ... it was there specifically to keep small-press publishers from producing lots of product.




I agree.  After all, how many third-party publishers could WotC expect to pony up that $5K?  Surely no more than ten, probably less.  $50K is a lot for you or me, but not so much from WotC's perspective.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2008)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see if they pull the $5K buy-in.
> 
> AFAIK, the 5K wasn't there to make WotC any money ... it was there specifically to keep small-press publishers from producing lots of product.
> 
> ...




That might have been the idea, but it didn't work out that way.

Now they've guaranteed themselves almost no support for the launch GenCon, and if they push the dates out, almost no support for the launch Christmas either.

If you assume that the "Skaff effect" and all that other stuff Wotc has been talking about is really believed in house, you'd think they WANT 3rd party support.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I just had an image of Scott Rouse in a puffy shirt hurling balls of fire into a screaming, scattering group of be-suited minions with briefcases.
> 
> HE IS LIKE UNTO A GOD!



"I am a beautiful animal! I am a destroyer of worlds! I am The @#%$ing Rouse!"
And, dear reader, at last, the world was quiet.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> "I am a beautiful animal! I am a destroyer of worlds! I am The @#%$ing Rouse!"
> And, dear reader, at last, the world was quiet.




I am a rocketized anvil!


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 19, 2008)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see if they pull the $5K buy-in.
> 
> AFAIK, the 5K wasn't there to make WotC any money ... it was there specifically to keep small-press publishers from producing lots of product.



Riiight.   

So, WotC will reimburse the $5K when the GSL and SRD are freely available for use by the public in 2009, right?


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 19, 2008)

No one has paid the $5000 fee yet.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 20, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> No one has paid the $5000 fee yet.




Do you think anyone will, at this point?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, WotC will reimburse the $5K when the GSL and SRD are freely available for use by the public in 2009, right?




It does not follow that failing to return the money means the maneuver was really about the $5K.


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Do you think anyone will, at this point?



Necromancer very well might. They are one of the few companies that have an edge (also known as a vampirc rodent ;-) in 4E, they might not have a problem with the short time to publish. And to be honest a lot of companies might already have the 'fluff' parts of their products worked out, only thing missing is the 'crunch'.

I get the feeling that the GSL might not happen, I'm curious what folks would do then, especially the 3rd party publishers like Necromancer (maybe Necro could get an independant agrement, others could probably not get that).


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Do you think anyone will, at this point?




Well, I am no publisher, nor knows anyone in the business, but when I canceled my Paizo subscriptions, I got a letter from their customer service, which seemed to imply that Paizo still planned on doing 4e products, when they had seen the GSL (depending on how it was ofc). Ofc, this doesn't mean they will pony up $5k, but it doesn't rule it out either.

Cheers


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 20, 2008)

We're still interested in seeing the GSL, and depending upon the structure of the deal we might still be willing to pay an advance fee for an exclusivity period.

I'm sure many of the publishers who were on the conference call would feel the same way, again pending the details of the agreement and the terms of the license.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC


----------



## Orcus (Mar 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Do you think anyone will, at this point?




I still plan on paying the buy-in. I would hope they would consider extending the period or perhaps reducing the total buy-in, but that is their call. I am still strongly interested in advanced copies.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 20, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I still plan on paying the buy-in. I would hope they would consider extending the period or perhaps reducing the total buy-in, but that is their call. I am still strongly interested in advanced copies.




With under three months to go? At what point does getting them early cease to be worth it? Two months? One?

A six month lead has dropped to (at best) a three month lead. This despite a three year development cycle for 4e, and I'm guessing that changing the OGL was an imperative pretty early on.

The original plan would have seen a flood of quality product for GenCon, a bunch of cool 'must buy' stuff from favorite publishers, helping to 'lock in' 4e. At this point, it's looking more like XMas, and while Pathfinder isn't a serious threat to initial 4e sales, it's going to send the message of "You won't be abandoned if you like 3x, so the only thing you have to factor into your buying decision is how much you like 4e, not whether or not there'll be continuing support for the old version." This will change some people's adoption plans.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> With under three months to go? At what point does getting them early cease to be worth it? Two months? One?
> 
> A six month lead has dropped to (at best) a three month lead. This despite a three year development cycle for 4e, and I'm guessing that changing the OGL was an imperative pretty early on.
> 
> The original plan would have seen a flood of quality product for GenCon, a bunch of cool 'must buy' stuff from favorite publishers, helping to 'lock in' 4e. At this point, it's looking more like XMas, and while Pathfinder isn't a serious threat to initial 4e sales, it's going to send the message of "You won't be abandoned if you like 3x, so the only thing you have to factor into your buying decision is how much you like 4e, not whether or not there'll be continuing support for the old version." This will change some people's adoption plans.




Agreed 100%


----------



## Teflon Billy (Mar 20, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> No one has paid the $5000 fee yet.




So, did they not have even one taker?

Or was it a "payment upon delivery of the licene" type thing?


----------



## mhensley (Mar 20, 2008)

So why haven't we heard from anyone at wotc about this turn of events yet?  No one was stirring, not even a Rouse...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 20, 2008)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> So, did they not have even one taker?
> 
> Or was it a "payment upon delivery of the licene" type thing?




The later. No one had to pay until they could read the GSL first. No GSL yet, so no-one has paid yet.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 20, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> So why haven't we heard from anyone at wotc about this turn of events yet?  No one was stirring, not even a Rouse...





I'm willing to bet that Hasbro's lawyers have them all tied up at the moment and that next week they will pop out of a hat and say "TADA! We have SGL!!!  Paizo Jumped then gun so now they can't play with us any more.

HA HA  They suck. Don't worship the flawed ideals of OGL and 3.x and the community it creates, worship WoTC and the Rouse instead!  To foster in the new era of WoTC, we brought in a new supervisor who gave the Rouse a new puffy shirt and we are cleaning him up so that he looks corporate and presentable to even the most staunch parents or die-hard religious fanatics who might try and say that D&D 4e is the devil's brainchild.

To show our target demo that we like them, we are even adding shinny stickers to the packaging that saids "New and Improved!  Not your Father's D&D!" and "Now Compatible with the Internet!" 

Oh yeah, btw..  SGL means you can only now make adventures, classes, feats and monsters.  No new rules or attachable systems because third party game developers messing around with D&D makes Hasbro nervous."


----------



## Orcus (Mar 21, 2008)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> So, did they not have even one taker?
> 
> Or was it a "payment upon delivery of the licene" type thing?




You dont have to pay until you get to see the license. There are tons of takers, just no license yet.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 21, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> So why haven't we heard from anyone at wotc about this turn of events yet?  No one was stirring, not even a Rouse...




Please remember that even after the GSL is distributed for our review, we are all under NDAs so you likely wont hear anything for a while.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> With under three months to go? At what point does getting them early cease to be worth it? Two months? One?
> 
> A six month lead has dropped to (at best) a three month lead. This despite a three year development cycle for 4e, and I'm guessing that changing the OGL was an imperative pretty early on.
> 
> The original plan would have seen a flood of quality product for GenCon, a bunch of cool 'must buy' stuff from favorite publishers, helping to 'lock in' 4e. At this point, it's looking more like XMas, and while Pathfinder isn't a serious threat to initial 4e sales, it's going to send the message of "You won't be abandoned if you like 3x, so the only thing you have to factor into your buying decision is how much you like 4e, not whether or not there'll be continuing support for the old version." This will change some people's adoption plans.




I'm not saying the current situation is my preference. I would rather have gotten the rules back in November or even January of this year. But the question was would I still be in now, and the answer is yes. Would I ask if they would reduce the fee or increase the window? Again, the answer is yes I would. But if they didnt do that, would I still be in. The answer is yes.


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Mar 21, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Please remember that even after the GSL is distributed for our review, we are all under NDAs so you likely wont hear anything for a while.




Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I'm not in the industry), but can someone explain (or speculate) as to what WotC's goal is, or what they hope to gain by having an NDA for the license itself?

Edit- Nevermind.  The purpose is the whole early adopter deal.  I was just being thick I guess


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 21, 2008)

griff_goodbeard said:
			
		

> Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I'm not in the industry), but can someone explain (or speculate) as to what WotC's goal is, or what they hope to gain by having an NDA for the license itself?
> 
> Edit- Nevermind.  The purpose is the whole early adopter deal.  I was just being thick I guess




No that is a very good questions which others would like answered as well.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 21, 2008)

griff_goodbeard said:
			
		

> Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I'm not in the industry), but can someone explain (or speculate) as to what WotC's goal is, or what they hope to gain by having an NDA for the license itself?
> 
> Edit- Nevermind.  The purpose is the whole early adopter deal.  I was just being thick I guess




Given that it's an NDA I'm pretty sure its to prevent the license from being posted on the web.    For instance think about what kind of negative PR WoTC would receive if the GSL stated something along the lines: "All developers who create products using the Dungeons and Dragons 4e rules set are prohibited from creating future role playing game rules supplement for the d20 OGL."

I'm pretty sure that if that was to be the case they'd rather have it be a non-issue until the game is released, that way when GSL is revealed (in July or August) people wouldn't care as much and would not protest unlike what they would do if the details of the license were known well in advanced.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 21, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> No that is a very good questions which others would like answered as well.




Its just normal business practice. As a lawyer, I have negotiated hundreds of transactions. Every one I can think of -- including all of my licenses as a publisher, with WW, Judge Guild, Paizo, etc-- has included a confidentiality clause and is private. Licenses arent public. The GSL is interesting because it will be a public license when finalized, but now in draft form it is not. There is absolutely nothing unusual about having the initial draft of it under an NDA. My guess is the publishers may request a tweak here or a change there. In fact, it would be unusual if it were NOT under an NDA. There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about. The fact it is under an NDA is simply not one of them.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 21, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about.




What would you say some of those things are, Clark? I'm curious about how the procedure (along with the information about the GSL that's been publicly confirmed) looks from a publisher's standpoint.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 21, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Please remember that even after the GSL is distributed for our review, we are all under NDAs so you likely wont hear anything for a while.




I don't want to hear the details of the license.  I would like to hear some damage control and reassurance from wotc.  I want Scott to come pat us on the head and tell us everything will be alright.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 21, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Its just normal business practice. As a lawyer, I have negotiated hundreds of transactions. Every one I can think of -- including all of my licenses as a publisher, with WW, Judge Guild, Paizo, etc-- has included a confidentiality clause and is private. Licenses arent public. The GSL is interesting because it will be a public license when finalized, but now in draft form it is not. There is absolutely nothing unusual about having the initial draft of it under an NDA. My guess is the publishers may request a tweak here or a change there. In fact, it would be unusual if it were NOT under an NDA. There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about. The fact it is under an NDA is simply not one of them.




Once more I would like to hear that from them and not you. No one is arguing that most licenses aren't public. The GSL however is not like most licenses and one of the main differences is that it will be public because that is its entire point. The point is to give 3rd parties the legal safety blanket to reuse WotC IP under certain circumstances. If this is to be similar to the OGL like they have stated then it will likely also be needed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry to post certain campaign stuff on the web. If this was a private licensing deal such as your deals with WW and Paizo then there wouldn't be an issue, but it is not. It is the public license that everyone will be using come June 6th and therefore a item that everyone is interested in because it does impact more than licensed publishers.

You are also making an assumption that we don't know about. Is the 5K buy in also a right to comment on the license or is it as we have been told just a early look at the rules and an exclusivity period. If it is a license comment period then they should say so. So far everything that we have been told is that the license available to the early adopters will be the same as the final version. WotC has said nothing about there being a comment period, even for those that pony up 5K. If this is why it is under NDA then WotC should say so, if not they should tell us why it is under NDA.

I am glad you are giving your opinions on the matter as you are one of the experts on the OGL and I am glad you are here. I am noticing a trend though here with your posts where your comments are coming off as fact and that that should be enough to end the discussion. I don't know if it is intentional and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is not your intent, which is why I am letting you know what it is looking like in print. Unless you have been hired as legal council for WotC on this matter and authorized to answer for them then that is one thing, otherwise myself and others would like to hear this from WotC themselves.

Edit: Spelling.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 21, 2008)

Personally speaking, I'd rather that WOTC staffers do what they're doing: concentrate on getting this GSL issue resolved and out to us publishers who have signed the NDA, instead of wasting time answering GSL questions from non-publishers.

No offense, but the GSL is, essentially, an issue for publishers.   If you aren't a publisher, haven't signed the NDA, then your questions are nothing more than by-stander curiousity -- which is all well and good, but I'd rather that they not waste time dealing with that.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 21, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No offense, but the GSL is, essentially, an issue for publishers.   If you aren't a publisher, haven't signed the NDA, then your questions are nothing more than by-stander curiousity -- which is all well and good, but I'd rather that they not waste time dealing with that.




Fansites could be affected as well, so it may not be just a publisher issue.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 21, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Fansites could be affected as well, so it may not be just a publisher issue.





Non-publisher use of the GSL is not remotely a factor until after the public go-live date.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 21, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> What would you say some of those things are, Clark? I'm curious about how the procedure (along with the information about the GSL that's been publicly confirmed) looks from a publisher's standpoint.




I'm not getting sucked into that  Nice try. And you are smart enough to figure out on your own what the frustrations are for a publisher. Its pretty simple--we dont have the license yet or the content yet. 

But I am still 100% convinced that Wizards supports open gaming and that Scott and Co. get it and will allow us to support 4E.  

Clark


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 22, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Non-publisher use of the GSL is not remotely a factor until after the public go-live date.




Untrue, unless you count fan sites as publishers.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 22, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not getting sucked into that  Nice try.




Darn it!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 22, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not getting sucked into that  Nice try. And you are smart enough to figure out on your own what the frustrations are for a publisher. Its pretty simple--we dont have the license yet or the content yet.
> 
> But I am still 100% convinced that Wizards supports open gaming and that Scott and Co. get it and will allow us to support 4E.
> 
> Clark





At what point in the license's failure to materialize will you be crestfallen o' Mighty Orcus.

Would it be worth if it June 6 comes and there's still no license?

August ends and no word?

October?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 22, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> At what point in the license's failure to materialize will you be crestfallen o' Mighty Orcus.
> 
> Would it be worth if it June 6 comes and there's still no license?
> 
> ...




I'm going 4E whenever it is available to me.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 22, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm going 4E whenever it is available to me.



Your faith is admirable.


----------



## Scrollreader (Mar 22, 2008)

I'm just dropping in to comment, here.  not on the debate, but on Nceromancer's decision to support 4e, both with a new Tome, and now an adventure path.  I run a couple games, with some player overlap, and while I often modify adventures, I just don't have the time to do everything from scratch that I'd like.  As such, even if they don't get the rules one second earlier than I do, Necromancer's dedication to 4e has assured them of my dollars.  I like their work, I love their tone, and they're one of the few publishers I know will be supporting the game I know I will be buying.  Green Ronin?  Maybe.  Paizo?  Nope.  Now, maybe I need to get more into the d20 market, but after so many poor d20 products, the list of publishers I actually trust without a thorough review/appraisal of their material is pretty small.  And of that list, the only one who I /know/ will be producing 4e material is Necromancer.  Thats why they're getting my money.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 22, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm going 4E whenever it is available to me.





As I've noted before, you are indeed awesome.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 22, 2008)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Untrue, unless you count fan sites as publishers.




I think you misunderstand me.

Fans ARE NOT publishers.   Publishers are getting the GSL before the public go-live date. 

  Therefore, as I said -- non-publisher use of the GSL _is not remotely an issue_ until AFTER that go-live date.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 22, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstand me.
> 
> Fans ARE NOT publishers.   Publishers are getting the GSL before the public go-live date.
> 
> Therefore, as I said -- non-publisher use of the GSL _is not remotely an issue_ until AFTER that go-live date.




Actually it is still a an issue considering that several fans already compiled the rules that WoTC released and made a 4e lite rulebook.  See even though a fan *might* not have the capital to create a print run, they can still distribute and publish materials on the internet via the use of HTML and PDF.  If WoTC's lawyers wanted to they could take the Lorraine Williams route and shut down sites that are compiling the 4e rules in pdf rulebook form because "4e is not an OGL product and does not currently have a GSL license/contract which gives the fans/publishers  protection from copy write infringement."


----------



## Orcus (Mar 22, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> I'm just dropping in to comment, here.  not on the debate, but on Nceromancer's decision to support 4e, both with a new Tome, and now an adventure path.  I run a couple games, with some player overlap, and while I often modify adventures, I just don't have the time to do everything from scratch that I'd like.  As such, even if they don't get the rules one second earlier than I do, Necromancer's dedication to 4e has assured them of my dollars.  I like their work, I love their tone, and they're one of the few publishers I know will be supporting the game I know I will be buying.  Green Ronin?  Maybe.  Paizo?  Nope.  Now, maybe I need to get more into the d20 market, but after so many poor d20 products, the list of publishers I actually trust without a thorough review/appraisal of their material is pretty small.  And of that list, the only one who I /know/ will be producing 4e material is Necromancer.  Thats why they're getting my money.




Thanks Scroll!

By the way, the principal authors and I just had a 1-1/2 hour phone conference this morning to discuss the overarching plot for the Iron Tower Adventure Path and the way we intend to deliver it. Great progress was made!

Clark


----------



## BryonD (Mar 22, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> But I am still 100% convinced that Wizards supports open gaming



Is that a statement of trust, or absolute knowledge?  Honest question.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2008)

Publishers don't have it yet?. Good grief. The books have been finalized for an unknowable amount of time and have now been sent to the printer for days. I have great difficulty seeing any reason why the 3rd party publishers do not have their PDFs other than calculated and deliberate reasons. :\


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Publishers don't have it yet?. Good grief. The books have been finalized for an unknowable amount of time and have now been sent to the printer for days. I have great difficulty seeing any reason why the 3rd party publishers do not have their PDFs other than calculated and deliberate reasons. :\



It's clearly not an issue with the rules not being ready.  It's an issue with the license not being ready.

Given the timing of the delay, I got the impression that someone at WotC was listening to the discussion and griping about the license and ran something they saw with their legal team.  The legal team then decided to pull back the license to make sure that issue (or issues) were addressed and bulletproof.  That was, of course, 100% speculation.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 24, 2008)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> It's clearly not an issue with the rules not being ready.  It's an issue with the license not being ready.
> 
> Given the timing of the delay, I got the impression that someone at WotC was listening to the discussion and griping about the license and ran something they saw with their legal team.  The legal team then decided to pull back the license to make sure that issue (or issues) were addressed and bulletproof.  That was, of course, 100% speculation.




Dont feed the speculation please. That is only one of 100 different possibilities and it casts things in a negative gloom and doom sky is falling kind of light. I just dont think that is fair to Scott and Linae and to Wizards. 

I mean, yes, the license is delayed and no one likes that. But you've got to remember, we are talking about the company that created open gaming and has supported open gaming. I'm still not sure why the company that opened up so much of their content and has been so cool and flexible always gets looked at like this mega-evil-cabal of Bill Gates clones.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 24, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I mean, yes, the license is delayed and no one likes that. But you've got to remember, we are talking about the company that created open gaming and has supported open gaming. I'm still not sure why the company that opened up so much of their content and has been so cool and flexible always gets looked at like this mega-evil-cabal of Bill Gates clones.




I think it's mostly because while it's the same company, it's different PEOPLE. The folks who really pushed the OGL are long gone. A company doesn't really exist -- only people do.

I don't think WOTC is made up of mega evil Bill Gates clones. I *do* think that many of the people inside the company did not understand the license as well as people outside the company whose livlihoods depended on it and who were part of the original development process on the semi-public OGL mailing lists. I think they coasted for the bulk of the 4e development process on the assumption they could change a few sentences in the OGL and that would be that. I think they -- and Hasbro's lawyers -- were taken aback by public comments on the nature of the license. I also think that they didn't realize the complexities of 'just release a new license' vis-a-vis the issue of older content.

At this point, it may well be that they cannot find a way to make a license which serves the twin goals of protecting their IP and encouraging the creation of third party products, without imposing on them the costs of approval. I think the GSL is going to be very, very, different from the OGL. I do not think it will allow for any kind of non-commercial use of 4e -- bringing back the customer relations issues we saw during the days of 2e and Lorraine "We have tradmarked 'Armor Class'" Williams. I think it's going to contain a lot of clauses which will worry many publishers, especially those with thriving independant D20-derived lines. I suspect we're going to see a lot less creativity and imagination in the first wave of 4e products, as there will be a real fear of 'stepping out of line'. Unlike the OGL/STL, there will be no way for publishers to 'push the envelope' at the cost of foregoing the logo/branding; this will give WOTC tremendous control over content, and the ability to shut down any product they don't like -- or which competes with them. We will also very likely NOT see a PCGen 4e, or any similar product, as they will undermine DDI. 

It's going to be a much duller first year. The kind of ingenuity, excitement, and sense of fun which characterized the first year or so of 3e will not, in my opinion, be present. This may be waht WOTC want -- keep everyone focused on producing modules and nothing but. However, I think it will hurt 4e in the long run, especially if Pathfinder can establish itself as the new 3e standard bearer.

While I'd like to say "We'll know soon", I don't know. I never would have guessed it would take until nearly April to release the GSL...and it still hasn't been released. It's been "soon" since at least the beginning of March. It's, what 75 days until release now? If it were released tomorrow, that would be 4 months or so to get a product ready for GenCon.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 24, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I mean, yes, the license is delayed and no one likes that. But you've got to remember, we are talking about the company that created open gaming and has supported open gaming. I'm still not sure why the company that opened up so much of their content and has been so cool and flexible always gets looked at like this mega-evil-cabal of Bill Gates clones.




Well, why does the company that essentially created the mass-market PC by making their OS available to multiple hardware vendors, and has been incredibly open and flexible in providing APIs and software development tools get looked at like this mega-evil cabal?


----------



## Lizard (Mar 24, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, why does the company that essentially created the mass-market PC by making their OS available to multiple hardware vendors, and has been incredibly open and flexible in providing APIs and software development tools get looked at like this mega-evil cabal?




Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Mar 24, 2008)

Because this is the Internet and it's cool to spew vitriol and hatred.

= = =

Also, getting stuff through a company's approval process often takes a long time. The approval processes may be in place for very good reasons, but the delays are still painful, both to employees and to customers.

That seems to be what's happening here.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 24, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, why does the company that essentially created the mass-market PC by making their OS available to multiple hardware vendors, and has been incredibly open and flexible in providing APIs and software development tools get looked at like this mega-evil cabal?




Because at one time, PC vendors were forced to charge people for a MS OS if they bought a computer, whether the customer actually wanted it or not. The so called "Microsoft Tax".


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Mar 24, 2008)

I've got zero vested interest in the GSL, but for some reason I find this topic fascinating, so I thought I'd chime in again.  

From what I've gathered from this thread and others dealing with this topic is that back when 3.0 was dawning and the OGL was being hammered out initially that a handshake agreement existed between WotC and several of the prominent 3rd party publishers that allowed them to begin working on material even before the OGL was finalized.  Is this the case or am I mistaken?

If so, it seem there is no such "gentleman's agreement" this time around.  I find this curious, especially since (at least on the surface), it seems the OGL was a great success, and from what I've read here on ENworld there doesn't seem to be any acrimony between WotC and Paizo, Necromancy, ect.  

I was wondering if this is attributable to a change in the management philosophy at WotC, or perhaps it's it's due to the nature of the GSL?  Another thought I had was that perhaps WotC still isn't sure what it wants to make "open" and what it wants to protect; and are erring on the side of caution till they get it hammered out.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 25, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Dont feed the speculation please. That is only one of 100 different possibilities and it casts things in a negative gloom and doom sky is falling kind of light. I just dont think that is fair to Scott and Linae and to Wizards.



I certainly didn't intend any gloom and doom.  I don't see how suggesting that they overlooked something brought up in internet speculation is "doom and gloom", but I admit with a lot of the discussion that many will see it that way.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 25, 2008)

griff_goodbeard said:
			
		

> I've got zero vested interest in the GSL, but for some reason I find this topic fascinating, so I thought I'd chime in again.
> 
> From what I've gathered from this thread and others dealing with this topic is that back when 3.0 was dawning and the OGL was being hammered out initially that a handshake agreement existed between WotC and several of the prominent 3rd party publishers that allowed them to begin working on material even before the OGL was finalized.  Is this the case or am I mistaken?
> 
> ...




Griff, you raise a great question.

Yes, back in the day at 3E launch there was a gentleperson's agreement. Please understand, we are lightyears ahead of that with 4E. In other words, in 3E, we didnt have an OGL and SRD formalized for over a YEAR after launch. We all worked off the books. Wizards, for 4E, is trying to have all this stuff done BEFORE launch. Of course, the amount of time before launch is rapidly shrinking.  

I am very hopeful that if Scott and Co cant get the GSL/OGL hammered out soon, that we might go back to that kind of a situation. We alll worked just fine under the gentleperson's agreement and I think that would be a good idea for 4E. 

And no, there is no acrimony with Wizards and Paizo and Necro, etc. We all work very well together and talk to each other and get along well. 

They are simply going through the process to get this done. And it isnt like back in the day with Ryan Dancey. If you knew Ryan, you would understand. He is just a force of nature. He is a very forceful personality. Open Gaming was his baby and he just flat got it done. Times are different now, but go to Wizard's web site. Read the d20 page. Check out the open gaming FAQ. They--Wizards, the people there NOW--believe this stuff. Its on their site.

Clark


----------



## Klaus (Mar 25, 2008)

Purely speculative guess:

Maybe WotC is waiting to have hard copies of the books ready for shipping to publishers that decide to go with the GSL?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 25, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Purely speculative guess:
> 
> Maybe WotC is waiting to have hard copies of the books ready for shipping to publishers that decide to go with the GSL?




Nope. That isnt the problem. The plan was to get us press pdfs and to send updates if they make changes. So they werent waiting for hardback books. 

Nice one though Claudio! (nice to see you by the way!).


----------



## Lizard (Mar 25, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Griff, you raise a great question.
> 
> Yes, back in the day at 3E launch there was a gentleperson's agreement. Please understand, we are lightyears ahead of that with 4E. In other words, in 3E, we didnt have an OGL and SRD formalized for over a YEAR after launch. We all worked off the books. Wizards, for 4E, is trying to have all this stuff done BEFORE launch. Of course, the amount of time before launch is rapidly shrinking.




Uhm, I beg to differ. We didn't have an APPROVED SRD. We DID have OGL v 1.0, and we had an "unreleased" SRD which included things like beholders and mind flayers. The "Agreement" was that if WOTC changed the SRD before officially releasing it, developers would cease publication of material relying on the old SRD. The differences between the "unreleased" SRD and the final SRD were very minor -- the 'iconic creatures' and that's about it.

I did a lot of development under the GA, and I did it all from the 'unapproved' SRD, not from the PHB/DMG/MM.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 25, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Uhm, I beg to differ. We didn't have an APPROVED SRD. We DID have OGL v 1.0, and we had an "unreleased" SRD which included things like beholders and mind flayers. The "Agreement" was that if WOTC changed the SRD before officially releasing it, developers would cease publication of material relying on the old SRD. The differences between the "unreleased" SRD and the final SRD were very minor -- the 'iconic creatures' and that's about it.
> 
> I did a lot of development under the GA, and I did it all from the 'unapproved' SRD, not from the PHB/DMG/MM.




I'm not trying to argue here, but since the gentleperson's agreement started as an email addressed to me from Ryan I think I have a pretty good grasp on how it started. At the very beginning, there was no SRD, there was a direction that you can use stuff from the books but just not XYZ. Then there was the informal SRD. Then the formal SRD. I agree the difference between the informal SRD and formal SRD were small. But the difference is the word "formal." Just like right now, we dont have any clue what will be in the GSL/OGL/new SRD/whatever. We did not have the OGL at first. We had a draft. In fact, we didnt have a full d20STL either but we did have the logo.

If you want proof of what we had and didnt have, just look at the designation from our Wizard's Amulet, which was available on the very first second that OGL stuff could be distributed. 



> All contents ©2000 Clark Peterson and Bill Webb, Necromancer Games. All rights reserved. ... Dungeons and Dragons® and Wizards of the Coast® are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, and are used in accordance with the Open Game and d20
> Licenses.
> 
> Links to the full text of both the Open Game and d20 licenses, when available, can be found on the Necromancer Games web site, and are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Future versions of this adventure will contain the entire text of those licenses, once finalized.




As you can see, we didnt have the final versions of the licenses. Frankly, this was a horrible way to do it but it was the best way I could think of at the time. My approach here led to significant discussion of whether or not you could refer to the license at another location (the answer was no, which I agree with). But all those rules were unsettled at the time. We were working with drafts and working from the books.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 25, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> As you can see, we didnt have the final versions of the licenses. Frankly, this was a horrible way to do it but it was the best way I could think of at the time. My approach here led to significant discussion of whether or not you could refer to the license at another location (the answer was no, which I agree with). But all those rules were unsettled at the time. We were working with drafts and working from the books.




I;ll check some of my early products to see when they started to actually include the OGL 1.0. At launch of 3E we did NOT have a final OGL. That was the whole reason for the gentleperson's agreement.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 26, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I;ll check some of my early products to see when they started to actually include the OGL 1.0. At launch of 3E we did NOT have a final OGL. That was the whole reason for the gentleperson's agreement.




Oh, I know. We did have a pretty solid draft. Any maybe I came in late, but by around December or so, I am fairly sure I was working from an SRD draft, though not, as you note, the final. 

Perhaps it is hazy memory or just the greater openness of the process, but I think at this point in 2000, we were a lot further along both in terms of knowledge of the game mechanics and of the licenses to be used, though neither were finished.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 26, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, I know. We did have a pretty solid draft. Any maybe I came in late, but by around December or so, I am fairly sure I was working from an SRD draft, though not, as you note, the final.
> 
> Perhaps it is hazy memory or just the greater openness of the process, but I think at this point in 2000, we were a lot further along both in terms of knowledge of the game mechanics and of the licenses to be used, though neither were finished.




I have to concede this: 3 months prior to the 3E launch, we at least had a draft of the Player's Handbook. I still have mine somewhere. Its a photocopy. I spiral-bound it.  I wish I could remember exatly how long before launch we had that stuff. It had to be some time since several of us had products at launch. Things are getting hazy in the mists of time...


----------



## Orcus (Mar 26, 2008)

I just pulled out our first print product, the Crucible of Freya. It was released sometime between September of 2000 and January of 2001 (I want to say November).

In the legal section for that module, it is clear that we had the final version of the OGL v1.0, but we were still using a draft of the d20 STL (draft version 0.4, which is reprinted in the module) and a draft of the SRD (version 0.0, with its "restricted terms").


----------



## Henry (Mar 27, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I just pulled out our first print product, the Crucible of Freya. It was released sometime between September of 2000 and January of 2001 (I want to say November).




To be specific, between October 21 and December 1, according to the Wayback Machine for rpgplanet.com/dnd3e.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 27, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> To be specific, between October 21 and December 1, according to the Wayback Machine for rpgplanet.com/dnd3e.




I confirmed that since posting. It released in November.


----------



## jeffh (Mar 28, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> And of that list, the only one who I /know/ will be producing 4e material is Necromancer.  Thats why they're getting my money.



Aren't Goodman and Wolfgang Bauer's Open Design project committed as well? And I thought I saw something about Fantasy Flight too.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 28, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> And I thought I saw something about Fantasy Flight too.



They're bringing back _Dragonstar_? One can hope.


----------



## Grogtard (Apr 4, 2008)

Maybe this is why the GSL is held up. 
http://jobs.acca.com/jobdetail.cfm?job=2847563


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 4, 2008)

Grogtard said:
			
		

> Maybe this is why the GSL is held up.




I'd certainly call it a very distinct possibility.


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 4, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I'd certainly call it a very distinct possibility.




That doesn't look good.  The cynic in me is thinking that they're waiting to be fully staffed in their legal department and ready to be sued when they make a GSL/OGL announcement.


----------



## Wystan (Apr 4, 2008)

Actually it looks like they need a senior Lawyer to vet the final product. I think they should go out of house for this if it is true as this is seriously crimping their Credibility here and with other gamers that are hearing about the delayed/missing GSL/OGL.

I really truly trust WOTC to make the right decision and leave 4E open to the extent that they determine it needs to be open, but not to close it....


----------



## JamesM (Apr 4, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> That doesn't look good.  The cynic in me is thinking that they're waiting to be fully staffed in their legal department and ready to be sued when they make a GSL/OGL announcement.



I think far more significant is that the job posting does not list open source licensing as an area of expertise for an applicant but it does list contract negotiation with "key clients." That's hardly a smoking gun, since WotC may already have plenty of people on staff knowledgeable about open source issues, but it's still another piece in the puzzle.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 4, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> That doesn't look good.  The cynic in me is thinking that they're waiting to be fully staffed in their legal department and ready to be sued when they make a GSL/OGL announcement.




I seriously doubt they'd get sued.  (Seriously, who has the financial resources to stand up to Wizards.)  

Staff changes happen and they're not always idealy timed.  But if this does/did/continues to have an impact on the GSL's delayed release (which, sounds like it does), I'd say that Wizards wants someone with enough experience in the industry to write a license that can anticipate technological changes.  That would be a very reasonable thing to do.  I don't fault them for that.  I do, however, wonder why they didn't have the license worked out like say a year ago.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 4, 2008)

As others have mentioned, the job listing doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it seems unlikely that it's unrelated to the current situation with the (lack of anything regarding the) GSL.

What I find to be more significant is that - regardless of how things end up - this seems to indicate that it's going to be a while before we hear anything. The job opening was posted less than two weeks ago. WotC will need to wait long enough for applicants to apply, figure out which ones they want to interview, interview all of those chosen, make a decision about who they want to hire, have the one they pick move to Washington and start work, and then work on the GSL, all before they'll (hopefully) be done with it.

If that's the case, then there's no way we're going to be getting any substantive updates before Gen Con.  :\


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 4, 2008)

JamesM said:
			
		

> I think far more significant is that the job posting does not list open source licensing as an area of expertise for an applicant but it does list contract negotiation with "key clients." That's hardly a smoking gun, since WotC may already have plenty of people on staff knowledgeable about open source issues, but it's still another piece in the puzzle.




I wouldn't read to much into that.  Open source licensing isn't exactly a huge field that there'd be TONS of lawyers with experience in that field.  But they did say "end user license agreements".  I'm just making a guess as to legal classificiations, but it strikes me that the OGL is similar to a EULA.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 4, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> That doesn't look good.  The cynic in me is thinking that they're waiting to be fully staffed in their legal department and ready to be sued when they make a GSL/OGL announcement.




Job posting for legal department in major corporation <> Shortage of lawyers


----------



## HyrumOWC (Apr 4, 2008)

Grogtard said:
			
		

> Maybe this is why the GSL is held up.
> http://jobs.acca.com/jobdetail.cfm?job=2847563




Interestingly enough that job post was on the WotC site for a day or two before they took it down. I just checked and it's still not on their website.

Hyrum.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 4, 2008)

Now that's job that's made for Clark Peterson.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 4, 2008)

Some minor information from over on the WotC Rejecting 3.5 Writers? thread.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> I was chatting with Nick Logue last night and he said he received a sad email from WotC saying they could no longer use his work. He said it was related to the GSL and his employment at Paizo.
> 
> Has anyone else received anything like this?
> 
> I'm wondering if WotC is requiring anyone who publishes with them to sign an agreement that they won't develop for 3.5 OGL, including any freelance work. It would seem to be a good move at helping to kill the OGL; it seems like their biggest competition has always been former employees. If everyone who publishes material through DDI cannot publish material for OGL, how would that impact the hobby?






			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> No matter how one feels about WoTC taking steps like this one, wouldn't it indicate that there actually will be a GSL (since they mention it themselves?)




I wonder if Jack is right, and that's an indicator (no matter how small) that the GSL hasn't been dumped completely? It's hard to know, since this information is second-, mabe even third-hand, at this point.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Apr 4, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Now that's job that's made for Clark Peterson.




...or Mistwell


----------



## mxyzplk (Apr 4, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> delay has cost them Paizo. Erik Mona was talking about doing a possible 3.75 soon after the original 4e announcement and I don't recall much positive comment from anyone at Paizo about the new edition. They never seemed enthusiastic about it, and obviously they've been working on Pathfinder RPG for some time.




They had a closer business relationship with WotC than anyone; I suspect they could just smell the BS on the wind earlier than anyone else.


----------



## Orcus (Apr 4, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Now that's job that's made for Clark Peterson.




LOL. Ack! Then I would actually be responsible!!!! Its so much easier to sit on the sidelines and complain!

No, I'm kidding. I do really enjoy the OGL and its legal implications. It is an intersting experiment to me. I really enjoy it. 

In fact, as I mentioned before, I have drafted several different versions of the licenses, from a PI agreement to PI 4E and use it under the OGL, to a new GSL-style license with the STL/Guide restrictions in it to a few versions of a new gentleperson's agreement each with different levels of complexity. 

Yes, I am a goob.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 5, 2008)

Nothing wrong with being a goob CP!  If Gary Gygax wasn't a goob who didn't like to fiddle with miniature rules none of us would be here!


----------



## carmachu (Apr 13, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say we've "lost" them. More like they're not going to be an early adopter for sure, and their entry into the 4e market will likely be in a smaller way, next year, assuming they enter.





And also adding a competing product to the mix. Its till going to syphon off customers....


----------



## carmachu (Apr 14, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> On the topic presented, the point that keeps resonating with me, is that Paizo is going to lose everyone that goes over to 4E.  Every poll I've seen with any weight shows that more people are going to 4E than not--so it's a fair speculation that more of Paizo's market is going to move to 4E than not.  It feels pretty unlikely that Pathfinder is going to bring in more players than Paizo has leaving for 4E.
> 
> And they do make some awesome adventures, I'm not in high-school/college anymore, and I don't have time to make long, expansive campaigns up.  I learned the name Paizo when looking for pregen adventures!  But I'm going to 4E, so I'll be looking to Necro, and hoping to see Paizo when the switch is over and the dust settles.





I call BS on the polls.

Sorry, but when there were strong poll numbers showing any anti-4e status or pro not moving to it....folks trotted out how its just a small sampling on a single internet site.

Same rules apply for yours too.

Its funny, you say its goingto move, but Paizo doesnt need Wotc numbers. If they keep most of their fan base and snag a handufl more its a success. WotC losing 10% of its base is a much harder hit.

But for the record....I'm staying with my Paizo subscriptions. My DM, after showing him teh alpha, has signed up for pathfinder and gamemastery modules....so their net one here.


----------



## Melan (Apr 14, 2008)

The first post was made on the 19th of march. Almost a month, and nothing.   Things aren't looking good.


----------

