# Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)



## HalWhitewyrm (Jul 15, 2008)

Forked from:  Doing the GSL. Who? 



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Green Ronin has announced that they will not be going GSL.
> 
> http://greenronin.com/2008/07/green_ronin_and_4e.php



I applaud and support their decision. I thought Chris' post was extremely good in outlining their reasons for the decision, echoing the sentiment of a large part of the 3rd party community:



> Green Ronin will not be signing the Game System License (GSL) at this time. [...] we'll be giving our full attention to our own game lines: Mutants & Masterminds, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, True20 Adventure Roleplaying, and Freeport: The City of Adventure.
> 
> We had hoped to include 4E support in our plans, but the terms of the GSL are too one-sided as they stand. [...] We do not [...] feel that this license treats third party publishers as valued partners.
> 
> Let me be clear in stating that I don't think that the people in charge of WotC currently are just waiting to attack companies with frivolous lawsuits. Once you sign the GSL though, you open yourself up to that at any point in the future. Who knows when new people will take over the D&D brand and who can say what their vision will be? Who knows when the political winds at WotC will change again and things will get even more restrictive? We do not want to operate under such a cloud moving ahead so that's why we won't be signing the GSL.



Do read the entire post.


----------



## DM_Jeff (Jul 15, 2008)

Good for them. Can't wait to see what they have in store for Freeport!

-DM Jeff


----------



## hewligan (Jul 15, 2008)

Without going into an anti-WoTC rant, it does appear that Chris has made a perfectly reasonable business decision. He looked at it, found several elements worrying, wasn't happy to cede that level of control of his business, and thus has decided to ignore the GSL (for the time being).

Chris, however, has worked hard to create several product threads (M&M, True20, Freeport, ..) that are really unrelated to what happens in the DnD space. I am sure he would have loved to create some 4e products, but at least his business has some strong brands whose performance is not tied in to the conversion to 4e.

Okay, now for an unconnected aside: By goodness, the systemless Freeport book they produced was FANTASTIC!


----------



## tchristensen81 (Jul 15, 2008)

And 4th Edition is poor-er for it, without Green Ronin's excellent content (GR was one of the only 3PP publishers I really respected and trusted).  Luckily I still like True20.  I just wish we'd been able to see some real 4th Edition products from Green Ronin (with or without GSL *wink*).


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm happy enough about this decision; this means that Green Ronin will be concentrating more on Mutants and Masterminds and True20.  Getting as much product for those systemsout on the shelves as possible is a good thing.

It's a pitty that Green Ronin isn't like hero games, which pretty much can spit out another Champions supplement every month or so, but I'm pleased with the quality of the materials I've seen from them, and am lookng forward to more.


----------



## FallenTabris (Jul 15, 2008)

I wonder if they can create systemless adventures with the same detail and style as Freeport.  Or without the rules bits inside does that make it too difficult for the average DM?  I know I tend to follow a storyline of a published module but rip out the crunchy bits and replace them with things from my homebrew world.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 15, 2008)

So a publisher that had abandoned D&D line supplements YEARS ago isn't doing the GSL?  WHose next?  Palladium?


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jul 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So a publisher that had abandoned D&D line supplements YEARS ago isn't doing the GSL?  WHose next?  Palladium?




I know I'm just talking crazy but I'd love to see someone like Green Ronin team up with Palladium to revitalize the Palladium FRPG.  If Palladium is going to focus on Rifts then by all means they should engage someone else to support their fantasy line.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jul 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So a publisher that had abandoned D&D line supplements YEARS ago isn't doing the GSL? WHose next? Palladium?




I think you just haven't been paying attention. GR did the Bleeding Edge line of adventures over the past couple of years. They also just released the d20 Freeport Companion like three months ago and that's a great book of d20 crunch. I'd agree that d20 hasn't been their focus, but to say they abandoned it is not accurate.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2008)

CaptainChaos said:


> I think you just haven't been paying attention. GR did the Bleeding Edge line of adventures over the past couple of years. They also just released the d20 Freeport Companion like three months ago and that's a great book of d20 crunch. I'd agree that d20 hasn't been their focus, but to say they abandoned it is not accurate.




"Abandoned" may be a bit harsh, but the general idea that it's not really a  suprise is accurate I'd say.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 15, 2008)

I think of all the publishers out there, this is the most disappointing for me to find out isn't going to be doing anything for 4E.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2008)

I think Chris absolutely made the right decision. It isn't worth risking that much effort and money when the company that put out the license can kill your product on a whim. Besides, he can continue focusing his efforts on good games this way.


----------



## Agamon (Jul 15, 2008)

Not really caring what GR does concerning D&D, as long as M&M and ASOFAI is go.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 15, 2008)

I will miss Green Ronin's products, some of which I liked.

I'll probably still buy system-neutral _Freeport_ stuff, but that's about it. I have no real interest in _Blue Rose_, _True 20_, or _Mutants & Masterminds_. It's disappointing to see GR choose to abandon the majority of their customer base.

I guess supporting their mini-systems is in their best interest, but I would have liked to have seen their efforts at creating interesting subsystems for the GSL akin to the good ones they put out for the d20 STL, like _The Black Company Campaign Setting_, the _Thieves' World_ stuff, and other similar products.

But I guess they have to do what makes sense to them. I wish them luck. Hopefully the market is big enough to support them.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 15, 2008)

JohnSnow said:


> It's disappointing to see GR choose to abandon the majority of their customer base.




Oh for goodness sakes. It's not like they had any real choice.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 15, 2008)

Maybe I'm the spoilsport here, nitpicking away and meaningless things, but I used to write press releases for a living for a major Fortune 500 company, and it just seems unprofessional to go into detail about why the license doesn't work for you and explain to the public which aspects of WotC's deal you specifically can't support.  

Then again, the RPG industry is hardly Fortune 500, and I think as a business decision, they're spot on.  Probably more than anyone else (except maybe Privateer) they were a third party publisher who had moved beyond the need for continued D&D related product lines because of successful unrelated lines they had developed over the last few years.  Look at the relatively much more drastic lengths the GSL forced Paizo to, for instance.


----------



## radferth (Jul 15, 2008)

I thought one of the big reasons for the GSL was to prevent third-party mini-systems.  That is was a modules-only type of thing.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 15, 2008)

I agree with the others who have said this is no surprise (both because of the terms of the GSL and because of Green Ronin's recent focus).  I'm more surprised when a big-name RPG publisher *uses* the GSL; I know I wouldn't touch it.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Oh for goodness sakes. It's not like they had any real choice.





If GR was a small-press, .pdf only company I'd agree with this sentiment. 

But they are a reasonably sized RPG company with name recognition and established product lines. GR could certainly have approached WotC for an individualized licensing agreement, and I highly doubt they would have been dismissed out of hand. The fact that Mr. Pramas lists concerns only from the general GSL seems to indicate no such effort was made on GR's part.

His main concern seems to be fear of frivolous lawsuits for perceived infractions that could result in unfair legal expenses. Could a professional company of GRs size not be able to submit products for legal approval before publication, making such fears unnecessary? 

Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> "Abandoned" may be a bit harsh, but the general idea that it's not really a  suprise is accurate I'd say.



Yeah.  I think its the length of their list of successful, non-D&D products that is the real driver here.  "Mutants & Masterminds, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, True20 Adventure Roleplaying, and Freeport: The City of Adventure."

Green Ronin, at least as far as I can tell, was a "little guy" who made big publishing D&D related products, then branched off to create their own IP once they were big and important.  I'm glad for their success, but I think that it makes doing D&D licensed work into something only worthwhile as side projects.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2008)

JohnSnow said:


> I'll probably still buy system-neutral _Freeport_ stuff, but that's about it. I have no real interest in _Blue Rose_, _True 20_, or _Mutants & Masterminds_. It's disappointing to see GR choose to abandon the majority of their customer base.



Huh???

What exactly do you think the majority of their fan base are buying from them?  I'm pretty confident that it is _Blue Rose_, _True 20_, or _Mutants & Masterminds_, along with other bits.

As for "abandoning", it is still WotC that split the fan base and then told the 3PPs, you are with us or against us, pick one.  If you want GR stuff, tell WotC to release a 4E OGL SRD, or at least a vastly less unreasonable GSL.  They do that and you will likely get what you want in no time.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




What newly-released D&D-compatible Green Ronin products have you purchased in the last 2 years?


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Jul 15, 2008)

I have considered Mutants and Masterminds my "home" game for quite some time, now.  So long as Green Ronin is producing M&M books, I will be happy.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




Again, HUH?  You are defending the GSL as understandable and yet turning around and blaming the 3Ps for not being "willing to go to bat"?  I can buy that you see WotC's reasons for why the GSL is as it is.  That is fine.  But to accept that aggressive stance from one party and expect the other to be responsible for the results is not a reasonable combination.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> What newly-released D&D-compatible Green Ronin products have you purchased in the last 2 years?





Beyond the Towers, Mansion of Shadows, and Black Company campaign setting. Excellent stuff.


----------



## Belen (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




I think you wildly overestimate the ability of GR to work anything out with Wizards.  Wizards has not reason to work with such a tiny company.  If they had wanted to work with any of the third party companies, then they had a year to formalize any deals.  Wizards was talking to them.  The fact that the GSL was such a shock to them shows that Wizards did not take their advice.

They did attempt to work with Wizards.  Wizards, however, did what they wanted to anyway.  There is absolutely no indication that they would work with anyone on modifying the terms of the GSL.

So, you should be asking why Wizards was not willing to go to bat for its fans by working with third party companies on a license that would be palatable to anyone other than themselves.

Wizards got the exact response that they wanted and they managed to delay an entire development cycle while the third party companies waited on the GSL.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Again, HUH? You are defending the GSL as understandable and yet turning around and blaming the 3Ps for not being "willing to go to bat"? I can buy that you see WotC's reasons for why the GSL is as it is. That is fine. But to accept that aggressive stance from one party and expect the other to be responsible for the results is not a reasonable combination.




I'm certainly not blaming 3Ps for the situation, or even defending the GSL, for that matter. But the GSL is what it is, a set of rules laid to down to protect WotC's IP in exchange for the use of the D&D logo. If a company of GRs size isn't willing to find some way to work things out, then it speaks to a direct lack of interest in continuing to support the D&D community their business was founded upon.

Other companies (Necro, Goodman, Kenzer) seem to be making an effort, with or without the GSL.

As another poster noted, I would agree this decision has more to do with GR deciding D&D simply does not butter their bread as well as their current product lines than with the GSL.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

Belen said:


> 1. you wildly overestimate the ability of GR to work anything out with Wizards.
> 
> 2. They did attempt to work with Wizards.
> 
> 3. Wizards got the exact response that they wanted and they managed to delay an entire development cycle while the third party companies waited on the GSL.




1. I guess we'll never know, will we? 

2. How so? I've seen no indication of that, and Chris has been very forthcoming about their decision-making process in this matter. If I missed something about them offering an alternate arrangment to WotC, please point me in the direction of that statement. The quote "Perhaps WotC will revise the GSL in the positive way, but we cannot build our business on maybes." would seem to indicate they have no plans of attempting a special arrangement in the future either.

3. Yes, and aliens were behind it the whole time. Black helicopters were sighted over WotC headquarters last full moon...


----------



## carmachu (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> His main concern seems to be fear of frivolous lawsuits for perceived infractions that could result in unfair legal expenses. Could a professional company of GRs size not be able to submit products for legal approval before publication, making such fears unnecessary?




Didnt read in full? The GSL can change at any time and WOTC doesnt have to let you know. So one day your good, the very NEXT day *poof* your in violation.




> Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




Why do you lay this at the feet of 3P companies not going to bat for their fans? The whole mess is clearly laid ot WOTC's feet with the crappy GSL.
Why should Wotc work anything out? What leverage does a 3P have-the answer is really none.

I dont understand how you lay this at 3P's feet and not Wotc's.


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> 1. I guess we'll never know, will we?



You seem to think (for lack of a better word) that GR did no true effort into working out a deal with WotC, if that were true, why wait until now? If there was no interest at all they could have made this announcement the next day 4th edition was announced and continue to work on their own line of products.



> 2. How so? I've seen no indication of that, and Chris has been very forthcoming about their decision-making process in this matter. If I missed something about them offering an alternate arrangment to WotC, please point me in the direction of that statement. The quote "Perhaps WotC will revise the GSL in the positive way, but we cannot build our business on maybes." would seem to indicate they have no plans of attempting a special arrangement in the future either.



You seem to confuse a public announcement with a disclousure of all emails, documents and phone conversations transcripts related to GR and WotC relations in the past twelve months. No, they made an announcement but that does not mean they have said everything related to this topic, in real life it never happens that way.



> 3. Yes, and aliens were behind it the whole time. Black helicopters were sighted over WotC headquarters last full moon...



As in "Hey, I have no sensible answer for that, let's see if I can divert everybodys attention with some nonsense"


----------



## Delta (Jul 15, 2008)

Hobo said:


> Maybe I'm the spoilsport here, nitpicking away and meaningless things, but I used to write press releases for a living for a major Fortune 500 company, and it just seems unprofessional to go into detail about why the license doesn't work for you and explain to the public which aspects of WotC's deal you specifically can't support.




Why is that?

If the disagreeable terms were part of some private negotiation, that would be one thing. But with a public license that the entire industry is trying to make up their mind about, it seems like it would be distracting and unnecessary for GR to go cloak-and-dagger about their specific objections. (Which as I write this makes Goodman Games come to mind.)


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> As in "Hey, I have no sensible answer for that, let's see if I can divert everybodys attention with some nonsense"




No, as in "hey I'll add some conspiracy theory BS, too!" 

Unless maybe you have some secret internal WotC documents backing up your claim that WotC "got what they wanted"? If so, my deepest apologies.


----------



## Razuur (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




You and I see things very differently Grimstaff. 

You see them not going to bat for us, I see the opposite. The GSL is so restrictive, I don't blame them, and I am glad that they are looking after the things that are valuable to them (they are very valuable to me too).

Not everyone thinks 4e is all that awesome.  Everything about it indicates it should be the coolest thing since sliced bread.  But the more you hear, the more you look at it the less cool it gets.  The more you play the more tedious it becomes.  The best analogy i can come up wioth is that it is like the "Enterprise" of the Star Trek Universe.  Highly anticipated, lots of viewers initially, and then what started off with an innovative and distinctive conceptual premise, it began to quickly lose its luster when it became reduced to shallow repetition and rigid exercise in conformity.  I think it will end up paling next to its predessesors.  Once can already see it when one looks at the polls of people who are planning on playing 4e - the brand has lost half its audience.  

The GSL is but one more facet of "rigid conformity" except that it gives all of the power to WOTC and none of the guarantees and no protections or safeguards.  If I had some valuable properties like GR, I to would be *very* hesitant about joining up.  They are protecting their interests for their sakes and for ours.  

There are plenty of 3rd party publishers who are going to join the fray (Goodman, Mongoose, Necromancer to name a few), so people not feel completely abandoned by third party pubs.

The reason that Green Ronin isn't antering the game is simple - WOTC and their GSL.  It is simply unacceptable.  They are probably feeling about the GSL the same way I feel about 4e - left behind by a system/contract that will not cater to them or be flexible to their wants/needs.

WOTC left them (and many of us) behind.  Let us be clear - WOTC.

I of course am the lucky one, as I am going to keep purchasing Green Ronin Products for quite some time.  Did you know that they just opened p their True20 license... for free?  Anyone can make True20 products as long as they fulfil the OGL and the True20 license agreement (which leaves IP where it should be - in the hands of the publishers).  Since then, True20 has bloomed with fresh product from new publishers.  What a concept!

Razuur


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




Wow. Just wow.

What you're saying is that you think it's sad that Green Ronin isn't willing to keep wagering the health of their company on the ever changing whims of WotC. Maybe you think that's sad, but as someone who likes Freeport and actually plays True20, I'm totally cool with their decision.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jul 15, 2008)

If WotC does make any outside deals, they'll be all but admitting that the GSL is a failure.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 15, 2008)

I actually doubt that we'll be seeing very many, if any, outside deals by WotC. WotC is trying to regain total control over the brand, and as long as there are other companies making material, they feel that they will be losing business to those other companies. It is essentially the exact opposite of the marketing philosophy that led to the OGL in the first place. The GSL is there as an appeasement in an effort to stem bad PR. That's it. And that is why most of the top OGL companies are happily going to be staying OGL.


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Unless maybe you have some secret internal WotC documents backing up your claim that WotC "got what they wanted"? If so, my deepest apologies.



I do not know if you are playing dumb or simply dense, I will assume the later. WotC at the present time is interested in having FULL control over 4th edition, they think the OGL was a mistake (otherwise they would be still using it). They could simply have stated one year ago that they would not be licensing 4th edition at all, but that would have gotten consumers against 4th edition from the start and all OGL companies would have prepared products that might compete directly with 4th edition. So they delayed the GSL and when they finally released it's so restrictive that no one will sign it unless they are dumb or have nothing to lose in the deal. In the end the Hasbro/WotC is the same as the TSR of old, they think the best way of doing businnes is by having all the business for themselves. I am not bashing WotC for that, they are a private company but thinking OGL companies are lazy and dumb for not subscribing to the GSL is like believing the whole weapons of mass destruction deal all over again.


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> They could simply have stated one year ago that they would not be licensing 4th edition at all, but that would have gotten consumers against 4th edition from the start and all OGL companies would have prepared products that might compete directly with 4th edition. So they delayed the GSL and when they finally released is so restrictive that no one will sign it unless they are dumb or have nothing to lose in the deal. In the end the Hasbro/WotC is the same as the TSR of oldl, they think the best way of doing businnes is by having all the business for themselves. I am not bashing WotC for that, they are a private company but thinking OGL companies are lazy and dumb for not subscribing to the GSL is like believing the whole weapons of mass destruction deal all over again.



Can you prove that with a quote from anybody, or do you have any insider-informatio?


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> I do not know if you are playing dumb or simply dense, I will assume the later.




I gather from your postcount you're relatively new here, so maybe you're unaware that insults and name-calling are unacceptable.

Please come back when you've learned some manners.


----------



## Twowolves (Jul 15, 2008)

I gather from his join date that he has been at least a lurker for over a year longer than you've been posting. 

Got anymore useless deflections or are you willing to actually respond to his posts?


----------



## Twowolves (Jul 15, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So a publisher that had abandoned D&D line supplements YEARS ago isn't doing the GSL?  WHose next?  Palladium?




More like "So the publisher of the first ever 3rd ed adventure who was burned badly by the 3.5 revision saw another edition coming down the pike, rightly curtailed their D&D support to a trickle (but not abandoning it entirely) isn't going to sign away the future of his company to the whims of WotC's legal team? Who's next, the former publisher of _Dungeon _and _Dragon _magazines?"

There, fixed it for you.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 15, 2008)

JohnSnow said:


> I will miss Green Ronin's products, some of which I liked.
> 
> I'll probably still buy system-neutral _Freeport_ stuff, but that's about it. I have no real interest in _Blue Rose_, _True 20_, or _Mutants & Masterminds_. It's disappointing to see GR choose to abandon the majority of their customer base.
> 
> ...




Majority of their customer base? They aren't abandoning True 20 or Mutants and Masterminds or Freeport. If anyone is doing any abandoning it is customers.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jul 15, 2008)

Bully for GR and Paizo. I know that I continue to support both companies with my wallet.  Both continue to garner fan respect if the ENNies are any indication. 

I haven't played D&D in a long time which makes me strangely suspicious of those who do not wish such fantastic companies well. What is it that makes folks believe they are abandoning their fan base just because they will no longer be putting out products for your chosen game system? What makes *YOU *their target audience? Why isn't it their legions of fans, some of whom who buy M&M despite playing Hero? Who buy True20 just to see what they did? Or who eagerly await the Song of Ice and Fire System? How are those folks who buy pretty much everything based on a record of excellence being abandoned?

I buy far less WotC product than I buy GR or Paizo. Heck, I am one of Paizo's ideal customers - I buy the Pathfinder supplements and some but not all of the modules. Us folk who don't do the D&D have nearly always purchased supplements from other systems. Who strait-jacketed the minds of those claiming that they can no longer use a supplement because it remains 3.5 or anything else for that matter? If D&D is so onerous that it cannot be adapted to subject matter why play it? I mean, if you can't adapt the Rise of the Rune Lords to 4E then surely you cannot adapt a great fantasy movie or a book that inspires you, can you? If you cannot use the ideas in Peril at Kings Landing how do you use the ideas inside your own skull? A system is not a rigid boundary to confine; it is a fluid tool allowing you to explore. So explore.


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> Can you prove that with a quote from anybody, or do you have any insider-informatio?



Let me tell you something, even now I have no quote from anybody nor any insider-information about the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. Bottom line, you have to read between the lines to understand how people think, if you are waiting for direct confirmation by word of mouth or press release you better sit down, because if you are standing sooner or later you will grow tired.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> No, as in "hey I'll add some conspiracy theory BS, too!"
> 
> Unless maybe you have some secret internal WotC documents backing up your claim that WotC "got what they wanted"? If so, my deepest apologies.





So your saying that the peeps at WOTC were too stupid to see how restrictive and controlling the GSL is? 

Not only do I think it was very clear to them, I think it was so clear to them that specific reactions from certain OGL companies were very predictable.

I think WOTC was foolish to encourage Green Ronin and Paizo to stay out of 4E and to continue supporting 3e and OGL products.

You don't regain control of your IP by encouraging 3rd party publishers to either become defacto WOTC subsidiaries or to stay clear.

Especially when a company like Goodman is going to show you can join the GSL and still compete for market share with other product lines.

If WOTC really wanted to control their IP they should have done it through leadership, not strong arm tactics.

I am also hopeful to see a proliferation of 3rd party products via copyright. I think the power of the internet will allow such companies to be more successful then ever before. I would love to see a new generation of Flying Buffalo, Judges Guild, etc... be born.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 15, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> Let me tell you something, even now I have no quote from anybody nor any insider-information about the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. Bottom line, you have to read between the lines to understand how people think, if you are waiting for direct confirmation by word of mouth or press release you better sit down, because if you are standing sooner or later you will grow tired.







Well said.


----------



## Grazzt (Jul 15, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm totally cool with their decision.




Yep. Same here. Not too surprising considering the GSL actually.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 15, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> I'm certainly not blaming 3Ps for the situation, or even defending the GSL, for that matter. But the GSL is what it is, a set of rules laid to down to protect WotC's IP in exchange for the use of the D&D logo. If a company of GRs size isn't willing to find some way to work things out, then it speaks to a direct lack of interest in continuing to support the D&D community their business was founded upon.




Its amazing one one sided blind you are. You conceed the GSL protects Wotc's IP, but then complain when 3PP dont make "an effort" to work with the GSL or a side agreement. You seem to show no concern for other people's IP other than Wotc.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 15, 2008)

I say good for Green Ronin! They did some great things with bold new interpretations of the d20 system, and they should go with what works!

Now if only they'd produce some 4E products using only copyright law.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 15, 2008)

I was profoundly happy to hear this news. I love Green Ronin books. If they had switched to 4E I wouldn't have been able to enjoy future publications. Now I can look forward too future Green Ronin products.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

Grazzt said:


> Yep. Same here. Not too surprising considering the GSL actually.




Do you think Necro should follow suit?


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> Let me tell you something, even now I have no quote from anybody nor any insider-information about the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. Bottom line, you have to read between the lines to understand how people think, if you are waiting for direct confirmation by word of mouth or press release you better sit down, because if you are standing sooner or later you will grow tired.



So you have no proof.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 15, 2008)

If I counted correctly, Green Ronin has released less than 10 products for generic D&D (d20) over the last 2.5 years (and two of those were card decks), so I don't think this decision is really that big a blow to "generic" 4E fans anyway.

Nothing wrong with them following their muse....


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 15, 2008)

I find the GSL as a license that cannot be approached without a good measure of goodwill. And you simply cannot do business on goodwill alone. Publishers actually live through this work and they cannot afford to sign off their IPs to a frivolous license.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 15, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> If I counted correctly, Green Ronin has released less than 10 products for generic D&D (d20) over the last 2.5 years (and two of those were card decks), so I don't think this decision is really that big a blow to "generic" 4E fans anyway.
> 
> Nothing wrong with them following their muse....




Very true.

GR's early 3E releases were pioneering, to say the least, and showed off alot of what the new system was capable of with its emphasis on swashbuckling and character development. Its too bad they wont be doing the same with 4E, but it is what it is.

Goodman's 4E Punjar stuff seems very similar in tone to Freeport, I wonder if they had some advance knowledge of GR's decision?


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> So you have no proof.



Nope, nor I have the will or the money to go to Irak to find out myself; are you going to tell that on that grounds you STILL beleive in all that weapons of mass destruction nonsense?


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 16, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> Nope, nor I have the will or the money to go to Irak to find out myself; are you going to tell that on that grounds you STILL beleive in all that weapons of mass destruction nonsense?




I "beleive" you need a better metaphor.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jul 16, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Goodman's 4E Punjar stuff seems very similar in tone to Freeport, I wonder if they had some advance knowledge of GR's decision?




Well, Freeport itself is in the DCC world (Aerth is it?). Goodman even published an adventure called Shadows in Freeport. 

Makes me wonder if Goodman Games could do a licensed 4E Freeport Companion.


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 16, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Now if only they'd produce some 4E products using only copyright law.



That depends if they have a crystal ball to know if WotC will not sue them until they have no money or will to pay for lawyers like TSR did in the good all days. Remember, Hasbro (like any big company with an IP portfolio) has on their payroll lawyers happy to sue anybody since that is proof they are needed at the company. On the other side you have small companies like GR that either asked a close friend or had to pay a lawyer just to make sure they undestood fully the GSL. With such posibilities looming on the horizon the will to support a new game system with suplements grows quite dim I would say.


----------



## Paradigm (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Oh for goodness sakes. It's not like they had any real choice.




I would also ask how he has a better grasp of Green Ronin's customer base than Green Ronin.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 16, 2008)

Twowolves said:


> I gather from his join date that he has been at least a lurker for over a year longer than you've been posting.




So he de-lurked to indulge in some sophomoric name-calling and groundless conspiracy theories?

Lucky us.


----------



## Dolfan (Jul 16, 2008)

It's really too bad to hear that GR won't be publishing 4e material.  Although I myself really don't have much use for any of the 3rd party material, I think that GR is one of the best publishers out there, so not having them on board does legitimately hurt WotC.  For me and my group, it just means that we won't be supporting Green Ronin at all, since there's no way we're going to be running anything but 4e from this point forward, but it's definitely a loss for the rest of the people who enjoy both 4e and 3rd party material.


----------



## mangamuscle (Jul 16, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> So he de-lurked to indulge in some sophomoric name-calling and groundless conspiracy theories?



Actually, there is in the life of people a moment in time they will always remember (and yet some might forget it but they none the less will try to rememeber) and I think this is one of those. In the years to come people will say "What went wrong with WotC?". People will remember this as the moment they saw valuable people jumping off the ship yet continue to sail full speed ahead. Oh, but I am boring you gentle reader with my prose shock full on conspiracy theories and whatnot, fear not, chances are I wil return in no time to my lurker status, there is no need to repeat myself over and over.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 16, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




I find this quote to be from Backwards Planet. It is located in the Opposite Nebula.

Green Ronin is going to bat for their fans. That's why they're not signing on to the GSL. It was WOTC/Hasbro that decided to radically reinvent their game, get out of open gaming and write a license that allows them to vaporize your livelihood on a whim (not to mention one that doesn't even allow you to quote _page numbers_, let alone actual material). It was WOTC/Hasbro that decided it would be a good idea to make their customers rebuy all the stuff they already own... again.

If a company wants to go to bat for its fans, it should stick with open gaming and produce products which are useable by players of legacy editions of D&D.


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster (Jul 16, 2008)

The Freeport Trilogy was 3e's killer app for me--and while their D&D output might have slowed since then, the quality always remained.  So, for me, 4e is the lesser today in a huge way.  No Paizo, no Green Ronin, no word from Necromancer--and all that's left are the thinly disguised "D&D Miniatures" battles being foisted of as adventures by WotC these days.

The only thing that can save 4e for me is the upcoming Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. If that book can add some story to the drastic 4e changes in mechanics, then the 4e books on my shelves won't turn into the Sega Saturn that they are threatening to become.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jul 16, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I say good for Green Ronin! They did some great things with bold new interpretations of the d20 system, and they should go with what works!
> 
> Now if only they'd produce some 4E products using only copyright law.




Why would they want to produce products for a suck*** game like 4ed?  I'd prefer they keep publishing what they've been publishing.
 I applaud GR for seeing a poor game, a poor deal in the GSL, and following their breathren Paizo into a non-4e future.


----------



## Psion (Jul 16, 2008)

BryonD said:


> What exactly do you think the majority of their fan base are buying from them?  I'm pretty confident that it is _Blue Rose_, _True 20_, or _Mutants & Masterminds_, along with other bits.




If this weren't true, they wouldn't have moved away from D20 in the first place.

And Race and Class Codex would have been in print.


----------



## Scylla (Jul 16, 2008)

treebore said:


> if wotc really wanted to control their ip they should have done it through leadership, not strong arm tactics.




qft.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 16, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> That depends if they have a crystal ball to know if WotC will not sue them until they have no money or will to pay for lawyers like TSR did in the good all days. Remember, Hasbro (like any big company with an IP portfolio) has on their payroll lawyers happy to sue anybody since that is proof they are needed at the company. On the other side you have small companies like GR that either asked a close friend or had to pay a lawyer just to make sure they undestood fully the GSL. With such posibilities looming on the horizon the will to support a new game system with suplements grows quite dim I would say.





Dude, read the copyright laws. They are far from being this big iron monkey with which to crush people who try to publish stuff. If it was you wouldn't have had Judges Guild and others. They were not shut down by lawsuits.

In fact, copyright law has become much more clearly defined in the last 20 years and is a safer path then ever to walk. All you have to do is make sure to keep your path clear fo pitfalls, and that is far from hard to do.

Copyright protects you from blatant copying/plageurism, that is it. Stay away from blatantly copying what WOTC prints, stay away from their trademarked and copyrighted terms, and your safe.

ITs pretty simple to go the copyright route. As long as your capable of being smart about it.

Copyright is far from being iron clad protection. It is pretty weak when you think about it. Except in the case of out right copying someones work. That is the only time it really protects you.

To make it clear, copyright only really protects someone from having their work copied, word for word. Change the presentation, change the layout, change the look of the charts and graphs you use, change XP charts numerical progression, and your good to go.

The 4E "SYSTEM" is not protected by copyright, despite several people on this board claiming otherwise. US Copyright law very clearly states that systems, mechanics, etc... are "In no case..." protected by copyright.

The copyright WOTC has for "D20 System" are for those words only, not the system itself. 

Don't believe me? Go to the US Copyright application website and use their search function to look up WOTC's copyrighted stuff. No system is copyrighted. Only words are.

The copyright route is nothing to be feared, just travel the route carefully.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 16, 2008)

Oh, and TSR lost most of their lawsuits. They won maybe two. I believe neither came down to copyright law, but other issues. I would have to look those up again.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Razuur said:


> You see them not going to bat for us, I see the opposite. The GSL is so restrictive, I don't blame them, and I am glad that they are looking after the things that are valuable to them (they are very valuable to me too).




I think the problem comes down to the blame game. The restrictive GSL is due to WotC's perception that the OGL failed. In their mind, the 3rd party failed the gentleman's agreement. The 3rd party didn't prop D&D up, the D20 license and OGL gave these companies a market. GR, Mongoose, Malhavok... none of these companies formed, made games, then dabbled in D20. They were d20 companies that branched out.




> The reason that Green Ronin isn't antering the game is simple - WOTC and their GSL.  It is simply unacceptable.  They are probably feeling about the GSL the same way I feel about 4e - left behind by a system/contract that will not cater to them or be flexible to their wants/needs.
> 
> WOTC left them (and many of us) behind.  Let us be clear - WOTC.
> 
> Razuur




To be clear, they don't consider it worth the effort to comply. There is no universally known "unacceptable". 3rd party folks find it horrendous in response to what came before, but before 3e there wasn't even this offer.

The amusing part is how many of these companies that find the GSL unacceptable wouldn't exist if not for the OGL.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The amusing part is how many of these companies that find the GSL unacceptable wouldn't exist if not for the OGL.




What is really amusing is that you seem to be implying that 3pps owe WoTC something giving them the opportunity to sign onto a restrictive license that could cause them to lose ultimate contro of their IP if WoTC decided to dramatically change or revoke the GSL. 

The OGL was conceived by Dancy as something that would expand the hobby and allow folks to create Open Content others could work with or improve upon thereby creating a self sustaining, ever improving, vibrant system. It is perpetual and irrevocable and that is the beauty of the OGL. We own it...how cool is that. We, any of us, can publish for a solid RPing game system. The OGL is what 3pps should be grateful for, and I woulod hazard to guess most are.

The GSL is not the same. WoTC controls it completely and any company signing onto it is subject to WoTC's whims. D&D 4e will never be "ours" the way 3.5e is. A lot of innovation comes out of good 3pp like Green Ronin, Paradigm Concepts, Paizo, Mongoose, etc. who created a multitude of settings and variant rules that definately added to the richness of the game for many players and DMs not enslaved to the idea the _"if it isn't made by WoTC it must be superior"_ meme.

I'm guessing that 4e will never see a true blossoming of innovation and creativity from 3pps because only a fool would put the ultimate future of their IP in the hands of another company. Also, even those that would go the "copyright only" are risking potential lawsuits. Curiously enough, I think that if Kenzer is able to pull it off successfully there may be other who are willing to try it. I think going copyright might be one of the only ways 4e fans are going to get unique and interesting 3pp IPs.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## drothgery (Jul 16, 2008)

Belen said:


> I think you wildly overestimate the ability of GR to work anything out with Wizards.  Wizards has not reason to work with such a tiny company.




Err... WotC (as opposed to all of Hasbro) is not all that big. They're considerably larger than anyone else making tabletop RPGs, but that's still not very big; if there are a hundred people working for WotC -- and that's counting people working on CCGs (and other non-tabletop RPG stuff) and HR and accounting and the like -- I'd be surprised. I mean, they have all of one person devote to Star Wars full-time. And the Star Wars RPG (in all of its various incarnations) is one of the biggest non-D&D RPGs out there.

A big company in the tabletop RPG business is one that has full-time employees other than its founders.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Treebore said:


> To make it clear, copyright only really protects someone from having their work copied, word for word.




That is untrue, and dangerous advice.


----------



## Fedifensor (Jul 16, 2008)

mangamuscle said:


> Actually, there is in the life of people a moment in time they will always remember (and yet some might forget it but they none the less will try to rememeber) and I think this is one of those. In the years to come people will say "What went wrong with WotC?". People will remember this as the moment they saw valuable people jumping off the ship yet continue to sail full speed ahead.



Or they might remember it as, "What happened to 3rd party publishers?"

WotC has a strong marketing arm, and a product that many gamers believe is an improvement from 3E (whether the new product qualifies as a new edition of D&D or a completely different game is a separate debate).  The people who buy everything for the system they currently play (and don't buy other stuff) used to be shared between WotC and 3rd party publishers during 3E.  Now, the 3rd party companies branching off to non-4E products either need to peel some of those gamers off from WotC, or they're going to lose those sales.


----------



## Nikchick (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The 3rd party didn't prop D&D up, the D20 license and OGL gave these companies a market. GR, Mongoose, Malhavok... none of these companies formed, made games, then dabbled in D20. They were d20 companies that branched out.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The amusing part is how many of these companies that find the GSL unacceptable wouldn't exist if not for the OGL.




I know Pramas usually posts here as the voice of Green Ronin but I find myself with a few things to offer today, if just for a little clarification. 

Green Ronin was formed in early 2000 and our first product Ork! the Roleplaying Game was released in June of that year. We shortly thereafter decided to dabble in this "d20 thing" by planning out a couple adventures, adventures that went on to become *the Freeport Trilogy*, but when we made that decision the OGL and the d20 STL were completely untested. Make no mistake, we certainly benefited from the license and will never deny the impact that d20 had on the direction of our company but I think it's quite overstating the case to claim that we "wouldn't exist if not for the OGL."  

Green Ronin's founders had more than 35 years of combined experience in the game industry when we formed the company, experience not only in roleplaying games but also cards, miniatures, magazines, board games, and more.  Due to the enthusiastically favorable response to our d20 dabbling, you could say we were "distracted" from some of our other possible projects for a while but we did continue to work on other things, even during the height of the demand for d20 material. The Spaceship Zero Roleplaying Game and Faery's Tale Deluxe, the Torches & Pitchforks card game and the Walk the Plank card game, map books like Dungeons of Doom and Cartographica, or our recent non-fiction hit Hobby Games: the 100 Best. We've always had our fingers in things other than d20 products.

I've often seen people talk about how third party publishers failed to support WotC or D&D, something I think Charles Ryan first floated here on EN World back when he was still the D&D Brand Manager. Green Ronin published almost 100 straight-up d20/D&D support products without counting support for d20 Modern or D20 Future. My feeling is that WotC's expectation that unrestricted numbers of third party support companies could continue to endlessly support straight-up D&D in the face of the product glut and unending direct competition was unrealistic. The market was demanding more and WotC themselves were not filling those holes; it's utterly predictable that companies would expand out to fill those niches and strive to create products to meet fan demand (as well as differentiate themselves from their competition). That was no more a "betrayal" than WotC designing a new edition of D&D... it's the natural course of business.

While we are mindful of the role the OGL played in the development of Green Ronin, I personally don't feel we "owe our success" to it. We helped manufacture support for WotC's business according to the plan they offered and by doing so we received exposure for our company; it was a mutually beneficial relationship. Our _success_, on the other hand, was not granted to us from on high by Wizards of the Coast or any other Powers That Be. We competed, we worked hard, we made mistakes on some things and chose wisely on others and earned our success through our efforts. In the far less mutually beneficial climate of 4th Edition and the GSL, I am confident that we will continue to produce excellent work and find an audience for it, starting with A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying and any number of things beyond.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 16, 2008)

Totally unsurprised.

When I first read enough details of the GSL to get the gist, I assumed someone had to be joking.

Then I realised, it's not even meant to be serious. No, it's not a joke _per se_ (i.e., it is real, and legally [rather] binding), but the OGL was indeed warped into something utterly in opposition, in content and in spirit.

Its predecessor is still, _and forever_, freely and sanely accessible to all, however. Long live the OGL!


----------



## Treebore (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That is untrue, and dangerous advice.




Let me guess, your going to bring up the Red Book and Seinfeld cases, aren't you?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Let me guess, your going to bring up the Red Book and Seinfeld cases, aren't you?




Nope, I have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> What is really amusing is that you seem to be implying that 3pps owe WoTC something giving them the opportunity to sign onto a restrictive license that could cause them to lose ultimate contro of their IP if WoTC decided to dramatically change or revoke the GSL.




Nyah, but they should also keep in mind that WotC didn't just wake up one day and decide to be bastards.

I think the GSL is easily handled through making an imprint/ divisional brand. The GSL applies to lines, and is easy to work around in that way. Sure you might not want to tie Freeport into it, but it doesn't mean there's not plenty of room for products and product lines.



> The OGL was conceived by Dancy as something that would expand the hobby and allow folks to create Open Content others could work with or improve upon thereby creating a self sustaining, ever improving, vibrant system. It is perpetual and irrevocable and that is the beauty of the OGL. We own it...how cool is that. We, any of us, can publish for a solid RPing game system. The OGL is what 3pps should be grateful for, and I woulod hazard to guess most are.




Right, but, it was a failure. Very little built on other stuff, most of it was reinventing the wheel 10 times. Everyone had their own way of doing things. Add to that, they came up with OGL variations that drew people away from the core, rather than adding to it. WotC was foolish to believe 3rd parties would be happy just sticking to stuff that they didn't want.



> The GSL is not the same. WoTC controls it completely and any company signing onto it is subject to WoTC's whims. D&D 4e will never be "ours" the way 3.5e is. A lot of innovation comes out of good 3pp like Green Ronin, Paradigm Concepts, Paizo, Mongoose, etc. who created a multitude of settings and variant rules that definately added to the richness of the game for many players and DMs not enslaved to the idea the _"if it isn't made by WoTC it must be superior"_ meme.




While I agree that 15 different (random example) Ship Combat Systems provide variety and a wealth of options to choose from, I think in most respects it just meant people got tired of it long before finding the right system.



> I'm guessing that 4e will never see a true blossoming of innovation and creativity from 3pps because only a fool would put the ultimate future of their IP in the hands of another company. Also, even those that would go the "copyright only" are risking potential lawsuits. Curiously enough, I think that if Kenzer is able to pull it off successfully there may be other who are willing to try it. I think going copyright might be one of the only ways 4e fans are going to get unique and interesting 3pp IPs.




While I can understand some folks finding the GSL too restrictive/ not worth the trouble, the "copyright" path just seems wrong to me. Folks can justify it as much as they want, blame the GSL & WotC, point out that it's perfectly legal, but it still feels wrong to me. That doesn't matter of course, since I'm not even buying extra WotC stuff, I'm not even really a potential customer for them. Just my opinion.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Nikchick said:


> Green Ronin was formed in early 2000 and our first product Ork! the Roleplaying Game was released in June of that year. We shortly thereafter decided to dabble in this "d20 thing" by planning out a couple adventures, adventures that went on to become *the Freeport Trilogy*, but when we made that decision the OGL and the d20 STL were completely untested. Make no mistake, we certainly benefited from the license and will never deny the impact that d20 had on the direction of our company but I think it's quite overstating the case to claim that we "wouldn't exist if not for the OGL."




There's no way to judge whether Ork! would have propelled the company this way or that, so I can't debate anything here. 



> We've always had our fingers in things other than d20 products.




I think OGL/D20 probably gave enough breathing room to do some of that stuff, along with the rep to back it up, but again I can't/ won't debate GR's financial status/ alternate histories. There's just no way to know.



> My feeling is that WotC's expectation that unrestricted numbers of third party support companies could continue to endlessly support straight-up D&D in the face of the product glut and unending direct competition was unrealistic. The market was demanding more and WotC themselves were not filling those holes; it's utterly predictable that companies would expand out to fill those niches and strive to create products to meet fan demand (as well as differentiate themselves from their competition). That was no more a "betrayal" than WotC designing a new edition of D&D... it's the natural course of business.




I agree completely. I think the "problem" happened when WotC decided to shift to printing 1-2 books a month, rather than a lazier approach. When they wanted to make the money and noticed the 3rd parties were in their path and not "in their place" with adventures, suddenly the OGL became a hindrance.

My point is simply that the GSL is a natural extension of WotC's actions and the 3rd parties actions. It was predictable (and, even predicted!) that it would go this way. Publishers should be aware of their role in it too though...



> We helped manufacture support for WotC's business according to the plan they offered and by doing so we received exposure for our company; it was a mutually beneficial relationship.




It has always been my opinion that 3e would have done fine without the OGL/SRD and that 3rd party stuff didn't play a role in their success. It definetly would have been better overall if there was a higher barrier of entry early on.

BUT, the main issue here for me, is that since 3.5, Pramas' statements and posts have come off as very hostile towards WotC. His comments regarding 3.5 ruining things, his constant 4e pressure for the last couple years, he seems to me to be overly critical of WotC and "mad" at them in a way that colors everything his company announces for me.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 16, 2008)

I have this sneaking suspicion that, although its the thing that random people on ENWorld complain about the most, the third party publishers aren't actually worried about the clause permitting WOTC to change the GSL.  Most of them have probably seen that sort of clause before, or dealt with that sort of business scenario before.  Its probably other stuff that bothers them.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Its probably other stuff that bothers them.




I may regret asking, but what do you suppose that might be?


----------



## vazanar (Jul 16, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Its sad the GSL is so restrictive, but understandable. Its also sad that so few 3P companies are willing to go to bat for their fans and try to work something out, and this I have a harder time understanding.




I think you are rewriting the last few months. The bigger 3pp were aproached with WOTC with a special deal with the GSL. That phone conversation was placed on the front of this site. Told they were valued and they could release early with only a few other companies, after seeing and reading the GSL.

3pp were told to wait for it. WOTC delays to the point where their first offer, no longer exists.  Now maybe the GSL delay was all in good faith. However, it's hardly a good starting point for good side deals. How long might some of these companies need to wait for WOTC to answer with a private deal? WOTC can afford having a decrease in product sales for a while(pre 4e), a lot of 3pp can't.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 16, 2008)

Eric Tolle said:


> It's a pitty that Green Ronin isn't like hero games, which pretty much can spit out another Champions supplement every month or so, but I'm pleased with the quality of the materials I've seen from them, and am lookng forward to more.



I'm glad they're _not_ like Hero games.  If they were the quality of their products would be as low as hero games.


----------



## Vague Jayhawk (Jul 16, 2008)

I am a fan of GR stuff and I support whatever decision they decide to make on this topic.  

I might decide to find myself a lawyer and learn a little bit about this "copyright" stuff myself.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

radferth said:


> I thought one of the big reasons for the GSL was to prevent third-party mini-systems.  That is was a modules-only type of thing.




Very possibly that was one of the intents.  It seems like the crowd of companies supporting D&D 4E is starting to be winnowed out a bit.

Maybe WotC is going to learn a lesson here...or maybe they don't care.

I guess time will tell.  I wish Green Ronin the best of luck.  They've made many excellent products over the years.  I'd *love* to see them do Pathfinder-supporting products...maybe it'll happen if Pathfinder takes off?

Banshee


----------



## Turanil (Jul 16, 2008)

When the OGL was originally released, I remember an interview (with someone at WotC) where it was said that the d20 OGL had been released so every 3PP product would require to have the PHB, so they would sell more of it eventually. However, with games like C&C, True20, Arcana Unearthed or Conan d20 you really didn't need to buy the D&D books. In fact, at some point I entirely ceased to buy any WotC product, spending all my money on 3PP stuff. So, it's perfectly understandable and normal WotC does a license much more restrictive for 4e. Just I had ceased to buy WotC stuff because they had gone in a direction I didn't like. So, even without the OGL I wouldn't have bought WotC stuff anymore. I would have attempted some other game out there. There are many that seem really interesting, but there is so little time to try them all. In the end it's not OGL/GSL that will do the difference, but products' quality...


----------



## yogipsu (Jul 16, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Let me guess, your going to bring up the Red Book and Seinfeld cases, aren't you?




One doesn't need to bring up caselaw to refute your assertions that copyright protects nothing more than word-for-word (or bit-for-bit) copying: the Copyright Act itself does that.

Wulf Ratbane is entirely correct: your advice is not only incorrect, as it seems to be based on a somewhat incomplete understanding of copyright law (e.g., you appear to be referencing Castle Rock Ent. v. Carol Pub. Group and another case that I can't place).

I'd be happy to explain further, but let me first refute your use of the Seinfeld case.  In _Castle Rock_, the defendant published a Seinfeld trivia book.  The owners of the Seinfeld IP sued for copyright infringement, and the appeals court determined that defendant had misappropriated the IP.

The defendant then raised a fair use defense, which was rejected.  Any student of fair use knows that it turns on four elements: (1) the purpose and character of the work, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality used, and (4) the effect the copying has on the market of the work.  Basically, the trivia book was commercial (which weighs against, but does not mandate, finding against fair use), and the other factors militated against finding fair use.

Anyway.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, Treebore, but this is a fairly cut-and-dry example of a case that teaches the application of the fair use doctrine.  It also shows quite plainly that protectible expression can have a fairly broad sweep - especially when you take derivative works into account.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> To make it clear, copyright only really protects someone from having their work copied, word for word. Change the presentation, change the layout, change the look of the charts and graphs you use, change XP charts numerical progression, and your good to go.




Copyright protects more than that, as I've shown above (and could show via more illustrations).  And fair use is absolutely not cut-and-dry.  Now, on the other hand, if he was commenting on the fact that certain things simply cannot be copyrighted, he's closer to the mark:  "roll 1d20, add a modifier, and hit a target score" absolutely cannot be copyrighted.

It's possible to use the nuts and bolts of the system and rewrite all of the "fluff," and that would take you out of copyright, but I think it's inapt to say that merely changing the presentation and layout is enough: you'd need to change the explanations, the vocabulary, and basically graft an entirely new system onto the numbers.


----------



## joela (Jul 16, 2008)

*loss*



Dolfan said:


> ...but it's definitely a loss for the rest of the people who enjoy both 4e and 3rd party material.




Perhaps, but as several posters have pointed out, WotC has drawn the line and GR didn't blink. Both, as good businesses, are practicing what they believe is good for their interests.


----------



## joela (Jul 16, 2008)

*no paizo....*



Gotham Gamemaster said:


> No Paizo, no Green Ronin, no word from Necromancer--




You have Goodman Games. And Mongoose plans to release 4E products. And I've seen a few others 3PP (Redbrick?) jumping on the 4E bandwagon.


----------



## joela (Jul 16, 2008)

*owe*



Wyrmshadows said:


> What is really amusing is that you seem to be implying that 3pps owe WoTC something giving them the opportunity to sign onto a restrictive license that could cause them to lose ultimate contro of their IP if WoTC decided to dramatically change or revoke the GSL.




I was thinking the same thing, too, wyrmshadows. That's like asking Microsoft to give all its proprietary material over to IBM and Apple because the latter two "helped" it develop DOS and the personal computer.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 16, 2008)

Nikchick said:


> I've often seen people talk about how third party publishers failed to support WotC or D&D, something I think Charles Ryan first floated here on EN World back when he was still the D&D Brand Manager. [. . .] That was no more a "betrayal" than WotC designing a new edition of D&D. . .




To be clear, I never held that 3PP betrayed or failed to support WotC. (Nor did I ever feel that 3PP owed any loyalty to WotC or obligation to support WotC or D&D beyond the terms of the OGL and d20 STL.) What I observed is that WotC left holes in the marketplace, and many 3PP, rather than exploit those holes, chose to make products that competed directly with WotC's products.

That's not just bad in the OGL context--it's bad in any business context. Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?

Which brings me to why this is still relevant: Lots of people have observed that the GSL is designed to let WotC "regain" control of their brand and IP. That's nonsense--control of the D&D brand and IP has never been under threat. What WotC wants to do (in my no-longer-an-insider opinion) is put some controls on the market; in particular, to only open D&D compatibility to 3PPs who make products that complement (rather than compete with) WotC's products.

Is this because WotC fears the competition? No. The most successful OGL products of all time made only the tiniest blips on the WotC sales radar. If anything, a rising tide of quality D&D products drives consumer interest and floats all boats, including WotC's (which of course is part of why the OGL was created in the first place).

It's because WotC fears the glut. When an unrestricted number of companies creates an unrestricted number of products in an unrestricted range of categories (_especially_ categories in which WotC is strong), the inevitable result is a huge glut that sucks revenues out of the sales channels and creates a swath of destruction. Consumers and retailers are confused about which products to buy, so they dabble in a range and end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't sell. Huge amounts of revenue is tied up in dead product--revenue needed to order new product or simply pay the bills. Shops close (nearly half the core hobby shops in the US shut down over the past five years--admittedly, there are other causes, but the RPG glut was a very real contributor); those that stay open order less and less new product as they see old product stack up.

So WotC changed the terms of 3PP compatibility with D&D, and made it more restrictive. Insofar as it controls the glut and keeps 3PP focused on products that players actually want and don't get (or don't get enough of) from WotC, more restrictive is good for the RPG business as a whole, it's good for WotC, and frankly it's good for the third-party publishers. And if it also means that a relatively small number of 3PP participate (currently 3 to 5, as opposed to hundreds under the OGL), so that the choices offered to consumers and retailers are relatively narrow but desirable, so much the better.

(Whether WotC did this well is not part of my argument; I leave that to a different discussion.)

(A side note: When I generalize about the behavior of 3PPs, I am, of course, generalizing. Obviously there are exceptions; I'm not pointing any fingers at specific companies. Offender or innocent: you know who you are (and odds are it's reflected in your level of success).)

(Hi, Nik!)


----------



## joela (Jul 16, 2008)

*presentation*



Vocenoctum said:


> BUT, the main issue here for me, is that since 3.5, Pramas' statements and posts have come off as very hostile towards WotC. His comments regarding 3.5 ruining things, his constant 4e pressure for the last couple years, he seems to me to be overly critical of WotC and "mad" at them in a way that colors everything his company announces for me.




You're argument is based on _that_?!?  Note to Self: send Pramas a message to "bland up" his blog posts. Or more doublespeak. See WotC posts of pre-GSL release posts on ENworld forums for examples. 

Or, better, hire a copywriter.


----------



## Erekose (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> . . . I think the problem comes down to the blame game. The restrictive GSL is due to WotC's perception that the OGL failed . ..






CharlesRyan said:


> . . . It's because WotC fears the glut. When an unrestricted number of companies creates an unrestricted number of products in an unrestricted range of categories (_especially_ categories in which WotC is strong), the inevitable result is a huge glut that sucks revenues out of the sales channels and creates a swath of destruction. Consumers and retailers are confused about which products to buy, so they dabble in a range and end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't sell. Huge amounts of revenue is tied up in dead product--revenue needed to order new product or simply pay the bills. Shops close (nearly half the core hobby shops in the US shut down over the past five years--admittedly, there are other causes, but the RPG glut was a very real contributor); those that stay open order less and less new product as they see old product stack up.




Charles may have answered my question already but did OGL fail?

My perception is that WotC made an awful lot of money out of 3.xE D&D and had 4E been released under OGL would have made an awful lot more.

In this context I can only assume that WotC assessed the risk of GSL (and subsequent revenue) compared to OGL (and subsequent revenue) and decided that GSL was the commercially attractive route to go down.

Sadly I guess commercial companies will always be driven by what's perceived to bring in the greatest return for investors . . .


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> T<snip>




Interesting stuff. Just a small note, I believe that most 3pp did not even see the holes, most were hobbiests with only the most basic of business sense and created stuff that interested them, not stuff that would fill holes. 

Those that endured either had some sense of the market place or got lucky.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 16, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> I believe that most 3pp did not even see the holes, most were hobbiests with only the most basic of business sense and created stuff that interested them, not stuff that would fill holes.




I agree. Those guys that were driving the glut with stuff produced based on personal tastes instead of sound business decisions did a lot of harm. To the business-oriented 3PPs, to the retail environment, and consequently to WotC.

Love it or hate it, one consequence of the GSL is that it'll keep a lot of those guys out of the market, making it a better business environment for the smaller number of publishers that do pursue the GSL.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> What I observed is that WotC left holes in the marketplace, and many 3PP, rather than exploit those holes, chose to make products that competed directly with WotC's products.



Fewer publishers surely means less glut but I don't see what "exploiting the holes" has to do with it. 
If anything, the tons of "fully compatible" material that became obsolete as soon as wotc published an "official" version caused a lot more glut. Also, If wotc wouldn't touch some niches, there had to be a reason. If a concept doesn't have a place in any of the monthly splatbooks, there is a good chance it won't sell as a 3rd party product either .

At least, the 3pp variants of existing products are supposed to be better than the standard set by wotc if they want to compete. So the publisher's credibility should matter even more to consumers and retailers.


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I agree. Those guys that were driving the glut with stuff produced based on personal tastes instead of sound business decisions did a lot of harm. To the business-oriented 3PPs, to the retail environment, and consequently to WotC.
> 
> Love it or hate it, one consequence of the GSL is that it'll keep a lot of those guys out of the market, making it a better business environment for the smaller number of publishers that do pursue the GSL.




It is stuff to ponder. I was going to take the plunge, and with my brother (doing art), produce some PDFs. But I'm hesitant now. I'm wary of signing a contract saying I would have to pay legal fees. Maybe I'll setup a company, at least I'll have some protection if things go bad and I can fold the company...

We might do some free stuff, release it on EW and keep an eye on how the GSL shakes out over the next few months. I was waiting to see who would take the plunge.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 16, 2008)

DandD said:


> So you have no proof.




One doesn't need to get hit in the face with a skunk to smell it, or at least most of us don't.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm sorry Charles, but I have to disagree sharply with your post. 



CharlesRyan said:


> What I observed is that WotC left holes in the marketplace, and many 3PP, rather than exploit those holes, chose to make products that competed directly with WotC's products.






CharlesRyan said:


> Is this because WotC fears the competition? No. The most successful OGL products of all time made only the tiniest blips on the WotC sales radar.




Here you appear to counter your own argument. If the must successful OGL product is "only the tiniest blips on the WotC sales radar" then why do they care if a 3PP makes a product "that compete directly with WotC's Products"?



CharlesRyan said:


> Consumers and retailers are confused about which products to buy, so they dabble in a range and end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't sell. Huge amounts of revenue is tied up in dead product--revenue needed to order new product or simply pay the bills. Shops close (nearly half the core hobby shops in the US shut down over the past five years--admittedly, there are other causes, but the RPG glut was a very real contributor);




The numbers out of GAMA a few years ago is that RPGs represent something like 5-10% of the Comic and Game Industry. FIVE TO TEN PERCENT. You cannot built a thriving business solely on five to ten percent of a niche industry. It is not Green Ronin's fault if a game store does not diversify sufficiently into other areas. It is not Mongoose's fault if a store does not offer services and products that Amazon cannot. That is simply a poor business model, and those stores that do not adapt to a changing business market will not survive. 



			
				Charles said:
			
		

> So WotC changed the terms of 3PP compatibility with D&D, and made it more restrictive. Insofar as it controls the glut and keeps 3PP focused on products that players actually want and don't get (or don't get enough of) from WotC, more restrictive is good for the RPG business as a whole, it's good for WotC, and frankly it's good for the third-party publishers.




You mean except for the part where you have to stop selling old product of a product line and the part where they can never publish this product under the OGL even after the license terminates. Oh, and the part where WotC can change the terms at any moment and the part were WotC doesn't even have to send up a mass email notifiying their registered licencees that the license has been updated. And don't forget the part that all court cases, win, lose, or draw with WotC result in the 3PP paying the behemoth's lawyer fees. And then there's ...


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I agree. Those guys that were driving the glut with stuff produced based on personal tastes instead of sound business decisions did a lot of harm. To the business-oriented 3PPs, to the retail environment, and consequently to WotC.
> 
> Love it or hate it, one consequence of the GSL is that it'll keep a lot of those guys out of the market, making it a better business environment for the smaller number of publishers that do pursue the GSL.




And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?

WotC taught you well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> One doesn't need to get hit in the face with a skunk to smell it, or at least most of us don't.




Indeed.

(1) On Filling Holes:  The first case I can think of is the excellent Tome of Horrors (Necromancer Games).  They supplied a group of earlier edition monsters.  They discussed the project with WotC and selected monsters that they were told would not be coming out officially.  Of course, not so much later on, WotC did release official versions of quite a few of those monsters.

3pp saw a hole in terms of environment books, and Fantasy Flight Games created a very nice series thereof.  Others, such as Monkey God, created specific environment books.  WotC then created a competing series of official books that filled in the same niche.  For my money, the 3pp books were almost always clearly superior, came first, and always had OGC that could be used by others as well.

Almost everyone I know who has bought alternate rules based off the OGL/SRD has also bought the PHB, DMG, and MM.  Moreover, they have bought alternate rules specifically to port things into their D&D campaigns.  So, IME, these products suppliment, rather than compete with, WotC's products.

If WotC is concerned about a book like _Frost and Fur_ competing with _Frostburn_, it is only because the former is a far more useful book, coming from a far more friendly company.

(2)  OGL/GSL:  In the heady days when 3e came out under the OGL, WotC was a very friendly company.  Indeed, I suspect that the creators of the OGL worded it so as to be as much of an estoppal to something like the GSL as was possible, because it didn't take a genius to see that WotC would eventually want to take the game back.

Moreover, I imagine that what really took the GSL so long to appear was apprehension at the reaction it would cause.  After all, why else claim initially that 4e would be OGL?  Why else try to get the big 3pp "on board" before they could see the GSL?  Why else try to make the big 3pp _invest in_ the GSL before they could see it ($5,000)?

The combination of these factors points to an obvious conclusion -- WotC correctly assumed that people would be displeased by the GSL, and wanted 3pp support in place prior to the GSL being seen to help mollify that displeasure.  Of course, they didn't want those 3pp to see the GSL right away, either, because they knew (or should have known) that it would be rational for them to be displeased as well.

And that ploy worked -- Necromancer Games and others began planning a 4e product line before seeing the GSL, and are now invested in 4e enough that their simply dropping those lines because of the terms of the GSL is probably unfeasable.  And, largely because of that support, there are people defending WotC's adoption of the GSL as okay.

Well, it's legal.  And it's (perhaps) ethical.  But it isn't friendly, it isn't good for the customer, it isn't good for 3pps, and it isn't (in my book) okay.

In conclusion, what 3pp did under the OGL was _fix things that needed fixing_, which (for some reason) WotC was unwilling to do itself.  4e has as much, if not more, that needs fixing.  Without the vast resource that 3pp provide, in terms of different viewpoints and ideas, I very much doubt that these problems are going to be fixed as well as they were in 3e.

I support GR's decision, and I hope (though I don't expect) that, given enough pressure, WotC will drop the GSL and release 4e under the OGL, as we were initially told it would be.


RC


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

Hobo said:


> Maybe I'm the spoilsport here, nitpicking away and meaningless things, but I used to write press releases for a living for a major Fortune 500 company, and it just seems unprofessional to go into detail about why the license doesn't work for you and explain to the public which aspects of WotC's deal you specifically can't support.




It's *un*professional to discuss and explain corporate decisions in plain English, instead of hiding behind evasions, weasel words, and "for reasons we choose not to disclose at this time"?

We need more unprofessionalism in business!


----------



## humble minion (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I agree. Those guys that were driving the glut with stuff produced based on personal tastes instead of sound business decisions did a lot of harm. To the business-oriented 3PPs, to the retail environment, and consequently to WotC.
> 
> Love it or hate it, one consequence of the GSL is that it'll keep a lot of those guys out of the market, making it a better business environment for the smaller number of publishers that do pursue the GSL.





I'd guess it'll have the complete opposite effect, actually.

The pre-existing, successful, business-oriented 3pp has committments that a backyard hobbyist doesn't.  Higher expenses in art, writing fees, layout, possibly hardcopy publication, etc, etc.  Maybe even a full-timer or two, whereas the hobbyist does it in their spare time away from the real job, on their home PC.  

It's 3pps with these bigger committments that are going to be more scared off.  It's a livelihood for these guys, not just a hobby, and if WotC can change the license willy-nilly and without notice then the whole business is a castle built on sand.  I'm sure some of the current 'name' 3pps will take the plunge, but it's a big risk and it puts them utterly at the mercy of WotC and whoever owns/runs WotC in the future.

The 3pps who can afford to adopt the GSL will more likely be the basement hobby operators, since if the license gets cut from underneath them they gripe about it on ENWorld and then get on with their life.  Were it Paizo or someone in the same situation - well, people's livelihoods would be at stake.  The hobbyists will dive in, and produce a mass of stuff widely varying in quality, and the more professional, experienced (and, quite often, superior) publishers will have to stay out.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> It's because WotC fears the glut. When an unrestricted number of companies creates an unrestricted number of products in an unrestricted range of categories (_especially_ categories in which WotC is strong), the inevitable result is a huge glut that sucks revenues out of the sales channels and creates a swath of destruction.




Except that the GSL is still free and there is still no approval process. There's nothing to stop the glut. Indeed, if few of the old D20 companies jump on, that just means there's more room for the next generation of basement publishers. So instead of having the big boys with a reputation for quality quickly seize the market and crowd out the wannabes, WOTC has opened it up to the small players and pretty much turned the larger, better, 3PPs into their competition, producing for 3x or their own product lines instead of supporting 4e.

I do not understand the meme that the GSL is about "controlling quality" or "raising the bar" when nothing in it includes any kind of WOTC approval of a product. The STL *also* defined lots and lots of game terms and mandated they could not be redefined; how did this work for assuring a minimum level of quality and compatibility?

The GSL permits exactly as much cheap, unbalanced, crap as the OGL/STL did, and you'll get just as much. Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 16, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> If a company of GRs size isn't willing to find some way to work things out, then it speaks to a direct lack of interest in continuing to support the D&D community their business was founded upon.




Just as a side note... I know plenty of people who aren't going to 4E. Of the regulars at my FLGS, about a third jumped on to 4E wholeheartedly, another third are straddling the fence (but at least got a PHB and played a session or two), and the remaining third are either disinterested or adamantly opposed to it. 

Maybe it won't compete with the marketshare that 4E will have, but I think that there will definitely be a market for OGL products for older versions of the game for years to come.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 16, 2008)

The irony is that, if I remember correctly, companies like Green Ronin are the reason why the GSL is so restrictive in the first place, since they created Mutants & Masterminds and True20 and similar to *compete* with D&D, not supplement it.

More power to them for creating a recognizable brand, however.  I've heard good things about M&M but never had the chance to play it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> The irony is that, if I remember correctly, companies like Green Ronin are the reason why the GSL is so restrictive in the first place, since they created Mutants & Masterminds and True20 and similar to *compete* with D&D, not supplement it.





Shall we remember that, when the OGL came out, it was specifically claimed that a number of games all using the same (or similar) base mechanics would increase the familiarity of those mechanics, and thus make D&D more attractive?  IOW, 3pp were encouraged to create new games off the same engine, because, within the rpg industry, all roads lead to D&D.


RC


----------



## DandD (Jul 16, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> One doesn't need to get hit in the face with a skunk to smell it, or at least most of us don't.



Then I advise you to check your nasal cavities to smell the conspiracy-skunk. Before I put him on Ignore for telling non-sense, mangamuscle tried some kind of whacky WMD-allegory to the GSL. 

Funnily enough, he's the one who claims to have found the evil hidden plan of Wotc, the same as Bush claimed to have proof of WMDs in Irak. Irony bites you in the most unexpected ways. 

And that's it. This thread ends for me, because the rest is only badly-applied political deviation.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 16, 2008)

humble minion said:


> I'd guess it'll have the complete opposite effect, actually.



That was my thought as well.  

I'm certainly not claiming that everyone will fall under the generalization, but the professional companies (for example: GR) will have the most to lose and therefore the most reason to be cautious.  Whereas the ego publishers (and I don't mean that as a negative) will just truck along without any reason to be concerned.

The exception is the guy who is convinced that HIS campaign setting is the one true campaign setting that will revolutionize fantasy gaming.  And we all know a dozen of those.     Those guys aren't going to get their baby within ten feet of the GSL.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Shall we remember that, when the OGL came out, it was specifically claimed that a number of games all using the same (or similar) base mechanics would increase the familiarity of those mechanics, and thus make D&D more attractive?  IOW, 3pp were encouraged to create new games off the same engine, because, within the rpg industry, all roads lead to D&D.
> 
> 
> RC




Crimethink, citizen! Doubleplusungood!

That never happened. Ryan Dancey is an unperson. Do not read the OGL FAQ. The goodtruth is that the OGL was never intended to be used that way. It was for making adventures only. Anything else is thoughtcrime.


----------



## D'karr (Jul 16, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?
> 
> WotC taught you well.




I guess that only depends on how long you want to stay in business.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 16, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> The irony is that, if I remember correctly, companies like Green Ronin are the reason why the GSL is so restrictive in the first place, since they created Mutants & Masterminds and True20 and similar to *compete* with D&D, not supplement it.




I fail to see how these compete.  Mutants and Masterminds is about superheroes, something d20 modern was not optimized for.  By making it a stand alone product, the system can be optimized.  

True20 is a system for those that would otherwise leave d20 because of its inflexibility and complexity, but like the basic mechanics of the game.  I fail to see how decaf coffee competes with regular coffee.  If you like the taste of coffee but don't want the effects of caffene, you're either going to stop drinking coffee or drink decaf.  True20 is competing more with Fudge and d6 and other rules-light/highly flexible systems.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

This "glut" canard will never die if people aren't willing to discuss specifics. 



CharlesRyan said:


> What I observed is that WotC left holes in the marketplace, and many 3PP, rather than exploit those holes, chose to make products that competed directly with WotC's products.




What holes? What timeframe are you talking about? I'd like to know what dates you're talking about and which D&D leader was in the market at that time (3e or 3.5).



> Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?




I saw a market that included class/race splatbooks from Mongoose, from Green Ronin, from Fantasy Flight, and even Goodman Games, just to name the biggest few. 

Are you suggesting that these guys aren't smart businessmen?

Would you say that they prospered under the strategy of offering additional choices, even on the same topics? 

This is classic "grow the pie." 

It's not as if players with dwarven fighters will limit themselves to just one splatbook. When you are invested in your character/game, you buy more of the stuff that appeals to you. You buy all the books on dwarves, fighters, feats, weapons and armor, etc.



> When an unrestricted number of companies creates an unrestricted number of products in an unrestricted range of categories (_especially_ categories in which WotC is strong), the inevitable result is a huge glut that sucks revenues out of the sales channels and creates a swath of destruction. Consumers and retailers are confused about which products to buy, so they dabble in a range and end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't sell. Huge amounts of revenue is tied up in dead product--revenue needed to order new product or simply pay the bills. Shops close (nearly half the core hobby shops in the US shut down over the past five years--admittedly, there are other causes, but the RPG glut was a very real contributor); those that stay open order less and less new product as they see old product stack up.




Hundreds? Really? You're really going to blame the glut on hundreds of publishers? 

I can name you a dozen 3PP off the top of my head and cover the majority (90%? 95%?) of the entire d20 products ever offered. I'll concede that it was a glut, but it was generally speaking a _high quality_ glut. 

When I say _high quality_, I am actually not talking about the content. I am talking about the quality of presentation, the amount of money, marketing, and business acumen behind it, and most importantly, the ability to push it into distribution.

This is not a difficult exercise. Name the top 3PP you can think of off the top of your head, and you'll very quickly ID most of the d20 product that made up the glut.

AEG
Bastion Press
Fantasy Flight Games
Fiery Dragon
Goodman Games
Green Ronin
Mongoose
Mystic Eye
Necromancer
Paradigm
Sword & Sorcery Studios



> When I generalize about the behavior of 3PPs, I am, of course, generalizing. Obviously there are exceptions; I'm not pointing any fingers at specific companies. Offender or innocent: you know who you are (and odds are it's reflected in your level of success).




I can't reconcile the text above with reality, because again, from where I am sitting, the companies most responsible for the glut remain the most successful today.

Unless what you meant was, "If you are successful today, it is because you were responsible for the glut and are flush with cash milked from the collapse of the retailers."

I assume that's not what you meant-- and yet, the top producers of d20 product are still around, and successful today.



> Those guys that were driving the glut with stuff produced based on personal tastes instead of sound business decisions did a lot of harm. To the business-oriented 3PPs, to the retail environment, and consequently to WotC.




You really need to be willing to provide specifics.

Again: The _vast majority_ of the d20 product that was in the distribution chain was put there by companies with the clout to get it there: *The business-oriented 3PPs.* 

Make a list. Name names. It's ok-- I don't mind doing it, because the vast majority of  this product was _successful_. There was a market for it.

Was the market as big as the retailers thought it would be? No. 

There's your glut.

But the glut had nothing to do with the quality of the products or the types of product lines the publishers chose to focus on. 

_They just printed too much._

Supply exceeded demand. It really doesn't require any more analysis than that. It is not necessarily an indictment on the quality of the supply that there is no demand for it. Obviously there's less demand for crappy product. But it is also possible for there to be no demand for _good_ product.

If you try to single out any particular publishers for being responsible for the glut, odds are _very high_ that you're going to be pointing your finger at a successful publisher with good business sense who built a loyal following and has one or more successful brand lines.

I'll spot you Fast Forward Entertainment and any other defunct 3PPs you like. We'll take all that "crappy glut product" out of existence. Erase it from the history books. 

You still won't make a dent in the amount of d20 product produced by the most successful publishers, all of whom are still around and healthy (whether or not they are still publishing for d20).

I suggest that you might have _prolonged_ the lifetime of 3e publishing, delayed the collapse a bit, but saturation was inevitable.

Saturation in the RPG business is always inevitable. It's why we have 3rd and 4th and 5th editions.



CharlesRyan said:


> Love it or hate it, one consequence of the GSL is that it'll keep a lot of those guys out of the market, making it a better business environment for the smaller number of publishers that do pursue the GSL.




You have it exactly backwards. The companies who are in the best position to offer quality product-- to use their business acumen to create high quality product and to grow it into successful brands-- are the ones least likely to accept a license that can cut the legs out from all their hard work. 

The GSL is far more attractive to 3PPs who want to dabble-- get in, make some money, get out. They won't care one whit if they are building successful product lines and a sustainable publishing business on the back of a volatile, ephemeral, and one-sided license.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It's not as if players with dwarven fighters will limit themselves to just one splatbook. When you are invested in your character/game, you buy more of the stuff that appeals to you. You buy all the books on dwarves, fighters, feats, weapons and armor, etc.




I bought just about every rogue and bard book I could get my hands on (and finally found the Prestige Class I was looking for for one character).

I also bought just about every "arabian/Desert/egyptian" setting book I could.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2008)

Folks,

We recognize that there's a great depth of feeling on these issues.  I would like to remind everyone that, no matter how strongly you feel, we expect you to _remain civil_.  You may be tempted to try cheap shots and rhetorical tricks against folks you feel are being willfully obtuse or obstinate.  Please resist that temptation.

You all know the drill - Don't get personal.  Don't suggest you know what's going on inside another person's head.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I bought just about every rogue and bard book I could get my hands on (and finally found the Prestige Class I was looking for for one character).
> 
> I also bought just about every "arabian/Desert/egyptian" setting book I could.




I know, man. I am convinced such behavior is typical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Crimethink, citizen! Doubleplusungood!
> 
> That never happened. Ryan Dancey is an unperson. Do not read the OGL FAQ. The goodtruth is that the OGL was never intended to be used that way. It was for making adventures only. Anything else is thoughtcrime.




Strenge days indeed, when we can agree so absolutely on something, eh?


----------



## delericho (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The GSL is far more attractive to 3PPs who want to dabble-- get in, make some money, get out.




Indeed. And the absence of Paizo and, now, Green Ronin makes the license even more attractive to those guys, since they no longer have to compete with two of the 'big guys' on the old OGL scene.

As for the announcement itself: this isn't a big surprise. It's probably a good thing for Green Ronin. It's certainly a good thing for me (I'm almost certainly not going 4e). It's a blow for 4e, but hardly a fatal one.

These are interesting times for RPGs.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I know, man. I am convinced such behavior is typical.




Among my circle of gamers, that is an atypical consumer pattern. Many of my friends consider their collection of 20 or so RPG books a fairly big investment, and are not interested in expanding it beyond that range. Most of those books are core rules for various games, including D&D.

Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.

Maybe it's different here in Europe?

/M


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 16, 2008)

I also don't really believe that there was a glut of d20 materials. More specifically, for a short time there was a vast (and somewhat confusing) number of d20 products (of varying quality) out there in the retail market, but these vastly shrunk over time, and long before 4E was announced they'd already dropped off sharply.

The reason that there seemed to be a large number of d20 products suddenly appearing was that the OGL was a sort of "blue ocean strategy" wherein it created a large new area for companies to release products in. Of course, it was incredibly popular, and skyrocketed as people rushed to make companies and put out products. In that sense, yes there were a lot of products out there.

However, that particular bubble began to shrink very quickly. Even if consumers hadn't slowed down after the initial surge, the move to 3.5 shook up the playing field very heavily. Further, the economy started to go into a spiral, meaning that people were buying even less anyway. Between the internal and external market forces, the d20 market was already rapidly equalizing anyway.

Now, several years later, that's even more true. 4E wouldn't have created a new "glut" because the market has largely already sorted itself out in that regard. People are no longer blindly rushing to buy anything compatible, companies are no longer springing up left and right to produce compatible material, and the economy has (if anything) gotten worse. Even if 4E had used the OGL, there'd have been no glut; just a minor upswing in compatible products produced that would have quickly equalized.

WotC making the incredibly restrictive and punitive GSL because they feared the glut strikes me as either being wrong, or WotC following some poor business advice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I know, man. I am convinced such behavior is typical.





As am I.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 16, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.
> 
> Maybe it's different here in Europe?
> 
> /M




I am in Europe. It's not so atypical, I'd say half my group acts the same.


----------



## vazanar (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> That's not just bad in the OGL context--it's bad in any business context. Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?
> 
> Which brings me to why this is still relevant: Lots of people have observed that the GSL is designed to let WotC "regain" control of their brand and IP. That's nonsense--control of the D&D brand and IP has never been under threat. What WotC wants to do (in my no-longer-an-insider opinion) is put some controls on the market; in particular, to only open D&D compatibility to 3PPs who make products that complement (rather than compete with) WotC's products.
> 
> ...




You do relaize the GSL encourages clones more than anything? Much of the glut Ive seen in the stores would still be viable in the GSL.

Im thinking of the 3pp Ive bought.
Iron Kingdoms - Steam Fantasy, tied with warmachine - Certainly diffrent than Eberron, Since they rewrote tons of classics Im not sure its allowed.

Ptolus- Maybe Waterdeep/Cityscape were competition. It does change some classic monsters. However, Ptolus wasnt done as an ongoing venture so much.

Arcana Evolved/Iron Heroes - I can understand WOTC not wanting this as much. Of course the Irony of Mearls and all.

Worlds Largest Dungeon - I dont think any retailer would stock this (or Ptolus) It wasnt great but was fun to pull sections out of. I think it be fine in the GSL.

Midnight- Is there anything not reimagined in this world? WOTC didnt really have similar world. Then again maybe they can cut some flavour to make it work.

Dungeon/Pathfinder - Paizo probably was one in more direct competition. Then again WOTC started them doing it in Dungeon/Dragon. 

So what I bought and help keep me playing DD does not seem to be allowed or needs something special under GSL. Yet low and behold most of the OGL glut my FLGS is trying to get rid of does confrom to GSL.

It seems the bigger 3pp will have a harder time with GSL than the smaller glut companies.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Maggan said:


> Among my circle of gamers, that is an atypical consumer pattern. Many of my friends consider their collection of 20 or so RPG books a fairly big investment, and are not interested in expanding it beyond that range. Most of those books are core rules for various games, including D&D.
> 
> Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.
> 
> ...




Hmm, maybe not. We just need to broaden our categories:

1) Players who buy nothing. They use the other players' books.
2) Players who buy the core rules.
3) Players who buy everything "official" from WotC.
4) Players who buy everything that pertains to them.
5) Players who buy everything.

(All within their budgetary means, of course.)

You may find players in groups 1, 2, and 3 who are not in the market for 3PP at all. 

But I am saying there are probably not a lot of players _who are in the market for 3PP supplements_ who draw the line at ONE.

As such, there's no reason (as Charles seems to suggest) to arbitrarily limit the number of 3PP "Splatbook XYZ" to one-- presumably "whoever gets there first." 

Just because Mongoose plants a flag on Quintessential Fighter does not mean that you won't be able to sell an Advanced Fighter's Handbook. 

In fact, I'd almost suggest just the opposite: If Quintessential Fighter does very well, I would consider that proof of demand worthy of more supply, rather than assume that the demand has been met.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 16, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> More specifically, for a short time there was a vast (and somewhat confusing) number of d20 products (of varying quality) out there in the retail market, but these vastly shrunk over time, and long before 4E was announced they'd already dropped off sharply.




What I saw was that the production of d20 levelled off. Unfortunately I also saw that the "bad books" were still in the channel, they were on the shelves of gaming stores who had invested too much in sub quality books that didn't sell, and which sat there, taking up space and locking up resources that should have gone towards putting stuff from quality publishers on the shelves instead.

Off the top of my head I think I saw books from these publishers sitting unsold for ever on many a shelf: Pinnacle, Chaosium, Fast Forward Entertainment, Nightshift Games, Valar Project, Avalanche, Citizen Games, Columbia Games, Dark Portal, OtherWorld, Wicked Press, Archangel, Hogshead. I also saw dozens of the AEG and FFG miniadventures never moving an inch, and they put out tons of those.

Most of those mentioned above only published one or two books, but they sat there on the shelves forever and ever. I think that if the stores had gotten only the books from the publishers that Wulf mentioned, that would have been great. But they also took in dozens of other publishers' books, which didn't sell, and that is what I think of as one reason that people think of this as a glut. They kept seeing the same books on the shelves, week after week. Which gives the impression that supply exceeds demand, which is what I think of when discussing the d20 glut.

/M


----------



## Kingskin (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?



I can't agree with this at all. Pretty much every industries runs on finding an idea that works and putting your brand on it. Look at the computer games industry:

Doom
Sim City/Civ
Command & Conquer
Street Fighter 2

Clones of the above pretty much account for about 90% of what's out there and have done for the last 10 years or so. You're talking about (presumably) smart businessmen turning a hobby industry into something that's now threatening Hollywood in terms of revenue by doing exactly what you've complained about.
I'm not arguing that having a hundred different flavours of the same FPS is good for the consumer, but I've never claimed that about the OGL/STL/GSL/STD either.
Yes, it's great when someone comes up with a new way of doing things and tries out something completely new, but it's a risky business and the smart money knows it's safer to rip off something popular. As another example; look at how many shaky-handcam films have come out since Cloverfield. When I caught that at the cinema there were trailers for 2 or 3 films that had ripped of that exact premise. OK, Blair Witch/Last Broadcast had already been there but the point still stands.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Hmm, maybe not. We just need to broaden our categories:
> 
> 1) Players who buy nothing. They use the other players' books.
> 2) Players who buy the core rules.
> ...




My own observations still don't fit those patterns.  I see gamers that are more discerning - they'll look for the best (for them) book on a particular subject, rather than buy all the books available on a subject.  Yes, there are a number of "completionists" out there, but I haven't seen solid suggestion that they're even the majority.

So, 4a) Players who buy core, and some things that pertain to them

It is a good question - when we talk of "the market" what is it, really?  Is it more a small number of completionists, or a larger number of selective buyers, with some competionists in the mix?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Here you appear to counter your own argument. If the must successful OGL product is "only the tiniest blips on the WotC sales radar" then why do they care if a 3PP makes a product "that compete directly with WotC's Products"?





Because if there's a lot of such product, and they aren't selling well and the gamestore has money locked into them, it hurts the store and the market by restricting that flow. 

I stopped going to my local gamestore, because they'd only get in 2-3 copies of the new WotC, then reorder as needed. I'm not going to race someone to buy a product, I'll just go elsewhere. That's not anyones fault but the store's, but it came about because of overordering of crap.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Because if there's a lot of such product, and they aren't selling well and the gamestore has money locked into them, it hurts the store and the market by restricting that flow.
> 
> I stopped going to my local gamestore, because they'd only get in 2-3 copies of the new WotC, then reorder as needed. I'm not going to race someone to buy a product, I'll just go elsewhere. That's not anyones fault but the store's, but it came about because of overordering of crap.




Sounds to me like your LGS is order like a customer and not a business.  If they do not carry enough of what sells and to much of what does not, then that is a problem with them not running their business efficiently, not a problem of competing/complimenting products.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> What holes? What timeframe are you talking about? I'd like to know what dates you're talking about and which D&D leader was in the market at that time (3e or 3.5).



Personally, I think the timeline went like this:
3e released, happy friendly, bring your 3rd party!
A ton of stuff followed, clogging shelves and selling, but then stopped when consumers learned that a lot of it was crap. As consumers became more educated and looked before they leaped, gamestores and distributors reacted slowly and were stuck with product.
Then, WotC decided to ramp up production of their own. Rather than a book here, a book there, they started making 1-2 books a month. Now the glut was even worse, as folks focused on the WotC products and prominent third party's went their own way.

D20 died, except for the pdf market.





> I saw a market that included class/race splatbooks from Mongoose, from Green Ronin, from Fantasy Flight, and even Goodman Games, just to name the biggest few.




There was another guy with race books, but they were some oddball size and thus evil. I think he joined a cult and preaches about the end of days now, or something. 



> I can name you a dozen 3PP off the top of my head and cover the majority (90%? 95%?) of the entire d20 products ever offered. I'll concede that it was a glut, but it was generally speaking a _high quality_ glut.




I'll disagree here, I think you're forgetting a lot of the early adventure folks and such. They may not have lasted forever, but their impact on game shops was a lot longer than their business lasted.

And no, I don't mean there were 100's, and I'm not talking about Mongoose's prolific space filling. There was a lot of real junk that is probably still on shelves.



> This is not a difficult exercise. Name the top 3PP you can think of off the top of your head, and you'll very quickly ID most of the d20 product that made up the glut.




I think you're focusing a bit too much on the companies that became prolific and had quality products. These guys suffered as much, if not more, as WotC from the gameshops investing money & space into crap.

Another part of it was that very few of the companies "dabbled" in a product line. They went full blast into making little pamphlet adventures and cranked out 30 of them before someone said "hey, is anyone buying this on a retail level?".




> The GSL is far more attractive to 3PPs who want to dabble-- get in, make some money, get out. They won't care one whit if they are building successful product lines and a sustainable publishing business on the back of a volatile, ephemeral, and one-sided license.




I really figured more of them would go the "imprint" way. Jade Ronin, Inc a subsidiary of GR, who cranks out high quality 4e stuff and can be cut from the tree as needed, with little to no effect on the main company.

Again, if it's worth the time/ money/ trouble for them to do so. I don't really see GR as being that big on D20 anymore anyway.

The stupidest slap to me was the GSL's "can't publish early" thing.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You have it exactly backwards. The companies who are in the best position to offer quality product-- to use their business acumen to create high quality product and to grow it into successful brands-- are the ones least likely to accept a license that can cut the legs out from all their hard work.
> 
> The GSL is far more attractive to 3PPs who want to dabble-- get in, make some money, get out. They won't care one whit if they are building successful product lines and a sustainable publishing business on the back of a volatile, ephemeral, and one-sided license.




I think this is spot on. When I initially read the GSL, I couldn't imagine using it if I were a serious publisher where gaming products were my real full time job. The decisions by the bigger publishers have largely shown that I was right.

What the GSL does create, in my opinion, is a great climate for dabblers and startup companies who don't have a proven track record, and thus don't really have anything to lose. Isn't that exactly the situation WotC doesn't want?

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

--Steve


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 16, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I may regret asking, but what do you suppose that might be?



A number of things.  The inability to release the same product under multiple rulesets, for one.  And the inability to reprint monster stats, for two.  The inability to reprint monster stats basically ensures that 3rd party adventures either 1) are obnoxious to use in comparison to WOTC adventures, or 2) involve near-cognate versions of monsters already in the monster manual (not skeletons, _elf_ skeletons!).

I think that the current business situation for many of the larger 3rd party publishers is that D&D license material is not their major revenue generator.  Instead, its material that in some way is derived from d20, but now can stand alone.  As such, releases of 4e material only make sense for them if they can multi-release the same product under a couple of rules systems, or if the product is releasable on the side like an adventure.  Which of course they can't now, so they're looking at their options, and going with their strengths rather than their past.

I don't think that the mutability of the agreement is a major concern.  They deal with stuff like that on a daily basis.  Ongoing contracts which govern the parties behavior up until the moment that one party decides to quit are, well, common.  I can think of three that affect my job this very instant.  They don't concern me because I have a pretty good idea of the likelihood that anyone will back out of an ongoing agreement, and that likelihood is low.  This is how it is for a lot of businesses.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2008)

The "glut" and "quality control" and "competition" arguments don't hold that much water from where I'm sitting, for many of the reasons mentioned above.

What holds water is "brand identity." 4e is obsessively concerned with brand identity. The GSL is an extention of this brand identity. All the rules exist to preserve D&D's brand identity (at whatever expenses they need to have). 

That's why the GSL forbids tinkering and terminates at will. That's why the GSL doesn't discriminate against basement publishers but freaks out people with valuable IP themselves. That's why the GSL mandates that a product line not be OGL as well as D&D compatible. Because WotC wants people to have a specific image in their head hwen someone says "D&D." 

As an aside, I think arrogance played a bit part in the GSL. WotC assumed people would jump on board to 4e because of 3e's obvious problems and how 4e fixes them; they believe that 4e is a better game and that anyone who wants to play the best game (which should be everyone) would jump on board with it. They are the leader, and people should follow them, after all. WotC was wrong, and they didn't expect there to be this much resistence. I bet it does surprise them and they do wish things could be different.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I have this sneaking suspicion that, although its the thing that random people on ENWorld complain about the most, the third party publishers aren't actually worried about the clause permitting WOTC to change the GSL. Most of them have probably seen that sort of clause before, or dealt with that sort of business scenario before.




No, not really.  Not like this.  Imagine this:  WotC doesn't like Mongoose's success with Traveller eating into their d20 modern/future market.  So they change the GSL to include, "you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL" (which is what WotC wanted in there originally, so I believe it is just a matter of time before that comes).  While that doesn't shut down Traveller, that hurts its 3rd party companies since nothing new for Traveller will be released OGL.  If I were a publisher, I would keep that in mind when I am considering working on Traveller.  

The d20 license had that clause in there, but that just forbid the company from using the d20 license, not the OGL.  You could still publish the exact same product with the logo blackened.  You could even do something like M&M completely without the logo license.  This license, nope.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> To be clear, I never held that 3PP betrayed or failed to support WotC. (Nor did I ever feel that 3PP owed any loyalty to WotC or obligation to support WotC or D&D beyond the terms of the OGL and d20 STL.) What I observed is that WotC left holes in the marketplace, and many 3PP, rather than exploit those holes, chose to make products that competed directly with WotC's products.
> 
> That's not just bad in the OGL context--it's bad in any business context. Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?
> 
> ...




Mr. Ryan, your post appears to be full of revisionist history.

One of the distinctions at the heart of Open Gaming was between competitive products and competitive systems. Open Gaming was meant to reduce the market footprint of the latter, but was all for encouraging the former. Yes... you read that right: Open Gaming was meant to encourage competition. Why, you ask? Strangely, even though it is no longer the Party Line, this information is available on WOTC's own website! Here's an excerpt:



			
				Ryan Dancey as WOTC VP said:
			
		

> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, the          more money other companies spend on their games, the more *D&D*          sales are eventually made. Now, there are clearly issues of efficiency          -- not every dollar input to the market results in a dollar output in          *D&D* sales; and there is a substantial time lag between input          and output; and a certain amount of people are diverted from *D&D*          to other games never to return. However, we believe very strongly that          the net effect of the competition in the RPG genre is positive for *D&D*.
> [/FONT]





Open gaming, contrary to what you are saying, Mr. Ryan, was meant to encourage competition. Open gaming theorized that the more people who were actively into hobby gaming, the more revenue WOTC would harvest. Because D&D is the most popular role playing game, it benefits from the success even of competing products, because gamers as a whole tend to buy D&D stuff. A few will not, but overall D&D revenues are directly proportional to overall role playing revenues.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This competition also ultimately grows the D&D brand. Why? Because as the amounts of supporting products become increasingly vast, the market becomes more resistant to alternate game systems. They have enough to choose from already!
[/FONT]


 Then there's another part of the competition equation:


			
				The Same Interview said:
			
		

> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The other great effect          of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality          of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems          with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should          all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it          is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better,          and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it          into their products. Including us. So *D&D* as a game should          benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the          Open Gaming derivative of *D&D*.[/FONT]





See, rather than WOTC feeling annoyed when small-timers showed them up in terms of quality, WOTC was supposed to be overjoyed that someone else came up with an innovation that they can now incorporate _for free_!


Dancey goes on to mention that there is even a simpler version of the game, a "rules-light" version as Tweet put it, that can be constructed. He says the game can be extended to other genres, and it could even be made diceless. WOTC might experiment with some of these things, "or other people may choose to invest the time and energy          to do so".


I think it's inappropriate to blame the so-called "glut" for the collapse of hobby stores, expecially with gasoline over 4 dollars a gallon. Game stores have collapsed out of poor business sense maybe (but in my opinion anybody who orders 500 copies of "OGL Chimney Sweeps" is going to go out of business eventually anyway)... but it's as much the economy as anything else. When people tighten the belt, it obviously gets tightened around luxuries.


Nevertheless, any "glut" as I assume you well know is a short-term problem. Sure... 1,000 startups come up with 1,000 different products. Most of them tank and the good ones rise to the top. That's called capitalism. In the long run, it's supposed to produce a body of superior product through an evolutionary process.


And if you'll look closely at the above quote, WOTC was supposed to take advantage of that evolution as well to incorporate innovations in their own products.


Myself, I think that if Open Gaming failed at all it was because too many changes were made to the core of the D&D game. D&D tried to become too much like Gurps and ended being overcomplicated and cumbersome for some people. A lot of people like lighter games and a lot of people liked the assumptions native to the older editions of D&D that were cast aside. So in a sense Open Gaming started off on the wrong foot because it stated up front that D&D was so successful because it was so popular and familiar, but right out of the gate they made changes that ended up (a few years down the road, for many of us) alienating a lot of the core audience.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> And no, I don't mean there were 100's, and I'm not talking about Mongoose's prolific space filling. There was a lot of real junk that is probably still on shelves.




We're still not at an agreement yet over whether or not GLUT means "crappy product" or "more product than the market would bear."

Some people say GLUT and mean the former: All this crap clogging the shelves. That is a specific indictment of _quality_. We'll call this kind of product _crap-glut._

Some people say GLUT and mean the latter: Supply outstripped demand, independed of quality. We'll call this kind of product _good-glut_.



> I think you're focusing a bit too much on the companies that became prolific and had quality products.




Again, it's possible to produce quality products so prolificly that you cause a glut. And yet, that's not the way most people use the glut epithet.

I mean, prolific pretty much = glut, no matter how good the product is.



> These guys suffered as much, if not more, as WotC from the gameshops investing money & space into crap.




Well, let's try to put a number on it. 

What percentage of the TOTAL d20 product supply in retail distribution came from "high quality" yet "prolific" 3PP? 

I rather facetiously suggested 95% above, but I'm willing to run through the exercise a bit more rigorously.

If you were running a game store, how many dollars would you invest in proven-but-prolific good-glut vs. unproven crap-glut?

I would be VERY surprised if even the most inexperienced game store owner invested more than 10% of his rolling capital outside of the "Big Names." 

The lion's share of his investment will be in WotC product. And then Sword & Sorcery, Mongoose, GR, Necromancer, FFG, etc. all the way down the line until we finally hit some of these publishers (that nobody ever names) with products (that nobody ever names) that is clogging up the shelves. 

What percentage of his capital investment is going to THAT kind of product?

And we're only talking about his RPG investment, here, which _should_ be a fraction of his total store inventory.

So we may not have a firm number here, but I think at this point you should have a pretty good idea of the amount of investment in crap-glut.

When folks talk about the GLUT, what they generally mean is, "Really crappy products from little crappy publishers that nobody wants to buy from _utterly ruined_ the retailers." 

The supposition is that this stuff was uniformly bad AND purchased in such quantities that it was capable of bankrupting the retail store.

I think that's a load of horseshit.



> Another part of it was that very few of the companies "dabbled" in a product line. They went full blast into making little pamphlet adventures and cranked out 30 of them before someone said "hey, is anyone buying this on a retail level?".




Well now we're getting a little closer to specifics. I recall AEG and FFG in that "pamphlet adventure" space. 

Do we have a specific scapegoat, at last?

Can we finally specify the glut canard as, "AEG and FFG ruined the market with pamphlet adventures that did not sell, but the retailers were powerless to stop purchasing month in and month out?"

I think not.

I don't think anyone will ever specify it, because they are all pointing their fingers elsewhere looking for a scapegoat.

If the retail game industry is capable of being brought to its knees by an infinite army of monkeys cranking out RPG doggerel, I hardly think you can point the blame at the OGL that "empowered" the monkeys.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

A simple question (or maybe two, not sure)

For all those claiming "glut" and "quality" were the motivators behind the change from the OGL/STL to the GSL, answer me this:

How does a free license with no approval process reduce product number (glut) or increase product quality?

In that area, the GSL is identical to the OGL/SLT: WOTC will not ask you for money for using it, will not limit the number of products you can produce using it, and will not require any specific level of quality in terms of writing, production values, rules balance, or any other area. If you think "defined terms" mean anything...read the STL.

If you can't explain, clearly, how "free, no approval license" leads to "fewer products of higher quality", I must humbly request you strike the word "glut" from your arguments over the potential merits of the GSL or the motivations behind drafting it.

Thank you.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Do we have a specific scapegoat, at last?





MtG was such a sudden phenomenon and D&D so traditionally important that somehow managed to garner high responsibility to the Wotc of 10 years ago, the time they acquired the rights of D&D. Wotc needed to seem good and trustworthy to capitalize on the stunt value of this phenomenal suddenness to eventually establish itself as the overall hobby market leader. 

From that perspective they should not fail D&D. Wotc bought D&D and had to deliver to capitalize as much as possible to increasing the brand value of Wotc first -rather than D&D's.

So they preferred to minimize risks. This is why they used the OGL and publicized it so much. D&D became a gift and part to the fan community and now the community took a share of that responsibility and this gave more comfort to Wotc's aspirations to rise its fame.

Now times have changed.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

Turanil said:


> When the OGL was originally released, I remember an interview (with someone at WotC) where it was said that the d20 OGL had been released so every 3PP product would require to have the PHB, so they would sell more of it eventually. However, with games like C&C, True20, Arcana Unearthed or Conan d20 you really didn't need to buy the D&D books. In fact, at some point I entirely ceased to buy any WotC product, spending all my money on 3PP stuff. So, it's perfectly understandable and normal WotC does a license much more restrictive for 4e. Just I had ceased to buy WotC stuff because they had gone in a direction I didn't like. So, even without the OGL I wouldn't have bought WotC stuff anymore. I would have attempted some other game out there. There are many that seem really interesting, but there is so little time to try them all. In the end it's not OGL/GSL that will do the difference, but products' quality...




And this was somewhat necessary.  Keeping in mind that the OGL and D20 licenses were intended to get a "core operating system" for RPGs into widespread use, so the rules could be used for any number of games.  Great objective.....but D&D isn't one-size fits all....many settings or games have different underlying assumptions than what you find in the Players Handbook.  Could you imagine trying to do Legend of the Five Rings with orcs, elves, and dwarves?  Or what about Black Company or Thieves World with paladins, druids, and elven bards?  It just wouldn't fit.

Thus the need for books with different assumptions.  But I think it worked too well in some cases.  It sounds like you were in a similar position as I.  WotC, a few years ago (around the time of 3.5) started branching off in a direction I wasn't interested in.  I guess, in the absence of an OGL and D20 license, it would have meant that I would have quit playing D&D at all....or at least quit being a customer.  But under the D20 and OGL licenses I was able to find companies producing products that still appealed to me.  I still did buy WotC books....I was just more picky about which ones I grabbed.

The new GGL seems intended to force the player base to buy and play D&D the way WotC wants it, and seems to be prohibitively against the innovation that arose when all these 3PP companies started producing books.

That in itself is kind of odd, because 4E, as it stands, might not exist if it *weren't* for the OGL and D20 licenses, and all that innovation from 3PP.  Guys like Mike Mearls, who was involved in the creation of 4E, got their start in 3PP companies, did they not?  This statement does not mean there never would have been a 4E.....just that WotC benefited from getting designers who arose because of the OGL and D20 licenses, and those designers contributed to the direction of 4E.

If I owned a publishing company, I'd be very hesitant about signing the GSL.  As a consumer, the GSL sets off alarm bells for me in any case, because it seems intended to prevent companies from innovating and branching off the way they did in 3E......and that branching off is important to me, because *IMO* WotC has gone in the wrong direction with this edition of the game (again, IMO).  So in my mind, innovation is what we need more than anything.

I tend to agree with the posters who posit that maybe the GSL was written in a restrictive fashion on purpose, in order to prevent consumers from getting up in arms, but with the intent of saying "hey, we tried, we made the GSL, but they didn't want to sign it".  If that theory is correct, in 5E, we might not see a GSL at all.

Banshee


----------



## xechnao (Jul 16, 2008)

Lizard said:


> A simple question (or maybe two, not sure)
> 
> For all those claiming "glut" and "quality" were the motivators behind the change from the OGL/STL to the GSL, answer me this:
> 
> ...




GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 16, 2008)

xechnao said:


> GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.




Actually, the GSL is a natural extension of the d20 STL, which you seem to be conveniently forgetting ever existed. That was a failure, and was responsible for more crappy adventures than the OGL ever was.

Do not confuse the d20 STL and the OGL.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

xechnao said:


> GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.




And what does this have to do with my question?


----------



## xechnao (Jul 16, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Actually, the GSL is a natural extension of the d20 STL, which you seem to be conveniently forgetting ever existed. That was a failure, and was responsible for more crappy adventures than the OGL ever was.
> 
> Do not confuse the d20 STL and the OGL.




I do not. Do not confuse legal and formal structures with the practical ways of how the actual modern market works.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 16, 2008)

Lizard said:


> And what does this have to do with my question?




Tangent.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> So WotC changed the terms of 3PP compatibility with D&D, and made it more restrictive. Insofar as it controls the glut and keeps 3PP focused on products that players actually want and don't get (or don't get enough of) from WotC, more restrictive is good for the RPG business as a whole, it's good for WotC, and frankly it's good for the third-party publishers. And if it also means that a relatively small number of 3PP participate (currently 3 to 5, as opposed to hundreds under the OGL), so that the choices offered to consumers and retailers are relatively narrow but desirable, so much the better.




But isn't whether WotC does something better entirely subjective?  I'd generally say that sales numbers are not always indicative of quality.  WotC has more reputation, better marketing, better distribution channels, and a bunch of other advantages....including simple history and brand recognition.  These factors can help lead to increased sales.

But whether a book on spellcasting is better just because it's from WotC is something that I'd question....because a question like that is ultimately answerable only by the players themselves.  There are many products where, as a consumer, I just didn't feel that WotC's efforts were worth spending money on.  Or they just didn't seems to want to tackle something I wanted.....like freeform spellcasting.....that was done with Elements of Magic and True Sorcery, for instance.  Or a Knight class.....as a consumer, I preferred Green Ronin's Cavalier, or RPG Objects' "Knight" from Legends of Excalibur, over the Knight from PHB II.  And I liked the Ninja from Legends of the Samurai better than WotC's ninja, for instance.  That doesn't mean my opinion is right.  It's just my opinion as one DM.

I'm just one consumer, but to me, the advantage of the OGL and D20 licenses was that we had choice....instead of being forced to accept what one company decided we should like.  I understand that they're not dumb, and they do their research, etc.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that their solutions work for any particular customer.  Just like stats can predict broad trends, and behaviour in groups, but are inaccurate when you try to apply their findings to an individual.

Banshee


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why else try to make the big 3pp _invest in_ the GSL before they could see it ($5,000)?



I suppose this is getting to the pet peeve level for me. But point of clarification, the plan was to see the GSL *then* pay the $5000 if you approve. The points of your post are still valid, but I just still see this incorrect information so often, I'm compelled to clarify.  So publishers would only be ignorant of the rules (which were being rather steadily previewed anyway) and NOT ignorant of the license when they invested. So no one was going to be tricked into investing in a bad license.



humble minion said:


> The 3pps who can afford to adopt the GSL will more likely be the basement hobby operators, since if the license gets cut from underneath them they gripe about it on ENWorld and then get on with their life.  Were it Paizo or someone in the same situation - well, people's livelihoods would be at stake.  The hobbyists will dive in, and produce a mass of stuff widely varying in quality, and the more professional, experienced (and, quite often, superior) publishers will have to stay out.



This seems to obvious to me, that I have trouble conceiving of how people can think the GSL will improve the quality of RPG products. The opposite seems more likely. (Unless you get a conspiracy, long term view that WotC wants to discourage GSL use so that the other companies will fade away supporting the "outdated edition" or their "obscure niche games". But a) I'm not much of a believer when it comes to conspiracy theories, especially in corporations, and b) that seems to be an awfully risky bet on 4e wiping out all other RPGs including 3.5/Pathfinder.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> I suppose this is getting to the pet peeve level for me. But point of clarification, the plan was to see the GSL *then* pay the $5000 if you approve.




I think that you need to go back and reread what was happening then.  The reason that you see this "incorrect information" so often is that it isn't incorrect.

The process, as announced, was 

(1)  Pay $5,000.
(2)  See the GSL, presumably as part of the development kit (of course, in practice, not even then....the GSL was not available when you'd presumably be plunking down your cash...!).  In any event, the release date of the GSL cements the fact that you invested before you saw it, if you invested at all.
(3)  If you didn't like it, ask WotC for a refund.
(4)  Get refund when WotC sent it.

I.e., you had already invested by the time you saw the GSL.  You were just able to withdraw your investment at a future point.  Of course, WotC having your money and not having a specific timeframe in which to refund would (presumably) be a real incentive to sign the thing.

RC


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that you need to go back and reread what was happening then.  The reason that you see this "incorrect information" so often is that it isn't incorrect.
> 
> The process, as announced, was
> 
> ...



As freelancer who had money involved (via Open Design), I was VERY aware of what the deal was (and saw many, many more private "it's almost there" messages than the public saw).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> We're still not at an agreement yet over whether or not GLUT means "crappy product" or "more product than the market would bear."




IMO, some of each. The problem is that Distributors and Shop Owners didn't recognize the difference, it seems.





> I mean, prolific pretty much = glut, no matter how good the product is.



True, but so long as they're selling, and recognizable quality, Good Glut can be fine as long as the market is fine.





> Well, let's try to put a number on it.



I know you're speaking in general terms and not specifically to me, but to be clear I'm just an observer with a good memory and reading skills. The "industry" is always unhappy with exact numbers being let out, and even when they give a number, it's widely accepted as a lie...



> What percentage of the TOTAL d20 product supply in retail distribution came from "high quality" yet "prolific" 3PP?




Quality is subjective. In early d20 days, gameshops didn't know one random company from another. So called "Splats" always were good sellers previously, so they invested heavily, often purely at a whim I would guess.




> If you were running a game store, how many dollars would you invest in proven-but-prolific good-glut vs. unproven crap-glut?
> 
> I would be VERY surprised if even the most inexperienced game store owner invested more than 10% of his rolling capital outside of the "Big Names."



See, I think this is where the problem comes in, in regard to the timeline I believe to be accurate. There were no "big names" back then. Mongoose had a full line, BadAxe had books coming out, GR was of great renown for the adventures, but... well, who knew how much any of them would sell? Who knew quality?

Alderac had a long running line of L5R and the swashbuckler game, so maybe you go with them? But I doubt their d20 stuff did that great either. God help someone that recognized FFE's authors and bought them...




> The lion's share of his investment will be in WotC product. And then Sword & Sorcery, Mongoose, GR, Necromancer, FFG, etc. all the way down the line until we finally hit some of these publishers (that nobody ever names) with products (that nobody ever names) that is clogging up the shelves.



Seriously, I'd name them if I could remember most of them. I may have some adventures on my shelves from The Lost Game Companies, but that's in the back next to Earthdawn and Hunter. I'd need spelunking gear.

If I still went to the gamestore I'd take a list, but these folks still have Vor books.


> When folks talk about the GLUT, what they generally mean is, "Really crappy products from little crappy publishers that nobody wants to buy from _utterly ruined_ the retailers."
> 
> The supposition is that this stuff was uniformly bad AND purchased in such quantities that it was capable of bankrupting the retail store.




The problem really was the gameshop/ distributors that didn't know what they were ordering. Once they got loads of stuff in, they didn't know how to get rid of it. In the end, they have shelves full of books taking up money/ room, and even when they sell something, they now are too gunshy to stock stuff.

Like publishers that made "vanity" products, covering what they like, you'll get gameshops that ordered lots of this or that, because they like that company.



> Well now we're getting a little closer to specifics. I recall AEG and FFG in that "pamphlet adventure" space.
> 
> Do we have a specific scapegoat, at last?




Nope, because both companies made Good Glut and Bad Glut, and the gameshop had no knowledge of how to differentiate them.



> I don't think anyone will ever specify it, because they are all pointing their fingers elsewhere looking for a scapegoat.
> 
> If the retail game industry is capable of being brought to its knees by an infinite army of monkeys cranking out RPG doggerel, I hardly think you can point the blame at the OGL that "empowered" the monkeys.




Again though, we're 6 years past that glut, IMO. After the so called "crash", followed by 3.5e, the gameshop inventory of new stuff shrunk a lot. I think a lot of them overreacted (and distributors) and then entered a phase of not ordering ENOUGH of the good stuff people wanted. In addition, they made excuses for why they didn't buy stuff and basically sent me elsewhere.

I mean, I couldn't find a good selection of M&M to feed that addiction at the time, so I ordered online.

I'm not sure how the gameshops around you are run, but go in and see how much stuff they have FROM 2002!

The Glut isn't (IMO) WotC's fault, but I'd say distributors and gameshops are 80% responsible for the way they handled it. Add in that publishers didn't seem to SEE the glut as it clogged up the drain, and you got a lot of publishers reacting to a sudden stoppage and looking where to put the blame.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that you need to go back and reread what was happening then.  The reason that you see this "incorrect information" so often is that it isn't incorrect.




I lack boardsearch, but your point would easily be proven by providing a link from the initial conversation, nay?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  Pay $5,000.
> (2)  See the GSL, presumably as part of the development kit (of course, in practice, not even then....the GSL was not available when you'd presumably be plunking down your cash...!).  In any event, the release date of the GSL cements the fact that you invested before you saw it, if you invested at all.
> (3)  If you didn't like it, ask WotC for a refund.
> (4)  Get refund when WotC sent it.




This is incorrect. The actual plan was...

(1) Sign the NDA.
(2) Read the GSL.
(3) Pay $5,000.
(4) Read the rules.
(5) Refund, if WotC goes along with it.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The Glut isn't (IMO) WotC's fault, but I'd say distributors and gameshops are 80% responsible for the way they handled it. Add in that publishers didn't seem to SEE the glut as it clogged up the drain, and you got a lot of publishers reacting to a sudden stoppage and looking where to put the blame.




Distributors and gameshops had no way to know how to handle it. It is Wotc's and other publishers' fault.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 16, 2008)

Interesting.  Horseshit goes through the filters?    Thanks to Wulf I learned something very important.  

In terms of glut and its effect, I think the discussion has so far talked about it as if product went straight from the publishers to the stores, which isn't true at all.  I've heard a few anecdotal remarks about all kinds of problems that Diamond and some of the other distributors had with stock; I think the entire value chain was overloaded, and then overcompensated, producing the so-called "gluts" and "bubbles" about d20.

It's not a perfect case of supply and demand; or, if it is, there are a lot of complicating factors anyway.  The Real World sadly rarely fits into such conveniently modelled scenarios.  It'd be nice if someone with more familiarity than myself stepped in and gave their opinion on what impact the distributors reaction to the product had on the market in general, because I suspect that it may have been the single biggest driver of what we saw, personally.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 16, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Except that the GSL is still free and there is still no approval process. There's nothing to stop the glut...
> 
> I do not understand the meme that the GSL is about "controlling quality" or "raising the bar" when nothing in it includes any kind of WOTC approval of a product. The STL *also* defined lots and lots of game terms and mandated they could not be redefined; how did this work for assuring a minimum level of quality and compatibility?
> 
> The GSL permits exactly as much cheap, unbalanced, crap as the OGL/STL did, and you'll get just as much. Sturgeon's Law.




I'm obviously not Mr Ryan but I think in refference to "better quality" he's not talking about better editing, better rules, or better in a 'I like that idea!" way. 

You need to refference back to what he said about better products being those designed to fill the holes left by WoTC.

What (I think) he's saying is that by placing restrictions on what can be done, it creates more of an incentive to look for the holes and fill them, as opposed to just re-inventing the wheel. (Whether or not you agree that it works, or is a good idea, is a different story.)

For example, by saying someone can't redefine what an Elf is, the consumer doesn't have to worry about a mass of products giving difefrent versions of elves burrying the product he's actually looking for- Feats designed to be used with WoTC's version of the elf. 

They might still be poorly edited, and using bad math skillz, but at least when it says it's a product about an elf, you know exactly what "elf" means.

Again, whether or not you think this leads to a better product, is up for debate I guess.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> The irony is that, if I remember correctly, companies like Green Ronin are the reason why the GSL is so restrictive in the first place, since they created Mutants & Masterminds and True20 and similar to *compete* with D&D, not supplement it.




Well, to be fair, the only reason they were able to compete in that manner is because WotC's treatment of the game didn't necessarily meet all people's needs.  There was a base of customers who wanted something more loose, and not quite as rules-heavy.

That's not intended as a statement that 3.5 was *bad*.....just that for True20, it served a niche of customers who wanted the game, but more rules lite.  And Mutants & Masterminds served those who wanted a D20 based game of superheroes...which WotC hadn't really addressed.

So yes, it was competition, but only because WotC couldn't serve all the different subgroups within their own customer base.

Banshee


----------



## Lizard (Jul 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> For example, by saying someone can't redefine what an Elf is, the consumer doesn't have to worry about a mass of products giving difefrent versions of elves burrying the product he's actually looking for- Feats designed to be used with WoTC's version of the elf.
> 
> They might still be poorly edited, and using bad math skillz, but at least when it says it's a product about an elf, you know exactly what "elf" means.
> 
> Again, whether or not you think this leads to a better product, is up for debate I guess.




So, instead, you have a new race called "Aelfs" or whatever....

(Also, thus far, WOTC has been close-mouthed and contradictory about what "redefine" and "extend" mean. There's no real explicit elf culture, history, etc, in the PHB. I can't reference the "implied world" in any 3PP; but can I create my own "elf history", as long as the elf mechanics are not changed? Can I create "Silver Elves", "Cave Elves" or "Cloud Elves"? Is that "extension" or "redefinition"? )

And was there ever a problem with 3x supplements claiming to be about "Elves", but, instead, were about short fat hairy-footed farmers? Seems that any product which veered off from the common-law definition of an "Elf" just created a new race to begin with.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 16, 2008)

Hobo said:


> Interesting.  Horseshit goes through the filters?    Thanks to Wulf I learned something very important.




I live to serve.

They had to take it out of the filters because people got tired of having their conversations about their Horseshitsword-wielding weapon masters cluttered up with .


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I lack boardsearch, but your point would easily be proven by providing a link from the initial conversation, nay?




Sadly, I also lack boardsearch.  

But it should be fairly easy to examine the following:

1.  When was the $5,000 requested?
2.  How much time is needed to develop product for August release?
3.  When was the GSL available?

I will, of couse, admit error if any non-WotC publisher, anywhere, says that they saw the GSL prior to forking over the cash, if they did in fact fork over the cash.

Fair?


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jul 16, 2008)

Lizard said:


> So, instead, you have a new race called "Aelfs" or whatever....




Sure, but then it's no longer an elf. It's an Aelf, or whatever.



> (Also, thus far, WOTC has been close-mouthed and contradictory about what "redefine" and "extend" mean. There's no real explicit elf culture, history, etc, in the PHB. I can't reference the "implied world" in any 3PP; but can I create my own "elf history", as long as the elf mechanics are not changed? Can I create "Silver Elves", "Cave Elves" or "Cloud Elves"? Is that "extension" or "redefinition"? )




This is true. I don't have those answers, and am awaiting them myself.



> And was there ever a problem with 3x supplements claiming to be about "Elves", but, instead, were about short fat hairy-footed farmers? Seems that any product which veered off from the common-law definition of an "Elf" just created a new race to begin with.




My use of the elf wasn't attempting to claim any specific issue. It was an example made to illustrate what I was saying. You have to take the entire thing into account. 

Again I'm not Mr Ryan, so I have no real idea if that's actually what he meant. 

In my oen idea, I think it's also attempting to encourage people to design for D&D, as opposed to just using D&D's concepts. (Whether or not you believe the concepts belong to D&D is open for debate.)

It's not designed to have someone take D&D and turn it into a new game. it's designed to let you make stuff for D&D, take it or leave it.

I don't think they really care if you leave it either. I think they feel the amount of business 3pp sent their way is negligeable, and if they sign off, so be it. Their choice. No animosity or anger, just business.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> For example, by saying someone can't redefine what an Elf is, the consumer doesn't have to worry about a mass of products giving difefrent versions of elves burrying the product he's actually looking for- Feats designed to be used with WoTC's version of the elf.
> 
> They might still be poorly edited, and using bad math skillz, but at least when it says it's a product about an elf, you know exactly what "elf" means.
> 
> Again, whether or not you think this leads to a better product, is up for debate I guess.




This is where I, as a consumer, have a problem.  If I, as a GM, am not interested in WotC's 4E definition of something (and there are plenty of things I don't care for), then the GSL is effectively preventing me from gaining access to products that have an alternate way of envisioning those things.  As a consumer, why would I spend money on a game that doesn't do what I want, and is *also* limited by a GSL that doesn't allow third party publishers to create what I want to buy?

It's entirely in WotC's right to do this.  They own the game.  But as a consumer, it's my right to say "fine, you're not getting any more of my money".

Where it gets frustrating is that they've changed the direction of the game, and the GSL limits my ability to choose other products that do things differently, and more in line with what I would like to buy/play/run.  It's a little like voting.  If I don't vote, I can't complain about what the politicians do.  In this case though, if I don't spend my money on their products, then I'm not really a consumer that they care to edit their products to serve.  All I can hope is that if I go from spending hundreds a year on their books to zero, and other consumers do the same thing, then they'll take the hint.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 16, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I don't think they really care if you leave it either. I think they feel the amount of business 3pp sent their way is negligeable, and if they sign off, so be it. Their choice. No animosity or anger, just business.




Well, it's a bit of an ABAB experiment then.  They can say that 3PP didn't send enough money their way........but 3E experienced a massive surge in players, and consumers.  

If they end up drastically reducing the number of third party products, and sales continue to go up, then one could draw a rough, though unscientific conclusion that maybe third party companies didn't contribute much to the popularity of 3E.

But if sales levels go *down*, after reducing the number of third party products, then one could say that it's possible that the third party publishers brought more consumers to 3E than WotC thought.......though the vast difference between 3E and 4E would also be a factor to examine.

Banshee


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 16, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1.  When was the $5,000 requested?




It was requested to be paid after an NDA was signed, and after the NDA-covered company/person read the GSL. So, you learn the terms of the license (but can't reveal it to anyone) before you are asked to pay for the development kit.



> 2.  How much time is needed to develop product for August release?




At the time they were talking about it, there was going to be something like 6 months between the GSL and the development kit's availability and the August release date. That's not a lot of time for anyone, especially publishers like Paizo that need more lead-in time.



> 3.  When was the GSL available?




It was supposed to be available in Q1 2008, but ended up being released after 4th Edition was released.



> I will, of couse, admit error if any non-WotC publisher, anywhere, says that they saw the GSL prior to forking over the cash, if they did in fact fork over the cash.




Nobody paid the $5,000. At all. The plan for Phase 1 & Phase 2 publishing was abandoned sometime in Q2 2008.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 17, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> This is where I, as a consumer, have a problem.  If I, as a GM, am not interested in WotC's 4E definition of something (and there are plenty of things I don't care for), then the GSL is effectively preventing me from gaining access to products that have an alternate way of envisioning those things.  As a consumer, why would I spend money on a game that doesn't do what I want, and is *also* limited by a GSL that doesn't allow third party publishers to create what I want to buy?




Not at all. The GSL says you can't change what has already been defined. So an elf remains an elf. 

It desn't say you can't add to it. 

Like if I design a new version of device that stores information. I wouldn't call it a hardrive. I might call it an SD card, or a USB drive, but not a hardrive.

So if I'm designing a new version of an elf, maybe I'll call it the Alternate Elf or soemthing, so the option still exists to "improve" someone's game, but it won't get too confusing for those just looking for elves.



> It's entirely in WotC's right to do this.  They own the game.  But as a consumer, it's my right to say "fine, you're not getting any more of my money".




Sure, you're free to spend your money however you want. 



> Where it gets frustrating is that they've changed the direction of the game, and the GSL limits my ability to choose other products that do things differently, and more in line with what I would like to buy/play/run.




See above... As it could be argued that it helps your ability to do just that.

Example: If I walk into a store that sells movies I would rather they each have a unique name instead of Sci-Fi Drama, or Comedy Film.



> It's a little like voting.  If I don't vote, I can't complain about what the politicians do.  In this case though, if I don't spend my money on their products, then I'm not really a consumer that they care to edit their products to serve.  All I can hope is that if I go from spending hundreds a year on their books to zero, and other consumers do the same thing, then they'll take the hint.




Sure, if you feel that strongly about the issue, more power to you...



> Well, it's a bit of an ABAB experiment then. They can say that 3PP didn't send enough money their way........but 3E experienced a massive surge in players, and consumers.




Businesses usually have a bit more to go on about their consumers then just guesses.

My guess is they weighed the number of gamers that seem to purchase only "official" WoTC stuff vrs the number of gamers that have a vested interest in 3pp stuff, and made the choice based on that.

I have no inside info though, so my guess is just that- a guess.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> No, not really.  Not like this.  Imagine this:  WotC doesn't like Mongoose's success with Traveller eating into their d20 modern/future market.  So they change the GSL to include, "you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL" *(which is what WotC wanted in there originally, so I believe it is just a matter of time before that comes)*.



And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

Lizard said:


> How does a free license with no approval process reduce product number (glut) or increase product quality?



Well, it can, and from the look of things, will, accomplish the first of those things simply by having other terms that are so unattractive that relatively few publishers are willing to play ball.

How it's supposed to accomplish the second, though, is indeed unclear. The arguments for it pushing quality down and for having no particular effect on it one way or the other seem about equally strong. The arguments for it pushing it up seem ill-thought-out at best.


----------



## Delta (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?




The month before the GSL was released, WOTC presented a FAQ that actually asserted that was going to be the case ("you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL"). You had a situation where at least one WOTC spokesperson responded to a direct question about it and said "yes" (along with some snide "why would you expect otherwise" commentary). 

Then they went back and said they were revising it and it was toned down a bit. I followed that pretty closely.


----------



## Delta (Jul 17, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Myself, I think that if Open Gaming failed at all it was because too many changes were made to the core of the D&D game... So in a sense Open Gaming started off on the wrong foot because it stated up front that D&D was so successful because it was so popular and familiar, but right out of the gate they made changes that ended up (a few years down the road, for many of us) alienating a lot of the core audience.




Korgoth, that was entirely a great post and really insightful. In particular, I'd never previously considered the above observation, but I totally agree with it now that you've pointed it out. It very much encapsulates my own struggles choosing between 1E and d20 gaming sources.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> The month before the GSL was released, WOTC presented a FAQ that actually asserted that was going to be the case ("you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL"). You had a situation where at least one WOTC spokesperson responded to a direct question about it and said "yes" (along with some snide "why would you expect otherwise" commentary).
> 
> Then they went back and said they were revising it and it was toned down a bit. I followed that pretty closely.




If you can link the quote to which you're referring, I'd like to see it. My understanding was that the business of company-wide restrictions was a misunderstanding that was later clarified, not an actual part of the license that was later revised.


----------



## RedShirtNo5 (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sadly, I also lack boardsearch.




"Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee."
Q&A #2. http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-215976.html


----------



## Delta (Jul 17, 2008)

Here's a few links.

It's interesting that the official WOTC press release from 1/8/08 says the opposite of what RedShirt quoted from a conference call the same day. In this release, you pay $5000 for access to the "Kit" and the "Kit" includes the license (called OGL at the time): 
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Here's the news updates from when the "poison pill" was first announced around 4/19/08. Clark Peterson wrote "It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice... By the way, this info was from Wizards." And WOTC went many days avoiding official comment on the issue, before finally coming out with different information. In the meantime, Scott Rouse was scrupulously careful to say things like "From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.":
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=224217


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 17, 2008)

I can't see how this makes any difference to me at all.

As long as Green Ronin continues producing *M&M*, *ASoIaF* and the odd long-shot project (Black Company, Red Star etc.) they will still be getting the lion's share of my gaming dollar.

In fact, it won't even be close.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> Here's the news updates from when the "poison pill" was first announced around 4/19/08. Clark Peterson wrote "It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice... By the way, this info was from Wizards." And WOTC went many days avoiding official comment on the issue, before finally coming out with different information. In the meantime, Scott Rouse was scrupulously careful to say things like "From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.":
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=224217




So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing _from WotC_ directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> Here's a few links.
> 
> It's interesting that the official WOTC press release from 1/8/08 says the opposite of what RedShirt quoted from a conference call the same day. In this release, you pay $5000 for access to the "Kit" and the "Kit" includes the license (called OGL at the time):
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a



Now that I look, that doesn't actually say you need to pay before actually seeing the license.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I'm sorry Charles, but I have to disagree sharply with your post . . . You appear to counter your own argument. If the must successful OGL product is "only the tiniest blips on the WotC sales radar" then why do they care if a 3PP makes a product "that compete directly with WotC's Products"?





To be clear here: I can only speak for my own thoughts on the topic, now and when I was running the brand. Any discussion about what WotC cares or thinks about now is pure speculation.

That said, as to why they might care about competition: They don't, as I said. What they care about is a marketplace full of interesting products that excite the consumer and the sales channel. If there are 10 products released this month, everyone benefits if they are 10 different, interesting, exciting products. If, instead, they are 10 versions of the same splatbook, everyone loses. Consumers get a confusing, unexciting range of options, retailers and distributors have to make difficult and often arbitrary decisions on which products to support, and all this leads to piles of dead stock in the channels which affects WotC's marketplace.

I made the comments Nicole brought up in reference to WotC's decision to get back into the adventure publishing business. At the time there was great demand for adventures, but only a couple 3PP were publishing them, whereas dozens of 3PPs were making harcover splatbooks, often on the same sorts of topics WotC was covering, often even cloning the WotC look and feel. Some of those books were real gems, to be sure--I own many a 3PP d20 book--but they were drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Since the 3PPs (I'm generalizing here) were not innovating or focusing on the opportunities in the marketplace, WotC changed course and re-entered the adventure business, along the way innovating with new adventure formats and product types.



> The numbers out of GAMA a few years ago is that RPGs represent something like 5-10% of the Comic and Game Industry. FIVE TO TEN PERCENT. You cannot built a thriving business solely on five to ten percent of a niche industry.




You certainly can't do it if you're chasing other people's successes and failing to respond to the needs of the marketplace.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 17, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?
> 
> WotC taught you well.




Oh, please.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 17, 2008)

Lizard said:


> I do not understand the meme that the GSL is about "controlling quality" or "raising the bar" when nothing in it includes any kind of WOTC approval of a product. The STL *also* defined lots and lots of game terms and mandated they could not be redefined; how did this work for assuring a minimum level of quality and compatibility?




I didn't say a thing about this. I said the GSL is more restrictive, and as a result fewer companies are adopting it, and as a result of that there's less likely to be a glut of ill-conceived product.


----------



## amethal (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing _from WotC_ directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.



Absolutely nothing one way or the other. The only "evidence" is that Orcus's comments created a big internet storm, which WotC could have defused with one word, and they chose not to do so.

As for Orcus misinterpreting what he was hearing, no way. It was and is a subject close to his heart, and he made sure the WotC guy was saying what he thought he was saying.

Either the unnamed person Orcus spoke to made a mistake, or WotC changed their minds.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jul 17, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I also don't really believe that there was a glut of d20 materials.




At Gen Con and Origins the past 2 or 3 years, there have been multiple stands selling stacks and stacks of RPG product, predominately d20 product, predominately hardcover product, at 3-for-1 or 75% off or other deep-discount prices.

Huge inventories have been landfilled by the 40+% of game shops that have gone out of business over the past 5 years, the multiple distributorships that have closed, and the many, many publishers that shut their doors while still holding pallets of products in their garages.

The d20 phenomenon generated sales of untold thousands of books by many publishers. But for every book sold, there was another that entered the channel but was never purchased by a consumer. The money spent by the publisher, distributor, or retailer on that book was effectively a "tax" on the d20 phenomenon--money spent that generated no return.

Imagine the state of our industry if the publishers, distributors, and retailers had made all the profit from all the books that were sold, without having that profit sucked up by all the books that didn't sell! It's that potential that a more restrictive open license might achieve. The GSL might or might not prove effective in that regard--we'll all just have to wait and see!


----------



## Fenes (Jul 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> Imagine the state of our industry if the publishers, distributors, and retailers had made all the profit from all the books that were sold, without having that profit sucked up by all the books that didn't sell! It's that potential that a more restrictive open license might achieve. The GSL might or might not prove effective in that regard--we'll all just have to wait and see!




I imagine an industry where the products are mainly sold as PDFs.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jul 17, 2008)

I liked _Dragonfist_, but aside from that, after all these years with this game, I have no interest in anything much aside from the PHB, DMG and MM.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing _from WotC_ directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.






amethal said:


> As for Orcus misinterpreting what he was hearing, no way. It was and is a subject close to his heart, and he made sure the WotC guy was saying what he thought he was saying.




That's correct. Clark left no room for misinterpretation on his part. He heard what he heard.

This does not, however, preclude the possibility that there was confusion about the policy within WotC, and Clark was "accurately" delivered the wrong information.

To address jeffh directly, let me help clarify for you: There was notification directly from WotC about the poison pill-- _explicitly_ to Clark, and _implicitly_ through their subsequent commentary (or lack thereof) here on these message boards.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?




I would imagine he is making that claim because, in their initial announcement, that's what WotC said.  There was an outcry, and it was changed.

NOTE:  It's very sad that the Unofficial D&D Info Page no longer points to all of those early WotC announcements, as it once did.


RC


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 17, 2008)

Umbran said:


> My own observations still don't fit those patterns.  I see gamers that are more discerning - they'll look for the best (for them) book on a particular subject, rather than buy all the books available on a subject.




This was my pattern.  I went out and got what I thought were the best books on undead, the fey, sea-based adventuring, etc. and disregarded the rest (after some initial 3E-introductory-euphoria buying).

I'm not so sure that the 4E GSL will mean that there will be a lack of good product.  I'm concerned and dismayed that GR, Paizo, et al will not be going 4E, and I think that WoTC missed the boat on this one, but remember that in 2000, pretty much no one had ever heard of ANY of the companies that ended up being the top d20 publishers.  The same may hold true for 4E.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

RedShirtNo5 said:


> "Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee."
> Q&A #2. http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-215976.html




Funny, that.  I hope a few people followed the link provided, as well as that followed in the post directly thereafter.



			
				Archived Article said:
			
		

> Taking a lesson from software publishers, WotC will be making available an OGL Designers Kit. This gives early access to rules and is offered to any publisher, not just the ones on the conference call. Access to the kit requires a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee.
> 
> This kit will be available within a matter of weeks, as soon as several legal logistics are complete. It provides three hardcopy pre-publication versions of the three core rule books, copies of the OGL and SRD, and a FAQ.




As we know, however, 4e isn't published under an OGL.  So, even were this true (which, as has been pointed out), the one-time $5000 fee is required in order to get the kit, which was supposed to contain copies of the OGL.

Please note again, following the link you provided, you must meet the requirements of "a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee" in order to gain "copies of the OGL".

Seems pretty darn clear to me.

And, seems pretty darn clearly what I said.

Of course, then, in Question #2, they contradict this (and later, admit that the answer to Question #2 was wrong).  One might imagine that, asked baldly, they answered what seemed to be the obvious answer, and then the rep discovered that it wasn't the obvious answer at all, at all.  Again, just follow the links provided in the post after yours.



			
				Archived Article said:
			
		

> In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.




This, of course, turns out to be patently false.  I hope no one ponied up $5 grand on the basis of this claim.....either because they saw this claim before ponying up the money, or because this was the "OGL" that was included in the early adopters kit.

Wasn't the early adopter's kit really late, btw?

Didn't Necromancer start planning 4e products on the basis of that announcement that, as it turns out, are now off the table because what WotC indicated _then_ bears scant resemblance to what WotC is saying _now_?

Or am I just dreaming?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I didn't say a thing about this. I said the GSL is more restrictive, and as a result fewer companies are adopting it, and as a result of that there's less likely to be a glut of ill-conceived product.




And the response was that this doesn't necessarily follow.

The GSL has far more serious restrictions if you are an established company with strong IP.  If you are a fly-by-nighter who doesn't care about your IP, the GSL has no real restrictions to you whatsoever.

What therefore follows is that the GSL is more heavily restrictive to established companies with strong IP, therefore it is more attractive to fly-by-night adopters, and as a result there's a greater likelihood that the 3pp created for 4e will contain a glut of ill-conceived product.

RC


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 17, 2008)

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.



CharlesRyan said:


> whereas dozens of 3PPs were making harcover splatbooks, often on the same sorts of topics WotC was covering, often even cloning the WotC look and feel. Some of those books were real gems, to be sure--I own many a 3PP d20 book--but they were drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Since the 3PPs (I'm generalizing here) were not innovating or focusing on the opportunities in the marketplace, WotC changed course and re-entered the adventure business, along the way innovating with new adventure formats and product types.




This I can understand; this keeps the dozen or so books on individual races out of the market place.  

But the bottom line I see is that of the 5 major 3PPs (Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, GR, and Necro) only 1 has publicly said they applied and been approved by Wizards to be a licensee.  Thats tells me that there is something very wrong with the license.  YOu are right that the license will mean a greater slice of the pie for the few that sign on, but these are companies that are known for their quality and aren't fly-by-night companies that will dry up in a day.  Companies like this is what, at least IMO, a company would want to encourage to be licensees.  Only 20% of the biggest names are on board, and if the license hadn't change from company basis to a product line basis, Mongoose wouldn't have even signed on.  

Do you see what I'm basicly getting at?


----------



## Psion (Jul 17, 2008)

> At Gen Con and Origins the past 2 or 3 years, there have been multiple stands selling stacks and stacks of RPG product, predominately d20 product, predominately hardcover product, at 3-for-1 or 75% off or other deep-discount prices.




Last 2 or 3 years, eh? I wonder how much of this is due too:
1) Aftershocks of the 3.5 transition.
2) Caution at buying new products amidst increasing rumors of 4e.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Do you see what I'm basicly getting at?




I do not really. Ok I get it for Necro that they are a D&D support company but why does every other established publishing company has to dedicate support to 4e D&D? Don't we need to better have some other game lines in the market?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 17, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I do not really. Ok I get it for Necro that they are a D&D support company but why does every other established publishing company has to dedicate support to 4e D&D? Don't we need to better have some other game lines in the market?




Not if all we want is to play D&D. If I was playing 4E, I'd want as many options as possible for it. Lack of viable options is a big reason for me not to switch - 3PP could have changed that.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Not if all we want is to play D&D. If I was playing 4E, I'd want as many options as possible for it. Lack of viable options is a big reason for me not to switch - 3PP could have changed that.




This is not the case for the rpg market. Not all people want just what 4e can cover. If the market production decides to exclusively focus on people that all they want is 4e, the market -or at least 4e- will not last more than 5 years.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 17, 2008)

xechnao said:


> This is not the case for the rpg market. Not all people want just what 4e can cover. If the market decides to exclusively focus on people that all they want is 4e, the market -or at least 4e- will not last more than 5 years.




Then let me phrase it like this: If those 3PP mentioned would support 4E, odds for me switching would be much bigger because what I want of a D&D/Fantasy game is not yet provided by WotC.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 17, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I do not really. Ok I get it for Necro that they are a D&D support company but why does every other established publishing company has to dedicate support to 4e D&D? Don't we need to better have some other game lines in the market?




My basic point is that 20% of the 5 large companies known for quality that felt that the old business model acceptable to work with do not feel that the current model is acceptable.  80% are either going other routes or are not announcing what they are doing.  Necromancer has not announced they have applied or been approved for licencee status; only Mongoose has.  Even then, Mongoose isn't dedicated 4E support.  They have Traveller and Battlefield Evolution which are among their all time best sellers (even better then the majority of their d20 stuff).  

If Wizards was going for a model of "raise up a new crop of licencees with every new edition and then encourage them to fly on their own", I could understand that (even if it would be a head scratcher to me) but they're not.  They would have invited more younger companies to their confrence call back in Jan and less of the old guard if they were going that route.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> But the bottom line I see is that of the 5 major 3PPs (Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, GR, and Necro) only 1 has publicly said they applied and been approved by Wizards to be a licensee.




To be fair, there's some indication that it may be more than that.

Thus far, only Mongoose has declared that they'll be using the GSL at all.

Green Ronin and Paizo have both definitively declared that they won't be using the GSL at all.

Goodman Games is releasing 4E-compatible adventures prior to October 1st, 2008, which seems to indicate that they're not using the GSL. However, they've also announced that they're canceling their 3.5 DCC line, which seems to be in line with the GSL.

Necromancer Games is releasing several _Pathfinder_ books under the OGL, last we heard. However, the last indications we heard from Clark were that he did still want to publish at least some books under the GSL. However, his statements about that didn't seem to be definitive due to some of the license restrictions (e.g. you can't redefine terms, so if Clark's _Advanced Player's Guide_ has druids, and then the GSL SRD updated to includes druids, Clark has to change his book), and he's been silent ever since, leaving the situation ambiguous for Necromancer.

So thus far, of the "big five," it's one "yea" vote, two "nay" votes, and two apparently undecided.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This, of course, turns out to be patently false.  I hope no one ponied up $5 grand on the basis of this claim.....either because they saw this claim before ponying up the money, or because this was the "OGL" that was included in the early adopters kit.
> 
> Wasn't the early adopter's kit really late, btw?



No one paid the $5000. We were all waiting on the GSL that was never delivered.

If you look at any of the many threads since that initial press release up until April when the early buy-in period was eliminated, it is clear that publishers were waiting on delivery of the license to review first. 

Here's a couple relevant threads, but there's many:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223988

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4118634

Even setting aside the digging around in EN World forums, unless Wolfgang Baur was confused or lying to us, communication directly with WotC was:

1) Get $5000 (Open Design did that, presumably Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman, Mongoose, and others were ready with that as well)

2) Contact WotC rep and indicate interest  (Open Design did this, presumably the others did as well)

3) Sign NDAs (Open Design did this, presumably the others did as well)

4) WotC delivers the OGL/GSL to the publishers who indicated interest. (As we all know this never happened.)

5) *IF* the publisher accepts the OGL/GSL, *THEN* they pay the $5000 for the rules and the right to publish in the exclusivity period. (*This never happened because #4 never happened.*)

6) WotC mails 3 hard copies of each of the books on non-photocopyable paper to the publisher. (Again, obviously didn't happen.)

Regardless of whatever the initial press release and other answers were that first day, within a week, the above is the process that was outlined directly from WotC to the publishers in question. (Or Wolfgang Baur was confused or lying.)

Now, there may have once been an offhand offer of "If you want to skip #4 for now since it's not ready, we can take the money and give you the rules." But it was more them trying to help publishers meet deadlines than to trick publishers into investing into 4e without seeing the license. And I don't know if it was even an official offer to all, or just a "let's see what we can work out" idea. But without the license, we opted not to (since, as stated above, we were waiting for the license *before* we paid). 

Or that might not have happened. I'm not sure, my memory under the NDA is hazy if you know what I mean. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Didn't Necromancer start planning 4e products on the basis of that announcement that, as it turns out, are now off the table because what WotC indicated _then_ bears scant resemblance to what WotC is saying _now_?
> 
> Or am I just dreaming?
> 
> ...



Well, from what I understand, Tome of Horrors 4e is off the table because Clark doesn't want to lock away that IP.

The Advanced Player's Guide is tricky because of the "can't redefine" issue and the assumption that eventually things like druids, monks, etc. will be added to the SRD later. But that's easily avoided by the lame name game of a "Druidic Protector" class, and such. 

But Clark's silence on his specific plans since the GSL release isn't comforting.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I didn't say a thing about this. I said the GSL is more restrictive, and as a result fewer companies are adopting it, and as a result of that there's less likely to be a glut of ill-conceived product.




You didn't, but it's a common twin to the "less products" meme as a putative goal of the GSL, so I lumped them together. IAE, there will be fewer ESTABLISHED companies using the GSL. There will be plenty of new ones, those with no IP to risk. I have a long list of ideas for PDFs for 4e, that are pretty much purely mechanical, of no value outside the 4e market (and, I hope, OF value within it, since I would need to hire an artist and someone to do layout and otherwise produce something better than a block of text if I want someone to shell out $1.99 for it...).

I doubt I'm alone. The field being clear of Large Players leaves everyone with Dreams Of Glory free to leap in...just as so many did in 2000/2001...and there will be an all new flood of people, including many willing to risk their IP on WOTCs whims. (I suspect there will be a class of publishers who do not "get" the GSL and think it offers the same rights and protections as the OGL...looking for some serious heartbreak in 2-3 years...)


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2008)

Psion said:


> Last 2 or 3 years, eh? I wonder how much of this is due too:
> 1) Aftershocks of the 3.5 transition.
> 2) Caution at buying new products amidst increasing rumors of 4e.



I'ts been almost a year, of course, but from my recollection, many of those were 3.0 books. So my personal guess is that #1 is a big culprit. Many publishers have said that 3.5 killed the majority of their 3.0 back catalog sales. Considering that 3.0 sales were originally in the many thousands, print runs were very large. After 3.5 killed the demand for those products in consumers' minds, many publishers, distributors, and stores were left with vast inventories of unsold 3.0 products.

I'm not sure how much #2 was a factor since when the 4e rumors were really heating up, many publishers had already folded or branched away from core d20 support. 

But I certainly agree that 3.5 had at least as much to do with the stacks of unsold products cluttering store shelves and bargain Gen Con booths as overlap in topics.

Besides, are there any examples of, say 3 hardcover books covering the same topic, released within, say a 2 year period? (which is very generous for a book's shelf life that isn't a core rulebook or core setting book). 

Plus as has been referenced above, how many of the overlapping topic books were WotC re-doing a topic that a third party publisher had already covered? 

Lastly, the references to adventures is pretty dubious. WotC claimed that publishers were no longer releasing many adventures, so they decided to get back into the adventure business. But it was dubious then and even moreso now. First off, the only major print publishers left providing d20 fantasy support around that time (as opposed to their own product lines) if I recall were Paizo (admittedly that was Dragon and Dungeon magazines then), Necromancer, and Goodman Games, and to some extent Green Ronin (although they were getting much more focused on their own lines). What are the main focus of all of those publishers? Adventures. I suppose Malhavoc was still around, but might have already been focusing on Ptolus, but might have still had some rule supplements in the mix.

Also, it would be interesting to compare when WotC announced that they were getting back into the adventure design business with what we know now about when they began 4e design. Right about the time WotC got back into the adventure to fill an unmet need of the consumers, was also about the time they also got into the alternative rules and less splatbook business. Filling the adventure niche sounds an awful lot like marketing spin to cover 4e design that, obviously, couldn't be announced yet.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing _from WotC_ directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.




To be clear.

The poison pill exists. WotC wrote the GSL with a poison pill clause. It is right there in their publicly accessible document. Accept the GSL and you agree not to publish or sell any OGL product from the same product line.

What changed from what Clark was told is merely the scope of the poison pill. He was told it was all of a company's OGL products and not restricted to product lines. Whether it is by product line, all of a company's OGL products, or all of a company's RPG products of any type, it would still be a poison pill clause.

What also changed was the addition of the survivability of the poison pill license term after termination of the license as part of the license.

It is true WotC never said it was a poison pill, they used a less negative sounding label in describing it. But they did create the poison pill, it exists now, and you can verify it for yourself directly.

Just so the matter is clear.


----------



## Delta (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing _from WotC_ directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.




Back in post #167, you asked for any evidence to a specific claim. Then you asked for a specific link. I've provided both of those and I'm not going to argue further. In short, my independent conclusion, having again read the posts at the the time, is the same as what dmmccoy originally stated.

By the same token, one could ask: What evidence do you have that Peterson was mistaken in what he said? Provide links, please. I'm confident that no one at WOTC ever said he was mistaken at the time, even though his comments were publicly plastered on the front page of ENWorld for days.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> business model




In the rpg hobby products and thus business models change. If this happens so for proprietary publishers imagine how much it weights on 3pp.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> is not yet provided by WotC.




Wotc outsold its 4e print runs. For now, for the time being they are covered and successful at 100% regarding their sales. I do not believe if they were OGL that they could print and sell more. 
Even for the future.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 17, 2008)

If anything, I would think the GSL will encourage producers to BE Fly-By-Night.  Get something out fast and dirty and try to sell it before WotC releases something that means you have to burn it.  Do Y before WotC changes X.

Nobody is going to want to produce attractive hardbound books with valuable content because if those books don't sell out of the first printing basically immediately, they're a ticking time bomb on the pallet.  It's hard to recoup investment on product that isn't moving quickly, but impossible to recoup investment on product you're legally obligated to destroy.  

I may be misunderstanding the GSL, but as far as I can see, really the best thing TO produce under the GSL is heaps of unmitigated blah.  You can create whole cloth classes and powers that WotC has not, but cannot use their stuff as a starting block, and should they EVER produce anything that is the same, you're required to stop selling the product that contains it.

People are going to be gambling on the GSL, and it isn't going to be a ton of the people with proven track records of quality and longevity, I bet.  They'll have a lot to lose.

--fje


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> Besides, are there any examples of, say 3 hardcover books covering the same topic, released within, say a 2 year period? (which is very generous for a book's shelf life that isn't a core rulebook or core setting book).




Monster books.

Hardcover monster books off the top of my head:

MM
FF
MMII
MM 3.5
MMIII
MMIV
MMV

Monsternomicon
Monsternomicon 3.5
Monsternomicon II

Creatures of Rokugan
Warlords of the Accordlands Monsters and Lairs

Monsters Handbook

Creature Collection
Creature Collection II
Creature Collection Revised
Creature Collection III

Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary

Denizens of Darkness
Denizens of Dread

Manual of Monsters
World of Warcraft Monster Guide

Advanced Bestiary
Book of Fiends

Monsters of Norrath
Monsters of Luclin

Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils
Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils II

Book of Templates Deluxe 3.5

Denizens of Avadnu

Liber Bestarius Book of Beasts

Monster Encyclopaedia 
Monster Encyclopaedia II Dark Bestiary

Conan Bestiary of the Hyborian Age

So 34 hardcover monster books over the last 8 or so years.

I bet there could be a similar list for campaign settings


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jul 17, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> Imagine the state of our industry if the publishers, distributors, and retailers had made all the profit from all the books that were sold, without having that profit sucked up by all the books that didn't sell! It's that potential that a more restrictive open license might achieve. The GSL might or might not prove effective in that regard--we'll all just have to wait and see!




Sure, it might achieve that, but at what cost? The loss of official support from Green Ronin, Paizo, and 

others? I see what you are getting at and it makes a lot of sense. Contrary to what people are saying here, there was a HUGE glut and we have unsold product ourselves. In almost every game store I visit there is a huge bargin bin of d20 material.

What doesn't make sense is why you would create a GSL that alienates your best supporters. Let's face it, all of the restrictions of the GSL are unappealing to larger companies. Green Ronin has said it. Paizo had said it. If I ran a bigger company and my RPG sales put bread on my table, I don't think I would go GSL either. Wizards is going to war and leaving their best soldiers behind. There is no way that this can possibly be construed to make an once of sense.

Getting a product carried through distribution for any d20 company whether it's 3rd Edition or 4th Edition is going to be really tough for any new company. Its probably going to require a consolidator like Impressions or a partnership with an existing company like Paizo. The distributors are at the best position to handle the upcoming glut, and I can imagine what Aldo would say if he was approached with a ton of new d20 publishers.

I'm all for the American Dream and small garage companies (like mine) being able to release d20 products and try to compete in the gaming industry, but if Wizards intended the GSL to help reduce the glut, don't you think they would have tried to alienate smaller garage publishers as opposed to the likes of Paizo and Green Ronin?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> As we know, however, 4e isn't published under an OGL.  So, even were this true (which, as has been pointed out), the one-time $5000 fee is required in order to get the kit, which was supposed to contain copies of the OGL.
> 
> Please note again, following the link you provided, you must meet the requirements of "a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee" in order to gain "copies of the OGL".




To be pedantic, it doesn't say you can't get the OGL ahead of the kit, it just says the kit includes it.

But, I mean, you've been told repeatedly what the order of events was and clung to your opinion regardless, so what's the point in debating further?




> This, of course, turns out to be patently false.  I hope no one ponied up $5 grand on the basis of this claim.....either because they saw this claim before ponying up the money, or because this was the "OGL" that was included in the early adopters kit.
> 
> Wasn't the early adopter's kit really late, btw?




Seriously, if you'd paid attention at the time you'd know that no one ponied up the $5k, because the product was never ready. There was no early adopters kit. I assume that internal wrangling at WotC in regards to what the GSL would be, eventually led to there being no GSL. IN addition, I think they were refining stuff to the very end and didn't feel the early adopters kit would matter.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> I'ts been almost a year, of course, but from my recollection, many of those were 3.0 books. So my personal guess is that #1 is a big culprit. Many publishers have said that 3.5 killed the majority of their 3.0 back catalog sales. Considering that 3.0 sales were originally in the many thousands, print runs were very large. After 3.5 killed the demand for those products in consumers' minds, many publishers, distributors, and stores were left with vast inventories of unsold 3.0 products.




From what I recall, the glut ended before 3.5 was announced. The fact is, publishers published too many books, distributors bought too many books, and gamestores ordered too many at a time. Heck, 3.5e was an excellent time for gamestores to "trim the fat" and cut the price of all 3e stuff and not order more, but most just left it on the shelf and complained about it.

IMO, the D20 Boom was an artifical high that basically existed solely due to accounting tricks and using up available cash. Like the GR problem where their (er, Fulfillment/ printer? something, I forget) screwed them over for money. It's like the industry was floating checks for 2 years and then when stuff came due, it all crashed.

When 3.5 was announced, publishers were given a leadtime of around 9 months notice, and provided copies of the game probably 4 months ahead of release, or thereabouts. Certainly not enough time to come up with products from scratch, but delaying some products in order to upgrade would have been more efficient than trying to throw something else on the market.

IN addition, by that point I think everyone had realized the books weren't "evergreen" products. If most of your print run sells in the first month, having a 3 year supply isn't going to help.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm sorry, but the idea that this "glut" business being a problem with the OGL is total nonsense, regardless of the credentials of those promoting it. And even if there is a grain of truth in the assertion, the GSL simply doesn't solve that problem.

My observation is that there are two primary reasons for the so-called "glut":
1) The 3.0/3.5 transition, which is totally in WotC's corner, so blaming this on publishers is ridiculous.
2) A slew of poor quality products. Look at the years-old products that are still on the shelves of gamestores - most are either 3.0 products, or they're just plain _bad_ products. High quality products move, regardless of whether there are similar products on the shelves or not (and quality or lack thereof isn't guaranteed by the name of the publisher). Does the GSL provide for quality control? Not proactively, no. I suppose it could be used that way reactively if WotC "asked" the licensee to pull the product, but that is hardly efficient quality control.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> Sure, it might achieve that, but at what cost? The loss of official support from Green Ronin, Paizo, and
> 
> others?




Well, I see this not as a cost for Wotc. On the contrary I see it more beneficial for the hobby. Besides D20 was a more flexible universal system that could handle more proliferation and glut than what 4e can. 


JVisgaitis said:


> Wizards is going to war and leaving their best soldiers behind. There is no way that this can possibly be construed to make an once of sense.



I disagree. Their front is to capitalize and profit as much as they can for 4e and I doubt these heavy duty soldiers would be of significant more help than their logistic weight. 



JVisgaitis said:


> I'm all for the American Dream and small garage companies (like mine) being able to release d20 products and try to compete in the gaming industry, but if Wizards intended the GSL to help reduce the glut, don't you think they would have tried to alienate smaller garage publishers as opposed to the likes of Paizo and Green Ronin?




No other way to do this than special brand licenses on certain product lines. Perhaps Wotc sees not such a worthy case right now from what we know.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

Doublep


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> My basic point is that 20% of the 5 large companies known for quality that felt that the old business model acceptable to work with do not feel that the current model is acceptable. 80% are either going other routes or are not announcing what they are doing.






Alzrius said:


> Goodman Games ... seems to indicate that they're not using the GSL. However, they've also announced that they're canceling their 3.5 DCC line, which seems to be in line with the GSL.
> 
> Necromancer Games [has] been silent




Necro hasn't announced if they are or are not GSL compliant or not. Neither has Goodman. That's my basic point. They are "not announcing what they are doing." So from a strict, Go/No-Go standpoint of the License, we have confirmation of 1 being Go and 4 are either No-Go or unannounced. 

Its been a month. There has been enough time for Mongoose to be apply and be approved. If Goodman and Necro were going to do so, they probably would have done so by now. 

As for Goodman having a 50% sell off of the DCCs well, that could simply be a "trying to clear the warehouse before the clock runs out on the d20 license," or maybe trying to quickly generate additional revenue for large print runs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> No one paid the $5000. We were all waiting on the GSL that was never delivered.




Thank you for the insight, and I'll take a look at the threads that you linked to.



> Well, from what I understand, Tome of Horrors 4e is off the table because Clark doesn't want to lock away that IP.
> 
> The Advanced Player's Guide is tricky because of the "can't redefine" issue and the assumption that eventually things like druids, monks, etc. will be added to the SRD later. But that's easily avoided by the lame name game of a "Druidic Protector" class, and such.
> 
> But Clark's silence on his specific plans since the GSL release isn't comforting.




Agree.

Clark being on board was the one real ray of light in the 4e tunnel.  

Of course, if Clark sticks with 3e or a modified 3e, that will probably end up much, much better for me!  


RC


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

Lizard said:


> A simple question (or maybe two, not sure)
> 
> For all those claiming "glut" and "quality" were the motivators behind the change from the OGL/STL to the GSL, answer me this:
> 
> ...




By providing additional onerous terms such as OGL product line poison pill that continues after termination, termination of products using terms defined in future updates of the GSL, at will changing of terms, etc. the GSL can narrow down the pool of licensed 4e product creators or products that creators will be willing to make under the GSL compared to what they were willing to make under the OGL.

Therefore the GSL can reduce the number of 4e 3pp products. This reduces the volume of product glut.

Similarly the GSL can delay the release of 4e 3pp products, leading to less initial glut.

It does nothing, however, to drive up the quality of 3pp products or drive them to fill niches not filled by WotC.

The restrictions about what types of things you can do or not do seems to drive 3pp to create things that compete directly with WotC products.

Straight up adventures seem fine as do class/race/power splat books, monster books, and most campaign settings that correspond to baseline D&D assumptions. (In other words the same types of things that wizards is planning to put out).

On second thought, the delay of publishing can be seen as a drive towards quality, to force 3pp to wait a bit before publishing any 4e GSL books gives them some extra time to get familiar with the rules before they write supplements for them.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> As for Goodman having a 50% sell off of the DCCs well, that could simply be a "trying to clear the warehouse before the clock runs out on the d20 license," or maybe trying to quickly generate additional revenue for large print runs.





Except that for the warehouse argument it is not a physical warehouse sale to clear up warehouse space but a pdf sale in which they anounced they will discontinue selling pdfs of this product line in the future. 

Also it is just this one d20 product line of theirs that they are selling, which they coincidentally anounced they will be making 4e products as a continuation of the line. The sale does not extend to any of their other multiple d20 lines for which they have not anounced any plans to go 4e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> But, I mean, you've been told repeatedly what the order of events was and clung to your opinion regardless, so what's the point in debating further?




Accepting evidence on the basis of authority ("you've been told repeatedly...") depends upon one trusting the validity of that authority in the case in question.

As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him.  Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.



> Seriously, if you'd paid attention at the time you'd know that no one ponied up the $5k, because the product was never ready. There was no early adopters kit.




I agree with you that very likely "they were refining stuff to the very end", but I again point you to kenmarable's perhaps-wrong, fuzzy NDA memory that 



			
				kenmarable said:
			
		

> Now, there may have once been an offhand offer of "If you want to skip #4 for now since it's not ready, we can take the money and give you the rules." But it was more them trying to help publishers meet deadlines than to trick publishers into investing into 4e without seeing the license. And I don't know if it was even an official offer to all, or just a "let's see what we can work out" idea. But without the license, we opted not to (since, as stated above, we were waiting for the license before we paid).
> 
> Or that might not have happened. I'm not sure, my memory under the NDA is hazy if you know what I mean.




If we examine what might have happened (NDA memories being hazy and all that) without ascribing motive, there may have been an offhand offer to take the $5,000, give the publishers the rules, and let them see the GSL later, which the publishers declined since they we were waiting for the license before they paid.

This jibes quite well with what Clark said, IMHO, and which WotC never contradicted.  It also jibes with the WotC press release (although not with the Q&A telephone conference reported thereafter...which is not, however, a WotC statement AFAICT).  

So, from my viewpoint, the jury is still very much out.  But I will examine the threads ken provided, as I said, and perhaps that examination will change my mind.  Or perhaps it will not.  Either way, repeatedly stating your opinion/interpretation as fact is not sufficient to change my mind, you are correct.  Any more than the repeated assertation that 4e wasn't coming soon was enough to sway my opinion that the evidence suggested that it was, or the repeated assertation that 4e would be published under the OGL was sufficient to sway me from the evidence that it would not be.




RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

Voadam said:


> By providing additional onerous terms such as OGL product line poison pill that continues after termination, termination of products using terms defined in future updates of the GSL, at will changing of terms, etc. the GSL can narrow down the pool of licensed 4e product creators or products that creators will be willing to make under the GSL compared to what they were willing to make under the OGL.





That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP.  It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.

RC


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jul 17, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I disagree. Their front is to capitalize and profit as much as they can for 4e and I doubt these heavy duty soldiers would be of significant more help than their logistic weight.




How many people have said they would switch if Green Ronin or Paizo was on board? You'd have respected companies not only releasing products for their system, you'd also not have so much negative press generated through threads like this. That's a win win in my book.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Accepting evidence on the basis of authority ("you've been told repeatedly...") depends upon one trusting the validity of that authority in the case in question.




Everyone involved said it was one way, and you still say it was another. Erik Mona commented on it in another thread, it's been commented on here. The only thing to say that they wanted money before seeing the OGL was the press release which did not specifically say you couldn't see the OGL first.



> As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him.



Orcus comment was about the Poison Pull, right? No where does Orcus say you had to pay before you could see the OGL? I'm not debating what Orcus said about the poison pill, I'm just saying that the "pay up front so we can sneak stuff in on you, ha ha ha!" stuff you've got going is totally unsupported by the events of the timeframe.




> Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.




Again, there was no payment, there was no early release. It was a plan which (much like DDI) fell apart before seeing completion. The plan as originally stated, and only ever existed as, was for them to sign an NDA, see the OGL, pay money and see the SRD/ game.





> So, from my viewpoint, the jury is still very much out.  But I will examine the threads ken provided, as I said, and perhaps that examination will change my mind.  Or perhaps it will not.  Either way, repeatedly stating your opinion/interpretation as fact is not sufficient to change my mind, you are correct.




I just don't know where you've gotten the "pay us, then we'll tell you the terms" thing that you've been asserting. The only place I've seen it is on this board, and it has always been pointed out to be wrong by those engaged in the process at that time.



> Any more than the repeated assertation that 4e wasn't coming soon was enough to sway my opinion that the evidence suggested that it was




disingenuous though, as folks said it was coming in 05, 06, 07 and finally some folks were right and it came in 08. I can say 5e is coming, and eventually I'll be right also.



> , or the repeated assertation that 4e would be published under the OGL was sufficient to sway me from the evidence that it would not be.




I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP.  It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.
> 
> RC




Definetly it opens it up to a much more reactive way. Sure if Bob's Games cranks out 5 crappy products real fast they may stop future stuff, but it's a little late then.

In addition, hopefully the "illusion" of 4e having "better content for 3rd party" doesn't convince distributors and such to go overboard again, hoping for the cash bonanza.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP.  It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.
> 
> RC




I do not think it opens the door any wider than it was under the OGL during the 3e days.

The OGL provided significant incentives to publish 3e stuff. The GSL has a lot more built in drawbacks to publish 4e stuff than the OGL had to publish 3e stuff and does not provide as many incentives to do so. 

The GSL does provide authorization to say compatible with D&D though which even the d20 stl did not, though I don't believe this is that big of an incentive to use the GSL.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.




Originally they said it would be issued under the OGL, then they were revetting their policy on open gaming, then we got hints about the GSL, then the surprise final GSL.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The GSL has far more serious restrictions if you are an established company with strong IP.  If you are a fly-by-nighter who doesn't care about your IP, the GSL has no real restrictions to you whatsoever.




Only in regard to using that IP in the OGL.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him.  Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.



Just make sure you are keeping the issues separate. There is issue #1: "Publishers had to pay to see the GSL", which I was trying to point out was never the case. And issue #2: "Original poison pill understanding made public by Clark was company by company, not product line by product line".

Important to keep those separate since they happened months apart if I recall. The whole poison pill thing didn't come up until after they had already cancelled the failed Phase 1/Phase 2 publisher plan.

Please realize that I actually don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I originally was just trying to address the historical facts of the "NDA > GSL > $5000 > Rules" plan, as opposed to the "NDA > $5000 > GSL & Rules" plan since I see the misconception repeated a lot. That's all. 

And personally, concerning issue #2, from what people said during and after the situation, and my opinions of those people, I _personally believe_ that it was a misunderstanding among WotC internal staff over the not 100% final GSL. Even Linae in a single thread gave replies that were, to me, contradictory and confusing that both denied what Clark said and supported it as if people were talking right past each other and just getting more confused.

That's just my opinion, and without access to the internal document and discussions, everything else is speculation. With many of these cases, silence isn't necessarily affirming considering how hot the issue was and how much every little word was being ripped into. Rouse even said he was simply not going to comment until he had the final approved by everyone document in black & white in front of him to avoid any miscommunication and misunderstanding. (I'm too busy at work to dig up that particular post, but it's right in the same time frame on one of the main EN World threads about it, if I recall.)



Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with you that very likely "they were refining stuff to the very end", but I again point you to kenmarable's perhaps-wrong, fuzzy NDA memory that



Try not to read too much into that, however. It was second hand information (although directly second hand, and not third or fourth or "someone posted second hand info on EN World" information). And it does support the "nothing dirty going on, they just couldn't get the license done fast enough" theory in my mind.

Either way, the GSL we have, is the GSL we have. Whatever the history, whatever variations it went through, it is out there for publishers to review and decide to use or not.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> Back in post #167, you asked for any evidence to a specific claim. Then you asked for a specific link. I've provided both of those and I'm not going to argue further. In short, my independent conclusion, having again read the posts at the the time, is the same as what dmmccoy originally stated.



I'm not arguing, I'm trying to be as clear on the facts as it's possible to be, given the paucity of publicly available information about what was going on with the OGL/GSL between January and April.

(A process not made easier by the fact that the link you gave led to something _very _different from what you initially described; no "WotC spokesman" ever seems to have given a response anything like what you at first talked about.)



> By the same token, one could ask: What evidence do you have that Peterson was mistaken in what he said? Provide links, please.



 The fact that what was released a few days later was so different from what he described.







> I'm confident that no one at WOTC ever said he was mistaken at the time, even though his comments were publicly plastered on the front page of ENWorld for days.



Perhaps not, but it's worth pointing out, and I may as well do it here, that any time there's lawyers and contracts involved, it is, sadly, unrealistic to expect comments - even simple corrections - to arrive as quickly or in as clear a form as we'd all ideally prefer. We got spoiled by the WotC of eight years ago being a rare exception to that; we'd all like to see that level of openness continue but for reasons known only to itself, today's WotC only rarely chooses to communicate that way anymore. That's why determining what actually happened with the GSL is even an open question in the first place. As much as I may dislike the change in WotC's way of communicating (or failing to), though, I'd like to only blame them for things they've actually _done_.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.



Actually, going back to the original announcement and for quite a while after that, they did say they were going to use the OGL. Consequently, many assumed it might be as open as 3.x was (especially since you can use any version of the OGL with an OGL product, so "updates" are largely irrelevant unless you add more benefit than restriction to entice publishers to use a later OGL).

However, that was probably more like Princess Bride - "You keep saying that, but I don't think that means what you think it means." So, to be fair, WotC never said it would be as open as 3.x, but their misunderstanding of the OGL and improper use of the term "open gaming" did lead many to that less restricted conclusion until all of the delays and associated nonsense made the picture more dim.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2008)

Voadam said:


> Monster books.
> 
> Hardcover monster books off the top of my head:
> {snip}
> ...



*slaps head* Oh, well, yeah, there's the monster book niche.

I'd say campaign settings are a toss up for me, since on one hand they all fill the "campaign setting" niche, but on the other hand, tastes in campaign settings vary so much, that the niches might be more granular into "high fantasy campaigns", "grim and gritty campaigns", "horror campaigns". I dunno. Either way, you are right.

My brain was mainly in the "dwarf splatbook", "wizard splatbook", "artic environment splatbook" mode. I couldn't think of many print books that had too much overlap in each of those areas, at least without being years apart.

But yeah, there was a crapload of monster books. Nice work compiling that list, I might need to save it for my shopping list (if I can weed out the junk from the good). Oh, and don't forget the Bestiary of Loerem. I gotta plug it since I had a couple critters in there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

Voadam said:


> I do not think it opens the door any wider than it was under the OGL during the 3e days.




Depends on when you mean.

The OGL initially allowed a lot of startups to, erm, start up.  Then consumers (through the magic of capitalism) seperated the wheat from the chaff.  Now, if the GSL was worded in such a way as to retain the wheat, there would be less incentive for the chaff.  OTOH, if you lose the wheat because of your (dungeons &) draconian policies, you create a vaccuum that new companies can fill.  Because of those policies, the table is more open to those who don't care about the long-term success of any particular product line.

So, yes, what I expect is something rather like the early days of 3e, but with far less wheat overall because those who are capable of developing something that provides longer-term security are likely to be doing that instead.

Also, a lot more pdf-only products.  I'm sure some folks at least have learned from the last time around this particular track.




RC


P.S.:  Speaking of things that I was told before, repeatedly:  One of them was that I was nuts to claim that 3e's prep time was substantially longer than that of previous editions.  Funny how times change, eh?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Only in regard to using that IP in the OGL.




You seem to be making the assumption that a company might not want to go back if 5e is even farther from the root assumptions of D&D.  Or if, say, 6e has a fee you must pay WotC for every product you produce.  Or if, say, 7e is an OGL game.  Or if you want to produce a version for C&C or True20.

I, for one, view the limitation that you can never again use that IP in an OGL game as an extremely limiting.  It links your ship very closely to WotC.  And, since WotC can change the terms without warning, you might discover one day that use of your IP is far more limited than you bargained for.

RC


----------



## RedShirtNo5 (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Please note again, following the link you provided, you must meet the requirements of "a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee" in order to gain "copies of the OGL".



Since the original statement says the OGL is part of the kit, and doesn't say there are other ways to get the OGL, it follows that there are no other ways to get the OGL. Furthermore, the Q&A is advice, not errata. Therefore under the primary source rule, the original statement is controlling. Good solid RAW literalist approach.



Raven Crowking said:


> and later, admit that the answer to Question #2 was wrong



Where's this? Yes, they later admitted that it is a GSL rather than an OGL, and yes they later scrapped the entire phase 1 concept because of the delays in the GSL, but I've seen no admission on the issue of whether publishers had to pay to see the license.


----------



## yogipsu (Jul 17, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?
> 
> WotC taught you well.




This line of thinking is terribly misguided.

Generally speaking, in order to remain in business and produce what you're passionate about, you need to remain profitable.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> I couldn't think of many print books that had too much overlap in each of those areas, at least without being years apart.




The worst glut, to me, was the Drow glut...

Complete Drow
Sheoleth - City of the Drow
The Quintessential Drow
Encyclopaedia Arcane: Drow Magic
The Tome of Drow Lore
Drow Wars
Dezzavold: Fortress of the Drow
Advanced Race Codex: Drow
Plot & Poison: A Guidebook to Drow


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> How many people have said they would switch if Green Ronin or Paizo was on board? You'd have respected companies not only releasing products for their system, you'd also not have so much negative press generated through threads like this. That's a win win in my book.




As I said above I do not believe this plan would not make a difference to Wotc's selling power for now. They outsold current 4e print runs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> Just make sure you are keeping the issues separate. There is issue #1: "Publishers had to pay to see the GSL", which I was trying to point out was never the case. And issue #2: "Original poison pill understanding made public by Clark was company by company, not product line by product line".




I had a great response, but EnWorld ate it.  Let me try again.

Since you were there, and I was not, I am going to take your word for it.  However, I will point out that it was probably legal who drafted the press release, and it was probably customer rep/pr that spoke to you.  And, if so, what legal drafted definitely says "OGL is part of kit, for which you pay $5 grand", and it seemed definite enough that someone asked about it specifically, as the #2 question.  It was then, in all probability, someone who did not draft the release statement who answered question #2 in a way that made more sense from a business/customer service standpoint.

The person who answered question #2 effectively put WotC on the hook to produce the OGL in time to allow for early adoption, and WotC didn't do it.

This still (IMHO) points to the press release being accurate, and the un-followed-up-on "clarification" being an error on the part of the rep.  Otherwise, why didn't WotC produce the OGL/GSL?  Why wait so long to reveal it at all?

I suppose I have an easier time believing in WotC planning in a way that benefits them (but not necessarily us), more than I do that WotC is really that incompetent.

But I could be wrong.



> And personally, concerning issue #2, from what people said during and after the situation, and my opinions of those people, I _personally believe_ that it was a misunderstanding among WotC internal staff over the not 100% final GSL.




Me too.  I believe that the guy who answered question #2 failed to grasp properly what the legal team had written, and may well have been raked over the coals for the answer he gave.  That might well be why "Rouse even said he was simply not going to comment until he had the final approved by everyone document in black & white in front of him to avoid any miscommunication and misunderstanding."

But, as you say, this is all speculation.



> Either way, the GSL we have, is the GSL we have.





True.  And I think it is a stinker.


RC


----------



## Wicht (Jul 17, 2008)

jeffh said:


> The fact that what was released a few days later was so different from what he described.




"A few days" is not quite how I remember it happening.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 17, 2008)

Voadam said:


> Except that for the warehouse argument it is not a physical warehouse sale to clear up warehouse space but a pdf sale in which they anounced they will discontinue selling pdfs of this product line in the future.




And its also a physical sale too.  Check their website.  Just as the d20 license expiration says.  Stuff in their warehouse cannot be sold, stuff in the product chain is considered sold.  PDFs is just them trying to sell as much as they possibly can before the d20 date expires.  

Now if they're trying to do a large print run of something, that might motivate them to sell off some stock quicker by having the sale now as opposed to Nov-Dec.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> You seem to be making the assumption that a company might not want to go back if 5e is even farther from the root assumptions of D&D.  Or if, say, 6e has a fee you must pay WotC for every product you produce.  Or if, say, 7e is an OGL game.  Or if you want to produce a version for C&C or True20.




I'm not making any assumptions. Please stop assuming I am. 

You said:



> The GSL has far more serious restrictions if you are an established company with strong IP. If you are a fly-by-nighter who doesn't care about your IP, the GSL has no real restrictions to you whatsoever.




My responce was that your IP is only limited with regard to the OGL. 



> I, for one, view the limitation that you can never again use that IP in an OGL game as an extremely limiting.  It links your ship very closely to WotC.  And, since WotC can change the terms without warning, you might discover one day that use of your IP is far more limited than you bargained for.RC




I'm only pointing out that the GSL limits your use of IP in the OGL. It's up to each company to decide how important the OGL is to their business.

There are a number of Companies out there that do not design for the OGL, and they have valuble IP as well. Inability to use the OGL doesn't nessesarily equal bad license.

If it does for you, awesome, don't use it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 17, 2008)

HeapThaumaturgist said:


> If anything, I would think the GSL will encourage producers to BE Fly-By-Night.  Get something out fast and dirty ...
> 
> Nobody is going to want to produce attractive hardbound books with valuable content because if those books don't sell out of the first printing basically immediately, they're a ticking time bomb on the pallet.  It's hard to recoup investment on product that isn't moving quickly, but impossible to recoup investment on product you're legally obligated to destroy.




Bingo.



> I may be misunderstanding the GSL, but as far as I can see, really the best thing TO produce under the GSL is heaps of unmitigated blah.




... in PDF format.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

kenmarable said:


> But yeah, there was a crapload of monster books. Nice work compiling that list, I might need to save it for my shopping list (if I can weed out the junk from the good). Oh, and don't forget the Bestiary of Loerem. I gotta plug it since I had a couple critters in there.




Gah, and I own BoL and like it as well (great source of wierd non magical fantasy beasties). I wish they would put it out in pdf again (they originally had it available when it was just on DTRPG but I haven't seen it there since the merger years ago and did not grab it before it dissapeared). I think I forgot the Krynn Bestiary one as well. And Dangerous Denizens of Tellene by Kenzer.

Oh well, I did say the list was off the top of my head. 

Which ones did you write?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 17, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> I'm all for the American Dream and small garage companies (like mine) being able to release d20 products and try to compete in the gaming industry, but if Wizards intended the GSL to help reduce the glut, don't you think they would have tried to alienate smaller garage publishers as opposed to the likes of Paizo and Green Ronin?




Paizo and Green Ronin both had their focus on other games, quite a bit before the GSL came out. I doubt WotC saw them as the "must have with us to 4e", if WotC saw any 3PP that way at all. While both companies produce great material on a regular basis, I think we can agree that any foray those two companies had made into 4e, had the GSL been much more acceptable, would probably have been half-hearted, considering they have their own line of games.

Cheers


----------



## BryonD (Jul 17, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I think we can agree that any foray those two companies had made into 4e, had the GSL been much more acceptable, would probably have been half-hearted, considering they have their own line of games.



That is crazy talk.
They would either go for the best possible quality or not go at all.
That choice would depend on the market.  And who knows how that choice would have gone were it not for the GSL.  (Paizo made their call early, kudos for their foresight)  The GSL just made other issues moot.
But the claim that they would go in half-hearted is absurd and rather insulting to their professionalism.

Further, if GR were doing 4E AND M&M, that would support 4E a hell of a lot more than GR doing M&M and NOT 4E.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 17, 2008)

BryonD said:


> That is crazy talk.
> They would either go for the best possible quality or not go at all.
> That choice would depend on the market.  And who knows how that choice would have gone were it not for the GSL.  (Paizo made their call early, kudos for their foresight)  The GSL just made other issues moot.
> But the claim that they would go in half-hearted is absurd and rather insulting to their professionalism.
> ...




Sorry, language thingy there. When I say half-hearted, I meant by the amount, not the quality.

And I agree, I think Paizo made the smart move. Eric, or whoever is the brains over there, knew from history that quite a few players always refused to switch over, and for the first time ever, here was the possibility of catering to those players, giving Paizo a much larger cut than they could every hope for, making magazines or adventures for WotC's game. I also think it was planned way before it was announced, and that the "it's because WotC was slow"-excuse is just that, a convenient excuse.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 17, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That choice would depend on the market.




What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL. 

Ever.

I think that choice will be based on the market as well. If the market seems to be suggesting that people are making lots of money utilizing the GSL, I'm sure many companies will change their tune.

Not that I'm suggesting the GSL WILL achieve this outcome... I just find it interesting.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 17, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, language thingy there. When I say half-hearted, I meant by the amount, not the quality.



Ah, fair enough.  

I think if it sold well enough they would drop everything else and do that.  I don't think that would happen.  But again, it is market thing.

Still, I think GR doing M&M and one single 4E product would be some small amount better for WotC than GR doing no 4E product.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL.
> 
> Ever.



How did you get that from my post?


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> And its also a physical sale too.  Check their website.  Just as the d20 license expiration says.  Stuff in their warehouse cannot be sold, stuff in the product chain is considered sold.  PDFs is just them trying to sell as much as they possibly can before the d20 date expires.
> 
> Now if they're trying to do a large print run of something, that might motivate them to sell off some stock quicker by having the sale now as opposed to Nov-Dec.




www.goodman-games.com

The PDF sale came first. This physical book sale is a more recent extension of that pdf sale after their ennie nomination. It does not include any of their other numerous d20 logo physical books, just as the pdf one does not apply to their other d20 logo pdfs and they do not say they are retiring anything besides the DCC OGL product line.



> In celebration of our ENnie  nominations for “Best Adventure” and “Best Cartography”, our sale on 3.5 DCC modules is extended to include print products!"



and


> The End is Near Sale
> Later this year we will be discontinuing our 3.5 Dungeon Crawl Classics, and until then you will have a golden opportunity to purchase what’s left at a great price.





It still looks to me like this is due to a plan to put out a GSL DCC which will require the cessation of any sales by Goodman of the DCC product line.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 17, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Still, I think GR doing M&M and one single 4E product would be some small amount better for WotC than GR doing no 4E product.




GR is doing one single 4e product. Their 4e character sheets. Put out under the OGL and not the GSL.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 17, 2008)

BryonD said:


> How did you get that from my post?




Sorry didn't mean to attribute that you were specifically saying that. You were just talking about the market driving their actions as far as 4e products without the GSL were concerned, and I think the market would/will still dictate their actions for products for 4e with the GSL.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

Scribble said:


> What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL.
> 
> Ever.





I would bet that a lot of companies would sign a GSL that wasn't so one-sided and (frankly) potentially damaging to the company signing.  It isn't WOtC that these companies are saying No to.  It is the GSL as written.

If enough folks refused to buy into a non-OGL 4e, I'd bet beans that WotC would eventually say No to the GSL, too.  

Thinking about this more, I am imagining that the reason WotC is so adamant about the product/line OGL thing is concern that portions of 4e will become OGC by this sort of admixture.  And, if you wanted to kill off the OGL, I can see why this might be worrisome.

But I still believe that there has to be a more equitable GSL possible.  Just like I think the Gleemax terms of usage are utterly craptacular.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 18, 2008)

yogipsu said:


> DaveMage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are correct - and I agree with you.  You are, however, misinterpreting my post, which meant to indicate that *only* doing what's best for the bottom line (as opposed to making what you're passionate about) is not the best way to operate.

And it was very snarky of me to respond like this to Charles Ryan, so Charles, please accept my apology - I was out of line.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would bet that a lot of companies would sign a GSL that wasn't so one-sided and (frankly) potentially damaging to the company signing.  It isn't WOtC that these companies are saying No to.  It is the GSL as written.




It isn't in WoTC's best interest though to simply entice people to sign the GSL. They want people to support D&D.



> If enough folks refused to buy into a non-OGL 4e, I'd bet beans that WotC would eventually say No to the GSL, too.




Probably. I doubt that will happen though. 

In my own case? I like 4e. In my opinion it's fun, and it matches my play style. it doesn't matetr to me whether or not it' OGL or GSL or XYZ. I play lots of non-ogl games... well I used to, but I have less time now that I;m an old man with a job n stuff.  

If other companies choose not to sign the GSL and choose not to support 4e, I bear tghem no ill will. I just pobably won';t buy products from them. Not because I'm mad or soemthing, but because right now my gaming dollars are going into 4e.



> Thinking about this more, I am imagining that the reason WotC is so adamant about the product/line OGL thing is concern that portions of 4e will become OGC by this sort of admixture.  And, if you wanted to kill off the OGL, I can see why this might be worrisome.




I agree. 4e is not OGL, and they don't want it to become OGL. I don't think there are any hidden motivations behind it though.



> But I still believe that there has to be a more equitable GSL possible.  Just like I think the Gleemax terms of usage are utterly craptacular.




Sure it's possible. Anything is. I doubt we'll see one. I get the feeling that the GSl was released as a "take it or leave it, but if you leave it, we don't care" thing.

I do, however, hope they manage to answer some of the questions out there though.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 18, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I didn't say a thing about this. I said the GSL is more restrictive, and as a result fewer companies are adopting it, and as a result of that there's less likely to be a glut of ill-conceived product.




And it will also mean that there will likely be less of a glut of well-conceived products....

Banshee


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 18, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> And it will also mean that there will likely be less of a glut of well-conceived products....




...which is a good thing, because a glut (when a market is flooded, making supply exceed demand) is a bad thing.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 18, 2008)

Psion said:


> Last 2 or 3 years, eh? I wonder how much of this is due too:
> 1) Aftershocks of the 3.5 transition.
> 2) Caution at buying new products amidst increasing rumors of 4e.




Among people I know (ie. my group of gamers) these were factors....

Many of my players were angry that 3.5 came out so soon after 3.0 and decided to boycott buying more products.

In more recent years, many of us curtailed buying products because of the rumours of 4E coming up.  We thought that we might be moving on to the new edition, and putting more money into books would be foolish.  Now, having seen 4E, I'm pretty confident I'm not changing, and many of my players have said the same thing.  So we're enjoying all those big sales 

Banshee


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jul 18, 2008)

Voadam said:


> It does not include any of their other numerous d20 logo physical books, just as the pdf one does not apply to their other d20 logo pdfs and they do not say they are retiring anything besides the DCC OGL product line.




Unless they plan on removing all the d20 logos from all their other products, they're going to have to do the same to the rest.


----------



## Turjan (Jul 18, 2008)

Scribble said:


> It isn't in WoTC's best interest though to simply entice people to sign the GSL. They want people to support D&D.



Honestly, I don't think that WoTC care one way or the other. The wording of the GSL is such as to discourage any company from steering to near to the production plans of core D&D itself and being able to kill any product off that does so. The only GSL product I know of so far illustrates this: the announced Mongoose book is pretty far removed from stuff you would expect to come from WotC, while at the same time working with the PHB.

Even if Charles Ryan repeated the story about the d20 glut that was bad for D&D and that the d20 companies didn't produce the right product to support D&D, I don't think this is true in the way he says this. Let's just look at the argument that the 3rd party companies didn't produce any adventures, as they were supposed to do. It's very easy to see that this argument doesn't hold any water. Even if we exclude the Dungeon magazine as official D&D product, we had at least two full lines of D&D aventures from Necromancer and Goodman Games at that time. The problem was not that nobody produced adventures, but that most WotC customers did not buy anything that didn't come from WotC at that point in the development.

Which means that the glut argument works somewhat indirectly. When WotC went back to publishing adventures themselves, the d20 market for direct D&D supplements had already mostly killed itself. At this point, only well-informed people bought quality 3rd party D&D supplements, and you cannot live on the dedicated internet crowd alone.

I can understand that some people at WotC think nowadays that any open gaming segment doesn't really contribute much to their bottom line, one way or the other. But, in the end, the GSL seems to indicate that WotC want to keep the major supplement train for themselves and leave only exotic topics to others.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 18, 2008)

Voadam said:


> GR is doing one single 4e product. Their 4e character sheets. Put out under the OGL and not the GSL.



Heh, ok.  You got me.
That makes things a small amount better for WotC.  

NOW....  If GR were doing TWO products for 4E and M&M, that would make things a little more better for WotC than GR doing just one things and M&M.


----------



## smetzger (Jul 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I have this sneaking suspicion that, although its the thing that random people on ENWorld complain about the most, the third party publishers aren't actually worried about the clause permitting WOTC to change the GSL.  Most of them have probably seen that sort of clause before, or dealt with that sort of business scenario before.  Its probably other stuff that bothers them.




Its in the d20 license.  But that license gave you 30 days to comply.  The GSL is an immediate revoke.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 18, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Necro hasn't announced if they are or are not GSL compliant or not. Neither has Goodman. That's my basic point. They are "not announcing what they are doing." So from a strict, Go/No-Go standpoint of the License, we have confirmation of 1 being Go and 4 are either No-Go or unannounced.
> 
> Its been a month. There has been enough time for Mongoose to be apply and be approved. If Goodman and Necro were going to do so, they probably would have done so by now.
> 
> As for Goodman having a 50% sell off of the DCCs well, that could simply be a "trying to clear the warehouse before the clock runs out on the d20 license," or maybe trying to quickly generate additional revenue for large print runs.





Necromancer Games is going 4E, just Tome of Horrors will be 3.5E/Pathfinder if anything other than what it currently is.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 18, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> The worst glut, to me, was the Drow glut...




Thanks for giving me a reason to dig the GSL. I'm still basically neutral towards, it but I'm all in favor of something to keep umpteen-billion drow sourcebooks from coming out.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 18, 2008)

The whole issue of a supposed glut is something I cannot get concerned about because as far as I know I have never seen a 3pp hold a gun to anyone's head and force a purchase. If you don't want it, don't buy it. The market will shake out the wheat from the chaff. 3pp who create good products will do well and survive, 3pp who create junk will fail.

IMO, WoTC helped the 3e glut along rather nicely with its constantly released sourcebooks that contained an endless stream of PrCs, feats and spells which IMO were often no better balanced, creative, innovative or imaginative that that produced by 3pp.

In some ways, the real glut was of PrCs and feats and not drow sourcebooks. The constant supply of new and shiney ability packages eventually made the core classes less and less attractive and caused DMs great consternation because the 3e mindset was that somehow if a DM said "no" he wasn't allowing his players the full D&D experience (whatever the hell that was). The glut of feats and PrCs allowed the creation of super-munchkin builds but this glut was driven by the market because players couldn't get enough of things.

3pp were certainly responsible for 3e/3.5e's glut, but WoTC was just as guilty if for different reasons.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## BeauNiddle (Jul 18, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> The whole issue of a supposed glut is something I cannot get concerned about because as far as I know I have never seen a 3pp hold a gun to anyone's head and force a purchase. If you don't want it, don't buy it. *The market will shake out the wheat from the chaff.* 3pp who create good products will do well and survive, 3pp who create junk will fail.




Bolded the important bit.

That's fine in theory but it's a bit more questionable in practice.

The problem is not, and never has been, the amount of product out there - it's the amount of product *sitting on store shelves*. For the hobbyist who knows what he's doing, does research and orders online (pdf or dead tree) then the 'glut' was good because it led to lots of very fine companies getting a break and hitting 'the big time'.

For the stores it was a problem. They had a lot of their cash tied up in books that wouldn't sell. They had store space taken up that they couldn't reuse. A casual purchaser who comes in to the store is confronted with a massive list of product and no way to pick between them. Worse yet the store owners might push the 'bad' products on them just to clear back stock.

People new to the hobby also faced the same problem. Which of the products whould they buy? If they got into the hobby were they expected to buy all of them? If they made a bad purchase should they throw it away and try again or should they leave the hobby (possibly permanently)?

The glut created a barrier of entry to the hobby and drained away resources from those who were going to stay. Every dollar spent on chaff was a dollar removed from the gaming pool.


----------



## amethal (Jul 18, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Necromancer Games is going 4E, just Tome of Horrors will be 3.5E/Pathfinder if anything other than what it currently is.



I'd say they are probably going GSL, whereas at one time I'd have said they were certainly going to.

At one time we were going to get Tome of Horrors, Alternative Players Handbook and Adventure Path.

Now the ToH is off the list. There are also concerns about whether the APH is possible (or at least sensible) under the GSL.

So far, the Adventure Path seems to still be a go.

Orcus's enthusiasm sold the ToH 4 to me even though I have no plans to switch to 4th edition. I really hope they produce 4th edition stuff because it would be such a shame to see all that enthusiasm finally drained away by WotC. I think they will, but its no longer a certainty in my opinion.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jul 18, 2008)

Indeed - Clarks silence and his less-than-steller view of the GSL does seem worrysome for the major 3PPs stance towards GSL.


----------



## The Cardinal (Jul 18, 2008)

Great news!

Paizo, GR - now, if Necro would follow, I'd be a very happy DM...

(...because then I'd only be waiting for Goodman to see the light...)


----------



## Lizard (Jul 18, 2008)

Dykstrav said:


> Thanks for giving me a reason to dig the GSL. I'm still basically neutral towards, it but I'm all in favor of something to keep umpteen-billion drow sourcebooks from coming out.




However, there's nothing in the GSL to prevent it. Indeed, since there's no ability to use other publisher's stuff, not only will there be a thousand Drow books, they'll all be incompatible...


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 18, 2008)

Lizard said:


> However, there's nothing in the GSL to prevent it. Indeed, since there's no ability to use other publisher's stuff, not only will there be a thousand Drow books, they'll all be incompatible...




Actually, there is something in the GSL to prevent it - the 4E SRD doesn't list drow as one of the monsters that 3pp's can use. The word "drow" only appears in the entry for "drow poison," and not in the monster list. And since the GSL forbids you to use monsters that aren't in the SRD, or redefine terms...well, that pretty much means there'll be zero 4E drow books.


----------



## Lizard (Jul 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Actually, there is something in the GSL to prevent it - the 4E SRD doesn't list drow as one of the monsters that 3pp's can use. The word "drow" only appears in the entry for "drow poison," and not in the monster list. And since the GSL forbids you to use monsters that aren't in the SRD, or redefine terms...well, that pretty much means there'll be zero 4E drow books.




So there will be books on "Cave Elves" or "Spider Elves" or whatever...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Actually, there is something in the GSL to prevent it - the 4E SRD doesn't list drow as one of the monsters that 3pp's can use. The word "drow" only appears in the entry for "drow poison," and not in the monster list. And since the GSL forbids you to use monsters that aren't in the SRD, or redefine terms...well, that pretty much means there'll be zero 4E drow books.




Huh?

If it's not listed in the SRD, then that opens the door wider to making your own.

But as Lizard pointed out-- just name it something different. I was surprised he missed "dark elves" but there you go.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 18, 2008)

Scribble said:


> What (I think) he's saying is that by placing restrictions on what can be done, it creates more of an incentive to look for the holes and fill them, as opposed to just re-inventing the wheel. (Whether or not you agree that it works, or is a good idea, is a different story.)



The problem wasn't reinventing the wheel, it was usually that third party guys were *pre*inventing the wheel.

They weren't redundent concepts for a book... until WotC came in and stepped on their toes.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 18, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Well, it's a bit of an ABAB experiment then.



I'm not sure what you mean by ABAB, but I'm going to assume that you mispelled ABBA and that the correct soundtrack for 4e games now includes a mandatory playing of "Dancing Queen."


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 18, 2008)

Psion said:


> Last 2 or 3 years, eh? I wonder how much of this is due too:
> 1) Aftershocks of the 3.5 transition.
> 2) Caution at buying new products amidst increasing rumors of 4e.



Good point.  We have to be very careful assigning causality to a single factor when plenty of other things were going on in the marketplace, and I think those two were much bigger than folks at WotC give them credit for being.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Huh?
> 
> If it's not listed in the SRD, then that opens the door wider to making your own.
> 
> But as Lizard pointed out-- just name it something different. I was surprised he missed "dark elves" but there you go.




Wider? How does it open the door wider? If it was at least in the SRD, you could use the word, and altered stat blocks for them (at least in terms of the alterations to it). Without it being there, you can't do that at all. That seems like the door is closed, not open wider.

There's something to be said for the renaming element, I suppose. But that doesn't really seem to make things much better, in terms of the original worry regarding third-party products. Now instead of several books about drow, you've got books about "cave elves" "spider elves" "reverse-albino elves" "dark elves" "shadow elves" and many others, none of which are compatible.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Wider? How does it open the door wider? If it was at least in the SRD, you could use the word, and altered stat blocks for them (at least in terms of the alterations to it). Without it being there, you can't do that at all. That seems like the door is closed, not open wider.




Are you suggesting that products using the GSL can only use words appearing in the SRD?  

That's going to make forming coherent sentences a bit of a trick.

Terms appearing in the SRD can be _used_ but not _altered_. 

Terms _not_ appearing in the SRD are free to be defined by the creator (at least until such time as WotC adds them to the SRD, at which point you may have to destroy your product).

At least, that's my recollection. I haven't read the GSL since the day it came out and my brain exploded.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Are you suggesting that products using the GSL can only use words appearing in the SRD?




My understanding is that part of the GSL also forbids you from using monsters - including the names - that appear in the Core Rulebooks but not the SRD (I believe that's part of "not redefining terms"). For example, no product that uses the GSL could have a "succubus" in any way, since that's be redefining the MM succubus.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Huh?
> 
> If it's not listed in the SRD, then that opens the door wider to making your own.
> 
> But as Lizard pointed out-- just name it something different. I was surprised he missed "dark elves" but there you go.




Simply copying the drow and slapping a new label on them, or using drow in defiance of the fact that they are not in the SRD will probably be cause of revocation of the GSL for that publisher.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 18, 2008)

Hobo said:


> The problem wasn't reinventing the wheel, it was usually that third party guys were *pre*inventing the wheel.
> 
> They weren't redundent concepts for a book... until WotC came in and stepped on their toes.





I think a lot of this disregards the whole "sell most of your books in 30 days" aspect. The main one that "got screwed" by a WotC book that I can think of is the arctic book (frost & fur? I forget) that came out when WotC did theirs.

Even then, the odds of a large, expensive book about chilly weather doesn't seem like a strong seller. It got great reviews, and I think the folks that would have bought it, still bought it for the most part, but that again dabbles in alternate history, so who can tell.

The good part about adventures in this market, is that someone can look at the plot synopsis and buy it or not based on that. With a splatbook, you may "have enough" or not want to chance buying from 3pp that your DM doesn't know.

The bad thing about adventures, which WotC never acknowledged really but was mentioned by 3pp, was Dungeon. 3-4 adventures a month for less than the price of one 3pp adventure. That means the 3pp adventure had to have a draw.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 18, 2008)

Turjan said:


> Honestly, I don't think that WoTC care one way or the other.




I agree. I doubt they care much at all if no one signs the GSL.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Terms not appearing in the SRD are free to be defined by the creator (at least until such time as WotC adds them to the SRD, at which point you may have to destroy your product).




Thats one of the things I hope WoTC answers soon... It says you can't redefine anything they've defined... But if you've already defined it, and then they come up with the new "official" defenition, is yours now redefining that official defenition? Or is it just offlimits to being redefined further (because the word is now in the SRD and allowed to be used by others.)

I kind of get the feeling it might be the latter, especially since they mention that you can't sue them if they come out with a product with stuff like yours in it.

But maybe that's just wishfull thinking on my part.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 18, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Thats one of the things I hope WoTC answers soon... It says you can't redefine anything they've defined... But if you've already defined it, and then they come up with the new "official" defenition, is yours now redefining that official defenition? Or is it just offlimits to being redefined further (because the word is now in the SRD and allowed to be used by others.)




I'm of a mind that they meant the original SRD for 4e, not "anything we may ever make", but at the same time that's one of the core issues with the GSL vs the OGL.
1) They can redefine it at will, so you are subject to the will of the then current GSL. If they say "oh, that only applies to the three core books", that's fine, but later on they may change their minds when they change their staff...

For me, the other big thing:
2) I find the GSL to be a regular legal document drafted by lawyers with obtuse writing styles that lend themselves to furthering the legal profession by requiring lawyers...
The OGL was a VERY simple thing, there may have been a little confusion here or there, but overall comparing the two, the GSL has the stink of Corporate Lawyers, the OGL has a more inviting feel to it.


But again, the simple matter is:
Jade Ronin, Inc (a wholly owned subsidiary of Green Ronin) makes 4e products, some of which license GR's properties of Freeport, all of which are 4e only.

Games For The Goodman, makes their line of adventures, Classic Dungeon Crawls. It is made only for 4e, and no version of the same adventure is made under the OGL...

The limitations are:
1) you can't share product
2) WotC might get pissy and revoke your GSL (or not approve it in the first place)

Sure the corporate shuffle might cost a little more, but it's negligible.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 18, 2008)

Hobo said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by ABAB, but I'm going to assume that you mispelled ABBA and that the correct soundtrack for 4e games now includes a mandatory playing of "Dancing Queen."




ABAB is a format for conducting experiments in psychology (and, I assume, other sciences).

Basically, A is your baseline condition.  You apply the experimental condition (B), and measure to see if you can detect a change.  At that point, you can't be sure if your change (if you detected one) was because of the experimental condition you introduced, or some other, unrelated factor you might not be aware of.

So, you switch back to A, your baseline, and see whether your measurements return to the baseline levels, like before you had experimental condition B.  Finally, you reinstitute your experimental condition (B), and measure to see if you replicate the change in your results.

If your results are modified in a similar manner in both B conditions, and the two A baselines are similar to each other, then it's more likely that your experimental condition (B) is actually related to the changes you're measuring.

P.S. and yes, I'm assuming that your post was sarcastic 

Banshee


----------



## Treebore (Jul 19, 2008)

amethal said:


> I'd say they are probably going GSL, whereas at one time I'd have said they were certainly going to.
> 
> At one time we were going to get Tome of Horrors, Alternative Players Handbook and Adventure Path.
> 
> ...




I am pretty sure we will see a full color 3E Pathfinder version, which will be more than satisfactory in my book.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 19, 2008)

Dykstrav said:


> Thanks for giving me a reason to dig the GSL. I'm still basically neutral towards, it but I'm all in favor of something to keep umpteen-billion drow sourcebooks from coming out.




I must confess I am a bit of a drow hater myself, but I really did like Plot & Poison which IMHO is a true gem of a third party book. If the GSL means we lose out on products like that or the next Midnight, or even the next BotR then it is truly a loss for the entire community.


----------



## Starglim (Jul 19, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> There's something to be said for the renaming element, I suppose. But that doesn't really seem to make things much better, in terms of the original worry regarding third-party products. Now instead of several books about drow, you've got books about "cave elves" "spider elves" "reverse-albino elves" "dark elves" "shadow elves" and many others, none of which are compatible.




That doesn't necessarily follow. If third party publishers wanted and had reason to do it, is there an obstacle to including SRD content under the GSL and third party IP under an open gaming licence, lower case, under clause 10.2? Thus (again, if the first publisher to put out a "black spider elf" sourcebook chose to do it) there could be a closed WotC drow description and a common open black spider elf description.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 19, 2008)

Starglim said:


> That doesn't necessarily follow. If third party publishers wanted and had reason to do it, is there an obstacle to including SRD content under the GSL and third party IP under an open gaming licence, lower case, under clause 10.2? Thus (again, if the first publisher to put out a "black spider elf" sourcebook chose to do it) there could be a closed WotC drow description and a common open black spider elf description.




That depends, but I'd say the very act of creating and releasing such a license would be quite an impediment in and of itself. 

That said, Roger Carbol recently tried doing something like this via a Creative Commons license. It's uncertain if that'd actually work, though. Reactions, over on this thread and this thread are uncertain, but that seems to maybe be the case.

Irregardless though, the fact that there's no such license in existence now for the GSL (the CC possibility notwithstanding), is in and of itself quite a deterrent to shared content among GSL publishers.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 19, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I made the comments Nicole brought up in reference to WotC's decision to get back into the adventure publishing business. At the time there was great demand for adventures, but only a couple 3PP were publishing them, whereas dozens of 3PPs were making harcover splatbooks, often on the same sorts of topics WotC was covering, often even cloning the WotC look and feel. Some of those books were real gems, to be sure--I own many a 3PP d20 book--but they were drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Since the 3PPs (I'm generalizing here) were not innovating or focusing on the opportunities in the marketplace, WotC changed course and re-entered the adventure business, along the way innovating with new adventure formats and product types.




Well, what would you expect? If Hasbro's bean-counters are smart enough to realize that there's a larger potential market for splatbooks than adventures, then of course other companies are going to try to get a piece of that pie. I'd say that's keeping an eye on the marketplace, though clearly not one set to exploit all opportunities (rather like WotC themselves until they finally decided to get back into the adventure biz). Let's put it another way, WotC would be foolish to assume they'd have that pie all to themselves or that 3PP would only confine themselves to other segments of the market.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 19, 2008)

Treebore said:


> I am also hopeful to see a proliferation of 3rd party products via copyright. I think the power of the internet will allow such companies to be more successful then ever before. I would love to see a new generation of Flying Buffalo, Judges Guild, etc... be born.




This is an interesting angle; I think with the GSL being so restrictive, we might get some small companies probing these waters. Of course, Hasbro has a lot more resources than TSR had to put them down - but every legal battle will cost them prestige in the market.

Interesting times.


----------



## delericho (Jul 19, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Simply copying the drow and slapping a new label on them, or using drow in defiance of the fact that they are not in the SRD will probably be cause of revocation of the GSL for that publisher.




Yep. As much as considering "what will the strict wording of the license allow us to do?", companies signing up to the GSL have to consider, "what will WotC allow us to do without revoking our license?"

WotC don't have any hold over the term 'succubus', or even 'drow'. And yet, by signing up to the GSL one is agreeing not to use them - either because the conditions of the license state as much, or simply because WotC's intent was that people not use them, and they reserve the right to cancel your license at any time and for any reason.


----------

