# How about a deadline to WotC?



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

I'm a D&D fan. I prefer 3rd edition. I considered playing 4th edition because there would be good third party support on board. Then the GSL happened. Or didn't. 

I know Scott Rouse supposedly has been working on it, but it's been FOREVER. 

I suggest that each third party publisher independently (or in a "union" or "coalition" along with other companies that want to produce 4th edition products) set a deadline to WotC. If there is not a viable GSL at that point, each company (or all the companies) will go with Pathfinder. 

I'd love to see this move along with some haste. 

I've posted similar threads to the forums of some of these companies:
Necromancer Games
How about a deadline to WotC? - General Discussion - General - Necromancer Games - Message Board - Yuku
How about a deadline to WotC? - Upcoming Releases - Products - Necromancer Games - Message Board - Yuku
Green Ronin
Green Ronin Publishing :: View topic - How about a deadline to WotC?

If any of you know of other third party publishers holding off due to the GSL's not being viable, please post, and I'll post to their forums as well.

Thanks!


----------



## JVisgaitis (Nov 26, 2008)

Eh, I'm sure they are doing everything they can. I think setting a deadline creates more tension. I'm fine with waiting. I know people who want the products aren't, but it is what it is.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 26, 2008)

Aberzanzorax said:


> snip





Yeah , let's make demands and ultimatums to  WOTC to use THEIR  IP

Yeah..that oughta work


----------



## Rechan (Nov 26, 2008)

This implies that WotC _needs_ third party groups. 

How much of the _non_-EnWorld/Die Hard Internet fanbase follows third party news, let alone would be greatly impacted if Third Parties left the game? Many places where people buy their books have few if any third party options. And many gamers just play "What D&D is". 

Pathfinder is a limited number of people. It's also a hedgy bet: where will Pathfinder be in 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Compare that to being on the side of WotC.

Worse yet, a deadline of this magnitude may not help matters. Scott Rouse is the only one working on it. You also have the issue that it coudl be the legal team holding up. Said legal team likely won't be intimidated by 3rd party hostage taking. Scott Rouse likely can't force the issue, deadline or no.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 26, 2008)

How in the world do you think this will help?

-O


----------



## JVisgaitis (Nov 26, 2008)

Rechan said:


> This implies that WotC _needs_ third party groups.
> 
> How much of the _non_-EnWorld/Die Hard Internet fanbase follows third party news, let alone would be greatly impacted if Third Parties left the game? Many places where people buy their books have few if any third party options. And many gamers just play "What D&D is".
> 
> ...




This. Much better than my feeble attempt. Well said.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

*Maybe, Maybe not.*

I'm not necessarily JUST saying that "Hostage taking" should occur (though admittedly that is part of it).

I'm saying a few things here:

1. If third party are important, WotC might put some more resources into Scott Rouse's corner...whatever those resources might be. They might just relax some of the other innumerable demands upon the poor guy. I'm not suggesting Scott Rouse doesn't care or isn't working on it on purpose. I'm suggesting that he is overburdened and CAN'T make it a priority. That or WotC/Hasbro isn't making it a priority if it is stuck in lawyers or whatever.

2. If third party are important, this extra pressure might just help this to happen. I know I will only be getting into fourth edition with sufficient 3rd party support. Necromancer would be enough (or Malhavoc if they started publishing). Multiple other 3rd party supporters that I like would also be enough: Say a quorum of Green Ronin, Goodman (who IS supporting), Mongoose, Privateer Press, Paradigm Concepts, and Fantasy Flight Games. Right now it is mostly smaller publishers I'm unfamiliar with. They might be great, but they're not enough to draw me in.

3. If third party support is NOT important, this might just be a message to them that WotC is going to sit on this GSL until the cows come home, and waiting for something viable is a pipe dream. Hence, taking a "poop or get off the pot" stance MIGHT be of use in this. It could even be a deadline set of "get it to us by February 2009 or we'll CONSIDER going with pathfinder". It need not be "hostage taking" but the message should be there. Of course, a firm deadline with a firm consequence would be more powerful.

4. Pathfinder, of course, is NOT WotC. They don't have the numbers, nor do they have the third party support (yet). However, lots of things start small. Necromancer had considered Pathfinder originally, and I wonder if they still are considering it. Other companies (like Privateer Press and Pardigm Concepts don't like 4e for their line of games). Pathfinder might be a better "fit" for their model anyway. I guess what I'm saying here is that IF there was enough third party support, it may help Pathfinder to continue to grow, making the venture more stable. This is part of the reason I have the "coalition" idea.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 26, 2008)

Rechan said:


> How much of the _non_-EnWorld/Die Hard Internet fanbase follows third party news, let alone would be greatly impacted if Third Parties left the game?



Most of the 3e-playing gamers I've met over the last oh, 5 years or so, for example. And that's actually quite a few gamers. Note: _most_, not _all_, but still. . . And yes, it's anecdotal, but then I can't think of a more reliable way for *me* to get a sense of these things. Anyone Else's Mileage Could Certainly Vary, Of Course.  3rd party books are definitely on the menu, around here, and have been for years. Well, some of them.



> Pathfinder is a limited number of people. It's also a hedgy bet: where will Pathfinder be in 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Compare that to being on the side of WotC.



Could you please back this up with some numbers? What do you mean by 'a limited number'? And, when it comes to bets and so on, the almighty WotC could go the way of GenCon, or yeah, TSR for that matter - who knows. You don't. I don't. . . etc.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

Pathfinder also becomes less of a hedgy bet when production is POSSIBLE rather than impossible with the nonexistent revised GSL.

If it were clear that it were the ONLY option, it suddenly becomes the BEST option by default.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 26, 2008)

Aberzanzorax said:


> If there is not a viable GSL at that point, Green Ronin (or all the companies) will go with Pathfinder.




Green Ronin (last I heard) was gearing up for their A Song of Ice and Fire RPG - I don't think they would go 4E or Pathfinder at this point beyond a possible Freeport companion guide for each system (unless it was a bestseller for them, which might lure them to test the waters with a 2nd product).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 26, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Most of the 3e-playing gamers I've met over the last oh, 5 years or so, for example.



Anecdotal evidence.



> Could you please back this up with some numbers? What do you mean by 'a limited number'?



When someone does a study on D&D gamers, then numbers you will receive. But the case is really simple: 

3e is an older edition. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those that are not moving on to the new edition. 

That in and of itself is a limited number. New players aren't going to want to learn the old system; new players are like "I want to play D&D, what's this system you're going on about?". 

Not only that, but Pathfinder is an off-shot of 3.5. So you're splitting the numbers further between those sticking with 3.5 and those moving to Pathfinder.

It's limited because you're splitting your buyers, and new customers are harder to come by. 

Pathfinder is, essentially, selling to the choir.

This isn't a dig at Pathfinder. I would like pathfinder to succeed; the more people playing the game they like, the better. But Pathfinder is a niche market in a niche market, and you're better off looking at the situation of sales and players in a realistic manner.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

_



How much of the non-EnWorld/Die Hard Internet fanbase follows third party news, let alone would be greatly impacted if Third Parties left the game?

Click to expand...


_ 
_About a 1 to 1 correlation with those who want 3rd party production. I.E. everyone who cares about the GSL and everyone who would expand or develop interest in 4e if there were third party production._

_A good way to answer this is "what have the 4e sales for Goodman and KenzerCo been like"? That gives us a very rough idea of the numbers of people that this could affect. Another question might be "what kind of sales numbers did the companies I mention who are not converting have". That gives us an idea of the "investment potential" (term I made up, not sure if it might be an economic term or not) available in this opportunity._

_I've constantly seen third party importance derided. It may be unimportant to WotC. It is clearly not unimportant to all the people who bought third party products, and who wish to continue to do so. _

_I can only speak for myself here. I have all but about 10 or so WotC books from third edition. I have a greater number of books from third party publishers (but none individually greater than WotC). I haven't bought a single 4th edition product. If I were convinced to (through having adventures beyond the "generic", "vanilla" ones from WotC), I'd likely drop a couple of thousand dollars on WotC products. As it is, I see no reason to collect WotC products at the present time. I suspect I am not alone in this regard._


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Green Ronin (last I heard) was gearing up for their A Song of Ice and Fire RPG - I don't think they would go 4E or Pathfinder at this point beyond a possible Freeport companion guide for each system (unless it was a bestseller for them, which might lure them to test the waters with a 2nd product).




Oops. That quote was an artifact from my cutting and pasting. I fixed/edited the original.

I'm not sure about your concern. You may be right. I do think that there would still be support for freeport through pathfinder. Green ronin could test the waters with "Pirate's Guide to Freeport" which was systemless, and then they released the system "crunch" in specific supplements...for True 20 and d20. I imagine that a pathfinder version (when it comes out) could be an option as well, and give them an idea of sales.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Nov 26, 2008)

Rechan said:


> 3e is an older edition. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those that are not moving on to the new edition.
> 
> That in and of itself is a limited number. New players aren't going to want to learn the old system; new players are like "I want to play D&D, what's this system you're going on about?".
> 
> ...




While this is true, it is only one factor. There are things larger than edition that are to be considered for at least some third party gamers. I am a bigger fan of Necromancer than ANY edition. I'd buy their products if they came out with 3rd, 4th, pathfinder, or their own system. Same is true for the Midnight setting of Fantasy flight games, Green Ronin's Freeport, Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms, or Paradigm Concept's Arcanis.

I actually prefer third edition to Pathfinder, but I'll take what I can get.

In any case, it's not that I want these companies to produce for pathfinder or for 4e. I just want products from them. I can convert them as I need. (Though if they were all one or two systems, that would be ideal)

On the other hand, products like Goodman's 4e dungeon crawls are not world specific, nor are they usually as inventive as the Necromancer adventures. I'd buy those if I wanted more 4e adventures (same reason I buy the third edition ones). They are great dungeon crawls. But that's generally all they are. They're not a reason to get into fourth edition, they're a reason to stay with fourth edition and broaden it. If I'm convinced to get 4e, I'll definitely buy their products to get more 4e. But what I'm looking for is diversity in 4e before I buy. If I can get that, I'm in.

Heck, I'd even convert my 3e stuff to 4e if they were in the same gaming worlds.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Nov 26, 2008)

Yes, let's give WotC a deadline on something they never *had* to allow in the first place because I can't wait to get my hands on another market glut of halfassed products!  

That sounds like an EXCELLENT idea!  Wait..no...no it doesn't.


----------



## Delta (Nov 26, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> Eh, I'm sure they are doing everything they can.




My understanding is the opposite. From Scott Rouse's last posts, it sounds like he's the only one who cares about it, and for the GSL to get updated he has to do the whole thing himself in his spare time at work (which he hasn't had).


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

It seems to me that the 3PP have more to lose than WotC by walking away from the table, so to speak. And I imagine WotC knows this. As such an ultimatum would be completely counter-productive.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 26, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Anecdotal evidence.




And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes? Actually, if he's got a certain number of friends who are waiting for 3rd party support, then he's not just working with anecdotal evidence at all. He's just got a very small sample size with a lot of selection bias.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 26, 2008)

I don't think the GSL is going to satisfy everyone in the end. The OGL allowed 3PP to put out material wildly different from core D&D and many 3PP fans enjoyed mixing and matching the two into their own game. One of the things the GSL is very specific about is maintaining the integrity of the D&D paradigm. There will be less innovation, and most 3PP material will follow the 4E paradigm fairly closely, as the Advanced Player's Guide and the other book like it have done. Things like Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes will not happen. People who want 3PP to be like they were during 3E are going to be disappointed no matter when the GSL comes out.

As somebody who likes alternate systems not based on the d20, and who lamented how the d20 glut marginalized non-d20 systems, I'm perfectly fine with WotC taking their time.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 26, 2008)

billd91 said:


> And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes? Actually, if he's got a certain number of friends who are waiting for 3rd party support, then he's not just working with anecdotal evidence at all. He's just got a very small sample size with a lot of selection bias.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Small sample size + large selection bias + lack of verification more or less renders the data unusable.  It only tells you about the self-selected, non random group that's providing the anecdotes and cannot be extended to gamers as a whole.

-O


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 26, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It seems to me that the 3PP have more to lose than WotC by walking away from the table, so to speak. And I imagine WotC knows this. As such an ultimatum would be completely counter-productive.




This.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 26, 2008)

Its a silly threat that no one with an understanding of business will sign.

The basic problem is that a 3rd party publisher can easily produce books for both Pathfinder and for 4e, and make money on both.  Even if a 3rd party publisher was dumb enough to burn bridges that might lead to future employment or contract work and sign some sort of aggressive ultimatum, and even if as a result of that ultimatum they publish something under Pathfinder, once the GSL is done they will be faced with a problem- do they maintain their refusal to publish 4e material even though, with the GSL completed, that's essentially leaving money on the table?

Of course they won't.  Not if they're business people.  And if they're business people they'll know that's going to happen in advance, and won't sign.  And if they're business people and they DO sign, if WOTC knows they're business people, WOTC will know that the threat is empty and that they'll go back on their word once there's money to be had.

The only way the threat could be even slightly credible is if there were something to bind the 3rd party publishers to their word.  Maybe if their only product was a single Adventure Path or something.  That's about all I can come up with.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 26, 2008)

A threat to WotC won't mean anything because they simply don't care. What will matter (to me at least) is if you can get a third party company to file the fingerprints off of 4E and make an OGL version of it. I'd love that and would happily pick it up in a minute.

An OGL "4Eesque" game would allow third party companies to continue existing product lines as if nothing had happened, and I'm surprised no one has gotten this to print yet.

--Steve


----------



## Umbran (Nov 26, 2008)

billd91 said:


> And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes?




It is a collection of structured and focused anecdotes from a random selection, rather than a collection of biased anecdotes from a self-selected population.

Where and how you get your data is important, you know.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 26, 2008)

So you prefer 3e over 4e, and 3e over Pathfinder. Would you rather have Pathfinder over 4e as well? If so, maybe you should convince the companies whose products you want, to produce Pathfinder products, instead of this, since whatever it is, it is doomed to fail, for the many reasons outlined by the illustrious members of this community.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 26, 2008)

Just remember, WotC could end the GSL at any point they desire.  There almost wasn't any sort of license.


----------



## Henry (Nov 26, 2008)

Delta said:


> My understanding is the opposite. From Scott Rouse's last posts, it sounds like he's the only one who cares about it, and for the GSL to get updated he has to do the whole thing himself in his spare time at work (which he hasn't had).




To underscore this, one of the two people fighting hardest for it, Linae Foster, Licensing Manager, was fired from the company -- two weeks after a new GSL was approved. 

So Scott, and at best a handful of internal designers, are the extent of the "we care about third party" bandwagon.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 26, 2008)

SteveC said:


> An OGL "4Eesque" game would allow third party companies to continue existing product lines as if nothing had happened, and I'm surprised no one has gotten this to print yet.




I'm not surprised. The successful third-party companies like GR and Paizo are professionals who wouldn't just "file off the fingerprints" of someone else's work to make a buck in order to avoid the official license.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Nov 26, 2008)

Delta said:


> My understanding is the opposite. From Scott Rouse's last posts, it sounds like he's the only one who cares about it, and for the GSL to get updated he has to do the whole thing himself in his spare time at work (which he hasn't had).




I actually meant Scott instead of they.


----------



## Henry (Nov 26, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I'm not surprised. The successful third-party companies like GR and Paizo are professionals who wouldn't just "file off the fingerprints" of someone else's work to make a buck in order to avoid the official license.




On the other hand, my concern for Paizo in Pathfinder is that they are avoiding using good ideas from WotC due to both backwards compatibility and fear that they're accidentally duplicate something from 4E.  As I noted about nine months ago, most of 4E's most important innovations are OGL content to begin with, and they're getting overlooked because of a mix of company loyalty and 4E-rage. Those self same ideas over in Star Wars Saga Edition (such as the math restructuring, defenses, skills, etc.) are getting rave reviews and applause.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 26, 2008)

The GSL doesn't mean much to me personally, and no one beyond myself and one or two other guys in my gaming circles know what the heck a GSL, OGL, or STL monster is. And I only know the barest of smidgens of info.

But I do know this: When someone commits to a date, and then consistently pushes that date back, he or she is exhibiting "bad form."  That's a polite way to put it. 

If WotC doesn't want or need the GSL, then just say so and be done with it. 98.6% of the gaming population won't give a wererat's ass.

But...if they say one is forthcoming, and that it fixes many perceived flaws of the previous artifacts...then do it, man. Simple as that.  Mean what you say and say what you mean.

Off soap-box.

WP


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 26, 2008)

Rechan said:


> But the case is really simple:
> 
> 3e is an older edition. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those that are not moving on to the new edition.
> 
> That in and of itself is a limited number.



Simple, but you have no indication if it's accurate.  Just as simple is: 4e is an all new edition which means all new purchases.  Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those who are willing to jettison all their prior books as a sunk cost and start all over again.

That in and of itself is a limited number.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> New players aren't going to want to learn the old system; new players are like "I want to play D&D, what's this system you're going on about?".



Truly new players are like "Huh?  This is the book you're using?  OK."  You're assuming a very odd level of market savvy for "new" players.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Not only that, but Pathfinder is an off-shot of 3.5. So you're splitting the numbers further between those sticking with 3.5 and those moving to Pathfinder.
> 
> It's limited because you're splitting your buyers, and new customers are harder to come by.



I love it how this argument is dragged out to use against anything _except_ 4e.  Which, all logic aside, is somehow immune from the charge of "splitting the customer base" even though by all indications that's exactly what it has done.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> This isn't a dig at Pathfinder. I would like pathfinder to succeed; the more people playing the game they like, the better. But Pathfinder is a niche market in a niche market, and you're better off looking at the situation of sales and players in a realistic manner.



Realistically, so is every third party product, so I don't see how that comment is even pertinent.  Heck, realistically, so is 4e for that matter.


billd91 said:


> And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes? Actually, if he's got a certain number of friends who are waiting for 3rd party support, then he's not just working with anecdotal evidence at all. He's just got a very small sample size with a lot of selection bias.






Obryn said:


> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
> 
> Small sample size + large selection bias + lack of verification more or less renders the data unusable.  It only tells you about the self-selected, non random group that's providing the anecdotes and cannot be extended to gamers as a whole.



I was just wondering how to respond to billd91's bizarre and highly wrong quote, when I see that it's already been done.  Bravo, obryn!


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Nov 26, 2008)

Sorry if this comes across as rude but you kicking and screaming on a message board isn't going to make me work on this any faster. Clark stopped doing this months ago and he has my phone number with skin in the publishing game.

It's not that it isn't important or a priority. The GSL revision is like a monkey on my back, sitting on my desk and in my mind everyday telling me I need to get the damn thing done. But even my own conscience nagging me constantly doesn't mean it is my #1 priority.  So it nags me daily and I press on. You don't need a petition to tell me to get it done my brain is doing that for you.

But I also have a business to run and there is a lot of pressing stuff going on with the D&D brand and even in hobby business right now that needs more attention from me than the GSL. The GSL is important and the fixes are needed but we have a working version out now and although it is far from perfect it is functional enough that publsihers are using it.

I have five maybe six projects in the queue with my legal department right now. The GSL is on the top of that list but they are not the hold up. They are awaiting me to hand it all off to them for final clean up and publishing.

I am in Europe on business all next week and hope to have some plane and train time to finish what I need to so it can be done before I go on the winter break.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 26, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The GSL doesn't mean much to me personally, and no one beyond myself and one or two other guys in my gaming circles know what the heck a GSL, OGL, or STL monster is. And I only know the barest of smidgens of info.
> 
> But I do know this: When someone commits to a date, and then consistently pushes that date back, he or she is exhibiting "bad form." That's a polite way to put it.
> 
> ...




That would work great for a 1 man show.  WotC is a large corporation.  One manager may have agreed to allowing Scott to making changes, but if the budget committee says they won't pay for his time to work on it during business hours or if he has an endless stream of rush jobs that need done because the corporation now has the same amount of work to do with less people or if reviewing books before they goto the printer takes up 95+% of his time or if the person he needs to ask a few questions of never gets back to him or ... you get the idea.  If you ever worked for a large corporation, give the man some slack.


----------



## avin (Nov 26, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> The GSL revision is like a monkey on my back




Which color? Does it have wings? There will be a mini for it? 

That said, I wish for a faster GSL revision... I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Nov 26, 2008)

As Scott has said, there are publishers that are using the GSL as it is now, and I'm sure there are a lot of publishers that will jump on when a few points are clarified. 

I don't think WOTC is using the GSL as a trap to shut down 3PP's, I think they would be very lenient and forgiving of those that made minor mistakes in their use of the GSL, heck, they probably wouldn't even notice most. WOTC mainly wants to maintain control over what D&D is, without other companies using their work to produce a variant game. 

But you can bet that anyone that tries to file the serial numbers off and produce a clone, just to throw it in their face out of spite, is going to have one heck of a legal fight on their hands. 

Don't poke the bear!


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 26, 2008)

So far, I believe Scott Rouse was the only one to make this point, but there is already a functional GSL in release, and while it is far from perfect IMO, 3PPs are already using it or in the process of using it.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Nov 26, 2008)

I think it speaks volumes that we haven't seen third party publishers pushing for the revised GSL. I suspect that those who felt beholden to WotC have already signed on, and those alienated by WotC's current attitude towards 3PPs and the continual changes and delays have moved on.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 26, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I am in Europe on business all next week and hope to have some plane and train time to finish what I need to so it can be done before I go on the winter break.




If you stop by Denmark, let me know, and I will buy you a beer (or whatever your poison is), god knows, you deserve it..


avin said:


> That said, I wish for a faster GSL revision... I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...




You do not need a revised GSL for that.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 26, 2008)

dmccoy said:
			
		

> If you ever worked for a large corporation, give the man some slack.




I have, and I do.  And you're absolutely right. I didn't intend to pick on Scott (though I know I use 'he' as a pronoun instead of 'they'), but rather the Corporation. 

The problem, IMO, is not that the GSL is not out; the problem is that the GSL is not out, in a format as advertised, in a date that was publicized. It's why, oh, Blizzard doesn't give a firm street date for Diablo III; better to not promise anything than to promise and fall short. Works the same in business as it does in life.

Again, you're right, and I didn't mean to come off in such a negative slant - especially in a negative slant to the one cat that seems to care about the GSL within WotC.

WP


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 26, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The problem, IMO, is not that the GSL is not out; the problem is that the GSL is not out, in a format as advertised, in a date that was publicized. It's why, oh, Blizzard doesn't give a firm street date for Diablo III; better to not promise anything than to promise and fall short. Works the same in business as it does in life.




I don't recall a publicized date for the GSL update. I recall Linae making the announcement just before GenCon, saying more news would be coming down in the next couple weeks. After Linae was let go the following week, Scott updated us with our last update (which is basically what he repeated here: it'll get done when he gets the time).

Do you have a source to cite for this publicized date?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 26, 2008)

Hobo said:


> I was just wondering how to respond to billd91's bizarre and highly wrong quote, when I see that it's already been done.  Bravo, obryn!



I knew my background in social sciences research and experimental statistics would pay off someday! 

-O


----------



## Rechan (Nov 26, 2008)

Aberzanzorax said:


> _About a 1 to 1 correlation with those who want 3rd party production. I.E. everyone who cares about the GSL and everyone who would expand or develop interest in 4e if there were third party production._



That's not what I'm saying.

I don't have a FLGS. The nearest place to me with gaming books is a Books-A-Million. They have the most recent WotC books, a few White Wolf books, and one or two Pathfinder modules.

That's it. 

They didn't have any 3e 3rd party options when 3e was out, and I highly, highly doubt that they will have any 4e 3rd party publications there,.

If I wasn't on EnWorld, I would know Jack about the 3rd party situation, much less the GSL and Pathfinder split business.

So my point: to the non-internet crowd, 3rd party publishing (3e, Pathfinder or 4e) may not be as significant a buy, due to a lack of information and exposure.

The question therefore I am proposing is: Which is bigger, the customer base outside of the know (thus, not 3PP customers) and/or those that just buy 1 or 2 WotC books in addition to the Core Rules, versus the customer base who are 3rd party supporters? If the former is larger than the latter, then threatening WotC with going home with your ball (so to speak), WotC might call that bluff.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 26, 2008)

The Little Raven said:
			
		

> Do you have a source to cite for this publicized date?




No, but I attribute that to my inherent laziness and lack of desire to hunt for one, as opposed to the fact that it doesn't exist.

Heck, I recall rumblings and grumblings about a GSL being out in time for GenCon...

And, with that, I'll stop cluttering the thread. The trials and tribulations of the GSL hold as much interest to me as my neighbor's bowel movements. Which is to say - none.

Well, ok, maybe a little bit.

WP


----------



## Henry (Nov 26, 2008)

avin said:


> Which color? Does it have wings? There will be a mini for it?
> 
> That said, I wish for a faster GSL revision... I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...




All of a sudden, I have a crystal-clear image of Scott Rouse, in The Puffy Shirt, with a winged monkey perched on him, with him standing arms akimbo with square-jawed determination, as a new D&D mini.

*WotC, the fans have spoken! Make it Happen! *


----------



## Rechan (Nov 26, 2008)

Finally, here's a question: 

The "All the 3PP throw down a deadline" assumes that most if not all the 3PP are willing/want to go to Pathfinder. You know, you might have some out there that, for whatever reason, might not like Pathfinder.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

As soon as Wotc feels that a public license is important and that changes to the GSL need to be made it will work out the changes. At that point if 3pp are realy important they could even negotiate their terms. 
 And I doupt that Wotc and 3pp fail to see the actual level of their importance. In fact what everyone is thinking first place is how to increase her own importance. Not  4e. This is why Paizo for example does not support 4e.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> As soon as Wotc feels that a public license is important and that changes to the GSL need to be made it will work out the changes. At that point if 3pp are realy important they could even negotiate their terms.




I'm not sure in the business world "not done yet" equates to "doesn't care about."

Anecdote time:

I have a lot of stuff on my plate at work. I can't get through it all in a given day/week/month so I need to prioritize. It's ALL important to my company, and needs to get done, but certain things take precidence.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I knew my background in social sciences research and experimental statistics would pay off someday!
> 
> -O




He still has a point though. There is not such thing as absolute randomness. Just a recognized effort that may serve as an approximation to objectiveness. Even a statistic study has its statistic chances of success or failure that are even subject themselves to further statistic chances and this goes on ad infinitum. There is no such thing as entropy in economy. It is not a gas. Even if there have been studies (and a Nobel) regarding thermodynamics and economy.

If anecdotal evidence were unimportant there would not exist politics.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not sure in the business world "not done yet" equates to "doesn't care about."



It doesn't. As Le Rouse stated above, the GSL is important but:

1. There are other things to do, which are more important, right now,

and

2. There are limited resources (man-hours) available to accomplish these things.

Business management is about resource allocation. If there are things more important than the GSL the need to get done now, they will get done. If there are resources left over, the GSL will also get done. If not (which is the case here), it will have to wait.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> If anecdotal evidence were unimportant there would not exist politics.



One can dream, can't one?


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 26, 2008)

avin said:


> I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...






Jack99 said:


> You do not need a revised GSL for that.





I think Goodman Games has you covered there.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 26, 2008)

Quite honestly, I see a fair amount of 3pp stuff coming out, just check out this link at RPGNow.   And this is just PDF stuff.

If I am not mistaken, some of these smaller new 3PPs are just guys in the biz that started a new business for this purpose.  Isn't OneBadEgg just a collection of guys around the industry?  I mean, their team is behind Fate and Spirit of the Century, Indie Press Revolution, and even EnWorld's CamBanks (of Dragonlance fame) is doing stuff for them.

There's some neat stuff out there.  Goodman, Mongoose, XRP...


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I'm not sure in the business world "not done yet" equates to "doesn't care about."
> 
> Anecdote time:
> 
> I have a lot of stuff on my plate at work. I can't get through it all in a given day/week/month so I need to prioritize. It's ALL important to my company, and needs to get done, but certain things take precidence.




Oh come on. If the public license was important enough they would have done it allready. It is not something that needs months of R&D and that many resources Wotc cant afford.


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 26, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I am in Europe on business all next week and hope to have some plane and train time to finish what I need to so it can be done before I go on the winter break.



If you happen to go through the west of Sweden on that trip, I'll be happy to buy you a beer or two.


----------



## cangrejoide (Nov 26, 2008)

Hmm I think I'm confused, wasn't the GSL already out?

Hmm this page seems to confirm there are 3pp already producing books for 4E:

4E 3rd Party Publishers - ENWiki

Oh you meant viable?

Well I don't see the current one unviable as there are already 3pp producing stuff for it. 41 in total. 

So what exactly do you want to demand from WOTC?


----------



## hexgrid (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Oh come on. If the public license was important enough they would have done it allready. It is not something that needs months of R&D and that many resources Wotc cant afford.




Right. The revised GSL isn't -compared to the other stuff Scott is working on- important enough. That's pretty much what he said.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Oh come on. If the public license was important enough they would have done it allready. It is not something that needs months of R&D and that many resources Wotc cant afford.




1. A client calls me and asks me to order them some extra flyers because they're getting low.

2. An issue pops up in my inbox concerning a member not getting his benefits paid properly/on time enough times for him to go to his benefits department to complain and therefore have it sent to me and not customer service. It comes in through a system that has a garaunteed turnaround time.

Guess which one gets prioritized as needs to be done first? I'll give you a hint... the second one.

Both issues are important to me/my company/ our clients, but issue two is much more pressing and needs my attention right away.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Oh come on. If the public license was important enough they would have done it allready. It is not something that needs months of R&D and that many resources Wotc cant afford.



Sure, if they just wanted to throw resources at it until it's done they could do that. Is that cost efficient? Likely not.

Mr. Rouse has already explained that the responsibility is his to get it done, and that there are several things he has to do first.

WotC may not "care" as much as you do about getting the revised GSL done right away. Don't make the mistake of assuming they don't care at all. It's a pretty simplistic view of business operations to just say "get it done already".


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

hexgrid said:


> Right. The revised GSL isn't -compared to the other stuff Scott is working on- important enough. That's pretty much what he said.




And compared to what everyone else at Wotc is doing. Which means not important enough for Wotc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> And compared to what everyone else at Wotc is doing. Which means not important enough for Wotc.



LOL. Yes, everyone working at WotC is interchangeable with everyone else, you're right.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Sure, if they just wanted to throw resources at it until it's done they could do that. Is that cost efficient? Likely not.
> 
> Mr. Rouse has already explained that the responsibility is his to get it done, and that there are several things he has to do first.
> 
> WotC may not "care" as much as you do about getting the revised GSL done right away. Don't make the mistake of assuming they don't care at all. It's a pretty simplistic view of business operations to just say "get it done already".




It does not "care" means it is not a priority. Be it because of cost efficiency, be it because of whatever other reasons might exist (for example legal). I am not sure what we are disagreeing about here.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> LOL. Yes, everyone working at WotC is interchangeable with everyone else, you're right.




 So only Scott is able to do the GSL around the world? And even if that be the case only Scott is able to do what other duties he is having right now?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> It does not "care" means it is not a priority. Be it because of cost efficiency, be it because of whatever other reasons might exist (for example legal). I am not sure what we are disagreeing about here.



We disagree because your "care/don't care" idea is too simplistic to be applied to a complex entity like WotC. There are many degrees of "care" here, and each gets its attention when the time comes.

"WotC doesn't care about the GSL" is just a painfully simplistic way to look at it. It's like a sound bite. It doesn't consider context and it ignores the complexity of the issue.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 26, 2008)

xechnao said:


> So only Scott is able to do the GSL around the world? And even if that be the case only Scott is able to do what other duties he is having right now?



It appears so. I have no idea what WotC's staffing is like, but if it's on Scott's plate and only Scott's, then chances are he's the one to do it.

"Around the world" has nothing to do with it. "Inside WotC" is the relevant environment. Considering recent cutbacks, there is no way they would add someone to the brand team just to get this done.

It may be that there is someone else who could do it, just not as well. That's an efficiency question as well: do you get it done just to get it done, since that would risk errors and problems that you wouldn't risk if you wait until the right person is available?


----------



## xechnao (Nov 26, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It appears so. I have no idea what WotC's staffing is like, but if it's on Scott's plate and only Scott's, then chances are he's the one to do it.
> 
> "Around the world" has nothing to do with it. "Inside WotC" is the relevant environment. Considering recent cutbacks, there is no way they would add someone to the brand team just to get this done.
> 
> It may be that there is someone else who could do it, just not as well. That's an efficiency question as well: do you get it done just to get it done, since that would risk errors and problems that you wouldn't risk if you wait until the right person is available?




Waiting has its risks too. But I doupt Wotc has done a risk managment analysis or operational researcj regarding the times of development of GSL and its efficiency.

To get done with this it so seems that the disagreement here is how we picture Wotc with our messages. Have my posts seem like a sound bite? I did not have the intention and I apologize. But perhaps I tend to post like this because of the celebrious history from its beginning till now?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 26, 2008)

CaptainChaos said:


> I think it speaks volumes that we haven't seen third party publishers pushing for the revised GSL. I suspect that those who felt beholden to WotC have already signed on, and those alienated by WotC's current attitude towards 3PPs and the continual changes and delays have moved on.



Beholden?  Alienated?  This isn't a fiefdom or a high school locker room.  

The third party publishers who feel they can best make money publishing 4e material right now are going to do so right now.  Those who feel they can better spend their efforts elsewhere will do so.  If or when a new GSL is written, some third party publishers will change their minds about their best course of business.

Any third party publisher who is genuinely making business decisions out of a sense of obligation or alienation deserves to go out of business.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The third party publishers who feel they can best make money publishing 4e material right now are going to do so right now.  Those who feel they can better spend their efforts elsewhere will do so.  If or when a new GSL is written, some third party publishers will change their minds about their best course of business.
> 
> Any third party publisher who is genuinely making business decisions out of a sense of obligation or alienation deserves to go out of business.



You go dude! (+1 Exp)

This is how I see it as well.  It's about business decisions, not emotions or high-school cliquery (my word.. I made it up.. no need to comment about my grammar..)


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 27, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Waiting has its risks too. But I doupt Wotc has done a risk managment analysis or operational researcj regarding the times of development of GSL and its efficiency.



A formal risk management analysis? Likely not. But when Le Rouse talks about prioritizing his tasks, it means he's doing an informal risk analysis in his head every time he makes a decision.

And once again, don't forget that there is a GSL out there. We're talking about a revision to the GSL. If there were no GSL at all, I suspect its priority would be much higher.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 27, 2008)

I support this idea.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 27, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> I support this idea.



Are you a publisher? Seems to me the only real way to support this idea is to go ahead with it, as a publisher.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 27, 2008)

Oh, and while I'm in 'back to the OP' mode in general. . .

It'll never happen anyway. It wouldn't achieve anything, to start with. And it's presumptuous, and maybe even arrogant. Plus, there are publishers who've already gone ahead with 4e stuff, regardless.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Are you a publisher? Seems to me the only real way to support this idea is to go ahead with it, as a publisher.




This isn't the STL, so like the OGL, everyone is a publisher if they want to be.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> This isn't the STL, so like the OGL, everyone is a publisher if they want to be.



Indeed. But unless you _are _a publisher, "supporting" this idea is rather meaningless.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. But unless you _are_ a publisher, "supporting" this idea is rather meaningless.




While the revised GSL is on hold, then it may also place the the functionality of a publisher on hold as well.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> While the revised GSL is on hold, then it may also place the the functionality of a publisher on hold as well.



Um...okay?

Look, my point is this: it's easy to say "I support this idea" if you have nothing to lose in the deal. Say, if you're not a publisher. The only people whose support matters are the publishers who would be issuing the ultimatum to WotC.

But of course, to those people it's a business decision, and they would be silly to restrict themselves by assigning an arbitrary deadline. You expect them not to publish 4E stuff if WotC comes out with a great revised GSL, but two weeks after the "deadline", just because they missed it. That's not a rational business decision.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

You, as a publisher, fail to recognize that non-publishers also have things to lose if a revised GSL is held up indefinitely.

It is called quality of product from publishers that they may wish were making 4th edition material.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> You, as a publisher, fail to recognize that non-publishers also have things to lose if a revised GSL is held up indefinitely.



I don't fail to see anything. But we know the revised GSL is in the queue, so this hypothetical seems moot.



justanobody said:


> It is called quality of product from publishers that they may wish were making 4th edition material.



Looking at it from this perspective, then, the ultimatum is a *bad idea*.

Say a bunch of publishers get together and set a deadline. If the deadline is missed, they all go Pathfinder.

So WotC releases a revised GSL two weeks after this deadline. All of these publishers have said they have gone Pathfinder, and will not go 4E. So you have this bunch of publishers who could have been producing quality 4E stuff, but they now refuse because of some artificial deadline.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 28, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> There's some neat stuff out there.  Goodman, Mongoose, XRP...




*cough cough* 

Thanks for the update, Mr. Rouse!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 28, 2008)

For the record:

Deadline = Very Bad Idea.

Seriously, work WITH WotC, not against them. They aren't the enemy, they're just the uncoordinated brontosaurus that keeps falling over their own tail.  Teach that brontosaurus to DANCE, and you've got a show.

(okay, Apatosaurus. SHUT UP.)


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 28, 2008)

Originally Posted by catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> There's some neat stuff out there. Goodman, Mongoose, XRP...






JackSmithIV said:


> *cough cough*




I think JackSmithIV is reminding you that you seem to have forgotten this new awesome PDF-publisher called *One Bad Egg*!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 28, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:
			
		

> *cough cough*




Sadly, I have yet to look into the Popison Ivy products yet...




			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> I think JackSmithIV is reminding you that you seem to have forgotten this new awesome PDF-publisher called One Bad Egg!






catsclaw227 said:


> If I am not mistaken, some of these smaller new 3PPs are just guys in the biz that started a new business for this purpose.  Isn't OneBadEgg just a collection of guys around the industry?  I mean, their team is behind Fate and Spirit of the Century, Indie Press Revolution, and even EnWorld's CamBanks (of Dragonlance fame) is doing stuff for them.



It looks like, my friend Jack99, that your thread-fu has grown weak!   But, I will admit it was up near post fifty-sumthin-r-other, and my short term thread memory is about 30 posts or so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2008)

Mr. The Rouse, thank you for the update.

If there is anyone who dislikes the GSL as-is more than I do, I have yet to meet him.  I am pro-OGL all the way.  I am not a big fan of 4e as written, and I admit I would have liked to have seen a 3pp rewrite.

And, yet, even I recognize that trying to give WotC a deadline at this point is a bad, bad idea.  In fact, it is IMHO, a worse idea than the current GSL.  

3pp are using the GSL as-is on the basis of good faith and the promise of revision, and I'm guessing that some of them at least (Clark at Necromancer, if no one else) has some idea what the revision will look like.  Attempts to strong-arm WotC are only going to push the GSL revision back.  An OGL 4e-clone would _*really*_ push the revision back......certainly it would give the Legal Department something more important to deal with.

Mr. The Rouse hasn't hidden from his responsibilities IMHO.  Rather, he has taken them on manfully.  He ought to be applauded for the same.  He has ensured that several 3pp are comfortable enough with what the revision will look like that they have begun producing material for 4e.  This isn't a minor accomplishment.

The most recent issue of Dragon Roots (DRAGON ROOTS) came out with both 3.5 and 4e content because WotC is willing to work with 3pp.  Again, it is my understanding that Mr. The Rouse deserves real kudos for his involvement.

Even though I am not a 4e player, I recognize that there is a lot of good in the ruleset, and it has made a lot of people happy.  The design team merged their ideas of "smart play" and "satisfying play" extremely well, so if you find the sort of game they're offering satisfying, the rules won't get in your way.  This is definitely praiseworthy.  

Again, Kudos.

Mr. The Rouse, should you ever be in Toronto, I'll buy you a beer too.  Yours is a thankless job.  


RC


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 28, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> It looks like, my friend Jack99, that your thread-fu has grown weak!   But, I will admit it was up near post fifty-sumthin-r-other, and my short term thread memory is about 30 posts or so.




It has indeed. But so has your sense of irony


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> While the revised GSL is on hold, then it may also place the the functionality of a publisher on hold as well.




Which parts are the existig GSL are preventing you publishing now?  I assume, unlike, for example, myself, you don't have a back-catalogue of OGL products to worry about, which deals with most of the GSL complaints.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Mr. The Rouse, should you ever be in Toronto, I'll buy you a beer too.  Yours is a thankless job.



Hear hear. I might offer something similar, but I know there's zero chance he'll ever happen to be in Fredericton.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Which parts are the existig GSL are preventing you publishing now?  I assume, unlike, for example, myself, you don't have a back-catalogue of OGL products to worry about, which deals with most of the GSL complaints.




The problem with the GSL is the death warrant you sign for yourself with the bound forever and change at will clauses.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The problem with the GSL is the death warrant you sign for yourself with the bound forever and change at will clauses.




Also personally, I don't like the section about "redefine terms" that gives WotC the rights to public domain names such as elf/etc to dictate to me how I would describe or detail them.

Not having done OGL content it doesn't bother me but, I see claiming ownership in any form of public domain terms as a violation and makes the GSL not even legal.

Now D&D has some staple, sacred-cows, that must be there for looks, and I think it is good to have these "demihumans" as part of the core, but the problem lies in the fact that they are public domain things: elves, dwarves, HUMANS!

Had they wanted the GSL to really protect their IP, then they needed to create from whole cloth completely new races. Not include elf at all, but have Eladrin in its place. If for some reason I actually might be insane enough to like Nordic mythology and want my elves to resemble those from it, I should not have to supplant some additional word to "elf" to prevent from "redefining terms" that would constitute some breach of the contract and license.

That personally is one big thing I am looking at in regards to the problems of the GSL, as well as other things like what was mentioned in the quoted post here.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 28, 2008)

Like it or not, the GSL is workable enough for Mongoose and Goodman to use it.  They have plenty to loose should WotC try to "bring them down with it," but WotC has not done anything to indicate that they have any interest in doing that.  It would be like a giant swatting the gnats because they're eating all the giant's food.  That's just silly.  Either the giant had enough food to start with or didn't.  Wizards obviously feel they have a large enough market share as is.  

The GSL might not be perfect but it i "good enough" for several publishers to work with it.  Yea, its sad that Necro isn't publishing, its sad that Paizo went their own way, but such is life.  "You will lose some friends and gain new ones. The process is painful but often necessary. They will change, you will change, because life is changing." -John Sheridan, President of the Interstellar Alliance.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Also personally, I don't like the section about "redefine terms" that gives WotC the rights to public domain names such as elf/etc to dictate to me how I would describe or detail them.




You gotta give _something_ in exchange. It's not a free gift - it's a contract, where both parties give something. WotC gives this powerful brand name, in exchange for which you give up certain rights. You're not forced to sign that contract; but if you think it's worth it to you, you will. 



> but, I see claiming ownership in any form of public domain terms as a violation and makes the GSL not even legal.




Fortunately, the welath of legal jurisdiction disagrees with you. A contract is legal as long as it doesn't require any criminal act.



> Had they wanted the GSL to really protect their IP, then they needed to create from whole cloth completely new races. Not include elf at all, but have Eladrin in its place. If for some reason I actually might be insane enough to like Nordic mythology and want my elves to resemble those from it, I should not have to supplant some additional word to "elf" to prevent from "redefining terms" that would constitute some breach of the contract and license.




You're free to do all that.  You just don't get to slap a shiny D&D logo on your product.  I'm a pubisher with a vested financial interest in this, and I think that's perfectly fair.

The only thing stopping me signing it is the "trash all your OGL stuff" clause.  Can't afford to do that.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> You gotta give _something_ in exchange. It's not a free gift - it's a contract, where both parties give something. WotC gives this powerful brand name, in exchange for which you give up certain rights. You're not forced to sign that contract; but if you think it's worth it to you, you will.




And I refuse to give control of the English language to WotC, or conform to their ideals of what my IP should be. They control their IP, not mine. They are asking WAY too much for those names and things that are in public domain.



> Fortunately, the wealth of legal jurisdiction disagrees with you. A contract is legal as long as it doesn't require any criminal act.




This will only be proven true AFTER the GSL has be involved in a court case.



> You're free to do all that.  You just don't get to slap a shiny D&D logo on your product.  I'm a pubisher with a vested financial interest in this, and I think that's perfectly fair.




The thing is you don't have to have a financial interest, it just happens that you do. I could not create a fan product with the D&D logo because it tells me what I have to use as definitions for public domain terms. That is where the thing falls flat.

What you should be giving up is the right to create your own game based on the IP of WotC, that the OGL allowed; but not your right to create anything else for the game just because WotC wants to circumvent your rights to those public domain terms.

How much actual control of those public domain terms do you give up? What rights do you retain for other things in regards to those public domain terms?

What you have below is a little part of that, but other than the OGL, are you giving up your rights to use those public domain terms in other things just because you have signed this GSL?



> The only thing stopping me signing it is the "trash all your OGL stuff" clause.  Can't afford to do that.




That just makes me want to kick someone in the nuts! You are rightfully so to be offended by that section because it is a slap in the face not only to publishers, but consumers as well.

All hail WotC gods of all gaming and bow to their whims. 

It just makes me want to listen to the convention meeting where someone recorded the closed session between WotC and 3PP discussing the OGL/STL and what was coming and the things Bill S. said and got mad at the 3PP because they didn't just blindly accept WotC telling them what to think.

I don't recall a pleasant thing said on either side from that meeting, but seemed everyone left unhappy. Wish I knew if I still had that or where to find it again!


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> And I refuse to give control of the English language to WotC, or conform to their ideals of what my IP should be. They control their IP, not mine. They are asking WAY too much for those names and things that are in public domain.



They can ask for whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't use the GSL. And it's not that they're asserting some right over public domain terms, as you seem to think. It's just a term of the contract: if you use the contract, you agree to use these terms to mean these specific things, and nothing else, in the product covered by the GSL.



justanobody said:


> What you should be giving up is the right to create your own game based on the IP of WotC, that the OGL allowed; but not your right to create anything else for the game just because WotC wants to circumvent your rights to those public domain terms.



You're free to use those terms any way you like, as long as it's not a product published under the GSL. No rights are being taken away.



justanobody said:


> What you have below is a little part of that, but other than the OGL, are you giving up your rights to use those public domain terms in other things just because you have signed this GSL?



Um, no. Like I said they are not asserting rights over terms like "human". They are requiring you to use the terms in a specific way in a product if you want to use the GSL. That is all.



justanobody said:


> That just makes me want to kick someone in the nuts! You are rightfully so to be offended by that section because it is a slap in the face not only to publishers, but consumers as well.



At least you're thinking about it rationally. Give us a break.



justanobody said:


> All hail WotC gods of all gaming and bow to their whims.



Yes, they really should be letting us use their trademark without us having to give them anything. Really, what are they thinking?


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Fortunately, the welath of legal jurisdiction disagrees with you. A contract is legal as long as it doesn't require any criminal act.
> .




the question is not whether it is legal or not, it is whether it is legally binding.  and that has nothing to do with criminal acts in this context.


----------



## tsadkiel (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I could not create a fan product with the D&D logo because it tells me what I have to use as definitions for public domain terms. That is where the thing falls flat.




You couldn't do that anyway.  The logo is a trademark.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> And I refuse to give control of the English language to WotC, or conform to their ideals of what my IP should be. They control their IP, not mine. They are asking WAY too much for those names and things that are in public domain.




OK, so basically someone ha ssomehting for sale, and you think the price is too high?

That's fine. Happens every day. Just don't take them up on the offer.

But the anger at them daring to try to sell something to you at a price you don't want to pay? That's not justified. Do you wander round shops ranting at them because some things have less value value to you than the price they're asking?



> That just makes me want to kick someone in the nuts! You are rightfully so to be offended by that section because it is a slap in the face not only to publishers, but consumers as well.




I'm not _offended_ by it. I'm running a business. The cost of that product (the D&D logo) is currently too high for me. I have no business being _offended_.



> All hail WotC gods of all gaming and bow to their whims.




That sarcasm is not necessary. It's their IP. They can attach whatever price to it they like. You can agree to pay the price or not, depending whether you think it's a good deal. 

It's like buying a car. I, at present, feel the car is too expensive; so I'm keeping my old one. If they reduce the price, I might buy it.

I'm not mad at the car company for not giving me a free car, though.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 28, 2008)

This is why I say the OGL fostered a sense of "entitlement" among its fans.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> It's like buying a car. I, at present, feel the car is too expensive; so I'm keeping my old one. If they reduce the price, I might buy it.
> 
> I'm not mad at the car company for not giving me a free car, though.




But don't advertise one car, give its price as guaranteed, then when I get there jack it up 20%. Thee is a term or two for that I think.

The problem is they are giving you a free car, but telling you you can only drive it on the interstate. So how do you get it home?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> But don't advertise one car, give its price as guaranteed, then when I get there jack it up 20%. Thee is a term or two for that I think.




Huh? What are you talking about? Who's done what, now?

Did they, like, call you up, tell you the GSL said one thing, forced you to drive all the way to Seattle to sign it, only to find it said another?  

You really need to think about this.  



> The problem is they are giving you a free car, but telling you you can only drive it on the interstate. So how do you get it home?




So? It's a free car. Take it and don't drive it on whatever an insterstate is, or don't take it. They don't _owe_ you a free car.  There's nothing _wrong_ with someone offering you a free car that has somehting wrong with it.

Man, remind me never to buy you a beer!  I couldn't live with the recriminations afterwards!


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The problem is they are giving you a free car, but telling you you can only drive it on the interstate. So how do you get it home?




They aren't giving  you anything. They are saying that IF you want a free car, you can only drive on the interstate. It's still up to you if you want to buy that free BMW or go buy a use Ford elsewhere. 

You still have a choice. What's the problem, aside from the fact that some people feel they should get the free BMW and be able to do whatever they want with it?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 28, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> You still have a choice. What's the problem, aside from the fact that some people feel they should get the free BMW and be able to do whatever they want with it?




That is the problem. People have been spoiled by the OGL, and they want their cake and being able to eat it too.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2008)

For the record, you actually CAN contract to completely and totally give up, in every possible context, the ability to use things which are part of the public domain.

I could write a contract in which I gave you $100 in exchange for you promising to never, ever use the word "sardine" again.  Not in writing, not in published work, not verbally, not ever.  That word would be denied to you, permanently, forever.  And I could put in that contract that, if you DO use the word "sardine," you have to, I dunno, give me back the $100 plus some extra penalty.

That would be legal.  Because, see, you don't have to take the $100.

Not that WOTC is doing this or anything.  But I felt I should add this for the record- if they WERE doing this, it would be legal.  I gave you a promise ($100), you gave me a promise (never to utter "sardine"), we have a contract.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> the question is not whether it is legal or not, it is whether it is legally binding. and that has nothing to do with criminal acts in this context.



Hah, I saw what you did there.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 28, 2008)

Whether people agree that the current GSL is good or bad, or whether people agree on percieved entitlement or not because of the OGL, the idea of a deadline demand to WoTC is just a silly, futile, and empty gesture.

This would be like telling WoTC back when 4E was just coming out, that a June release just wasn't acceptable, and then demanded an April release or else. Or else what!? You can't demand or coerce when you have absolutely NO LEVERAGE. All that making a demand like this is going to do is piss off some people at WoTC, and probably the very people that are on the side of releasing a new GSL as soon as possible. There are some people at WoTC that are trying to do this the right way, and release a GSL that works both for WoTC and 3pp purposes. Making unrealistic and unenforcable demands, at best resolves nothing, at worst slows things down even more. I believe Scott is doing everything he can to make this happen. Leave the man alone and let him work. The more he has to deal with silliness like this, the longer it will probably take.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> For the record, you actually CAN contract to completely and totally give up, in every possible context, the ability to use things which are part of the public domain.
> 
> I could write a contract in which I gave you $100 in exchange for you promising to never, ever use the word "sardine" again.  Not in writing, not in published work, not verbally, not ever.  That word would be denied to you, permanently, forever.  And I could put in that contract that, if you DO use the word "sardine," you have to, I dunno, give me back the $100 plus some extra penalty.
> 
> ...




I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 28, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.



Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it. We're talking about people willingly giving up a right in return for something, not having your rights taken away without recompense. There's rather a large difference there.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.




You can. Your "Freedom of Speech" is related to the _government_ not abridging your right to speak; it has nothing to do with you voluntarily agreeing not to speak.

For example - if you appear in a stage show, your contract will not aloow you to suddenly say, halfway through "I want a pie!" That does not infringe on your freedom of speech; it is a private agreement between you and the production company whereby you agree to say/not say things, in exchange for money.

Or, more famously, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You can't use a trademarked term in publicity without permission. There are LOTS of limits on what you can say.

Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with private agreements.

You don't have freedom of speech here on EN World, for example. You agreed, when signing up, that that was the case. EN World is not [your] government, so you can make that agreement with the site.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> That is the problem. People have been spoiled by the OGL, and they want their cake and being able to eat it too.




No you are quite wrong. For decades I have been waiting for osmething that would allow me to do this:

-Use the logo
-Include any name of something within the game
-create anything I want to add to it to interact with (skill, NWP, feat, item, town, new creature)

That is it. I don't want to make a new game, just be able to make the things I would use and a chance to share it with other people as a fan, and recoup some[all] of the cost to physically produce it.

The logo only states that it was made to be used with a specific game. Oddly enough the game I like, not every Tom, Harry, and Dick RPG out there.

That means needing to be able to specifically make my own elf description, background, history, physiology, etc; same as orc, goblin, etc from the public domain; and be able to call then just an ELF, ORC, GOBLIN. etc.

OGL went too far and that is how they ended up with other people able to print the SRD completely and sell it as a new game.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> . . . Or, more famously, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. . .




100% true.  This is illegal.  At best you can be charged with Reckless Endangerment, at worst, if someone is hurt or worse, add on a charge (or charges) of Assault or Manslaugther.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No you are quite wrong. For decades I have been waiting for osmething that would allow me to do this:
> 
> -Use the logo
> -Include any name of something within the game
> -create anything I want to add to it to interact with (skill, NWP, feat, item, town, new creature)




And why should WotC give you that?  What do you offer in exchange?

For them, the value they want is keeping those defined terms defined. You, clearly, are not prepared to pay that.  What are you prepared to pay?

The question the is: is it worth it to WotC to let people loose with their brand name in exchange for the price you suggest. 

You're just haggling here over a trade.  It's only a question of determining the price; and that price is _not_ going to be zero.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 28, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with private agreements.



 But I am not american 
So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him? asking him not to eat? telling him what to vote in the elections?
Asking to understand how law works (I guess in Anglo-saxon (anglican?) states)


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 28, 2008)

Xechnao- Are you kidding me?

Look, slavery is illegal, right?  Fundamental rights, unconstitutional, and all that?  And yet you can contract to oblige yourself to have to work for someone.

Being forced to attend religious services you don't agree with is illegal, right?  Same with being forced to swear belief in a religious you don't believe in?  Another fundamental right, unconstitutional, etc?  And yet you can contract to be an organist in a church, or even a minister, obliging you to attend that church and swear the religious oaths it demands.

Fundamental rights are things that no one can MAKE you give up.  You can CHOOSE to give them up all you want!*  Contracts are things you enter into voluntarily with other private citizens.  They are not, generally speaking, compulsion.  They don't even force you to follow them- you're allowed to breach a contract!  Sometimes the law even encourages you to breach a contract!  You just might have to pay a fee as a result of that choice.

*Ok, not ALL you want.  There are a few exceptions, such as genuinely exploitive situations (company towns, etc).  Trust me, these don't apply here.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Xechnao- Are you kidding me?
> 
> Look, slavery is illegal, right?  Fundamental rights, unconstitutional, and all that?  And yet you can contract to oblige yourself to have to work for someone.
> 
> ...




But there have to be some limitations. Can you contract people to work for 120 hours a week for example? Or without offering certain types of insurances? There are usually certain types of contracts regarding labor/work for example. Not everything is legal. Or is it not like this in USA?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him?




No, but assault is a crime. You can't contract a crime. Not saying something is not a crime.

The important thing, in the context of this conversation, is that the GSL terms are legal (even if some people think they shouldn't be).

What you need to distinguish betwen is a voluntary agreement (a contract) and a crime (an illegal act), and not get the terms confused.  A contract is not "illegal" unless it incoudes a criminal act.  Now it may prove to be _unenforceable_, but that's just a practical issue.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I think JackSmithIV is reminding you that you seem to have forgotten this new awesome PDF-publisher called *One Bad Egg*!




That's so brutal...



catsclaw227 said:


> Sadly, I have yet to look into the Poison Ivy products yet...




It's ok, we'll be around! 



justanobody said:


> No you are quite wrong. For decades I have been waiting for osmething that would allow me to do this:
> 
> -Use the logo
> -Include any name of something within the game
> -*create anything I want to add to it to interact with (skill, NWP, feat, item, town, new creature)*




First of all, we basically can. I certainly don't want to speak on behalf of all publishers on this matter, I myself being a very new face to the game, but the improvements I personally seek to the GSL (mostly a +6 Enhancements bonus to the SRD) are not things I need to create any of the essential game elements you mentioned. I can create all of those things as long as I do not infringe upon any intellectual properties that Wizards of the Coast has *completely rightfully* decided to withhold (for example, I can't write about the Feywild, because they own that idea and want to capitalize on the concept themselves).

The changes I want to the SRD are mostly updates. Currently, I'm pretty sure that I can't use any of the templates for making mounts, vehicles, alchemical items and other such things from the Adventurers Vault. I can't elaborate on any of the new classes, such as new powers or paragon paths for Swordmage or Dark Pact warlocks, etc... but these are things that I am in _no way_ entitled to. On the contrary, I feel grateful that Wizards has allowed me use of the IP in this way, and they've never made any sort of promise either way.

But then again, I'm just a cool-aid drinker, right?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> And why should WotC give you that?  What do you offer in exchange?
> 
> For them, the value they want is keeping those defined terms defined. You, clearly, are not prepared to pay that.  What are you prepared to pay?
> 
> ...




Because it could generate more sales of their core products?

I offer free advertising of their products via mine. But the whole advertising has shifted now and people have to pay to have a product in their programs now instead of the way it used to be where the product owner had to pay to GET into the programs...

What would WotC have to lose?

Only their chance to make the exact same product.

As it stands now they *can* kill the GSL to steal the name from someone's new monster as it is.

What the hell do I owe WotC anyway? I have said it before, and will say it again. I don't care about WotC. I owe them nothing, they have never done a thing for me.

I was one of the many people that kept TSR hanging on by their teeth to not go into bankruptcy and foreclosure that allowed WotC to buy them and make D&D afterwards, and even bought WotC/TSR products. I think they owe me!

God forbid they save on marketing the PHB or DMG because I was able to make something that caused people to need to buy it and WotC didn't have to shell out any extra money for that advertising. How much do TV commercials cost these days? Not just the 30 seconds of time, but production as well.

So what I am offering is less marketing costs and accounts payable for WotC, with an increase in accounts receivable and sales due to the increased interest in the product for D&D that only they can make and sell.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 29, 2008)

> So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him?



Depends on your definition of abuse.

For instance, if I walk into a public place and smack a strange woman on the bottom, that's assault. 

However, if I have an acquaintance who _wants_ to be smacked on the bottom with a cane, and she gives me permission, than I can do so.

The issue is consent.

On the topic of legally binding stipulations, you can have a man whose job in a self defense class is to be kneed in the groin, or whatever unpleasant things that self-defense instructor might have the class do. That is his _job_. If it's in his contract that he cannot sue for injury done to him, and he gets beaten up, well that's his fault for signing that contract.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> What the hell do I owe WotC anyway? I have said it before, and will say it again. I don't care about WotC. I owe them nothing, they have never done a thing for me.



You don't owe them anything, *unless *you want to use their IP (trademark), which you would otherwise not be able to do. In that case, they'll want something in return.

The question is, why do you think they owe *you *something? You haven't done anything for them either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Whether people agree that the current GSL is good or bad, or whether people agree on percieved entitlement or not because of the OGL, the idea of a deadline demand to WoTC is just a silly, futile, and empty gesture.





Exactly.  Silly, futile, empty, and potentially damaging.


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Because it could generate more sales of their core products?
> 
> I offer free advertising of their products via mine. But the whole advertising has shifted now and people have to pay to have a product in their programs now instead of the way it used to be where the product owner had to pay to GET into the programs...
> 
> What would WotC have to lose?




Book of Erotic Fantasy 4E?
RaHoWa 4E?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Book of Erotic Fantasy 4E?



was that OGL or STL?



> RaHoWa 4E?




what the hell is that?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> was that OGL or STL?
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell is that?




You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Because it could generate more sales of their core products?
> 
> I offer free advertising of their products via mine.
> 
> ...





the thing you aren't getting, is what if your product totally and completely sucks?

someone new to the hobby sees it on a shelf, buys it, and it sucks.  and they use that as a representative product for dungeons and dragons. and they then assume that all dungeons and dragons products suck as bad as yours does.  

that's trademark dilution of the worst kind.

that's why they don't want anything out there with the name dungeons and dragons on it not published by them.

i know the ogl allows free use of certain game elements by the public. this allowed the public to do things like put up their characters and adventures and personal gaming material all over the internet.  that's what we fought so hard for in 1994 on usenet.  

my concern is that things not covered by the ogl that are in 4e like powers and eladrin, etc., give a right to wotc to prevent you from publishing your own stuff on the web for 4e

i have not read the gsl in any detail, so i don't know what it says in relation to publishing for free your own gaming material.  after i post this, i wil read it and see what it says.  but still, without a final version, unchangeable as to certain key aspects, i wouldn't trust it.

since i am not going 4e, as opposed to 1994, this time around i dont really give a crap though.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech.




i couldn't agree more.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> The important thing, in the context of this conversation, is that the GSL terms are legal (even if some people think they shouldn't be).
> 
> What you need to distinguish betwen is a voluntary agreement (a contract) and a crime (an illegal act), and not get the terms confused.  A contract is not "illegal" unless it incoudes a criminal act.  Now it may prove to be _unenforceable_, but that's just a practical issue.




Bingo!


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 29, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.




Learning that there was a Racial Holy War RPG is the second most disturbing thing I read about today (the first would be the guy getting crushed at the Wal-Mart this morning).  Yeah, WoTC needs to protect themselves from something like that.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 29, 2008)

Do you mean, protect themselves from WalMart?


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Do you mean, protect themselves from WalMart?




getting 2 feet of shelf space in walmart would be about the best thing that could happen to the hobby long-term. gives it massive exposure, gets new gamers, and attains the implied walmart seal of approval of the product.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him?



If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). Furthermore, yes it does work - otherwise doctors would be in serious trouble - after all, they do cut you up (that's why it's so important to have the consent of relatives if the patient is in a coma and so on).

That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). Furthermore, yes it does work - otherwise doctors would be in serious trouble - after all, they do cut you up (that's why it's so important to have the consent of relatives if the patient is in a coma and so on).
> 
> That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Doctors try to fix you, not abuse you.  For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Doctors try to fix you, not abuse you.  For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?




Yes, though if they're following the law, the process can get pretty involved before it gets to human testing.  Where I live, a drug testing company is constantly advertising, looking for human test subjects for new experimental treatments.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 29, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). . .
> 
> . . .That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.




Hurting a person, with consent, limited to just pain, probably legal.  Hurting a person, even with consent, that results in real physical harm, probably not.

In other words, hot wax, with consent, probably legal.

Electrocution or cutting in a manner that could potentially, or does, adversely affect or endanger the recipient, probably not.

But laws vary from place to place.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> Yes, though if they're following the law, the process can get pretty involved before it gets to human testing.  Where I live, a drug testing company is constantly advertising, looking for human test subjects for new experimental treatments.




Exactly. There are legal conditions regarding most types of the most representative contracts of our societies' functionality. 
There are also anti trust provisions. Regarding economic activities I doubt there is a universal law that allows one to say "I wont do business with you unless...this and that term..." no matter what. But publishers of entertainment goods are pretty much on their own (as most representatives of innovative initiatives -that is in environments where copyrights and similar may apply).


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Exactly. There are legal conditions regarding most types of the most representative contracts of our societies' functionality.
> There are also anti trust provisions. Regarding economic activities I doubt there is a universal law that allows one to say "I wont do business with you unless...this and that term..." no matter what.



I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think that WotC should not be allowed to refuse to allow parties to use their IP? Or not be able to dictate the terms of such use?


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think that WotC should not be allowed to refuse to allow parties to use their IP? Or not be able to dictate the terms of such use?




The functionality of copyright and similar is a matter of debate that can go as deep as the discussion on liberal and programmed economy. But as things stand right now, I think, Wotc is doing nothing questionable. On the contrary it seems it is behaving as promoted by the current legal environment. Of course if Wotc or whoever would ever become a monopolistic propaganda machine then people should voice concerns on not only such a behavior but on the very situation of its status.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?



That's what medical trials are for. In fact, you can get paid to take experimental drugs in the testing phase. If the side effects of the drug cause problems, you could sue, unless you signed a waiver stating you signed away that ability because you knew the drug was experimental.

Not to mention that every procedure has to have a first. Take for instance the first open heart transplant. Or the first pig heart to human transplant.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Because it could generate more sales of their core products?
> 
> I offer free advertising of their products via mine. But the whole advertising has shifted now and people have to pay to have a product in their programs now instead of the way it used to be where the product owner had to pay to GET into the programs...
> 
> What would WotC have to lose?




But that's their decision to make.  They have to make the call whether the possibility of additional sales (a) exists and (b) is worth it.



> What the hell do I owe WotC anyway? I have said it before, and will say it again. I don't care about WotC. I owe them nothing, they have never done a thing for me.




You owe them nothing.  They owe you nothing.  Why is this even a question?  Where is this_ anger_ coming from?  What have they _done_ to you that is so terrible, other than sell you some stuff that you (apparently) liked?



> I was one of the many people that kept TSR hanging on by their teeth to not go into bankruptcy and foreclosure that allowed WotC to buy them and make D&D afterwards, and even bought WotC/TSR products. I think they owe me!




Don't be ridiculous.



> So what I am offering is less marketing costs and accounts payable for WotC, with an increase in accounts receivable and sales due to the increased interest in the product for D&D that only they can make and sell.




OK, that's your counter-offer.  They have to decide whether it translates into real profits or not.  I suspect they believe it _doesn't_ affect their bottom line that much, but I can't speak for them; you apparently beleive otherwise, and it would be interesting to compare your data to theirs to see where the conflict lies.  

I suspect - with all due respect - that the conflict lies with them having data and you just having an opinion you plucked out of the air.  In which case, if they asked me, I would strongly advise them t go with their data and not justanobody's opinion on the intrawebs.

But then, I'm sensible like that.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.




The last thing scares me, but again I ask, was book of erotic fantasy OGL or STL?


Morrus said:


> I suspect - with all due respect - that the conflict lies with them having data and you just having an opinion you plucked out of the air.  In which case, if they asked me, I would strongly advise them t go with their data and not justanobody's opinion on the intrawebs.
> 
> But then, I'm sensible like that.




But we cannot talk about illegal activities, and if I sold an adventure to people for 1st edition without proper written consent from TSR, it would be in violation of ENWorld policy for me to say so wouldn't it?

Hypothetically speaking of course...


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

A question for you Morrus, since you're in this thread and it has tangentially come up.  How do you feel about the lack of a web site license for 4e material?  I might have missed it, but I don't see anything in the 4e GSL allowing for your hosting on this site material which has elements contained in the 4e SRD.  Theoretically they could ask you to take that material down. Whether you or some other member created it.  And if I remember internet law, as someone who exerts control over the content of the website, you could be held to be liable for any claims of IP infringement if you do not cooperate and take it down.  In the 4e FAQ, they mention some form of website license granting limited rights.  Judging by the delay in the GSL, it might be a while until such a license comes into being.  Meaning,  if they played it that way, they could ask you to remove an awful lot of material.

What's your take on it?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The last thing scares me, but again I ask, was book of erotic fantasy OGL or STL?
> 
> 
> But we cannot talk about illegal activities, and if I sold an adventure to people for 1st edition without proper written consent from TSR, it would be in violation of ENWorld policy for me to say so wouldn't it?
> ...




I have no idea what that means or how it relates to my post.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I have no idea what that means or how it relates to my post.




he lost me too...


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> A question for you Morrus, since you're in this thread and it has tangentially come up. How do you feel about the lack of a web site license for 4e material?




This is a news and discussion site, very comfortably within fair use.  We can talk about D&D all we like.  Hell, it would suck for WotC if nobody was allowed to talk about their game! 



> I might have missed it, but I don't see anything in the 4e GSL allowing for your hosting on this site material which has elements contained in the 4e SRD.




I have a good relationship with Scott, et al.  Any issues can be resolved amicably and quickly.  I don't anticipate any problems, and I'm fairly sure they don't either.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> you just having an opinion you plucked out of the air





Morrus said:


> I have no idea what that means or how it relates to my post.





joethelawyer said:


> he lost me too...




That is how it relates. IF I did have data showing that I wrote something and sold or gave it to people and it increased the sales of D&D, or in my hypothetical AD&D, then without permission to write and give it away, I could not present any data and it would be seen as:

"just having an opinion you plucked out of the air"

and also not allowed to be said on this forum.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The last thing scares me, but again I ask, was book of erotic fantasy OGL or STL?



IIRC, that book was the impetus for putting the objectionable material clause in the STL? Am I right?


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That is how it relates. IF I did have data showing that I wrote something and sold or gave it to people and it increased the sales of D&D, or in my hypothetical AD&D, then without permission to write and give it away, I could not present any data and it would be seen as:
> 
> "just having an opinion you plucked out of the air"
> 
> and also not allowed to be said on this forum.





dude, i'm still lost...maybe its the sudafed, nasal spray, and the cough syrup pumping through my system, but i am missing the point you are tyying to make...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> God forbid they save on marketing the PHB or DMG because I was able to make something that caused people to need to buy it and WotC didn't have to shell out any extra money for that advertising. How much do TV commercials cost these days? Not just the 30 seconds of time, but production as well.
> 
> So what I am offering is less marketing costs and accounts payable for WotC, with an increase in accounts receivable and sales due to the increased interest in the product for D&D that only they can make and sell.



Wow.  You must think really highly of your so called "product". Your post implies that you believe a non-4e gamer will happen upon your book/program/product, read it and say, "OMG, I was never going to before, but now I want to buy the 4e PHB from WOTC, because this third party product is so awesome!!"

Do you really believe that you have a product in mind that you think will single-handedly generate enough sales of PHBs and other core books that WOTC would rush to get the GSL done with the proper edits to give you the access you need?

Do you have a product at all?  I mean, are you a publisher, or a have aspirations to be a publisher (that can perform the kind of sales magic for WOTC that you claim?)


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That is how it relates. IF I did have data showing that I wrote something and sold or gave it to people and it increased the sales of D&D, or in my hypothetical AD&D, then without permission to write and give it away, I could not present any data and it would be seen as:
> 
> "just having an opinion you plucked out of the air"
> 
> and also not allowed to be said on this forum.



Sure you could. If I am not mistaken, you can use OSRIC to publish an AD&D compatible module or product, can't you?  And I know nothing of OSRIC (or OSRIC 2.0).


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> dude, i'm still lost...maybe its the sudafed, nasal spray, and the cough syrup pumping through my system, but i am missing the point you are tyying to make...




Morrus said this:

WotC has data
I have opinion

WotC values its data over my opinion.

IF I had data to show I would have no way to present it just to prove mine was not an opinion.


catsclaw227 said:


> Do you have a product at all?  I mean, are you a publisher, or a have aspirations to be a publisher (that can perform the kind of sales magic for WOTC that you claim?)




I have something homebrew that, should I choose to, could be converted to 4th edition.

I have a printer and have done small print jobs for businesses before, but also can make PDFs.

And people call me a skeptic!

What could a non-porn* product I make do to harm WotC or 4th anymore than the word of mouth and 4th edition itself has done to harm it?

I don't buy porn, nor want it in my D&D so still don't know much about the BoEF.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> IF I had data to show I would have no way to present it just to prove mine was not an opinion.



Why in the world not?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That is how it relates. IF I did have data showing that I wrote something and sold or gave it to people and it increased the sales of D&D, or in my hypothetical AD&D, then without permission to write and give it away, I could not present any data and it would be seen as:
> 
> "just having an opinion you plucked out of the air"
> 
> and also not allowed to be said on this forum.




I do not beleive any data could exist - you would need access to TSR's (then) sales records and a comprehensive statistical analysis which proved a correlation between your effort and their sales; and that said correlation was statistically significant (i.e. proving that two of your mates bought something becaus eof it is irrelevant). It would be a very complex and detailed proof.

Furthermore, even in you did have such details, you would need vastly wider statistics to provide evidence that it was anything more than a statistical aberration in that one case.

On the plus side, I do believe that_ you_ believe that.

I hereby give you permission to post, here on EN World, any such proof without moderator recrimination.  Feel free to provide this data.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I have something homebrew that, should I choose to, could be converted to 4th edition.
> 
> I have a printer and have done small print jobs for businesses before, but also can make PDFs.



Honestly, no offense, but this alone isn't enough to convince WOTC to alter their GSL to meet the needs you are expressing. If Clark at Necromancer Games can't get the changes done in time, I am not sure if justanobody can do it, unless you are a well credentialed, highly influential member of the RPG publishing community and you are just being modest.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> This is a news and discussion site, very comfortably within fair use.  We can talk about D&D all we like.  Hell, it would suck for WotC if nobody was allowed to talk about their game!
> 
> I have a good relationship with Scott, et al.  Any issues can be resolved amicably and quickly.  I don't anticipate any problems, and I'm fairly sure they don't either.




Talking about it is not what i was getting at.  I know we've come a long way from the bad old days, when T$R forced sites to be closed down all over the Internet if they had some high school kid's character, or home made monster or module on it.  

As a lawyer, and a guy who saw people burned before on this issue, I look at the worst case scenario.  As it stands now, it could happen all over again with 4e material, the new GSL, and lack of a license granting certain rights for the hosting of game materials for gamers' own personal use.

Even though I don't play or like 4e, I don't want to see that happen to other gamers.  Then again, maybe I should hope that it does happen.  The natural outcome would be for more people to go to Pathfinder or other non-4e materials.    I don't think they'd be that stupid though...


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Sure you could. If I am not mistaken, you can use OSRIC to publish an AD&D compatible module or product, can't you?  And I know nothing of OSRIC (or OSRIC 2.0).



If it was done when ORSIC existed.


Morrus said:


> I do not beleive any data could exist - you would need access to TSR's (then) sales records and a comprehensive statistical analysis which proved a correlation between your effort and their sales; and that said correlation was statistically significant (i.e. proving that two of your mates bought something becaus eof it is irrelevant). It would be a very complex and detailed proof.
> 
> Furthermore, even in you did have such details, you would need vastly wider statistics to provide evidence that it was anything more than a statistical aberration in that one case.
> 
> ...




As I said it was hypothetical. The point still remains that the data would undergo so much scrutiny that it is likely to be thrown out.

I did write a plot hook and sell it in the past for a quarter a copy for the copy machine and it sold 4 extra PHBs at a LGS, but that is not the kind of thing I am talking about. One page printouts that sale a book are flukes, and that is likely any other data I had such that would be from LGS would be seen as or so infinitesimal as to be negligent.

But to actually have the adventure I have been working on for some time that people have tried to pay me for has been on hold indefinately because I have no legal right to even use the names of some of the things in it, and must remain my own homebrew until that time that I CAN use those names held by TSR....erm WotC now. So even the adventure is incomplete to prevent me from doing anything with it.

Why? Because I cannot afford some lawyer should someone decide a single word I used was out of place because my elves do no function exactly like those presented in a core book, but that is the only change or addition to races. 

So how would the data be presented, or should I try to finish the adventure under OSRIC as _catclaw_ suggests and then see IF WotC wants to grant some special license to adapt to 4th using my elves.

$1,000,000 bets Scott would refuse me a special license for a single adventure as I am just one random person, and IF Wotc wanted it under 4th, they would buy it as freelance, and then own it.

Again wish I knew where that podcast of the 3PP and WotC meeting went on my HDD to review it in regards to the new license that came to be known as the GSL.


catsclaw227 said:


> Honestly, no offense, but this alone isn't enough to convince WOTC to alter their GSL to meet the needs you are expressing. If Clark at Necromancer Games can't get the changes done in time, I am not sure if justanobody can do it, unless you are a well credentialed, highly influential member of the RPG publishing community and you are just being modest.




That is pretty much my point in a nutshell, and I am as my username suggests...just a nobody.

My gripe with the GSL is just that. My gripe. If I were to publish I would want that option to change elves the way I want, and otherwise would prefer to have 3PP be able to do the same if they have some world or setting idea that warrants a change to what an elf is.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> Talking about it is not what i was getting at. I know we've come a long way from the bad old days, when T forced sites to be closed down all over the Internet if they had some high school kid's character, or home made monster or module on it.
> 
> As a lawyer, and a guy who saw people burned before on this issue, I look at the worst case scenario. As it stands now, it could happen all over again with 4e material, the new GSL, and lack of a license granting certain rights for the hosting of game materials for gamers' own personal use.
> 
> Even though I don't play or like 4e, I don't want to see that happen to other gamers. Then again, maybe I should hope that it does happen. The natural outcome would be for more people to go to Pathfinder or other non-4e materials.  I don't think they'd be that stupid though...




Like I said, I have a good relationship with WotC and work with them in good faith.  If an issue arose, it would be resolved amicably.

Honestly, don't worry.  It's all good.  WotC is very friendly.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> IIRC, that book was the impetus for putting the objectionable material clause in the STL? Am I right?




I believe you are correct; it was originally going to be released under the d20 STL, but WoTC changed it, forcing them to go the OGL route.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> My gripe with the GSL is just that. My gripe. If I were to publish I would want that option to change elves the way I want, and otherwise would prefer to have 3PP be able to do the same if they have some world or setting idea that warrants a change to what an elf is.




so all this anger comes from the fact that you don't want to publish your module under the 4e GSL?

Put it out under the OGL or for Pathfinder, or some other system. Or make it generic enough that it fits in under any gaming system.  If its a good enough module, people will convert it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> What could a non-porn* product I make do to harm WotC or 4th anymore than the word of mouth and 4th edition itself has done to harm it?



Yeah. Don't even know where to start with that one.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Quote:
     					Originally Posted by *justanobody* 

 
_What could a non-porn* product I make do to harm WotC or 4th anymore than the word of mouth and 4th edition itself has done to harm it?_




Fifth Element said:


> Yeah. Don't even know where to start with that one.




I was about to take another hit of cough medicine to help me figure it out...


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> As I said it was hypothetical.




Yes, I figured that. So that's that whole line of conversation over; let's drop that, as we should have done several posts ago. 



> But to actually have the adventure I have been working on for some time that people have tried to pay me for has been on hold indefinately because I have no legal right to even use the names of some of the things in it, and must remain my own homebrew until that time that I CAN use those names held by TSR....erm WotC now. So even the adventure is incomplete to prevent me from doing anything with it.




That adventure that only has value because WotC spent millions of dollars developing a product, a system, and a brand? 

WotC is not a charity. _Why _should you be able to profit from their work? From their HUGE investment? 

I wouldn't like it if you opened "enworld.net", and copied my efforts and used my brand name to do so. 

Do you believe you should be able to sell a software package billed as "Windows 2009"? Build a car and produce it as a "BMW M8"? 

I really don't get your point here. If you want to use WotC brand name, accept the conditions under which they generously allow you to (believe me, Microsoft wouldn't allow you to do that; neither would Sony allow you to release a _Tomb Raider_ game; MGM would be very annoyed if you tried to produce a new_ Bond_ movie; the BBC would not allow you to publish a _Doctor Who_ novel).

If you don't agree to those conditions, don't use the brand name. It's that simple. Why do you feel you have any right to the D&D brand name? How much money have _you_ invested in it? If you want rights to it, start buying shares in Hasbro - buy enough, and it's yours.

Do you honestly not understand the concept and value of a brand? The _vast_ resources that go into making it a worldwide name? The need to protect that incredibly valuable asset at all costs?

That brand name, "Dungeons & Dragons", is the most valuable thing that WotC owns. What's the most valuable thing you own? Your house? Your car? Is it OK if Scott Rouse comes and borrows it for a week?  After all, he's spent _ages_ working out how he want to redecorate your bedroom.  How _dare_ you not let him do it? He's got a great idea - pink walls, disco lights and a constant WWII air raid alarm going off at the head of the bed.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> so all this anger comes from the fact that you don't want to publish your module under the 4e GSL?
> 
> Put it out under the OGL or for Pathfinder, or some other system. Or make it generic enough that it fits in under any gaming system.  If its a good enough module, people will convert it.




I am trying to forget 3rd edition ever existed thanks.


> That adventure that only has value because WotC spent millions of dollars developing a product, a system, and a brand?




No it has value because the monsters and NPCs used in the story are crucial to them. Rather the story has a much greater value because of the monsters and NPCs created by TSR (Gary/Mentzer).


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Do you honestly not understand the concept and value of a brand? The _vast_ resources that go into making it a worldwide name? The need to protect that incredibly valuable asset at all costs?
> 
> That brand name, "Dungeons & Dragons", is the most valuable thing that WotC owns.





He ought to go read a book by Nomi Klein called "No Logo."  The power of branding would hit home like a brick to the head.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> . . .He's got a great idea - pink walls, disco lights and a constant WWII air raid alarm going off at the head of the bed.




Damn, that was so my idea!  Now I'm going to have to come up with a different idea to decorate my house.  Damn, Damn!


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No it has value because the monsters and NPCs used in the story are crucial to them.




Fine.  Use your unique monsters and NPCs without deriving from WoTC's work.  Put them in a novel.  Invent your own game system.  

If they _truly _have value of their own, you can do that.  I suspect that by doing that you will realise that they have no value, which is why you want to use the power of the brand name.  

By definition, their intrinsic value, if any, can not derive from another proprty.  The bits that are _uniquely yours_ (not borrowed from D&D) you can do what you like with.

Release your bestelling new game system or novel with its intrinsic value.  The _market _will tell you what value it has.  I hope you do well.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

I thought you said we were dropping the hypothetical?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I thought you said we were dropping the hypothetical?




What? The _adventure_ is hypothetical, as well as the data? I thought you had an adventure you wnated to release.

So you have no data and no adventure?

I'm going to bed.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> What? The _adventure_ is hypothetical, as well as the data? I thought you had an adventure you wnated to release.
> 
> So you have no data and no adventure?
> 
> I'm going to bed.





   /me takes another swig of cough medicine and heads to bed too.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

No I have a half completed adventure, but it seems it must be trash and should remain hypothetical since "i am teh suck" compared to everyone around here.

--------------
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread about holding kittens hostage until the GSL is updated.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No I have a half completed adventure, but it seems it must be trash and should remain hypothetical since "i am teh suck" compared to everyone around here.
> 
> --------------
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread about holding kittens hostage until the GSL is updated.





just curious man, is english your first language?  i ask not to be a smartass, but as a possible explanation to why there is so much confusion in understanding your posts, which may be leading to arguments or disagreements which do not need to be.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2008)

Right, yeah, that's what we're saying.  Your worth as a human being in every aspect of life is determined entirely by whether you win this argument on the internet.  That includes your worth as a writer of D&D adventures.

Online D&D forums- serious business.


----------



## Campbell (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No I have a half completed adventure, but it seems it must be trash and should remain hypothetical since "i am teh suck" compared to everyone around here.
> 
> --------------
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread about holding kittens hostage until the GSL is updated.




Speaking with all due respect, I doubt that someone who doesn't like 4e, doesn't have much experience with 4e from a DM's perspective and would most likely be hesitant to design an adventure that fits with 4e's core assumptions could deliver a quality adventure that would appeal to fans of the game.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 29, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> That's so brutal...




Sorry mate, you really sound like a nice chap, and I am sure you will produce some great 4e products

hugs?


----------



## carmachu (Nov 29, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Yeah , let's make demands and ultimatums to WOTC to use THEIR IP
> 
> Yeah..that oughta work





Personally WOTC can take the GSL and stick it whereever it will hurt.

*shrug* They had their chance with it, and dropped the ball at every. step. of. the. way. The way it was handled, then what it looked like when it was released was horrible.

Now they are revising it and its taking way longer then it really should. Persaonlly I hope it takes years more so I can enjoy the 3rd parties that decide to stick with 3.x or pathfinder longer and get good quality produces rather than the crap WOTC has churned out.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> WotC may not "care" as much as you do about getting the revised GSL done right away. Don't make the mistake of assuming they don't care at all. It's a pretty simplistic view of business operations to just say "get it done already".





One could point outthe botched first attempted, the missed deadlines prior to the first release, the wording of the first one and make a serious case that no, they really dont care.

Especially when one adds the delay of the revisions.

Saying one cares, even to the fan base is easy. Words are always cheap. Actions, on the other hand, are more telling. And one just has to look at the actions and history, its much more a case they dont really care about the GSL and 3rd parties, then it is to say they care.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No it has value because the monsters and NPCs used in the story are crucial to them. Rather the story has a much greater value because of the monsters and NPCs created by TSR (Gary/Mentzer).



Okay, so they're from the TSR era. IIRC, WotC paid $1 million for TSR, which was essentially the rights to D&D.

So WotC invested $1 million for these things. Does that not meet the "HUGE investment" criteria Morrus set out? How much did you pay for them?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Words are always cheap. Actions, on the other hand, are more telling.



On this we agree. This thread proves it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 29, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Persaonlly I hope it takes years more so I can enjoy the 3rd parties that decide to stick with 3.x or pathfinder longer and get good quality produces rather than the crap WOTC has churned out.



From where I sit, the quality of material WoTC has put out for 4e is pretty darn high.  The supplements have been quality and the DDI materials have been well worth the money.



carmachu said:


> Saying one cares, even to the fan base is easy. Words are always cheap. Actions, on the other hand, are more telling. And one just has to look at the actions and history, its much more a case they dont really care about the GSL and 3rd parties, then it is to say they care.




Funny.    Because the 3PP who have had the most to lose almost all say without reservation that WOTC really DOES care about the 3PP.  And the gang behind the game all care about D&D in general.   But WOTC doesn't want some of what happened with the OGL to happen again, and therefore the answers about how to both allow 3PP to use their IP and simultaneously protect their IP are complicated. 

It's easy when you lump it all under "WOTC is teh suxxor", and along the way forget that the PEOPLE behind it really do want D&D to succeed for the hobby's sake and not just for profit's sake.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Funny.    Because the 3PP who have had the most to lose almost all say without reservation that WOTC really DOES care about the 3PP.



This is more probably a game of politics. Interesting that you find it funny 



catsclaw227 said:


> And the gang behind the game all care about D&D in general.   But WOTC doesn't want some of what happened with the OGL to happen again, and therefore the answers about how to both allow 3PP to use their IP and simultaneously protect their IP are complicated.
> 
> It's easy when you lump it all under "WOTC is teh suxxor", and along the way forget that the PEOPLE behind it really do want D&D to succeed for the hobby's sake and not just for profit's sake.




Because Wotc was the one to create OGL first place. Now it is killing it. Who has benefited the most out of the OGL? Wotc or the hobby? IMHO Wotc. But OGL definately did influence the hobby. Now that the hobby is in a situation that Wotc is better without OGL, it kills it. Personally I am not in favor of the OGL. IMO it should not have happened first place. So to this, I think Wotc has its own big share of blame to the eyes of people that think like myself and ironically also to the eyes of people that want to see the OGL continue (the other side of the fence).


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Who has benefited the most out of the OGL? Wotc or the hobby? IMHO Wotc.




So what you are saying is that companies like Paizo, Green Ronin, Necromancers Games and gods know how many other companies have gained less than WotC from the OGL? 

Seriously, how many of them would even exist if it were not for the OGL? How many of them were a bigger success before they started to use the OGL?


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> So what you are saying is that companies like Paizo, Green Ronin, Necromancers Games and gods know how many other companies have gained less than WotC from the OGL?
> 
> Seriously, how many of them would even exist if it were not for the OGL? How many of them were a bigger success before they started to use the OGL?




Some companies managed to benefit from the OGL. The question is did the OGL expand the hobby or did it ate from possible alternative expansions especially in the long run to the point after the bubble exploded?


----------



## carmachu (Nov 29, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> From where I sit, the quality of material WoTC has put out for 4e is pretty darn high. The supplements have been quality and the DDI materials have been well worth the money.




Are you kidding? H1 was pretty bad. I'd easily stack any of Paizo's adventures vs any WOTC 4e ones. And WOTC is coming up on the short end of the stick.



> Funny.  Because the 3PP who have had the most to lose almost all say without reservation that WOTC really DOES care about the 3PP. And the gang behind the game all care about D&D in general. But WOTC doesn't want some of what happened with the OGL to happen again, and therefore the answers about how to both allow 3PP to use their IP and simultaneously protect their IP are complicated.




They really care? Show me. SHow me their caring. Not Scott's words here. Show me their actions.

WOTC's actions show a VERY different picture. THeir constant delay in the GSL orginially, the constant push back, the absoulte hostile license that the GSL was prior to revision and now the delay delay delay of the revision.

That shows alot of caring, right?



> It's easy when you lump it all under "WOTC is teh suxxor", and along the way forget that the PEOPLE behind it really do want D&D to succeed for the hobby's sake and not just for profit's sake.




One could say otherwise, for WOTC. And their action shows it.

I put my money where my mouth is. WOTC wishes it this way, they get no money. But I'll gladly give it paizo and others through subscription and otherwise.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Because Wotc was the one to create OGL first place. Now it is killing it.



They can't kill the OGL. They've discontinued the STL. Not the same thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> So what you are saying is that companies like Paizo, Green Ronin, Necromancers Games and gods know how many other companies have gained less than WotC from the OGL?



I can say without fear of exaggeration that I for one benefited far more from my use of the OGL than WotC did. Not that I benefited a lot, but it was certainly more than my stuff benefited WotC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

carmachu said:


> They really care? Show me. SHow me their caring. Not Scott's words here. Show me their actions.



How about the very existence of the OGL and GSL? They didn't have to do the OGL with 3E. They didn't have to have the GSL with 4E, they could have just closed it up.

What other major gaming company offers a royalty-free license to allow other publishers to use their trademark? Heck, when Green Ronin started licensing True20, they charged a fee.



carmachu said:


> WOTC's actions show a VERY different picture. THeir constant delay in the GSL orginially, the constant push back, the absoulte hostile license that the GSL was prior to revision and now the delay delay delay of the revision.



If the original GSL is "absoulte" hostile, why is it being used by some companies?

Where does all this anger come from? Between justanobody and carmachu, you'd think WotC ran over their kittens or something.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> They can't kill the OGL. They've discontinued the STL. Not the same thing.




Wotc is killing the role of the OGL it created: a license upon the leader rpg flag.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Wotc is killing the role of the OGL it created: a license upon the leader rpg flag.



You're going to have to try that one again. No idea what you mean.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> How about the very existence of the OGL and GSL? They didn't have to do the OGL with 3E. They didn't have to have the GSL with 4E, they could have just closed it up.
> 
> What other major gaming company offers a royalty-free license to allow other publishers to use their trademark? Heck, when Green Ronin started licensing True20, they charged a fee.
> 
> ...




Do you believe they did it for you or for them? They did it because that seemed the best for Wotc at that point. And if they could have closed it up, they would have done it, I am sure (could here is not about legal, but rather about business sense).
Anyway, GSL is far more sensible on its influence to the community than the OGL I think. Who wants to directly support D&D he can directly support D&D and thats just about it (at least so far it seems to work this way).


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're going to have to try that one again. No idea what you mean.




The OGL was created to give a license to all people wanting one to use D&D material for the latest edition of D&D.

The GSL combines bits from the OGL and STL to which you can use the D&D logo wherein the OGL you could not, but in doing so kills 90% of what people liked about the OGL and its functionality.

This fixes some maj0or flaws with the OGL, but by combining those STL components effectively kills what the OGL was meant to do as it no longer applies to the latest edition of D&D as the OGL is not for the latest edition of D&D.

So the GSL[WotC] does effectively kill the OGL as the OGL no longer applies to the latest edition of D&D, but is replaced by the GSL which does not hold the same role as the OGL did.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're going to have to try that one again. No idea what you mean.




That the OGL essentialy was a license to market with the leader name.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 29, 2008)

Paizo would beg to differ with the idea that the OGL is dead.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So the GSL[WotC] does effectively kill the OGL as the OGL no longer applies to the latest edition of D&D, but is replaced by the GSL which does not hold the same role as the OGL did.




how does it kill the ogl when pathfinder is based on the ogl and it is in full swing to keep producing products?


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> That the OGL essentialy was a license to market with the leader name.





not really.  that was more the d20 license.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> Paizo would beg to differ with the idea that the OGL is dead.




I disagree. Paizo is feasting on the legacy of the glorious OGL. If 4e was OGL there would not be such an optimum legacy for them to secure for themselves.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> not really.  that was more the d20 license.




It seems that for our hobby the actual rules system has more marketing power than a trademark regarding the leading name.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> how does it kill the ogl when pathfinder is based on the ogl and it is in full swing to keep producing products?




I was just trying to interpret ideas.

Effectively the sense I am getting is that it takes D&D out of the open gaming movement and enters it into a closed license movement with the GSL. 4th edition pretty much is the only thing ackowledged as D&D by WotC and they are distancing themselves from 3rd and the OGL, and the GSL specifically wants to prevent people from using the OGL so that it can be killed off.

Paizo and a few others just decided not to take the cyanide in the bait trap that the GSL is in that regard.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Do you believe they did it for you or for them?



For me personally? Heck no. Was gamerdom as a whole considered when it was introduced? Probably, given Peter Adkinson's comments. Did it benefit WotC? Probably. No real way for anyone to actually know that, but probably.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> That the OGL essentialy was a license to market with the leader name.



No, that was the d20 STL. The OGL does not allow use of a WotC-IP logo. The STL did, and the GSL does.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> For me personally? Heck no. Was gamerdom as a whole considered when it was introduced? Probably, given Peter Adkinson's comments. Did it benefit WotC? Probably. No real way for anyone to actually know that, but probably.




It certainly did benefit D&D's strategic value rise for that time.



Fifth Element said:


> No, that was the d20 STL. The OGL does not allow use of a WotC-IP logo. The STL did, and the GSL does.




See post above. It seems the logo within the hobby was not more efficient than the rules system to market with.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 4th edition pretty much is the only thing ackowledged as D&D by WotC



What does this mean? When has WotC said anything like "3E is not D&D?". They're not messageboard geeks, they don't say things like that. They even refer to "all editions of D&D" (or something like that) on their most recent dungeon tiles product, which implies they know there are other editions of D&D.



justanobody said:


> and the GSL specifically wants to prevent people from using the OGL so that it can be killed off.




The OGL cannot be killed off. It's a license in perpetuity.

The GSL wants nothing. The people who designed the GSL may want something in particular, we have no way of knowing. You can pretend to know, but you really don't.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Nov 29, 2008)

> It seems that for our hobby the actual rules system has more marketing power than a trademark regarding the leading name.




IMHO, I think it's more the reasoning and philosophy _behind_ the rules than the rules themselves that have created a schism amongst the playerbase.

WRT a deadline? WotC _had_ a deadline for the GSL (much like the DI, but that's another topic); the launch of 4E. And it came and went, until, several weeks later, when they brought forth a document that was wildly decried  by people who actually _wanted_ to support the current edition of D+D. 

Given that we haven't heard much about the GSL since then, and Scott seems to be the only one working on it, I'm going to make the wild hypothesis that a revised GSL isn't a top priority for WotC as a whole. 

 (As an aside, however, I do commend the Rouse for his hard work & dedication; this seems to be his baby, and it can't be easy being understaffed on manpower, _and_ under the scrutiny of fans 24/7.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> It certainly did benefit D&D's strategic value rise for that time.



There's nothing "certain" about the OGL's benefit to WotC. It's all theory, without any way to know whether the perceived benefits ever materialized. You just can't tell if more PHBs were sold because of the PHB, or if fewer were sold because of the cut & paste SRD. There's no way to know if WotC benefitted on the whole from the OGL.

I have no idea what "D&D's strategic value rise for that time" means.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It's a license in perpetuity.




So what? If people do not use it as they used to it is pretty much dead in respect to what it used to be.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2008)

I like this reasoning.  First, define the OGL to NOT mean that it grants permission to use the material covered by the OGL- define the OGL to instead grant permission to use the most recent edition of D&D.  Then, when a new edition comes out that isn't covered by the OGL, you can argue that the OGL has been killed, even though every single term of the OGL is just as valid now as it was two years ago.

That's complete bunk, of course, but its just plausible enough that I can see someone believing it if they really really wanted to believe.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I like this reasoning.  First, define the OGL to NOT mean that it grants permission to use the material covered by the OGL- define the OGL to instead grant permission to use the most recent edition of D&D.  Then, when a new edition comes out that isn't covered by the OGL, you can argue that the OGL has been killed, even though every single term of the OGL is just as valid now as it was two years ago.
> 
> That's complete bunk, of course, but its just plausible enough that I can see someone believing it if they really really wanted to believe.



I see it now. I think that's the idea. I didn't see that before. Of course, it's so ridiculous it didn't even cross my mind.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> There's nothing "certain" about the OGL's benefit to WotC. It's all theory, without any way to know whether the perceived benefits ever materialized. You just can't tell if more PHBs were sold because of the PHB, or if fewer were sold because of the cut & paste SRD. There's no way to know if WotC benefitted on the whole from the OGL.
> 
> I have no idea what "D&D's strategic value rise for that time" means.




Well estimation of strategic value is not something concrete anyway. I was not talking about sales. Strategic value in this case (brand name) is the value regarding people's condition to recognize it and pay attention to it.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I like this reasoning.  First, define the OGL to NOT mean that it grants permission to use the material covered by the OGL- define the OGL to instead grant permission to use the most recent edition of D&D.  Then, when a new edition comes out that isn't covered by the OGL, you can argue that the OGL has been killed, even though every single term of the OGL is just as valid now as it was two years ago.
> 
> That's complete bunk, of course, but its just plausible enough that I can see someone believing it if they really really wanted to believe.




This is the important part in commerce. What people believe or want to believe. Btw remember the effect 3.5 had to OGL publishers? 

OGL can be the elixir of happiness, if people do not want to take it, it will not make them happy.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Who has benefited the most out of the OGL? Wotc or the hobby? IMHO Wotc.




Fortunately, it is only YHO. 

With all due respect, this is not even close to true.  Dozens of 3rd party companies were created on the sterngth of the OGL and provide a living to those involved.  Other than the company owners themselves, I know how much I've paid out to freelancers in the last few years, and believe me it's many, many thousands of dollars.  Multiply that by dozens upon dozens of companies, there's a whole industry out there making a difference to a _lot_ of peoples' lives.

I know damn well I've been responsible for introducing new artists and writers who have gone on to do very well in the industry.  And I'm far from the only one!

WotC may have profited a little peripherally.  But the big winner was the third-party publishers.  Many companies have been launched, and are successful to this day because of the OGL and the d20 STL.  I own one of them, and it's far from the biggest or most successful.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

OK so let's look at the worst case, WOTC is an evil company, sinister Machiavellian scenario and see how its plays out.

Assumption:  WOTC want to make every dollar they can off of Dungeons and Dragons in every way they can, and doesn't want any other person or company to make a dime off of D&D.

Obstacle:  There is an OGL out there which gives 3pp's the ability to make products compatible with 3.x version of the game.  

Solution:  Create a new edition.  Get the 3pp's the ability to make products for your new edition.  Have a clause in the contract wherein they cannot ever make a similar product for the OGL, and if the new 4e product existed under the OGL, they cannot ever again make something in that product line again for the OGL.  The phrase "product line" of course is to be determined by WOTC.  (See section 6 of the GSL.)  Encourage people to convert their material over to the 4e.  Discontinue the GSL.  3pp's cannot go back to the GSL for any of their existing products which they newly made for the GSL or converted over from OGL.  This will effectively put many of them out of business.  (Section 11, GSL)

Obstacle:  There is a revocable d20 license out there which gives 3pp's the ability to make products compatible with 3.x edition of the game.

Solution:  Revoke the d20 license. (already done)

Obstacle:  Lawsuits by individuals or 3pp's over terms of the 4e GSL.  

Solution:   Make it very difficult to due based on jurisictional limits (can only sue in Washington state, King County) and contract that the 3pp must give Hasbro Attorney Fees if they lose. (already done)

Obstacle:  3pp's do not convert from OGL to GSL, and continue to make 4e compatible products under the OGL.

Solution: Create a 4e which has so many different terms, and such a different structure of character and monster abilities and traits, that anything produced for 4e under the OGL by 3pp's will be so hard for a customer to convert, that it dissuades customers from buying those products. 

Obstacle:  A highly talended financially sound company (Paizo, and whoever produces Mutants and Masterminds, and any other company producing an OGL based game) creates its own game out of the OGL, and gives 3pp's a venue to publish products for.   This also creates a competitor system, which may draw away consumer spending from 4e.

Solution:  Lawsuits to try to drive them out of business.  Whether legitimate or not, make it costly enough to defend by those 3pp's that it effectively drives them out of business, regardless of whether WOTC wins or loses on the merits.

Solution:  Along with the lawsuits above slap injunctions on those companies above, as well as all companies/websites selling their products.  An injunction will stop sales of the product until the lawsuit is finalized, which may take years. It is in Hasbro's best interests to make it take years to resolve, which is not very hard to do.   This is done in order to ensure the 3pp's go out of business sooner due to lack of revenue, and talent having to seek other employment.

Solution: Name anyone who freelances or is in some way associated with said 3pp's in the principal lawsuits as co-defendants.  They likely will not have the ability to defend themselves finalcially, and will have to settle out of court.  The main condition of settlement is they they agree never to produce anything for any OGL based game, nor sell or distribute any such products.  Make the terms of the settlement confidential so there is no chance of an antitrust claim brought.  This is a very common type of settlement clause in exchange for not being held liable for monetary damages.

Obstacle:  Some 3pp's are hesitant to sign on with the GSL, due to the one-sidedness of the GSL (termination or modification at any time, with no warning necessary, giving up control over your product line and for which system it may be produced, etc., which are alreadyl clauses in the 4e GSL)

Solution:  Assure them changes are coming, get them to sign up to the current GSL.  Drag out and delay the revised GSL for a long enough period that some of the smaller 3pp's have to sign up due to the fact that they need revenue.  Never produce a 3pp-friendly GSL.  By then it is to late, most of the 3pp's are already in bed with Hasbro and can't get out in a financially viable manner.

Obstacle: Fan sites.  The new terminology of 4e is so distinctly different than previous editions that WOTC has a viable claim that they are trademarked. If gamers publish heir character sheets, modules, monsters, etc. which they use in their own games on websites or elsewhere on the Internet, there is a trademark dillution. If WOTc does not exercise control over the new trademarks, and try to shut these sites down, they can lose control and ownership of the trademarks entirely, in essence creating a 4e OGL by not doing anything.

Solution:  Threats of lawsuits on the companies hosting the fan sites.  The owners of the hosting companies have no idea if the caims are true or not, so in order to avoid being named in a costly lawsuit brought by a multi-billion dollar company, they shut down the fan sites.

Solution:  Promise pissed of fans/consumers that a solution is coming by way of a Web site license, letting them post their materials on their web pages.  Never deliver on that promise.

Solution:  Instead of a web site fan license, direct all fan based material over to DDI, which eventually evolves into a facebook/myspace format for sharing said information.  Declare that anything on officially sanctioned DDI pages is ok, because WOTC will put in all proper disclaimers on every page, letting everyone know who owns the rights to the trademarked terms.  Added benefit to WOTC is that eventually they charge a subscription amount for the hosting of the documents, in addition to the standard DDI membership.  People sign up in order to have a place to post their stuff, and in order to avoid being sued.

Obstacle:  pdf file swapping and loss of revenue. 

Solution: Move to a completely electronic model over time, wherein the books or supplements are completely integrated into the DDI system, and are not a distinct part separate from the actual electronic interface itself.  Purchasing supplements eventually evolves into purchasing programming code, which gives your characters and DM's more options.  There effectively is nothing to swap over the internet, since there are no longer any books to convert to pdf's.

Again that's the worst case scenario, which as a lawyer I would advise my clients of if they asked.

The client/business person then assigns a risk factor to each of the elements above, and decides if the risk is worth the potential reward.

Just my 2 cents...these are things that went thru my mind, but this is the first time I ever actually put them down on paper, so to speak.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Fortunately, it is only YHO.
> 
> With all due respect, this is not even close to true.  Dozens of 3rd party companies were created on the sterngth of the OGL and provide a living to those involved.  Other than the company owners themselves, I know how much I've paid out to freelancers in the last few years, and believe me it's many, many thousands of dollars.  Multiply that by dozens upon dozens of companies, there's a whole industry out there making a difference to a _lot_ of peoples' lives.
> 
> ...




Of course each 3pp has profited much more relatively than Wotc. But I was not talking about the 3pp. I was talking about the hobby. I believe that if it were not for the OGL we would have seen (as hobbyists) many alternative efforts regarding games and systems. It was not the OGL just by itself responsible to the proliferation of production, it was also the growth of online applications such as internet traffic and sellable pdfs. I am not sure talent would have gone wasted. On the contrary I believe it could have been more productive for the hobby, trying to expand its own authentic strengths.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

I think we very much disagree, xechnao.



xechnao said:


> I believe that if it were not for the OGL we would have seen (as hobbyists) many alternative efforts regarding games and systems.




I don't think so.  There wasn't a flood of viable (successful) laternate new startups 8 years ago.  The OGL and d20 STL pompted a flood of them, the better of whom are still around (with a couple of notable exceptions). 



> I am not sure talent would have gone wasted.




I believe it would.  I can think of, offhand, dozens of companies that would not exist without the OGL.  Extanding that, form my own work, I can think of several freelancers who have careers in the industry because of my actions.  I am not vain enough to think I'm unique in that, so I multiply that by all those companies out there - Mongoose, Goodman, Green Ronin, Necro and _dozens_ more have all jumpstarted careers, some in major ways.

Where did Mike Mearls come from?

But we can disagree.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> WOTC want to make every dollar they can off of Dungeons and Dragons in every way they can, and doesn't want any other person or company to make a dime off of D&D.




I read your post. Just a note: I am not sure it works like this as said here in your introduction. Businesses certainly want to win the competitions but that hardly means for them that others must not make a dime off it. If it was like this no-one would want to compete ...err play game. This taste is what the drug is all about (in case it's not clear I am talking about capitalism).


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> The client/business person then assigns a risk factor to each of the elements above, and decides if the risk is worth the potential reward.



This is the most important line in the entire scenario.

I can't figure out why people wouldn't see this as the same as any other licensee/licensor relationship, terminatable at will by either party.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I think we very much disagree, xechnao.
> 
> I don't think so.  There wasn't a flood of viable (successful) laternate new startups 8 years ago.  The OGL and d20 STL pompted a flood of them, the better of whom are still around (with a couple of notable exceptions).
> 
> ...





plus you have to look at where the industry was back then.  MTG damn near wiped out TSR, along with TSR's own bad business decisions.  If WOTC didn't take TSR over, there would not have been anything as a standard bearer for the RPG industry during those times.  I think the only things that pulled D&D through that time and allowed the game to remain alive were a combination of the name brand, D&D, as well as the OGL.  It revitalized the industry.  Without the vanity-appeasing aspect of the OGL, letting people be their own publihsers, I don't think 3.x or 4e would have had anyting near the fan-base it does today,  nor would there besuch a level of developed talent out there.


----------



## Kishin (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> On the contrary I believe it could have been more productive for the hobby, trying to expand its own authentic strengths.




How many original RPG systems have been born in the last 8-10 years that weren't birthed by third party publishers who started out by dabbling in d20?

Expanding its own strengths might have led to the same sort of fragmentation we saw with TSR's Night of a Million Zillion Campaign Settings. More likely, it wouldn't have happened at all, as the entry requirements to the industry were pretty stiff before d20 came along. Published RPGs weren't springing up out of the woodwork. D20 made everything a whole lot more accessible, lowering entry cost tremendously. Sure, the internet and the pdf industry played their part, but they were a vehicle/medium more than anything. d20 was a catalyst.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> believe it would.  I can think of, offhand, dozens of companies that would not exist without the OGL.




I agree with Morrus 100% here. 

Do you think people like Mike Mearls, Nic Logue, etc. al Would be as well known in a world without the OGL? I certainly don't, and I'm glad for it, because these guys are amazing talent and deserve the recognition they've gotten.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I read your post. Just a note: I am not sure it works like this as said here in your introduction. Businesses certainly want to win the competitions but that hardly means for them that others must not make a dime off it. If it was like this no-one would want to compete ...err play game. This taste is what the drug is all about (in case it's not clear I am talking about capitalism).





As i said though, i laid out the worst case scenario. in that scenario, i assume total domination is the goal.  to the extent that it is not, lesser degrees of risk are assigned to each of the elements. that's why i called it an assumption, not a law or a rule or truism.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> How about the very existence of the OGL and GSL? They didn't have to do the OGL with 3E. They didn't have to have the GSL with 4E, they could have just closed it up.
> 
> What other major gaming company offers a royalty-free license to allow other publishers to use their trademark? Heck, when Green Ronin started licensing True20, they charged a fee.




Uhm Mongoose's Runequest system is OGL.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> But we can disagree.




Of course. OTOH I believe we will never have enough evidenve to prove each other wrong. It seems it is also a personal matter and it also seems to a higher degree for you than myself. 
Anyway all said and done you seem a nice guy and I am happy to chat here in your forum with people even if I look towards what Wotc has done with the OGL with an unpleasant eye. I do understand the possibility I could be feeling like you if I was in your place (regarding the hobby that is and not just personal interest)


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> This is the most important line in the entire scenario.
> 
> I can't figure out why people wouldn't see this as the same as any other licensee/licensor relationship, terminatable at will by either party.




Well, to be fair, any licensee_ does_.  It's those with no real stake in it who large it up with their opinions, ignorant of what it actally means to those who put their money where their mouths are.

Talk is cheap.  It's easy to talk.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Of course. OTOH I believe we will never have enough evidenve to prove each other wrong. It seems it is also a personal matter and it also seems to a higher degree for you than myself.




On the contrary, it's not a personal matter for me.  It's about rational business decisions, based on relevant criteria.  And that's the same for every (serious) publisher out there.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> On the contrary, it's not a personal matter for me.  It's about rational business decisions, based on relevant criteria.  And that's the same for every (serious) publisher out there.




When I said personal I meant personal about actual interest (not about personal preference or taste).


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm Mongoose's Runequest system is OGL.



I'm not familiar with the terms of their license (the trademark portion, not the OGL portion, presumably there is one since 3PP products seem to have the RQ logo on them). But that makes two if it's royalty-free.

Of course, Mongoose would likely not exist without WotC's OGL.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2008)

xechnao said:


> When I said personal I meant personal about actual interest (not about personal preference or taste).




I don't understamnd what you mean by distinguishing "interest" from "preference" or "taste", but no worries.

For clarity: it's also not a matter of preference or taste for me. It's about rational business decisions; period. Nothing else.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm not familiar with the terms of their license (the trademark portion, not the OGL portion, presumably there is one since 3PP products seem to have the RQ logo on them). But that makes two if it's royalty-free.
> 
> Of course, Mongoose would likely not exist without WotC's OGL.




Here you go... Open Game Systems - RPGnetWiki .. sometimes I feel like enworld has tunnel vision when it comes to certain things, outside the realm of the d20 system.

* And while Mongoose may not have come into existence without WotC's OGL... they certainly are staying within the spirit of the old OGL, with their license, free magazine, etc.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 29, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I don't understamnd what you mean by distinguishing "interest" from "preference" or "taste", but no worries.
> 
> For clarity: it's also not a matter of preference or taste for me. It's about rational business decisions; period. Nothing else.




Yeah, that is part of what I meant. I thought it was clear from context but I see that when you say "it is personal" in english you want to distinguish it from rationality. Bad choice of wording from my part. Perhaps I should have said "matter of perspective" -it could have been more clear...?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm Mongoose's Runequest system is OGL.




Yes, using WOTC's own OGL license.  

Rephrase the question.  How many companies have produced their own, unique OGL that is in no way related to d20?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Yes, using WOTC's own OGL license.
> 
> Rephrase the question.  How many companies have produced their own, unique OGL that is in no way related to d20?




I don't understand what you're saying/implying here.  Runequest and d20 use totally different systems, but you're complaining that Mongoose used the old OGL as a basis to release their * different system* out.  Ok, but how does this in anyway impact the fact they chose to release a non-d20 system out under the OGL... Please re-read the post I was responding to, I never asserted anything as far as the license used... only that their company had released their Runequest system under an OGL.  For other please check out the link I provided.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Here you go... Open Game Systems - RPGnetWiki ..



That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?



Imaro said:


> sometimes I feel like enworld has tunnel vision when it comes to certain things, outside the realm of the d20 system.



Or, perhaps, since it's a D&D site we're mostly D&D players rather than RuneQuest players. And I personally haven't published anything since last fall and have no immediate plans to, and wouldn't do so for RQ anyway since I don't know it, so why would I keep up on RQ licensing?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?




Yes, one can use the Runequest logo for free.  There are more restrictions than in using the OGL without the logo, but it's still free.  Here's an intervview on RPG.net with Matt Sprange where he confirms it.  RPGnet : The RPGnet Interview #14: Matthew Sprange, RuneQuest  check near the bottom of the page.




Fifth Element said:


> Or, perhaps, since it's a D&D site we're mostly D&D players rather than RuneQuest players. And I personally haven't published anything since last fall and have no immediate plans to, and wouldn't do so for RQ anyway since I don't know it, so why would I keep up on RQ licensing?




Yep, so you agree with me. I just found it a little odd for you to imply, and perhaps I took it the wrong way, that only WotC did this and a former d20 company (and  a pretty big one at that) does allow it as well.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Yes, one can use the Runequest logo for free.  There are more restrictions than in using the OGL without the logo, but it's still free.  Here's an intervview on RPG.net with Matt Sprange where he confirms it.  RPGnet : The RPGnet Interview #14: Matthew Sprange, RuneQuest  check near the bottom of the page.



Thanks.



Imaro said:


> Yep, so you agree with me. I just found it a little odd for you to imply, and perhaps I took it the wrong way, that only WotC did this and a former d20 company (and  a pretty big one at that) does allow it as well.



My point was merely that's it's a rare thing (note how I phrased it as a rhetorical question). That two companies do it is little different from a single company doing it, especially since in this case, the second company was built upon the first's doing of the thing.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 30, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry mate, you really sound like a nice chap, and I am sure you will produce some great 4e products
> 
> hugs?




Haha, no worries


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> How about the very existence of the OGL and GSL? They didn't have to do the OGL with 3E. They didn't have to have the GSL with 4E, they could have just closed it up.
> 
> What other major gaming company offers a royalty-free license to allow other publishers to use their trademark? Heck, when Green Ronin started licensing True20, they charged a fee.
> 
> ...





They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products. 

OGL was created many many moons ago. In the term some always say "what have you done for me lately?" OGL is something their trying to reverse, so holding it up now isnt much good.

GSL shows caring by its existance? Really? Are you reading the same document as I did, with the yanking and the poison pill and other restrictions? If thats your example of caring, you prove my point. The lack of revision in timely manner, and the delays prior sows as well.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I believe it would. I can think of, offhand, dozens of companies that would not exist without the OGL. Extanding that, form my own work, I can think of several freelancers who have careers in the industry because of my actions. I am not vain enough to think I'm unique in that, so I multiply that by all those companies out there - Mongoose, Goodman, Green Ronin, Necro and _dozens_ more have all jumpstarted careers, some in major ways.
> 
> Where did Mike Mearls come from?
> 
> But we can disagree.





Yes where did Mike Mearls come from...but more importantly, where is he now?

Yes Wotc has benefited from OGL as well. Maybe not in sheer $$$$$ terms, but they have had benefits from it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products.



Does it? Are you talking about 4E products? Products that would not otherwise exist without a GSL? At least, for publishers not willing to go the 'copyright route'.

Or are you talking about the 3E products that may have to be discontinued, that you have had time to purchase already? This would be like saying 3E interferes with your ability to buy 2E products.

What do you mean exactly?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Yes Wotc has benefited from OGL as well. Maybe not in sheer $$$$$ terms, but they have had benefits from it.



WotC is a business. Gross benefits aren't important. *Net *benefits are.

That's like saying 4E had $1 million in sales. So it's been a success. (Reality: not if it cost you $2 million to produce).

What did it cost them to get these benefits is the question. That's probably even harder to quantify than the benefits.


----------



## jeffh (Nov 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?



While the question's been answered, the fact that you asked it suggests you may be confusing the SRD with the STL. The first is a reference document (that's what the RD stands for) which enumerates the rules that are explicitly open. The second is the legal agreement. While in the case of d20 the two were closely linked, there is no necessary connection between the two concepts; the mere existence of an SRD implies nothing about there being a separate license, since there's nothing stopping a non-d20 SRD from being released under the OGL or under something like Creative Commons.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

jeffh said:


> While the question's been answered, the fact that you asked it suggests you may be confusing the SRD with the STL. The first is a reference document (that's what the RD stands for) which enumerates the rules that are explicitly open. The second is the legal agreement. While in the case of d20 the two were closely linked, there is no necessary connection between the two concepts; the mere existence of an SRD implies nothing about there being a separate license, since there's nothing stopping a non-d20 SRD from being released under the OGL or under something like Creative Commons.



I'm confused as to why you think I'm confused. (You may not realize I was a d20 publisher for some time.)

I was asking because of this: 3PP RQ products seem to carry the RQ logo. This is not something accomplished by the OGL. The d20 STL license, for instance, was required in order to use the d20 logo. The OGL only allowed you to use the SRD rules. I believe the OGL specifically excludes logos from being open content. So there needs to be a separate license involved.

Further, I did not say the existence of an SRD implied there was a trademark license. I said the fact that Mr. Kim called it the "Runic SRD" rather than the "RuneQuest SRD" indicated the existence of a separate agreement, of which he was not taking part. Otherwise why wouldn't he just call it the "RuneQuest SRD"? He did the same thing with the True20 SRD, which he calls the "Romantic Fantasy SRD" or something like that.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Yes where did Mike Mearls come from...but more importantly, where is he now?



Mike co-ran a Call of Cthulhu adventure with me at ConnCon waaay back in 1995 or so, back while he was still at Dartmouth. He was great.

Watching his career has made me really happy, and it wouldn't have happened without the OGL.


----------



## Mark (Nov 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I believe the OGL specifically excludes logos from being open content.





Based on . . ?


----------



## Mark (Nov 30, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> Mike (. . .)
> 
> Watching his career has made me really happy, and it wouldn't have happened without the OGL.





I wonder if Mike and many other people at WotC feel the same way?


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products.
> 
> OGL was created many many moons ago. In the term some always say "what have you done for me lately?" OGL is something their trying to reverse, so holding it up now isnt much good.




Not allowing something that they have no obligation to allow, is not interference.  Your statement implies that you, and 3pp publishers, have an entitlement to this.  You (and they) do not.  If they want to grant the entitlement to do this, they can (and have).  They also have the right to dictate the conditions upon which this entitlement is granted.  That is their right and *THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT*.

They are not trying to reverse the OGL, since this is categorically not possible to do.  It would be an exercise in futility.  They have absolutely no legal grounds or leverage by with to do this.  They have simply moved on to a new product line, one for which they have no obligation to make open content.  Whether you or others want it to be open, or just less closed, is irrelevent.  No longer printing material under the OGL is their, and every other publishers, choice.  It is not an attack on, nor a reversing of, the OGL.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

Mark said:


> Based on . . ?



The definition of "Product Identity" in paragraph 1?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Are you kidding? H1 was pretty bad. I'd easily stack any of Paizo's adventures vs any WOTC 4e ones. And WOTC is coming up on the short end of the stick.



So the adventure is not up to your personal liking, so therefore the quality sucks?  The first Rise of the Runelords AP adventure had print that was too small and the art wasn't to my liking.  So does it suck?  No, but it wasn't the quality that H1 was, for sure.  The adventure was a PRE-RELEASE adventure designed for beginners and those new to 4e.  Of course it wasn't going to have the story depth of P1 (which, BTW, is awesome).  Comparing H1 to a Paizo AP is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both fruit, but if you cook with them, they accomplish different goals.



carmachu said:


> They really care? Show me. SHow me their caring. Not Scott's words here. Show me their actions.
> 
> WOTC's actions show a VERY different picture. THeir constant delay in the GSL orginially, the constant push back, the absoulte hostile license that the GSL was prior to revision and now the delay delay delay of the revision.
> 
> That shows alot of caring, right?



Ahhhhhh.... so in business, if I need to put something off for a customer because I have other PRESSING priorities, then I don't care about my customer?  That's highly simplistic and could be considered a downright strawman.  Just because they haven't executed on the GSL yet, doesn't mean that they don't care about the 3PP.  I am not a 3PP, I cannot speak for them, but the ones that have spoken out on the boards say that, while the current GSL doesn't meet their business goals for publishing 4e content (due to some restrictions, current OGL product lines, etc..), many have said, on this board no less, that the gang at WOTC does care and that when Scott get's it done, they'll look at it.  Maybe not said in the same post, but said nonetheless. 



carmachu said:


> One could say otherwise, for WOTC. And their action shows it.
> 
> I put my money where my mouth is. WOTC wishes it this way, they get no money. But I'll gladly give it paizo and others through subscription and otherwise.



You can buy what you want.  That is the nature of capitalism (unless you live in a country that tells you from whom to buy things).  You can speak with your wallet. Excellent.

But that has nothing to do with whether Scott's priorities are such that the GSL revision takes second fiddle right now.  It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the 3PPs.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Not allowing something that they have no obligation to allow, is not interference.  Your statement implies that you, and 3pp publishers, have an entitlement to this.  You (and they) do not.  If they want to grant the entitlement to do this, they can (and have).  They also have the right to dictate the conditions upon which this entitlement is granted.  That is their right and *THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT*.



This.

Why is it that some people believe that because WOTC decided to close up their product, and provide a different 3PP use license, that WOTC has violated their rights?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> This.
> 
> Why is it that some people believe that because WOTC decided to close up their product, and provide a different 3PP use license, that WOTC has violated their rights?




It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.

A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.
> 
> A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.



Yea, I hear what you are saying... 

Though, I would venture to guess that it is less human nature than it is the nature of this culture of entitlement that has been pervasive since the 80's (or so).  I'll stop now, because this can get me worked up into a philosophical debate that teeters on borderline unacceptable for these forums.  

You are spot-on with your last sentence, for sure.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.
> 
> A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.




Why do you say "erroneously"? People do get conditioned. You can't call this an error. So the details of every type of information have their importance too. Why is there not such a problem (at least to the acknowledged measure) with free product promotions?


----------



## Delta (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.




Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:



> *Q: Is there an ethical reason to support Open Gaming?*​
> A: In this writer's opinion, yes there is. It has been an established feature of RPGs since their inception that they should be used to create new content. Prior to the advent of widespread Open Game licenses, there was no practical way for that kind of material to be legally and widely distributed.​
> Open Gaming is recognition that your natural human right to free speech is protected and enhanced. The Open Game system is a way for the game publishing industry to finally deliver on the basic promises made by the very first RPGs; that individuals should be free to copy, modify and distribute their own creative works derived from the game systems they have acquired.​


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 30, 2008)

Delta said:


> Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:




Do you keep that quote on speed dial?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Why is there not such a problem (at least to the acknowledged measure) with free product promotions?



Actually, this is an issue with free promotional stuff, across industries.  There are loads of examples across the web.

But, even for WOTC this has been an issue.  We have people here on enworld crying out things similar to "...this used to be free, why should we have to subscribe to DDI to get this kind of quality online content..." since DDI went live.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 30, 2008)

Delta said:


> Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:



Perhaps it would be interesting if you told us what you think this quote means in relation to this conversation.

Lots of other people have weighed in on it- in various threads, I myself have responded with my views on how the aspirations expressed in that quote relate to players and DMs versus how they relate to for-profit businesses.

But you, the person who continuously posts that quote, never ever say what YOU think.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

Delta said:


> Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it possible that that particular writer is now wrong?  In the light of evidence that other companies have taken WOTC properties, created games that DO NOT REQUIRE the PHB or any of the core 3.x D&D books (which is against the spirit of what WOTC was trying to accomplish with the OGL). 

Let's face it, the company had it's trademarked products and it's rule system slightly tweaked, a whole slew of new games were derived and then sold to a group that didn't require the core D&D books; a group that might have otherwise bought 3.x core books instead.

I seem to think that the spirit of WOTC was trying to accomplish with Open Gaming changed when it stopped being neat fan sites and 3PP making stuff for D&D and changed into deriving works without paying all the R&D to create the game core system, and then profiting with the marketing angle that you don't need any of the WOTC books to play.

From here, it just looks like WOTC is protecting it's own product interests.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.
> 
> A behavioral trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.




Hmmm...wow.  Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now?  Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it? 

 I really feel like that last line is a little insulting (You know similar to the way some claim the  "4E IS DUMBED DOWN" Line is just saying it's simplified but it still offends some).  I mean it's cool to argue your side, but really the whole "child" line is a thinly veiled cheap shot because you have a differing view from some of the other posters.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> "...this used to be free, why should we have to subscribe to DDI to get this kind of quality online content..." since DDI went live.




Because they are conditioned of a situation it did not advertise that they would have to pay for it in the future (I am talking about the 3.x Wotc D&D site).


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.






Delta said:


> Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:






> *Q: Is there an ethical reason to support Open Gaming?*
> 
> 
> A: In this writer's opinion, yes there is. It has been an established feature of RPGs since their inception that they should be used to create new content. Prior to the advent of widespread Open Game licenses, there was no practical way for that kind of material to be legally and widely distributed.​
> ...





How are these mutually exclusive?  Morrus was speaking about entitlement, your quote is talking about ethics and freedom of speech, both of which are things that are not mutually exclusive.  Without getting into politics, US Constitutional Law and Copyright Law aren't contradicting eachother.  Open Gaming is a good thing, good for the game, good for publishers, and good for the IP holder.  But just as "Free Speech" doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want - placing restrictions on the use of an IP or Brand Name, in order to protect the quality and integrity of said IP or Brand, is not unreasonable.

_"...that individuals should be free to copy, modify and distribute their own creative works derived from the game systems they have acquired."_ - I believe this is exactly what WoTC is attempting to do for 4E (and will forever be allowed to do with 3E - that hasn't, isn't, and won't change), but they do also have a right, and responsibility (to shareholders) to protect their IP from errosion of quality and standards (especially moral standards).  It's a sad fact, but there are some who won't adhere to common decency and behavior unless there are rules in place to make them.  I'm sure Scott and WoTC will get the troublesome business aspects of the GSL ironed out, and (most) 3pp will be satisfied and content with it.  They are business people also, and I'm sure they understand why and what WoTC is doing.

And just to be clear, the GSL is not the OGL.  WoTC was under absolutely no obligation to release 4E under the Open Gaming concept.  If they had, I'd be saying that's cool - but that doesn't mean that WoTC has done anything wrong or unethical by not doing this.  It is completely their right and perogative, also granted and protected by Law, the same as Free Speech.



As to Morrus's quote - OUCH!

Too true, but OUCH!​


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> WotC is a business. Gross benefits aren't important. *Net *benefits are.
> 
> That's like saying 4E had $1 million in sales. So it's been a success. (Reality: not if it cost you $2 million to produce).
> 
> What did it cost them to get these benefits is the question. That's probably even harder to quantify than the benefits.





Well here's a net benefit:

bunch of us really werent doing much...Till Ptolus came out. Then? We wanted to  play alot more. And some of us picked up books we needed for our characters: I myself needed complete adventurer, complete divine and complete champion.

I would have NEVER bought the Complete Champion if I wasnt playing in Ptolus. Yes its all andecedol evidence. But I cant be alone there.....


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Does it? Are you talking about 4E products? Products that would not otherwise exist without a GSL? At least, for publishers not willing to go the 'copyright route'.
> 
> Or are you talking about the 3E products that may have to be discontinued, that you have had time to purchase already? This would be like saying 3E interferes with your ability to buy 2E products.
> 
> What do you mean exactly?




Both actually.

Face it, wotc's adventures as a whole, arent very good. H1 was bad no matter which way you cut it, I havent bothered with H2 or H3 as a result. Their track record in adventures throughout 3.x was about the same with a couple of exceptions.

So nothing really good there. Yes there is the copyright route, but frankly I dont know how much I would want to see good, quality 3PP companies test that one. Hasbro isnt exactly forgiving......

As for thrid.....2nd sucked. Dont care. Personally I dont like watching Wotc jerk people's chain like they have throughout the entire GSL process. And jerk the chain they have.


----------



## Renshai (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Both actually.
> 
> Face it, wotc's adventures as a whole, arent very good. H1 was bad no matter which way you cut it, I havent bothered with H2 or H3 as a result. Their track record in adventures throughout 3.x was about the same with a couple of exceptions.
> 
> ...




Absolutely YOUR opinion. Don't try and put power behind your arguments by stating that something subjective, is indeed fact.

I happen to have quite enjoyed Keep on the Shadowfell, and after reading the rest of the released adventures I'm more excited than ever to be running D&D for my group.  I've gone so far as saying that I find that these adventures will join a special place in my gaming nostalgia, joining time honored adventures like White Plume Mountain and other 1E classics.  

There are many others that feel this way as well, so I'm sorry but you can't claim your opinion is a fact that supports your point of view. And not everyone feels like WotC is "jerking the chain". They are trying to come up with the best possible solution for them as a company, and I don't fault them for that one bit.  Until they get it worked out I get plenty of material from DDI. I did, however, just get Goodman Games class book, which has some fabulous classes, so not all 3PP are suffering. Goodman Games seems to be doing just fine with what they've got.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? *Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?* . . .




No.


Would someone be *LESS MATURE* if they got angry at 7-Eleven because of their feelings of entitlement?

Unequivocally, *YES!*


Freedom of speech, and freedom in general, is being able to state that you don't like the price increase or surcharge, and exercise your freedom by no longer buying the product.  However, Freedom of Speech is an ADVANCED concept - a concept that is not just a blank check but REQUIRES the responsibility of the one speaking.

Declaring you are entitled to something for which you are not entitled is the very definition of childishness, immaturity, and just being spoiled.  For those who feel that this is how the world and life should be treating them - refer to the immortal words of Wesley/The Dread Pirate Roberts; _"Get used to disappointment"_.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Well here's a net benefit:
> 
> bunch of us really werent doing much...Till Ptolus came out. Then? We wanted to  play alot more. And some of us picked up books we needed for our characters: I myself needed complete adventurer, complete divine and complete champion.
> 
> I would have NEVER bought the Complete Champion if I wasnt playing in Ptolus. Yes its all andecedol evidence. But I cant be alone there.....



That's not a net benefit, that's a gross benefit. You're leaving something very important out of the equation: how much did it cost WotC to get those additional sales from the OGL? I don't mean out-of-pocket, I mean lost potential sales from 3PP copying the SRD wholesale and releasing stand-alone products.

No one can measure that, and that's why I say we'll never know if the OGL actually benefited WotC as a company.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Not allowing something that they have no obligation to allow, is not interference. Your statement implies that you, and 3pp publishers, have an entitlement to this. You (and they) do not. If they want to grant the entitlement to do this, they can (and have). They also have the right to dictate the conditions upon which this entitlement is granted. That is their right and *THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT*.




True. But I'm under no obligation to give them money either. They may want to think on that when wondering about expectations.



> They are not trying to reverse the OGL, since this is categorically not possible to do. It would be an exercise in futility. They have absolutely no legal grounds or leverage by with to do this. They have simply moved on to a new product line, one for which they have no obligation to make open content. Whether you or others want it to be open, or just less closed, is irrelevent. No longer printing material under the OGL is their, and every other publishers, choice. It is not an attack on, nor a reversing of, the OGL.




I'd argue that you would be wrong in that regard. Every action or inaction on the GSL seems to be mroe inline with them to cut the OGL off at the knees at ever turn. The language seems very clear at the first run at the GSL.

Your right it is their choice. Just as its mine to take my money and busines elsewhere, and convince as many as I can by explaining their actions as I see it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Both actually.
> 
> Face it, wotc's adventures as a whole, arent very good. H1 was bad no matter which way you cut it, I havent bothered with H2 or H3 as a result. Their track record in adventures throughout 3.x was about the same with a couple of exceptions.
> 
> ...



Why are you bringing comments about your perception of quality of certain products into this discussion? It's completely irrelevant. If you have a right to something, you have a right to it, regardless of its quality or lack thereof.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Would someone be *LESS MATURE* if they got angry at 7-Eleven because of their feelings of entitlement?
> ...





And this is where we disagree... there is nothing inherently childish about getting angry about something one feels is owed to him or her, whether they are correct or wrong.  It is in how one handles those feelings that speaks to maturity... venting those feelings on a message board is not childish (though I would argue trying to tell someone how they should feel about something is.) ... burning one's 4e books, yeah that might be childish.

And as far as feelings of entitlement... Who exactly fostered these "feelings".  Shouldn't they have a certain amount of responsibility for the effect of years of conditioning those feelings, only to abruptly end them?  wait, no it's the fans and supporters who are wrong... for having exepectations (created by WotC in order to potentially sell more product) ok, whatever.  You know, IMHO..it's sorta like a divorce where a spouse who doesn't work is awarded money because they've become accustomed to a certain lifestyle.  Wait those judges and people must be childish too...


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> True. But I'm under no obligation to give them money either. They may want to think on that when wondering about expectations.



Indeed! It is your *right *to not buy things you don't want.

It is *not *your right to be able to buy things you wished you could, if only they existed.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm...wow.  Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now?  Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?



Oh, now come on....  there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP, their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D), to be copied or changed in such a way that others can run and sell derivative products without any need for their core books.

Imaro, I may not often agree with your opinions about game systems, but I DO respect your reasoning for your arguments.  But this one?  It was a reach into the stratosphere.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> So the adventure is not up to your personal liking, so therefore the quality sucks? The first Rise of the Runelords AP adventure had print that was too small and the art wasn't to my liking. So does it suck? No, but it wasn't the quality that H1 was, for sure. The adventure was a PRE-RELEASE adventure designed for beginners and those new to 4e. Of course it wasn't going to have the story depth of P1 (which, BTW, is awesome). Comparing H1 to a Paizo AP is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both fruit, but if you cook with them, they accomplish different goals.




I said NOTHING about not liking it. I said its quality was bad. And it is. I'm not alone in that thinking. 

Yes the first AP had small print and art that you didnt like. But you have said NOTHINg about the quality of the adventure, which was good.

Quality of H1 as an adventure? Not so good.

No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.

But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure. Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.




> Ahhhhhh.... so in business, if I need to put something off for a customer because I have other PRESSING priorities, then I don't care about my customer? That's highly simplistic and could be considered a downright strawman. Just because they haven't executed on the GSL yet, doesn't mean that they don't care about the 3PP. I am not a 3PP, I cannot speak for them, but the ones that have spoken out on the boards say that, while the current GSL doesn't meet their business goals for publishing 4e content (due to some restrictions, current OGL product lines, etc..), many have said, on this board no less, that the gang at WOTC does care and that when Scott get's it done, they'll look at it. Maybe not said in the same post, but said nonetheless.




Whats so pressing beyond DDI?

You keep saying that the gang at WOTC  CARES. So again I'll reiterate my question: show me.

I can point to all Wotc's actions and inactions regarding to the GSL. The vast majority show the opposite in fact.

But lets go back to the pressin matters. Yes, it does show your lack of caring to my customers, when you put them off. YOu show them that their concerns arent a priority.

When I put off my customer to do something else, or help someone else....yes they do feel like I dont care. its business 101.



> You can buy what you want. That is the nature of capitalism (unless you live in a country that tells you from whom to buy things). You can speak with your wallet. Excellent.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with whether Scott's priorities are such that the GSL revision takes second fiddle right now. It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the 3PPs.




I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Oh, now come on....  there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP



Exactly. The 7-11 example is just a price increase. If WotC increases their prices by 10% have they taken any rights away?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Yes the first AP had small print and art that you didnt like. But you have said NOTHINg about the quality of the adventure, which was good.



 I thought the adventure was just OK.



carmachu said:


> Quality of H1 as an adventure? Not so good.
> 
> No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.



I agree, path or not, that's irrelevant.  I was very impressed with the materials, the maps, the way the adventure was designed physically.  The adventure was very basic, very geared towards beginners.  I ran it with some newbies, and they had a great time. RHoD, that would have much more difficult and would NOT have had the "fun" effect I was looking for for new players.  For that purpose (and, quite frankly, the one that was intended), it was better than RHoD, which was an awesome adventure.... for experienced players and DMs. 



carmachu said:


> But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure.



 Of course, this goes without saying that this is only your opinion, and not stated fact.  My opinion differs.



carmachu said:


> Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.



I love Necro products, I own almost all.  I own the first 2 Paizo APs fully, and MANY of their products. The physical quality of H1 was superior than any Necro adventure, and better than the first RotR adventure, again, in my opinion.  As for the gaming quality, I already stated that it was full of win for the new people I gamed with.






carmachu said:


> Whats so pressing beyond DDI?
> 
> You keep saying that the gang at WOTC  CARES. So again I'll reiterate my question: show me.
> 
> ...



I am not going to dig around for the threads where Clark and many others have stated that the people at WoTC care about the 3PP.  Just ask the publishers themselves.



carmachu said:


> When I put off my customer to do something else, or help someone else....yes they do feel like I dont care. its business 101.



Again, this is an over-simplistic view of things.  Running a business for the past 15 years has proven this to me.



carmachu said:


> I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.



Well, for what it's worth, I disagree.  Scott represents WOTC, he speaks for them.  So when he says that they care about the 3PP, then it is WOTC saying it.  Let's not dance around semantics.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> I said NOTHING about not liking it. I said its quality was bad. And it is. I'm not alone in that thinking.



Okay, you're going to have to define "quality" for us. You and everyone you know not liking something does not make it low quality. You're taking0 your subjective opinion and using it as fact. If I told you that I like H1, and so does everyone else I know, and we think it's a great adventure, does that mean it's high quality?



carmachu said:


> I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.



Again, you're going to have to be more specific. WotC is a fiction, an entity only in the legal sense. It cannot care about anything. Who, specifically, within WotC do you need to "care" about the GSL in order for you to think the company as a whole does? Le Rouse is in charge of the D&D brand. That's a darn good start on the "who cares?" roster. Who else do you need, and how do you know they don't care?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Oh, now come on.... there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP, their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D), to be copied or changed in such a way that others can run and sell derivative products without any need for their core books.
> 
> Imaro, I may not often agree with your opinions about game systems, but I DO respect your reasoning for your arguments. But this one? It was a reach into the stratosphere.






Fifth Element said:


> Exactly. The 7-11 example is just a price increase. If WotC increases their prices by 10% have they taken any rights away?





Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish". 

 WotC fostered this sense of entitlement in it's consumers and it is the direction many believed they would take, as they supported their product. (Of course this was in no way helped by WotC's "super secrecy" around the GSL during the release of 4e, which in turn leads me to believe they knew many fans and companies would not be happy with the changes).  To then turn around and say they are childish for feeling anger about this is ridiculous.  especially when presenting the case that WotC themselves hold no fault or blame in the ill will their reversal of direction fostered.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And as far as feelings of entitlement... Who exactly fostered these "feelings". *Shouldn't they have a certain amount of responsibility for the effect of years of conditioning those feelings, only to abruptly end them?*




Simple answer, NO!


WoTC did not "foster" feelings of entitlement, neither did they imply or state that said entitlement existed, except as far as the original OGL grants.  The OGL did not imply, state, or grant that all WoTC products, in prepetuity, would be Open Content.  From this interpretation, it sounds like you are saying that WoTC gave up all of their current and future rights to any IP they have, or may develop in the future.  That is an absurd assumption, one that seems to be based in an immature sense of entitlement.  Just because some chose to view it as entitlement, even when it wasn't, does not ascribe resonsibility for those feelings to WoTC.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish".




Except Morrus didn't say this.

1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be *FOREVER*.

2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish".



I agree with the first part, but not the second. Morrus' 'childish' comment was a cheap shot, I think. It wasn't called for, and I never said I agreed with it. The rest of his post was relevant though.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Except Morrus didn't say this.
> 
> 1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be *FOREVER*.
> 
> 2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.





You know what's funny, if WOTC had never called 4e dungeons and dragons, and called it instead "1e Mini's and Maps"  we wouldn't be having this ridiculous argument.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Simple answer, NO!
> 
> 
> WoTC did not "foster" feelings of entitlement, neither did they imply or state that said entitlement existed, except as far as the original OGL grants.  The OGL did not imply, state, or grant that all WoTC products, in prepetuity, would be Open Content.  *From this interpretation, it sounds like you are saying that WoTC gave up all of their current and future rights to any IP they have, or may develop in the future.*  That is an absurd assumption, one that seems to be based in an immature sense of entitlement.  Just because some chose to view it as entitlement, even when it wasn't, does not ascribe resonsibility for those feelings to WoTC.




Uhm, that is nothing even close to what I said, and I agree it is absurd.  

You know what else  is absurd?  For a business to go in a certain direction, which many of it's fans support (regardless of whether it's the OGL or the free material given away on the website during 3e and 3.5)...  Totally change that direction (while being exceptionally hush, hush and secretive about it) and expect those customers (some of which may have supported the company because it did go in this direction) to not be angry or peeved about it.  Furthermore it is also absurd to then claim these people's anger is childish and basically without merit...

Does that clear up what I'm saying?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 30, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D)




I recall Scott Rouse mentioning somewhere here a range of the $$ so it is not wholly untold, but I have to ask this question with 100% seriousness.

*Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?*

Not to pick on the man, but just one example among many and to continue with the same name....

Is it my job to help Scott Rouse in some way because he bought some lemon car and paid to much for it? Do I owe him anything for that to keep food on his table? How about anyone else at WotC?

Do they in some way perform some service that puts food on my table?

We are talking about the entertainment industry here. One false step means life or death. You want your investments secure then you better make sure people wants whatever avenue of entertainment you are wanting.

I get so sick and tired of hearing people talking about the money WotC spent to develop some new thing. It was their money to risk to lose. They will have to take it up with HASBRO should it fails, and with the shareholders.

I owe them nothing, not does any other gamer here; so why should it be made in some way to look as thought every gamer is responsible for WotC making a decision to make something like 4th that had no want or interest in.

So it is childish to think that somehow gamers should be responsible to make sure WotC did not lose those $$ on R&D and are somehow responsible.

"Daddy daddy I broke my new toy I bought and need another one."

That is what I hear anytime someone speaks of how much money WotC sank into creating 4th.

So let's just drop it. I didn't tell them to spend it, and ain't responsible to help them get it back.

They should be doing what they can to get it back the best and quickest way possible. Since the original GSL was so delayed they lost their precious $5000 early buy in. But that would have helped them get it back.

WotC is the ones screwing up as a whole company, and it is in now way the fault of gamers, but the execs at WotC. So again I say let's drop the whole "WotC spent X dollars on something so you should feel bad for them" bit.

I don't. It wasn't my money, and I laugh at people that waste money and shortly after  [self censured] because they needed it for something else!

You should have compared to an analogy of WotC raising the price on the second print run of books or something rather than basing it on R&D costs that has nothing really to do with the quarter increase for the cup at 7-11. Like somehow WotC deciding to charge extra for the pictures where they were fre before or something.


joethelawyer said:


> You know what's funny, if WOTC had never called 4e dungeons and dragons, and called it instead "1e Mini's and Maps"  we wouldn't be having this ridiculous argument.




And it would have been a heck of a lot better name as well, because it is more truthful.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Except Morrus didn't say this.
> 
> 1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be *FOREVER*.
> 
> 2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.




Are you even reading what I'm posting??


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?



If you simply decide not to buy the 2.24 Big Gulp, then no, you are not childish.  If you get personally angry about it and feel that you have been personally wronged in some way, then yes, you are childish.

I actually think that the example you gave is an excellent illustration of the childish way that people view economics.  People who would look at a 25 cent price increase and shrug it away as inflation will get incredibly angry at a new 25 cent surcharge for a cup.  That's childish.  Its exactly the same thing, except that a cup surcharge can be bypassed by bringing your own cup.*

*Disclaimers so that the Generic Food Metaphor doesn't get out of control: If they don't allow you to bring your own cup, or in any way sever the cup from the soda in the transaction, then its not a cup surcharge, even if they say it is.  Its a flat, run of the mill price increase.  If they don't allow you to bring your own cup, and they don't include the cost of the cup on their price schedule or on any place visible to consumers, its a hidden fee.  There are different and legitimate reasons to become upset at hidden fees.  In such a case I would suggest calling your better business bureau, and asking whether you should notify your state attorney general.


> And this is where we disagree... there is nothing inherently childish about getting angry about something one feels is owed to him or her, whether they are correct or wrong. It is in how one handles those feelings that speaks to maturity... venting those feelings on a message board is not childish (though I would argue trying to tell someone how they should feel about something is.) ... burning one's 4e books, yeah that might be childish.



Are you actually arguing that the motivation behind your actions isn't relevant in determining whether you are behaving in a childish way, and that what you do based on that motivation is the only relevant factor?

That would mean that:

1. It would not be childish to whine on a message board because you falsely and irrationally believe that WOTC owes you something they don't owe you.

2. It would be childish to burn your 4e books in protest because you correctly believe based on evidence and investigation that 4e was written entirely by children that Scott Rouse kidnapped and chained to typewriters in his basement.

Obviously that doesn't make any sense.  Motives are incredibly important.  Perhaps its not what you really meant to say.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

justanobody said:


> *Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?*



Who said they were? And what does that have to do with the discussion?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Are you even reading what I'm posting??



His response actually makes sense.  In relation to your argument, in which you claim that its reasonable for people to get upset if something they used to get for free now costs money, he's pointing out that the free thing people used to get is still free- there's just a new, different thing that costs money, and people are arguing that because Thing One was free, Thing Two should be free as well.


----------



## joethelawyer (Nov 30, 2008)

This is kind of like cars and trucks, to make an analogy.  Let's say you were a ford pickup truck lover all your life.  You come from a long line of ford pickup truck lovers.  Let's assume for the sake of the analogy that up until 2008, ford pickup trucks were incredibly easy to work on, modify, tinker with pimp-out, repair them yourself, etc.  Basically, whatever you wanted to do with them, you could do.  And it still remained the basic manly looking ford pickup truck at its core.  Ford never cared that you tinkered with them, and in fact made it easy for you to do so in every way.

Now lets say that in 2009, Ford decides to revamp the pickup truck.  They make it pink with purple polkadots, and give it green furry trim all over.  They make the engine so electronic based and confusing for the average backyard mechanic, that you can no longer freely tinker with it.  Even worse, they make you sign an agreement upon purchase that you will not be able to change its exterior or engine, or else you agree to be subject to a high fine.  

You are outraged at the new direction ford went in.

You can do one of 2 things, as i see it.  

1.  Rant and rave like an idiot, but knowing all the while that nothing will really come of it, AND BE MISERABLE.

2.  drive your old ford pickup and just tell yourself that you had the last true  ford pickup, the new one is not really a ford pickup, (regardless of the truth of that statement or not--people convince themselves that what is false is true, all the time) AND BE HAPPY.

I'd rather be happy driving my old pickup.  Why be miserable about not being able to drive a pickup you didn't really like anyway?  It's much more pleasant than choosing to be miserable.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 30, 2008)

carmachu said:


> Both actually.
> Face it, wotc's adventures as a whole, arent very good. H1 was bad no matter which way you cut it, I havent bothered with H2 or H3 as a result. Their track record in adventures throughout 3.x was about the same with a couple of exceptions.



So, you are claiming that WotC’s adventures are bad, yet you have only had any experience with H1? Would you be surprised if I told you that it is the weakest of them all? (H2 and P1 are better by miles, H3 depends on taste)


carmachu said:


> No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.
> But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure. Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.



Yet again, you are comparing the worst 4e WotC adventure, to some of the best of 3.5. Sure, we expect the best from WotC, but still. Give them a chance.


justanobody said:


> Snipped a very long rant



Seriously, you got things backwards. It’s not about us having to help out WotC. It’s about their right to do whatever the hell they want with their products, in order to recoup the expenses they have had. And they did. They didn't ask for help, they didn't do things the easy way. They did what they thought best - for them. They made the GSL. And yet, people keep on whining…


Morrus said:


> It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.
> 
> A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.



Thanks for posting this Morrus. Now I can quote you, without fear of being banned.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Are you actually arguing that the motivation behind your actions isn't relevant in determining whether you are behaving in a childish way, and that what you do based on that motivation is the only relevant factor?
> 
> That would mean that:
> 
> ...




Not arguing motivation isn't relevant at all.  I was talking about this situation, not a hypothetical "other" situation when I gave my example.  If you feel that WotC has done you wrong by an action they've taken, is it  or isn't it a mature response to post on a message board their representatives read, write a letter to the company, etc.  However, burning your books will bring nothing to their attention or make your feelings known.  So what I'm saying is that the person who is actually following a path in which his grievance is known is acting maturely ... the one who destroys his books in his own home and no one knows, isn't.  

As far as whether someone's feelings are justified or not is subjective and even in our judicial system often based on circumstances that transcend pure logic.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> His response actually makes sense.  In relation to your argument, in which you claim that its reasonable for people to get upset if something they used to get for free now costs money, he's pointing out that the free thing people used to get is still free- there's just a new, different thing that costs money, and people are arguing that because Thing One was free, Thing Two should be free as well.




And yet my point was that people can get mad because a business leads them to believe it is headed in a certain direction or follows certain practices and then, without notice, changes said practices.  Like I said earlier, it is entirely possible some people supported WotC because they believed there would be a gaming license like the OGL for 4e, and again WotC didn't do anyone any favors with all the secrecy surrounding the GSL.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, that is nothing even close to what I said, and I agree it is absurd.
> 
> You know what else is absurd? For a business to go in a certain direction, which many of it's fans support (regardless of whether it's the OGL or the free material given away on the website during 3e and 3.5)... Totally change that direction (while being exceptionally hush, hush and secretive about it) and expect those customers (some of which may have supported the company because it did go in this direction) to not be angry or peeved about it. Furthermore it is also absurd to then claim these people's anger is childish and basically without merit...
> 
> Does that clear up what I'm saying?



Ok, I can get behind this, at least partially.

It would be totally absurd if WOTC did not in any way anticipate that some people would react negatively to WOTC not extending the OGL to 4e.

But!

1. If there was some way to verify, I would happily bet you about a hundred bucks that at least once WOTC had some kind of meeting or correspondence or internal memo during which likely fan reaction to decisions related to the OGL and 4e were discussed.

2. The fact that it is predictable and inevitable that some people from amongst a large population will react to your decisions in a childish manner does NOT transform their childish reaction into a mature one.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Not arguing motivation isn't relevant at all. I was talking about this situationSo what I'm saying is that the person who is actually following a path in which his grievance is known is acting maturely ... the one who destroys his books in his own home and no one knows, isn't.



That's fine and all, but it has nothing to do with whether the grievance was mature in the first place.


Imaro said:


> As far as whether someone's feelings are justified or not is subjective and even in our judicial system often based on circumstances that transcend pure logic.



This comment is meaningless without an effort at applying it to the situation at hand.

Its like saying, during a discussion of the assassination of Abe Lincoln, "Killing another human being is sometimes justified and sometimes unjustified, and many people have very subjective views based upon the circumstance of a particular killing, and upon reasoning which sometimes transcends pure logic."  I mean, ok, true statement and all that, but its going to be completely rational for everyone else in the conversation to wonder _what in the world are you getting at?_


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> 1. If there was some way to verify, I would happily bet you about a hundred bucks that at least once WOTC had some kind of meeting or correspondence or internal memo during which likely fan reaction to decisions related to the OGL and 4e were discussed.




I'm sure it was, just like the decision to cancel Dragon and Dungeon (along with the reactions when fans finally found out) ... and we all remember how well that was handled.



Cadfan said:


> 2. The fact that it is predictable and inevitable that some people from amongst a large population will react to your decisions in a childish manner does NOT transform their childish reaction into a mature one.




Again... subjective.  Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not?  Would someone who decided to buy the 4e core, in anticipation of a gaming license similar to the OGL or at least one where more than a couple of 3pp were willing to move to 4e be childish if they were angry they had wasted over $100?  What about if their group had each bought PHB's as well... so now it's around $200+ and a bunch of useless books?  Honestly I don't like WotC's settings, but I played 3e because of Scarred Lands, and 3.5 because of Iron Kingdoms, Dark Legacies, Midnight and Dawnforge.  I have the 4e books and IMO, these books more than 3.x are in need of a really good campaign setting with some good fluff... I think this is one of the reasons 4e doesn't excite me and I don't find myself reading or browsing the books like I did with 3.x.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

I really don't think the maturity/childish discussion is terribly relevant.

What I think is relevant it rationality/irrationality (which some might equate with the above, but I've known to many mature, irrational people to agree).

Anger is not a rational reaction, especially to a business decision. Anger solves nothing, contributes nothing. Disappointment could be called a rational reaction to a decision you don't like.  But there's no point getting angry. Express your disappointment by not buying the new product, by asking them to change the new product, etc. But in a rational manner so there's a chance you might be listened to. "Why don't you care about me!" is not a way to get someone to listen to you.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not?



I'd say anger is never a valid response in a case like this. Why? Because anger is a very personal response to something, and WotC's business decisions are impersonal. No one in WotC said "Y'know, I really hate that Imaro guy on ENWorld. We should totally screw him over!" It had nothing to do with you.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2008)

justanobody said:


> *Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?*



No one has once said that you should be responsible.  Most have simply said, if you don't want to play the game, don't buy it.  But don't knock WOTC for doing something with their product just because it didn't go in a direction you like.



justanobody said:


> Not to pick on the man, but just one example among many and to continue with the same name....
> 
> Is it my job to help Scott Rouse in some way because he bought some lemon car and paid to much for it? Do I owe him anything for that to keep food on his table? How about anyone else at WotC?
> 
> ...



This is so totally "huh?"  I am not sure anyone said you should feel bad for WOTC because they spent R&D costs on developing a new edition of their game.  And if the numbers are truly as they appear to be, WOTC certainly isn't crying about wasted money -- the venture looks like a financial success so far.

Dude, your rant doesn't appear to have anything to do with this conversation.  Your post gives the impression that you are upset about something... So, why again are you so mad?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'd say anger is never a valid response in a case like this. Why? Because anger is a very personal response to something, and WotC's business decisions are impersonal. No one in WotC said "Y'know, I really hate that Imaro guy on ENWorld. We should totally screw him over!" It had nothing to do with you.




I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing.   But this ... I just can't get behind.  I can't say that anger is *never* a valid response to a "business decisions".  Business decisions are based on what is best (usually most profitable) for a business.  However often this can result in detrimental effects to consumers, especially when desires and profitability collide.  If I believe I have been misled or deceived ... it being a "business decision" does not invalidate my anger over it.  

Instead of WotC telling people, that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL, they kept it under wraps for as long as possible (until 3 wks after the release date of the 4e core).  Was this a good business decision?  I would think so with how unhappy most were with it.  Now if I bought the 4e books under the assumption it would be open, why shouldn't  I feel anger about it, especially if it was planned knowing that it would be dissapointing to some people who bought 4e assuming (from past experiences, actions and set expectations) that 4e would have strong support from 3pp's and the GSL would be, if not the same, very similar to the OGL.

Honestly, now I'm back to wandering and waiting about the new GSL, only this time I'm holding off on DDI, and majority of the books until I find out... since I know now.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

Delta said:


> Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:




I dont know who wrote it, nor do I care; and I don't agree with it; and that, unless that quote is taken out of context, the author does not understand what "freedom of speech" means. If they want to come and say it here, I'll happily say so. I don't associate ethics with free RPG content.

If you have an opinion, feel free to offer it here. I'm not really interested in the opinion of some random person who is not involved in this conversation, just the opinions of those who are here and involved in the conversation.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?




You are choosing to be offended. I certainly didn't name you or direct any opinion about you to you, nor am I consciously aware of your stance on Open Gaming or this issue.

I'd say hypothetically a person would be childish if they accused them of a moral wrongdoing and tried to insist that you were "owed" the product at the price you were used to; and that the mature reaction is simply not to purchase to goods if they don't want to pay the price asked.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing.   But this ... I just can't get behind.  I can't say that anger is *never* a valid response to a "business decisions".  Business decisions are based on what is best (usually most profitable) for a business.  However often this can result in detrimental effects to consumers, especially when desires and profitability collide.  If I believe I have been misled or deceived ... it being a "business decision" does not invalidate my anger over it.
> 
> Instead of WotC telling people, that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL, they kept it under wraps for as long as possible (until 3 wks after the release date of the 4e core).  Was this a good business decision?  I would think so with how unhappy most were with it.  Now if I bought the 4e books under the assumption it would be open, why shouldn't  I feel anger about it, especially if it was planned knowing that it would be dissapointing to some people who bought 4e assuming (from past experiences, actions and set expectations) that 4e would have strong support from 3pp's and the GSL would be, if not the same, very similar to the OGL.
> 
> Honestly, now I'm back to wandering and waiting about the new GSL, only this time I'm holding off on DDI, and majority of the books until I find out... since I know now.




They did say that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL. They specifically said that 4E was not going to be released under the OGL, and that the GSL they intended to release for 4E was going to be similar to the d20 STL, not the OGL. While some of the parts of the GSL rubbed open gaming fans and companies the wrong way, that the GSL in no way resembled the OGL wasn't any sort of surprise.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing.   But this ... I just can't get behind.  I can't say that anger is *never* a valid response to a "business decisions".



True. Never is too strong. There are many business decisions in which the parties are known personally to one another, even on a one-to-one basis. And business decisions are often made irrationally, and can be made to spite another person. It happens.

But not in a case like this. Taking personal offence at this decision seems off-base to me.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

carmachu said:


> True. But I'm under no obligation to give them money either. They may want to think on that when wondering about expectations.




Absolutely.  I fully support your right to choose what to purchase.  I may _even_ be persuaded that WotC may be making an innefficient or sub-par business decision, if presented with more evidence.  What I _won't_ be persuaded of is that they are guilty of any moral wrongdoing.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Again... subjective. Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not?



Who are you to say that my frustration with people who feel personally offended by WOTC isn't valid?

If you really believed your own words you wouldn't be in this thread criticizing people for being frustrated with the sense of entitlement exhibited by those who believe that WOTC had some sort of obligation to extend the OGL to 4e, or to provide certain amounts free online content.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2008)

Morrus said:


> *You are choosing to be offended. I certainly didn't name you or direct any opinion about you to you, nor am I consciously aware of your stance on Open Gaming or this issue.*




Emphasis mine.  Morrus, I was going to leave this alone at first, but isn't this just an ad hominem attack, where instead of addressing the arguments of those who do feel anger about the current GSL you instead resort to calling them childish.  If another poster had said ... "Those who get angry about people disparaging 4e are childish."  would this or would this not be an ad hominem attack, because it could use the same logic you use above in the first paragraph to make it clear it was directed at no one specific.  How, if at all, is it in anyway different from what you posted.

As for me, I am dissapointed that so few 3pp have chosen to go 4e, and itis affecting my decision to fully invest in 4e, though I'll still play with the core... and I'm actually becoming more and more interested in Runequest and the Michael Moorcock games since I like sword and sorcery anyway, and Mongoose, IMHO, has some positive business practices I like.



Morrus said:


> I'd say hypothetically a person would be childish if they accused them of a moral wrongdoing and tried to insist that you were "owed" the product at the price you were used to; and that the mature reaction is simply not to purchase to goods if they don't want to pay the price asked.




And I'd say hypothetically that someone who characterizes peoples attitudes and or personality rather than addressing their argument probably will shut down any type of meaningful discourse right there.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Who are you to say that my frustration with people who feel personally offended by WOTC isn't valid?




Where did I say this?



Cadfan said:


> If you really believed your own words you wouldn't be in this thread criticizing people for being frustrated with the sense of entitlement exhibited by those who believe that WOTC had some sort of obligation to extend the OGL to 4e, or to provide certain amounts free online content.




Huh?  Who am I criticizing about being frustrated?  Where has this frustration even been brought up, and where have I addressed it?   I started out addressing a broad characterization about a group of posters who feel a certain way about the way the 4e GSL turned out. What I'm  now doing is discussing like everyone else, I mean no one forces anyone to read or post in a thread, and the minute I get tired or frustrated I'll walk away... seems simple enough to me, so how does this contradict anything I've said?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And I'd say hypothetically that someone who characterizes peoples attitudes and or personality rather than addressing their argument probably will shut down any type of meaningful discourse right there.




You asked if I'd consider such a person childish.  I responded by saying "yes, under X circumstances".  If you didn't want me to answer your question, thats fine, but I wish you'd made it clearer that was the case _before_ I answered it.

I didn't really follow the rest of your post, unfortunately.  I'd be happy to respond to it if you could clarify?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 1, 2008)

Imaro said:


> but isn't this just an ad hominem attack, where instead of addressing the arguments of those who do feel anger about the current GSL you instead resort to calling them childish.



While I disagree about Imaro about WotC in this thread, I agree with this. The 'childish' comment and the resulting discussion really wasn't necessary and didn't add anything. It just fanned the flames by calling people names. (Hey, that rhymes.)


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> While I disagree about Imaro about WotC in this thread, I agree with this. The 'childish' comment and the resulting discussion really wasn't necessary and didn't add anything. It just fanned the flames by calling people names. (Hey, that rhymes.)




It was a direct answer to a question; it wasn't out of the blue or anything.  It also didn't feature the word "childish", although it did contain an observation that a sense of entitlement is a trait often shared by children.  It was, moreover, not directed at anybody here; it was simply an anwer to a question asked, which was: "Why is it that some people believe that because WOTC decided to close up their product, and provide a different 3PP use license, that WOTC has violated their rights?"

Anyway, you are correct; the thread is now digressing.  Let's get it back on track, folks.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> True. Never is too strong. There are many business decisions in which the parties are known personally to one another, even on a one-to-one basis. And business decisions are often made irrationally, and can be made to spite another person. It happens.
> 
> But not in a case like this. Taking personal offence at this decision seems off-base to me.




And not once have I said you or anyone else was wrong for feeling like that.  In fact I can totally respect that and get behind it... However I can also understand someone being disappointed, angry, etc. by this decision, and it doesn't seem that crazy to me... It just seems like no one is telling the people who are cool with the way it went down, they should be angry... but the one's who are cool with it seem like they have to prove to others they have no right to be angry... and again, who are you to decide this as far as someone else goes?


----------



## justanobody (Dec 1, 2008)

Following the discussion via the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 button, where did Imaro ask if something was childish? I just cannot seem to find it?


Morrus said:


> catsclaw227 said:
> 
> 
> > This.
> ...




This is where I see the "childish" line begin....


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

I repeat - let's keep the thread on track please, people.  It's about a deadline to WotC, not about whether Imaro thinks I think he's childish.  Let's drop that line of conversation, please.  It's just fanning the flames of a burgeoning argument.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 1, 2008)

Well I likewise am offended by the comment and it was brought up in context of the thread topic and plays an important role in it when it is said that anyone wanting to give WotC a deadline is considred to be childish.

So I think it is very on topic, personally. Is this also how WotC and/or ENW Publishing views customers that disagree with them, as childish?

If that is the case then maybe a deadline for the GSL is not the thing, but complete stopping buying and using all products and letting consumers know this is how a company feels about them is the best course of action, so rescend my agreement that a deadline criteria is important as something else has come up that takes a higher priority of importance.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Well I likewise am offended by the comment and it was brought up in context of the thread topic and plays an important role in it when it is said that anyone wanting to give WotC a deadline is considred to be childish.
> 
> So I think it is very on topic, personally. Is this also how WotC and/or ENW Publishing views customers that disagree with them, as childish?




If you continue to bring it up, you will be asked to leave the thread. We are NOT turning this thread into an argument. I've now said so three times; this will be the last time. I hope I have made myself clear.  This goes for everyone.

If you have any further questions about it, feel free to email me. But this thread will return to the original topic.


----------



## Mark (Dec 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> The definition of "Product Identity" in paragraph 1?





That's a new one, AFAIAC.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 1, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> 1.  Rant and rave like an idiot, but knowing all the while that nothing will really come of it, AND BE MISERABLE.




Well, except for the fact that we know that if _enough _people rant and rave about something, change usually _will _occur. They can either literally rant and rave about it, or vote with their dollars. This does occassionally happen and companies back down and try a different tactic - the New Coke debacle is a good case in point. TV shows have been saved by the same sort of thing. Products have ceased production or changed because enough people ranted and raved. The tactic, really, isn't without merit.

However .... 

The _anger_ you can see in a lot of the posts comes from the realization - even if they won't admit it - that there are _not _enough people displeased with the way things have gone.


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 1, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> The _anger_ you can see in a lot of the posts comes from the realization - even if they won't admit it - that there are _not _enough people displeased with the way things have gone.



I think that sums it up quite nicely.

I'd prefer if WotC had the "final" GSL ready way back before August, when they originally planned on releasing it to interested publishers.  If they had, more publishers might have jumped on the 4e wagon and we'd have more products available to us right now by some of our favorite companies.  I'm disapointed that it did not happen . . . but I don't feel the _rage_ that some seem to here.  I still think WotC is overall a pretty solid company with some solid individuals working for them putting out overall solid products I like to spend my money on.  They seriously miscalculated with the release of the GSL, and also the Digital Initiative.  It happens.

I think trying to impose some sort of deadline to the company with all the power (the D&D IP) is wrong-headed, unnecessarily vindictive, foolish, and would be doomed to have no positive effect.  It's their IP, they don't have to share at all, but they do because they feel it strengthens the hobby as a whole which in turn benefits them.


----------



## Delta (Dec 1, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I dont know who wrote it, nor do I care; and I don't agree with it; and that, unless that quote is taken out of context, the author does not understand what "freedom of speech" means. If they want to come and say it here, I'll happily say so. I don't associate ethics with free RPG content.
> 
> If you have an opinion, feel free to offer it here. I'm not really interested in the opinion of some random person who is not involved in this conversation, just the opinions of those who are here and involved in the conversation.




The "random person" in question was Ryan Dancey, writing in the Open Game Definitions FAQ, published at Wizards.com: Open Game Definitions:Frequently Asked Questions

So my point is this: You may not associate ethics with free RPG content. But the author of the OGL did; the head of WOTC did so at the time of the OGL's release; and it was included as part of the official "Definitions" of Open Gaming. 

So at the very least you've got to admit that there's a real difference of philosophy around the issue, and while calling it "childish" may be useful for your business case at the moment, it isn't really intellectually rigorous.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm with those who don't really understand all the WoTC-directed hostility.

The GSL has two main components: the bit that says that you may publish a product that uses the D&D trademark, and that such a product may refer to but not substantially reproduce or alter the text in the 4e rulebooks; and the bit that say that, if you do this, you have to drop publication of similar products that contain content derived from the SRD.

The first bit is a pretty functional replication of the OGL for those publishers who wish to provide supplementary material for D&D (leaving aside details like the stat-block problem - I assume that this is the sort of thing the revision is intended to address). It is a functional departure from the OGL for those who want to exploit the market's familiarity with the D&D rules (as incorporated into the SRD) in order to produce RPG material that is not supplementary to D&D. I can see why WoTC have decided to withdraw support for this second sort of endeavour. They have decided that Dancey was wrong in thinking (i) that d20 will conquer the gaming world, and (ii) that this will always be to the financial benefit of WoTC. That's not an absurd conclusion to reach after nearly a decade of experience with the OGL.

The second bit is an attempt to force publishers to choose between supporting 3E or non-D&D RPGs, or supporting 4e (at least on a per-product line basis). By the standards of a commercial licencing agreement that seems only very moderately aggressive to me, but then I'm not involved in the entertainment industry, so that is a purely outsider's perspective.

Those who are defending WoTC by appealing to a libertarian theory of the contract I think are going to far - even those with a much more norm-governed notion of the contract (eg like Xechnao, I think, who seems to reflect something closer to the European notion of the contract) can still agree that it is entirely WoTC's prerogative to decide on what terms it wishes to licence D&D IP to other commercial entities. This is not a case of anti-competitive or otherwise anti-social behaviour, as far as I can tell. No one is being prohibited from participating in the RPG market.

Those who think that WoTC has a moral duty to make the text of the 4e rulebooks reproduceable by other for free I think ought to explain why the 4e rulebooks are different in this respect from every other RPG ever published, or indeed from every other text ever published. Why is WoTC uniquely prohibited from enjoying the benefits that IP law confers on publishers? Why is WoTC uniquely precluded from determining the terms on which it licences the reproduction by others of its text or trademarks?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Dec 1, 2008)

Delta said:


> The "random person" in question was Ryan Dancey, writing in the Open Game Definitions FAQ, published at Wizards.com: Open Game Definitions:Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> So my point is this: You may not associate ethics with free RPG content. But the author of the OGL did; the head of WOTC did so at the time of the OGL's release; and it was included as part of the official "Definitions" of Open Gaming.
> 
> So at the very least you've got to admit that there's a real difference of philosophy around the issue, and while calling it "childish" may be useful for your business case at the moment, it isn't really intellectually rigorous.



I believe that A) someone might support open gaming for ethical reasons.  I also believe that B) no matter how much someone enjoys somebody else's support of open gaming, it is unreasonable to assume that this support must continue forever.  I don't think that beliefs A and B are inconsistent.  Statement B certainly doesn't imply (in any intellectually rigorous way) that I believe that ethical motivations for open gaming are unreasonable.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 1, 2008)

Delta said:


> The "random person" in question was Ryan Dancey, writing in the Open Game Definitions FAQ, published at Wizards.com: Open Game Definitions:Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> So my point is this: You may not associate ethics with free RPG content. But the author of the OGL did; the head of WOTC did so at the time of the OGL's release; and it was included as part of the official "Definitions" of Open Gaming.




I don't see Ryan's name on that page anywhere. Not that I'm saying he didn't write it (I have no way of knowing just looking at it), but I don't see anything saying he did.

I still disagree with it.

[Edit - ah, I see his name's in the sidebar. I still disagree with him.]



> So at the very least you've got to admit that there's a real difference of philosophy around the issue, and while calling it "childish" may be useful for your business case at the moment, it isn't really intellectually rigorous.




You're misrepresenting my position. I stand by my stated opinion.

I don't know what you imagine my "business case" may be, but I would benefit from a revised GSL, which is contrary to my personal opinion on the moral aspects I've debated in this thread.  If I'm making a business case, I'm doing a very poor job of it by advocating for the other side!


----------



## Grimstaff (Dec 1, 2008)

All this ranting against WotC would make more sense if there wasn't a GSL, but _there is_.

Unless you're a publisher or at the very least a freelancer - why care? There is a ton of third party 4E stuff coming out, so as a gamer/consumer that need is filled. There is a functional GSL, and anyone who wants to take the publishing plunge can do so - companies like Necromancer, who wish to wait and see what the revised GSL looks like, can do so as well.

As a freelancer, there are some aspects of the original OGL/SRD that I disliked, and in no way agreed with, such as the exclusion of several classic spells and monsters from the SRD. As most of my stuff is heavily old-school influenced, these restrictions seemed unfairly arbitrary to me, but they are WotC's property, and they can do what they want with them. 

Its been my unfortunate opinion so far that many folks getting upset about "where's the GSL" have no business stake in the matter, little or no knowledge of the legalities involved, and are discounting the GSL as-is based on the opinion of a couple of extremely "high-IP" publishers like Paizo and Green Ronin, rather than forming their own educated opinion.

Seldom do I see any acknowledgement of the problems the original OGL had, and created for WotC. The simple fact is that some publishers took far greater liberties with Ryan Dancy's good intentions than WotC could ignore, and it had to be addressed. 

I remain hopeful that the revised GSL will be a better fit for IP-heavy publishers, but I, for one, don't see the need to have some sort of boycott or ultimatum, that would seem to be a waste of time at best, and hurtful to the intended cause at worst.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Dec 3, 2008)

One thing I hate about the "Is there an Ethical Reason..." statement is that it can be misconstrued as implying those that don't want to give away their content are unethical, and thus the OGL concept is the only moral way you should license a game, a concept I find disturbing.


----------



## Wonka (Dec 3, 2008)

As much as I would like to add something concrete to this thread, anything that I have to say about this issue has already been addressed at some point. So I would like to take this opportunity to state how much joy I got reading this whole discussion, just to see some of the crazy opinions that are floating out there, and the justification some people will use to attempt to make this valid. Who am I talking about? Who cares, that's irrelevant.


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 3, 2008)

Eh, I think the ship has sailed on having a usable GSL.

It's an undeniable fact that the current one is totally undesirable; every company with more than one employee and any IP worth protecting has eschewed it.  So far it's just new solo folks with nothing to lose and extremely limited experiments (Wraith Recon, Apelords) by established companies.  Ronin, Paizo, Necromancer, Troll Lord, Kenzer, Postmortem, Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook, Sean K. Reynolds, Deep7, Highmoon, and random other guys - all quite reputable companies and noted RPG designers - have decided not to bother with the GSL.  Comments like "the only people that don't like the GSL are people with no stake/knowledge" are patently false.

Really it's too late.  All these guys had to plan out a path for their products when all this came up.  And they correctly saw that WotC is not going to address this issue in good faith.  How many times have they promised something about the GSL but "whoops, it just slipped through the cracks again?"  That's not someone you enter into a business relationship with.  

And a lot of the reason to go along has faded.  4e hasn't been performing to expectation (at least people like Matt Sprange of Mongoose and other people that might know say so).  Wizards just laid off more of their staff, including 4e designers and people working on the failed digital initiative.  This isn't the D&D of 3e, which was reinvigorating the industry and clearly something to align with.  With a sufficiently nonpredatory GSL you might see more experiments, but I wouldn't be too sure they'd be found compelling by other folks outside the PDF-only crowd.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2008)

I thought Goodman was using the GSL? Or are they just making 4E-compatible stuff without using the license?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> 4e hasn't been performing to expectation (at least people like Matt Sprange of Mongoose and other people that might know say so).



How would Mr. Sprange know? Unless by "4E" you mean "Mongoose's 4E products".

And who are the others you refer to and where did they say what?



mxyzplk said:


> Wizards just laid off more of their staff, including 4e designers and people working on the failed digital initiative.  This isn't the D&D of 3e, which was reinvigorating the industry and clearly something to align with.



In the thread about the recent layoffs, we are reminded of the layoffs that followed the releases of 3.0 and 3.5.


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 3, 2008)

It looks like a couple of their products are GSL (Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song is the only one I can find for sure) but others are not (the DCCs and other adventures just say "for 4e" and don't use any of the GSL trappings).


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 3, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> How would Mr. Sprange know? Unless by "4E" you mean "Mongoose's 4E products".
> 
> And who are the others you refer to and where did they say what?
> 
> In the thread about the recent layoffs, we are reminded of the layoffs that followed the releases of 3.0 and 3.5.




Though the point of Sprange's post was about Mongoose's plans and not dissing 4e, it's clear from the context he is not talking about Mongoose's 4e products but the line in general, and he'd know somewhat because industry leaders talk.  Early in the post he talks about industry mailing list discussions about what companies are top tier and other such businessy stuff.  So maybe he's "confused" but I'd say he has a better chance at insight here than random messageboard humanoids.

And sure, there have been layoffs at Wizards before.  But you have to look at what areas.  The DI hasn't been delivered yet, and it's getting cuts.  It's one thing to cut a surplus of editors or whatnot after the new edition's done and out, it's another to cut areas that allegedly are still working hard to finish their part.

Anyone can try to interpret all these things as "maybe they're not bad..."  But the common sense interpretation is that yeah - they're bad.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> It looks like a couple of their products are GSL (Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song is the only one I can find for sure) but others are not (the DCCs and other adventures just say "for 4e" and don't use any of the GSL trappings).



So how does this tie in to your claim that "It's an *undeniable fact* that the current [GSL] is *totally undesirable*" (emphasis added)?

Especially when you already mentioned that Mongoose has a couple of GSL products as well?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> Anyone can try to interpret all these things as "maybe they're not bad..."  But the common sense interpretation is that yeah - they're bad.



Wow, pretty broad brush there. Anyone who disagrees with you is just trying to disagree with you, while anyone who agrees with you is using common sense. Pull the other one.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 3, 2008)

I just got back from a conversation with my FLGS owner about 4E, and I thought they had a interesting point about sales and the GSL.

It started when I asked them about sales of 4E, and they told me that core book sales had been good, but all of the supplements were moving only in modest levels. I asked if the 4E sales had been comparable to 3E and they said heavens no!

From a FLGS perspective, 4E sales have been terrible in comparison to 3E because they look at the whole line, including third party support, not simply that of products from WotC. The D20 license and OGL brought with it well over 100 books by this time in the line in the 3E and 3.5 days. Think about that in FLGS terms: you're selling maybe a dozen titles for 4E when you had dozens and dozens of books earlier.

As I thought about it, I think that's a key reason people say 4E hasn't sold as well as 3E: because of the lack of third party support. For better or for worse, I had spent a lot more on 3X by this point than I have for 4E.

Does that affect WotC in a negative way? I don't know. My FLGS owner thought that it did because the D20/OGL movement created a buzz of interest for all D&D products that just doesn't exist in our area now.

Just annecdotes, but something to think about (hopefully).

--Steve


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 3, 2008)

Dude, are you really serious?  Wait, you're right, a couple of the many 3p companies have put out one or two GSL products, companies which otherwise generate a quite large number of new products a month.  Sounds like love.  

I round 98% to "totally."  YMMV.

We're talking about companies that published most of their products under OGL in 3e-times.  That's large scale rejection of the new GSL.  It is of course technically not undeniable, you are free to deny it, it's just not reasonable.  I'm sure that statement makes you sad, but it seems like that's par for the course with ya so sorry.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> Dude, are you really serious?



Oookay, time to get off.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> Eh, I think the ship has sailed on having a usable GSL.




And it ended up like the Titanic. I don't see it something very major for them to worry about right now no matter how much Scott and us people may want to fight for it. WotC has its sights only on Digital D&D and Digital Magic the Gathering.

Not like people really need it anyway, as I myself and going to look into OSRIC and throw away the powers I created for 4th edition to remain as house-rule junk until I stop playing 4th.

So WotC can keep the GSL for all it matters from me.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 4, 2008)

SteveC said:


> I just got back from a conversation with my FLGS owner about 4E, and I thought they had a interesting point about sales and the GSL.
> 
> It started when I asked them about sales of 4E, and they told me that core book sales had been good, but all of the supplements were moving only in modest levels. I asked if the 4E sales had been comparable to 3E and they said heavens no!
> 
> ...




I have to think that the internet would have had a bigger impact on the 4e sales at the brick and mortar stores.  I've bought and will continue to buy my 4e stuff through Amazon; I kind of feel guilty when I game over at Pegasus, but I doubt I would be able to buy as much as I do now at full cover price (I doubt my fiancee would have approved in that case).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> But the common sense interpretation is that yeah - they're bad.






mxyzplk said:


> It is of course technically not undeniable, you are free to deny it, it's just not reasonable.





I am going to have to ask you to please stop speaking like it is not possible to be reasonable and yet not agree with you.  That you have a lock on all reason... simply isn't a reasonable assertion.  It comes off as rather condescending, and is starting to annoy some folks.  Thanks.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 4, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> I have to think that the internet would have had a bigger impact on the 4e sales at the brick and mortar stores.  I've bought and will continue to buy my 4e stuff through Amazon; I kind of feel guilty when I game over at Pegasus, but I doubt I would be able to buy as much as I do now at full cover price (I doubt my fiancee would have approved in that case).



I agree with you here. It's starting to get a little tangental, but I think that the price increases for books have pushed a lot of people just past their comfort zone where they'll pick up a book as an impulse buy. I bought a PHB from Pegasus, but also picked up the core rulebooks in the boxed set from Amazon. It was silly not to do so. When I had all the books, I ended up giving away the extra PHB as a gift, and I still saved money over just buying the books retail. I've spoken with the folks at Pegasus about this (both Shroomy and I are Madisonians, and we have a very good store in Pegasus Games) and they've seen it a lot. I still end up buying a lot of product from them, but it's different stuff (boardgames mostly).

Frankly, if there were a lot of GSL based books out there, I'd likely be buying more locally, since those books have a lower price point than what WotC is making these days. 

--Steve


----------



## Grimstaff (Dec 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> Dude, are you really serious?  Wait, you're right, a couple of the many 3p companies have put out one or two GSL products, companies which otherwise generate a quite large number of new products a month.  Sounds like love.
> 
> I round 98% to "totally."  YMMV.
> 
> We're talking about companies that published most of their products under OGL in 3e-times.  That's large scale rejection of the new GSL.  It is of course technically not undeniable, you are free to deny it, it's just not reasonable.  I'm sure that statement makes you sad, but it seems like that's par for the course with ya so sorry.




It seems like your assertions are based more on the gaming business climate of 2002-2005 or so - nearly all these companies you keep listing as not jumping on the GSL bandwagon had already fallen by the wayside months before 4E was even announced.

Green Ronin, Necromancer, Mongoose, Fiery Dragon, Malhavoc, Kenzer, and Goodman were about the only "big" viable d20 publishers left at the time of the 4E announcement, and of those, only Goodman was releasing anything with a volume approaching that of the days before the d20 bubble burst.

You can certainly trot out a long list of publishers big and small that haven't produced GSL product, but its ultimately meaningless - they're not producting OGL stuff either. 

Its easy to forget that the D&D-related games market in 2006-2007 was dwindling away...


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 4, 2008)

_Mod Edit:
Per The Rules - no backtalk to a mod in-thread, please.  If you feel a need to discuss it, take it to e-mail with any of the mods.  Our addresses are all in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.  Thank you_


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 4, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> It seems like your assertions are based more on the gaming business climate of 2002-2005 or so - nearly all these companies you keep listing as not jumping on the GSL bandwagon had already fallen by the wayside months before 4E was even announced.
> 
> Green Ronin, Necromancer, Mongoose, Fiery Dragon, Malhavoc, Kenzer, and Goodman were about the only "big" viable d20 publishers left at the time of the 4E announcement, and of those, only Goodman was releasing anything with a volume approaching that of the days before the d20 bubble burst.
> 
> ...




It had reduced along with the overall RPG sector's sales, but I don't think "dwindling away" is fair.  In fact, those companies *are* still producing OGL games.  They were producing d20-branded games too, but Wizards revoking that license means they have to burn their stock on Dec 31 of this year, so I don't think that can be held against them.   Since a lot of that d20 stuff was OGL it is of course putting the hurt on them and some are turning to new lines that don't depend on the OGL, but they are indeed still publishing OGL stuff to this day.

Let's take my list - "Ronin, Paizo, Necromancer, Troll Lord, Kenzer, Postmortem, Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook, Sean K. Reynolds, Deep7, Highmoon."

Green Ronin's stuff is mostly OGL.  Mutants & Masterminds and True20 are and those are in active release.

Paizo's stuff is all OGL, even Pathfinder.

Necromancer was still publishing stuff till the GSL confusion hit - Rappan Athuk Reloaded, heck City of Brass just came out in September.  They're still trying to figure out if/how to go 4e, but only ramped back after the announcement.

Troll Lord - Castles and Crusades is OGL and they're still publishing it.

Kenzer was all d20 but was publishing up until the news hit - now, sadly, you go to their HackMaster Core page and see the notice "Our license agreement with Wizards of the Coast has ended. This means that certain rulebooks using material from TSR/WotC products, or the D&D logo, are now unavailable from our web store."  They're working on a new HackMaster version now.

Monte and Wolfgang are doing their own OGL things.

Mongoose has whole OGL lines, like Conan, they are actively publishing.  

We can discuss what "in volume" means, but all these companies were, and still are, producing OGL games and supplements.   Some smaller publishers had fallen by the wayside but not these guys - at least, they were still in business doing exactly that.  There was a bit of a d20 glut and bust but there were plenty of companies like these still playing mainly in the OGL space and being successful up till the announcement, and a surprising percentage of those (mainly those that didn't depend entirely on the d20 license) are doing so up to this day.

That's why they won't touch the GSL - it's more like the d20 license than the OGL really.  As these companies sell all their books for $2 on paizo.com and look around at the crates of stock they'll have to burn at the end of the year - I think we can see why.


----------



## mxyzplk (Dec 4, 2008)

In fact - I think the definition of "in volume" should be compared to Wizards' 4e schedule.  If you don't count dungeon tiles and dice and novels and suchlike, they are only clearing about 2 new RPG products a month, one accessory and one adventure.  Third party publishers can't be expected to keep up with the behemoth.  Or can they?  Paizo is outpacing that still with 3.5e/OGL releases, with one large adventure (Adventure Path), a batch of smaller modules, one or two accessories per month - and it's not early-Mongoose shovelware, it's high quality and production value stuff.

All those companies were still releasing product - most not at 2/month but any 2 or 3 of them taken together were.  Again, I agree not like 2002 where just Mongoose would toss out six a month, but I think if you're generating product at a rate close to comparable to the clear market frontrunner, you're still in there.

Majority of these guys won at least one ENNie this year too.  Paizo, Ronin, Malhavoc, Goodman, Kenzer...


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 4, 2008)

I'm still amused by the support of the OGL when I distinctly remember pre-3E when the "consensus" was that WOTC was trying to kill off other RPG companies....

Oh how the world turns.....


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I'm still amused by the support of the OGL when I distinctly remember pre-3E when the "consensus" was that WOTC was trying to kill off other RPG companies....
> 
> Oh how the world turns.....




I am a bit of confused. Can you explain?


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I am a bit of confused. Can you explain?




Heh

At the time, on r.g.f.d and on eric's 3e page, a large number of people believed that the OGL was like the Borg and that it would swallow up a lot of the other companies/systems.

In a way they WERE right. Pre 3e, when I went to my gamestore, there were vastly more systems on the shelf. In terms of system design, pre 3E was a high point of the hobby IMO.

Once 3e came, it pretty much swallowed up many of the other systems from the shelves....


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> In fact - I think the definition of "in volume" should be compared to Wizards' 4e schedule.  If you don't count dungeon tiles and dice and novels and suchlike, they are only clearing about 2 new RPG products a month, one accessory and one adventure.  Third party publishers can't be expected to keep up with the behemoth.  Or can they?  Paizo is outpacing that still with 3.5e/OGL releases, with one large adventure (Adventure Path), a batch of smaller modules, one or two accessories per month - and it's not early-Mongoose shovelware, it's high quality and production value stuff.
> 
> All those companies were still releasing product - most not at 2/month but any 2 or 3 of them taken together were.  Again, I agree not like 2002 where just Mongoose would toss out six a month, but I think if you're generating product at a rate close to comparable to the clear market frontrunner, you're still in there.
> 
> Majority of these guys won at least one ENNie this year too.  Paizo, Ronin, Malhavoc, Goodman, Kenzer...




D&D blows Paizo away when you include Insider and RPGA. Dungeon Magazine provides one large adventure path and two large adventures per month, and the RPGA is producing a lot more.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> In a way they WERE right. Pre 3e, when I went to my gamestore, there were vastly more systems on the shelf. In terms of system design, pre 3E was a high point of the hobby IMO.




In fact I agree with these people. IMO D20 saw a proliferation and support -in expense of other systems- it was not worth it. This burnt out hobbyists, I think.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> In fact I agree with these people. IMO D20 saw a proliferation and support -in expense of other systems- it was not worth it. This burnt out hobbyists, I think.




I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially the not worth it part. In addition, as somebody who enjoyed playing non D20 games when I wasn't playing D&D, I've developed a dislike of the OGL movement because of how it marginalized non-D20 games.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> In fact I agree with these people. IMO D20 saw a proliferation and support -in expense of other systems- it was not worth it. This burnt out hobbyists, I think.



There's truth to that. As it happens d20 is my favourite system - but not _everything _needs to be d20.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> In fact I agree with these people. IMO D20 saw a proliferation and support -in expense of other systems- it was not worth it. This burnt out hobbyists, I think.




In the way that the d20 system was twisted and turned to make it work for some settings, I agree we lost some stuff along the way....

Savage Worlds were more common....


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:


> Those are facts.
> ..the reasonable interpretations are that:
> 1.  The 3p publisher community has rejected the GSL, and
> 
> Are these statements really in doubt?  No, in fact I think anyone who's reasonable sees this.




Far as I know, the GSL still has not seen a *final *release, so many companies who might want to support 4E are playing a waiting game while waiting for clarifications on certain points. Given that certain important parts of the GSL seem to be 'up in the air', I'd be very hesitant to commission and commit resources to something that might  change on a dime at a later time, especially if I was a very small publisher (which is all of them except for 2-3).


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> the GSL still has not seen a *final *release, so many companies who might want to support 4E




I wouldn't hold my breath on each of the above accounts.


----------

