# Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.



## Sunderstone (Jul 31, 2008)

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/9828


----------



## Rechan (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow, this really sucks.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 31, 2008)

This is a sad thing. Clark has been so gung-ho for 4e for so long, it's a real shock to read that he feels this way. Not totally un-expected, but suprising, none the less.


I hope they get the GSL issues worked out. I want to see that 4e monster book. 


Edit: Oh my... and Ari's Advanced Players Guide. I'm so sorry to hear another of your projects is in limbo.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 31, 2008)

Unsurprising, and I hope he's able to work with WotC to get the GSL softened, at least a little bit.

-O


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 31, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> It's a real shock to read that he feels this way.




Not really.

In fact I would have been shocked if Clark signed on to the GSL.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 31, 2008)

Clark's take is interesting as he pretty much says the 3e market isn't good, he won't support Pathfinder until it's actually completed and out, and that he won't use the current GSL.  He's also very sincere in supporting WoTC, while also wanting to make sure the GSL doesn't make his own rights an issue.

My guess is that he will not try to use the "games can't be copyrighted" argument some publishers are using.  I know he's criticized OSRIC in the past, feeling it's not something he'd touch due to legal issues, so I doubt he'd ever try to adapt to 4e using the OGL.  As a lawyer he understands the issues involved.

The good thing for him is that this ISN'T his full-time job so he can afford to wait and see.  (The only negative is market share loss as some people "move on", but hopefully people won't have short memories).


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 31, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Not really.
> 
> In fact I would have been shocked if Clark signed on to the GSL.




Ok, so 'shocked' wasn't the best word. More like, 'I'm in a state of shock, because one of my favorite 3pp's won't be putting out some products I was certainly looking forward too'. As I said in my second sentence, ya know the one you clipped.  It was not un-expected.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm a bit surprised. Clark was the most enthusiastic person regarding 4E and the GSL prior to its release. That he says it's too terrible to sign on with is a very damning condemnation.

I'm glad he's working to try and get a better GSL, but I wonder if that's really possible. The GSL may be changed anytime at WotC's whim, without so much as a notification process from them other than updating their web page. Even if a new GSL is released, it could just as easily be replaced later with one that's just as bad, if not worse, than the original.

I'm glad he'll at least be supporting Pathfinder, though it sounds like he'll be waiting on next year's release of the final version of the book.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow... the 4e GSL boat looks like it's sinking fast now...  How many 3pp are left?  3 or 4 max?


----------



## smootrk (Jul 31, 2008)

I think that it is clear that either:

(1) the GSL is a total failure, unable to draw any substantial support from 3rd parties.

or

(2) the GSL is a total SUCCESS!  WotC has effectively ended 3rd party support.  Now all the profits are just waiting for themselves.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 31, 2008)

smootrk said:


> (1) the GSL is a total failure, unable to draw any substantial support from 3rd parties.



Don't you think that's a bit premature?

Clearly it's not popular with existing 3pp's - and for pretty good reason, I might add.  That's no reason to assume that it will be unpopular with new, or old non-OGL 3pp's.  Case in point: Red Brick for Earthdawn 4e.

-O


----------



## davethegame (Jul 31, 2008)

smootrk said:


> I think that it is clear that either:
> 
> (1) the GSL is a total failure, unable to draw any substantial support from 3rd parties.
> 
> ...




I just did a round-up of all the 3rd PPs that I knew about:
http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/07/31/3rd-party-dd-gslogl-publishers/

And I came to the same conclusions as you, stated in a slightly less cynical way.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 31, 2008)

So 4e's biggest cheerleader isnt jumping on board with the GSL? Thats funny.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 31, 2008)

I found this comment interesting -


> If the GSL issues are resolved, Necro and Paizo will be bringing you some amazing products that we already have lined up and in the hopper. Seriously, there are several awesome products literally ready to go just awaiting the fixing of the issues with the GSL.



Seems to indicate that Paizo has comissioned and received several 4e compatible adventures.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 31, 2008)

davethegame said:


> I just did a round-up of all the 3rd PPs that I knew about:
> http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/07/31/3rd-party-dd-gslogl-publishers/
> 
> And I came to the same conclusions as you, stated in a slightly less cynical way.




Awesome. I was just wondering if someone had done this.

Thanks Dave.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jul 31, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> I found this comment interesting -
> 
> Seems to indicate that Paizo has comissioned and received several 4e compatible adventures.




No, remember, Paizo is publishing Necros products. A partnership which by default will include Paizos name on Necro's stuff. (As I understand it.)


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow. While I'm not *totally* surprised at reading that from Clark, I'm definitely _somewhat_ surprised. Clark has been the staunchest public supporter of the GSL and WotC (of the major 3PPs) and to see him publicly declare he won't use it in its current form (at least, without some major clarification) is, well, a definite turnaround.


I tend to agree with the cynics. This is almost a total backfire for WotC ... or a total win. And if they think it is a win, well, more's the shame.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 31, 2008)

smootrk said:


> (2) the GSL is a total SUCCESS!  WotC has effectively ended 3rd party support.  Now all the profits are just waiting for themselves.




Everything that has transpired has done so according to WOTC's desire.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 31, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Edit: Oh my... and Ari's Advanced Players Guide. I'm so sorry to hear another of your projects is in limbo.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Why does no one ever think of the gnome illusionists?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 31, 2008)

carmachu said:


> So 4e's biggest cheerleader isnt jumping on board with the GSL? Thats funny.



Funny weird or funny ha-ha?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 31, 2008)

This is a real shame.  I'm not a big buyer in general and have especially not done much with the 3rd party market, but I was really hoping to be able to pick some stuff up from Necro, if only for how well Clark handled himself around here as all the world erupted in flame wars.  No amount of goodwill is going to get me to sign on with Pathfinder, though; I've seen all I need to of that line.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 31, 2008)

Man, this sucks.  I really hope Clark and the Necro guys can get the GSL issues worked out and be able to print 4e materials.  I love Necro's previous stuff, but I have absoultely NO interest in Pathfinder- its just more broken than 3.5 in all the same areas, and adds more problems.  So if they go only the Pathfinder route, they have lost me as a customer, and I daresay, a large portion of the current D&D players.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 31, 2008)

Good. More quality support for Pathfinder, more products that will be useful to me.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 31, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Funny weird or funny ha-ha?





ha ha funny. side spliting funny.

I remember watching him telling folks be calm and patient...the new OGL and SRD was coming and have faith. Have faith in 4e....

then the GSL came and it looked like wotcsucker punched him. I can see how he's going to get a seperate deal or a good clarification for more of a 3PP benefit....


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jul 31, 2008)

Not surprised, but I am disappointed.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 31, 2008)

I hope the business does well, regardless of systems and licenses being supported and used. They've earned that, I think. And the continuing respect and support of gamers, what's more.

Re: the GSL itself, to borrow Clark's words: '[T]he GSL is a total unmitigated failure.'

Yes, indeed.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jul 31, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> So if they go only the Pathfinder route, they have lost me as a customer, and I daresay, a large portion of the current D&D players.




Interesting thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago at "the" FLGS of NYC. 
I was talking to the owner and he said beyond the initial sales due to it being new it wasnt selling all that well. He also asked me if I had checked out Pathfinder yet. It seems Pathfinder is selling well.

He said 4E is too different and didnt seem to like it. He also thought the GSL was ridiculous (though I forget his exact wording).

Im just stating this because NYC is a well poulated city and this particular FLGS is pretty well known, so I dont know how much of "a large portion of current D&D players" they will lose. I know its just one FLGS in one city (and im not saying its the RPG capital of the world) but what are you basing your assumption on?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 31, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> I hope the business does well, regardless of systems and licenses being supported and used. They've earned that, I think. And the continuing respect and support of gamers, what's more.
> 
> Re: the GSL itself, to borrow Clark's words: '[T]he GSL is a total unmitigated failure.'
> 
> Yes, indeed.




It's my belief that the GSL is only a failure if WotC actually wanted other publishers supporting D&D. It's a huge success if they didn't because very few serious publishers are going to agree to the terms of the GSL (I'm only counting one so far). Before the GSL was released, I was seriously considering doing 4th edition work for whoever needed it. When I saw it, I realized that this was going to be bad for publishers, thereby bad for freelancers, and I decided to wholly support open gaming. 

Clark made the right decision. Like him, I'll reconsider my decision not to support 4E if the GSL is changed (I don't hold out much hope that it will happen any time soon), but until that time I'm supporting the company with the market leverage to get a quality alternate new edition of the game out there under the OGL and hopefully make it into a success.


----------



## Baron Opal (Jul 31, 2008)

I am disappointed too. While I and my group are still playing 3.x, we are looking forward to 4e. I don't have the free time anymore that I used to and I rely heavily on modifying published adventures. Given that a couple of my players are rather young or squeamish I'm hesitant to use some of the Paizo stuff now. (The whole hillbilly ogre thing doesn't fly, for example.)

From what I've heard of Keep on the Shadowfell it requires some heavy retooling for the flow of the story. And I already have the rules so I don't need the quick start pack. I was really looking forward to adventures from Necromancer. I guess I'll have to make due with only Goodman and Dungeon.

Dammit.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> It's my belief that the GSL is only a failure if WotC actually wanted other publishers supporting D&D. It's a huge success if they didn't because very few serious publishers are going to agree to the terms of the GSL (I'm only counting one so far).



True. I should've put it more in terms of agreeing with Clark's words, _if assuming hypothetically that the license was seriously intended to 'work'_. That's what I meant. I've actually posted here recently, saying things along similar lines (i.e., that it is pretty much a joke, and well, how could it be other than intentionally so - they're smart guys 'over there'.)


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 31, 2008)

Not surprised at all.

I like Clark and Necromancer Games and believe that his early enthusiastic support for 4e and WoTC was due to the fact that he had more faith in WoTC than they deserved. The guy obviously loves D&D and really wanted to support 4e but even he, a very enthusiastic early supporter, now sees what many have seen early on...

WoTC is attempting to destroy Open Gaming by getting major 3pps to sign up onto the GSL denying themselves the opportunity to go back to the OGL effectively making them all pawns of WoTC's corporate decisions. Anyone hitching their wagon to that abomination is just setting themselves up for a world of hurt when WoTC decides to remove even the carrot that the GSL is leaving only the stick.

WoTC had to know the reaction that many would have to the GSL. I forsaw it as soon as I heard that it was going to be more restrictive. Certainly, WoTC foresaw that companies like Green Ronin and Paizo would balk at handing over unique/successful IP to WoTC control.

IMO WoTC doesn't really want 3pp support for D&D and the GSL was offered merely to prevent a storm of nerd rage and outright rebellion. The GSL is a PR move, nothing more. When 5e comes around even the GSL will be gone. Call me a cynic, but IMO every company that builds their IP around 4e will be doomed with the coming of 5e. Unlike those who stuck with the OGL to begin with, these folks will have to shelve their IP permanently or create entirely new game systems to support it.

Thank God Ryan Dancy was a man of vision.

This whole thing is sad. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 31, 2008)

What a shame - I really want Tome of Horrors 4e.

This, in my mind, is the biggest proof positive that WotC's GSL has failed, and with no 3rd-party publishers to help them along, it's going to be harder to sustain 4th Edition.

I mean, I really like 4e, design decisions and all, and this has me upset.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 31, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> IMO WoTC doesn't really want 3pp support for D&D and the GSL was offered merely to prevent a shitstorm of nerd rage and outright rebellion.




When none of the major 3pp have signed on, and several are producing 4e products NOT under the GSL, I'm pretty sure the "outright rebellion" is a go.

It's sad, too, because I bet the offending bits (no OGL, we can sue you whenever we want) could come out of the GSL with no real hurt to WotC.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 31, 2008)

He still has hope, optimism, is communicating, it is clear he still wants to support 4E...its not _all_ bad.

Just kinda bad.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow, does that suck. What ever happened to Clark saying that the GSL doesn't have him shaken? I'd be really curious to know what he wants clarified so Necro will release products. I'm not knocking Clark at all, I'm just curious why the sudden turn around... In any case, that isn't something I expected and it sucks hard core. I was really looking forward to the Advanced Player's Guide too...


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 31, 2008)

To be honest I am not at all surprised.  Generally speaking anyone who reads the GSL will find it not in their favor.  Though if this what WOTC intended, I can honestly say they succeeded.  However should that be true then the gaming community as a whole has hurt because of it.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jul 31, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> IMO WoTC doesn't really want 3pp support for D&D




I agree with this (my opinion).
I think (again my opinion) WotC wants 4E to be way more profitable than 3E was (and rightly so), Its obvious that beyond Core book sales, 3PPs did alot of things way better than they did and took a good share of the market.

 From adventures (Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer, etc) to Settings (Ptolus, Freeport, Wilderlands etc), to Monster books (Necro's Tome of Horrors, GR's Advanced Bestiary, etc), 3PPs seemed to make better products. WotC had a few gems like the XPH, Dragonomicon, etc but they seemed fewer and far between. Probably why they are so against the OGL (and rightly so from a corporate standpoint).

Just my coppers.


----------



## Kaladhan (Jul 31, 2008)

I really like that Clark takes time to inform his fans about stuff like this. I understand his reasoning and wishes NG the best of luck in the future. I really like what they do and hope they continue doing it.

Sadly, I intend to play 4E, and the lack of 3PP is going to be missed.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 31, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> Interesting thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago at "the" FLGS of NYC.
> I was talking to the owner and he said beyond the initial sales due to it being new it wasnt selling all that well. He also asked me if I had checked out Pathfinder yet. It seems Pathfinder is selling well.
> 
> He said 4E is too different and didnt seem to like it. He also thought the GSL was ridiculous (though I forget his exact wording).
> ...




First, no matter how popular Pathfinder gets, it won't ever have the name recognition of D&D.  Most casual gamers won't have any clue what Pathfinder is, and will likely (and rightly) assume its not D&D, but some other game.  And to be honest, why would a casual gamer buy a module or book for a game he doesn't play?  Granted, someone who frequents these boards (or maybe the WotC boards) might know what Pathfinder is, but I'd estimate easily 80% of the gamers out there will have no clue.  I'd be amazed if Pathfinder system materials could sell 1/10th the amount of pretty much any 4e product for this reason.

And second, while you have anecdotal evidence of D&D 4e not selling well in NYC, in Springfield MO, St Louis, and Columbia MO (places where I know FLGS owners), D&D 4e is selling like mad, even now.  They can barely keep PHBs in stock (and two of these stores ordered and sold 120 PHBs in July), and all three stores ran through at least 30 DMGs and MMs in the last month (ie July- a month after 4e was released).  4e is selling well- its Amazon ratings bear that out, as well as the size of the original print run and how well its still selling.  We'll have a better idea the longer 4e goes if it can keep this up, but I'm guessing it will- espeically when the FR setting, magic item book and Martial Power come out.

In any case, I feel for Clark and Necro.  I know the GSL is restrictive (and pretty stupid if you ask me), but not supporting 4e (or whatever the current version of D&D is) is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot if you're looking to have a viable rpg company, simply due to the small sales numbers for pretty much any other rpg out there (barring maybe White Wolf).


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 31, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> He still has hope, optimism, is communicating, it is clear he still wants to support 4E...its not _all_ bad.
> 
> Just kinda bad.




Nah, he is putting on a brave face, that's all. He's just trying to keep Necromancer Games' fans hopeful but the reality is very bleak indeed. IMO WoTC isn't going to grant Clark any special dispensation because WoTC is no longer being run by gamers...even if the designers are themselves gamers...it is run by bean counters for whom the bottom line is the ONLY consideration. WoTC doesn't care about and doesn't necessarily support, except in name only, Open Gaming or 3pp support for 4e. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2008)

I am not shocked in the least.  People keep repeating that Clark was 4e's most vocal supporter...and I just never saw it that way because I never viewed him as a GSL supporter.  Clark has always expressed serious concerns and doubts about the license and licensing concepts in this field.  He's been very vocal about that.  I've read some of his concerns, and as a fellow attorney specializing in contracts I simply don't agree with his views...but hey, it's his company, and his right to have a differing view, particularly since he is the one that would take the risk.  

But I always thought there was no chance Clark would accept the GSL right off the bat.  I'd have been far more shocked of Clark suddenly agreeing to the GSL than I would have been if Green Ronin had accepted the GSL, for example (and I am far more disappointed that GR did not, though I do understand).

I strongly suspect Clark will get his "clarification" and then go ahead with it...because I think his worries...come from an overly risk-adverse viewpoint and make conservative assumptions that are not the intent of the GSL.  I think WOTC will be relatively fine offering that "clarification" to alleviate those worries.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 31, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> Its obvious that beyond Core book sales, 3PPs did alot of things way better than they did and took a good share of the market.




I don't think WotC's bottom line was hurting because of the 3PP products. There was a clear preference for "official" D&D content in the market. I do agree that most of the meaningful innovation came from the 3PPs. I think that the GSL is a reaction to the overall shrinking of the RPG market in general. Not having access to WotC's numbers, I can only guess that they saw 3rd edition sales drop down to numbers not seen since TSR was going out of business and they decided that they wanted all of the business this time around. Even if 3PPs have (at most) 10% of the market, that's a 10% boost in sales that they can show to Hasbro, thereby keeping the brand alive and jobs intact.

The problem, as was pointed out above, is that many gamers can see blatant corporate greed for what it is and are willing to rebel against it. If Necromancer adopts the GSL, they will effectively stop being a publisher the minute WotC decides to yank the license. They might be generous and keep it in place until 5th edition, or they could pull it in the middle of the edition, but either way, it's bad news for anyone else who wants to make D&D compatible stuff.

What's more is that with the OGL, they managed to convince the gaming public that having a standardized set of rules for all genres and settings is a good thing. People bought in and competing systems lost popularity. The bottom line is that if the publishers and the customers drop support for open gaming now, OGL games will disappear from the market and successful non-WotC gaming products will be mostly a thing of the past - at least until someone either comes up with a new system that is vastly superior, versatile, and somehow manages to capture a good chunk of the market, or Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D and the third party publishers become the primary source for gaming. I don't like that scenario.

If you're a 4th edition fan, enjoy the game and play the game. What I urge you to do though, is to stop judging those who choose not to adopt it and join in a game or two of either 3.5 or Pathfinder when convenient. In other words, assume that the worst case scenario is possible and hedge your bets a bit.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 31, 2008)

IMO compared to 3.5e 4e is to D&D what the Wii is to the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Its the perfect game for casual gamers. Easy to pick up and learn, few options (eve settings are only getting one major book), and optimized balance that allows for everyone to be awesome all the time. None of these things are bad necessarily, but the design philosophy is fundamentally different.

Without 3pp support 4e will be what 3.5 would have been without 3pp support...an endless stream of splats filled with cool toys, feats, items, etc. that will undoubltedly introduce power creep and balance into 4e's perfectly balanced system...however without the creativity and innovation of alternate systems and settings like...

Arcana Unearthed
Iron Heroes
True20
Midnight
Conan D20

...and others who brought mechanical and creative innovation to 3.5e. With the GSL as it is 4e will never have the richness of 3.5e.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Sunderstone (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think that the GSL is a reaction to the overall shrinking of the RPG market in general. Not having access to WotC's numbers, I can only guess that they saw 3rd edition sales drop down to numbers not seen since TSR was going out of business and they decided that they wanted all of the business this time around. Even if 3PPs have (at most) 10% of the market, that's a 10% boost in sales that they can show to Hasbro, thereby keeping the brand alive and jobs intact.




That is exactly the point I was trying to convey, and I am aware that many folks still wanted "official" material. I was one of the guys that was slow/late in adopting 3PP material. Necro was the first, then came Paizo, GR, and Goodman. 3PPs gradually got more of my dollars than WotC did.




Darrin Drader said:


> The problem, as was pointed out above, is that many gamers can see blatant corporate greed for what it is and are willing to rebel against it. If Necromancer adopts the GSL, they will effectively stop being a publisher the minute WotC decides to yank the license. They might be generous and keep it in place until 5th edition, or they could pull it in the middle of the edition, but either way, it's bad news for anyone else who wants to make D&D compatible stuff.
> 
> What's more is that with the OGL, they managed to convince the gaming public that having a standardized set of rules for all genres and settings is a good thing. People bought in and competing systems lost popularity. The bottom line is that if the publishers and the customers drop support for open gaming now, OGL games will disappear from the market and successful non-WotC gaming products will be mostly a thing of the past - at least until someone either comes up with a new system that is vastly superior, versatile, and somehow manages to capture a good chunk of the market, or Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D and the third party publishers become the primary source for gaming. I don't like that scenario.




Excellent points.


----------



## Andre (Jul 31, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:


> When none of the major 3pp have signed on, and several are producing 4e products NOT under the GSL, I'm pretty sure the "outright rebellion" is a go.




This is the part I don't understand. So long as 3PP are using some form of the OGL/D20/GSL, WOTC has some control over what they do. As soon as 3PP start using copyright or other legal justifications for publishing compatible material, all WOTC's only options are reduced to legal action. 

As the saying goes (cleaned up for Eric's grandma): "Better to have my enemies inside the tent spitting out, than outside spitting in".


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 31, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> When 5e comes around even the GSL will be gone.





Dude - don't worry!

I'm one powerball win away from buying D&D!

When that happens and I oversee the making of 5E, I'll open it up again.

It's under control.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> If you're a 4th edition fan, enjoy the game and play the game. What I urge you to do though, is to stop judging those who choose not to adopt it and join in a game or two of either 3.5 or Pathfinder when convenient. In other words, assume that the worst case scenario is possible and hedge your bets a bit.




Indeed. Do play the game you like and don't judge the other side. This is tiptoeing into the realm of 3e vs 4e, but I think it's safe to say that respect what other people like and want to play. Regardless if its 1e, 3e, or 4e.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Dude - don't worry!
> 
> I'm one powerball win away from buying D&D!
> 
> ...




Oh, well, I am so relieved now.  Thank you for letting us know...I was worried for a moment


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 31, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> Indeed. Do play the game you like and don't judge the other side. This is tiptoeing into the realm of 3e vs 4e, but I think it's safe to say that respect what other people like and want to play. Regardless if its 1e, 3e, or 4e.




Why? Why does 2E get no love? 

That said, I'm curious about what "clarifications" Clark wants, and what difference they could make in regards to his decision not to use the GSL. Some of the legalese is rather opaque, I agree, but I'd think he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> If Necromancer adopts the GSL, they will effectively stop being a publisher the minute WotC decides to yank the license. They might be generous and keep it in place until 5th edition, or they could pull it in the middle of the edition, but either way, it's bad news for anyone else who wants to make D&D compatible stuff.
> 
> ...In other words, assume that the worst case scenario is possible and hedge your bets a bit.




QFT

Hope for the best while preparing for the worst is the onty way to go. If I were in the business of simply creating adventures, like Goodman Games, the GSL wouldn't make me nervous in the least. I would create fun adventures that I could afford to abandon once the GSL was revoked. However, IMO adventures aren't the same thing as recognizable IP such as settings which can serve as springboards for entire lines (adventures, setting books, monster books, etc.) and putting an entire line onto the GSL is risky to say the least.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jul 31, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Why? Why does 2E get no love?




The most fun I had playing D&D was 2e using Skills & Powers and Combat & Tactics. A lot of people hated those books, but we had a blast. I just left out 2e because not a lot of people talk about it. I'm not slighting that edition in the slightest as my fondest memories are from the 2e days.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Edit: Oh my... and Ari's Advanced Players Guide. I'm so sorry to hear another of your projects is in limbo.




July has really not been good to me this year.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 31, 2008)

What I find hard to reconcile is that Necro publishes updates to old JG products: products that had no license yet were clearly compatible with the D&D of their time. Yet Clark won't go that route to support the current version of D&D as he would prefer. Why was okay in the 70s but not okay today?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 31, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> The most fun I had playing D&D was 2e using Skills & Powers and Combat & Tactics. A lot of people hated those books, but we had a blast. I just left out 2e because not a lot of people talk about it. I'm not slighting that edition in the slightest as my fondest memories are from the 2e days.




Me too.

I loved 2e with some Player's Option material added in. I DMed for years using those mechanics and they were utterly unbalanced according to today's balance obsessed mindset but I never once had a problem because as DM I was in charge of the options I allowed and I had players who didn't try to game the system.

IMO 3.5e's greatest weakness is that it actually rewarded players who gamed the system (oh yeah in D&D parlance that is "character optimizers") if the DM was weak and allowed endless freedom in choosing PrCs and included a pile of WoTC and 3pp splat books. The nonsensical inclusion of all options was actually supported with the idea that to deny players access to every available race, core class, PrC, feat, etc. was to deny them the full D&D experience. 

Curious how this thinking came from the company who created an endless stream of PrCs and splatbooks...can anyone say _"cha ching?"_



Wyrmshadows


----------



## smootrk (Jul 31, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> Why was okay in the 70s but not okay today?



A lot more lawyers around running the show these days.


----------



## cildarith (Jul 31, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> What I find hard to reconcile is that Necro publishes updates to old JG products: products that had no license yet were clearly compatible with the D&D of their time. Yet Clark won't go that route to support the current version of D&D as he would prefer. Why was okay in the 70s but not okay today?




I'm pretty sure JG had a license (or some type of agreement with TSR) until the early '80s.  Once they lost that they released material under their 'Universal System' and could no longer print "Approved for Use with Dungeons & Dragons" on their products.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 31, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Man, this sucks.  I really hope Clark and the Necro guys can get the GSL issues worked out and be able to print 4e materials.  I love Necro's previous stuff, but I have absoultely NO interest in Pathfinder-




..and 3.X.

That part of your post sums up how I feel. The only saving grace for me would be Clark deciding to support C&C, otherwise, I won't be making any purchases either. I had pretty much everythng they made up until 3.5 products started rolling out. They'd always been my #1 choice for modules when I was playing 3.x. 

Thankfully for me, Goodman is stepping up to the plate, but Necro will be sorely missed (I've no faith in WOTC doing anything to resove Clark's issues, frankly)


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Jul 31, 2008)

Sigh. One more reason I'm a fan of WotC's design team, and not so much of their legal team. It's a shame.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 31, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> Interesting thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago at "the" FLGS of NYC.
> I was talking to the owner and he said beyond the initial sales due to it being new it wasnt selling all that well. He also asked me if I had checked out Pathfinder yet. It seems Pathfinder is selling well.




Hmm, I wonder why 4E isn't selling so well at his store?

Customer: "Pardon me, I've heard there's a new edition of D&D..."

Owner: "Have you checked out Pathfinder yet?"

Baffling...


----------



## Scribble (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I don't think WotC's bottom line was hurting because of the 3PP products. There was a clear preference for "official" D&D content in the market. I do agree that most of the meaningful innovation came from the 3PPs.




I don't. A lot of cool stuff came from 3pps, but I don't agree "most of the innovation" did.



> I think that the GSL is a reaction to the overall shrinking of the RPG market in general. Not having access to WotC's numbers, I can only guess that they saw 3rd edition sales drop down to numbers not seen since TSR was going out of business and they decided that they wanted all of the business this time around. Even if 3PPs have (at most) 10% of the market, that's a 10% boost in sales that they can show to Hasbro, thereby keeping the brand alive and jobs intact.




Eh... I don't have the numbers either, but I think they just decided they want people to use D&D to support D&D. (Directly)

I don't think theres anything personal in the GSL or any kind of "hidden" motives. It is what it is.

To me it says: This is how you can use what we consider our IP to make money, without giving us any of that money. If you don't care for the terms, cool. No sweat off our backs.



> The problem, as was pointed out above, is that many gamers can see blatant corporate greed for what it is and are willing to rebel against it. If Necromancer adopts the GSL, they will effectively stop being a publisher the minute WotC decides to yank the license. They might be generous and keep it in place until 5th edition, or they could pull it in the middle of the edition, but either way, it's bad news for anyone else who wants to make D&D compatible stuff.




I think this is over-reactibng a bit. PAIZO didn't stop when they pulled the Dragon/Dungeon licenses... Just my opinion though.



> What's more is that with the OGL, they managed to convince the gaming public that having a standardized set of rules for all genres and settings is a good thing. People bought in and competing systems lost popularity. The bottom line is that if the publishers and the customers drop support for open gaming now, OGL games will disappear from the market and successful non-WotC gaming products will be mostly a thing of the past - at least until someone either comes up with a new system that is vastly superior, versatile, and somehow manages to capture a good chunk of the market, or Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D and the third party publishers become the primary source for gaming. I don't like that scenario.




Yeah, the d20 and d20 based game craze lasted a while. it was a new idea. But I think you're really really really discrediting other non d20 games... Like WoD stuff or GURPS. 



> If you're a 4th edition fan, enjoy the game and play the game. What I urge you to do though, is to stop judging those who choose not to adopt it and join in a game or two of either 3.5 or Pathfinder when convenient. In other words, assume that the worst case scenario is possible and hedge your bets a bit.




I can only speak for myself, but I don't judge people who don't choose to play 4e. Play what you want, and what makes you happy. I'm a fan of the system sure, so I'll speak highly of it, and debate about its merits with anyone who wants to, but judge someone based on what games they play? Haven't done that since I was in junior highschool... 

But hedge my bet? Huh? Gaming isn't a stock option for me... It's a thing I do amuse myself in my freetime. And I barely have enough to play just the one game system lately.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 31, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> July has really not been good to me this year.




Don't feel too bad. I had three RPG books indefinitely postponed at the beginning of June. One of them is back on, but in a shorter form than what was originally planned.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Don't feel too bad. I had three RPG books indefinitely postponed at the beginning of June. One of them is back on, but in a shorter form than what was originally planned.




I'll trade you. You give me back the two novels of mine that were yanked off the schedule, and I'll take the loss of three RPG books.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jul 31, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I don't think theres anything personal in the GSL or any kind of "hidden" motives. It is what it is.



I dont think anyone was saying otherwise, I didnt see any "hidden" things either. Its pretty straightforward (legalese aside).


----------



## Lizard (Jul 31, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'll trade you. You give me back the two novels of mine that were yanked off the schedule, and I'll take the loss of three RPG books.




I feel your pain. I've got way too many projects which were written, submitted, approved...and died. I'm still irked Waysides never came out...I really liked my taverns for that.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 31, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'll trade you. You give me back the two novels of mine that were yanked off the schedule, and I'll take the loss of three RPG books.




Better yet, how about we both drop the RPG books entirely and get some novels that stick? My big novel break was canceled a while back and I'm still looking for another one.


----------



## guivre (Jul 31, 2008)

You'd have to be a fool to count on the GSL for any length of time. It was a struggle to get it out even in the form it's in. We were flat out told that a few people had to fight hard and champion it for it to even see the light of day. It's not going to take much internally for the wind to change and blow in the other direction. At that point those that signed it are going to find themselves in a sticky situation.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Better yet, how about we both drop the RPG books entirely and get some novels that stick? My big novel break was canceled a while back and I'm still looking for another one.




I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jul 31, 2008)

If I was making my own rpg, I would be wanting clarification on what constitutes a redefinition under the srd. As i see it, one cant redefine the rules already in place, so really the only thing you can do with the gsl is make new races, monsters, and adventures but these rules cant superseede the original rules. Now this is a simplistic take on the matter, but this the problem as i see it (not mentioning the whole poison pill).

So with that, could i make a Rune Elf or is that a redefinition of Elf? If I make a new race and wizards later adds a race with the same name to the srd, am i screwed?


The gsl to me seems to be so incredibly limiting its laughable. I am glad that the gsl is receiving minimal support. It means their is a strong voice of designers who want to support 4e and will do so, just not using the gsl. It makes general copyright less risky in greater numbers.

(edit)

This is a response to necromancer games wanting clarification. If their was any part of the gsl i wanted clarification on it would be this. I wonder if necromancer games has the same problems with the gsl that I do.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 31, 2008)

The OGL was a beautiful thing. IMHO, it wasn't the primacy of the 3E ruleset that help D&D to flourish and attract more gamers than ever. Nay, it was the openness of the system. OGL gave rise to amazing amounts creativity from the best minds in the world, as opposed to only those employed by WotC (although they were, admittedly, a brain trust to be reckoned with back in the day). Open source gaming birthed a renaissance for D&D.

 With the GSL, WotC has turned thoroughly corporate by taking a comparatively greedy stance. D&D is suffering for it. Any player loyal to 4E is suffering for it. I believe Paizo and NG write the best adventures and crunch in the business. I think WotC would actually make more money if they stuck to an open system. It’s a shame their lawyers don’t agree.

 It is reasonable to assume that this is what WotC was intending to have happen. I’m just grateful that OGL was structured in such a way that it will be around forever. That was a great gift (thanks again, Ryan Dancey). And thank goodness that Paizo and NG have a way to continue to publish their astonishingly good material.

 My dollars will follow the quality. If Paizo is where all the best writers produce, that’s where I’ll be. All the more brilliant material for me and mine.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 31, 2008)

What's awful is that Clark seems to be between a rock and a hardplace. He's not going to OGL, he has to wait on Pathfinder, and he can't go to the GSL until it's fixed.

I sure hope Clark gets business.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> [FONT=&quot]The OGL was a beautiful thing. IMHO, it wasn't the primacy of the 3E ruleset that help D&D to flourish and attract more gamers than ever. Nay, it was the openness of the system.





Yup.  Wouldn't it be great if some folks would get their heads out of their backsides and make 4e OGL?  Then we really could have the best of both worlds......!


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> First, no matter how popular Pathfinder gets, it won't ever have the name recognition of D&D.  Most casual gamers won't have any clue what Pathfinder is, and will likely (and rightly) assume its not D&D, but some other game.  And to be honest, why would a casual gamer buy a module or book for a game he doesn't play?  Granted, someone who frequents these boards (or maybe the WotC boards) might know what Pathfinder is, but I'd estimate easily 80% of the gamers out there will have no clue.  I'd be amazed if Pathfinder system materials could sell 1/10th the amount of pretty much any 4e product for this reason.
> 
> /snipped to question this point




What I would really like to know is how many people just went into a store to pick up a RPG to play. There is no significant marketing campaign for 4e. Every single person that I have talked to has said they were introduced to D&D and RPGs by someone else. That train goes all the way back to miniature wargamers, people that watched D&D cartoons, and Boy Scout leaders. Name recognition means nothing if nobody plays. If I go into my FLGS and they are playing Pathfinder, that's what I'm going to be introduced to. Has anyone that never played D&D gone into Borders of B&N and just bought D&D because some computer games were based off of it? D&D and RPGs in general are word-of-mouth hobbies. I would love to see marketing data that points otherwise.

To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?


----------



## Psion (Aug 1, 2008)

Well, there's another kick in the shins for GSL.

It's good to hear that Necro will be supporting Pathfinder.

I said some time ago that the Advanced Player's Guide was one thing that could get me to consider 4e for an extended period. Now it appears to be off the table until something changes.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 1, 2008)

guivre said:


> You'd have to be a fool to count on the GSL for any length of time. It was a struggle to get it out even in the form it's in. We were flat out told that a few people had to fight hard and champion it for it to even see the light of day. It's not going to take much internally for the wind to change and blow in the other direction. At that point those that signed it are going to find themselves in a sticky situation.




I disagree, and I think this reflects a common misconception of how this industry, and most industries, function in terms of licenses (almost all of which are revokable and changeable).


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> What I would really like to know is how many people just went into a store to pick up a RPG to play. There is no significant marketing campaign for 4e. Every single person that I have talked to has said they were introduced to D&D and RPGs by someone else. That train goes all the way back to miniature wargamers, people that watched D&D cartoons, and Boy Scout leaders. Name recognition means nothing if nobody plays. If I go into my FLGS and they are playing Pathfinder, that's what I'm going to be introduced to. Has anyone that never played D&D gone into Borders of B&N and just bought D&D because some computer games were based off of it? D&D and RPGs in general are word-of-mouth hobbies. I would love to see marketing data that points otherwise.
> 
> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?



Well, there's at least me.  At a relatively young age, I saw it at a bookstore and had my parents buy the basic set.  I didn't make any serious progress on rules mastery for a few years after that, though, due to the way I picked it up.


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 1, 2008)

I gotta agree that the OGL is really what made 3e the success that it was. I *really* like 90% of 4e, and I fully intend to keep buying it. I've always been pretty selective about what 3rd party products I buy anyway, but I definately get the point that a restrictive license affects more than just the publishers. Those players who enjoyed the larger pool of creativity that a third party market provides are simply not going to come along for the ride.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




Me.

My parents bought me the basic set in 1980, but they had never played the game.  They probably thought their 10-year old would like a game with dragons in it.

They were right.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> If you're a 4th edition fan, enjoy the game and play the game. What I urge you to do though, is to stop judging those who choose not to adopt it and join in a game or two of either 3.5 or Pathfinder when convenient.




If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?





(Raises hand)

Where I grew up, I was the gateway drug to rpgs.  There was one other guy who was pushing campaigns around the same time I started, but he admitted that he got into it because he saw me with the Holmes Blue Box book.

I sought it out because of a TV spot.

RC


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Why? Why does 2E get no love?




1. 2e "streamlined" 1e rules 

2. 2e+splats and 2.5e introduced kits which added mechanical differences within classes instead of allowing characters playing the same class to be differentiated by roleplaying alone.

YMMV


----------



## Scribble (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




Me.

I woke up one day, and wanted to see what D&D was. I went and bought an intro boxed set a few days later.

Or more correctly my sister bought it for me as a gift after I said i wanted it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.




Have you actually encountered that?  

I'm not a fan of 4e, but I think that some of it is brilliant.  I'd certainly play a hybrid of the two systems.  I certainly have no rancor towards folks that like 4e....although I do have some rancor towards it being GSL instead of OGL.  I think a lot of people would play a hybrid that shared the strengths of both.  If 4e was OGL, that hybrid would already be in the works.

(Probably a factor in why 4e is not OGL, but, really, if 4e had been pushed back a year for more development, it could have been the game that rocked all our socks.  IMHO.)


----------



## CountPopeula (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




Right here. I bought second edition and the FR grey box because I had read Curse of the Azure Bonds, which I read because I recognized the name from the ads for the PC game.


----------



## Psion (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.




This one goes both ways. I see more (as you might expect, as there are more 4e adopters, law of averages...) 4e fans judgmental of 3.5 & Pathfinder fans, leveling accusations of ignorance and "grognard rage".


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 1, 2008)

So, that's pretty sad - for a lot of people. This really, really sucks. Now, I don't even get the APG. 

Looks like a lose-lose situation for me: Stick with 4E and abandon the 3PP stuff you grew to love or go Pathfinder and abandon the intriguing ruleset of 4E.

Well, my purse is happy, and now I have no excuse for not homebrewing any longer.

LT.


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:


> Well, there's at least me.  At a relatively young age, I saw it at a bookstore and had my parents buy the basic set.  I didn't make any serious progress on rules mastery for a few years after that, though, due to the way I picked it up.




If you don't mind me asking, why did you pick it up? Did you hear about it from any media source? Did you play any games based off of its IP? Were you interested in reading fantasy or watching fantasy movies and said "hey, now I can do that?" What prompted you to pick up the game.

Sometimes one can only use anecdotal evidence in forming their opinions and that is the case with me here. Other view points are appreciated.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you actually encountered that?




Yes, a whole lot of it. On these forums, the Wizard boards, and RPG.NET, not to mention how venomous the Paizo boards have been. I've had people at my local gaming store do it (and get kicked out by the owner, as he doesn't tolerate people disrespecting other customers).


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Due to the joy of ENWorld servers it has been over ten minutes since I hit reply and more than that amount since I questioned the first person that responded to my original question about how they were introduced to D&D.

Half a dozen or so said they found D&D through some other avenue than word-of-mouth. I just wonder if this would actually be poll-worthy to see just how our hobby came to be and can continue to grow. Thanks for the replies.

(Should this discussion be forked?)


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2008)

Psion said:


> This one goes both ways.




Agreed.



> I see more (as you might expect, as there are more 4e adopters, law of averages...) 4e fans judgmental of 3.5 & Pathfinder fans, leveling accusations of ignorance and "grognard rage".




To be fair, 3.5-only and Pathfinder-only fans are often ignorant of how things in 4e actually work, and many base their "knowledge" on second-hand forum posts while stating that they will never even read or play the game. It's not an insult to point out that someone has no idea what they're talking about, especially when they have no personal experience with the subject at hand by their own admission or when their statements are obviously based on something other than first-hand information (like your claims that OGL-to-GSL conversion requires you to pulp your existing inventory, even though the GSL has always said otherwise).


----------



## rgard (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




That would be me as well.  I took the 3 hour, 4 different buses trip across town to get to the better hobby shop in Pittsburgh with the intent of buying a 1/35th scale Tamiya model tank.  They didn't have it.  I wandered the store and found the blue boxed set (1977 or 1978, I forget).  I had just finished reading the Lord of the Rings...so it was a no brainer...I bought it.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Me.
> 
> My parents bought me the basic set in 1980, but they had never played the game.  They probably thought their 10-year old would like a game with dragons in it.
> 
> They were right.




I'm choosing you to respond to because someone like you introduced me to D&D back around 1985-86. 

If we posit that you are one person that picked up D&D on a whim or randomly, how many people did you introduce D&D/RPGs to? I have introduced around maybe a dozen or so with three or four that still play. Some of those brought others to play in our games. We could have scores that were introduced to the game by either me or someone directly connected to me. Those possible scores by word-of-mouth. One on a whim.

Is your experience the same?


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 1, 2008)

Wow.  This news sucks.  I really love 4e.  But most of WOTC's adventures in the past have been several steps in quality below Paizo's.  I was hoping Necromancer would help fill in the gap.  Unless WOTC changes the GSL or drastically improves their adventures, this bodes ill for 4e.  It doesn't matter how great the system is.  If there are no good premade adventures, I think most DMs won't run the game.  At least I won't, as I'm too busy to create adventures myself.   Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labryinth have been passable so far. The first Scales of War adventure path adventure was totally below acceptable quality in my opinion.  So we'll see.  If WOTC is not going to change the GSL, I hope they hire Paizo or Necromancer adventure designers to create official adventures.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Yes, a whole lot of it. On these forums, the Wizard boards, and RPG.NET, not to mention how venomous the Paizo boards have been. I've had people at my local gaming store do it (and get kicked out by the owner, as he doesn't tolerate people disrespecting other customers).




Hey, we're all nerds here. 

Whether we like to admit it or not, recent events have caused a sizable split in the fan base. The word fan is short for fanatic, and some people will go to extremes to get people to agree with them. I personally have found this whole thing incredibly frustrating for several reasons, which I outlined in my earlier posts, but at the end of the day we're all gaming nerds. If you get together on a Friday or Saturday night to eat pizza, drink Mountain Dew, and pretend to kill orcs then more power to you, regardless of which system you're playing.

The key is that us nerds should at the very least agree to be civil to each other. Nothing is going to be gained by breaking out the switchblades every time someone from the opposite camp walks into a conversation.


----------



## Jraynack (Aug 1, 2008)

Well, this is a turn . . . personally . . . for the worst, since I too enjoyed Necromancer's products and looked foward what was coming out for 4th.

However, professionally speaking (if I can call myself a professional), this might give smaller companies, like ours, a little more breathing room to show off our stuff.  It's not that I complain living in the shadow of such giants, but it is nice to see the light of day every so often.


----------



## Psion (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> To be fair, 3.5-only and Pathfinder-only fans are often ignorant of how things in 4e actually work, and many base their "knowledge" on second-hand forum posts while stating that they will never even read or play the game. It's not an insult to point out that someone has no idea what they're talking about,




It's not an insult to point out a factual mistake.

It _is_ rude to extrapolate and tell someone that they have "no idea what they are talking about".


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> I'm choosing you to respond to because someone like you introduced me to D&D back around 1985-86.
> 
> If we posit that you are one person that picked up D&D on a whim or randomly, how many people did you introduce D&D/RPGs to? I have introduced around maybe a dozen or so with three or four that still play. Some of those brought others to play in our games. We could have scores that were introduced to the game by either me or someone directly connected to me. Those possible scores by word-of-mouth. One on a whim.
> 
> Is your experience the same?



Oh, you're certainly right that word-of-mouth is quite important.  It was just your question positing that no one here picked it up in another way that I could guess would be multiply refuted.

As for me, I introduced...let's see--5 people in my first group, then 3 more in the second, plus 10 younger players, then 14 more in the third and fourth groups.  Soooo, 32 people (I'm sure I missed a few).  Of those, a little under half still play.


----------



## Henry (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Nothing is going to be gained by breaking out the switchblades every time someone from the opposite camp walks into a conversation.




...nothing except *EXPERIENCE POINTS AND LOOT!* _Roll Initiative, you Cur!_

I agree with the Drader.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> What I would really like to know is how many people just went into a store to pick up a RPG to play. There is no significant marketing campaign for 4e. Every single person that I have talked to has said they were introduced to D&D and RPGs by someone else. That train goes all the way back to miniature wargamers, people that watched D&D cartoons, and Boy Scout leaders. Name recognition means nothing if nobody plays. If I go into my FLGS and they are playing Pathfinder, that's what I'm going to be introduced to. Has anyone that never played D&D gone into Borders of B&N and just bought D&D because some computer games were based off of it? D&D and RPGs in general are word-of-mouth hobbies. I would love to see marketing data that points otherwise.
> 
> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




Yep, I see your point here- people do tend to play what they are taught.  However, because D&D is the granddaddy of RPGs, and because its the best supported with the most new releases, production quality, and a previously existant fanbase, its the game most likely to be played, bar none.

What I mean by "casual gamer" is someone who enjoys rpgs, but doesn't REALLY get into them like we do.  Someone who games to spend time with friends, and who wants something easy and fun to play with minimal complication.  There are game systems I like better than D&D and 4e, but they tend to be more complicated in some ways, more obscure, and MUCH harder to procure books and materials for.  The casual gamer I referred to isn't going to spend the time to research 5 or 10 different games to find one that best fits his philosophical model of gaming.  He's more than likely going to choose the game that is most accessible and most played- hence D&D, in whatever iteration its in.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 1, 2008)

> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?



Me. I looked at 2e books in the book store all the time as a kid. I tried to play it multiple times, but never made any enroads because I couldn't really find people. By the time I got to HS, I had some opportunities, but I all ready had the 2e PHB and everything. 

A guy in HS did turn me on to fantasy, fantasy novels, and RPGs in general, but he wasn't allowed to play D&D. 

Then 3e came out, and I went to the internet, DMed my first game there.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




I'll tack on my "bought an issue of dragon magazine blindly, then the boxed set to see what I had bought..."

Bought the boxed set at Zayre's, a department store long since deceased.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 1, 2008)

Psion said:


> It's not an insult to point out a factual mistake.
> 
> It _is_ rude to extrapolate and tell someone that they have "no idea what they are talking about".




It's also tiresome to see this SAME topic repeatedly brought up.

Why does every thread involving an edition have to have a post about "well, those 3e guys think all 4e guys are fanboi's" or the reverse?


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.




pot.kettle.

its one of the reasons i stopped posting here for a short while.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.






The Little Raven said:


> ...To be fair, 3.5-only and Pathfinder-only fans are often ignorant of how things in 4e actually work...




I don't know that comments like this help much with the common ground issue.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> pot.kettle.
> 
> its one of the reasons i stopped posting here for a short while.




QFT on both points. 

I feel your pain, friend.


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 1, 2008)

Btw, 7th grade or so in private school, a buddy named Wayne introduced me to the Basic Set (Moldvay). From then I was hooked. I remember walking into a hobby shop (model cars/trains) a year or so later and seeing a section with something called "AD&D". 
My eyes lit up like a christmas tree. 

sorry for the slight derail, but someone did ask if most of us were introduced to the hobby by someone else.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> I'm choosing you to respond to because someone like you introduced me to D&D back around 1985-86.
> 
> If we posit that you are one person that picked up D&D on a whim or randomly, how many people did you introduce D&D/RPGs to? I have introduced around maybe a dozen or so with three or four that still play. Some of those brought others to play in our games. We could have scores that were introduced to the game by either me or someone directly connected to me. Those possible scores by word-of-mouth. One on a whim.
> 
> Is your experience the same?




Pretty much.  I probably introduced the game to a dozen or so as well.  And I agree with your premise that most people will be introduced to the game (especially in this day and age) by someone else rather than pick it up themselves.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 1, 2008)

This is annoying. WotC adventures are $30, and are printed on crap paper, and aren't that good, frankly. I was really, really looking forward to buying more Necro stuff. Heck, I had hoped to buy Paizo stuff, and Green Ronin stuff.

I am certain, with no evidence other than the document and the outcome so far, that WotC wants no one that has a big, legit company to use the GSL. 100% convinced. No doubt in my mind.

I'm saddened, but not surprised, by this announcement.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 1, 2008)

I played hero quest with a friend and thought it was really exciting. At that time I was around 10, and games like DragonQuest where out on the nes those were alot of fun. I was introduced to d&d via popular culture and games and have been wanting to play for a while. I then started playing 3.5 when a friend dm'ed a game for us on summer break (when i was in collage). he started playing because of friends he knew at collage. 

So i started playing because of word of mouth, but i knew about d&d through games and popular culture.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 1, 2008)

I was not exactly introduced to D&D by anyone.  I did see some classmates in 7th grade looking at D&D books during lunch, but they never explained the game to me nor introduced me to it.  One day a few months later I saw the red box Basic D&D game at K-Mart or some similar store, and asked my parents to buy it for me.  I read the rule book and ran the Bargle adventure for my brothers and cousins.  I've been into D&D since then, some twenty-five years.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.





Oh please. The 4e folks arent choir boys yourself. Insults have run both ways.....


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:


> Oh, you're certainly right that word-of-mouth is quite important.  It was just your question positing that no one here picked it up in another way that I could guess would be multiply refuted.
> 
> As for me, I introduced...let's see--5 people in my first group, then 3 more in the second, plus 10 younger players, then 14 more in the third and fourth groups.  Soooo, 32 people (I'm sure I missed a few).  Of those, a little under half still play.




Ok just our two posts show about 50+ people introduced to D&D by another player versus 2 that were not. Anecdotal, but still leads to my point that name recognition is not that important when choosing a game system. Its all about the community and local network of players.


----------



## SavageRobby (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.




And petty self-righteousness is certainly going to help your cause there.


----------



## Roland55 (Aug 1, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> July has really not been good to me this year.




This.  *This* is what angers me.

We are losing access to the products of creative minds ... people with proven track records.  So -- if they don't happen to work at WOTC, I won't get to enjoy their work in 4E??!

Who cares about the Edition number??  I'll play whatever I please, whenever I please, however I please.

Without quality products from creative people like Mr. Marmell, the entire game starts looking ... a lot less "fun."


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 1, 2008)

Can we drop the "4e fans suck more - no, 3e fans suck more" derailment? Or at least fork it?

Just because the "other side" has the most recent post, doesn't mean you have to post a rebuttal. Last post doesn't win. No one wins.


----------



## Roland55 (Aug 1, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Can we drop the "4e fans suck more - no, 3e fans suck more" derailment? Or at least fork it?
> 
> Just because the "other side" has the most recent post, doesn't mean you have to post a rebuttal. Last post doesn't win. No one wins.




Agreed.  Please.

Someone asked:  how many have we introduced to D&D?

Somewhere near 100.  I wasn't kidding when I called myself a Jurassic Gamer.  When you've got that much time, you can do a lot of proselytizing.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 1, 2008)

Roland55 said:


> This.  *This* is what angers me.
> 
> We are losing access to the products of creative minds ... people with proven track records.  So -- if they don't happen to work at WOTC, I won't get to enjoy their work in 4E??!
> 
> ...




Exactly.  I was REALLY looking forward to Ari's stuff for 4e.  He seems enthusiastic about the new system, and I love his other work- I know the new stuff would have been PURE WIN.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 1, 2008)

I guess the best we can hope is that Necromancer eventually goes with a systemless product or the copywrite route...although Clark seems to be avoiding that idea. 

I really like 4E and wish it could get the support that 3E had. I think we're going to miss out on alot of innovative and exciting products. I fear 4E is going to be big at first, and then quickly die off as the hobby itself continues to shrink. 

Plus the longer it takes the DDI to fully launch, the less likely I think it will.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 1, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Exactly.  I was REALLY looking forward to Ari's stuff for 4e.  He seems enthusiastic about the new system, and I love his other work- I know the new stuff would have been PURE WIN.




I'm flattered, guys, and I share your frustration--not just for my own work, but others' work that I'd like to see.

But don't throw in the towel just yet. As Clark said in his initial post, he's still hoping to work stuff out. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not worried or frustration, but I'm going to cling to hope as long as I have it.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 1, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Exactly.  I was REALLY looking forward to Ari's stuff for 4e.  He seems enthusiastic about the new system, and I love his other work- I know the new stuff would have been PURE WIN.



Last I heard he was still one of the main guys working on the 4E Eberron setting.  I am looking forward to that.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see him work with some other companies with 4E products.  We may see his work in many forms (indeed, we *know* we'll see him in the online magazines).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2008)

This just sucks.

I've been a strong "wait and see" person myself.  Tried not to get too worked up about it and not worry too much.

But this blows.  I like Necro stuff.  They were one of the few remaining 3pp that actually supported D&D.  When GR decided not to go 4e, I didn't see it as that much of a big deal to be honest since GR had stopped supporting D&D in any meaningful way years ago.  ((Sorry, I don't consider a handful of modules over a 2 year period meaningful support))  But Necro has consistently tried to support D&D.

Color me a sad panda.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 1, 2008)

Roland55 said:


> We are losing access to the products of creative minds ... people with proven track records.  So -- if they don't happen to work at WOTC, I won't get to enjoy their work in 4E??!



More importantly: It's not only angering the fans, it's also a very shortsighted strategy. OGL *has* done a lot for D&D, creative minds, like our resident rodent here, came into the public spotlight due to the OGL. Heck, Mearls himself is a child of both, OGL and the Forge.

With this situation, we, the fans, lose now, and in the long run, the entire industry may lose some potentially creative people. Yes, the OGL is still out there, but the recognition potential is wholly different, and... well, you cannot draw in ingenious young people who get into it with 4E.

That makes me sad and to comment on the edition split: Due to this, even Pathfinder, 3.5, whatever else there is D&D-related, will lose something in the long run. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

I think I am going to try and "rerail" this thread.

There is no doubt that WOTC has a superior market position in the RPG market. D&D is the game that started them all and the one most likely to be found in Barnes & Nobles or Borders. But when you get down to it, I think the more important place to find games is in places where people actually will play them, be it the high school lunch rooms, college commons, family room, or at your FLGS. Those people are your sales and marketing force.

Even though 4e has had tremendous sales up to this point, the GSL has harmed the industry. Instead of everyone building off the 4th edition, everyone must either convert to the GSL, stay with the open system or come up with their own proprietary system. If it is true that 4e has split the community, WOTC has totally screwed up IMHO. Before they had most people playing 3.5e, with some people branching out to try other systems. Now it anyone's guess with the numbers, because they shrunk their own market. Instead of all these 3pp under their roof, they are out there working on their own systems. 

My point simplifies things assuming that if someone buys one they wont buy the other, which I actually don't agree with. Liking 4e does not preclude anyone from buying Pathfinder, nor the does the reverse. But it does mean that there may be two major systems that people have to buy for, and because of the GSL, 3pp are restricted in supporting both. 3pp like Necromancer have to choose which to support and because of the draconian nature of the GSL I'm not surprised that they are staying with 3.5e and its derivatives. It just means one may have to buy two systems to play with all of the available product out there.

My whole point... It's market share that will determine the outcome of this GSL fiasco and you have WOTC and its lawyers on one side and Open Gaming on the other. Historically speaking T$R did do itself any favors by restricting its game and IP; in fact it was WOTC's opening up of 3e to everyone that saved D&D and made it the powerhouse it was. So long as the GSL is not Open Gaming, 3pp will not put any major support behind 4e. Heres to hoping that everyone has room for both.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 1, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Hmm, I wonder why 4E isn't selling so well at his store?
> 
> Customer: "Pardon me, I've heard there's a new edition of D&D..."
> 
> ...




Interestingly, I've got four stores in my city saying the exact same thing.  I'm really not sure that it's just an owner turning customers away.  The customers seem pretty much split in half, from what I'm hearing around here.....and Paizo is getting talked about alot.

Others on these boards have suggested that nobody really knows Paizo, unless they're regulars on the boards....but really, whether it's EN World or somewhere else, I'm sure that a pretty large number of players follow up to some degree.  It's just that many of them probably spend most of the time lurking.  So I bet that there's a fair number of people who either know of Paizo, or of the products they make.

Banshee


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

Roland55 said:


> We are losing access to the products of creative minds ... people with proven track records.  So -- if they don't happen to work at WOTC, I won't get to enjoy their work in 4E??!






zoroaster100 said:


> If WOTC is not going to change the GSL, I hope they hire Paizo or Necromancer adventure designers to create official adventures.




This is more my fear than my hope. It seems apparent that buying up the creative minds of the competition may well be WotC's strategy. Judging form the impact of their GSL, why wouldn't it be? If I was working at Wizards, that's exactly what I'd be thinking. 

It kind of seems like WotC is strongly interested in establishing an ersatz D&D monopoly. If this is the case, then the creativity that comes along with fair competition is not as important to WotC as gaining a financial stranglehold on D&D. This tells me that they might not the responsible stewards of the world's most popular role-playing game that they once were. WotC is eliminating or buying up all of its competition ... I don't see how that can be good for my beloved game. WotC protects their newly exclusive intellectual property, and we get mediocre gaming material? Bah. Is this the direction we want our game heading? Not me. I for one am a little worried about my lovely game, my D&D.

I know I can play whatever I want at my own table. That's fine. What saddens me is direction these stewards are taking the game that's been with me my whole life. I will miss being able to proudly declare that I play D&D. They're losing a very old customer here, not just because I take issue with the new direction of the rules (I admit I'll miss some of those dead hefers), but more importantly with the business ethics of those at the helm. Making the best product no longer seems their utmost priority. The talented folks who create RPGs are not doing it to get rich, they do it for love of the game; as with all forms of media, this passion leads to better products. It feels like WotC has lost their way ...


----------



## FunkBGR (Aug 1, 2008)

/Aside
I don't think giving anecdotes of game stores supporting either side is indicative of anything.

As a 3rd Party Publisher, Paizo doesn't have the recognition that Wizards has. They state this themselves. 

/Rerail
I too was also hoping for some Necro product for 4th Edition. I still have faith that something will come through though.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 1, 2008)

I'm very surprised at this.

I thought the whole turn of products including NOT doing the Tome of Horrors for 4e was Clark's way of getting to 4e without endangering the 'classic' material?

Is anyone aware of what some potential problems could be with the Advanced Player's book for example?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Ok just our two posts show about 50+ people introduced to D&D by another player versus 2 that were not. Anecdotal, but still leads to my point that name recognition is not that important when choosing a game system. Its all about the community and local network of players.



Yup, you're certainly right.  I never disagreed with that, and I think few would.  You just chose to word your initial challenge as if there was literally no one on this site who got into the game another way.  The danger of absolutes and all that


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

FunkBGR said:


> /Aside
> I don't think giving anecdotes of game stores supporting either side is indicative of anything.
> 
> *As a 3rd Party Publisher, Paizo doesn't have the recognition that Wizards has.* They state this themselves.




I think that is part of the question that I brought up. To put more succinctly, what does the D&D brand mean towards bringing new people into the hobby. Does it matter what the game is or who makes the current game? Do more people go into Borders to buy 4e because they read a novel or played a computer game or are more people introduced to the hobby by someone that already plays. Name recognition does not mean nearly as much if more people are brought into the hobby by people that already play.

Those above anecdotes are vital to the discussion because if you have owners and other people in the hobby recommending one over the other, I think that has a large effect on market share. Now granted, just because one poster says their FLGSs are leaning toward Pathfinder that does not mean all of them are. But the more people post about what is happening at their FLGSs, the more we all understand what is going on. I think all of us in this hobby have a vested interest in how this GSL v. OGL thing plays out, because it will shape the future of our hobby in the long term.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 1, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> He still has hope, optimism, is communicating, it is clear he still wants to support 4E...its not _all_ bad.
> 
> Just kinda bad.




It's all bad until WotC state that they want to work with the 3PP to fix the GSL so that there will actually be some 4E 3PP.  Until then, it's a fiasco.  All of Clark's optimism isn't worth much if WotC are happy with the situation as it stands.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Aug 1, 2008)

The GSL isn't the largest "unmitigated disaster".

No, sirs, the largest unmitigated disaster is that you have a top-notch 3pp who _wants_ to support the current version of D&D and _cannot_ do so because of the frickin' license issues.

Some publishers want to stay 3e. Fine.

Some want to do PF. Fine.

Some want to do 4e by dodging the GSL. Sorta fine.

But here you have a guy who earnestly says he's all about 4e, wants to do it the "right" way in terms of licensing, and cannot do so.

That just sucks.

WP


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:


> Yup, you're certainly right.  I never disagreed with that, and I think few would.  You just chose to word your initial challenge as if there was literally no one on this site who got into the game another way.  The danger of absolutes and all that




Yep, thats the danger of thinking that ones experience is the same for all. 

I am amazed at how many people just went into a store, bought some books, gathered a group of friends and taught themselves how to roleplay. Especially with the number that I brought into the hobby. Where are all the people that were introduced to D&D by someone that already played? Do we as hobbyists actually suck at bringing new people into our games?


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 1, 2008)

Its too bad for Clark and Necromancer fans who wanted them to produce 4e material, but in reality, this announcement has little effect on me.  Also, come October 1st, I'm not exactly worried by a shortage of 3PP support for 4e; if there is a market, new companies will arise to take advantage of that market (like Red Brick).

BTW, I regularly visit 5 LGSs in two mid-sized cities.  One doesn't stock any 3PP D&D materials, including Paizo (they basically gave away their remaining back issues of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_).  The rest all stock a few copies of each Paizo release, and it seems that 1-2 of them sell while the rest end up on the shelf.  I know for a fact that until I stopped buying Pathfinder modules, I was the only person regularly buying the one copy that owner of one particular store ordered.  No other 3.5e materials seem to be regularly ordered and most of the backstock is being discounted at various rates.  I really haven't paid attention to 4e sales and since they have so many identical copies, I can't tell if they are selling or not, though one store in particular seems to be a relatively enthusiastic booster.


----------



## Jasperak (Aug 1, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The GSL isn't the largest "unmitigated disaster".
> 
> No, sirs, the largest unmitigated disaster is that you have a top-notch 3pp who _wants_ to support the current version of D&D and _cannot_ do so because of the frickin' license issues.
> 
> ...




My biggest fear is that WOTC puts out a product with Clark's name on it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> The GSL isn't the largest "unmitigated disaster".
> 
> No, sirs, the largest unmitigated disaster is that you have a top-notch 3pp who _wants_ to support the current version of D&D and _cannot_ do so because of the frickin' license issues.
> 
> ...





You know, I actually agree with you. I've always liked Clark because he brings a boyish enthusiasm for the game coupled with very reasoned and mature business acumen. Thanks to him, we got some awesome, awesome 3rd edition products - like Tome of Horrors. As if the first one wasn't amazing enough, he followed them up with two more, both of which were solid and very useful. We got Gary Gygax's previously released but mostly overlooked Metropolis. Also, the Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps, the Wilderlands, Mesopotamia (one of my personal favorites), The Gray Citadel, Rappan Athuk, Bard's Gate, and a whole bunch more. 

Whatever happens, Clark and Necromancer Games, thanks for all the good stuff.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




My friends and I had been playing HeroQuest when we were in sixth grade.  Friend A found this book titled Rifts when we were out book shopping and showed it to us.  We agreed the concept was cool (like HeroQuest but with Robots!!!) and tried it out.

That's how I came to Roleplaying.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 1, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Others on these boards have suggested that nobody really knows Paizo, unless they're regulars on the boards....



I'm sure that's usually intended as a simplification.  The point is that the hardcore roleplayers (those who spend much of their time thinking about RPG games) are the ones most likely to know who Paizo is, those who aren't are very unlikely to know.  The hardcore RPG fans are also the ones most likely to be drawn to ENWorld.



> but really, whether it's EN World or somewhere else, I'm sure that a pretty large number of players follow up to some degree.  It's just that many of them probably spend most of the time lurking.  So I bet that there's a fair number of people who either know of Paizo, or of the products they make.




Paizo is in a pretty unique position in the 3rd party "D&D" companies.  They had the license to Dragon/Dungeon/Polyhedron and that gave them a lot of exposure.  However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that large swaths of D&D players ignored 3rd party d20 products (even before the glut).   They just don't give a D&D product not produced by WotC a second look.  It's a very significant part of the customer base.

However, I don't think anyone has really done any sort of professional research into that behavior (if so, it's WotC).  I could argue that the gamers who buy a lot of 3rd party products are the ones who spend so much on RPGs that they make up a large majority of D&D/d20 product sales.  I'm sure there is some truth to that, but it's just guesswork.  I know some who spend large amounts of money only on 1st party products.  It's very hard to know without the real research.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

This is going a bit off-topic, but I also was self-taught in regards to D&D.

I vaguely recall, sometime back in the early 90's, seeing some kids at some sort of Christmas celebration get an RPG (Hero Quest, I think) and even though I never even talked to them, let alone gamed with them, my interest was peaked, and I mentioned it to my parents a few times (read: pestered them relentlessly). A few months later, for my birthday, my dad got me the _D&D Rules Cyclopedia_, and there was no going back for me.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 1, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:


> All of Clark's optimism isn't worth much if WotC are happy with the situation as it stands.



I hear a lot of comments like this that seem to imply that WotC has a single point of view. I realize it's often just an intentional simplification (and likely is in Dr. Awkward's case, for example), but that attitude is out there.  I believe that attitude is wrong.

Based on various comments, I personally feel that many at WotC aren't happy with the approach that was finally released.  Clark keeps mentioning the Rouse and Linae, and I suspect that's because he feels they have his POV.  The problem is that there are different concerns from different parts of the company.  

Clearly the final GSL came out after a lot of wrangling and internal conflict within WotC.  The fact that they went out of their way to invite the 3rd parties to a meeting to reassure they were part of the plan last GenCon shows a completely different approach than the final GSL has.  The GSL was delayed for months after promises that it was almost there.  There were even statements that they wanted free products out on Free RPG Day, and clearly they abandoned that plan.

That, to me, shows that everyone at WotC doesn't feel the same about the GSL.  Clark is likely hoping that there will be changes after internal discussions continue.

I also suspect that much of his reticence is due to the vagueness of much of the license.  That must drive the lawyer part of his mind crazy.  I wouldn't be surprised if that issue isn't the primary reason he decided not to go with it, after wrestling with ways to get something out.  It's very clear he does want to release 4E products, he just doesn't see the license as something that he can publish under.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> This is going a bit off-topic, but I also was self-taught in regards to D&D..



Ah yes, I should mention I forked this thread to deal with this topic here.  (Still getting used to this whole "thread forking" option).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> /snip
> 
> My point simplifies things assuming that if someone buys one they wont buy the other, which I actually don't agree with. Liking 4e does not preclude anyone from buying Pathfinder, nor the does the reverse. But it does mean that there may be two major systems that people have to buy for, and because of the GSL, 3pp are restricted in supporting both. 3pp like Necromancer have to choose which to support and because of the draconian nature of the GSL I'm not surprised that they are staying with 3.5e and its derivatives. It just means one may have to buy two systems to play with all of the available product out there.




This is probably true.  


> My whole point... It's market share that will determine the outcome of this GSL fiasco and you have WOTC and its lawyers on one side and Open Gaming on the other. Historically speaking T did do itself any favors by restricting its game and IP; in fact it was WOTC's opening up of 3e to everyone that saved D&D and made it the powerhouse it was. So long as the GSL is not Open Gaming, 3pp will not put any major support behind 4e. Heres to hoping that everyone has room for both.




This I'm not so sure about.  Did the OGL save D&D?  Not really.  No one published under the OGL for quite some time.  The D20 STL certainly saw lots of use under 3e and it wasn't until late 3e, 3.5ish that the OGL saw regular loving.  

How much the STL or the OGL helped 3e is anyone's guess really.  We can play hypotheticals all day long.  Considering that 3pp never saw any large share of the D&D market, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was the OGL that made 3e the powerhouse it was.

You could be right, I'm just not 100% convinced that you are.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I'm curious about what "clarifications" Clark wants, and what difference they could make in regards to his decision not to use the GSL. Some of the legalese is rather opaque, I agree, but I'd think he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License.



I think he wants clarifications _at least_ on the meaning of some of the language in clause 6, such as "any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL," "same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents".

These seem to be the issues that most need settling to understand the implications of no backwards conversion, and the implications for JG IP that he is concerned about.

From other posts he has made I also think that Clark is curious about the implicaitons of 11.1, and in particular the extent to which it permits unilateral termination against a single party without the grounds specified in clauses 1, 5.4 and 6.3 having to be made out.

I also don't understand why you think that clarifications would not be adequate. Are you a lawyer or expressing some other sort of professional opinion? If you are, then I'm happy to defer to it (though I'd like to hear more about why you think Mistwell is wrong). But my intuitions run the other way. I don't know quite where the US stands in respect of the parol evidence rule, but I would have thought that evidence of mutual understanding of key terms could be led in any suit for breach of contract, or in any attempt by NG to set up the contract as a defence against an IP suit. And depending on the nature of any clarification and NG's reliance upon it, it could also set up an estoppel against WoTC.

Depending on the details of any clarifications made, any going back on them might also have legal implications in the areas of misleading conduct or negligent mis-statement. But that is getting far more speculative, especially given that my limited knowledge of these areas of law pertains to Australia and not the US.


----------



## Stormtower (Aug 1, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Me.
> 
> My parents bought me the basic set in 1980, but they had never played the game.  They probably thought their 10-year old would like a game with dragons in it.
> 
> They were right.




Man, that sounds like me.  I got the Moldvay version of the Basic Set (purple box) in 1982 when I was 8... but I got it by begging my Mom after I noticed the cool "Gateway to Adventure" display at Kaybee Toys in the mall.

*Ahem* On topic - I'm really sorry to hear how Clark and NG have been squeezed into a difficult position here.  I agree with others in the thread who've suggested that perhaps this was the intent of the GSL all along: to stymie 3PP efforts for capitalization on 4E.  I'd like to think otherwise, but the writing is on the wall.  It feels like a shortsighted corporate decision to me.  

I'll certainly support Necromancer if they make good 3.5-compatible stuff for Pathfinder thru Paizo, though.  Hope you (NG) can keep afloat till then.

Rappan Athuk Reloaded #74


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

Glyfair said:


> The fact that they went out of their way to invite the 3rd parties to a meeting to reassure they were part of the plan last GenCon shows a completely different approach than the final GSL has.




I don't know if that's how I'd characterize it. I was at that meeting, and it was pretty clear once it got started that WotC didn't have a policy regarding Open Gaming (or anything similar) for 4E, and wanted input from publishers and fans (it was a public meeting) in that regard. It was basically just a brainstorming session, along with a bit of taking people's temperatures, and that was it.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I also don't understand why you think that clarifications would not be adequate. Are you a lawyer or expressing some other sort of professional opinion? If you are, then I'm happy to defer to it (though I'd like to hear more about why you think Mistwell is wrong). But my intuitions run the other way.




Apparently, your intuition is just to be snarky and asinine.

I never said I thought Mistwell was wrong; unlike yourself, I don't go around commenting on the validity of other people's opinions. Defer to that.

I also don't think clarification is adequate because the GSL is a bad license, and that'll remain true no matter how clear or obscure it is. Clarification is useful, but won't eliminate the various provisions that make it so unattractive, such as how you must pay WotC's legal fees, or how various restrictions survive in perpetuity.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> Is anyone aware of what some potential problems could be with the Advanced Player's book for example?



I think it could be the meaning of "define", "redefine", or "alter the definition" as these words and phrases occur in clause 4.1, and also "definitions of any 4E References" as that phrase occurs in clause 5.6.

Until one has a clear sense of what these mean - which has to be worked out in relation to other language like "Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference" - then it is not clear what is permissible in relation to a book trying to introduce old D&D notions which WoTC may itself later try to add to the SRD.

There are also complications, I imagine, from the fact the Necromancer will have published OGL products containing reference to Bards, Barbarians, Illusionists etc, and that the Advanced Players Guide may therefore constitute a conversion of that OGL material, thus bringing clause 6 into play.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Aug 1, 2008)

> Hussar wrote:
> Color me a sad panda.




Black and white and blue all over?

Apologies for whimsical non seqitur.

On topic: Well my opinion isn't worth much in terms of market analysis since I only own 3 D20 books of which 1 is Necromancer. (Dead Man's Chest.) But I think it's a great book. It's inspired 2 campaign settings. Since I'm not going 4e I can hope that Necromancer will keep supporting 3e. But since I buy so few D20 books they better not be relying on me too much.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?



Me, but I don't at all disagree with your overall point.  (I started playing D&D, having somehow never even heard of it, as a kid in '81 or so who found the Expert Set rulebook on a schoolbus.)  I've never known of anyone else who started playing D&D without having been introduced to it first.

And, expanding on this, I know of very few players who play the game, but aren't interested enough to have been exposed to, e.g., Paizo, if only via the Internet.  And of the two I do know, neither owns a single D&D product, so it's not like there's an issue of who's getting their gaming dollars.  Paizo, Necromancer, and Green Ronin won't get their money ... but neither will (or has) WotC.  In short, I think many people -- some of them even Pathfinder supporters -- are seriously underestimating just how much Pathfinder can penetrate the market.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 1, 2008)

I'm really torn here.  There are some good posts here, and the possibility of good discussion.  There's also a pretty interesting hijack.  On the other hand, there are several (actually more than several) very problematic posts that are definitely straying across the edition-wars line.  

Please be nice to your moderators and limit discussion to the effect of losing Clark and Necro's influence on 4E.  No more warnings here.  (And don't bring other editions to the table for this thread, thanks.)


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> IApparently, your intuition is just to be snarky and asinine.
> 
> I never said I thought Mistwell was wrong; unlike yourself, I don't go around commenting on the validity of other people's opinions. Defer to that.
> 
> I also don't think clarification is adequate because the GSL is a bad license, and that'll remain true no matter how clear or obscure it is. Clarification is useful, but won't eliminate the various provisions that make it so unattractive, such as how you must pay WotC's legal fees, or how various restrictions survive in perpetuity.



Clark has said in the past that he wants clarifications. He's said in respect of which words and clauses he wants them. He's reiterated these (by implication) in the announcement of non-takeup of the GSL.

You suggested that he would want changes and that clarifications would be inadequate. Clark has never said this that I'm aware of. In particular, to the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned the legal fees issue as a problem, nor the enduring obligations per se (except for how it interacts with the concept of product lines and content thereof).

As to the validity of opinions - are you a lawyer? If not, why should I not query the validity of your opinon on techanical legal matters. If so, what is the reason for thinking that clarifications are not sufficient?


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 1, 2008)

I was actually surprised by this, because if there was one person who I would have said would have been willing to risk the family farm just to go along with WOTC it was Clark. On the other hand, I'm not _utterly_ surprised since Clark's obviously a smart and diligent individual and so I'm sure he can easily see what a thermonuclear enema the GSL is. So I guess I'd say I'm surprised, but not too surprised.

It's unfortunate that some are disappointed. For myself, as an old schooler, I'm somewhat happy about it. Products produced for 3.x can still be useful to me because they're generally not impossible to convert. I don't see how a 4E product can be converted to say, 1E or Classic without basically just rewriting the whole thing. You know, the spells aren't even the same, etc.  So for anybody who is interested in taking 3.x material and converting into older systems, this is basically a win (and it's obviously a win for anybody who is sticking with 3E/Pathfinder, or "Dragons and Dungeons" as they probably should rename it).


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Clark has said in the past that he wants clarifications. He's said in respect of which words and clauses he wants them. He's reiterated these (by implication) in the announcement of non-takeup of the GSL.




You're rehashing things that no one is challenging.



> _You suggested that he would want changes and that clarifications would be inadequate._




I never "suggested" that he would want changes - he flat-out said he wants changes.



			
				Clark Peterson said:
			
		

> Right now, in my view, the GSL needs some major reworking or clarification to be usable.




Emphasis mine. I did, however, say that I didn't think clarifications would be enough.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Clark has never said this that I'm aware of.




See the above post.



> _In particular, to the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned the legal fees issue as a problem, nor the enduring obligations per se (except for how it interacts with the concept of product lines and content thereof)._




No kidding, that isn't what he said. That's what I said when expressing my own opinion, something you seem to be quite miffed over.



> _As to the validity of opinions - are you a lawyer? If not, why should I not query the validity of your opinon on techanical legal matters. If so, what is the reason for thinking that clarifications are not sufficient?_




I'm not a lawyer, not that it has anything to do what we're talking about. By your logic, anyone who isn't a lawyer apparently has no right to discuss what they think about the GSL, which is tragically misguided of you. You need to learn the difference between someone giving legal advice, and stating what they think - opinions don't need validation, they're just opinions.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I never "suggested" that he would want changes - he flat-out said he wants changes.
> 
> <snip quote>
> 
> Emphasis mine. I did, however, say that I didn't think clarifications would be enough.



Clark said he wants changes _or_ clarifications. You asserted that clarifications would not be enough, and that "he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License."

Given that Clark himself said clarifications might be enough (presumably depending on what they were), I wondered why you thought that he would in fact only be satisfied with changes.



Alzrius said:


> That's what I said when expressing my own opinion, something you seem to be quite miffed over.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, not that it has anything to do what we're talking about. By your logic, anyone who isn't a lawyer apparently has no right to discuss what they think about the GSL, which is tragically misguided of you.



I'm not that fussed by your opinion of the OGL. I wanted to know why you thought that _Clark_ would want changes, given that he said that clarification might be enough. In particular, I was wondering what legal issue you thought he had missed in suggesting that clarification might be enough. I also answered your question as to which terms I thought he wanted clarified, and gave some legal reasons as to why I think those clarifications could well be enough.

Legal expertise _is_ relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good. It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Clark said he wants changes _or_ clarifications. You asserted that clarifications would not be enough, and that "he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License."




You're selectively quoting me here. I said that was what I _thought_...which, again, seems to have offended you somehow.



> _Given that Clark himself said clarifications might be enough (presumably depending on what they were), I wondered why you thought that he would in fact only be satisfied with changes._




No, actually that's not what you wondered. What you actually wondered was if I was a lawyer or not, since my opinion didn't count for anything if I wasn't. Likewise, I did later explain why I thought what I did, and you were quick to tell me why what I thought was wrong.



> _I'm not that fussed by your opinion of the OGL._




Maybe not, but my opinion of the GSL apparently has kept you going for several posts now.



> _I wanted to know why you thought that Clark would want changes, given that he said that clarification might be enough._




And I deigned to share my reasoning with you.



> _In particular, I was wondering what legal issue you thought he had missed in suggesting that clarification might be enough._




And again, you're putting words in my mouth. Please quote me on where I said I thought Clark had missed something. Just because you thought I somehow implied that doesn't actually mean that I did.



> _ I also answered your question as to which terms I thought he wanted clarified, and gave some legal reasons as to why I think those clarifications could well be enough._




First of all, I don't recall asking you for what terms you thought he wanted clarified. Secondly, to paraphrase you, "if you're not a lawyer, why would I care what you think?"



> _Legal expertise is relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good._




Not for a qualitative judgment it's not. Legal expertise can't define the subjective state of "good."



> _It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it._




Whether or not Clark is wrong is something that only you are discussing.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 1, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Not surprised at all.
> 
> I like Clark and Necromancer Games and believe that his early enthusiastic support for 4e and WoTC was due to the fact that he had more faith in WoTC than they deserved. The guy obviously loves D&D and really wanted to support 4e but even he, a very enthusiastic early supporter, now sees what many have seen early on...
> 
> ...




That about sums up my feelings on the matter.

And I had hoped I was wrong.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I don't recall asking you for what terms you thought he wanted clarified.



You didn't ask me particularly, but:



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm curious about what "clarifications" Clark wants, and what difference they could make in regards to his decision not to use the GSL. Some of the legalese is rather opaque, I agree, but I'd think he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License.



I tried to satisfy your curiosity, and to explain what differences the clarifications Clark has talked about in the past and in his recent announcement could make in regards to his decision whether or not to use the GSL.



Alzrius said:


> Whether or not Clark is wrong is something that only you are discussing.



Well, you said you'd thought he'd want some changes. I took that to imply you thought he was wrong to think that clarifications would do the job.



Alzrius said:


> Secondly, to paraphrase you, "if you're not a lawyer, why would I care what you think?"



I am a lawyer. You may still not care what I think. But I did say what I thought the relevant clarifications might be, and I did give reasons as to why I think they could do the job that Clark wants done (namely, to prevent Necromancer from being unduly exposed if it were to go with the GSL).


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I tried to satisfy your curiosity,




That's rather presumptuous of you, unless you're Clark Peterson in disguise.



> _and to explain what differences the clarifications Clark has talked about in the past and in his recent announcement could make in regards to his decision whether or not to use the GSL._




You're again very conveniently omitting your rude and disrespectful posts where you make comments to the effect of my opinion being less than yours because I'm not a lawyer. That's not explaining the differences of anything - that's being condescending.



> _Well, you said you'd thought he'd want some changes. I took that to imply you thought he was wrong to think that clarifications would do the job._




He said he'd want some changes, actually. You seem to keep forgetting about that part.



> _I am a lawyer. You may still not care what I think._




Quite right. Since my point has been that legal training has no relevance at all in regards to people's opinion about the worth (or lack thereof) of something. My paraphrasing you was an attempt to drive that point home.



> _ But I did say what I thought the relevant clarifications might be, and I did give reasons as to why I think they could do the job that Clark wants done (namely, to prevent Necromancer from being unduly exposed if it were to go with the GSL)._




Bully for you. You think what you think. Is it okay with you that I think what I think if I don't have a law degree?

I think the GSL is a bad license. I personally don't think that any amount of clarification will make it into a better license. Hence, I'm curious about what clarification Clark is seeking, and if he sees fit to expound upon that, that's nice. Unless you have spoken to him personally, or can link to posts where he's spoken about that, you're not in the least qualified to actually speak to what I was wondering about. You're just speculating - like I was - and a legal degree doesn't make your guesses about Clark's motives any more or less right than mine. Please stop acting otherwise.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I personally don't think that any amount of clarification will make it into a better license. Hence, I'm curious about what clarification Clark is seeking, and if he sees fit to expound upon that, that's nice. Unless you have spoken to him personally, or can link to posts where he's spoken about that, you're not in the least qualified to actually speak to what I was wondering about.



I'm not going to link - I don't have search and I don't have time to manually trawl back. They're there in the threads from around the time the GSL was announced, in which he posted fairly extensively. They're also inferable from his recent announcement.

They pertain particularly to the meaning of product line and related notions in clause 6, and to the interaction of those notions with backwards conversion. It's obvious that he's especially concerned about tying up JG's IP under the GSL. As I pointed out in my reply to Joe Kushner, there is also the troubling implication that the Advanced Players Guide might make nearly everything of Necro's that uses the OGL count as a converted product which can't then be distributed under the OGL.

He stated flat out that he's not worried by the references to meeting WoTC's costs, which were also part of the d20 STL under which he was happy to publish.

In a series of exchanges with me he discussed what remedies, if any, WoTC might get from a breach of the backwards conversion prohibition. He didn't express a definite opinion, but seemed sceptical that WoTC would want to lead the financial information necessary to get contractual damages. I can say for sure that he was nevertheless very concerned about the backwards conversion issue, even though he didn't seem concerned about having to pay damages to WoTC. I don't know what the US law is on the availability of injunctive relief for breach of a licensing contract, and don't know whether he is concerned about that in particular, or whether he is concerned about an IP suit if Necromancer were to breach the licence. It's fairly well known that Clark has more conservative views than some others about the viability of "going copyright".


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 1, 2008)

pemerton said:


> I think he wants clarifications _at least_ on the meaning of some of the language in clause 6, such as "any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL," "same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents".
> 
> These seem to be the issues that most need settling to understand the implications of no backwards conversion, and the implications for JG IP that he is concerned about.
> 
> ...




Bingo. How do you change 4e to feel like 3.5 without redefining anything? I said before in another thread a week ago that I wondered how Clark was going to do it, now i know...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 1, 2008)

Pemerton and Alzarius, please stop responding to one another in this thread.

Any time a post devolves into line by line rebuttles, you know it has gone too far.

By all means continue to participate in this thread, but kindly don't respond to one others points again here.

Thanks


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> It kind of seems like WotC is strongly interested in establishing an ersatz D&D monopoly. If this is the case, then the creativity that comes along with fair competition is not as important to WotC as gaining a financial stranglehold on D&D. This tells me that they might not the responsible stewards of the world's most popular role-playing game that they once were. WotC is eliminating or buying up all of its competition ... I don't see how that can be good for my beloved game. WotC protects their newly exclusive intellectual property, and we get mediocre gaming material? Bah. Is this the direction we want our game heading? Not me. I for one am a little worried about my lovely game, my D&D.




I don't see Wizards buying up or eliminating any competition. Until they start purchasing other companies, or aggresively bringing suits against them (which they might well have to do to defend a trademark) then that's just exaggerating on the effects/reasoning of the GSL.



dragonlordofpoondari said:


> I know I can play whatever I want at my own table. That's fine. What saddens me is direction these stewards are taking the game that's been with me my whole life. I will miss being able to proudly declare that I play D&D. They're losing a very old customer here, not just because I take issue with the new direction of the rules (I admit I'll miss some of those dead hefers), but more importantly with the business ethics of those at the helm. Making the best product no longer seems their utmost priority. The talented folks who create RPGs are not doing it to get rich, they do it for love of the game; as with all forms of media, this passion leads to better products. It feels like WotC has lost their way ...




Every RPG company with employees produces books to make money. To think otherwise is to have an overly idealistic view of the company. They might well not expect to make a lot of money, they might well be producing books they earnestly believe in, but they're still making them to put food on the tables of their employees.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 1, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Legal expertise _is_ relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good. It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it.




He wants legally binding 'clarifications'.  The sort you can rely on in court as a shield against litigation (in UK law, per the doctrine of estoppel the claimant is 'estopped' from bringing action when the defendant made a good-faith reliance upon their assurance.  I believe US law works similarly).


----------



## Angellis_ater (Aug 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yup.  Wouldn't it be great if some folks would get their heads out of their backsides and make 4e OGL?  Then we really could have the best of both worlds......!




Something like this: http://4esque.pbwiki.com ?


----------



## carmachu (Aug 1, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm flattered, guys, and I share your frustration--not just for my own work, but others' work that I'd like to see.
> 
> But don't throw in the towel just yet. As Clark said in his initial post, he's still hoping to work stuff out. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not worried or frustration, but I'm going to cling to hope as long as I have it.





I hope it works out for you and clark, if for no other reason than folks are fans of the work. But really, why is wotc going to make a special deal, what reason do they have for it?

The apparantly wanted total control back and with eth GSL got it.....especially in the light of various comments from scott and Lin that they had to fight to even get the GSL outthe door....


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> What I would really like to know is how many people just went into a store to pick up a RPG to play. There is no significant marketing campaign for 4e. Every single person that I have talked to has said they were introduced to D&D and RPGs by someone else. That train goes all the way back to miniature wargamers, people that watched D&D cartoons, and Boy Scout leaders. Name recognition means nothing if nobody plays. If I go into my FLGS and they are playing Pathfinder, that's what I'm going to be introduced to. Has anyone that never played D&D gone into Borders of B&N and just bought D&D because some computer games were based off of it? D&D and RPGs in general are word-of-mouth hobbies. I would love to see marketing data that points otherwise.
> 
> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?



I bought all three 2e core D&D books based on adds on the backs of comic books.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

Hello, evilref! Thank you for responding to my thoughts.



evilref said:


> I don't see Wizards buying up or eliminating any competition.




To clarify my point, the GSL seems, in my perception (and that of several other posters in this thread), like a thinly veiled attempt to discourage any 3pp from creating content that can compete directly with the niche created by WotC's 4e product line. 

Beyond this, I am conjecturing that Wizards may attempt to lure the best writers away from Paizo and NG. This would be a bad thing, IMO, for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the editorial freedom afforded by publishing at Paizo or NG. RPGeniuses such as Clark or Logue or Baur (or Marmell or Drader for that matter) should be allowed as much creative freedom as possible, IMO. Pure speculation on my part, but the rationale seems within the realm of possibility (or at least her majesty's Britannia).



			
				evilref said:
			
		

> Every RPG company with employees produces books to make money. To think otherwise is to have an overly idealistic view of the company.




I appreciate the reminder about this fundamental nature of companies. It is shocking how often I forget such commonplace bits of knowledge. Anyway, my admittedly maudlin point was this: the olde guard at WotC gave me several good reasons to be idealistic. They administered the company from what appeared to be an idealistic position. The new guard is ... different. Although I am neither womanish nor a child, this makes me want to cry. A lot.

<sniffle>


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> To clarify my point, the GSL seems, in my perception (and that of several other posters in this thread), like a thinly veiled attempt to discourage any 3pp from creating content that can compete directly with the niche created by WotC's 4e product line.




I think that's an oversimplification. The GSL (absent whether you like its overall language or not) doesn't discourage adventures, or campaign settings (albeit redefining races is out). I think in the main it's there to prevent or discourage new games using the system. It has a knockon effect (possibly unintended) of making certain other products harder to do.

There's certainly a much stronger focus on protecting 4e and limiting a company from putting out a cheaper version of the rulebook, or a different game using 4e and 'forking' 4e the way 3e was forked. That said, one of the oft-stated intentions of the OGL was for everyone to be 'playing the same game'. However, a number of derivations of the SRD led to very different versions of that game, so different in fact that some companies had their own licenses to put out material to support their lines.

If (and this is conjecture) that's the primary focus of the GSL then it certainly accomplishes that, but I think does so at the expense of unduly limiting other products and the protections a number of publishers would like to have.



dragonlordofpoondari said:


> Beyond this, I am conjecturing that Wizards may attempt to lure the best writers away from Paizo and NG. This would be a bad thing, IMO, for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the editorial freedom afforded by publishing at Paizo or NG. RPGeniuses such as Clark or Logue or Baur (or Marmell or Drader for that matter) should be allowed as much creative freedom as possible, IMO. Pure speculation on my part, but the rationale seems within the realm of possibility (or at least her majesty's Britannia)




If by lure away you mean hire then I don't see that myself. NG, as much as I like them, has never been a major seller and many of Paizo's core staff are ex-wotc employees. If WotC wanted to rehire those people I'm sure all they had to do was pick up the phone, not create a new license to drive writers towards them. Moreover, both of those companies primarily produce work created by freelancers. Those freelancers are as able to write for WotC (who also use a lot of freelancers) as they are for any other company in the industry. WotC also pays if not the best then among the best rates in the industry, so certainly on a financial basis there's no disincentive there for succesful writers to write for them.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> I think that's an oversimplification. The GSL ... doesn't discourage adventures, or campaign settings (albeit redefining races is out).




Um ... except that is what's happening here, my friend. To summarize, Clark Peterson, 4e's "staunchest supporter," is _discouraged_ by the GSL from publishing several adventures his company already has in the pipeline.



evilref said:


> ... it (sic) does so at the expense of unduly limiting other products and the protections a number of publishers would like to have.




I completely agree with this.



evilref said:


> ...disincentive...



Totally. My concern is not that WotC will hire these folks to do some freelance work. That would be peachy. My concern is that these writers will have no other choice but to write exclusively for WotC if they wish to continue to produce D&D material. Observe the writing on the proverbial wall. It reads "MONOPOLY" in largish, blood-soaked letters. WotC's new GSL is designed to put companies under their thumb or, worse, out of business. They have the right to conduct their business this way. I'm just saying ... it kinda sucks.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Any time a post devolves into line by line rebuttles, you know it has gone too far.




Preposterous!


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2008)

S'mon said:


> He wants legally binding 'clarifications'.  The sort you can rely on in court as a shield against litigation (in UK law, per the doctrine of estoppel the claimant is 'estopped' from bringing action when the defendant made a good-faith reliance upon their assurance.  I believe US law works similarly).



I agree. I mentioned estoppel in my earlier post. I also assume that evidence of a mutual understanding of certain clauses could be led to help interpret the contract at least in some cases (how strictly does the US apply the parol evidence rule?).


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> Totally. My concern is not that WotC will hire these folks to do some freelance work. That would be peachy. My concern is that these writers will have no other choice but to write exclusively for WotC if they wish to continue to produce D&D material. Observe the writing on the proverbial wall. It reads "MONOPOLY" in largish, blood-soaked letters. WotC's new GSL is designed to put companies under their thumb or, worse, out of business. They have the right to conduct their business this way. I'm just saying ... it kinda sucks.




I think you're taking a supportable position and argument (The GSL is not as open as the OGL) and spinning it into an unsupported and illogical conclusion (WotC wants to put companies out of business). If there was no GSL it would be a more supported position, but still not actively show 'WotC wants to put companies out of business. 

For that matter, where's the outrage and arguments aimed at every company in the industry that doesn't have an open license for their systems? Which also includes companies that use the OGL and have developed products which have their own restrictive licenses (some of which more limited than the GSL).


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

I may be an "illogical" and "over-simplified" ragamuffin. I'll take that. Hell, I sometimes "exaggerate" and even think in "overly-idealistic" terms.

My best quality, though, is my ability to condescend without any hint of subtlety whatever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

Angellis_ater said:


> Something like this: http://4esque.pbwiki.com ?




Well, I suppose the answer to that depends very much on how WotC responds.  As it seems that the GSL is designed specifically to counteract the OGL, I am imagining that WotC will take a dim view on trying to create non-GSL 4e (or 4esque ) products.

But we'll see.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, I suppose the answer to that depends very much on how WotC responds.  As it seems that the GSL is designed specifically to counteract the OGL, I am imagining that WotC will take a dim view on trying to create non-GSL 4e (or 4esque ) products.
> 
> But we'll see.




It'll be interesting to see how Goodman Games's next few DCC's fare, since they're going to be OGL products that are 4E-compatible. That makes them very 4Esque.


----------



## SavageRobby (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> For that matter, where's the outrage and arguments aimed at every company in the industry that doesn't have an open license for their systems? Which also includes companies that use the OGL and have developed products which have their own restrictive licenses (some of which more limited than the GSL).





I'm curious as to the companies you allude to. What companies have done this?


----------



## thundershot (Aug 1, 2008)

So... for me, this is how it looks right now:

Keep in mind that I have ZERO interest in 3.x or Pathfinder or any other non-4E system.


COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Wizards of the Coast
Paizo
Necromancer Games
Green Ronin
Goodman Games
Adamant Entertainment

The three scratched out ones? They'll be added to my list as soon as they produce 4E material. I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat as me....


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

SavageRobby said:


> I'm curious as to the companies you allude to. What companies have done this?




Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.

Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced. On reflection and rereading the licenses, however, I think the Superlink license is only more restrictive in requiring a copy of the product to be sent for approval, and the true 20 license lies somewhere between the OGL and the GSL for restrictions.

Note, i'm in no way saying that Green Ronin can't have limitations on what products they allow to use their branding, but I find it amusing that WotC gets criticism for changing a license that is still allowing use of its materials (albeit with in my opinion overly harsh clauses) but the dozens of companies and games without such a license get a free pass. And a company such as Green Ronin which also had a harsher license than the OGL likewise skates free of this upswelling of criticism for how they choose to protect their PI and image.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 1, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'll trade you. You give me back the two novels of mine that were yanked off the schedule, and I'll take the loss of three RPG books.




Life as a writer my friend.  At least you can get to the point of being yanked, I can't get that far.  And I almost lost 18 years of writing in a hard drive crash this weekend.  I wish you the best in getting your stuff published.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 1, 2008)

Henry said:


> ...nothing except *EXPERIENCE POINTS AND LOOT!* _Roll Initiative, you Cur!_
> 
> I agree with the Drader.




When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.
> 
> Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced.




Note those are TRADEMARK licenses and should be compared to the STL, not the OGL.

The think about the OGL is that you *can't* screw over people who want to use your stuff -- the viral nature of it means that anything you derive from open content is open. You can create branding/product identity licenses which are restrictive, of course, but that's a different thing.

I think that if 4e were released under the OGL, with the GSL replacing the STL, we'd see a lot more acceptance of it. The GSL is fine as a trademark license; it is lousy as a content license.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Note those are TRADEMARK licenses and should be compared to the STL, not the OGL.




Note, if you read the thread, I was making a point about companies without licenses, Green Ronin's more stringent license and the GSL. It was a comparison of reaction to the GSL and the others, not the OGL.



Lizard said:


> I think that if 4e were released under the OGL, with the GSL replacing the STL, we'd see a lot more acceptance of it. The GSL is fine as a trademark license; it is lousy as a content license.




Completely agreed and for a long while it looked as if there was going to be one strong license which allowed use of the D&D brand, and a less restrictive one that allowed the system but not the brand. I'd like to see that come out, but doubt we'd see any change to licensing until next year.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 1, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm flattered, guys, and I share your frustration--not just for my own work, but others' work that I'd like to see.
> 
> But don't throw in the towel just yet. As Clark said in his initial post, he's still hoping to work stuff out. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not worried or frustration, but I'm going to cling to hope as long as I have it.




Ari, are you planning on writing any books for the Pathfinder system, once it comes out?

Banshee


----------



## BryonD (Aug 1, 2008)

Hussar said:


> This I'm not so sure about.  Did the OGL save D&D?  Not really.  No one published under the OGL for quite some time.



  Huh?  Creature Collection came out BEFORE the Monster Manual.  And right there in the back is the OGL.  There were OGL products out the very day that 3E was released.  And lots of titles came out very rapdily.



> The D20 STL certainly saw lots of use under 3e and it wasn't until late 3e, 3.5ish that the OGL saw regular loving.



I think you don't understand the D20 STL / OGL setup.  Please provide me a list of a few D20 STL products that were not OGL products.



> How much the STL or the OGL helped 3e is anyone's guess really.  We can play hypotheticals all day long.  Considering that 3pp never saw any large share of the D&D market, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was the OGL that made 3e the powerhouse it was.



There is a huge difference between comparing individual 3PPs to WotC and weighing the entire OGL movement's impact on the market.
And even that misses the real point.
You could buy ten products from WotC and have one or two products from a 3PP that really had a big imapct on your game and that would keep you playing.  There were tons of long tail opportunities buried in the 3PP stuff that kept interest in 3E going well out of proportion to their sales figures.

That said, I agree that the 3E mechanics were what really created the boom.  But the OGL was a huge support.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 1, 2008)

thundershot said:


> So... for me, this is how it looks right now:
> 
> Keep in mind that I have ZERO interest in 3.x or Pathfinder or any other non-4E system.
> 
> ...



There are a lot of people in the same boat as you.  A whole lot of people.
Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 1, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> Is anyone aware of what some potential problems could be with the Advanced Player's book for example?




Having to call the barbarian something other than barbarian, the bard something other than bard, and the druid something other than druid, or risk having to pulp your product line when WotC reclaims control of the terminology.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 1, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.




Yep.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> Those above anecdotes are vital to the discussion because if you have owners and other people in the hobby recommending one over the other, I think that has a large effect on market share. Now granted, just because one poster says their FLGSs are leaning toward Pathfinder that does not mean all of them are. But the more people post about what is happening at their FLGSs, the more we all understand what is going on. I think all of us in this hobby have a vested interest in how this GSL v. OGL thing plays out, because it will shape the future of our hobby in the long term.




That's what I'm getting at.  The four (actually, five) stores I'm referencing supporting one vs. the other does not mean that it's that way with all stores.....nor does it mean that 4E isn't selling there.  At least in those stores, the annecdotal accounts seem to indicate that uptake of the game isn't as strong as the owners expected.  They've commented on how split their customers are on the issue, and in some of their cases, the owners and the regulars aren't even fans of the new game.  At least at the places I've been to, Paizo products are getting equal shelf space with 4E....they're not a little shelf at the back.

Does it mean anything empirical?  No....I stated that from the beginning.  Just pointing out the observations I've made, while visiting my local stores.  Someone else might state that 3 stores they went to are full of customers raving about the new edition.

But if the owners, and the customers who spend lots of time coming back to the store are leaning towards one or the other, and a new customer comes in asking about what game to get into, the opinion he's going to hear isn't going to be "4E is the way to go".  He's going to find he's got choice.....in the change from 1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E, I don't think that same type of choice was available.  Yes, there were other gaming companies out there, and other game systems...but there was only one D&D.  Now, there are a bunch of different flavours...if Pathfinder takes off, then you're going to have two main types.  I don't *think* we've really had that kind of situation before.....the OGL opened up pandora's box, and I don't think anyone can really predict what's going to happen now.  If WotC wants to sell the game, those are the kinds of people they need to win over.

Paizo's benchmark for success is likely much smaller than WotC's.  They can probably afford to sell 10% of the copies that WotC does, and still be doing well.

Given that 4E came from, in large part, creativity and minds that were enabled and "blooded" in the 3E/d20/OGL market, I suspect that WotC might find that they have a smaller pool of talent to draw from in terms of designers than they did during the previous edition.  And, IMO, that's really not good for anyone.

I'm curious though.....how much of the shrinking market in the last few years is due to appetite for RPGs drying up, and how much of it is actually because economic times are tightening overall?  People spend their discretionary income far more carefully when times are tight, and RPGs are firmly in the "discretionary income" sector.

Banshee


----------



## Lizard (Aug 1, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Having to call the barbarian something other than barbarian, the bard something other than bard, and the druid something other than druid, or risk having to pulp your product line when WotC reclaims control of the terminology.




That's a biggie. 

I also think the lack of clarity on "extend" vs. "redefine" makes books like the APH -- or, really, any splat -- risky. 

Let's suppose I want to a swashbuckling setting, with flintlocks and so on. I think giving rangers a bunch of gun-based exploits is a good idea. To avoid some redundancy, I might just borrow a lot of the bow powers and recast them as gun based. So I rename "Knockdown Shot" as "Kneecapping", and give it the same effect. Here I run into problems:

a)Unlike the OGL, I cannot use any text. But let's face it -- there's not too many ways to say "Target takes damage and falls down". There's almost no way, other than the flavor text, that "Kneecapping" will not be written very, very, closely to "Knockdown Shot". Will WOTC care? The seeming intent of the GSL is to prevent wholesale copying of the rules, not to make it impossible to make similar powers, but "seeming intent" has no legal value.

b)Does giving gun based powers to the ranger "extend" him, or does it "redefine" him? I have no clue.


----------



## Creeping Death (Aug 1, 2008)

BryonD said:


> There are a lot of people in the same boat as you.  A whole lot of people.
> Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.




I agree.  In fact my group is doing Star Wars Saga, 3.xE, and a modified version of Iron Heroes.  We will grab other 3.xE OGL stuff for use in our games, but 4e? No, not going to switch.


----------



## SavageRobby (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.
> 
> Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced. On reflection and rereading the licenses, however, I think the Superlink license is only more restrictive in requiring a copy of the product to be sent for approval, and the true 20 license lies somewhere between the OGL and the GSL for restrictions.
> 
> Note, i'm in no way saying that Green Ronin can't have limitations on what products they allow to use their branding, but I find it amusing that WotC gets criticism for changing a license that is still allowing use of its materials (albeit with in my opinion overly harsh clauses) but the dozens of companies and games without such a license get a free pass. And a company such as Green Ronin which also had a harsher license than the OGL likewise skates free of this upswelling of criticism for how they choose to protect their PI and image.





I don't mean to be obtuse at all, but I completely and totally fail to see how those are more restrictive than the GSL. More restrictive than the OGL, perhaps a bit yes, but the GSL? Not a chance.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2008)

Lizard said:


> b)Does giving gun based powers to the ranger "extend" him, or does it "redefine" him? I have no clue.




If it's the PHB Ranger + Guns, then it's extending.

If it's the PHB Ranger - Anything + Guns, then it's redefining.

We've been having this same discussing in my development circle, as we were trying to figure out ways to differentiate our versions of PHB races and classes from the core without running into the problem of redefining.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 1, 2008)

Lizard said:


> That's a biggie.



Actually, I think that's the least of it. The real biggie is power names. If you name a power the same as a WotC power that hasn't been released yet, or release a not quite as well researched as necessary book with a power that has the same name as a WotC power... You could avoid this by adding some nonsense names to your powers, presumably, but what if you reuse one those names in an OGL product eventually without realizing it? While it takes malevolent intent to use such a nonsense name as a "same product line" link, you might open yourself to that.

Essentially, with the GSL, you want to use IP to separate your work from GSL-SRD material, but you don't want to use IP because it'll be eternally removed from OGL land.

Necro made the right call not signing this GSL.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Aug 1, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.




Me too.


----------



## radferth (Aug 1, 2008)

It was (and still is) my understanding that part of the intent of the GSL was to more or less limit 3pps to modules only, no alternate setting or splatbooks.  So Green Ronin and folks wanting to make gun-totin' rangers not signing on means the GSL is working as intended.  Paizo and Necromancer not making modules, however, is not what I understood they were shooting for.  I'd assume various folks within WotC are delighted or appalled by this development.  As someone who plays C&C or 3E, I'm better served by 3pps not switching to 4E.  It does seem a shame that P and N feel they can't make that choice, especially since (IMHO) WotC doesn't have the best track record on making good adventures.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 1, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> He's going to find he's got choice.....in the change from 1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E, I don't think that same type of choice was available.  Yes, there were other gaming companies out there, and other game systems...but there was only one D&D.




Well, through 1E and 2E, there was always Basic D&D that (kind of) competed with AD&D (1 and 2), so there *were* two versions of D&D being supported in the past.  They were just put out by the same company.


----------



## boerngrim (Aug 1, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I'll tack on my "bought an issue of dragon magazine blindly, then the boxed set to see what I had bought..."
> 
> Bought the boxed set at Zayre's, a department store long since deceased.




Thread interupt:
Man I used to love Zayre's! They had the best prices on GI Joes when I was a kid. I shopped at one in Lakewood, NY
End Interrupt


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 1, 2008)

My list:

Pied Piper Publishing (1e adventures)
Troll Lord Games (Castle Zagyg C&C stuff)
Goodman Games (1e adventures)
Expeditious Retreat Press (OSRIC/1e adventures)
Goblinoid Games (Mutant Future)
Mongoose (Traveller)
First Edition Society (Monsters of Myth)
Mythmere Games (Swords & Wizardy (white box OD&D clone) stuff, forthcoming Knockspell magazine)
Ignatius Umlaut (Fight On!)
Adventure Games Publishing (C&C Wilderlands stuff)


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2008)

radferth said:


> It was (and still is) my understanding that part of the intent of the GSL was to more or less limit 3pps to modules only, no alternate setting or splatbooks.




This isn't true. The intent of the GSL is to allow companies to createe supplements that *require* the customer to own the D&D 4th Edition core books in order to use, rather than the OGL's allowance of wholesale reprinting of the core system (thus removing the need to own D&D to get use from OGL supplements).

If the intent was to prevent settings and splatbooks, then the SRD would not allow you to extend existing materials and create new classes, races, powers, rituals, and the ilk, since all you need to create adventures would be the monster rules and the terrain rules.

I've been in talks with people at WotC about the GSL and what it means for campaign settings, as I've been developing one to release for 4e. I can't talk about any real details, but I can say that their intent is far from preventing campaign settings and splatbooks.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> I think you're taking a supportable position and argument (The GSL is not as open as the OGL) and spinning it into an unsupported and illogical conclusion (WotC wants to put companies out of business). If there was no GSL it would be a more supported position, but still not actively show 'WotC wants to put companies out of business.
> 
> For that matter, where's the outrage and arguments aimed at every company in the industry that doesn't have an open license for their systems? Which also includes companies that use the OGL and have developed products which have their own restrictive licenses (some of which more limited than the GSL).




You can use their OGL systems without using their brand licenses. If their systems are under the OGL then they do have an open license for using the system.

Since you can use their systems without the brand license I don't see any reason for outrage.

Just like you could use the OGL without the d20 STL.

The GSL has no comparable OGL option for its system rules without the restrictions and terms of the GSL.


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 1, 2008)

BryonD said:


> There are a lot of people in the same boat as you.  A whole lot of people.
> Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.




Applies to myself as well.

In the past few weeks alone Ive picked up at least 15 more 3.5 DCCs both from goodman and my local FLGS, and some Green Ronin Freeport stuff. Im also still hunting for RA: Reloaded and DCC 35 (which I want for collection sake).

Paizo has all my gaming money so atm. I own everything they've made so far concerning Pathfinder/Gamemastery and I'm currently a dual subscriber of the Modules and AP line. I know I probably wont play it all, but I like the setting and the direction the rules are heading. 

Wizards of the Coast gets $0 atm from me.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> Beyond this, I am conjecturing that Wizards may attempt to lure the best writers away from Paizo and NG. This would be a bad thing, IMO, for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the editorial freedom afforded by publishing at Paizo or NG. RPGeniuses such as Clark or Logue or Baur (or Marmell or Drader for that matter) should be allowed as much creative freedom as possible, IMO. Pure speculation on my part, but the rationale seems within the realm of possibility (or at least her majesty's Britannia).




This isn't really something worth worrying about too much since it already happens. Most freelancers take the work where they can find it, and a good number of writers who primarily write for Paizo have also worked for WotC and vice versa. Neither company has a shortage of writers in their stable, and since it's all contract work, neither company can control who else their freelancers work for.

My choice to stop supporting Wizards has everything to do with two things: the GSL and the simple fact that 4E doesn't appeal to me personally. Not every freelancer (most actually) are not taking such a rigid stance.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 1, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Man, this sucks.  I really hope Clark and the Necro guys can get the GSL issues worked out and be able to print 4e materials.  I love Necro's previous stuff, but I have absoultely NO interest in Pathfinder- its just more broken than 3.5 in all the same areas, and adds more problems.  So if they go only the Pathfinder route, they have lost me as a customer, and I daresay, a large portion of the current D&D players.




You may 'daresay', but unless you've polled most of the current D&D players, you can't really say if Paizo has lost them as customers.  I for one, and one of the weekly groups I play with, love Pathfinder.

Not that I wouldn't play 4e, mind you.  But I play in 3 weekly groups, and only one is considering the switch, and that one only at some point down the road.

MrG


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My choice to stop supporting Wizards has everything to do with two things: the GSL and the simple fact that 4E doesn't appeal to me personally.




lol. I was thinking along similar lines a few minutes before this on the necro board equivalent thread.

an excerpt from my NG board post



> That said 4E still doesnt appeal to alot of people based on fluff alone, let alone the rules. Regardless of the GSL there is still a huge rift between 3.5 and 4E gamers, and it seems like alot of folks like me are firmly planted in the 3.5 camp since before the GSL was released. Its too different a game for alot of us. Regardless of my opinions, I will miss the Necro of old. I love the modules NG put out along with the ToH Revised (which im glad Paizo seems to be drawing some creatures from). I have nothing but respect for your ideals and wish you continued success when you resume putting out some quality 3PP products no matter what edition (even if I dont buy the 4E books).


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 1, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Well, through 1E and 2E, there was always Basic D&D that (kind of) competed with AD&D (1 and 2), so there *were* two versions of D&D being supported in the past.  They were just put out by the same company.




Well, that is true....but I guess I should clarify my thinking in pointing out that I meant that there weren't options for D&D by companies that weren't WotC or TSR, right?

Obviously, in 3E, everyone got into the game....but in most cases, players were still using the PHB sold by the creator of D&D.  Under this new scenario, it could be like we have two (or more) D&D versions, all made by different companies.

Regardless of whether something is called Pathfinder or 3.75E, it's still D&D.....they just can't use the name.  But if it looks like a duck...

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Banshee


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

SavageRobby said:


> I don't mean to be obtuse at all, but I completely and totally fail to see how those are more restrictive than the GSL. More restrictive than the OGL, perhaps a bit yes, but the GSL? Not a chance.




So you ignored the part of my post with 'on reflection and rereading the licenses...'

It still doesn't escape the fundamental point, however, why the outrage at WotC for a restrictive license, when there's no outrage at every other game company which doesn't have a license at all?

Why does D&D need to be licensed, just because one edition was open?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Regardless of whether something is called Pathfinder or 3.75E, it's still D&D.....they just can't use the name.  But if it looks like a duck...




I'm using the term "alternate new edition."

The changes with Pathfinder rewrite nearly half of the core rules from 3.5. The changes are good ones for gameplay while maintaining backwards compatibility. All of the modules from 3.5 can be run with very few changes. It would be interesting to run a 3.0 module, like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and see how that works, but I'm not anticipating any major problems. I'd estimate that about 90% of the splat material can still be used as-is. Alternate core classes that Wizards produced for 3.5 are also still usable, and because there was power creep throughout 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG core classes are a bit more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, they're actually more balanced than they were before.

The fact that Monte Cook is acting as an advisor means that there is a direct line of continuity in the system from 3.0 to Pathfinder. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...."


----------



## Lizard (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> So you ignored the part of my post with 'on reflection and rereading the licenses...'
> 
> It still doesn't escape the fundamental point, however, why the outrage at WotC for a restrictive license, when there's no outrage at every other game company which doesn't have a license at all?
> 
> Why does D&D need to be licensed, just because one edition was open?




It doesn't. If WOTC had said, at Gencon '07, "Screw you guys...we're going home.", I think most people would have just said "So it goes". Instead, WOTC has engaged in constant misidrection, missed deadlines, and conflicting messages, and it's hard not to watch it all and not conclude it is a deliberate attempt to keep competitors off balance, to make sure something like Pathfinder wasn't available at the same time 4e was released -- because, guaranteed, if WOTC had said "No license" or "Here's the GSL, like it or lump it" back in August, something very much like Pathfinder -- but completed, not in beta -- would be on sale at this GenCon. It's hard not to imagine they knew this, too -- by design, and by explicit statement (not "by accident" or "unespectedly"), the OGL "freed" Dungeons&Dragons from the control of any business entity. One of its goals was to make sure D&D could survive WOTC's collapse, or Hasbro's disinterest, or any other factor which might end the game line. 

There is no such thing as a "right" to publish for D&D. WOTC is perfectly within their rights, morally and legally, to offer no license, or a bad one. By the same token, there's no obligation for people to just say "Thank you sir, may I have another" when they read the GSL. There's a right to feel a bit let down when you were reasonably expecting one thing and got something else. It's like getting socks for your birthday. Sure, socks is better than nothing, but it's not what you wanted and, assuming you always used to get cool toys, not what you were expecting.

As a freelancer, I am disappointed that the GSL will probably lead to fewer companies needing my services. As a D&D player, I am disappointed that there will be fewer Cool Things for use with 4e -- and that means I'm likely to turn to other game systems entirely when I want to run something that isn't bog-standard fantasy. About the only good thing I can see about the GSL is that it's an interesting window for me to go into the PDF business on my own. I have no existing, high-value IP to risk, if I'm PDF only I have no costs if the GSL changes, and I can focus on purely mechanical supplements of the type least likely to offend WOTC. (And I can't be the only one, so I think one of the main effects of the GSL will be to encourage a flood of new "garage band" publishers while the established, high quality firms become WOTCs competitors instead of partners. Meet Mr. Law Of Uninteded Consequences.)


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 1, 2008)

Knight Otu said:


> Actually, I think that's the least of it. The real biggie is power names.



Total agreement. Power names, feat names, magic items names: they are all restricted such that you can't redefine them. So you call your bard a skald. Great, but if you gave it a power called inspire confidence.... ooops. PHB2's bard has the same power name and it finds its way into the GSL. Pulp. Now, that's an easy one to avoid. But there are only so many ways to name a power unless you start translating all of your powers from English to Mandarin to English. Just to be safe.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> The fact that Monte Cook is acting as an advisor means that there is a direct line of continuity in the system from 3.0 to Pathfinder. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...."



I'm pretty sure Monte's said he had nothing to do with 3.5 so at best that's a dotted line of continuity.


----------



## Lizard (Aug 1, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> But there are only so many ways to name a power unless you start translating all of your powers from English to Mandarin to English. Just to be safe.




Then you'd end up with Book of Nine Swords. ("Quick! Use Hopping Turnip Attack!" "No, that won't work on golems! I have to use Fist Of The Inverted Bagel!")

Thank all the gods that most of that stuff was ultimately dropped from 4e, despite threats to the contrary.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm pretty sure Monte's said he had nothing to do with 3.5 so at best that's a dotted line of continuity.




I can't dispute that. Despite all the handwringing at the time, there were relatively few large changes to 3.5. In fact, Wizards was releasing 3.5 support products before 3.5 was actually available, such as Fiend Folio.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Instead, WOTC has engaged in constant misidrection, missed deadlines, and conflicting messages, and it's hard not to watch it all and not conclude it is a deliberate attempt to keep competitors off balance, to make sure something like Pathfinder wasn't available at the same time 4e was released -- because, guaranteed, if WOTC had said "No license" or "Here's the GSL, like it or lump it" back in August, something very much like Pathfinder -- but completed, not in beta -- would be on sale at this GenCon.
> 
> 
> Having worked for large corporations I don't think there was any deliberate attempt myself. Instead I think things changed. Looking back over the timeline I think there was an earnest desire to have something similar but tighter than the OGL. At some point people in positions of authority at WotC (possibly including WotC legal) said something along the lines of 'hang on, do we want this?' and there then began a lot of back and forth. Note, I've seen an update to an existing contract that only changed one line take 2 months to be resolved, so the time isn't that surprising to me.
> ...


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> It still doesn't escape the fundamental point, however, why the outrage at WotC for a restrictive license, when there's no outrage at every other game company which doesn't have a license at all?
> 
> Why does D&D need to be licensed, just because one edition was open?




Here's the source of my anger.

I play D&D and not other games. I used to adapt stuff from other games to my D&D game before there was the OGL. 3e came around and the OGL with it. Now I bought a number of WotC D&D and d20 books (I own 30) but not everything from WotC. I bought hundreds of OGL books, they filled niches WotC did not provide, had different styles and tastes and price points and formats that appealed to me etc. Instead of neat books from other companies that I had to work at to get compatible to my D&D games there was a bonanza of neat third-party books with directly compatible mechanics. Also with the free OGL srd I could reference game rules easily on my computer which was a huge boon to my games. I got a lot out of the OGL for my D&D games.

WotC decided to move away from having 4e open. The 4e SRD is a reference for terms to cite in publications, not an actual rules reference guide useable by gamers. PDFs of the rules cost $75 instead. The GSL restrictions are reducing the number of people willing to make 4e stuff and so options for 4e D&D mechanically compatible stuff are reduced.

4e is in the same category as White Wolf's Exalted for me right now. Looks like a neat cool game with a lot of great features, but too expensive and without enough features for me to consider switching from 3.5/OGL D&D.

Wizards went from taking D&D from my main game to my only game with 3e then made 4e D&D not worth buying right now because they decided to downgrade the features they previously offered.

I like D&D, it annoys me that these WotC decisions are driving me away from picking up the new edition.

I am annoyed at White Wolf that they priced the exalted pdfs beyond what I would be willing to buy them for, but I don't care as much as I do about WotC's actions because I play D&D.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> I don't personally see anything to ascribe malice to, however, and I doubt Pathfinder is as big a perceived threat in WotC as the Pathfinder boards and champions would have it.




Pathfinder doesn't need to threaten WotC to be successful. A certain number of people are already not going to switch to 4th edition. The poll numbers here at ENWorld and the anecdotal examples I've seen here locally show that there is a market for people who don't want to make the change. It might be that they don't like 4E, or they might be big enough fans of Paizo that they want to continue using their adventure material regardless of system, or maybe they just love 3.5 and don't feel a need to take such a radical step away from it. Those are the people Pathfinder is for.

The only way Pathfinder would truly challenge 4E is if 4E bombs. If that happens, there will either be a massive shift away from D&D and towards something else, possibly Pathfinder, or the industry will bust spectacularly. I don't see either of these things happening, so I'm happy with D&D holding on to its position at the same time a healthy 3rd party merket exists. Everybody wins.


----------



## Xath (Aug 1, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If only the 3.5 or Pathfinder fans weren't so judgmental towards us 4th edition fans (y'know, looking down on us "fanbois" for liking our "dumbed down" game). Then we might actually find some common ground.




Please refrain from attacking the fans of other editions.  There is room enough for everyone here, and baiting is not tolerated.  

For those of you who responded to this bait, please do not do so in the future.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 1, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Ari, are you planning on writing any books for the Pathfinder system, once it comes out?




As the saying goes, "never say never." But at the moment, I have no plans to do so.

I like Paizo. I like working with Erik Mona, in particular. But the truth is, having now done both, I find designing and writing for 4E much more enjoyable and rewarding than designing for 3.5 and its variants. This isn't _always_ the case with _every_ mechanic, of course, but I've found it to be the case with at least, oh, 80% to 85% of mechanics.

So right now, I have no interest in stepping away from 4E to work with 3.5--and while Pathfinder isn't _exactly_ 3.5, it's still the same basic system.

Now as I said, that's where things stand _now_. All sorts of things can happen in the future--I might be offered an idea so cool that I want to do it no matter the system; I might come up with an idea that doesn't fit into 4E for whatever reason; there are all sorts of possibilities--but those are all big "ifs."


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Well, that is true....but I guess I should clarify my thinking in pointing out that I meant that there weren't options for D&D by companies that weren't WotC or TSR, right?




Judges Guild, Role Aids, Chaosium, Kenzer and others did D&D stuff as well. And lots of RPG products were D&D with house rules or with just the serial numbers filed off. It was not as widespread or prominent as the wave of OGL products but there was a large number of older edition Non TSR D&D products. I found a website once collecting various old non TSR D&D product descriptions and I think there were over 100 companies with stuff.

I really liked my Role Aids Demons books.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Pathfinder doesn't need to threaten WotC to be successful. A certain number of people are already not going to switch to 4th edition. The poll numbers here at ENWorld and the anecdotal examples I've seen here locally show that there is a market for people who don't want to make the change. It might be that they don't like 4E, or they might be big enough fans of Paizo that they want to continue using their adventure material regardless of system, or maybe they just love 3.5 and don't feel a need to take such a radical step away from it. Those are the people Pathfinder is for.




I completely agree that it can be succesful, even highly succesful (20k+ sales in the first year) without threatening D&D. However, there's a notable undercurrent, if not outright expectation, by a number of Pathfinder supporters who seem to believe that it's going to outsell 4e.

Personally I hope it is succesful as I don't think my ideal of Paizo producing 4e adventures is going to happen, so instead I can pick up Pathfinder adventures and convert.

Edit, one caveat however, if as you say pathfinder changes 50% of the core rules of 3.5 (I've not checked Pathfinder since I think the first Alpha), which is what you expressed in a thread here, doesn't that also require people to change their games and learn new rules, so it's not the whole of the 'don't like 4e' audience that's going to be opened up (which would indeed be bumper numbers).



Darrin Drader said:


> The only way Pathfinder would truly challenge 4E is if 4E bombs. If that happens, there will either be a massive shift away from D&D and towards something else, possibly Pathfinder, or the industry will bust spectacularly. I don't see either of these things happening, so I'm happy with D&D holding on to its position at the same time a healthy 3rd party merket exists. Everybody wins.




The ironic thing with the number of people who post that they hope that 4e fails, or that WotC crashes because of it is that they're probably not realising how intrinsic D&D and its sales are to the industry. A lot of game stores went out of business around the time TSR stopped producing stuff and a lot more pretty much just survived because of Magic. Take out D&D (without something selling in comparable numbers very quickly) and what excuse for an industry we have will crash, and a lot of other companies and shops will go down in a cascade. 

Thus, the GSL changing to become more palatable to more companies is probably the best solution for everyone (except possibly those people at Wizards who don't want to see x/y/z opened up).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Instead, WOTC has engaged in constant misidrection, missed deadlines, and conflicting messages, and it's hard not to watch it all and not conclude it is a deliberate attempt to keep competitors off balance,




The problem with that line of reasoning is that D&D (and by extension, WotC) has _never_ had effective competition.  I've yet to see a cogent argument that any publisher was in a position to change that.  We should not mistake an attempt to maximize profits with anti-competitive maneuvers.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> The ironic thing with the number of people who post that they hope that 4e fails, or that WotC crashes because of it is that they're probably not realising how intrinsic D&D and its sales are to the industry.




Honestly, I think a lot of it is the equivalent of home team bravado. I've been enjoying myself over at the Paizo boards, mainly because we can discuss Pathfinder and 3.5 without the controversy there. I don't think anyone really wants to see D&D fail unless that failure results in the transition to somebody who will treat it better.



> A lot of game stores went out of business around the time TSR stopped producing stuff and a lot more pretty much just survived because of Magic. Take out D&D (without something selling in comparable numbers very quickly) and what excuse for an industry we have will crash, and a lot of other companies and shops will go down in a cascade.




Sadly, I agree with you.



> Thus, the GSL changing to become more palatable to more companies is probably the best solution for everyone (except possibly those people at Wizards who don't want to see x/y/z opened up).




I absolutely agree with you here. Change the GSL and everything changes - except for my system of choice. I still prefer 3.5/Pathfinder. I was originally planning on getting the 4E player book by Necromancer since one of my friends wants to run some 4E in the future.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> I doubt Pathfinder is as big a perceived threat in WotC as the Pathfinder boards and champions would have it.





The OGL was a document that screamed, "We're not worried about third party competition!"  The GSL is not.

'Nuff Said.


RC


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> the industry will bust spectacularly.




I do not agree with this. How or why would the industry bust spectacularly? The industry of the hobby is not D&D. D&D is an iconic brand name among others of one part of the hobby. Miniature games, card games, board games, rpgs make part of the industry. Novels and video games can support it too. If 4e bombs nothing happens to the industry IMO. Home social-game entertainment is not going anywhere if 4e bombs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

Umbran said:


> The problem with that line of reasoning is that D&D (and by extension, WotC) has _never_ had effective competition.  I've yet to see a cogent argument that any publisher was in a position to change that.  We should not mistake an attempt to maximize profits with anti-competitive maneuvers.




If there is X dollars of money to be spent on D&D, and 3pp gain X-Y of those dollars, where Y is what WotC is making on D&D sales, then anti-cometitive manuevers _*are*_ an attempt to maximize profits.

You can certainly _increase_ profits while remaining friendly to your competition.  You can only _maximize_ profits and remain friendly to your competition if you believe that you cannot pick up any part of that X-Y that your competition is currently getting.

Which doesn't mean that the GSL is about maximizing profits, mind you.  It might not be.  It might be about, for example, bringing the IP back "in house" as far as possible before selling the brand.  It might be about bringing the IP back "in house" as far as possible to increase the perceived value of WotC to Hasbro.  It might be about limiting competition to the DI platform, should such a thing ever appear.  Etc., etc.


RC


----------



## jaldaen (Aug 1, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> I find designing and writing for 4E much more enjoyable and rewarding than designing for 3.5 and its variants. This isn't _always_ the case with _every_ mechanic, of course, but I've found it to be the case with at least, oh, 80% to 85% of mechanics.




I'm in the same boat as you are Ari, having done design work for 3.0, 3.5, True20, and now 4e... as a designer I'm really enjoying the flexibility that 4e offers me. I think this partially stems from 4e being designed to be more DM-friendly (which is another reason I like 4e over other systems). As you said there are a few mechanics in 4e that don't quite do it for me as a designer, but the percentage of rules-liking is up over the other incarnations of the d20 system.

However, like Clark I'm waiting for some GSL clarifications before I jump in to 4e with both feet.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Edit, one caveat however, if as you say pathfinder changes 50% of the core rules of 3.5 (I've not checked Pathfinder since I think the first Alpha), which is what you expressed in a thread here, doesn't that also require people to change their games and learn new rules, so it's not the whole of the 'don't like 4e' audience that's going to be opened up (which would indeed be bumper numbers).




It does require that people learn new rules. However, the types of things that are changed are things like save or die spells converting to damage. Turning becomes channeling energy, so you aren't just affecting the undead with the ability, but are actually bestowing positive energy into an area, which can heal allies that are near you. Fighters get a bump in power so that they're more balanced at later levels. Many of the feats are either brand new or are modified to increase their usefulness. For example, Cleave now works so that you get to take that second attack if you simply hit an opponent rather than dropping them. Also, there's a whole bunch of new combat feats, which make it so that fighters don't all end up with the same stuff by the time they hit 20th level if you're only using the core rulebooks with no splats. Another change is that combat maneuvers now all use the same basic mechanic (the combat maneuver bonus), which simplifies them.

The core of the game still functions the same and the changes are easy to remember. Some of the smaller changes, like the changes to feats and spells, will take a little more time to learn and remember, and will require you to consult the book from time to time, but that happens anyway, in my experience, because few people remember all the little details on how their spells and feats work anyway.

I suppose that the bottom line for me is that yes, there is change involved, but it isn't a radical change, and it is so small that my existing 3.5 stuff isn't now worthless.



xechnao said:


> I do not agree with this. How or why would the industry bust spectacularly? The industry of the hobby is not D&D. D&D is an iconic brand name among others of one part of the hobby. Miniature games, card games, board games, rpgs make part of the industry. Novels and video games can support it too. If 4e bombs nothing happens to the industry IMO. Home social-game entertainment is not going anywhere if 4e bombs.




I agree that the industry isn't D&D. There's also the issue of defining the industry, and which portion of the industry. When I talk about the industry, I'm not talking about CCGs, novels, and video games. I'm talking about RPGs specifically, which it could be argued, is a smaller subset of the larger hobby industry. If D&D were to die, I'm sure that there would still be something left behind so that you could still justify a hobby section of a book store, or maybe enough to keep the hobby stores in business since they're already relying on many of those things. The RPG industry is made up of certain people and companies, which in most cases, exist in their own little bubble that doesn't interact very much with those other categories you talked about.

Now if D&D went down, RPG sales would take a huge hit simply because D&D owns most of the RPG market already. RPG sales would drop by a huge amount unless a competing product were taking those sales away.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> <snip>
> 
> The core of the game still functions the same and the changes are easy to remember. Some of the smaller changes, like the changes to feats and spells, will take a little more time to learn and remember, and will require you to consult the book from time to time, but that happens anyway, in my experience, because few people remember all the little details on how their spells and feats work anyway.
> 
> I suppose that the bottom line for me is that yes, there is change involved, but it isn't a radical change, and it is so small that my existing 3.5 stuff isn't now worthless.




The odd thing for me is I like a lot of the changes, especially those you've hilighted in the part I snipped, I just find that 3.X is not a game I want to be running anymore, wheras I love 4e. On the other hand I have a lot of games I don't run anymore but still pick things up for (such as paizo modules to convert).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> The odd thing for me is I like a lot of the changes, especially those you've hilighted in the part I snipped, I just find that 3.X is not a game I want to be running anymore, wheras I love 4e. On the other hand I have a lot of games I don't run anymore but still pick things up for (such as paizo modules to convert).




And that's totally cool. Play the games that you enjoy and buy the products that appeal to you. Like I said before, everybody wins.


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> not realising how intrinsic D&D and its sales are to the industry.




I do not realize that D&D or any brand name is intrinsic to the industry and you are the one that does not realize this intrinsic property may not hold. Where does the truth lie? IMO you are wrong. Why? Because we live in the era of internet and information. Word of mouth was never so powerful as it is today. Furthermore with minimum resources you can reach out to your audience. 
OTOH, yes, you have "powers" competing for the limited positions of profit. The place of the positions can not disappear. Although who is the one that holds the positions is subject to change.


----------



## occam (Aug 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If there is X dollars of money to be spent on D&D, and 3pp gain X-Y of those dollars, where Y is what WotC is making on D&D sales, then anti-cometitive manuevers _*are*_ an attempt to maximize profits.
> 
> You can certainly _increase_ profits while remaining friendly to your competition.  You can only _maximize_ profits and remain friendly to your competition if you believe that you cannot pick up any part of that X-Y that your competition is currently getting.




It seems you completely missed the point of the OGL and d20. You equated third parties with competitors, but that's not necessarily the case. D&D was opened up to make it easier for third parties to act as partners, and increase the sales of WotC products; i.e., maximize profits _by way of_ being friendly to 3pps. And for the most part, it worked. The point being, X is not a fixed amount.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I do not agree with this. How or why would the industry bust spectacularly? The industry of the hobby is not D&D. D&D is an iconic brand name among others of one part of the hobby. Miniature games, card games, board games, rpgs make part of the industry. Novels and video games can support it too. If 4e bombs nothing happens to the industry IMO. Home social-game entertainment is not going anywhere if 4e bombs.




Boring Industry economics ahead:

I'm going to use the figures cited by a friend of mine who owns a game store.

RPGs+D&D miniatures (which if D&D goes down would have an uncertain future) make up about 50% of his yearly sales.

D&D books make up 40% of that overall 50% (with miniatures accounting for another 30% and other rpgs making up the final 30%, primarily White Wolf).

If D&D goes down as described, without a comparable seller to take its place then that store is going to be down 20% of its sales (the figure would likely be more becase of losing out on point of sales for other things).

Most small gaming stores will suffer serious hardships if they're out 20% of their overall sales, add in D&D miniatures as well and that's a bigger hit but we'll just focus on the books for now. Without the guaranteed cash from D&D sales, stores would have less money to put towards the possible sellers as opposed to products guaranteed to go out the door.

X percent of stores would go out of business as a result of this. With X percent less stores to distribute to, distributors would have to streamline their lines to account for this as well, as they'd also have less money coming in.

With distributors streamlining, this would see a number of other rpg companies dropped from distrubution (note, this has been witnessed before with the d20 'crash' so this isn't a wild guess, it's based on past precedent).

What would end up happening at best is a much smaller industry, with less shops, less easy access to books outside the internet (and the more people use the net for their rpg shopping, the more likely for other gaming companies to go down).

Thus overall a spectacular bust in the industry. It's not saying that rpgs would vanish, but it would see a significant hit to a lot of companies and individuals, one that would doubtless result in a lot of people getting out of the industry in terms of producing or selling rpgs.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I do not realize that D&D or any brand name is intrinsic to the industry and you are the one that does not realize this intrinsic property may not hold. Where does the truth lie? IMO you are wrong. Why? Because we live in the era of internet and information. Word of mouth was never so powerful as it is today. Furthermore with minimum resources you can reach out to your audience.
> OTOH, yes, you have "powers" competing for the limited positions of profit. The place of the positions can not disappear. Although who is the one that holds the positions is subject to change.




If you don't think that D&D is regarded as being intrinsic to the industry (especially in terms of profits for distributors and stores) then I really don't know what else to add save this: 

The trailer for futurama's next movie doesn't say 'we're playing a roleplaying game', it says 'we're playing Dungeons and Dragons'.


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Boring Industry economics ahead:
> 
> I'm going to use the figures cited by a friend of mine who owns a game store.
> 
> ...




1st of all I do not believe this 20% figure simply because Wotc has not been producing enough books for this year to make up for it. But even if a significant gap takes place watch publishers like Monte Cook and Paizo rush to fill this up ASAP.


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> The trailer for futurama's next movie doesn't say 'we're playing a roleplaying game', it says 'we're playing Dungeons and Dragons'.




Dungeons and Dragons is an interestingly funny and amusing name. But I do not see anything beyond this.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> This isn't really something worth worrying about too much since it already happens. Most freelancers take the work where they can find it, and a good number of writers who primarily write for Paizo have also worked for WotC and vice versa. Neither company has a shortage of writers in their stable, and since it's all contract work, neither company can control who else their freelancers work for.




Oh, I'm hip to that, baby. That conjecture I was forming was based on the following assumption: that WotC might, in the future, manage to quash Open Gaming (as Wyrmshadows outlines below, in admittedly clearer language than my own). 

I think it is bad for D&D if Open Gaming dies. I think it would be a shame if the only way Clark (or you) could still publish content for D&D is under the WotC banner. I believe that this is what WotC wants. They seem to want to kill Open Gaming and, probably, have any writer still standing under their roof for good. That is what I'm worried about. Freelancing for WotC is not my concern. My fault for not expressing myself more clearly.



Wyrmshadows said:


> Not surprised at all.
> WoTC is attempting to destroy Open Gaming by getting major 3pps to sign up onto the GSL denying themselves the opportunity to go back to the OGL effectively making them all pawns of WoTC's corporate decisions. Anyone hitching their wagon to that abomination is just setting themselves up for a world of hurt when WoTC decides to remove even the carrot that the GSL is leaving only the stick.
> 
> WoTC had to know the reaction that many would have to the GSL. I forsaw it as soon as I heard that it was going to be more restrictive. Certainly, WoTC foresaw that companies like Green Ronin and Paizo would balk at handing over unique/successful IP to WoTC control.
> ...


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

xechnao said:


> 1st of all I do not believe this 20% figure simply because Wotc has not been producing enough books for this year to make up for it. But even if a significant gap takes place watch publishers like Monte Cook and Paizo rush to fill this up ASAP.




Well firstly you're free to call me and him a liar all you like. You're wrong but you're free to do so.

Secondly you're assuming that customers would buy those books (and you know Monte doesn't publish anymore, right?)

When TSR crashed, rpg sales went down. A lot. While some people that bought D&D books undoubtedly went on to buy rpgs from other companies, a huge number of those did not. So many that stores went out of business or suffered significant financial hardship.

To assume that a.n.other game without the broad market appeal of D&D and the brand name recognition (which is the point Darrin and I have been making) would simply grab all those customers in a reasonable period of time is..well, I think it's more than overly optimistic.

But you're free to believe whatever you want.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

darrin drader said:


> i don't think anyone really wants to see d&d fail unless that failure results in the transition to somebody who will treat it better.




qft.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 1, 2008)

thundershot said:


> So... for me, this is how it looks right now:
> Keep in mind that I have ZERO interest in 3.x or Pathfinder or any other non-4E system.
> 
> COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE
> ...




Since I don't currently run or play in any 4e games, my list looks thusly:

COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Wizards of the Coast
Paizo
Necromancer Games
Green Ronin
Goodman Games
Adamant Entertainment

I'm *not* sure that many people are in the same boat as me, and I don't really care.

I think its interesting that you will only play one version of one RPG--your time and money to do with as you will.

I just wish folks would stop declaring that their own behavior is indicative of some other large population.  Without doing a lot of work, you have, at best, anecdotal evidence of a miniscule portion of the population of which you speak.

MrG


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Well firstly you're free to call me and him a liar all you like. You're wrong but you're free to do so.



Who are you? Who is "he"? Even so this is just one anecdotal example.


evilref said:


> Secondly you're assuming that customers would buy those books (and you know Monte doesn't publish anymore, right?)



No I do not know anything. People can talk and say a lot of things but knowledge of matters is something beyond this. 


evilref said:


> When TSR crashed, rpg sales went down. A lot. While some people that bought D&D books undoubtedly went on to buy rpgs from other companies, a huge number of those did not. So many that stores went out of business or suffered significant financial hardship.
> 
> To assume that a.n.other game without the broad market appeal of D&D and the brand name recognition (which is the point Darrin and I have been making) would simply grab all those customers in a reasonable period of time is..well, I think it's more than overly optimistic.
> 
> But you're free to believe whatever you want.




Note that we are talking about D&D not Wotc. TSR obviously was not selling enough this is why it crashed. If it was not selling enough how did hobby shops suffered so much from its collapse allready?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

occam said:


> It seems you completely missed the point of the OGL and d20. You equated third parties with competitors, but that's not necessarily the case. D&D was opened up to make it easier for third parties to act as partners, and increase the sales of WotC products; i.e., maximize profits _by way of_ being friendly to 3pps. And for the most part, it worked. The point being, X is not a fixed amount.




Not at all.

WotC knew that its competitors would gain X-Y dollars, but knew believed that Y with no OGL would be smaller than X with the OGL.  Hence, "You can only maximize profits and remain friendly to your competition if you believe that you cannot pick up any part of that X-Y that your competition is currently getting."

With the GSL, either (1) WotC believes that 3pp are no longer increasing the size of X, (2) WotC believes that 3pp are no longer increasing the size of Y, or (3) WotC didn't understand how 3pp would react to the GSL.

IMHO, of course.

RC


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Who are you? Who is "he"? Even so this is just one anecdotal example.




Which, you know, would miss the part where I said I was using it as an example. If you think it's isolated, however, then you don't know the industry as far as bricks and mortar retail stores go.




xechnao said:


> Note that we are talking about D&D not Wotc. TSR obviously was not selling enough this is why it crashed. If it was not selling enough how did hobby shops suffered so much from its collapse allready?




Err, no, that's not why TSR crashed. If you're going to be making judgements about a subject it kind of helps if you know the subject you're speaking about.

However it's pretty evident that whatever I say you're just going to disagree with without citing any logical reasoning to support your position, so as I said, you can believe what you want. I'm done trying to educate you.


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Err, no, that's not why TSR crashed.




Why did TSR crash then? The first logic thought is that if TSR was selling as much as it needed to sustain its production and expenses and make a profit, it would not crash. 
But what do I know anyway?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> Well firstly you're free to call me and him a liar all you like. You're wrong but you're free to do so
> ...
> But you're free to believe whatever you want.
> ...
> ...




Even though you're responding to xechnao here, I feel compelled to say something. Really evilref, it isn't necessary to make all of your points so personal and condescending. ENWorld has a reputation for being a lovely place to have a good discussion. Please try to be respectful of your fellow gamer.


----------



## evilref (Aug 1, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:


> Even though you're responding to xechnao here, I feel compelled to say something. Really evilref, it isn't necessary to make all of your points so personal and condescending. ENWorld has a reputation for being a lovely place to have a good discussion. Please try to be respectful of your fellow gamer.




You got the part where I cited facts and figures and his response was to say he didn't believe them, ergo calling me a liar, right? The last sentence, at which point I was done with discussing things with him, was the one I'll grant you could have been condescending. But he's ignoring numerous points made by more than one person on the subject and just arguing them for the sake of it, without making any countering point other than 'I don't believe you'. Ergo I don't see a reason to continue using precedent, facts or anything else to discuss it with him.


----------



## hewligan (Aug 1, 2008)

Fantastic, we have now lost another thread to a pointless edition war.

Woot de woo!


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> You got the part where I cited facts and figures and his response was to say he didn't believe them, ergo calling me a liar, right? The last sentence, at which point I was done with discussing things with him, was the one I'll grant you could have been condescending. But he's ignoring numerous points made by more than one person on the subject and just arguing them for the sake of it, without making any countering point other than 'I don't believe you'. Ergo I don't see a reason to continue using precedent, facts or anything else to discuss it with him.




I understand your frustration. I feel it is always better to error on the side of politeness and respect when faced with a disagreement over information not directly pertaining to your mother or her disposition.

We can all work to make ENWorld a more polite place. Hooray!


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 1, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Why did TSR crash then?



There's no reason to guess why. Ryan Dancey, who went over TSR's financials as part of the buyout, wrote about it. Although I will admit that it is hard to find if you don't know where to find it. I found it here. But searching for it does not turn up a lot of copies. I know it use to be here on ENWorld but I don't know where to begin looking for it here.


----------



## xechnao (Aug 1, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> There's no reason to guess why. Ryan Dancey, who went over TSR's financials as part of the buyout, wrote about it. Although I will admit that it is hard to find if you don't know where to find it. I found it here. But searching for it does not turn up a lot of copies. I know it use to be here on ENWorld but I don't know where to begin looking for it here.




Yeah, I know this article by Ryan. I have already read it. Yet it is not relevant to the health of LGS and TSR's failure. It tells us why TSR suffered and that things had to change. Not that it was doing well and helped running the hobby and suddenly one day someone robbed TSR and run away with the money thus leaving the hobby suffer unexpectedly.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 1, 2008)

hewligan said:


> Fantastic, we have now lost another thread to a pointless edition war.
> 
> Woot de woo!




And not only that: The reason for the Edition war is because My Company is better than Your Company. 

_"Hey, perhaps Your Company could die and benefit My Company - and thusly, D&D?" 
"No! - because My Company is the core of D&D, and central for the survival of the hobby!"_

See? I have paraphrased this part of the thread. Perhaps we can now return to talking about Necromancers decision?


----------



## Voadam (Aug 1, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> There's no reason to guess why. Ryan Dancey, who went over TSR's financials as part of the buyout, wrote about it. Although I will admit that it is hard to find if you don't know where to find it. I found it here. But searching for it does not turn up a lot of copies. I know it use to be here on ENWorld but I don't know where to begin looking for it here.




Still a good read years later.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

evilref said:


> You got the part where I cited facts and figures and his response was to say he didn't believe them, ergo calling me a liar, right?





http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Just because someone claims to have "facts and figures", it doesn't follow that they are correct.  This is true even when you believe that the person in question is trying his best to be truthful.

Not accepting your "facts and figures" =/= calling you a liar.

The aforementioned article by Ryan Dancey, for example, has painted a picture that has been questioned by others who were involved with TSR at the time, including Monte Cook.  Does that mean that either of them are lying?  

I don't think so, and it is noteable that neither claim their viewpoint is the whole truth.  There is a difference in someone not accepting your claim, and that person saying that you are intentionally attempting to mislead them.

Of course, YMMV.


RC


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 2, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
> 
> Just because someone claims to have "facts and figures", it doesn't follow that they are correct.  This is true even when you believe that the person in question is trying his best to be truthful.
> 
> ...





Oh! A logic lesson. I LOVE actual logic.

That is a really good point, and it is easy to confuse the two as they are so closely related. Arumentum ad Verecundiam is in fact the inverse of Argumentum ad Hominem. They are two distinct logical fallacies, yet both are equally fallacious. One most certainly does not lead to the other.

Well put!


----------



## GVDammerung (Aug 2, 2008)

I'm not shocked or stunned Necro is not going 4e.  For reasons others have well explained, the GSL is problematic in the extreme.

What shocks and surprises me is that Necro is _still_ holdoing out hope for a change, modification or "clarification" (that would change the legal essence of the existing language) to the GSL.  Its unfathomable.

Paens by Necro to Scott and Linea are funny as they have ZERO control over the content of the GSL or it would not now read as it does.  

The thought that Wotc having labored to produce the GSL (giving the matter thought as to what they wanted and imagining their lawyers knew what they were writing) would now change it is sidesplitting.

The underlying thought - that Wotc the company gives a rip about some 3rd Party Publisher's concerns - is even more laughable, given that the GSL took as long as it did and reads as it does.

I see no objective reason to imagine ANY changes or "clarifications" will be forthcoming, and I would be stunned and surprised if they did.

The interesting question to me is - how long Necro will wait at the alter for the groom who never shows up?  The GSL dates come and go - and Necro waits.  The GSL arrives - and Necro waits.  Complaints about the GSL arise - and Necro waits.  Other 3PPs abandon the GSL - and Necro waits.  Necros seeks "clarifications" to no observeable effect - and Necro waits.

How long will will Necro wait?  How long will it whistfully hope that its 4e prince will come?  How long until the cold hard light of day makes the painfully obvious impossible to ignore - Wotc has gilted its Necro lover.  6 months from now does Necro admit the GSL is the GSL?  A year?  Two?  

I can see it now - 5e is announced.  Necro greets the announcement with a statement that it hopes to have its concerns with the 4e GSL resolved "soon."

This isn't "sad."  Its funny as a crutch.  "Hey, Moe!  Nuck, nuck, nuck!"


----------



## Treebore (Aug 2, 2008)

I would have to read it again to make sure I understood what he wrote, but I believe Clark posted today that he was waiting until October to start making decisions.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 2, 2008)

One thing I don't understand is this part:



> Necro and Paizo? I still very much want to work with them and they very much want to work with me. The problem is the GSL. Necro will definately be supporting Pathfinder when it comes out. If the GSL issues are resolved, Necro and Paizo will be bringing you some amazing products that we already have lined up and in the hopper. Seriously, there are several awesome products literally ready to go just awaiting the fixing of the issues with the GSL.




How does the GSL effect his working with Paizo?


----------



## Psion (Aug 2, 2008)

Scribble said:


> How does the GSL effect his working with Paizo?




Paizo is Necro's publishing partner. If he publishes 4e at all, it's through Paizo.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 2, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> The interesting question to me is - how long Necro will wait at the alter for the groom who never shows up?  The GSL dates come and go - and Necro waits.  The GSL arrives - and Necro waits.  Complaints about the GSL arise - and Necro waits.  Other 3PPs abandon the GSL - and Necro waits.  Necros seeks "clarifications" to no observeable effect - and Necro waits.




Maybe Clark will decide to shut down Necromancer games if he can't do official or authorized D&D materials under certain terms.  

Simple as that.

Don't make fun of him.  It's his choice to make.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 2, 2008)

evilref said:


> (and you know Monte doesn't publish anymore, right?)



Has anyone told Monte that?


----------



## evilref (Aug 2, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Has anyone told Monte that?




Given he announced it, and has repeatedly confirmed it, I think he knows.

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_157

He's done about 4 rpg books in the last two or so years but is pretty much commited to his work on novels, short stories and non-fiction books for mainstream publishing now.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 2, 2008)

Psion said:


> Paizo is Necro's publishing partner. If he publishes 4e at all, it's through Paizo.




Ahhh I was not aware o that. Thanks, that makes sense now.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 2, 2008)

GVDammerung said:


> The interesting question to me is - how long Necro will wait at the alter for the groom who never shows up?  The GSL dates come and go - and Necro waits.  The GSL arrives - and Necro waits.  Complaints about the GSL arise - and Necro waits.  Other 3PPs abandon the GSL - and Necro waits.  Necros seeks "clarifications" to no observeable effect - and Necro waits.
> 
> How long will will Necro wait?  How long will it whistfully hope that its 4e prince will come?  How long until the cold hard light of day makes the painfully obvious impossible to ignore - Wotc has gilted its Necro lover.  6 months from now does Necro admit the GSL is the GSL?  A year?  Two?
> 
> ...




Fry's Dog.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 2, 2008)

Lizard said:


> That's a biggie.



As I posted upthread, I think another (perhaps bigger) biggie is that if you publish a GSL book that uses content from any of your OGL books (including class names, race names, arguably even class concepts depending on how "content" is defined in clause 6.1) then all those OGL books become Converted Products and can't be published anymore.

I think that's the big problem for something like an Advanced Players Guide, which is intended to reintroduce old elements into the game.



Lizard said:


> I also think the lack of clarity on "extend" vs. "redefine" makes books like the APH -- or, really, any splat -- risky.
> 
> Let's suppose I want to a swashbuckling setting, with flintlocks and so on. I think giving rangers a bunch of gun-based exploits is a good idea. To avoid some redundancy, I might just borrow a lot of the bow powers and recast them as gun based. So I rename "Knockdown Shot" as "Kneecapping", and give it the same effect. Here I run into problems:
> 
> ...



Given that the SRD authorises the use of templates for powers, and the GSL authourises additions to a 4e reference, I don't think that there's much doubt that new powers are permitted.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 2, 2008)

evilref said:


> Given he announced it, and has repeatedly confirmed it, I think he knows.



Yes, yes, I'm well aware. Check my custom user title.


----------



## Christian (Aug 2, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?




[Raises hand.] Saw an ad in _Games_ magazine, IIRC, and convinced an uncle to buy it for me as a present. Early 1978, Holmes blue box edition.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 2, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, yes, I'm well aware. Check my custom user title.



There can be only one.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 2, 2008)

Glyfair said:


> I hear a lot of comments like this that seem to imply that WotC has a single point of view. I realize it's often just an intentional simplification (and likely is in Dr. Awkward's case, for example), but that attitude is out there.  I believe that attitude is wrong.




Well, it is a simplification, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what the various parties involved at WotC feel about the subject, or what they're doing about it, the official position of the company at the moment is "GSL: like it or lump it."

If there were a release (or even a messageboard comment by someone involved on the inside) saying "we understand the problems that people like Clark Peterson have with the GSL and see that they need correcting in order for this thing to work.  We are working it out," then things would be different.  

As it stands, WotC does have a single point of view, because it's a company, not merely a group of people.  And that single point of view is currently that the GSL is what we're going to have to live with.  As far as the buying public is concerned, it doesn't matter how the various WotC employees feel about the license if:

1. There is in fact no move toward fixing the situation in process, or,
2. We aren't aware of any such move.

Either way, we're left with the collective corporate voice of WotC putting a deal on the table that Clark sees some big dangerous holes in, and no hope at the moment that anything will be done about those holes.  As far as we know, WotC the company is pleased, despite the gnashing of teeth on the part of some elements of that company.  So that's the situation we are left to make commentary on.  Without at least an official acknowledgment that there are problems with the license, we really have no reason to believe that anyone's concerns are going to effect any change, whether those concerns come from Necromancer or The Rouse.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 2, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:


> COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE
> 
> Wizards of the Coast
> Paizo
> ...




I'm certainly with you on this.

Nothing against 3pp publishers of 4e products. However, I choose to spend my money on good products whose mechanics I enjoy, created by companies whose work supports open gaming. The more companies that are willing to support the OGL/3.5 and its offspring, the more OGL will become a permanent part of the gaming landscape and not something meant to "_die_" once WoTC creates its new edition du jour.

One exception. I will happily purchase system free products from anyone whose material/fluff is exceptionally good. I'm a big fan of the idea of system free settings and believe that there is an opening here for folks willing to focus more on lore/fluff than specific mechanical elements.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 2, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Others on these boards have suggested that nobody really knows Paizo, unless they're regulars on the boards....but really, whether it's EN World or somewhere else, I'm sure that a pretty large number of players follow up to some degree.  It's just that many of them probably spend most of the time lurking.  So I bet that there's a fair number of people who either know of Paizo, or of the products they make.
> 
> Banshee




More importantly : do the DMs know of Paizo ? 

It's all nice and good to say that there are plenty of players interested in 4e, but who is going to organize the game for them if the DMs go Paizo ?

Who is going to devote the time, the money, and provide the gaming room
for the session ?

DMing is quite an investment of resources, and DMs are often a lot more informed than the casual gamer. The DM votes will go a much longer way than any single players' in deciding what is played. And word of mouth goes a long way between DMs.

Whoever wins a larger part of the DM market is a winner.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Aug 2, 2008)

Christian said:


> [Raises hand.] Saw an ad in _Games_ magazine, IIRC, and convinced an uncle to buy it for me as a present. Early 1978, Holmes blue box edition.




Same here (different circumstances). I saw the ads for the boxed set in 1980, and got stuff for Christmas.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 2, 2008)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> There can be only one.



That's becoming apparent.


----------

