# WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD



## senna (Aug 11, 2008)

Wotc is going to revise the GSL because of the poor suport from the 3PP! Good news to a lot of people!!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811


----------



## lurkinglidda (Aug 11, 2008)

*WotC Announces Forthcoming Revised GSL*

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

New FAQ and SRD will be posted when the revised GSL is available. 

No ETA at this point. It will be available _very_ soon.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 11, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome
> 
> New FAQ and SRD will be posted when the revised GSL is available.
> 
> No ETA at this point. It will be available _very_ soon.




Good news, thanks for the heads up Linae.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

It seems that the Public Relations department has finaly convinced Legal that any benefits that the GSL may provide are being overwhelmed by negative publicity. That, plus I think the staff manning the booth a Gen Con demanded this announcement before they had to deal with the issue all con long (Disclaimer: just my observation and in no way is based on any knowlege of the actual company politics).


----------



## lurkinglidda (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It seems that the Public Relations department has finaly convinced Legal that any benefits that the GSL may provide are being overwhelmed by negative publicity. That, plus I think the staff manning the booth a Gen Con demanded this announcement before they had to deal with the issue all con long (Disclaimer: just my observation and in no way is based on any knowlege of the actual company politics).



Actually, Scott and yours truly pushed for this possible CLM. We intended to have everything buttoned up by GenCon. Realizing that was not going to happen I requested we put up the announcement.


----------



## Dax Doomslayer (Aug 11, 2008)

GREAT NEWS!  I hope some of the more vocal 3PPs can now jump on board and support 4E (i.e. Necromancer Games).  This is a good day indeed . . .


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 11, 2008)

Interesting!  What general direction are the changes going?  Is the hope for them to be easier for 3rd parties to access?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 11, 2008)

> “We recognize the important role third party publishing support plays in the success of the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. We have listened to the community and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart. Our commitment to the health of the industry and hobby gaming lifestyle is reflected in the revisions to the Game System License.”
> --Linae Foster D&D Licensing Manager
> 
> While the delivery date is not yet firmly established, the revised documents will be available in the very near future.
> ...



Cautiously optimistic here. I want my Folio of Fiends from Necromancer, I want my 4E Freeport Companion, I want more great products that make my group able to play 4E (with WotC books) in a way that works better for us.


----------



## Waldorf (Aug 11, 2008)

For better or worse, Wotc is starting to resemble TSR more and more.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Actually, Scott and yours truly pushed for this possible CLM. We intended to have everything buttoned up by GenCon. Realizing that was not going to happen I requested we put up the announcement.




Well if you guys pushed for it hopefully this is good news and not a further tightening of the contract.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 11, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Actually, Scott and yours truly pushed for this possible CLM. We intended to have everything buttoned up by GenCon. Realizing that was not going to happen I requested we put up the announcement.





Linae, glad to hear the news! As one of the bigger 3PPP to sign the GSL I'd love to see a cure period in place, preferably one of 30 days length or greater. It would help me breath easier knowing that if I make a boneheaded mistake that I didn't catch, I would have some time to correct that mistake before being in breach of the license.

I'm very glad to hear this and look forward to additional details.

joe b.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Aug 11, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> What general direction are the changes going?



Is "opener" a word?



> Is the hope for them to be easier for 3rd parties to access?



That's the hope.


----------



## Terwox (Aug 11, 2008)

Excellent news!  I've got high hopes for this.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 11, 2008)

Here's hoping that the revised license deals with the reprinting of monster stat blocks in 3rd party adventures.  I totally understand why WOTC didn't want to make this possible, but its just so darn useful that I don't think I'd ever have much interest in buying an adventure that didn't have the relevant stat blocks right on the page.

Other than that, I'm probably going to ignore the issue and block everyone involved in more drama.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 11, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Actually, Scott and yours truly pushed for this possible CLM. We intended to have everything buttoned up by GenCon. Realizing that was not going to happen I requested we put up the announcement.




Any chance that 3pps can create a single product line for both the OGL and the GSL? If so, then I would be more interested.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Mallus (Aug 11, 2008)

Good for WotC. It's nice when people, or corporate entities, learn from their mistakes and adapt.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 11, 2008)

Very interesting! I didn't think WotC would actually do it. 

I think the most important change to make, however, is to nix the policy regarding WotC's ability to revise the GSL at will and third-parties must comply with whatever the newest version is. So long as that's in there, any other changes, no matter how beneficial, could vanish at any time.

Beyond that, it'd be nice to see the removal of restrictions on publishing OGL content, of the "pay WotC's legal fees" clause, and of the various bindings that survive the termination of the license.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

Don't think they will do it but I would like to see companies still be able to sell old OGL products from the same line as converted products so that we don't lose lots of valuable products forever.


----------



## GVDammerung (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It seems that the Public Relations department has finaly convinced Legal that any benefits that the GSL may provide are being overwhelmed by negative publicity. That, plus I think the staff manning the booth a Gen Con demanded this announcement before they had to deal with the issue all con long (Disclaimer: just my observation and in no way is based on any knowlege of the actual company politics).




2nd post and we have a thread winner!

But let's wait and see just what changes get made:

1) At will termination clause?
2) Absolute termination of content when termination occurs?
3) Can't use OGL and GSL?

Let's wait and see.  I think that this move to adjust the language, we'll see how much of an actual change there is, is indicative of how well 4e is _not_ doing.  Seems 4e, at the least, wouldn't mind some help from 3PP.  If 4e were kicking and taking no prisoners, I doubt we'd see this development.  Its finger in the dike time!


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 11, 2008)

One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.


[gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]

And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.

[/gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 11, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Is "opener" a word?
> That's the hope.



Very very cool.  Colour me happy. 
-blarg


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I think the most important change to make, however, is to nix the policy regarding WotC's ability to revise the GSL at will and third-parties must comply with whatever the newest version is. So long as that's in there, any other changes, no matter how beneficial, could vanish at any time.




That is the killer clause that I can see, no matter how nice they make the GSL if that clause remains all other changes are cosmetic and no matter how nice they are, those changes are at risk of disappearing just as easily.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 11, 2008)

Really. Good. News.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 11, 2008)

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making it friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.


----------



## GVDammerung (Aug 11, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.
> 
> 
> [gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]
> ...




Bingo!  Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.  If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal.  Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic.  I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses.  Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking.  Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 11, 2008)

Yay! The results of a 4e search at rpgnow is all too meager.


----------



## Phaezen (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.




Or possibly, (D) they listened to the concerns raised by the various forums and third party publishers and decided to rethink the the GSL.

From my side, I would like to extend my thanks to Linae and The Rouse for taking the listening to the role playing community on this and other issues that have been raised, we do appreciate your efforts.

Phaezen


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.




Actually, I think it's more simple than that.

Scott Rouse once said (IIRC) that the number one goal with the GSL was to benefit D&D.  It seems that WotC has determined, based on 3pp feedback, that the GSL as written has failed to do this.


----------



## Orcus (Aug 11, 2008)

Phaezen said:


> Or possibly, (D) they listened to the concerns raised by the various forums and third party publishers and decided to rethink the the GSL.
> 
> From my side, I would like to extend my thanks to Linae and The Rouse for taking the listening to the role playing community on this and other issues that have been raised, we do appreciate your efforts.
> 
> Phaezen




I am voting for D. 

I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do. 

Clark


----------



## evilref (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.




Or maybe,

E) Individuals at WotC always wanted different aspects to the license but for whatever reason that didn't happen, those individuals have now convinced other individuals round to their way of thinking.

I get that you like to criticise WotC but given you have no idea, making statements like this is just yet another example of poor reasoning and logic.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Aug 11, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Cautiously optimistic here. I want my Folio of Fiends from Necromancer.



Sums it up nicely. 

Here's hoping.


----------



## bramadan (Aug 11, 2008)

Or, you know, they are trying to be helpful and fix something they did based on feedback... 

I do not see why everything WotC does has to be interpreted (by some at least) as having some sinister ulterior motive.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 11, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.



4E would have to be a door-closing disaster for even the most successful 3rd party game of all time to be a real threat to it. You have the scales of each enterprise way, way off here.


----------



## Orcus (Aug 11, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Actually, I think it's more simple than that.
> 
> Scott Rouse once said (IIRC) that the number one goal with the GSL was to benefit D&D.  It seems that WotC has determined, based on 3pp feedback, that the GSL as written has failed to do this.




I agree. I think it is clear to anyone that, intentions aside, the GSL as it is now has completely failed to achieve its goals. People dont like failure. So we have revision. 

I'm glad to see that my hope looks like it is coming true--I said some time ago that wouldnt it be great if the first change to the license was a good one, rather than a bad one like everyone feared. Looks like that is what is going to happen. I'm not taking them off the hook for prior bungling, but you have to take your hats off to them for even considering a change let alone making one. 

Clark


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 11, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.



Which, of course, ignores that Ryan Dancey pushed through the OGL because he felt it was the right thing to do for the company and for gamers.

There doesn't have to be a crisis for similar cool heads to prevail.


----------



## rkwoodard (Aug 11, 2008)

*doubtful*



GVDammerung said:


> Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!





I am highly doubting that 4th ed is in any type of trouble, and if it was, this would not be the remeady.

But this is really good news.  

RK


----------



## lkj (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.





How about:

D) They actually wanted active 3PP support from the beginning, and it took the lackluster performance of the first GSL to demonstrate to certain people in the company that a more open GSL was required to achieve their goal.

I don't really see how it requires 4e to be bombing. There's good reason to want 3pp support even if 4e is doing well-- more support for 4e is presumably better for D&D in the long run. On the other hand, the more restrictive a license they can convince people to sign, the more control they have over the outcome. In short, the goal is probably as restrictive a license as possible that people will still use. They missed the mark on the first pass. 

They are trying again. It'll be interesting to see if they hit the sweet spot.

AD


----------



## Scribble (Aug 11, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I am voting for D.
> 
> I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.
> 
> Clark




Woohoo!!!

I also have to point out the irony of someone going by the name of Orcus working with WoTC to "fix" an "evil" contract...


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Aug 11, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Cautiously optimistic here.




Ditto.



Shemeska said:


> One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.




I don't think it's to late.  The GSL hasn't even gone live yet.  I am hopeful (cautious, but hopeful nonetheless).


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Aug 11, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!




Hey, play nice.  Lidda has been very good about keeping an open dialogue.  Lets see what the changes are before making unfounded accusations.
[teasing]Afterwards, make all the unfounded accusations you want.[/teasing]


----------



## Orcus (Aug 11, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> Bingo!  Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.  If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal.  Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic.  I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses.  Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking.  Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!




GVD-

Man, you are so negative.  

This is not a "backtracking" or a "leverage" situation. How about--some good people (Scott and Linae) finally got listened to when it became apparent that the GSL was not doing what it was supposed to be doing. 

I guess you are entitled to your own opinion of what to expect as to whether the changes will be "cosmetic" and "lipstick on a pig." I, on the other hand, expect them to be substantial. In fact, I am very hopeful that all the issues I have with the GSL will be addressed and Necro will be able to announce 4E support. That is my hope anyway. I guess we will see who is right.  (smart money is on me)

Clark


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

We are all mising option F) WotC hates Necromancer Games with an otherworldly passion and conspired to wait until Orcus gave back the rights to the Ari's Player Guide before announcing changes to the GSL


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 11, 2008)

_“_*We recognize the important role third party publishing support plays in the success of the 4th Edition* _of Dungeons & Dragons._ *We have listened to the community*_ and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart. Our commitment to the health of the industry and hobby gaming lifestyle is reflected in the revisions to the Game System License.” 
--Linae Foster D&D Licensing Manager_



Don't ever let it be said by anyone again (even those here on ENWorld), that the opinions of gamers on ENWorld and other Forums, and the importance of 3PP's, that they *Do Not Matter*.  The argument that "ENWorld is such a small percentage of WoTC customer base that they do not listen to us", has been undeniably refuted.  Without being to melodramatic, this news has renewed my confidence in WoTC that they believe our opinions are important and that gamers have a level of ownership of this hobby.

Now, we just have to wait and see what the new GSL says and how 3PP's receive it.  I'm interested in it just to see their tone, and what intentions that may mean for their guidelines on fansites.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Aug 11, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I am voting for D.
> 
> I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.
> 
> Clark




Or F) Orcus's massively singular email campaign brought down WOTC's servers, causing them to close Gleemax and re-double there efforts to appease the mighty one 

Seriously, as part of the lurking majority, THANK YOU Linae and Scott for doing your best to help out gamers at large.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 11, 2008)

Now let's work on getting the PDF prices dropped.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Aug 11, 2008)

dogoftheunderworld said:


> Seriously, as part of the lurking majority, THANK YOU Linae and Scott for doing your best to help out gamers at large.




Hear, hear.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 11, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> Bingo!  Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.  If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal.  Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic.  I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses.  Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking.  Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!






Oh, yeah, I'm on the internet.  Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 11, 2008)

Golly, what will we use to vilify Wizards now?

Of never mind, this is a sign that 4E is failing. 

The big dog just can't win.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> We are all mising option F) WotC hates Necromancer Games with an otherworldly passion and conspired to wait until Orcus gave back the rights to the Ari's Player Guide before announcing changes to the GSL



To make sure that Orcus doesn't have any regrets in that regard (and I doubt he does, since he didn't have to give back the manuscript, and just did it because he's a mensch), I'll happily preorder Folio of Fiends if you can create any sort of mechanism in place to take such preorders, Clark.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Golly, what will we use to vilify Wizards now?




Well the DDI is still available


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Aug 11, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> To make sure that Orcus doesn't have any regrets in that regard (and I doubt he does, since he didn't have to give back the manuscript, and just did it because he's a mensch), I'll happily preorder Folio of Fiends if you can create any sort of mechanism in place to take such preorders, Clark.





Ditto.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 11, 2008)

I'm glad Linae and The Rouse are on the case, but I'm not going to hold my breath that things will be Better(tm). 

I'm in Wait'n'See mode.


----------



## FourthBear (Aug 11, 2008)

If 4e was doing poorly in sales, I have to think that the *last* thing on WotC's mind would be spending any resources on increasing third party support.  Further, considering how long it takes companies to move from data to action, I don't think it's too likely that they would move on poor sales data (remember, 4e only came out a couple of months ago) to changing the GSL in this time frame.  

I think it's far more likely that the GSL was so long delayed because of competing pressures between legal, business and those with a closer relationship with the third parties in question.  The version was released with agony like pulling teeth with far more restrictions than many would like.  In the meantime, those in the company who wanted a different GSL writing kept fighting for another version.  The GSL  produced a general lack of interest in using the license (and a subsequent closer examination by some of the options available to the third parties if they did not accept the GSL).  This was then used to convince the powers that be that a GSL that produced no interest was pretty pointless and needed to be revised.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Well the DDI is still available




Or not as the case might be.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 11, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> To make sure that Orcus doesn't have any regrets in that regard (and I doubt he does, since he didn't have to give back the manuscript, and just did it because he's a mensch), I'll happily preorder Folio of Fiends if you can create any sort of mechanism in place to take such preorders, Clark.




This--unless, of course, I'm in a position to _contribute_ to FoF (which I'd very much like to do), in which case I won't need to order it. 

Oh, and bonus points to WD for use of the term "mensch."


----------



## Crothian (Aug 11, 2008)

A big thanks to Linae and The Rouse and all the hard workers over at Wizards.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 11, 2008)

I would have loved to track Clark's blood pressure these last several months ...


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 11, 2008)

Any chance of getting some more information by attending the 4e Q&A at Gencon?


----------



## jokamachi (Aug 11, 2008)

Wotc played chicken with the 3rd party publishers and lost.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 11, 2008)

evilref said:


> I get that you like to criticise WotC but given you have no idea, making statements like this is just yet another example of poor reasoning and logic.




I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.


----------



## darjr (Aug 11, 2008)

Thank you for listening. I am hopeful that the changes will be for the better.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Aug 11, 2008)

Good news AND comedy gold, all in one thread!


----------



## evilref (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.




A) All available evidence (from inside and outside of WotC) suggests that not only is 4e selling very well, but that month on month it's outselling 3.5, 3e and 2e.

B) For it to be a PR blunder is an entirely subjective opinion and would also require vast numbers of people to say that they're not going to buy 4e solely because of the GSL. I've not seen that, and I doubt you have either. Moreover given the above sales, that PR blunder can't exactly be vast.

Mostly though I just found it a cheap attempt to make a snarky comment that doesn't actually have any supportable evidence behind it (I'll give you PR blunder, but not vast). The tiresome '4e is selling badly' as so much independent argument against it that it's gone into pure fantasyland (it might well be selling badly in A store/X stores but globally it's selling very well).


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 11, 2008)

Orcus said:


> Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.




And honestly, this is exactly the outcome I hope for.  I was never a Necromancer Games fanatic.  I had strong respect and bought more than my fair share, but wouldn't specifically search out their products.  

However, looking at all the 3rd party companies that were considering putting out 4E products, they were the only ones that excited me.  I hope I get to finally see the 4E "Wizard's Amulet", even if it is too late to fill that exact same role.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.




They are logical conclusions if you ignore the sales of 4e. 

4e is doing well. Exceedingly well, according to Mr. Bill Slavicsek. Considering the fast sell-out of the biggest first print ever, and that they are all-ready in their 3rd print, it might just be true. Considering the fact that the core books were ranked higher than ever on several best-seller lists, which are based on actual buys by customers, it might just be true.

Of course, due to your intense dislike of 4e, you actually rather believe that they failed and that it is all a cover up.

Which is more likely. That the employees and bosses of a public company lie about figures, about the size of their print runs, and somehow manage to trick several reputable bestseller lists into "giving" their books a good spot high up on the list, or that you are wrong, and that 4e, despite that you don't like it, does quite well.

Cheers


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Aug 11, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.




Darrin -

You've personally lambasted WotC for the GSL, and justifiably so. Why now are you negative when they've (apparently) listened to the community and (hopefully) intend to make changes?  

I understand it may be difficult to (potentially) lose an item on your List of Things to Bitch About, but surely there will be aspects of the new GSL that will prove equally open to complaint.

Patience, lad. Patience.

WP


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.



I think the main problem is you presented a false dichotomy (or trichotomy, if you include your "A+B" option). You gave only two possible reasons, whereas there are many more, as subsequent posts demonstrate.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 12, 2008)

evilref said:


> A) All available evidence (from inside and outside of WotC) suggests that not only is 4e selling very well, but that month on month it's outselling 3.5, 3e and 2e.




No company is going to admit that their own product is not selling well. To do so is suicide for the product line. Companies will tell people how well their product is doing right up until the week before the product is canceled. You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.



> B) For it to be a PR blunder is an entirely subjective opinion and would also require vast numbers of people to say that they're not going to buy 4e solely because of the GSL. I've not seen that, and I doubt you have either. Moreover given the above sales, that PR blunder can't exactly be vast.




There's evidence here and all over the internet that shows that up to 50% of the current player base has no intention of switching to 4E. Assuming that those numbers are real (and I'm not going to bother debating whether or not you can believe the validity of internet polls) then if there's something they can do to get more people to switch, it would be wise to consider that option. Making the license more open lowers the barriers preventing publishers from porting their existing brands to 4E, therefore potentially bringing in players who are loyal to those publishers and product lines.



> Mostly though I just found it a cheap attempt to make a snarky comment that doesn't actually have any supportable evidence behind it (I'll give you PR blunder, but not vast).




There's no supportable evidence that I'm wrong either, and it was neither cheap nor was it an attempt. It was free and it was pure speculation, and as people like to speculate about things they have no real information about around here, there is nothing indicating of "bad reasoning or logic" at all. In fact, in this thread's twin, other people came to exactly the same conclusions on their own. Are they equally guilty of bad reasoning and logic?



> The tiresome '4e is selling badly' as so much independent argument against it that it's gone into pure fantasyland (it might well be selling badly in A store/X stores but globally it's selling very well).




4E could very well be selling badly. We don't have access to their sales data. We do not know what how many copies it has to sell for Hasbro to consider it a success. Since we don't have access to this information, it's ridiculous to point to any one piece of information and proclaim it a success or failure at this point.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 12, 2008)

Say it with me, "Dear Mods, merge these threads!"

===

Interesting that:

Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in. 

Pazio is committed to 3.75, so they're out no matter what.

Green Ronin is off doing non-D&D material. 

Basically, IMO, we are left with the Wizards changing the GSL for Necro, and only for Necro. Bummer that it had to happen a week after they lost the APG.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 12, 2008)

Good News! A Big Thank You to Scott and Linae. I hope these changes prove to be a good thing for everyone-WOTC, The 3rd Party Publishers,and the 4E fans!


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Interesting that:
> 
> Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in.
> 
> ...



Here is one thing I'd like to see:

I'd like enough changes that Kobold Quarterly can support 4E (either in the main magazine, or through a parallel publication).


----------



## xechnao (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Actually, Scott and yours truly pushed for this possible CLM. We intended to have everything buttoned up by GenCon. Realizing that was not going to happen I requested we put up the announcement.




Or maybe option G), GSL is used as a marketing tool to provide as much attention to D&D as possible in the OGL legacy era.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> No company is going to admit that their own product is not selling well. To do so is suicide for the product line. Companies will tell people how well their product is doing right up until the week before the product is canceled. You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.







ENWorld: You're no messiah!
WotC: I *am* the messiah! Will you please look at the sales figures? I *am* the messiah, do you understand? Honestly!  
ENWorld: Only the *false* messiah denies his low sales figures!
WotC: What? Well what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I'm not the messiah!
ENWorld: He's not! He's not the messiah!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 12, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I don't think it's to late.  The GSL hasn't even gone live yet.  I am hopeful (cautious, but hopeful nonetheless).



Furthermore, we all know one publisher who will go 4E, as soon as the GSL becomes more reasonable (Necro). Even if we get one extra publisher only, I'd be happy.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> it's ridiculous to point to any one piece of information and proclaim it a success or failure at this point.




Didn't stop you from using "Internet Polls" to support your argument.  But IU'm not going to discuss whether or not my discussing whether or not you discussing internet polls is valid.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Basically, IMO, we are left with the Wizards changing the GSL for Necro, and only for Necro.




And that's good enough for yours truly. When I look at my bookshelf, I have WotC books, Goodman modules, and Necro modules. So this is a win. 

I also have a ton of Paizo mags. You know what I'd love to see on the heels of this nice GSL news? Paizo reclaiming _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_. A girl can dream, right?

WP


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> In fact, in this thread's twin, other people came to exactly the same conclusions on their own. Are they equally guilty of bad reasoning and logic.



Perhaps. The comments in the other thread were taken to task as well.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome
> 
> New FAQ and SRD will be posted when the revised GSL is available.
> 
> No ETA at this point. It will be available _very_ soon.



That's great news, Linae! Much thanks go to you and Scott for the (excrutiating) hard work you've put into this.


----------



## evilref (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> No company is going to admit that their own product is not selling well. To do so is suicide for the product line. Companies will tell people how well their product is doing right up until the week before the product is canceled. You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.




You saw that point where I said 'outside' as well, right? I mean, I know acknowledging it would also mean acknowledging your point is without support but you did see it?





Darrin Drader said:


> There's evidence here and all over the internet that shows that up to 50% of the current player base has no intention of switching to 4E. Assuming that those numbers are real (and I'm not going to bother debating whether or not you can believe the validity of internet polls) then if there's something they can do to get more people to switch, it would be wise to consider that option. Making the license more open lowers the barriers preventing publishers from porting their existing brands to 4E, therefore potentially bringing in players who are loyal to those publishers and product lines.




Hey look, that's another option that doesn't come in your statement that there are only three options.





Darrin Drader said:


> There's no supportable evidence that I'm wrong either, and it was neither cheap nor was it an attempt. It was free and it was pure speculation, and as people like to speculate about things they have no real information about around here, there is nothing indicating of "bad reasoning or logic" at all. In fact, in this thread's twin, other people came to exactly the same conclusions on their own. Are they equally guilty of bad reasoning and logic?




Amazon sales rank, NYT best sellers list. Number of reprints, statements on the side of the initial print run. See those, those are supportable evidence that you're wrong.





Darrin Drader said:


> 4E could very well be selling badly. We don't have access to their sales data. We do not know what how many copies it has to sell for Hasbro to consider it a success. Since we don't have access to this information, it's ridiculous to point to any one piece of information and proclaim it a success or failure at this point.




A) Hasbro cares about the success of its companies, not individual SKUs put out by that company.
B) NO, 4E could not be selling badly, unless you consider badly to be hundreds of thousands of books, in which case you have no idea about sales in the industry.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 12, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Woohoo!!!
> 
> I also have to point out the irony of someone going by the name of Orcus working with WoTC to "fix" an "evil" contract...





Brown Jenkin definately won the thread.  I think he hit the nail right on the head.

However, I think *Scribble* absolutely wins the comedy category for the thread.  Man, that was funny.  Nice!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2008)

evilref said:


> I get that you like to criticise WotC but given you have no idea,





You probably want to back off from that aggressive stance, telling other folks what they like to do, and what they do and don't know.  

Everybody: Address the content, not the poster personally, please.


----------



## Mark (Aug 12, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> But let's wait and see just what changes get made:
> 
> 1) At will termination clause?
> 2) Absolute termination of content when termination occurs?
> ...





You hit three of the nails right on the head.  Without changes in these things (though not limited to these), they might as well not even bother, IMO.  If this turns out to be yet another non-starter of a license and all it really accomplishes is getting 3PPs to keep their traps shut through Marktober 1st (Yes, I wrote "Mark"tober), more than a few of us will not be amused.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 12, 2008)

I'd like to add my thanks to *LurkingLidda* and *The Rouse* also (however, I still think ya'll screwed up on the PDF prices).


----------



## Henry (Aug 12, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.




I really don't think that would be an issue to most companies. For most of the bigger-name d20 companies, business is business, and if the terms of the new GSL are amenable, then I can see every one of them using it sometime in the future (if not the near future, due to their current schedules).




> [gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]
> 
> And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.
> 
> [/gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]




That, on the other hand, I could see, because the fan community holds grudges far longer than publishers do; the goodwill may already be spent, and an OGL challenge to the GSL, or EVEN MESSIER, a copyright law-based challenge to the GSL, might gain ground. 

In either case, I look forward to an amended GSL. Hopefully, 3PP's will find it palatable enough to use, and we'll see some high-quality companies starting to enter the running. I like a lot of WotC's product, but let's face it, a LOT of good talent has left those training grounds into other companies, people who could add some seriously good material to 4E.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 12, 2008)

Edited per Umbran's post. Waste of a de-lurk.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.




I don't know your history, I know that you used to work for WotC. Did they burn you or something (I know I myself have been negative to former employers when the job ended badly) ? I ask as I see negative overtones in serveral of your posts regarding positive news about 4e/WotC. Not an attack by any means, I'm honestly curious.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks to Lidda and Scott. Wish I could be at Gen Con to thank you both personally. Here's hoping we see great products from Necromancer and others soon....


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 12, 2008)

Gundark said:


> I don't know your history, I know that you used to work for WotC. Did they burn you or something (I know I myself have been negative to former employers when the job ended badly) ? I ask as I see negative overtones in serveral of your posts regarding positive news about 4e/WotC. Not an attack by any means, I'm honestly curious.




Burn me? No, I left on my own terms when the company was clearly going in a direction that I disagreed with. They've burned many people far worse than they ever burned me. It's more along the lines of being sorely disappointed seeing the type of company they were and comparing it to the company they have become. In my opinion, WotC's potential has been squandered.

On another point, I know some of the thinking that went into 4E. I was opposed to it when I heard it, on a purely conceptual basis, and now that it has been realized I find myself disappointed. Don't ask for specifics because they aren't forthcoming.


----------



## tenkar (Aug 12, 2008)

Henry said:


> ... or EVEN MESSIER, a copyright law-based challenge to the GSL, might gain ground.




Henry, I think that hits the nail on the head.  If going copyright is more appealing to publishers then using the GSL then the GSL serves no purpose.  The GSL was supposed to put some restrictions on the use of WotC's IP, but by being too restrictive it has prevented some publishers from supporting 4e and encouraged others to go 4e without the use of the GSL.

Hold something to tightly and it can slip through your fingers... it might be that WotC's lawyers are seeing that... or at least Scott and Linae have convinced some of the bean counters that the current GSL situation isn't the most profitable one in the long run for WotC


----------



## Delta (Aug 12, 2008)

(a) So this is like a rewind to November 2007. Here we go all over again. Personally I'd recommend that any 3PP's not delay their publishing plans (again) in anticipation of this "very soon" GSL plan.

(b) The link in the OP (D&D welcome page) doesn't have any info on this topic at the moment.


----------



## darjr (Aug 12, 2008)

Delta said:


> (b) The link in the OP (D&D welcome page) doesn't have any info on this topic at the moment.




Scroll down a bit. It is in the news section. Here is a direct link to the specific article. I think it is in the other thread about this topic.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 12, 2008)

Orcus said:


> GVD-
> 
> Man, you are so negative.
> 
> ...





You can expect alot, but frankly it was amusing to se you as the biggest cheerleader for 4e and then watch the GSL hit the scene.

You cant blame folks for being skeptical, seeing the huge delay in the GSL release and then how horrible it is.

Could be better. Could also get revised to be worse. Only time will tell.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> The argument that "ENWorld is such a small percentage of WoTC customer base that they do not listen to us", has been undeniably refuted.  Without being to melodramatic...




Yes, do avoid being too melodramatic, because there's a risk of losing perspective.  Whatever may have been said here, the posters of EN World _are a small percentage of the customer base_.  Whatever was said in the statement, I strongly suspect the opinions of colleagues (like Necromancer Games) had a whole lot more to do with this than those of us who only play and consume.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 12, 2008)

I am trying to write up a campaign I ran and would love to be able to publish it for 4E, and hopefully the new GSL will give me a little bit more leg room when it comes to what I can and can't put in my adventure.

I'm fairly certain that this campaign will help me break out of "doing what jobs I can to survive" and bust into "doing what I love for money" and I sure that a more open and friendly GSL will help me greatly.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Is "opener" a word?




It is now. 

This is good news. Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 12, 2008)

Clark, not only do I hope you're right, I hope you're right in a big way and not only will we see the new stuff you've got planned, but that it'll allowe conversions of older material. Tome of Horrors for the win!



Orcus said:


> GVD-
> 
> Man, you are so negative.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Is "opener" a word?




"Opener" is a perfectly cromulent word.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

It seems to me that without being good, bad, or whatever, WotC chooses its actions as a company, and that therefore, every major decision is made with one goal in mind: to make more money. 

Scott Rouse may be a champion for the 'gamer community' -- or he may be the 'good cop' who is the friendly, understanding, approachable person who makes the gamers feel better about the company. Regardless, he's got to pay his bills, also -- he *needs *his salary -- so he's not going to  be standing there, pawing the ground in steely-eyed defiance, cowing the management into doing what's 'best for the gaming community.' The utmost he's going to do is find a way to *persuade* them that they'll make more money with a more open GSL.

So, that suggests a few quite logical scenarios to explain why making the GSL more open would give WotC greater profits:

1. 4e is successful, but an analysis of 3e's profits revealed that 3rd party support will make the success spike even higher, and bring in even more money than they're already making.

2. 4e isn't too successful, and they think -- again based on concrete data -- that an open GSL will boost sales and 'revive' their profits.

3. They're afraid of negative reaction causing a 'profit speedbump' in the future, based on a huge amount of complaining e-mails from customers. So they're stamping out the problem while it's still tiny. 

4. Anything else that makes an open GSL beneficial to the bottom line of WotC.


----------



## Henry (Aug 12, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:


> I'm fairly certain that this campaign will help me break out of "doing what jobs I can to survive" and bust into "doing what I love for money" and I sure that a more open and friendly GSL will help me greatly.




Not to sound too cynical, but have you spoken with people like Ari Marmel (Mouseferatu) and Phil Reed (Phil_Reed) yet? They're full-time and quite successful freelancers, and have some really good insights into getting into the field. Their advice might or might not be disparaging to you, but I highly recommend talking to them, and Clark Peterson (Orcus), if you haven't done so.


----------



## Jack Colby (Aug 12, 2008)

Hopefully they are taking Clark's advice.  I want 4e stuff from Necromancer!

Although I'm starting to feel like the launch of 4e was some kind of Beta test (or at least premature) at this point.  So many revisions and clarifications... not to mention unfinished online aspects. Disappointing.  I'm optimistic they will improve, however.


----------



## thundershot (Aug 12, 2008)

This can only be good. Even if it won't take care of EVERY concern, it should definitely bring more people on board.

As a side note, can we merge these two topics? It's kinda annoying jumping back and forth between them.



Thanks
Chris


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:


> I am trying to write up a campaign I ran and would love to be able to publish it for 4E, and hopefully the new GSL will give me a little bit more leg room when it comes to what I can and can't put in my adventure.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that this campaign will help me break out of "doing what jobs I can to survive" and bust into "doing what I love for money" and I sure that a more open and friendly GSL will help me greatly.




Barring a one-in-a-billion long shot, just about anything you can do to earn money will earn you more money than RPG writing. Do it for the love, and consider the money an added bonus. And try to have a spouse with good health insurance.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 12, 2008)

Henry said:


> Not to sound too cynical, but have you spoken with people like Ari Marmel (Mouseferatu) and Phil Reed (Phil_Reed) yet? They're full-time and quite successful freelancers, and have some really good insights into getting into the field. Their advice might or might not be disparaging to you, but I highly recommend talking to them, and Clark Peterson (Orcus), if you haven't done so.



 I haven't talked to anyone realy. My main focus is gathering the will to write it. Every time I try to, somthing distracts me. After I get the writing thing down, then I'll start talking about putting it into print.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Is "opener" a word?
> 
> 
> That's the hope.




Sounds like improvements. 

Cautiously optimistic.


----------



## phloog (Aug 12, 2008)

thundershot said:


> This can only be good. Even if it won't take care of EVERY concern, it should definitely bring more people on board.




I would just like to disagree in part...I would say that, as bad as the GSL is, it can only be bad or NEUTRAL. It is unlikely, but completely possible, that this announcement is meant to calm the masses, but that the actual changes are not enough. 

My biggest worry is that they will have HUGE positive changes, but will keep the 'oh, and we can change the rules at any time and you must obey' clause...if that happens, all the positive changes are meaningless, and it appears even more like a trap for the foolish. 

As far as the sales data, or success/failure of 4e...I don't know that I'll dispute the NYT list, but Amazon ranks are notoriously goofy on some product lines, and sales data from WOTC is likely unreliable.

I say that because more often than not big company sales figures are sell TO, and not sell THROUGH...they might not do it this way, but often the numbers quoted are sold INTO the channels...so if they sell 4M to stores, that is their sales figure, even if 3.9M are just sitting on shelves.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 12, 2008)

Excellent news from WOTC!

Here's to being more opener and some Necro goodness.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 12, 2008)

phloog said:


> . . .My biggest worry is that they will have HUGE positive changes, but will keep the 'oh, and we can change the rules at any time and you must obey' clause...if that happens, all the positive changes are meaningless, and it appears even more like a trap for the foolish. . .





I have a question about this concept.  I was looking at the old OGL and compared it to the new GSL.  If I read them right, I think these are the differences:

OGL: WoTC could update the license at any time, however, if you had a product already in print, that was in compliance with the license at the time of it's development, then you could continue to print and sell that product even if it didn't comply with the current license.

GSL: WoTC can update the license at any time.  If any products you are printing or selling are not in compliance, you cannot continue to sell them until they are made compliant.

Is this correct?

If it is I understand 3PP opposition to this part of the GSL.  If this is correct, that means that WoTC could make a license change and leave you stuck with a bunch of stock you can't legally sell - and must redo your product to bring it into compliance - even if it was in compliance when originally produced.

Right? Yes? No? Kind-Of?


----------



## Schmoe (Aug 12, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:


> Is "opener" a word?
> 
> 
> That's the hope.




If kisses could be digitized, well, consider yourself kissed.  This is great news for D&D fans!  While the general public will never know what sort of discussions have taken place, based on information from various sources it seems that you've been hard at work to make this a possibility.  Thanks!


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Aug 12, 2008)

*wow*

this is really great news!  I look forward to reading about the changes!

Ken


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Golly, what will we use to vilify Wizards now?




I am confident that we will think of something.

That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.


----------



## Delta (Aug 12, 2008)

darjr said:


> Scroll down a bit. It is in the news section.




For me, all of those lower panels are blank. I've tried several times throughout the day.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Aug 12, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I am confident that we will think of something.
> 
> That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.



$E has been around for a while.  I don't think I've seen much of Ha$bro, but I might just be forgetting.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 12, 2008)

I can only see this as being a good change.  I really doubt lack 4e is hurting right now, but it's easy to see that the GSL was causing an already bad rift to get worse, and hopefully this can help patch it up, as well as allowing 4e fans to play the games they want with the 3rd person parties that want to join in.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 12, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I am confident that we will think of something.
> 
> That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.




WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.


----------



## grickherder (Aug 12, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> OGL: WoTC could update the license at any time, however, if you had a product already in print, that was in compliance with the license at the time of it's development, then you could continue to print and sell that product even if it didn't comply with the current license.




Not just that.  I can use any version of the license I wish to use as long as I include the license for the portions used from open gaming content if it is released under a different license.  I can use the very first OGL today if I want.  I can use the material released under it as well.  I can use material from every version of the OGL and then release my work under the first OGL.  I just need to satisfy the requirement about including the license for the open gaming content used.  The OGL explicitly protected its users from possible future license changes.  It's perpetual as well, Wizards can never do a "takesy-backsies" on OGL stuff.

This is not the case with the current GSL (which is better compared to the d20 license than the OGL).


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 12, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:


> WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.




Let's just call them Wot¢.


----------



## delericho (Aug 12, 2008)

That they are making changes is good news. Whether these changes are the right changes, and whether they go far enough are different questions.

I'm cautiously optimistic.


----------



## Delta (Aug 12, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Right? Yes? No? Kind-Of?




Kind-of. I'll agree with your assessment of the weakness of the GSL (termination/change at any time). But you've missed the real strength of the OGL, and overlooked the d20 STL entirely. I'll try a fix:

OGL/d20 STL: Two licenses that build on each other. The OGL is irrevocable and permanent and allows you to publish D&D compatible stuff, forever. The d20 STL adds the ability to use a D&D-authorized logo/trademark -- but it can be changed/revoked at any time by WOTC.

Note that it's the d20 STL that is really the equivalent of 4E's GSL. Both were revocable by WOTC. However, if that happened with the d20 STL you could basically just strip off the logo and fall back to publishing your product via the permanent OGL.

The GSL has no such "safety net" backup license. And that's the inherent, unfixable problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I am confident that we will think of something.
> 
> That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.




Did already happen... If I just knew where, I could link to it... 



-----

And let's not forget the real topic: 
This sounds like good news. I just hope that this time, when WotC says _very_ soon, they mean it.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 12, 2008)

Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?


----------



## delericho (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Interesting that:
> 
> Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in.
> 
> ...




Not necessarily. Goodman Games are using the copyright route at the moment, and will go GSL when they are allowed. Kenzer are going the copyright route. If the GSL changes, both of these may sign up (sooner). And it is definately in WotC's interest to avoid companies from going the copyright route if they can. (Though, with Goodman, I think they're too late - aren't those products now shipped?)

I don't think Green Ronin have said "never" to the GSL - so perhaps these changes might bring them on board. Or perhaps not. Heck, even Paizo haven't totally burnt that bridge - Pathfinder might yet flop.

Finally, it has been pointed out on many threads here that the current GSL has the opposite of any intended 'quality' effect - it discourages those who would invest in a quality product line, but encourages those who might throw a product together quickly, make their money and get out.

Revising the GSL may impact on some, all (or none) of these. Regardless, I'm hoping it leads to more quality support products for the game (especially, at the moment, low level monsters and adventures).


----------



## Maggan (Aug 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Let's just call them Wot¢.




That fits a lot better with the rpg economy, actually! 

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?




Only if you offer another, at least equally ridiculous idea that we can entertian now.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 12, 2008)

Umm. Maybe it would be a good idea to wait with comments, both positive and negative, until we actually see the content of the new GSL?

A few reasons why:
- endless delays in delivery of original GSL (as per Linae post, this revised version is already delayed, too),
- needless speculations and arguments,
- revised is not synonymous with relaxed.

That said, several speculations:
- given previous delays, we are unlikely to see radically different license.
- there will be some FAQ.
- there will be clarifications to the most painfully vague clauses.
- two or three most painful clauses will be relaxed... slightly but not totally.
- No-escape-to-OGL clause will be still in.

regards,
Ruemere


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> "Opener" is a perfectly cromulent word.




Opener actually is a word. But it doesn't mean more open.

I think that means this is the first GSL played this season. Or the GSL is the comedian before the bad hair metal band.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 12, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Yes, do avoid being too melodramatic, because there's a risk of losing perspective.  Whatever may have been said here, the posters of EN World _are a small percentage of the customer base_.  Whatever was said in the statement, I strongly suspect the opinions of colleagues (like Necromancer Games) had a whole lot more to do with this than those of us who only play and consume.



And while it's true that ENWorld is a small percentage of the consumer base, it's also true that ENWorld concentrates a large portion of the Third Party Publisher community, which are the ones affected by the GSL.


----------



## amethal (Aug 12, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?



It'll take more than an announcement that the GSL is going to be revised in some unspecified way at an unspecified future date to achieve that.

Especially if the "we can change the GSL whenever we like without informing you or giving you a period to rectify any breaches of the new terms" clauses are still in, since it could otherwise be the world's most generous licence and the conspiracy theorists could still argue it was just a means of sucking 3rd parties into the GSL in order to destroy them.

On a more realistic note, WotC might finally have realised that the licence in its current form is pretty pointless if some companies prefer to rely on copyright law instead for their 4th edition products.


----------



## Talmek (Aug 12, 2008)

Yay?

Seriously, if it reduces some of the venom from the naysayers' mouths concerning 4e and WotC in general then I'll be happy.

And just for the record I do not plan to "upgrade" to 4e but I am glad it's bringing new blood into the hobby.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 12, 2008)

ruemere said:


> - needless speculations and arguments,




Hello, Internets.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 12, 2008)

Talmek said:


> if it reduces some of the venom from the naysayers' mouths concerning 4e and WotC in general




Never gunna happen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2008)

amethal said:


> It'll take more than an announcement that the GSL is going to be revised in some unspecified way at an unspecified future date to achieve that.
> 
> Especially if the "we can change the GSL whenever we like without informing you or giving you a period to rectify any breaches of the new terms" clauses are still in, since it could otherwise be the world's most generous licence and the conspiracy theorists could still argue it was just a means of sucking 3rd parties into the GSL in order to destroy them.





Cautiously optimistic, but amethal has pinged the "big bad" of the GSL right there.   "I am altering the licence.  Pray I do not alter it further."

The GSL changes, to be a win, would have to strike this clause, and would have to strike the OGL/GSL restriction to some degree.  I understand that the OGL/GSL restriction is probably intended to prevent 4e from getting hooked into the OGL, but there has to be some better way to go about it.

Personally, I think we should keep pushing until they decide to simply make 4e OGL.  


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in.
> 
> Pazio is committed to 3.75, so they're out no matter what.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking, this is all about Necromancer Games. Green Ronin was moving away from D&D long before 4e. I don't see Paizo dropping their Pathfinder rpg though maybe they will publish 4e compatible modules if the GSL changes.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 12, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:


> WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.




Because people would call them SOTS...



If indeed Clark is the primary driver of these changes (and I believe that he is the "primary" catalyst) then I am at best "cautiously optimistic."

If there is a scale of "GSL Acceptability," where a "1" is the current GSL and a "10" is the OGL, then I think it is fair to say that Clark is closer to the "1" than, for example, Chris Pramas.

This is not intended to be a knock on Clark. I think Clark has made it clear-- speaking as a lawyer at times-- that his bar of acceptable contractual restrictions is lower than others'.

So while WotC may be opening the GSL enough to let Clark slip through, that's no guarantee that the floodgates are going to be wide open.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Aug 12, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I agree. I think it is clear to anyone that, intentions aside, the GSL as it is now has completely failed to achieve its goals. People dont like failure. So we have revision.



I am sorry but being a 3rd party publisher, I am even MORE skeptic to the GSL. WOTC could have done this from the beginning, but they didn't because they thought they did not have to make the GSL 3PP friendly. But now since they have lost just about all the major 3rd party publishers support for 4th edition, now WOTC feels it is time to "do the right thing” and support 3PP with a “new” GSL. This is just another misstep in the whole release in 4th edition from WOTC. I have to wonder, how long 3PP are going to have to wait to see this new revised GSL? Maybe six months to a year. I don't know too many companies that can wait that long (who have already waited a year to release 4th Edition) just to see this new license.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> No company is going to admit that their own product is not selling well. To do so is suicide for the product line. Companies will tell people how well their product is doing right up until the week before the product is canceled. You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.




Like it or not, this is true.  Warhammer Dark Hersey preorder sales were doing great.  3 days after the regular edition was released, the company said they are no longer producing DH material.  Same with Shadowrun.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 12, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Yes, do avoid being too melodramatic, because there's a risk of losing perspective. Whatever may have been said here, the posters of EN World _are a small percentage of the customer base_. Whatever was said in the statement, I strongly suspect the opinions of colleagues (like Necromancer Games) had a whole lot more to do with this than those of us who only play and consume.




Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle".  Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.

However, Small Percentage: you are absolutely correct - *Opinions That Matter: Undeniably Yes*.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

While I agree that simply using the GSL to vilify WotC is pointless, on the other hand, it's objectively true that it would be unwise for a third party to sign a contract which can be changed or voided at any time, but which is still binding on all parties, and requires the destruction of all materials published under the original contract which do not meet the new specifications, and the inability to publish them in any other form (effectively putting your IP at their mercy, as well as your stock). 

To assume malice on WotC's part is ludicrous. However, to assume unconditional benevolence their part would be even more ludicrous, because at least assuming malice puts you on your guard, while assuming unconditional benevolence is effectively kneeling and baring your financial neck to them, assuming that they'd never be mean enough to use the enormous axe in their hands on it. 

It's a big mistake to put unconditional trust in people as a basis for business. It's also a mistake that honest people make frequently, because they assume that other people are honest too, until they get burned -- and I speak from experience here, as one of those scorched by excessive trust in other people's purity of motives where money is concerned.

So, I'd just like to remind the 3rd party publishers not to be too eager to rush in just because WotC has made a few noises about changing the GSL, and remind them of an apt quote .... 

"Ha, ha! What a fool Honesty is! And Trust, his sworn brother, a very simple gentleman ..." --Shakespeare, _A Winter's Tale_


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> Opener actually is a word. But it doesn't mean more open.



Yes, I believe the question is "is opener an adjective?"

Opener, as in can opener or season opener (sports), is a noun.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks, *Delta* and *grickherder*.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> it's objectively true that it would be unwise for a third party to sign a contract which can be changed or voided at any time, but which is still binding on all parties, and requires the destruction of all materials published under the original contract which do not meet the new specifications, and the inability to publish them in any other form (effectively putting your IP at their mercy, as well as your stock).



Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?

(I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)


----------



## Khairn (Aug 12, 2008)

The gamer in me offers a sincere & heart felt "Thank You" to Linae and Scott for pushing through a decision to take another look at the GSL.  3PP's made some of the very best 3E products.  Creating the GSL which shackled much of that same creativity for 4E was a mistake from my point of view.

The cynic in me has a couple of thoughts ...

-interesting timing on this announcement, just before Gen Con.  Certainly a good way to diffuse criticism and generate buzz without having done much of anything at all.

-the motivation behind this decision is an interesting subject for debate.  Are those motivations as altruistic as stated below...


El Mahdi said:


> Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle".  Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.



 ... or have there been business reasons which gave leverage to your arguments that they didn't have when the initial decisions on the GSL were made?

-and my last cynical observation is that we haven't actually seen anything yet.  We do know that some of the decisions WotC have made to date about the GSL has driven away both customers and 3PP partners.  So I hope WotC will understand if many of us remain skeptical on how (or if) this announcement will actually help the 3 PP's or the community.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> I am sorry but being a 3rd party publisher, I am even MORE skeptic to the GSL.




How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Very interesting! I didn't think WotC would actually do it.



Nor did I. But since my expectations are so pessimistic, when I wind up eating crow, folks are better off for it.


----------



## radferth (Aug 12, 2008)

My theory (which I can't write enough of) is that WotC wanted to structure to GSL so 3pps could publish modules, but not D&D variants (they don't wand someone to make to 4th edition version of T20).  I don't think they intended the OGL to allow them, but no one was thinking about them at the time.  They made the GSL so that it would not allow variant, and so they could close any other loopholes at will.  They ended up with a license so restrictive lots of folks would not even publish adventured for it.  We'll now get to see what they can come up with to allow modules, not variants, and that won't scare off 3pps entirely.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 12, 2008)

> How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?




It's not as if WotC has made any prior announcements that sounded good, but were light on details, and generated some great buzz... and then failed to deliver when the actual details were revealed.

I think "cautious optimism" is the right approach, and while I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "skeptical," I would say I am "exhausted" by the process.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?
> 
> (I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)




At this point, it's too early to say. If WotC decides to axe them, then yes, they made objectively bad decisions. If they survive and prosper, then no, their decision -- which was, basically, a calculated gamble -- paid off.

Note that I didn't say that WotC would do anything detrimental to 3rd party publishers -- I simply warned against excessive trust in a situation where strangers and money are involved.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle". Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.




Yes. Those are very pretty _words_.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.




Well, with the fact that Amazon is reporting excellent sales, the NYT Bestseller's list is reporting excellent sales, and the fact that a subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation making false statements about their sales or productivity is a legal no-no, I'll take it over any forumite's (admittedly) uninformed opinion any day.


----------



## GMSkarka (Aug 12, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?




I'll go there.  

I'm VERY skeptical.

I've been playing the game of "adjust expectations downward" ever since being on the 10-publisher conference call with WOTC back in January.   Every part of this process, from announcement to roll-out, has been a case study of being told one thing, and getting far, far less.

I like Linnae and Scott -- and I really appreciate their efforts... but at this point, WOTC has close to zero credibility with me on issues surrounding the GSL.

I have to admit that my _first_ response to this was to assume that the announcement exists purely to divert the flood of criticism and questions that they'd have to field at GenCon this week.


You all know that I pretty much never agree with Louis Porter.   However, in this case, we're totally on the same page.   

Skeptical.

....although I'll be very, very happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 12, 2008)

GMSkarka said:


> I'm VERY skeptical.




That's understandable. However, he said he was now even MORE skeptical, as if he was suggesting that the GSL is going to get even more restrictive (despite Linae openly saying it would be "opener"). I can understand being skeptical that these changes are what you're looking for, but to say that you're even more skeptical of the GSL after these changes just seems kinda silly.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 12, 2008)

nevermind. GMSkarka posted his skepticism here.  I was going to reference his and another 3pp's skepticism posted at rpg.net without actually mentioning names.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> To assume malice on WotC's part is ludicrous. However, to assume unconditional benevolence their part would be even more ludicrous, because at least assuming malice puts you on your guard, while assuming unconditional benevolence is effectively kneeling and baring your financial neck to them, assuming that they'd never be mean enough to use the enormous axe in their hands on it.




I agree wholeheartedly. Trust is NOT a foundation for good business; if any CEO came to me asking for my money, telling me to "trust him," I'd run like hell. 

And yet, the vehemence of the 3pp community doesn't sit well with me. I am the 3pp's target audience --- I will purchase the core books, maybe some minis, but EVERYTHING else I buy (including during this coming Gen Con) will be from 3pp.

But they are playing in the WotC sandbox; WotC was under no obligation to invite them over to play. However many publishers in this thread are bitter about how WotC goes about handling its IP. 

Huh? Can I have your IP while we're at it? 

Of course the license is restrictive, of course it weighted on the side of the owner. But it is free, and they are willing to change it. 

To boot, some companies are coming out with material, which I will buy, and for that I am thankful.

Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 12, 2008)

I'll chime in with a few things.

Q) Is the timing of this announcement in any way related to GenCon happening later this week?

A) Why yes. Linae and I wanted to actually release the changes to the license prior to the show but when it became clear that wasn't going to happen we decided to make the announcement of our intentions to stem off questions regarding the license.

Q) Is the GSL going to have significant changes? 

A) We hope so. If the changes we recommended go through they will be significant.

Q) Am I going to like the changes?

A) I think many people will be happy. It probably won't please everyone but if the changes we recommended go through the license we appeal to a lot more people.

Q) Why should we trust you?

A) You probably shouldn't. As the saying goes "seeing is believing" but know that our intentions are to make the license more user friendly. The proof of our efforts will be in the final output so I would hope for the best but maintain a certain level of skepticism.

Q) Is Clark Peterson a payed shill or something?

A) No, but we value Clark's insight and opinion and want to see publishers like Necromancer make 4th edition compatible supplements.

Q) Is this going to take 6 months (or longer) to release like the last time?

A) I sure hope not. Our legal team has told us they will work on it next week but we are not committing to a time line as those things often shift.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> At this point, it's too early to say. If WotC decides to axe them, then yes, they made objectively bad decisions. If they survive and prosper, then no, their decision -- which was, basically, a calculated gamble -- paid off.



So in a hypothetical world where we have perfect knowledge of the future before we make a business decision, we can call a decision objectively bad. I'll grant you that one.

But I think I'll stick to the real world where you can only make decisions based on the best knowledge and analysis *at the time the decision is made*.

Edit: Your reply also contradicts your earlier post, where you asserted it *is* objectively bad to enter into such a license. If it's too early to say, then you can't call it objectively bad.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I'll chime in with a few things.



Please allow me to retort..



> Q) Is the timing of this announcement in any way related to GenCon happening later this week?
> 
> A) Why yes. Linae and I wanted to actually release the changes to the license prior to the show but when it became clear that wasn't going to happen we decided to make the announcement of our intentions to stem off questions regarding the license.



That is a smart business decision to handle the problems of the GSL.  No one wants to spend an entire con hearing complainsts for customer, so that was an excellent marketing plan.



> Q) Is the GSL going to have significant changes?
> 
> A) We hope so. If the changes we recommended go through they will be significant.



As you stated you hope so, but you really don't know if it will at this time.  So right now, anything good or bad is possible.



> Q) Am I going to like the changes?
> 
> A) I think many people will be happy. It probably won't please everyone but if the changes we recommended go through the license we appeal to a lot more people.



I for one can't wait to see the changes but I wish you might have done this earlier with the first release of the GSL.  It could have saved you a lot of time, money and embarresment to your company.



> Q) Why should we trust you?
> 
> A) You probably shouldn't. As the saying goes "seeing is believing" but know that our intentions are to make the license more user friendly. The proof of our efforts will be in the final output so I would hope for the best but maintain a certain level of skepticism.



I will not make a comment on this until I see and review the revised GSL.



> Q) Is Clark Peterson a payed shill or something?
> 
> A) No, but we value Clark's insight and opinion and want to see publishers like Necromancer make 4th edition compatible supplements.



Clark is a business man making the best business releationship he can. SO I hope out no matter what happens it works out well for him.



> Q) Is this going to take 6 months (or longer) to release like the last time?
> 
> A) I sure hope not. Our legal team has told us they will work on it next week but we are not committing to a time line as those things often shift.



But in reality you don't know and that is understandable.  But to me it seems if you had waited to do all this BEFORE releasing the GSL you would not have to go back and change it.  The business model of "Ready, Shoot, Aim" instead of "Ready, Aim, Shoot" would have saved WOTC from all this that is going on.


----------



## HalWhitewyrm (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks for the reply, Scott. Personally, I am excited that the very first change to the GSL will be for the betterment of the situation, so I'm optimistic (cautiously, yes, but optimistic).


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> Please allow me to retort..
> 
> 
> That is a smart business decision to handle the problems of the GSL.  No one wants to spend an entire con hearing complainsts for customer, so that was an excellent marketing plan.




Thanks, I think so too.




> As you stated you hope so, but you really don't know if it will at this time.  So right now, anything good or bad is possible.



I can assure you it can't get worse so the options seem to be neutral and positive.




> I for one can't wait to see the changes but I wish you might have done this earlier with the first release of the GSL.  It could have saved you a lot of time, money and embarresment to your company.



Sure, who likes to do work twice? but, it is was it is, so until they make that time machine I'll just keep on truckin'.




> I will not make a comment on this until I see and review the revised GSL.



Good policy



> Clark is a business man making the best business releationship he can. SO I hope out no matter what happens it works out well for him.



and a nice guy




> But in reality you don't know and that is understandable.  But to me it seems if you had waited to do all this BEFORE releasing the GSL you would not have to go back and change it.  The business model of "Ready, Shoot, Aim" instead of "Ready, Aim, Shoot" would have saved WOTC from all this that is going on.



It's easy to arm chair quarterback the game too. Wanna trade jobs for the day? It's one thing to run your own company where you are the boss and make all the decisions. It's another when you have multiple stake holders and decision makers to answer too. Being "a wheel in the cog" and being "the wheel "each have their own set of unique challenges.  You are entitled to your opinion and I don't necessarily disagree with you but as they say "easier said than done".


----------



## GMSkarka (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks for the candor, Scott.

I'd *love* to hear what your and Linnae's recommended changes are, but I expect that's probably a big no-no as far as Legal is concerned.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Wanna trade jobs for the day?



Yes please! I would be delighted to spend a day working at WotC just for the experience. Where do I sign up?


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> The business model of "Ready, Shoot, Aim" instead of "Ready, Aim, Shoot" would have saved WOTC from all this that is going on.




Because noone has ever done "Ready, Aim, Shoot, Miss, Aim Again, Shoot Again" before? Everyone gets it perfect the first time?


----------



## lmpjr007 (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> It's easy to arm chair quarterback the game too. Wanna trade jobs for the day?



SURE!!!  I would love to!  I could NEVER make the error/mistake you did with the release GSL and still be in business.  The PDF business is not that big or forgving.  A margin for a PDF publisher is a whole lot slimmer than a major corporation with millions that they can spend to make bad business desicions and then change their mind.  I am sure the money you spend to repeair the GSL with your lawyers is SEVERAL more than what LPJ Design makes in a year.



> It's one thing to run your own company where you are the boss and make all the decisions. It's another when you have multiple stake holders and decision makers to answer too. Being a wheel in the cog and being the wheel each have their own set of unique challenges.  You are entitled to your opinion and I don't necessarily disagree with you but as they say "easier said than done".



I agree it is a different world.  But I am sure unlike you, every dollar I spend I think it over several time more then you do, because ITS MY MONEY.  Your spending Hasbro's money and I am sure when you assign out freelance work, you are not think that this is money you could be spending on lights, new computers or moving to a larget business location.  Bu I am.  Every cent that goes in and out of this company is my responsibility.  That is the real difference here.  I am commited.

Think of it like ham and eggs.  The chicken was involved, but the pig was commited.  The pig had to give it all.  

But, like I siad.  I hope this does work it self out.  One way or the other.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 12, 2008)

Duplicate post snipped.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> I agree it is a different world. But I am sure unlike you, every dollar I spend I think it over several time more then you do, because ITS MY MONEY. Your spending Hasbro's money and I am sure when you assign out freelance work, you are not think that this is money you could be spending on lights, new computers or moving to a larget business location. Bu I am. Every cent that goes in and out of this company is my responsibility. That is the real difference here. I am commited.



That's not fair, though. If Scott messes up, it can mean he loses his job, his source of income.

And as he said, you have the advantage of control. You get to decide where each dollar gets spent in your business. He does not. He has to do the best with what he is given. Blaming him for how WotC spends their money is not fair, since he has (at best) very limited control over it.


----------



## williamhm (Aug 12, 2008)

Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?  Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off.  I mean they are using what WOTC did, doing minimal work of their own and publishing it as their product.  Frankly any OGL that limited that would be welcome.  Towards the end of 3e their were way too many products that were simply completle rip offs of what WOTC put out, complete with same class list, same race list and only the most superficial of diffrences.

I realize that people want to make money, but Id rather see 3rd party publishers publishing their own truly unique games with their own mechanics then see a ton of dnd rip offs.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Because noone has ever done "Ready, Aim, Shoot, Miss, Aim Again, Shoot Again" before? Everyone gets it perfect the first time?




The "Aim" portion of Louis' analogy can be interpreted as "Solicit feedback from your intended partners."

Thus, "Ready, Shoot, Aim" means, "Prepare the GSL, release the GSL, see how it goes over..."

And quite frankly if they're doing it behind closed doors again, they're not really Aiming. They're just shooting blindly over and over, and we're all hoping they eventually hit the target.

It's markedly different from how the OGL was developed (Ready, Aim, Shoot)-- as Clark has bemoaned several times.


----------



## Grimstaff (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I find this comment interesting. How exactly is it poor reasoning and logic that would lead me to the possibilities I posted? They are perfectly logical conclusions, and I suspect they carry with them more than just a bit of truth.





We all get that you think WotC is the Heart of Evil. No need to keep bashing us over the head with it....


----------



## Atavar (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> ...I am commited....




You just lost a customer.  At least you can console yourself with the fact that you had total control over the attitude that lead to that outcome, and it didn't even cost you one red cent.

Atavar


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> But I am sure unlike you, every dollar I spend I think it over several time more then you do...





You are making major assumptions about the person you are talking to, and stating them as objective truth.  This is rude.  Please don't continue in this manner.

In general, don't make the discussion personal.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 12, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:


> SURE!!!  I would love to!  I could NEVER make the error/mistake you did with the release GSL and still be in business.  The PDF business is not that big or forgving.  A margin for a PDF publisher is a whole lot slimmer than a major corporation with millions that they can spend to make bad business desicions and then change their mind.  I am sure the money you spend to repeair the GSL with your lawyers is SEVERAL more than what LPJ Design makes in a year.




Oh, puh-lease. You're lambasting Scott for making decisions _he didn't make_, and claiming that you'd have automatically done better in his shoes. It comes across as nonsensical at best, and horrifically arrogant at worst.

When you're part of a larger company, you do what the people above you tell you to do. Period. You can discuss, argue, persuade, and cajole--or you can quit--but at the end of the day, those are your only real options. Telling Scott that you'd "certainly" have done better in his position, without taking into account that neither he nor the hypothetical you were sitting at the wheel, is ludicrous.

Skepticism is fine, and even warranted, but let's not be goofy about it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 12, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> We all get that you think WotC is the Heart of Evil. No need to keep bashing us over the head with it....




What? You have me all wrong. I don't think they're the heart of evil; far from it. They're more like the appendix or gall bladder of evil.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Aug 12, 2008)

The principle behind "Ready, Shoot, Aim" is that without that first shot, you have no basis to work from. You do not "know the recoil" of the weapon or the margin error. So to ensure better hits and NOT get stuck inside a "Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim -loop" where you continously stretch out (as the GSL was delayed 6 months), you fire off after making sure you got the basics down (the Ready part).

A good idea for this is how the OGL was developed - WotC had an idea, released it to the OGL mailing list, did some revisions over time and included the concept of Product Identity. The GSL was very much the opposite.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Q) Is this going to take 6 months (or longer) to release like the last time?
> 
> A) I sure hope not. Our legal team has told us they will work on it next week but we are not committing to a time line as those things often shift.



Let me emphasize that we cannot commit to a time line. Six months again? No way! But two days? No way that'll happen either. 

I've already drafted the official news blurb for the release. I've also finished the FAQ, so you know we're confident that our proposal will be successful.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Because noone has ever done "Ready, Aim, Shoot, Miss, Aim Again, Shoot Again" before? Everyone gets it perfect the first time?




No, but it can be a lot easier to get it right -- or less wrong -- if you listen to the people telling you "Hey, you know, the target's OVER THERE."

Insert: Dead horse about the public development of the OGL vs. the private development of the GSL.

I greatly appreciate, support, and applaud the willingness of WOTC to go back to the mat on this, and especially the undoubtedly strong, personal, effort Scott and Linae have made to get a GSL in the first place and then get it looked at when the reaction was, shall we say, less than positive. I just wish this second go-round wasn't *necessary* and am quite convinced it didn't need to be.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Aug 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Oh, puh-lease. You're lambasting Scott for making decisions _he didn't make_, and claiming that you'd have automatically done better in his shoes. It comes across as nonsensical at best, and horrifically arrogant at worst.



Personally I don't know what I would have done if I was in Scott's shoes.  Maybe he did the right thing.  Maybe he didn't.  No one knows and never will. But, I have to deal with the result of those actions like any other 3PP.  What you forget is LPJ Design is the "mouse" sleeping next to the "elephant" of WOTC.  Due to WOTC power and influence, that could easily but LPJ Design out of business completely by accident by a change in the market. The original GSL is a good example of that.  

I have no malice toward Scott, we have never met.  I know what it is like to work in a HUGE corporate environement.  I wish this whole GSL had taken a different "road".  But it didn't and I as a 3PP I have to deal with that.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Q) Is the GSL going to have significant changes?
> 
> A) We hope so. If the changes we recommended go through they will be significant.




*Sigh* This explains alot.  As someone that use to work for a large corporate entity owned by an even larger corporate entity, I feel your pain.  I know what its like to ask for a budget with plenty of inflated extras in the hopes that you get the core stuff you really want and end up only getting the inflated extras.  

I hope you get everything you ask for.  



Scott_Rouse said:


> Q) Why should we trust you?
> 
> A) You probably shouldn't. As the saying goes "seeing is believing" but know that our intentions are to make the license more user friendly. The proof of our efforts will be in the final output so I would hope for the best but maintain a certain level of skepticism.




I hope this sentiment is shared by many (if not everyone) in the gaming community.  Scott, I trust you.  AFAIC, having clark and everyone at Paizo that ever worked with you vouch for you is reason enough to trust you.  But everything I have ever heard about you suggests that you are first and foremost a gamer with D&D's best interests at heart (whether I agree or not).  

I trust Lidda.  I trust just about everyone (if not everyone) on the R&D team.  

However, I have lost confidence in those that sign the paychecks of everyone above.  

I'm sure you are in a tough position.  I hope no one here makes it any harder then it has to.  Including me.  I'm sorry if I have.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?  Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off.



Yes, you are.


----------



## ConanMK (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I'll chime in with a few things.
> 
> Q) Is the timing of this announcement in any way related to GenCon happening later this week?
> 
> ...




I just wanted to say THANK YOU to Scott and Linae for their hard work on this and thie continued dedication to open gaming and a GSL that appeals to 3rd party publishers. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll be as supportive as I can.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?  Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off.  I mean they are using what WOTC did, doing minimal work of their own and publishing it as their product.  Frankly any OGL that limited that would be welcome.  Towards the end of 3e their were way too many products that were simply completle rip offs of what WOTC put out, complete with same class list, same race list and only the most superficial of diffrences.
> 
> I realize that people want to make money, but Id rather see 3rd party publishers publishing their own truly unique games with their own mechanics then see a ton of dnd rip offs.
> 
> Just my thoughts.




I am not with you.

I play D&D and I am glad 3pp can and did make OGL D&D variants. My D&D games have gained a lot from the D&D variants. I find it easier to use stuff from D&D variants in my D&D games than from truly unique games with their own mechanics.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?



Doesn't matter, the OGL says "You can use any version of this document."


> Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off.  I mean they are using what WOTC did, doing minimal work of their own and publishing it as their product.




Boy, if only someone had thought that might be possible back when the OGL was first released, and asked Wizards if this would be acceptable or permissable. It would be a common question, possibly even frequently asked, so maybe WOTC would put the question, and the answer to it, in some sort of list of such questions. Hmmm...



			
				The WOTC SRD FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?
> 
> A: Sure.
> 
> ...






> I realize that people want to make money, but Id rather see 3rd party publishers publishing their own truly unique games with their own mechanics then see a ton of dnd rip offs.




Have you, uhm, read ANYTHING about the OGL, why it was created, and what it was intended to do? The proliferation of incompatible game systems was seen as a major reason for the shrinking of the game market; the OGL and SRD were written *precisely for the purpose* of letting -- encouraging -- other companies develop games "compatible with" D&D, of making the D20 system the standard for all but fringe games. This isn't speculation, rumor, or innuendo -- it's what Ryan Dancey said in public, many times, and it's all over the web for anyone who bothers to look.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?




Assuming that a) others understand  the difference between the OGL and d20STL and b) what they were each designed for, the answer is yes.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 12, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Boy, if only someone had thought that might be possible back when the OGL was first released, and asked Wizards if this would be acceptable or permissable.




He wasn't talking about WotC's view or response to it, he was talking about his own view, based on preferences. He, like me, is pissed off when he purchases a book to find that 75% of it's page count is dedicated to a *system we already own or could download from the SRD site*. Yes, it's permissible and acceptable, but it's a cheap and lazy way to artificially inflate the cover price by reprinting something *verbatim* to inflate the page count.

Mutants & Masterminds? Good, because most of the content is wholly original.

World of Warcraft RPG? Bad, because most of the content is just a verbatim reprint of the SRD.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 12, 2008)

This is great. I can't wait for Paizo to pump out some 4e material (I hope they do), as I loved their AP's for 3.5e.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 12, 2008)

I have hopes that this change will make at least _some _ of the people/publishers happy and we can have an assortment of product for the various editions that will be the talk of the forums rather than the GSL.

That said, I find myself wondering about all the talk of sales and trying to prove that they are low, or lower than expected, or whatever is trying to be proved. What, exactly, is the point of all that? Is there the thought that, despite countless dollars in sales and R&D and advertising that WOTC will say "Oh well, that didn't work, shucks we will go back to 3.5?" The ship has sailed. 4E, for good or ill, is where D&D is going now. I, for one, don't wish poor sales for WOTC anymore than I wish them for *any* of the game publishers; we are all poorer when one of our own goes down, no matter how big or small. 

Dislike the wording of the GSL or some of the changes for 4E, sure, but how about we put down the pitchforks and torches and stop this crusade?


----------



## Henrix (Aug 12, 2008)

I just want to say thank you, to Linae, The Rouse and Orcus! (And anyone else who's worked on making this happen.)


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks for the continued communication, Scott and Linae.  I hope the next iteration of the GSL is a win-win outcome.
-blarg


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 12, 2008)

My group and I are non-adapters of 4E; that said, I know other groups, some of whom have adapted, some of whom have not.

Of those who DIDN'T adapt, many of the players have attributed these to negative views of WotC.  (Some are still sore over the Dungeon/Dragon situation, the lack of 3PP support, and more than a few over the failed launch of the DDI gametable, amopngst other issues.)

That said, I honestly think we all want to see D+D [as a brand] grow and prosper, even if we don't adapt.  And so, I've been eagerly keeping up with news about 4E.

So, I'm pleased that WotC has seemingly listened to it's fans and supporters, and will be loosening the GSL.  I also want to thank the ROuse and Linae for keeping us updated; it can't be easy beng in high-profile, highly-criticized postions, and to do so with such calm and candor is a credit to them and, by extension, to WotC.


----------



## Orcus (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> What? You have me all wrong. I don't think they're the heart of evil; far from it. They're more like the appendix or gall bladder of evil.




That explains why I am such a big Wizards supporter! (though not a paid shill as you now know) -- I had my gall bladder out some years back. It all makes sense ... 

(Just teasing DD, that was funny, the gall bladder of evil)


----------



## Orcus (Aug 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Q) Is Clark Peterson a payed shill or something?
> 
> A) No, but we value Clark's insight and opinion and want to see publishers like Necromancer make 4th edition compatible supplements.




Thanks for covering for me, Scott. [nudge, nudge, wink, wink; you're still sending that check, right? Right?]


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 12, 2008)

ShadowDenizen said:


> That said, I honestly think we all want to see D+D [as a brand] grow and prosper, even if we don't adapt.  And so, I've been eagerly keeping up with news about 4E.




I havent adapted. I was a fairly regular supporter of WOTC and TSR before that. 

At this point I really don't see how if WOTC stopped producing D&D material how it effects me in the least. My LGS may go away? I'll miss it but I'll get over it. I'll get what materials I need directly from the companies that I tend to support. There wont be any "official" D&D stuff anymore? As of right now there are alot of people out there who are playing RPG's who are NOT playing "Official" D&D. Even guys like me who are using 3.5 / Pathfinder Hybrids arent using "Official" D&D stuff. 

I think 4E is a well designed game, there are things that I liked so much that I've adopted them for my 3.5 game. But if WOTC got wiped off the face of the earth I think that the world, the RPG world would keep moving. Nature abhors a vacuum.


----------



## Urizen (Aug 12, 2008)

This is some pretty interesting news, to be sure.

I for one would like to see a more user friendly system reference document. It doesn't have to be as user friendly as the 3.0 SRD, but, dang there's alot of room for improvement.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Aug 12, 2008)

Orcus said:


> I had my gall bladder out some years back. It all makes sense ...
> 
> (Just teasing DD, that was funny, the gall bladder of evil)




Me too. And I did chuckle at the gall bladder bon mot.


----------



## williamhm (Aug 12, 2008)

I just hope WOTC is still able to maintain control of their product, as anside if I want to play dnd I want to play dnd, not a clone or rip off, if I want to play a different rpg I do not want that rpg to be using dnd mechanics.  

Also I really do not want companies to be able to mooch off of WOTC without doing a significant amount of work themselves.  

Maybe its because Im not a 3rd party publisher, but can someone tell me whats wrong with the current one?  I mean if you are going to publish a product for use with WOTC products shouldnt you be willing to follow their rules?


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

The Little Raven;4423801Yes said:
			
		

> verbatim[/b] to inflate the page count.
> .




Or, it's a way to keep people from having to lug around multiple books, especially when many small details of the rules are changed to fit a setting.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

racoffin said:


> That said, I find myself wondering about all the talk of sales and trying to prove that they are low, or lower than expected, or whatever is trying to be proved. What, exactly, is the point of all that?
> 
> Dislike the wording of the GSL or some of the changes for 4E, sure, but how about we put down the pitchforks and torches and stop this crusade?




It is remotely possible that some of us aren't on a "crusade" and are trying to figure out why WotC is possibly changing the GSL to be more open.

Logically, even if you don't care about editions, or even D&D, they're going to change it for a reason. With a business, the reason is always money -- the bottom line. This in turn suggests either 4e is successful and they're hoping to make MORE money this way, or 4e is (relatively) unsuccessful and they're hoping to revive the franchise in this manner.

So no pitchforks need be involved to speculate that WotC's revision of the GSL (if it really happens) is motivated by poor sales of 4e, since that is an objectively logical reason for them to be making the GSL more open.

I don't object to 4th edition, because I'm sort of dissatisfied with ALL the editions of D&D at the moment  .... but I certainly entertain the possibility that 4e is 'bombing,' without wishing that to be true.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 12, 2008)

Atavar said:


> You just lost a customer.  At least you can console yourself with the fact that you had total control over the attitude that lead to that outcome, and it didn't even cost you one red cent.
> 
> Atavar




Ditto, this. I might not like the GSL more than anyone else, but I can refuse to buy product from a professional that appears to lose his temper on a public forum, lombasting WotC reps. that have plenty of better things to do with their time.

Edit: The above is unclear. I'm grumpy about how LPJ is treating the folks from WotC. 

And for what it is worth, there were several "what do you guys think about this" meetings between Wizards and the 3pps over the GSL. They solicited input on a number of occasions.

Am I the only one that was alive when TSR ruled the roost and the thought of an open license was alien?


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> Maybe its because Im not a 3rd party publisher, but can someone tell me whats wrong with the current one? I mean if you are going to publish a product for use with WOTC products shouldnt you be willing to follow their rules?




Well, the current one can be changed or revoked at any time. Furthermore, whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).

So in other words, if you make up your own detailed Squidgeworld RPG and use the GSL to include 4th edition rules, and WotC later revokes the license, you cannot print Squidgeworld with a different ruleset. You have to ditch Squidgeworld totally and start all over, and you have to destroy all existing stock as well. 

There's also a clause which allows WotC to sue you over violations of a contract that can be changed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTIFYING ANYONE, and which states that the company being sued has to pay WotC's legal costs, even if WotC loses.

It's like renting a store. Sure, the owner of the building can write up a contract saying "We can decide to change the color of the paint inside the store at any time without notifying you. If we find that you haven't repainted the store to match the new color, we are legally entitled to sue you for possession of your house and your last name."  But that doesn't make it a particularly fair contract, or one that it's wise to sign.

Basically, the current GSL is a very, very, very risky contract to sign, because you're giving WotC almost total arbitrary power over your company and products.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks Guys.

I was a little hesitant about signing up the GSL, but I've had some stuff that I really want to publish for 4e. Hopefully the revision will quell most of the fears.


----------



## Vayden (Aug 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Ditto, this. I might not like the GSL more than anyone else, but I can refuse to buy product from a professional that appears to lose his temper on a public forum, lombasting WotC reps. that have plenty of better things to do with their time.




Ditto. Prior to 4e, the only 3pp products I had ever purchased were Iron Heroes and Ptolus from Malhavoc. Since the announcement of 4e, I've spent a lot of time on EN World looking for news and discussion. Based only on the impressions Ari and Clark have given from their behavior on the forums (sense of humor, rationality, enthusiasm about the same elements of role-playing/game design I enjoy) I am definitely going to pick up Ari's APG when it's released, as well as the first 4e product Necromancer Games puts out if they do end up going 4e. I'm sure most of the 3pp know this already, but the way you come across on the boards is part of getting that crucial first sale, after which the quality of your product can speak for itself. For what it's worth, I've also been generally favorably impressed by Paizo's people when I've seen them on here - if they ever go 4e, I'll be checking out their stuff too. 

(Looking forward to my first purchases of 4e 3pp products )


----------



## Grimstaff (Aug 12, 2008)

Atavar said:


> You just lost a customer. At least you can console yourself with the fact that you had total control over the attitude that lead to that outcome, and it didn't even cost you one red cent.
> 
> Atavar




I agree.

Professionalism is obviously not on the "total control over" plate in this case...


----------



## Grimstaff (Aug 12, 2008)

I'd like to chime in with Thanks to Scott and Linae for their efforts at making the GSL friendlier, and for braving the lion's den here at ENWorld to discuss it! 

Imo, you've got a great new edition, and I'm looking forward to anything Necro, and other 3PPs still on the fence, can add to it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 12, 2008)

williamhm said:


> I just hope WOTC is still able to maintain control of their product, as anside if I want to play dnd I want to play dnd, not a clone or rip off, if I want to play a different rpg I do not want that rpg to be using dnd mechanics.




And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules? 



> Also I really do not want companies to be able to mooch off of WOTC without doing a significant amount of work themselves.




The Pathfinder alpha 3 is 162 pages. All of that material is new or modified from the original SRD and you have to use it with the PHB to play the game. The beta will be more complete, but the point is that the original PHB is less than twice the amount of material Paizo put out themselves.

Further, why is it a problem for another company to use the SRD for their products when making new and compatible games with the D&D rules was the express intent of the OGL? I'm legitimately curious how this is a bad thing for you personally.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> Well, the current one can be changed or revoked at any time. Furthermore, whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).
> 
> So in other words, if you make up your own detailed Squidgeworld RPG and use the GSL to include 4th edition rules, and WotC later revokes the license, you cannot print Squidgeworld with a different ruleset. You have to ditch Squidgeworld totally and start all over, and you have to destroy all existing stock as well.




A nitpick, but it says nothing about any other rules system. It denies further use of the OGL for that product, but not EVERY other rules system uses the OGL. Again I know it's a nitpick, but it's inacurate to say it the way you did.

Also I know that the license can be updated to include other licenses on the "banned list" for a future version, but that's technically another issue.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 12, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules?




This sort of touches on why I'm a bit anxious about the new version of the GSL. If it's friendlier to third-parties, it could hurt the existing 3.5 community.

I know that sounds rather awful (and quite possibly selfish), but when the current GSL debuted, it made a lot of companies who would have produced 4E materials balk, and in some cases kept them in the 3.5 camp. Needless to say, for those of us who had no interest in switching editions, this was a great thing, as it kept some of our favorite companies producing the materials we wanted to see. However, solidarity fades away if there's a lack of opposition, and I'm worried that if the new GSL is friendlier, those companies will drop their 3.5 support for 4E. I don't want _Kobold Quarterly_ to become a 4E publication. I don't want Paizo to let _Pathfinder_ go in favor of a new 4E venture (though in all honesty that seems unlikely now anyway). I want third-parties to continue producing 3.5 materials, rather than 4E materials - but without a GSL that heavily penalizes them for it, they may now go ahead with the 4E plans they originally had.

Of course, I'm aware that that's a particularly negative way of looking at it. It might be that the new GSL will eliminate the "no-OGL" clause for product lines, meaning that companies might produce 3.5 AND 4E materials, which would actually help the 3.5 community more than it would have otherwise. However, the pessimist in me says that most companies don't want to put out multiple versions of products anyway, and we'll still see less 3.5 material if the GSL allows for both types of products.

I guess we'll see how it turns out.


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 12, 2008)

Orcus said:


> GVD-
> 
> Man, you are so negative.
> 
> ...





i guess that was the subject of earlier debates---what it was supposed to be doing.  somke speculated that there were more nefarious motives to it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> Well, the current one can be changed or revoked at any time. Furthermore, whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).
> 
> So in other words, if you make up your own detailed Squidgeworld RPG and use the GSL to include 4th edition rules, and WotC later revokes the license, you cannot print Squidgeworld with a different ruleset. You have to ditch Squidgeworld totally and start all over, and you have to destroy all existing stock as well.



It has been some time since I read the GSL, but my understanding is that there is only one limitation with your IP under the GSL: Don't use it with the OGL. If you make up your own Squidgeworld 2d10+2d6 game system, fine. If you want to make a Shadowrun adaptation for it, fine. Publish either under the OGL: BAD! 

I think that might be the reason why Redbrick has announced it 4E/GSL Earthdawn game - they know they would never use the OGL for that game - either create a new game system whole cloth, the original Earthdawn system (with or without revision), or 4E.  They don't need the OGL for any of these scenarios.

There are other drawbacks, of course - the problem with having to update to a new edition, no grace periods or prior warnings to it, it makes life as a publisher a big hassle and can seriously impact sales. The d20 System License users got a warning that the license would run out and could still sell off existing stock, and rebrand all d20 System products (mostly the PDFs, I suppose) as OGL. But the GLS has no such "failsafes"... 

Ah well, others probably understand the intracities of the GSL as it is now better then me...


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 12, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> It seems to me that without being good, bad, or whatever, WotC chooses its actions as a company, and that therefore, every major decision is made with one goal in mind: to make more money.
> 
> Scott Rouse may be a champion for the 'gamer community' -- or he may be the 'good cop' who is the friendly, understanding, approachable person who makes the gamers feel better about the company. Regardless, he's got to pay his bills, also -- he *needs *his salary -- so he's not going to  be standing there, pawing the ground in steely-eyed defiance, cowing the management into doing what's 'best for the gaming community.' The utmost he's going to do is find a way to *persuade* them that they'll make more money with a more open GSL.
> 
> ...





totally agreed.  no one in business does this sort of thing from the goodness of their hearts.  there is a profit motive involved.  accountability is the bottom line.  in fact, if a company did something that was not in its financial best interests, it could be sued by its shareholders.

also, keep in mind the pinto cases from the 70's.  ford knew that if a pinto was hit in just the right way they would blow up and likely kill or seriously injure the people inside.  they put it out anyhow, because they thought that the cost of the suits would be less than the costs of fixing all the cars.  decisions are made like that every day.


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?
> 
> (I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)





yes. absolutely.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> He wasn't talking about WotC's view or response to it, he was talking about his own view, based on preferences. He, like me, is pissed off when he purchases a book to find that 75% of it's page count is dedicated to a *system we already own or could download from the SRD site*. Yes, it's permissible and acceptable, but it's a cheap and lazy way to artificially inflate the cover price by reprinting something *verbatim* to inflate the page count.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds? Good, because most of the content is wholly original.
> 
> World of Warcraft RPG? Bad, because most of the content is just a verbatim reprint of the SRD.




You bought the $40.00 400 page World of Warcraft RPG book not knowing it was intended to be a complete d20 game using a lot of srd material for game mechanics similar to WotC's d20 Wheel of Time, D20 Call of Cthulhu, d20 Star Wars, and d20 Modern? 

Were you expecting it to be a World of Warcraft Campaign Setting instead?


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 12, 2008)

radferth said:


> My theory (which I can't write enough of) is that WotC wanted to structure to GSL so 3pps could publish modules, but not D&D variants (they don't wand someone to make to 4th edition version of T20).  I don't think they intended the OGL to allow them, but no one was thinking about them at the time.  They made the GSL so that it would not allow variant, and so they could close any other loopholes at will.  They ended up with a license so restrictive lots of folks would not even publish adventured for it.  We'll now get to see what they can come up with to allow modules, not variants, and that won't scare off 3pps entirely.





another theory is that this was a planned delay.  in other words they couldn't finalize a more open gsl when they needed to, the pressure from 3pp's was hot and heavy, and they put out something to appease the masses.  buying themselves time to get out the gsl they envisioned but didn't have time to do a few months ago.  not that wotc is ever late on delivery of anything...

this way they look like a hero at gencon and a consumer friendly company.  one that listens to the people.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 12, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> another theory is that this was a planned delay.  in other words they couldn't finalize a more open gsl when they needed to, the pressure from 3pp's was hot and heavy, and they put out something to appease the masses.  buying themselves time to get out the gsl they envisioned but didn't have time to do a few months ago.  not that wotc is ever late on delivery of anything...
> 
> this way they look like a hero at gencon and a consumer friendly company.  one that listens to the people.




Busted.

you forget the inner office haha moment when the Rouse snaps after receiving his hundredth "way to go stupid"   email about the GSL.


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 13, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> This sort of touches on why I'm a bit anxious about the new version of the GSL. If it's friendlier to third-parties, it could hurt the existing 3.5 community.
> 
> I know that sounds rather awful (and quite possibly selfish), but when the current GSL debuted, it made a lot of companies who would have produced 4E materials balk, and in some cases kept them in the 3.5 camp. Needless to say, for those of us who had no interest in switching editions, this was a great thing, as it kept some of our favorite companies producing the materials we wanted to see. However, solidarity fades away if there's a lack of opposition, and I'm worried that if the new GSL is friendlier, those companies will drop their 3.5 support for 4E.




i look ast it differently.  in spite of my cynicism, and dislike of 4e, i hope that 4e thrives and that the gsl is open enuf that all the 3pp's sign up for it.  

right now the consumer bases are split in 2 groups, 4e and "other", with "other" being mostly 3e, 3.5, or paizo. before it was one group.  that means for anyone producing for just one group, as the current gsl makes people do, the 3pp's (and wotc) lose half of their former income.  

if the gsl is very open, almost an ogl of sorts, 3pp's will then be able to make more money off of both groups, thus enabling them a better chance of staying in business.  if they stay in business, we all get more and better stuff, for all versions of the game.

so though i am cynical of the reasons, i am appreciative of the effort, and hopeful of the outcome.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> This sort of touches on why I'm a bit anxious about the new version of the GSL. If it's friendlier to third-parties, it could hurt the existing 3.5 community.
> 
> I know that sounds rather awful (and quite possibly selfish), but when the current GSL debuted, it made a lot of companies who would have produced 4E materials balk, and in some cases kept them in the 3.5 camp. Needless to say, for those of us who had no interest in switching editions, this was a great thing, as it kept some of our favorite companies producing the materials we wanted to see. However, solidarity fades away if there's a lack of opposition, and I'm worried that if the new GSL is friendlier, those companies will drop their 3.5 support for 4E. I don't want _Kobold Quarterly_ to become a 4E publication. I don't want Paizo to let _Pathfinder_ go in favor of a new 4E venture (though in all honesty that seems unlikely now anyway). I want third-parties to continue producing 3.5 materials, rather than 4E materials - but without a GSL that heavily penalizes them for it, they may now go ahead with the 4E plans they originally had.
> 
> ...




This came up on the Paizo messageboards today, as a matter of fact.



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Will a GSL that is friendly to 3pps make Paizo less likely to put resources into an OGL product like the Pathfinder RPG, the various APs and other OGL materials and instead focus on 4e if that is a viable option?






			
				Vic Wertz said:
			
		

> We hope that it affects us by clearing up some of the uncertainty surrounding Necromancer Games.




Also 



			
				Vic Wertz said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Keep in mind that we made the choices we made before we even saw the GSL.




In other words it doesn't sound like that's likely, even if 4E were OGL. Since the Paizo boards have been picking up about 2 noobs per day because they prefer the 3.5 rules, it's possible that Pathfinder is doing as well as they say it is, and that they're picking up a lot of business from the disaffected 3.5 players. In other words, why would they want to change?

Now if making the GSL friendlier gets Necromancer Games back to putting out new material, I think we can all agree that that's only a good thing.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 13, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Busted.
> 
> you forget the inner office haha moment when the Rouse snaps after receiving his hundredth "way to go stupid"   email about the GSL.




pssst... if you guys are covered under Hasbro's medical plan, I work for the company that handles your mental benefits... so if you need to talk... we've got you covered...  hehe


----------



## joethelawyer (Aug 13, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Busted.
> 
> you forget the inner office haha moment when the Rouse snaps after receiving his hundredth "way to go stupid"   email about the GSL.





hehe.  well, i never said you made the decision.  nor that the decision was a smart one in the first place.  but i have experienced much brain-dead corporate-non-think disguised as brilliant compromise solutions.  

as we all know, feces flows downhill.  i am sure the powers that be over there smell prettier than you do these days.   

i am hopeful this thing works out and that everyone makes a lot of money and that all 3pp's can feel free to publish for whatever systems they want to without fear of negative financial reprecussions.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Now if making the GSL friendlier gets Necromancer Games back to putting out new material, I think we can all agree that that's only a good thing.



No offense to Clark and Necromancer games, but:

Necromancer's Style and Paizo's Style are two different animals. 

I never played 1e. I barely tasted 2e. I've looked at the old modules, and they aren't appealing to me. So, I have less a need for "1e style". Not knocking those that like it, but it just doesn't do anything for me.

Paizo's style is much more different. The adventures are much more rich in terms of background and roleplaying interaction. And they've got some serious horror chops, what with Nick Logue writing adventures. 

I'd be more likely to pick up a 4e Paizo product than a 4e Necromancer product, because I have no nostalgia needing to be facilitated.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 13, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Busted.
> 
> you forget the inner office haha moment when the Rouse snaps after receiving his hundredth "way to go stupid"   email about the GSL.




I'd pay to see a video of that moment.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 13, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking, this is all about Necromancer Games. Green Ronin was moving away from D&D long before 4e. I don't see Paizo dropping their Pathfinder rpg though maybe they will publish 4e compatible modules if the GSL changes.





Erik has already said on the paizo boards it would have been nice to hear this a year ago, and its still full steam ahead with Pathfinder RPG.

But I dont think, depending on the clauses changed, you can count them out of doing 4e products if eth new GSL lets them do say....adventures. Game Mastery Modules changed names to Pathfinder modules after all...to be part of teh pathfinder line. They could still do something, depending.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 13, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> yes. absolutely.



Prove it.

And show your work.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 13, 2008)

Lizard said:


> I'd pay to see a video of that moment.



Me too. But only if he's wearing the puffy shirt.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Me too. But only if he's wearing the puffy shirt.




Goodness gracious, I've got the vapors.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Aug 13, 2008)

So a more "user-friendly" GSL is...

...good for 4E -- more 3PP support for 4E means more options for 4Eers; those loyal to a particular 3PP will be more likely to give 4E a chance;

...bad for 3.5E -- more 3PP creative effort will be put into 4E and, thus, probably less 3PP creative effort will be put into 3.5;

...mixed for PF -- with less 3PP support for 3.5 , some 3.5ers will drift towards PF (or 4E); those loyal to a particular 3PP that might otherwise support 3.5/PF but is now supporting 4E will be more likely to give 4E a chance.

Approximately right?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2008)

Flatus Maximus said:


> So a more "user-friendly" GSL is...
> 
> ...good for 4E -- more 3PP support for 4E means more options for 4Eers; those loyal to a particular 3PP will be more likely to give 4E a chance;
> 
> ...




I don't really buy that. I think it's clear that there's still a market for 3.5, and it's wide open for the taking now that WotC isn't making anymore of it. A more relaxed GSL will potentially make it easier for publishers to cater to both. A fairly huge number is already drifting towards PF (based on observation, not the company's word that they're doing well alone). If anything, Paizo might be able to start up a line of 4E books in addition to their PF RPG books, but they sound reluctant, even if all of their criteria for the GSL are met.

One thing to consider with them is that they have an ongoing publication schedule that exists regardless of edition change. Making a huge change from one edition to another can be very costly, especially if there is a gap between when the GSL potentially ends and the next license (if there is one) comes into effect. This kind of gap doesn't work at all with a monthly publishing schedule, so they're better off sticking to one edition for as long as their products continue to sell.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I don't really buy that. I think it's clear that there's still a market for 3.5, and it's wide open for the taking now that WotC isn't making anymore of it. A more relaxed GSL will potentially make it easier for publishers to cater to both.




Replace "3.5" with any other previous edition and your statements still hold.  I would interpret that to mean that 3.5 is headed towards the bargin bin right along side all previous editions, replete with minimal 3PP support.  Only time will tell?



Darrin Drader said:


> A fairly huge number is already drifting towards PF (based on observation, not the company's word that they're doing well alone). If anything, Paizo might be able to start up a line of 4E books in addition to their PF RPG books, but they sound reluctant, even if all of their criteria for the GSL are met.




Sounds like good/bad news for PF, IMHO.  (Note: PF, not Paizo.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 13, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Don't ever let it be said by anyone again (even those here on ENWorld), that the opinions of gamers on ENWorld and other Forums, and the importance of 3PP's, that they *Do Not Matter*.  The argument that "ENWorld is such a small percentage of WoTC customer base that they do not listen to us", has been undeniably refuted.  Without being to melodramatic, this news has renewed my confidence in WoTC that they believe our opinions are important and that gamers have a level of ownership of this hobby.
> 
> Now, we just have to wait and see what the new GSL says and how 3PP's receive it.  I'm interested in it just to see their tone, and what intentions that may mean for their guidelines on fansites.




I wouldn't jump to conclusions.  I think that the most likely explanation proposed so far is that the lack of 3PP support, and announcements that major 3rd-party players are actually totally out of the game, has probably given more traction to the elements in WotC (read: Linae & The Rouse) who have been pushing for a more sensible GSL.  I know everyone likes to pat themselves on the back, but I imagine that in this--like in most things--it's the money that's talking.  Without 3PP support, 4E loses a lot of legitimacy with the old guard players, and that's probably affecting sales.


----------



## Orius (Aug 13, 2008)

Waldorf said:


> For better or worse, Wotc is starting to resemble TSR more and more.




A revision of the GSL is nowhere near the old T$R cease and desist tactics.  Quite the opposite, IMO.



Wyrmshadows said:


> Any chance that 3pps can create a single product line for both the OGL and the GSL? If so, then I would be more interested.




I have my doubts about that.  That sort of licence would just create the sort of competion WotC/Hasbro doesn't want.



Darrin Drader said:


> There's evidence here and all over the internet that shows that up to 50% of the current player base has no intention of switching to 4E.




Honestly, if internet "evidence" is admissible in court, then it's shouldn't be.  What we find on the internet is a non-representative sample of anecdotal accounts, personal opinions, and just outright jackassery in some cases.  Even though ENWorld is a major community for the 3pp base, I still wouldn't count the random opinion because I have no idea how many lurkers are making up a silent majority.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.




I remember a Usenet post from some years back where someone referred to them as Wizard$ of the £oast.  The response to that was, "WTF is a Loast?" 



Filcher said:


> However many publishers in this thread are bitter about how WotC goes about handling its IP.




I got the impression that the publishers weren't worried about WotC's IP, they were wooried about how the GSL was going to affect _their own_ IP.  I wouldn't say bitter, perhaps a tad paranoid, but not bitter.



Darrin Drader said:


> And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules?




Doesn't sound any different from DMs who continue to run OD&D, BD&D, 1e or 2e.


----------



## mechascorpio (Aug 13, 2008)

Atavar said:


> You just lost a customer. At least you can console yourself with the fact that you had total control over the attitude that lead to that outcome, and it didn't even cost you one red cent.




I'm also totally stunned by the lack of professionalism and, IMO, hypocrisy from some in this thread. They really seem to enjoy putting the screws to "the man", taking this from professional disagreement to a dedication to shame individuals and their employer in public as much as possible.

Fine. I've also made some notes of who has said what, in this thread and others. They won't have my support as a customer, even if they're a contributor for a product of another publisher. You drag the hobby down. It's one thing to be understandably skeptical, but some here are just *over the top*. I bet that neither Scott nor Lidda nor a single employee at WOTC have ever been so rude, in such a personal fashion, to their colleagues in this industry as some here have been to them. 

You should keep in mind that as "indie" (or small company) publishers, writers and designers, you are marketing youselves with every post you make. As far as I'm concerned, some in this thread blundered far more in the past day or so than WOTC has all year. Hope it was worth it to you.

OTOH, others are showing real class under the circumstances. I bet your enthusiasm and professionalism carry through to your products. I've noted that too, and I look forward to purchasing them.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2008)

Orius said:


> A
> Honestly, if internet "evidence" is admissible in court, then it's shouldn't be.  What we find on the internet is a non-representative sample of anecdotal accounts, personal opinions, and just outright jackassery in some cases.  Even though ENWorld is a major community for the 3pp base, I still wouldn't count the random opinion because I have no idea how many lurkers are making up a silent majority.




So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing. 



> Doesn't sound any different from DMs who continue to run OD&D, BD&D, 1e or 2e.




The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.


----------



## Najo (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.





I agree that the OGL was an impressive achievement and a great gift. But the issue it has is:
a) The game is stuck in its evolution 
b) No really money behind it to make it greater than it is. Profits = company support, professional presentation and stronger development of the game engine.

3.x has some great stuff about it. The OGL has some great stuff about it. But, the facts are 3.x has some issues with it too. The math scales wrong, multiclassing is inbalanced, there are dead areas in the game, DMing the game is requires alot of adherence to rules and all of the math links together, making on the fly adjustments difficult. 3.x is too rules heavy.

However you feel about 4.0, there is some real impressive and brave leaps forward in it and the evolution of role playing games. Sure, not everything is 100% perfect, but some of the new ideas within it or the way it handles old ideas in a new way are impressive and something anyone doing a RPG from here forward can learn from.

I hope the GSL gives us everything we want. It would be wonderful for WOTC to continue to share D&D with us. I applaud WOTC for revising their GSL and working with the 3PP as business partners and not as underlings.

I rather see the game I love evolve and become better with age then stay stuck in a system that had as many frustrations as it has shining points.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative?



Maggan has buggered that poll and he didn't even use any lube.  The numbers may be correct for all we know, but since some people will be voting more times than others we can't trust the results.



			
				Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.



The very definition of anecdotal.  In the much smaller circles I'm familiar with acceptance of 4e is MUCH LOWER than 50%. If I go by groups it's a flat zero.  They're all either sticking with 3.5 or C&C, playtesting Pathfinder or trying out one of those other games they've been meaning to try(I think over half have purchased the 4e books though.)  Up here in message board land many people have said they've seen the opposite, or that they've seen what your witnessing or that they're seeing what I'm seeing.  Anecdotal. Just another datapoint.

Since this is a thread on the GSL, I recently wondered if the designers were working under the impression that there would be a generous license and a robust group of third party publishers after the launch.  All the [choke] 'gamist' optimization and paring back on flavor seem much less pernicious on the part of the designers if they though there would be an army of publishers ready to provide these traditional roleplaying elements right out of the gate.



			
				Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.



Agreed.  Actually this could be a great time for the D&D game.  Between C&C, Pathfinder & 4e anybody can have just about any kind of D&D game they want.

Sam


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2008)

Najo said:


> I agree that the OGL was an impressive achievement and a great gift. But the issue it has is:
> a) The game is stuck in its evolution
> b) No really money behind it to make it greater than it is. Profits = company support, professional presentation and stronger development of the game engine.




The evolution and the money is right here: www.paizo.com



> 3.x has some great stuff about it. The OGL has some great stuff about it. But, the facts are 3.x has some issues with it too. The math scales wrong, multiclassing is inbalanced, there are dead areas in the game, DMing the game is requires alot of adherence to rules and all of the math links together, making on the fly adjustments difficult. 3.x is too rules heavy.



I agree that 3.x isn't perfect. No game system is. The biggest problem that I see with it is that the math breaks down at the higher levels. How do you fix it? Even I don't have that answer to that (I have a few ideas, but I don't think very many people would like them). At any rate, this is the biggest area that Paizo has yet to work on, and they have made it a priority for the final version of the Pathfinder rules. I'm really looking forward to what they come up with. Even if they can't fix high level play and maintain backwards compatibility, I'm fairly certain that they will come up with a fix of some sort.

Anyway, getting this thread back on track, it will be good for the industry if the next iteration of the GSL is less restrictive. Despite my current cynicism and general grumpiness with 4E, I want to see it succeed. Failure would mean hard(er) times for the industry and I don't want to see that. Nobody does.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 13, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> Maggan has buggered that poll and he didn't even use any lube.  The numbers may be correct for all we know, but since some people will be voting more times than others we can't trust the results.




I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.

I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results. 

I'm not the only one on these boards who knew about the flaw, and the voting pattern of lots of posts in short time for one side or the other side, ie "surges", was in my mind indications that such rigging could be taking place.

Sure, for all I know, every single one of those votes are legit. But I honestly don't think so, and there were 800+ votes before I "buggered" the poll, so if you trust that there were no problems before my "buggering", then just discount about 50 votes or so.

Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.

/M


----------



## amethal (Aug 13, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.



I could tell you, but grandma wouldn't approve.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 13, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> That's understandable. However, he said he was now even MORE skeptical, as if he was suggesting that the GSL is going to get even more restrictive (despite Linae openly saying it would be "opener"). I can understand being skeptical that these changes are what you're looking for, but to say that you're even more skeptical of the GSL after these changes just seems kinda silly.



I don't know Gareth reasons for being more skeptical but when I don my tinfoiled-hat I am confronted with the boiling frog theory in reverse.

Suppose the first GSL was purposely overly restrictive and expected to be a complete "disaster" so the 3pps would accept the next (new improved) GSL having only a few onerous bits. So unless all the problems with the GSL are removed, my tinfoil hat says to be skeptical of the motivation behind this change of heart.

Taking off the hat, well, I will wait and see before passing judgment. 

However, I don't expect much from the changes since I'm fully in the 4e OGL camp and anything short of that is a disappointment. I lament the diminished state of the art in RPGs since no one can make those killer 3e/4e hybrids that a 4e OGL would allow. (Admittedly, lament may be too strong a word here.)


----------



## Samuel Leming (Aug 13, 2008)

Maggan said:


> I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.
> 
> I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.



It was the right thing to do.  My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.

I had though the main problems with these polls were selection bias and sock puppets.  Just those would leave the polls unreliable, but still useful for entertainment purposes.  At least for seeing trends.  Being able to vote 10 times in less then five minutes leaves this kind of poll open to outright vandalism.  Given the high emotions, number of known idiots on both sides and the advanced age of that poll I wouldn't even try to argue that it's clean.

Anyway, I do think that acceptance of 4e is much lighter than it could have been, but because of these problems that poll can't be used to show that. This is a bunnytrail for this thread anyway.

Sam


----------



## Maggan (Aug 13, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.




Thank you for your clarification! 

/M


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> The evolution and the money is right here: www.paizo.com




No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 13, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).





Scribble said:


> A nitpick, but it says nothing about any other rules system. It denies further use of the OGL for that product, but not EVERY other rules system uses the OGL. Again I know it's a nitpick, but it's inacurate to say it the way you did.



I don't think it's a nitpick. It's a pretty crucial point.

Maybe what Carnivorous Bean has in mind is that you would have to rewrite your product to conform with your GSL obligation not to use any part of the core rulebooks content outside the terms of the licence. In which case you couldn't print _literally_ the same product.

But you could still print substantially the same product, just substituting your own language for the 4e SRD language that you are not permitted to use.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 13, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> I think that the most likely explanation proposed so far is that the lack of 3PP support, and announcements that major 3rd-party players are actually totally out of the game, has probably given more traction to the elements in WotC (read: Linae & The Rouse) who have been pushing for a more sensible GSL.  I know everyone likes to pat themselves on the back, but I imagine that in this--like in most things--it's the money that's talking.  Without 3PP support, 4E loses a lot of legitimacy with the old guard players, and that's probably affecting sales.



The far more likely affect on sales of non-uptake of the GSL by 3PP is not the old guard failing to come along, but rather the failure of the game to enjoy a lot of support (modules, settings etc) all of which increase the saleability and longevity of an RPG.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 13, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.




Time to break out the popcorn, me thinks...


----------



## Umbran (Aug 13, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, that's a ... of a company and game.




Between this, and the sexual reference earlier, I'm going to as folks to _tone down the rhetoric_.  This is not a game of "who can disturb the most people with vehement imagery."


----------



## Mercule (Aug 13, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?



Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 13, 2008)

mechascorpio said:


> I'm also totally stunned by the lack of professionalism and, IMO, hypocrisy from some in this thread. They really seem to enjoy putting the screws to "the man", taking this from professional disagreement to a dedication to shame individuals and their employer in public as much as possible.
> 
> Fine. I've also made some notes of who has said what, in this thread and others. They won't have my support as a customer, even if they're a contributor for a product of another publisher. You drag the hobby down. It's one thing to be understandably skeptical, but some here are just *over the top*. I bet that neither Scott nor Lidda nor a single employee at WOTC have ever been so rude, in such a personal fashion, to their colleagues in this industry as some here have been to them.
> 
> ...




A well written post, echoing my sentiments almost to a tea.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 13, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, that's *snip*



Comeone, Charwoman Gene, don't be so bitter.  Eriks choice of words were... poor, but let's be "better" than that.  It also keeps the mods happy...


----------



## Ourph (Aug 13, 2008)

mechascorpio said:


> I'm also totally stunned by the lack of professionalism and, IMO, hypocrisy from some in this thread. They really seem to enjoy putting the screws to "the man", taking this from professional disagreement to a dedication to shame individuals and their employer in public as much as possible.
> 
> Fine. I've also made some notes of who has said what, in this thread and others. They won't have my support as a customer, even if they're a contributor for a product of another publisher. You drag the hobby down. It's one thing to be understandably skeptical, but some here are just *over the top*. I bet that neither Scott nor Lidda nor a single employee at WOTC have ever been so rude, in such a personal fashion, to their colleagues in this industry as some here have been to them.




I would just like to add my +1 to this sentiment.  When 4e was first announced, I was very skeptical about the changes.  I looked into Pathfinder as an alternative and saw some stuff that I liked.  But the behavior of some of the Paizo fans and contributors both here and at the Paizo boards really soured me to the game and even motivated me to reconsider my stance on 4e - which I eventually ended up buying and liking.  Since I started running a 4e game, at least 3 of my other gaming friends have also changed their minds about 4e and, knowing them, if that hadn't happened they likely would have bought into Pathfinder as well.  I count that as 4 lost Pathfinder sales because people associated with Pathfinder chose the low road.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 13, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative?



900 votes? I'm not even sure that's representative of what ENWOrld thinks, let alone what the players overall think.




> How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.



You know it's anecdotal, and you also already remarked in this thread about dismissing Internet "evidence". (While disregarding amazon ranking and such of course.)

Integrity is whether you're presenting information you know to be flawed as accurate in order to further your goal. Only you can say whether that's true.


----------



## mechascorpio (Aug 13, 2008)

Ourph said:


> I would just like to add my +1 to this sentiment. When 4e was first announced, I was very skeptical about the changes. I looked into Pathfinder as an alternative and saw some stuff that I liked. But the behavior of some of the Paizo fans...




I just want to be clear about my original statement. My sentiment has nothing to do with edition numbers or Paizo or anything other than common courtesy and professionalism. I've yet to look at Pathfinder and haven't really encountered its fans, so my comments weren't motivated by that. I'm simply saying that if I were to see colleagues in my own industry (broadcast video) act like this, I wouldn't see them as very professional, nor think much of their products and publications, nor the companies that chose to work with them.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 13, 2008)

lmpjr007 said:
			
		

> <snip>
> A number of LPJ posts in this thread
> <snip>



Wow... I just pulled three sidetreck adventures OUT of my rpgnow shopping cart.  

You just lost another customer.  And I have spent over $3000 on 3.x PDFs.


----------



## Delta (Aug 13, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> 900 votes? I'm not even sure that's representative of what ENWOrld thinks, let alone what the players overall think.




Whether it's representative or not has almost nothing to do with the number of votes cast.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 13, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wow... I just pulled three sidetreck adventures OUT of my rpgnow shopping cart.
> 
> You just lost another customer.  And I have spent over $3000 on 3.x PDFs.




For what?  Speaking the truth?  Have you hired a lawyer lately?
And who can deny the GSL (as it stands) was a bad business decision?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 13, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I know that sounds rather awful (and quite possibly selfish), but when the current GSL debuted, it made a lot of companies who would have produced 4E materials balk, and in some cases kept them in the 3.5 camp. Needless to say, for those of us who had no interest in switching editions, this was a great thing, as it kept some of our favorite companies producing the materials we wanted to see. However, solidarity fades away if there's a lack of opposition, and I'm worried that if the new GSL is friendlier, those companies will drop their 3.5 support for 4E. I don't want _Kobold Quarterly_ to become a 4E publication. I don't want Paizo to let _Pathfinder_ go in favor of a new 4E venture (though in all honesty that seems unlikely now anyway). I want third-parties to continue producing 3.5 materials, rather than 4E materials - but without a GSL that heavily penalizes them for it, they may now go ahead with the 4E plans they originally had.



In some weird Alice in Wonderland way, I can totally understand this and feel what you are saying. 

But jeeeeeeez.  Isn't there ENOUGH 3.x material out there already?  I currently have enough quality 3.5 material to DM for the rest of my life.  Is there really a need for more?  It's one thing to wish for support when your options are limited, but my goodness....  Just in adventures and campaign source books alone I don't even think I could read it all, let alone DM it all.


----------



## Najo (Aug 13, 2008)

ConanMK said:


> I just wanted to say THANK YOU to Scott and Linae for their hard work on this and thie continued dedication to open gaming and a GSL that appeals to 3rd party publishers. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll be as supportive as I can.




I like to second this. Scott and Linae, thank you for everything your doing to make the GSL a welcoming place for the 3PP. D&D's business model is obviously evolving and it is good to know WOTC sees the value of companies like Necromancer and Paizo getting behind them.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 13, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> catsclaw227 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why?  Are you going to sue me because I decided to not buy some PDFs?  

I made this decision because I didn't like the attitude of the man produced them.  I buy a lot of RPG materials.  I choose what to buy not just for the quality and originality of the material, but also for the reputation of the writers.  I don't like the attitude he is taking regarding this announcement, which by all rights is a GOOD thing. It speaks about his character and that carries a lot of weight with me.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 13, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> 900 votes? I'm not even sure that's representative of what ENWOrld thinks, let alone what the players overall think.




If the poll is flawed (and I think it is), it's because of selection bias and because multiple voting is possible (i.e. the same issues that almost always plague internet polls); 900 is more than large enough for a representative sample, if I remember college statistics correctly.


----------



## Bacris (Aug 13, 2008)

As I posted in the Legalities forum, I await the revised GSL with anticipation.  

I appreciate that Scott and Linae are working hard to make this license worthwhile and still have hope that Dreamscarred Press can jump in with both feet on the GSL, rather than foregoing 4E entirely or consulting a lawyer and "going copyright"... even if I do have to wait until 2010 for "official" 4E psionic support


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 13, 2008)

Ourph said:


> But the behavior of some of the Paizo fans and contributors both here and at the Paizo boards really soured me to the game and even motivated me to reconsider my stance on 4e
> I count that as 4 lost Pathfinder sales because people associated with Pathfinder chose the low road.



Then I wonder why you purchased 4e, from WotC, considering the behavior on their boards (i.e. "people associated with" WotC, using your words).

A rather interesting position of yours.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Eriks choice of words were... poor, but let's be "better" than that.




My apologies for downgrading the level of commentary.  I know that isn't cool.


----------



## Caliber (Aug 13, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Then I wonder why you purchased 4e, from WotC, considering the behavior on their boards (i.e. "people associated with" WotC, using your words).
> 
> A rather interesting position of yours.




Completely anecdotal, but in my experience far more venom dripped from the fangs of those sticking with 3.5/PF. I know many disagree with me, and offer this up only as an answer to your question. Please don't take it as offense, just an observation I've made.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 13, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.



Easy tiger... I may be a 4e supporter, but Paizo has had my money for a long time because of the quality of the products they produce.  I am not a fan of Pathfinder RPG (yet), but I am a fan of the APs and the (formerly Gamemastery) adventures.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 13, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> But jeeeeeeez.  Isn't there ENOUGH 3.x material out there already?




No.  

Many RPG purchases are made with the knowledge that the material will never be used in a game.  A good bit of the market, at one time or another, has bought rpg books simply to read them for enjoyment and maybe mine them for ideas.  

Therefore, for people like me who have little or no interest at this point in 4e, having more 3.x books published is a great thing.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 13, 2008)

Wicht said:


> No.
> 
> Many RPG purchases are made with the knowledge that the material will never be used in a game.  A good bit of the market, at one time or another, has bought rpg books simply to read them for enjoyment and maybe mine them for ideas.
> 
> Therefore, for people like me who have little or no interest at this point in 4e, having more 3.x books published is a great thing.




As a DM, I've found myself using little bits of things published here and there years after I bought the book and put it away. With support of some kind, the diehards of that system will continue to have a fresh supply of new stuff. Without support of any kind, the diehards just have to do without or make it up themselves. Given the modular nature of D&D, it's not that difficult for someone to come up with stuff on their own, but there is something to be said for having it run through a professional editing and development process to make sure that the stuff is balanced and well-conceived, and to have it laid out nicely on the page along with a little bit of art.

Every time I manage to convince myself that I own enough to keep me busy for the rest of my life, there's always that one product that comes along and makes me realize what a silly notion that is.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 13, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Then I wonder why you purchased 4e, from WotC, considering the behavior on their boards (i.e. "people associated with" WotC, using your words).
> 
> A rather interesting position of yours.



It's pretty simple actually.

I didn't need the WotC boards to inform me about D&D 4e, I got all the info I needed about 4e from ENWorld, from posters (both WotC employees and fans) who didn't have a "let's hope Paizo fails" attitude.  Nothing in the threads I read about 4e turned me off.  In fact, the vast majority of people posting information about 4e had a positive, helpful vibe.

When I went looking for the same kind of info from the Paizo boards and  threads here on ENWorld about Pathfinder, I encountered a bunch of posts from Paizo fans and employees that were childish and rude, full of the "let's hope WotC fails" attitude that soured me on the whole game.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 13, 2008)

Ourph said:


> I encountered a bunch of posts from Paizo fans and employees that were childish and rude, full of the "let's hope WotC fails" attitude that soured me on the whole game.





Might I challenge you to find me an example of a Paizo employee that wrote something childish, rude, or filled with hope for WotC failure.

I will believe it when I see it but not until as I think I have read most of what Paizo employees have written and can't recall anything even close.  Except once... and that was a bit of bitterness about having stuff one of them had spent a lifetime writing about being tossed out the window.  But even then it was neither rude nor childish nor did it wish ill upon anyone.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 14, 2008)

Wicht said:


> Might I challenge you to find me an example of a Paizo employee that wrote something childish, rude, or filled with hope for WotC failure.



Might I ask that you do this privately? Please don't bring another board's edition wars here.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Might I ask that you do this privately? Please don't bring another board's edition wars here.





Sorry.

I did not think it right to make accusations about specific individuals without proof and the employees of Paizo are not faceless entities.  But I will withdraw the request.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 14, 2008)

Wicht said:


> Sorry.
> 
> I did not think it right to make accusations about specific individuals without proof and the employees of Paizo are not faceless entities.  But I will withdraw the request.



I didn't make any accusations, I posted a personal anecdote.  This is the internet, not a court of law.  I'm not required to provide "evidence" to back up my personal opinion.  If you prefer to believe my opinion is wrong, feel free.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 14, 2008)

Ourph said:


> I didn't make any accusations, I posted a personal anecdote.  This is the internet, not a court of law.  I'm not required to provide "evidence" to back up my personal opinion.  If you prefer to believe my opinion is wrong, feel free.




Yes, it's not a court of law, but if you're going to cast aspersions about some childish posts or make any other dubious or controversial claim, you should either back it up or back it off.


----------



## Orius (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.




Surely you know few people take internet polls seriously. In any case, there's no clear majority opinion in that poll, complete 4e and no 4e at all are tied, tried 4e and went back comes in 3rd, with various mixes between the two editions dividing the rest of the results.  That poll doesn't convince me of 4e's success or lack thereof.  Also, there's only 904 total votes while ENWorld has over 74,000 members, so that's only a small fraction of forum members (addmittedly many of those 74,000 are probably inactive).

And your own experiences are anecdotal, and may or may not reflect wider trends among D&D players as a whole.  I'm not calling you a liar, I simply disagree with your opinion on that matter, that's all.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 14, 2008)

Orius said:


> Also, there's only 904 total votes while ENWorld has over 74,000 members, so that's only a small fraction of forum members (addmittedly many of those 74,000 are probably inactive).




Small fractions are fine - it's the self-selection of respondents that drives up the statistical error.


----------



## Delta (Aug 14, 2008)

Orius said:


> Also, there's only 904 total votes while ENWorld has over 74,000 members, so that's only a small fraction of forum members (addmittedly many of those 74,000 are probably inactive).




I've been saying this a lot lately -- The overall population number is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of any poll (internet or not, self-selected or not). If the poll fails to be representative, it has nothing to do with the size of the fraction polled.

Statistical sampling theory in fact goes and assumes that you've got an _infinite sized population_, because it totally doesn't matter what that number is, and the math is simpler that way. It's when the fraction polled gets too _big_ (over 5%) that you have to do an a bit more calculation to account for it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error#Effect_of_population_size


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 14, 2008)

Delta said:


> I've been saying this a lot lately -- The overall population number is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of any poll (internet or not, self-selected or not). If the poll fails to be representative, it has nothing to do with the size of the fraction polled.
> 
> Statistical sampling theory in fact goes and assumes that you've got an _infinite sized population_, because it totally doesn't matter what that number is, and the math is simpler that way. It's when the fraction polled gets too _big_ (over 5%) that you have to do an a bit more calculation to account for it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error#Effect_of_population_size




The "added math" is to account for the larger sampling having a smaller margin of error... in other words, more accurate. While obviously hyperbole, a smaller margin of error is not "completely irrelevant to the accuracy...".

Either way, taking a poll from ENWorld and applying it to D&D Fanbase as a whole is worthless.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 14, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Either way, taking a poll from ENWorld and applying it to D&D Fanbase as a whole is worthless.




And can also lead to interesting "results".

Say that 50% of the D&D gamers have switched/tried 4e. With an estimated player base of 4 million (from another reputable source, Wikipedia ), that means that 2 million people are now playing D&D4e.

Let's say that my anecdotal evidence of 75% of players owning the PH stands true, which would mean that WotC has sold 1 500 000 Player's Handbooks. 

Quite a lot of books, IMO. 

/M


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative?.



 907 people out of a community of 70,000. Yeah 1.2% is very representative.




Darrin Drader said:


> How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing. .




150+ at a convention or fistfull of people at your LGS out of millions of players is hardly representative of a trend.

If you really want to see where the market is going , you should see the sales revenues.




Darrin Drader said:


> The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.




Good for you, you should also try OSRIC  or LL or any other of the D&D versions outhere.

If 4E is not for you then there are a wide array of options. go play.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> it's possible that Pathfinder is doing as well as they say it is, and that they're picking up a lot of business from the disaffected 3.5 players. In other words, why would they want to change?




And this is their target market right now *"disaffected 3.5 players"*, maybe 2 or 3 years from now when the anti-4e furor dies we may see some Paizo 4E stuff.


----------



## cangrejoide (Aug 14, 2008)

Maggan said:


> I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.
> 
> I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.
> 
> ...





lol so the poll that every anti-4e poster has quoted  been rigged?

If not, what do you mean by buggered?


----------



## alanpossible (Aug 14, 2008)

I remember reading a blog post by (I think) Monte Cook. In it, he was lamenting the fact that so few people had taken the opportunity provided by the OGL to publish (for a dollar or two) the material they create for their own home games.

Those adventures and dungeons, monsters, quests and NPCs that take us so long to create could all be sold for a couple of bucks.

Personally, I'm hoping that the GSL will (in the future perhaps) be able to encourage such things. I realise it involves wading through a pool of bad 3PP stuff to get to the good bits, but the good publishers rapidly become known and I've often been inspired even by the bad products (usually by fixing them up ;D)

Anyhow, I won't start holding my breath. At the moment, the whole thing radiates a feeling of losing all my money if WotC decide they don't like me. And while I'd like to hope it'll become more small-person friendly, I'm not sure wizards are out to encourage that.

I *will* however be looking forward to the fan site policy


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Then I wonder why you purchased 4e, from WotC, considering the behavior on their boards (i.e. "people associated with" WotC, using your words).
> 
> A rather interesting position of yours.




Duplicates my thought, and I am not particularly a "fan" of Pathfinder (recently being far more interested in Basic Fantasy and 3.5 as-is).  When folks were (understandably) upset about shennanigans with WotC (including claiming that rumours the 4e announcement was close were false, cancellation of Dungeon & Dragon, broken promises about tiered licensing, broken promises about the DDI (when, and what it could do), and problems with the GSL, a lot of folks said, in effect "I'll buy or not buy 4e based on the _game_, not based on how I feel about WotC."

Now, I would agree with choosing to spend your dollars based on what you want to encourage the company to _do_, or what you want to encourage the company to _produce_, but a little consistency would be nice.  

(Of course, I am also inconsistent here, because I recognize that what WotC _does_ is more important to the market/industry/hobby as a whole than what most/any/all 3pps do.  What WotC does impacts me; what a 3pp does, except in the case of what they produce, or in the case where they champion something of use to the market/industry/hobby....like Clark with the GSL and the APG....really doesn't affect me much.)

(Never hurts for a 3pp to be professional, though.  )

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 14, 2008)

Orius said:


> Surely you know few people take internet polls seriously.




As proven by internet poll.


----------



## Delta (Aug 14, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The "added math" is to account for the larger sampling having a smaller margin of error... in other words, more accurate. While obviously hyperbole, a smaller margin of error is not "completely irrelevant to the accuracy...".




I'll say it again -- IF the sampled fraction is small, THEN the simplied math applies in which population size is "completely irrelevant to the accuracy" of the poll. And that's the case we're actually in, the case misunderstood by the prior poster, the case of any standard poll.

Whether the population of ENWorld is 25,000 or 75,000 or 1 million or infinite, the math is exactly the same in any of those cases. Any larger population number disappears from the calculation formula.

Which is why I was the one who brought up the above-5% correction factor in the first place. You _want_ a small sample fraction, such as we have, to use the standard math, in which population size is irrelevant.


----------



## rkwoodard (Aug 14, 2008)

*Yep*



Delta said:


> I'll say it again -- IF the sampled fraction is small, THEN the simplied math applies in which population size is "completely irrelevant to the accuracy" of the poll. And that's the case we're actually in, the case misunderstood by the prior poster, the case of any standard poll.
> 
> Whether the population of ENWorld is 25,000 or 75,000 or 1 million or infinite, the math is exactly the same in any of those cases. Any larger population number disappears from the calculation formula.
> 
> Which is why I was the one who brought up the above-5% correction factor in the first place. You _want_ a small sample fraction, such as we have, to use the standard math, in which population size is irrelevant.





yep, my master's thesis (industrial/organizational Psych) used maybe a thousand people filling out questionaires and was used to extrapolate correlations to "university students" all of them, everywhere (ok maybe just US college students but still not even 1% of a %.

rk


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 14, 2008)

alanpossible said:
			
		

> I remember reading a blog post by (I think) Monte Cook. In it, he was lamenting the fact that so few people had taken the opportunity provided by the OGL to publish (for a dollar or two) the material they create for their own home games.
> 
> Those adventures and dungeons, monsters, quests and NPCs that take us so long to create could all be sold for a couple of bucks.



Hopefully the person who posted such a thing wasn't _surprised_ by that! Once legal text becomes involved, then _of course_ the vast majority of the populace won't bother becoming involved. That much is obvious. And then, adding the time, effort, and costs to "sell for a couple of bucks" (where? how? etc.) on top of that and very few people will even consider such a thing.

The GSL certainly won't change anything (and unless it's worded to make it even _easier_ to use than the OGL, there may even be fewer who bother).


----------



## Semah G Noj (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So the half on this poll here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=235481 who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.
> 
> 
> .




Please.

You're saying the equivilant of, "I know that canidate A will win a national election because no one I know locally has anything good to say about candidate B in the political club in which I attend, locally"


----------



## Ourph (Aug 14, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Yes, it's not a court of law, but if you're going to cast aspersions about some childish posts or make any other dubious or controversial claim, you should either back it up or back it off.



Why should I do that?  There are thousands of posts on ENWorld every day that reference people's personal impressions and opinions without "citing sources" or providing "evidence" to back them up.  I'm not going to hold my posts to a higher standard just because you disagree with my opinion.  If you want to be the proof police, go get every other poster at ENWorld to provide documentation to back up their personal opinion before they post it and THEN come see me about doing the same thing.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 14, 2008)

Delta said:


> I'll say it again -- IF the sampled fraction is small, THEN the simplied math applies in which population size is "completely irrelevant to the accuracy" of the poll. And that's the case we're actually in, the case misunderstood by the prior poster, the case of any standard poll.
> 
> Whether the population of ENWorld is 25,000 or 75,000 or 1 million or infinite, the math is exactly the same in any of those cases. Any larger population number disappears from the calculation formula.
> 
> Which is why I was the one who brought up the above-5% correction factor in the first place. You _want_ a small sample fraction, such as we have, to use the standard math, in which population size is irrelevant.




Just to be clear, you use the word "accuracy", but that's not true. The "math is simpler" with a smaller percentage simply because those polls have a bigger margin of error. A larger percentage poll is more accurate due to a smaller margin of error, but then the m-o-e must be calculated with more complexity.

There is no margin of error in the EN poll, and it's not a representative sample or a valid poll for any use other than "hey, I was just curious". The fact that Drader's remarks are basically "I know internet polls are invalid, but this one proves I'm right!" is all I'm commenting on.

Either way, a smaller margin of error means more accuracy. A larger percentage of the base will result in a smaller margin of error and more accurate results, but the math will be more complicated.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 14, 2008)

Ourph said:


> Why should I do that?  There are thousands of posts on ENWorld every day that reference people's personal impressions and opinions without "citing sources" or providing "evidence" to back them up.  I'm not going to hold my posts to a higher standard just because you disagree with my opinion.  If you want to be the proof police, go get every other poster at ENWorld to provide documentation to back up their personal opinion before they post it and THEN come see me about doing the same thing.





I think the problem is that you did not appear to be stating a personal opinion but an observation of fact.

For instance, if I said that I suspected Erik Mona might really like to see WotC license out the Greyhawk lines to a 3pp, that would be opinion.  Just a gut feeling.  

If I said that I had seen Erik Mona posting at numerous times his disdain for the world of Greyhawk, that would be a statement of observable fact and because it flies in the face of other people's experience, I would not be surprised to be called on it and asked to cite a specific instance in point of time.  

Your statement that you had observed Paizo employees wishing ill upon WotC flies in the face of their numerous posts to the contrary and therefore you should not be surprised when you are asked to cite a specific instance.


----------



## freyar (Aug 14, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Just to be clear, you use the word "accuracy", but that's not true. The "math is simpler" with a smaller percentage simply because those polls have a bigger margin of error. A larger percentage poll is more accurate due to a smaller margin of error, but then the m-o-e must be calculated with more complexity.
> 
> There is no margin of error in the EN poll, and it's not a representative sample or a valid poll for any use other than "hey, I was just curious". The fact that Drader's remarks are basically "I know internet polls are invalid, but this one proves I'm right!" is all I'm commenting on.
> 
> Either way, a smaller margin of error means more accuracy. A larger percentage of the base will result in a smaller margin of error and more accurate results, but the math will be more complicated.



Absolutely correct.  However, beyond a certain point (IIRC from statistics class, around 100 respondents), you really get diminishing returns from increasing sample size until you get to a significant portion of the population.  The problem with the EN World polls is not sample size but that they are self-selected samples of convenience.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Duplicates my thought, and I am not particularly a "fan" of Pathfinder (recently being far more interested in Basic Fantasy and 3.5 as-is).



A lot of the reinvention didn't appeal to me at first and I haven't followed it since. I wish them luck, but I let dragon/dungeon lapse before the changeover so I have no interest in their work.




> When folks were (understandably) upset about shennanigans with WotC;
> 1) claiming that rumours the 4e announcement was close were false,



If you went back, you'd see they did what they said, and said what they did. Maybe they didn't give exactly a year notice, but you do have to factor in that 4e rumors started in 04-05 and were continually refuted.



> cancellation of Dungeon & Dragon,



Also, Dragonlance. Still, no lies or unprofessionalism there, so not a big deal.



> broken promises about tiered licensing, broken promises about the DDI (when, and what it could do), and problems with the GSL,




This I think is there biggest diplomatic hurdle, DDI for the mainstream, and GSL for the 3P.



> What WotC does impacts me; what a 3pp does, except in the case of what they produce, or in the case where they champion something of use to the market/industry/hobby....like Clark with the GSL and the APG....really doesn't affect me much.)
> 
> (Never hurts for a 3pp to be professional, though.  )
> 
> RC




The main thing with the smaller 3PP is that their audience is smaller and more directly connected. Most of Paizo's fans are probably on their site and in contact with them via that site or this.
For me, I just didn't see the variety I wanted to see, so I faded. The main big screwup for me was Age of Worms Overload (this was a long time ago now...)
Paizo promised this before the path started, people bought into the path based on it, and it was continually shifted back. Paizo's folks were apologetic at first, but the rabid fans were quick to attack folks, calling it a "free product" and telling people they were wrong to be mad about the broken promises. After a while, Paizo took up the stance of "it's a free addon anyway" and the responses became more ambiguous and less consoling.

Some remember further back though;
1) The addition of Polyhedron
2) the REMOVAL of Polyhedron...
3) The ditching of the Annual (even though folks had paid for 13 issues a year, no refunds/credits were forthcoming afaik)
4) when Dungeon went from bimonthly to monthly, they shifted the subscription from "a year" to "12 issues" and then tried to tell people they were getting more.

There's more of course, but it's besides the point really. Folks that were/are offended by such things know, folks that think it's unimportant don't care.

The other thing I think the rabid fans are overboard on is giving credit where it's not due. When the magazines were canceled, Paizo offered options and folks applauded.... but they weren't being "gracious". They had to refund the remaining money regardless. They were giving you options to let them keep your money. A wise business decision, and in no way a BAD thing, but certainly not worthy of rabid praise.

Anyway, I don't mean to bash Paizo with this stuff, other than them screwing me over with Overload (starting a campaign based on promises not kept sours me), they treated me well enough. (Two lost issues were quickly replaced.)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 14, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> JThe fact that Drader's remarks are basically "I know internet polls are invalid, but this one proves I'm right!" is all I'm commenting on.




Actually that is not what I said. I simply pointed to all of the evidence available as well as first hand experience. From my perspective, there's a huge number of D&D players who aren't switching, possibly as many as half. Nothing proves me right and I never said that I was right. As I am unable to be everywhere all the time and personally speak to every D&D player, I could easily be wrong. That's the thing about perspective, you take what you have available and you draw conclusions. I'm not losing any sleep over whether my conclusions are right or wrong. It really makes very little difference to me when it comes down to it.


----------



## Delta (Aug 14, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> There is no margin of error in the EN poll, and it's not a representative sample or a valid poll...




Totally incorrect about the first statement. The margin of error is (currently 913 votes), at the 95% confidence level, 0.98/sqrt(913) ~ 0.03 = 3%.

Now, whether it's a representative sample of anything is a totally separate question (and that's been my point all along). At best it's possibly representative on ENWorld posters who care to vote on 4E-based polls.

One last time, and I'll boil it down to a true-or-false question. True/false: Is the following, and only the following, a legitimate criticism of the poll's level of confidence?



			
				Orius said:
			
		

> Also, there's only 904 total votes while ENWorld has over 74,000 members, so that's only a small fraction of forum members (addmittedly many of those 74,000 are probably inactive).


----------



## Delta (Aug 14, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Hopefully the person who posted such a thing wasn't _surprised_ by that! Once legal text becomes involved, then _of course_ the vast majority of the populace won't bother becoming involved. That much is obvious.




I agree they shouldn't be surprised, but I disagree about the reason why. The OGL legal text is exceedingly easy to read, use, and understand. 

The problem is how to physically receive payments and deliver goods over the Internet. That part is relatively hard for a hobbyist layman.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I simply pointed to all of the evidence available as well as first hand experience.




I think the issue people have with your posts stems from the fact that you're not actually accepting all of the evidence, as you have been dismissing the sales information as biased or untrustworthy. It seems strange to point to an internet poll as a source of evidence without bias, then imply that sales data from even third-party sources (Amazon, NYT Bestseller List) can't be trusted.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 14, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I think the issue people have with your posts stems from the fact that you're not actually accepting all of the evidence, as you have been dismissing the sales information as biased or untrustworthy. It seems strange to point to an internet poll as a source of evidence without bias, then imply that sales data from even third-party sources (Amazon, NYT Bestseller List) can't be trusted.




I'm not disputing NYT or Amazon. However, their sales data leaves a lot of unknowns. How many copies have actually sold through either outlet. How does the reduced number of hobby game stores and book stores affect the number of books being sold through places like Amazon? But the biggest question of all is how are sales actually doing when measured against Hasbro's expectations? Since we don't know the number of actual books that have sold and we don't know how many Hasbro expects to sell, nobody besides WotC has enough information to say how well its selling.

Now if you want to argue that 4E is blowing the sales of every other RPG out there out of the water, you're right. It isn't even a question.

The only way to tell for sure that it is selling up to or beyond expectations is for Hasbro to release an official statement to its shareholders that states the health of the brand. I'll believe that. Everything else is specualtion. It may be semi-informed speculation, but it is speculation nonetheless.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> But the biggest question of all is how are sales actually doing when measured against Hasbro's expectations?




Well, we DO have Bill Slavicsek's statement that they're selling so far in a way, that if it continues, will far exceed their expectations. (Admitedly I'm assuming they expect to meet hasbro's expectations... if any.)


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Aug 14, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm not disputing NYT or Amazon. However, their sales data leaves a lot of unknowns. How many copies have actually sold through either outlet.




The New York Times is not in the book selling business, and its bestseller list is generally considered a reliable indicator of whether a book is a selling well.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 14, 2008)

Delta said:


> One last time, and I'll boil it down to a true-or-false question. True/false: Is the following, and only the following, a legitimate criticism of the poll's level of confidence?




The "poll's level of confidence" is a technical issue important to statisticians, but of questionable relevance to how we here should view the results in this context.  Our level of confidence in the poll is relevant, but not technically defined.

Folks, our polls are not scientific.  They are a toy.  Please don't argue about them like this.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 14, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Folks, our polls are not scientific.  They are a toy.  Please don't argue about them like this.




This is teh intarweb. Toys are serious business.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 14, 2008)

Can someone come get me when you start talking about the GSL again?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 14, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Can someone come get me when you start talking about the GSL again?




Got something new?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 14, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Can someone come get me when you start talking about the GSL again?




I think I speak for most when I say that we approve of the initiative. It has the potential to cut down on a lot of criticism and let some quality new products onto the market for 4E. Now let's see what you can do with it.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Aug 15, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think I speak for most when I say that we approve of the initiative. It has the potential to cut down on a lot of criticism and let some quality new products onto the market for 4E. Now let's see what you can do with it.




I appreaciate that note of support 

I have be talking with a few publishers at the show about our proposed changes and so far the response has been positive.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 15, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Now let's see what you can do with it.




I may have been misreading but isn't it what the Lawyers and Scott's bosses' can/will do with Scott's and Co.'s suggestions?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 15, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> I may have been misreading but isn't it what the Lawyers and Scott's boss' can do with Scott's and Co.'s suggestions?




To clarify, I meant you as in the whole of WotC. Just a hunch, but I suspect that if it were entirely up to Scott (and Slavicsek, and the other people within the hierarchy who are brave enough to come forward and put a public face on the corporation), we'd probably still have the OGL for 4th edition.


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 15, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> To clarify, I meant you as in the whole of WotC. Just a hunch, but I suspect that if it were entirely up to Scott (and Slavicsek, and the other people within the hierarchy who are brave enough to come forward and put a public face on the corporation), we'd probably still have the OGL for 4th edition.




Cool


*bounces off back to the Hive*


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 15, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I have be talking with a few publishers at the show about our proposed changes and so far the response has been positive.




Any chance of hints on what those proposed changes might look like?

If not, any chance of telling us who those publishers are, so we can shanghai them into telling us?


----------



## Delta (Aug 15, 2008)

Umbran said:


> The "poll's level of confidence" is a technical issue important to statisticians, but of questionable relevance to how we here should view the results in this context. Our level of confidence in the poll is relevant, but not technically defined.
> 
> Folks, our polls are not scientific. They are a toy. Please don't argue about them like this.




Level of confidence is in fact technically defined. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_level

Look, my initial post was trying to correct a very bad misapprehension (that 900 votes in a poll is a low number), in the field for which I'm a professional teacher. Are you saying as a mod that that's prohibited? Because I can't tell if you're talking as moderator or participant.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 15, 2008)

Okay, so I closed the thread.  

Here's the reason:  protracted hijacking with continuing arguments and edition rivalry between 4E and Paizo.

With that caveat, if someone decided to start a new thread about the revision to the GSL, it will stay open so long as everyone can stay focused on the topic at hand.  There won't be any warnings in the new thread.  Attempts to hijack it into an edition war will result in an extended vacation from the boards while the guilty parties can repeatedly access the rules and think about how they can avoid a further hiatus.

Dinkeldog/Moderator


----------

