# WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Comments made yesterday by Mike Lescault indicate that WoTC are reviewing their whole stance towards Open Gaming.

"Who cares!" I hear you say.

Well YOU should care because if open gaming is scrapped it means three things;

1) the lunatics have taken over the asylum; corporates have taken over the creative direction of D&D 4E. Last time this happened, D&D almost died! Remember TSR.

2) All 3rd party publishers will HAVE to continue making products for 3.5E, creating even more competition for 4E, which could be VERY serious, despite what everyone thinks.

3) The above means that support for 4E will be MUCH reduced and will all follow WoTC's official line. Whilst their products are good, their vision of the 4E world is not to everyone's taste and more diversity from 3PPs will keep more of the old guard of D&D playing the game.

So WHAT can WE do.

I am calling on ALL gamers to boycott 4E until WoTC release a GSL that allows for substantial community/3rd party involvement. CANCEL your pre-orders of 4E and MAKE them think seriously before dropping GSL. I have already done so.

Also, REGISTER your support by adding a comment to this thread.

COME ON PEOPLE; WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF WE STAND TOGETHER!


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 29, 2008)

You should, perhaps, link the comments that are making you become hysterical.  Otherwise we have no way of judging whether you're making sense.


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Mar 29, 2008)

Comments were made over in the OGL sub-forum

HERE


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Sorry Cadfan; you are correct. The thread is hidden away in the industry forum section of this site. You can find the post here and reproduced below.


http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221163&page=5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Mike_Lescault
Hi All,

They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.

“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”

I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.

Thanks,
-Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the OGL was promised in January and since they are "still vetting their final policy regarding open gaming" now it is nearly April, this doesn't sound very hopeful to me. 

I know I sound like I am panicking, but I just want to stir up some support before WoTC slip this by without anyone noticing. They only way they will reconsider is if they think it will cost them something.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 29, 2008)

I think we should wait until an announcement before we start over-analyzing what these comments mean.

WotC knows the value of open gaming.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Davemage; you could be right, but what if you are wrong? It will be too late once they announce their decision.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Davemage; you could be right, but what if you are wrong? It will be too late once they announce their decision.




I win either way.


----------



## Andre (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Since the OGL was promised in January and since they are "still vetting their final policy regarding open gaming" now it is nearly April, this doesn't sound very hopeful to me.
> 
> I know I sound like I am panicking, but I just want to stir up some support before WoTC slip this by without anyone noticing. They only way they will reconsider is if they think it will cost them something.




Sorry, but you haven't convinced me. 

What exactly is WOTC trying to "slip past" us? All the post says is that they are still reviewing the basic policy of the GSL. I agree that taking so long to do so is a failure on their part - WOTC reps committed to releasing it earlier this year and letting the date slip is frustrating to many. But nothing - nothing - in this post indicates that they have decided to abandon the GSL, gut it completely, or any such interpretation. It's always possible they would do so, but inferring such on such slim evidence strikes me as too great a leap.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

So you don't think it is worrying that none of the 3 parties have seen the GSL yet despite it being 3 months after the official announcement of WoTC's plans. 

For them to say that they are still vetting their policy suggests that there is some serious problem.

I am saying that maybe, WoTC are intending to stop open gaming and don't want to announce it until after the launch of 4E to avoid the negative publicity. This has been suggested by a number of others on the same thread I directed you to earlier.


----------



## Andre (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Davemage; you could be right, but what if you are wrong? It will be too late once they announce their decision.




Ydars, WOTC already knows the how much a vocal minority of their customers values the current OGL. If they make a decision on this that you object to, I expect them to do so realizing that a few gamers such as yourself may go elsewhere. Any decision a company makes has tradeoffs. 

The idea that there are enough such gamers to noticeably impact 4E sales is not something I've seen backed up by any reliable data. If cancelling your pre-order works for you, that's ok - it's your money, your decision. But I'll judge whether or not to purchase the game on far more than just the GSL - and certainly not on the possiblity that one post, in one thread, might mean something I don't like.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Comments made yesterday by Mike Lescault indicate that WoTC are reviewing their whole stance towards Open Gaming.




That is a fairly *big* assumption. 

And while I in no way support your proposed boycott, why on earth can't it wait until we hear something more. Pre-orders can be canceled up until the moment stuff is shipped, last I checked.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

I am only asking that people consider not buying into 4E until after WoTC make an announcement about GSL.

I am not suggesting that others go and find another game system permanently, just because of GSL. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm wondering if their stance isn't a long the lines of:

Should we go with the GSL as planned, restricting what 3rd Party does in relation to D&D or should we just modify the OGL to include the new edition and make everything in 4e closed content beyond the core as we did with 3.x.

I think they are realizing they are causing a rift to form and are trying to decide if that rift will be beneficial or detrimental to them.  How much of an impact will the GSL be to them if the majority of 3rd Party doesn't follow after them?


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Jack99; if we wait until after WoTC have made an annoucement, what happens if this isn't until after the release of 4E? Once we have all bought in, those who oppose OGL with have already won because we can only hit them in their pockets.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Comments made yesterday by Mike Lescault indicate that WoTC are reviewing their whole stance towards Open Gaming.
> 
> "Who cares!" I hear you say.
> 
> ...



I don't remember any 3rd party publisher producing WoD products, so I think we should boycott them too? 
AFAIK White Wolf is the evil empire, not WoTC.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Ainatin, I am not talking about "evil empires", I am trying to give some impetus to that part of WoTC that supports open gaming. I believe that a clash of cultures may be taking place and I want to influence the decision, which is obviously taking place as we speak.

I don't play WW games, mostly because they don't support open gaming.

If you don't have anything constructive to say, I really don't know why you post.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> 1) the lunatics have taken over the asylum; corporates have taken over the creative direction of D&D 4E. Last time this happened, D&D almost died! Remember TSR.



There is no, "last time"--D&D has never moved from an open system to closed system before in its history. And, under TSR, D&D did well enough as a closed system for most of its tenure.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Comments made yesterday by Mike Lescault indicate that WoTC are reviewing their whole stance towards Open Gaming.
> 
> "Who cares!" I hear you say.
> 
> ...





For the prosperity of the rpg hobby, fans and publishers should become less fanatics for D&D and stronger followers of tabletop rpgs interests. I am not convinced that another round of OGL that at this point will mostly serve to reupdate old stuff for the sake of compatibility is a good idea. Wotc is making a new game and intends to support it. IMO there should be others doing the same. The hobby needs more games and more support of these new games.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Ainatin, I am not talking about "evil empires", I am trying to give some impetus to that part of WoTC that supports open gaming. I believe that a clash of cultures may be taking place and I want to influence the decision, which is obviously taking place as we speak.
> 
> I don't play WW games, mostly because they don't support open gaming.
> 
> If you don't have anything constructive to say, I really don't know why you post.



Why should WOTC give their rules for free to other companies, so they can profit with these rules, unless it somehow benefits WOTC business?
If open gaming does no good for WOTC business, why should they support it?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Mar 29, 2008)

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? Andy Collins had been optomistic for a decision soon. If this is true that they are reconsidering, I wonder how much of it is related to Paizo's decision regarding Pathfinder?


----------



## JeffB (Mar 29, 2008)

Andre said:
			
		

> All the post says is that they are still reviewing the basic policy of the GSL. .




Actually that is NOT what it says. 

Having worked for some time in marketing in a big corporation this would be my interpretation of the "spin".

"Higher-ups in the company are having second thoughts about whether we want to support Open-Gaming".

Not that I'm being panicky, nor trying to put words in WOTC employees mouths,  cos it doesn't bother me one way or the other. But I think with the major delays and then that statement, I think Hasbro is having some serious concerns.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Ainatin, I am not talking about "evil empires", I am trying to give some impetus to that part of WoTC that supports open gaming. I believe that a clash of cultures may be taking place and I want to influence the decision, which is obviously taking place as we speak.
> 
> I don't play WW games, mostly because they don't support open gaming.
> 
> If you don't have anything constructive to say, I really don't know why you post.




Lots of people might not think what you are saying is constructive. You are openly advocating that we boycott the soul of our hobby, because of what you think the industry should be like.

Regarding waiting: My point was, even if people agree with you, they might as well wait until a few days before release, and if an appropriate GSL hasn't been released by then, they could cancel then.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I am only asking that people consider not buying into 4E until after WoTC make an announcement about GSL.
> 
> I am not suggesting that others go and find another game system permanently, just because of GSL. Sorry if I wasn't clear.




Considering they'll probably have it all done before the books hit the shelves, I don't think it's a problem. As another stated, pre-orders can be canceled up until the ship date.

Either way, I have no intention of buying it anyway as it doesn't appear to be for me. If someone I know gets it, I'll look through it; but it's got to rock my gaming world to change my mind.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Zamkaiser; I mean "last time the company running D&D stopped listening to its customers and recognising that THEY are D&D, the game almost died" not "last time open gaming was shut down that game almost died".

TSR died because that women (I shall not speak her name), who hated gamers and gaming, got in control of TSR. I feel that the suits at Hasbro understand D&D about as well as she did and have much the same regard for us.

Don't be complacent; Games Workshop just pulled the plug on huge swaves of their gaming portfolio after years of corporate mismanagement. Some of those games were massive; Dark Heresy was the biggest seller in the UK, even beating WoTC by a mile according to my local gaming store. Yet it has gone down as well.

Think it could never happen to D&D, think again. D&D is small fry in the Hasbro world. If it doesn't pay, then they will dump it and I think they could be taking the first steps down the road to disaster.

Just look at how badly things have gone with Paizo. WoTC have basically set themselves up with a nice competitor. Everyone says "it doesn't matter". Well at my local store, 3.5E is still selling like hot cakes and the owner says all his customers are moving over to Paizo.

If OGL is scrapped as well, all the other 3PPs will do the same, and then we could have as much as 30% of gamers leaving D&D. If WoTC don't attract new gamers, D&D could be right up the creek.

I am just asking for people to show a little bit of vision and drop their pre-orders. If they make an announcement that GSL is safe, we can all order the books again.


----------



## Voss (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> So you don't think it is worrying that none of the 3 parties have seen the GSL yet despite it being 3 months after the official announcement of WoTC's plans.
> 
> For them to say that they are still vetting their policy suggests that there is some serious problem.
> 
> I am saying that maybe, WoTC are intending to stop open gaming and don't want to announce it until after the launch of 4E to avoid the negative publicity. This has been suggested by a number of others on the same thread I directed you to earlier.




Eh.  All this suggests to me is that WotC is a little on the incompetent side. 

As for your original points, here's my take on them, if you care.


> Well YOU should care because if open gaming is scrapped it means three things;
> 
> 1) the lunatics have taken over the asylum; corporates have taken over the creative direction of D&D 4E. Last time this happened, D&D almost died! Remember TSR.




Well, since the 'corporates' have had control over the creative direction of D&D since, well, at least since I started playing in the late 80s, I'm not sure what difference it would make.  The OGL *never* meant that they didn't have creative control over D&D.  It just meant that some other people could produce a lot of crap tinkering with the d20 system, Occassionally, hopefully, a few gems would be produced.  By my lights, this didn't really happen.  but then, I didn't expect it to.




> 2) All 3rd party publishers will HAVE to continue making products for 3.5E, creating even more competition for 4E, which could be VERY serious, despite what everyone thinks.




Its far more likely that the third parties will burn out and die.  One or two will linger after the squabble over the market share of the dissenters (which may still include me, sadly, though watching paizo struggle with their alpha version makes me certain that trying to stick it out with a 3.75 is doomed, even if I wanted to), but the amount of money in the fringes of the RPG market isn't large.



> 3) The above means that support for 4E will be MUCH reduced and will all follow WoTC's official line. Whilst their products are good, their vision of the 4E world is not to everyone's taste and more diversity from 3PPs will keep more of the old guard of D&D playing the game.




Ok, here's where I really run into trouble with your point.  I largely don't buy third party products.  I certainly don't consider them 'support' for the main system, so their non-existence wouldn't diminish it in any meaningful way.  Even if it did, if the 'old guard' doesn't like 4e, it will be on the basis of the core game.  3rd party products aren't going to go in and fix the essential problems in the basic system- they're going to be based on that system.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Voss; your points are well made.

In the past 3PPs accounted for a tiny share of D&D. But I am not sure if that is true anymore. Since the announcement of 4E, our community has become riven with dissent. I LOVE the ideas behind 4e but every board I have been on is the same; many many people questioning 4E philosophy, timing etc. So I think it would be a brave person who discounts all this. I guess I discount it all until my local game store owner told me how many people he knew were sticking with 3.5E or going with Paizo.

I also agree that I personally, didn't like many 3PP supplments, etc but MANY people did (some of these games appear to have had print runs in the 10s of thousands if various press releases can be believed).

What I am taking about is the soul of D&D. I think we are that soul and up until now, WoTC have paid tribute to us through the OGL. If that dies, I take it as a sign that the last influences of the people who saved D&D from the TSR days may finally have gone.

Once this happens, I fear for D&D. I don't believe that D&D has been in the hands of corporates since TSR and before. Mike Mearls and other designers came out of OGL and are gamers just like us. So was Monte and Skip and all the others.

I am concerned that Bill S and the others now answer to Hasbro in a way that is distinct from what has been the case in the past and I am just trying to mobilise people to act together for once.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 29, 2008)

While discussing the topic, please keep in mind that this can be a very touchy subject.  I have every faith that we can maintain a civil discourse that does not involve ascribing motives or writing off others' concerns.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Jack99; if we wait until after WoTC have made an annoucement, what happens if this isn't until after the release of 4E? Once we have all bought in, those who oppose OGL with have already won because we can only hit them in their pockets.




The books have already gone to the printers, any GSL/OGL information will already be pinned down and in the books.  Nothing is public yet at this time however.  So a boycott will solve nothing as they already have this information decided otherwise they couldn't include the info in the books.


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Mar 29, 2008)

JeffB said:
			
		

> Actually that is NOT what it says.
> 
> Having worked for some time in marketing in a big corporation this would be my interpretation of the "spin".
> 
> ...




That's how I read the statement as well.  I won't be canceling any pre-orders, but I didn't pre-order in he first place.  My plan was, and still is to wait till the books come out, do some research and decide if it's a system that will work for me.  If 4e is a great system, I'll buy, even if it's not open.  

I don't really understand why people feel they can only support one game.  I currently support, and play when I get a chance (which unfortunatly isn't often, _damn real life_ :shakes fist: ); D&D 3.5, M&M, WoD, AU, Paranoia, and Call of Cthulu.  I like what I've seen with Pathfinder so I'll probably pick that up as well.  Whether or not I pick up 4e won't stop me from playing M&M, Pathfinder, or any other game if I want to.

Now I do think it would be ill advised if the powers that be scrap the open gaming initiative, but even if they do it won't kill the hobby.  The cat is already out of the bag.  The OGL is unrevokable and the d20 system, while it has it's quirks, is solid.  3rd party publishers will always have a venue to create new and exciting game systems.

And as an aside, anyone who thinks someone won't figure out a way to make a OGL compliant "generic" version of 4e is nuts.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> What I am taking about is the soul of D&D. I think we are that soul and up until now, WoTC have paid tribute to us through the OGL. If that dies, I take it as a sign that the last influences of the people who saved D&D from the TSR days may finally have gone.



"we" who? 
The players? 
So Wotc pays tribute to me with open gaming? How? I don't even care about most 3rd party produtcs.
I believe WOTC "pays a tribute" to me by selling me great products. And that's why I think
WOTC has been so successful, because they make quality products I've never seen in all these years of gaming, and not because of open gaming, not because there were some 3rd party publisher out there releasing M&Ms, True20s, AEs, Spycraft and so on.

If 4E is as good as 3E, I consider that tribute well payed.


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Why should WOTC give their rules for free to other companies, so they can profit with these rules, unless it somehow benefits WOTC business?
> If open gaming does no good for WOTC business, why should they support it?



And, if the moon is made out of cheese, why shouldn't we eat it?

The thing is, it does benefit their business. The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 29, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> The thing is, it does benefit their business. The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.



I'm not disputing that. I only believe they will simply do what is best for their business. It's a business issue, not a philosophical one. There is no reason to boycott a company that made a decision for its best interests, right?

Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 29, 2008)

> The thing is, it does benefit their business. The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.




Only the company itself (WoTC and Hasbro) can determine if it "benefits their business".  They have the profit and loss statements, the market research, etc.  It's possible they could make a mistake, and misinterpret the market.  We can decide if it sucks from our perspective (the consumer).  But you can't make a blanket statement saying it "benefits their business" because you don't have all the internal data needed to make that decision.



> Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...




And that the thing I don't get about the OGL praisers.  If Wizards didn't have an OGL, whose to say that M&M and Spycraft wouldn't have been created as new games rather than a variation of the OGL.  How "innovative" is it to tweak 25% of an existing ruleset rather than coming up with a game from scratch that is not tied down.  

I think the OGL actually hurt us because instead of having a heterogenous market with a wider variety we just have a lot of semi-, demi-, quasi-, and psuedo- versions of D&D 3e.  Maybe if the license is more restrictive, people will focus on building good games from the ground up and actually create something really innovative.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Mar 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> That is a fairly *big* assumption.



QFT.

"Vetting our final policy" means that they're getting the authorization from the people in charge for their final policy.  Everything in a big company has to be authorized, especially decisions like this that can have significant impacts on their IP and marketing.  I see nothing in their statement suggesting that the higher ups are considering dropping the whole thing entirely.  More likely, they've just been quibbling over the legal details for the past few months, now have a final policy drafted, and are just awaiting the go-ahead to make it official.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 29, 2008)

I have to say, as much as I am liking what I've seen of 4e, if they decided to dump open gaming altogether, it would definitely impact my decision whether to pick up the system or not.

Dumping it would not only adversely affect the industry and all those involved in it, but it would impact the hobby in a negative way. I honestly believe it was the OGL that has been singularly responsible for the major re-uptake and influx of D&D gaming in the last eight years.

Not to mention the fact that most of the best supplements have been from third parties.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Only the company itself (WoTC and Hasbro) can determine if it "benefits their business".  They have the profit and loss statements, the market research, etc.  It's possible they could make a mistake, and misinterpret the market.  We can decide if it sucks from our perspective (the consumer).  But you can't make a blanket statement saying it "benefits their business" because you don't have all the internal data needed to make that decision.




Both of you have a point. His point is that not all company business decisions aim to the good of the company -and I am talking about when this is intentional.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think the OGL actually hurt us because instead of having a heterogenous market with a wider variety we just have a lot of semi-, demi-, quasi-, and psuedo- versions of D&D 3e.  Maybe if the license is more restrictive, people will focus on building good games from the ground up and actually create something really innovative.




Yep.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Just look at how badly things have gone with Paizo. WoTC have basically set themselves up with a nice competitor. Everyone says "it doesn't matter". Well at my local store, 3.5E is still selling like hot cakes and the owner says all his customers are moving over to Paizo.




That statement right there sounds like a good case AGAINST setting up any kind of Open Gaming.  Why make the same mistake twice?


----------



## SlyFlourish (Mar 29, 2008)

*What is the law?*

One of the things I always considered was that OGL was a simple way of licensing something that people may have already been able to do.

There are only two laws that protect this sort of stuff: copyright and trademark law.

As long as you don't directly reprint material from a book, you can talk all about it, right?

Why couldn't someone make a compatible product without ever even talking about the original?

Considering that the core of d20 is used in 4e, couldn't you just base your material off of the original d20 but using more 4e-style stuff?

As long as I don't reprint material falling under standard copyright law, can't I write something close?

I don't think you can copyright "roll 1d20, add a modifier, match it against a difficulty check".

Maybe I'm wrong. Can someone explain the laws of this to me?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Mar 29, 2008)

Maybe the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG has caused WotC to have visions of the past. TSR fragmented its own player base through the release of too many competing versions/settings of D&D. The OGL has caused the same with 3.5. Learning lessons from the past, I can see the desire to prevent a similar recurrence with 4E.

Really, it doesn't make much sense at all to let competitors (which is what 3rd party publishers are) have free access to the heart and soul of your product line.

I do agree that the OGL provided from some good game innovations.  But plenty of other industries seem to foster strong innovation and competition without just leeching off the dominant provider.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

mshea said:
			
		

> One of the things I always considered was that OGL was a simple way of licensing something that people may have already been able to do.
> 
> There are only two laws that protect this sort of stuff: copyright and trademark law.
> 
> ...





I think this is true. Fact is that it does not make any business sense to do such a thing if it is not licensed. People will not buy something evolutionary from you because they feel the big guy offers a better long term support which is a better condition regarding the need of evolution. 
So now you better have to provide something revolutionary than evolutionary. And this is where the hobby mostly needs to focus now IMO.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 29, 2008)

Wow. I think this post is a bit extreme. Yeah, I haven't seen the license yet, but I'm not worried. I'm VERY confident that 4e will be open to some extent. The way the license was done for 3.5 in stating that everything is always open is just causing a lot of issues that's all.

I work for a huge corporation myself, but I don't see any "corporate spin" here at all. They're just trying to figure it out. There is no need for these the sky is falling posts.

Relax people. Scott and Linae are good people and probably more worried about all of this then you lot are. It'll be fine.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

A couple of things;

I am NOT advocating a boycott of 4E AFTER WoTC make an announcement over GSL; I am just saying that if Amazon told them of a sudden cancellation of 1000s of pre-orders then it might give the suits at Hasbro a little bit of a jolt and might make them think about what they have recently done wrong. My hope is now looking forlorn indeed.....................

Also, it has been said that the decision over GSL has already been made; books at the printers etc. However, the books could just say copywright blah blah, subject to GSL. So it doesn't necessarily mean the GSL content has been decided on.

In addition, several people have disputed that OGL was a significant factor in the revival of RPGs. If this is the case, why have several insiders, present at the WoTC takeover of TSR state that the fractured and competing games systems were behind the 50-70% fall in table-top gaming.

Also, if diversity is good for RPGs then why was the 1990s a real low point; there was a greater diversity of games then that at any other time in the industry. Yet this was when gamers were leaving in droves.

I just wish that people on these boards could agree on SOMETHING but sadly, most posts have the sub-text "I am smarter than you; and now I am going to prove it".


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...




Every RPG on the market benefits WotC to some extent by being a doorway into role playing.  Eventually players start getting curious about the other books on the shelf next to what they buy, taking a close look determining if they might be interested in it.  They might talk to friends about it even.  Go up to any gamer who has been playing for more than a year and you will be hard pressed to find any who haven't tried at least one other game system than what they currently play.  Eventually a small portion will decide to buy the product in question and in this case D&D.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Mar 29, 2008)

For Wizards to go back and reject open gaming licenses will drastically diminish my interest in 4E, and I have been a very strong supporter of 4E on these forums.  If Wizards announces they are scrapping the GSL, I will be paying even more close attention to Paizo and will consider going with Pathfinder RPG instead of 4E, because of such decision by Wizards.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I am NOT advocating a boycott of 4E AFTER WoTC make an announcement over GSL; I am just saying that if Amazon told them of a sudden cancellation of 1000s of pre-orders then it might give the suits at Hasbro a little bit of a jolt and might make them think about what they have recently done wrong. My hope is now looking forlorn indeed.....................




Probem with that theory is if there's suddenly thousands of cancellations it's far more likely people assume Pathfinder is behind it. To prevent another Pathfinder a decade down the road (about 2020 ad., the year where we all will be cyberpunk   ) they may decide to squelch any ogl initiative.

It's useless to send signals without a clear and unified message to go along with them. So first set up a small website with a "save the ogl or we boycott" signature, present it to WotC after you have enough support to form a credible player in the field, and hope that by then you wouldn't have wasted your time because the decision has been announced already.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

JVisgatis; I would LOVE it if you are right. I have just been following the twists and turns of the GSL announcements since January and I am feeling more and more disquiet.

Perhaps my original post was OTT, but time will tell.

I only ask all of you this;

If I am wrong and we cancel our pre-orders, what do we lose.? WoTC announces GSL and we all re-order.

But if I am right and this is the moment when Hasbro is deciding whether to kill Open Gamng or not then if we do NOTHING then it could be a very dark day for D&D.

And that means a dark day for ALL PnP RPGs because D&D is the lifeblood of the hobby.


----------



## Sora Justice (Mar 29, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> Every RPG on the market benefits WotC to some extent by being a doorway into role playing.  Eventually players start getting curious about the other books on the shelf next to what they buy, taking a close look determining if they might be interested in it.  They might talk to friends about it even.  Go up to any gamer who has been playing for more than a year and you will be hard pressed to find any who haven't tried at least one other game system than what they currently play.  Eventually a small portion will decide to buy the product in question and in this case D&D.




Every RPG on the market hurts WotC to some extent by being a way out of Dungeons & Dragons. Eventually players start getting curious about the other books on the shelf next to what they buy, taking a close look determining if they might be interested in it. They might talk to friends about it even. Go up to any gamer who has been playing for more than a year and you will be hard pressed to find any who haven't tried at least one other game system than what they currently play. Eventually a small portion will decide to buy the product in question and in this case a competitor RPG.

D&D is the only doorway into role playing worth talking about. Open Gaming was designed to make D&D the sum total of role playing. It failed.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Belphanior, Your point is a good one. I was hoping that a forum might create enough support for just such a venture, but it seems we cannot stop arguing over details. 

This WILL send a nice message to WoTC; "Carry on as usual guys; we are too busy scoring points off of one another to actually do anything meaningful". I am sure they will appreciate it.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Open Gaming was designed to make D&D the sum total of role playing. It failed.




The OGL Project was our last, best hope for unity. It failed. In the year of the Pathfinder war it became something greater, our last best hope...for victory. 

The year is 2008. The place: D&D 4.


----------



## malraux (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Every RPG on the market hurts WotC to some extent by being a way out of Dungeons & Dragons.



And there's little WotC can do to prevent people from playing games other than DnD.  But what the OGL does is makes it so that people who move away from DnD are still associated with WotC products and ideas.  That way it makes coming back to DnD easier.  If I get tired of medieval fantasy and want to play a space/scifi game, its better for WotC if I move to a d20 based system than an entirely different system.  That keeps me used to the d20 rules, pursuing d20 source books, etc.  But if I move to something like the Serenity system, then I'm going to be less likely to come back to the d20 system.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

Guys, even if the entire OGL concept were scrapped in it's entirety, WOTC would still likely license out their stuff to third party publishers for a relatively modest fee.  That's the way of the world now.  All it would mean is only the larger companies could afford to purchase a license, and it wouldn't be free anymore.  It wouldn't mean an end to all third party support for D&D.  And in addition, it would probably mean free third party fan-made stuff would also be OK (at least on an unofficial basis).

So all this would cut out is the smaller companies, who frankly are very hit or miss as it is.  The bigger companies rose to the top mostly because of the quality of their products.  Sure, we would lose SOME good stuff.  But, it wouldn't be the end of the world, and it wouldn't even be the end of all third party support.

Boycott over speculation about something that hasn't happened, and even if it did happen it wouldn't be that big a deal? No.  :\ 

Heck, I think the OP overestimates the numbers of people who even read a thread like this.  If every person in this thread, and every person those people game with, boycotted all WOTC products, WOTC wouldn't even notice.  It wouldn't even show up as a percentage of preorders.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2008)

The last book I bought from WoTC was _Grand History of the Realms_ I anticipated it might be the last book I bought from WoTC considering how 4e was being designed.

Now I will go even farther, I will purchase no Hasbro product again EVER if they abandon open gaming period


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...



Any widening of the market always benefits the market leader. M&M and Spycraft has probably generated more players than stolen players from D&D. And more players overall benefits WotC. I'm certain I have a quote from Ryan Dancey somewhere, that would explain it better... if I can find it.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

I think that will only happen when we get to D&D v5.0. if we go by the plot of Babylon 5 then 4th edition should suddenly and mysteriously disappear, only to re-appear after the launch of D&D 5 to save the day.

I vote that Monte Cook is the one to go back in time and become the legendary hero Gygax (sorry I meant Valen).


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Mar 29, 2008)

Has anyone considered that this may be looked at from the wrong viewpoint?  Perhaps they're going the opposite direction from what people are afraid of.

We already know that the GSL was designed to be more restrictive than the OGL was. Perhaps it was too restrictive as designed from the WOTC viewpoint, and they have been campaigning for more openness for third party publishers?

I seriously doubt that WOTC will ever go back to the OGL as we saw it in 3E... it just does not seem to benefit them as much as it does the third party publishers. Take Paizo for example... the vast majority of customers were brought in by playing D&D. Without D&D and the OGL, Paizo would clearly not be making as much money as they are right now.

But can the same be said for WOTC?  Just how many new customers have WOTC gained because of Paizo products?  I seriously doubt that a significant number of gamers got into the hobby because of Paizo first, then moved to WOTC products.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> The last book I bought from WoTC was _Grand History of the Realms_ I anticipated it might be the last book I bought from WoTC considering how 4e was being designed.
> 
> Now I will go even farther, I will purchase no Hasbro product again EVER if they abandon open gaming period




You really think Hasbro would notice?  I doubt, if every single D&D player boycotted all Hasbro, that Hasbro would even notice aside from the D&D portion of their business (which itself is relatively small to Hasbro).


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You really think Hasbro would notice?  I doubt, if every single D&D player boycotted all Hasbro, that Hasbro would even notice aside from the D&D portion of their business (which itself is relatively small to Hasbro).



Do you think I care if they notice?  I think it's an appropriate response so it's the one I take and they can bite me if they think their notice, opinion, or anything else matters to me more than the bug I stepped on this morning.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 29, 2008)

I am with the let the OGL die camp. 
I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times. 
What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity. 

While in the 80ies-90ies we had (in fantasy gaming) DnD, Runequest, Rolemaster/MERP, Harn and WFRP, all distinctly different and fairly unique systems each reasonably well supported well suited for a given style of play. In the 00s we had DnD and well... more DnD. Until that is, WFRP2 reminded people that one can play fantasy RPG differently.

At the same time in DnD land we had such gems as "Book of Erotic Fantasy" (not that I have anything against serious take on sex in fantasy adventures, I even bought the damned thing expecting something like that, - but I do have something against books that would have been less juvenile written by a committee of horny 14 year olds), series of unbalancing class-splatbooks from the publisher that should have known better, tons of garage-printed home brew adventures that would not get pass first line of defence in Dungeon, masquerading as the edited product and tons of other garbage muddying the waters and cheapening DnD brand. 

Sure, there were occasional gems in the d20 midden heap: Iron Heros and Ptolus certainly, Midnight and its attendant material, some Pazio stuff, and I have been told Necro adventures were good for the folks who are into their style. 

Point is though, without OGL folks who had resources and drive to produce the product of the quality of, say, Midnight would have done so anyway under a different system. Product would still be as good, possibly better for not having to conform to the basic system made for a different game. Chaff that needs other people's brand to thrive would be separated from the wheat and RPGs would have been richer for it.

I am all in favor of WotC giving occasional supervised license to the third parties (such as Necro) who want to make specific variants of their stuff that are so tightly wound to DnD as to be unable to exist outside its cocoon but for the most part I think that for the balance/quality of DnD as well as for the sake of overall health of RPG business, sooner OGL is put out of its misery - the better.


----------



## Sora Justice (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> This WILL send a nice message to WoTC; "Carry on as usual guys; we are too busy scoring points off of one another to actually do anything meaningful". I am sure they will appreciate it.




You're new to the internet and the ways of fandom, I see. Fans are painfully ineffective at doing anything except whining and being consumed by pitiful nerd rage.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Heck, I think the OP overestimates the numbers of people who even read a thread like this.  If every person in this thread, and every person those people game with, boycotted all WOTC products, WOTC wouldn't even notice.  It wouldn't even show up as a percentage of preorders.




It sure wouldn't. Plus, you know, almost everyone on the boycott list will end up playing 4e D&D anyway because it's a great game. QQ all you want now, we won't hate you. We'll be waiting on DDI in June with open arms. <3


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Baka no Hentai (Ogenkidesuka? Hajimashite. Dozo yorishiku)

Scott Rouse has already confirmed that the GSL is MORE restrictive than the OGL. Specifically, he has stated on these forums that GSL will NOT allow 3PPs to produce d20 standalone games that do not require use of the 4E PHB, MM and DMG.

I have to say that I am fine with this. I see no reason for WoTC giving their IP away carte blance. I merely want to ensure that they continue to support the community of D&D gamers through an OGL-like licence that allows production of adventures and also of campaign worlds. People say nothing good ever came out of the community;

I say what about FORGOTTEN REALMS!!! It came out before OGL but that world is essentially the creation of a member of the D&D community. How many other FRs are there out there?

Since that annoucement the OGL forum has suddenly gone silent in terms of hard info and all official WoTC statements seem to be treading a very careful line with GSL, not even wanting to confirm or deny its existance. Why would this be the case if the they are just ironing out the details?

Something profound is going on; some internal debate at Hasbro.

Also, many D&D gamers will probably continue playing RPGs because of Paizo and other 3PPs because they HATE the direction of 4E. I disagree with them but these disaffected may very well come back to D&D one day rather than disappearing forever. So I think 3PPs may have a very large role to play in retaining gamers who have lost interest in the current incarnation; 4E. I also feel that they will only bring these faithful D&D players back if the 3PPs are allowed to contribute to 4E. 

So I want a GSL that keeps the community together because only when lots of people are playing one game does this hobby have any kind of viability, and that game has got to be D&D because it is the only one with the profile. I want a healthy D&D because this is required for new gamers to enter the hobby.

And I want a GSL that allows 3PPs to present visions of D&D that suit all styles of gaming, not just WoTCs. I DO NOT want 3PPs to be able to make deriative games that siphon off players from D&D. I want them to be able to help bring as many new players and retain as many old players as possible.

I want this because I fear for the end of PnP RPGs in these days of WoW and other online games.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Plus, you know, almost everyone on the boycott list will end up playing 4e D&D anyway because it's a great game. QQ all you want now, we won't hate you. We'll be waiting on DDI in June with open arms. <3



Speak for yourself, when I say something I mean it.  I already dislike 4e enough not to play or DM it anyway.  I sat out 2e I can sit out another edition just as well.  If they dump open gaming it just means I go up the chain a step and extend my non-purchasing to Hasbro too not that I bought much from them before.  Paizo can have that money instead, I've always liked their products.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Probem with that theory is if there's suddenly thousands of cancellations it's far more likely people assume Pathfinder is behind it. To prevent another Pathfinder a decade down the road (about 2020 ad., the year where we all will be cyberpunk   ) they may decide to squelch any ogl initiative.
> 
> It's useless to send signals without a clear and unified message to go along with them. So first set up a small website with a "save the ogl or we boycott" signature, present it to WotC after you have enough support to form a credible player in the field, and hope that by then you wouldn't have wasted your time because the decision has been announced already.




pathfinder won't be out for more than a year after 4E is released.  Why on EARTH would they assume it was Pathfinder.  Some of the Pathfinder fans are giving it way too much credit.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora; you misunderstand me; the boycott I was advocating was purely temporary. I would fully expect most people to play 4E in the end. I was just suggesting that we should delay buying or cancel pre-orders and couple this with some kind of protest letter to WoTC to advocate some sort of OGL.

But as someone has already pointed out; this was not likely to work. I am new to these boards but did realise this was the likely outcome; yet I would have kicked myself If I had stood by and done nothing.

Now I can subside into impotent fury with a clear conscience.


----------



## arscott (Mar 29, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> The books have already gone to the printers, any GSL/OGL information will already be pinned down and in the books.  Nothing is public yet at this time however.  So a boycott will solve nothing as they already have this information decided otherwise they couldn't include the info in the books.



Wizards didn't include the OGL information in their 3e books.  Why must they include any in their 4e books?


			
				mshea said:
			
		

> One of the things I always considered was that OGL was a simple way of licensing something that people may have already been able to do.
> 
> There are only two laws that protect this sort of stuff: copyright and trademark law.
> 
> ...



<I am not a lawyer>
Trademark is largely irrelevant to the situation, because you are allowed to use a trademark belonging to another company as long as your use doesn't cause the customer to confuse your product with the trademarked version.

In general, Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.  Specifically, game rules are not copyrightable but the wording used to describe them is.

The thing is, there's a middle ground between concept and specific expression.  Let's say someone writes a book about a young orphan who attends a boarding school for wizards.  I'd certaily be allowed to write my own book about a magical orphan at a British boarding school.  But if that boy's parents were killed on Halloween when he was one year old, or if that boarding school divided it's students into houses based on the recommendations of a talking hat, then I'd probably get sued.  Even If i never actually used any of the same prose that J.K. Rowling did, I still copied enough of her specific version of a general Idea that I'm guilty of infringement.

So you're free to write rules that are inspired by the things you see in 4e.  But when you cross the line from inspiration to imitation, then you might be treading a little to close to 4e's specific expression to be entirely safe.  And that's especially true if your product uses the same terminology as 4e does (reflex defense, encounter power, etc.)--something you'd obviously want to do if the product was intended to be used in a 4e game
</I am not a lawyer>


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 29, 2008)

I personally think the OGL would be a good thing and WOTC should seriously consider it.

That said, I'm somewhat disappointed that fans are threatening a boycott over something that pre-3E NEVER existed until WOTC took a chance.

I mean, it seems like people believe WOTC is obligated to have an OGL even though it was WOTC itself that created it in the first place. If any company has the right to say "to hell this with policy", it's the company that created this policy in the first place.

p.s. Did anyone ever ask SJG/Palladium why they never went with an OGL of their own?


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I am with the let the OGL die camp.
> I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times.
> What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity.
> 
> ...




Of course, creating a completely new system, balancing it appropriately, etc is a long, involved and in many cases, a failed task.  If you already have a core system to look at, tweak and bend to go w/what you have in mind, it is much faster and chances are, better balanced.  I think products like Arcana Evolved and Mutants & Masterminds were both very innovative, yet at their core they are just d20.  Why is this such a bad thing?



			
				Arscott said:
			
		

> Wizards didn't include the OGL information in their 3e books. Why must they include any in their 4e books?




Hmm guess they didn't.  So used to seeing it included in everyone else's product.  I think WotC doesn't have to list it b/c they are the originating publisher.  Not entirely sure how that one works.



			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> Scott Rouse has already confirmed that the GSL is MORE restrictive than the OGL. Specifically, he has stated on these forums that GSL will NOT allow 3PPs to produce d20 standalone games that do not require use of the 4E PHB, MM and DMG.
> 
> I have to say that I am fine with this. I see no reason for WoTC giving their IP away carte blance. I merely want to ensure that they continue to support the community of D&D gamers through an OGL-like licence that allows production of adventures and also of campaign worlds. People say nothing good ever came out of the community;




With the above statement, Rouse has said that things like alternative PHBs (ala Arcana Evolved) won't work under the GSL.  Adventures and campaign settings are fine as they still drive sales of the core rulebooks.  So if the GSL continues in this fashion, which I see no reason it won't, we will see plenty of 3rd party adventures and campaign settings.  They will all just refer back to the 4E PHB/DMG/MM as needed like many early OGL games did.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 29, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> </I am not a lawyer>



Does this mean you now resume your state of being a lawyer?   

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

The idea that 3PPs did nothing for D&D in general is nonsense; Mike Mearls and many other 4E designers cut their teeth in 3rd party companies. The world might have been very different if the 3PPs had not been around to provide a reservoir of talent to write new games. You might not buy 3PP games/products but you are ALL heavily invested in a game designed by alot of people who might not be the industry except for the 3PPs.

The idea that OGL does not benefit WoTC is crazy; it means that most game systems are compatible with theirs and ultimately makes their product more stable because gamers can easily migrate back if they become dissatified.

Other companies can still make unrelated gaming systems. Many (like Mongoose) have continued with Runequest and have released it under an OGL. They intend to do the same with Traveller. So other companies do recognise the value of OGL.

AllisterH; I am just asking that WoTC HONOR the promise they made to us at the launch of 4E. If they had said then "there will be no OGL" then I would not be having this conversation. I would never have considered playing 4E. I would also not be disappointed and feel betrayed. They said there would be an OGL and so there should be one. If they didn't want one then they should have stated this from the outset.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

You got that from "vetting our final policy"?

No, you just used an excuse to go off the handle.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 29, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> pathfinder won't be out for more than a year after 4E is released.  Why on EARTH would they assume it was Pathfinder.  Some of the Pathfinder fans are giving it way too much credit.




Are you calling me a Pathfinder fan? I fought duels over less, sir.   

And the point isn't about whether or not Pathfinder is out yet. The point was that if there's thousands of people cancelling right now it's unlikely that "the suits at Habsro" immediately make the connection to the OGL minutiae. It's more likely they blame this new competitor, the state of the economy, or even the lunar phases for all I care.


----------



## malraux (Mar 29, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I am with the let the OGL die camp.
> I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times.
> What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity.



It does more than that though.  Back in the TSR days, even fan created stuff given away for free would get hit with legal threats.  The OGL made it clear that some stuff was automatically free from legal action.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> That is a fairly *big* assumption.
> 
> And while I in no way support your proposed boycott, why on earth can't it wait until we hear something more. Pre-orders can be canceled up until the moment stuff is shipped, last I checked.




It may be an assumption, but I also believe it is true. I think there is a chance that there is no open gaming for 4E. And that really has me concerned. 

I am one of Wizards' biggest supporters on these boards. I always have been. I've worked with them in the past. I've gotten special permission and license deals for things like Tome of Horrors. If there is a dedicated and trusted third party publisher from Wizards' standpoint, it really has to be me. 

I am not calling for a boycott. But get one thing straight--the OP is not wrong in his belief. Not at all. This is a very real concern. I am reconsidering my whole strategy because of teh very same concerns. That is how real it is. 

And thrid parties are relevant to gaming. We help transfer customers from one edition to the other. We provide alternate visions of game play. Gamers are fickle. They like things their way. Not everyone wants the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. We provide alternatives. So what does that do? It keeps people playing D&D as opposed to peeling off to other games. Some of that happens anyway, but the third parties have really kept people playing D&D. That is a HUGE benefit for Wizards.


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 29, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> So you're free to write rules that are inspired by the things you see in 4e.  But when you cross the line from inspiration to imitation, then you might be treading a little to close to 4e's specific expression to be entirely safe.  And that's especially true if your product uses the same terminology as 4e does (reflex defense, encounter power, etc.)--something you'd obviously want to do if the product was intended to be used in a 4e game



And this would the whole story but for one thing - the 3.x SRD.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Why should WOTC give their rules for free to other companies, so they can profit with these rules, unless it somehow benefits WOTC business?
> If open gaming does no good for WOTC business, why should they support it?




Because it very clearly does do good for Wizards. No one involved in open gaming feels that open gaming is bad for Wizards. Only suits would think that way. Seriously. And that is a concern because there are some decision makers at Wizards who are new and have ZERO experience with the actual events and experience of open gaming.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I am just asking that WoTC HONOR the promise they made to us at the launch of 4E.




I don't think they ever promised an OGL. Stating 'there will be an OGL' is different. That may have been the case, stated in good faith, six months ago. They are well within their rights to change their minds since that original statement was made if they have determined it to no longer be in their best interests.

Not saying this scenario is what is happening, but if it is, I do not see it as a re-neg on a promise.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 29, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Of course, creating a completely new system, balancing it appropriately, etc is a long, involved and in many cases, a failed task.  If you already have a core system to look at, tweak and bend to go w/what you have in mind, it is much faster and chances are, better balanced.  I think products like Arcana Evolved and Mutants & Masterminds were both very innovative, yet at their core they are just d20.  Why is this such a bad thing?




I guess I just happen not to like either of them so I am not so sad to see them go. 

I do not like GURPS exactly because it if flavorless system made to fit every kind of game. Insofar as I like DnD is that it supports DnD-sort of play. If 4ed moves more in the genre-specific direction I will be very happy. At that point forbidding the (official) grafting of the separate genres onto its base seems a very good marketing decision (a way of making clear statement of "DnD is not GURPS" if you would).

Alternative rules wise again I think that if someone has good rules ideas it is better if they write their own rules. That way if they really are good - they are not hampered by the "basic" rules and if they are bad they are not muddying the water, confusing the player base and generally contributing to the rules glut. Letting other people make rules modules for your game is as if BMW said "from now on we will let random 3rd party manufacturers design steering systems for our cars and will provide instructions for removing the original BMW steering and its replacement with the 3rd party one which we have neither tested nor in any other way approved". Sure, it *may* end up a better car - but somehow it seems unlikely.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

JeffB said:
			
		

> Actually that is NOT what it says.
> 
> Having worked for some time in marketing in a big corporation this would be my interpretation of the "spin".
> 
> "Higher-ups in the company are having second thoughts about whether we want to support Open-Gaming".




I agree that is the interpretation.

I dont think this is about HOW they license 4E to us. I think the decision has gone back to WHETHER OR NOT they license it at all.

That said, I know that Scott and many people at Wizards are believers in open gaming and are fighting for 4E to be open. I hope they win.

So everyone use your daily powers to give Scott and Linae bonuses to their skill checks all next week.  Then take an extended rest and do it again.

I'm not trying to be doom and gloom. I still think there are enough good voices for Open Gaming at Wizards that this will work out. But (1) I am concerned, (2) the OP is right, and (3) if you love D&D and its longevity and value, you should be concerned. A healthy D&D means a healthy RPG industry. I dont think we can afford the level of fragmentation that is likely to happen if 3Ps arent allowed to support 4E.


----------



## Roland55 (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> It may be an assumption, but I also believe it is true. I think there is a chance that there is no open gaming for 4E. And that really has me concerned.
> 
> I am one of Wizards' biggest supporters on these boards. I always have been. I've worked with them in the past. I've gotten special permission and license deals for things like Tome of Horrors. If there is a dedicated and trusted third party publisher from Wizards' standpoint, it really has to be me.
> 
> ...




I'm very sad to hear this.  I think a lot of other players will also be sad, but by no means all -- there are plenty of devotees who only care about WOTC.   

If it means anything, I think (just think ... I have no source of concrete information or special insight) we older gamers will continue to support the 3rd party producers like yourself.  Your work is solid.  It is often superior to that of WOTC.  Whether it involves 4E or not is irrelevant.

Alternatives, variations, fresh insight -- these are all very valuable.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> The books have already gone to the printers, any GSL/OGL information will already be pinned down and in the books.  Nothing is public yet at this time however.  So a boycott will solve nothing as they already have this information decided otherwise they couldn't include the info in the books.




No it wont. Wizards doesnt have to use the GSL/OGL.

Nothing in the books will solve this problem.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> And, if the moon is made out of cheese, why shouldn't we eat it?
> 
> The thing is, it does benefit their business. The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.




Yep. You hit it on the head.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2008)

JeffB said:
			
		

> Actually that is NOT what it says.
> 
> Having worked for some time in marketing in a big corporation this would be my interpretation of the "spin".
> 
> "Higher-ups in the company are having second thoughts about whether we want to support Open-Gaming".




Let us be 100% clear: That is _your interpretation_.  

Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate.  People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others.  Golden Rule, dude.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I'm not disputing that. I only believe they will simply do what is best for their business. It's a business issue, not a philosophical one. There is no reason to boycott a company that made a decision for its best interests, right?
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...




You are presuming that there is this all-prescient decision maker who truly knows the best interestes of the business. That just isnt the case in any business. If that was the case, all those decisions made by T$R back in the day wouldnt have led them to ruin. You cant just trust managers to know the right thing to do--and I say that having been a manager. The problem is, current managers simply dont have the history of experience with open gaming. It is up to the good folks who do, such as Scott and Linae, to make sure they understand. 

I agree that there are some things about open gaming that dont help Wizards, and I have said as much. They dont get any benefit from bulk reprinting of their rules. They dont get any benefit from products that dont help sell D^D proiducts. They dont get any benefit from the creation of competing stand alone games like Mutants and Masterminds. I wouldnt be surprised to see any new license change all that. I would support such a license. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let us be 100% clear: That is _your interpretation_.
> 
> Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate.  People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others.  Golden Rule, dude.




Nope, its my interpretation, too. And I believe it is the 100% truth. This is not conjecture. Dont dismiss it as conjecture. 

But it isnt the truth for all of Wizards. I know there are many there who are fighting for open gaming. Scott, Linae, etc.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus; welcome to this debacle! I wish I could say I have achieved something, but I fear I haven't. Perhaps more people now know about this issue than having it hidden away on the OGL forums that most people don't read.

I am particularly sorry for 3PPs like yourself because you were clearlyas excited as I was about 4E and actually came out and openly supported 4E (unlike most others).

Reaper Steve; you need to do some more reading before making statements like this. Look at the front page of the 4E guide on EN world complied by Morrus. There you will find a very detailed press statement laying out WoTCs vision of the GSL.

They have completely failed to back up these promises so far and have missed every deadline. This has caused many 3PPs to opt not to support 4E and so, by trying to hold onto D&D, WoTC may in fact have played into the hands of Paizo and the other 3PPs who will now fracture D&D gamers into those who go via 3.75E and those who go with 4E. I suspect the former group will now include MANY more gamers than any market research suggests because this scenario could never have been envisaged at the time

A company that stays silent in the face of gamers and completely fails to engage with its market audience and that disregards their wishes. Where I have I heard that before? Wait, wasn't a company called TSR?


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

mshea said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm wrong. Can someone explain the laws of this to me?




This is one of the most argued points in the modern gaming industry. Read this page from the US Copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html



> The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.




But, in the history of RPGs no one has had the money to fight a court battle with TSR/WOTC when and if they send a cease & desist letter over something they don't like. So in theory it's allowed, in practice no one's been able to do it to date.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> It may be an assumption, but I also believe it is true. I think there is a chance that there is no open gaming for 4E. And that really has me concerned.
> 
> I am one of Wizards' biggest supporters on these boards. I always have been. I've worked with them in the past. I've gotten special permission and license deals for things like Tome of Horrors. If there is a dedicated and trusted third party publisher from Wizards' standpoint, it really has to be me.
> 
> ...




I would be really sad if you were right, Clark, as I am very much looking forward buying your products for my 4e game. I am also sad that you seem to have lost your faith, since you, as you stated in the GSL. thread, have by far been the most vocal supporter (amongst the 3rd party publishers) of 4e and Wizards.

3rd party products never made me buy less WOTC stuff, it just made me spend more money, so from personal experience, I definitely think that an OGL (or an GSL for that matter) is a good thing for WoTC. On the other hand, I do also think that an OGL is too much, due to the fragmentation of the market. 

I remain optimistic.

Cheers


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Are you calling me a Pathfinder fan? I fought duels over less, sir.
> 
> And the point isn't about whether or not Pathfinder is out yet. The point was that if there's thousands of people cancelling right now it's unlikely that "the suits at Habsro" immediately make the connection to the OGL minutiae. It's more likely they blame this new competitor, the state of the economy, or even the lunar phases for all I care.




Sorry if I offended   Being a Pathfinder fan was the only assumption I could make for why WotC would automatically assume a bunch of 4E pre-order cancellations were due to the PFRPG announcement.

Having the OGL definitely gives D&D a broader reach of development possibilities and I will be sad to see it go after all the good it did w/3E, but I won't boycott the game if it isn't open.  It wasn't open for nearly 30 years after all and that didn't stop any of us from playing back then.  Of course, Malhavoc was one of my favorite 3E era publishers and Monte has removed himself to work on other things.  I do look forward to good 4E Necromancer products tho Clark!


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let us be 100% clear: That is _your interpretation_.



Not only his...


----------



## Roland55 (Mar 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let us be 100% clear: That is _your interpretation_.
> 
> Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate.  People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others.  Golden Rule, dude.




Very, very true.  Thank you for pointing this out.

I believe Hasbro appointed a new WOTC director recently.  It would be entirely rational for a new director to revisit many prior decisions ... it isn't necessarily anything to feel 'doom and gloom' about.  A new director cannot retain power without immediately seizing the reins and getting 'into' the new business (well, often 'new' to the 'new director').  A little soul searching does not always lead to change.

Or it may.  Time will tell.  I've seen it go both ways -- and I've worked at various levels in major corporations and enormous organizations for over 40 years.  So, stay tuned.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Guys, even if the entire OGL concept were scrapped in it's entirety, WOTC would still likely license out their stuff to third party publishers for a relatively modest fee.




I'm not sure this is true. I shure hope it is. But, for instance, they havent offered me such a license. And I am historically their best and closest third party publisher (other than Paizo). They licensed Tome conetnt to me, etc. And I think over the years we have proven to be excellent partners and caretakers of that content. So if I'm worried, you all should be too.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Relax people. Scott and Linae are good people and probably more worried about all of this then you lot are. It'll be fine.




And if only they were the final decision makers, this would be fine. But I dont think they are. In fact, I know they arent.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 29, 2008)

I guess I'm just somewhat disappointed that people can be angry with WOTC for not following an idea that they themselves created.

Why don't SJG/Palladium get the same anger?


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just somewhat disappointed that people can be angry with WOTC for not following an idea that they themselves created.
> 
> Why don't SJG/Palladium get the same anger?




What are SJG and Palladium not following up on?  Palladium has had many book ideas over the years that never appeared and we all know how insanely overdue they can be at times, but neither game system has ever been open.


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> So if I'm worried, you all should be too.



When the demon lord is worried, we _are_ worried, Clark.


----------



## Henry (Mar 29, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And that the thing I don't get about the OGL praisers.  If Wizards didn't have an OGL, whose to say that M&M and Spycraft wouldn't have been created as new games rather than a variation of the OGL.  How "innovative" is it to tweak 25% of an existing ruleset rather than coming up with a game from scratch that is not tied down.
> 
> I think the OGL actually hurt us because instead of having a heterogenous market with a wider variety we just have a lot of semi-, demi-, quasi-, and psuedo- versions of D&D 3e.  Maybe if the license is more restrictive, people will focus on building good games from the ground up and actually create something really innovative.




I'm unsure how to state it more simply, but the theory is that all roads lead back to D&D. The shorter those roads, are, the more frequent the pilgrims make the return trip. The OGL is a way to make those roads shorter.

Personally, I don't think that having a market full of systems with hit points, hits to kill, persistence points, toughness points, strength points, etc. all to mean the same thing is beneficial, nor 40 systems that have 30 different dice mechanics to create the same effect, and the OGL has been one way that cut down on some of those. Heck, just looking at the Warhammer RPG, designed by Chris Pramas and company, incorporated some d20 rules intentionally or unintentionally, and it turned out to be for the better for that game (Half Actions and full actions are the first that come to mind, as are cyclic initiative.)

I also think there's enough evidence among independent games over the years from 1980 to 2000 that building games from the ground up creates unnecessary reinventions, often for the poorer. There's probably scores, maybe hundreds, of different ways to figure initiative in a combat alone, and most of them really create lots of extra work for the end result of "who goes first." I'm all for innovation, but innovation should also allow for people finding a rule mechanic among someone else's game that works REALLY well, and then being able to pull it whole cloth into their own game without having to figure out how to avoid copyright violations, because having to stop just so you can reenvision the wheel to avoid lawsuit can be counterproductive.


Regarding the original post by Ydars: I'm not ready to boycott just because the official word is "no new info." I'm not worried, because if WotC did dump open gaming completely, it would be bad press no matter when they did it. Remember, the first three books aren't the core game any more: they're the first of MANY installments of the core game, and fan support is important to keep the avid hobbyists recruiting new players, because when all is said and done, WotC really doesn't create new players, not in a meaningful amount: _Old Players_ create new players, whether they're introducing them, talking to them, or birthing them.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> In addition, several people have disputed that OGL was a significant factor in the revival of RPGs. If this is the case, why have several insiders, present at the WoTC takeover of TSR state that the fractured and competing games systems were behind the 50-70% fall in table-top gaming.
> 
> Also, if diversity is good for RPGs then why was the 1990s a real low point; there was a greater diversity of games then that at any other time in the industry. Yet this was when gamers were leaving in droves.




I think this can easily be a misunderstanding among TSR's product lines and ropleplaying games in general. But even in the case what you say is true, how could you know that what has been the answer to the industry's problems was the OGL itself and not rather a fine excuse to provoke interest in the hobby under the specific situation and conditions of that troubled times? 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Of course, creating a completely new system, balancing it appropriately, etc is a long, involved and in many cases, a failed task.  If you already have a core system to look at, tweak and bend to go w/what you have in mind, it is much faster and chances are, better balanced.  I think products like Arcana Evolved and Mutants & Masterminds were both very innovative, yet at their core they are just d20.  Why is this such a bad thing?




I do not agree with any of this. Say how was arcana evolved a very innovative game system?


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That said, I'm somewhat disappointed that fans are threatening a boycott over something that pre-3E NEVER existed until WOTC took a chance.




I'll offer myself as an example. I was an old-school fan who was not playing or buying any D&D pre-3E (i.e., no 2E for me). I came back expressly because of the opportunities I saw in the OGL. I don't buy anything that isn't OGL-supported anymore. Pretty simple for me.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> They have completely failed to back up these promises so far and have missed every deadline. This has caused many 3PPs to opt not to support 4E and so, by trying to hold onto D&D, WoTC may in fact have played into the hands of Paizo and the other 3PPs who will now fracture D&D gamers into those who go via 3.75E and those who go with 4E. I suspect the former group will now include MANY more gamers than any market research suggests because this scenario could never have been envisaged at the time




I feel compelled to remind that ENWorld is NOT a representative slice of the gaming public.  Most gamers don't read boards like ENWorld, I know plenty who still don't even have the internet at home.  I don't see how Paizo is going to be pulling hordes of gamers away from 4E, esp when the rules currently show significant power creep over 3.5, requiring lots of tweaking to make encounters and such from all the old 3.5 material people have function at a proper CR level.

Let's say that 80% of all current 3.X gamers move on to 4E.  That leaves 20% who either quit gaming, stay with 3.X, transition to other games entirely, switchover to Paizo's Pathfinder RPG.  I just don't get what's so compelling about their setting.  Considering the number of gamers you hear who refuse to buy anything non-WotC, those people won't buy Paizo, even if they do stay 3.5.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Hooray; some of us have now worked out that the GSL might indeed be in danger; it only took 60 posts!

Now can we please discuss what we can do to affect this decision? If my idea is no good then fine, but can someone please suggest something better?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Roland55 said:
			
		

> I believe Hasbro appointed a new WOTC director recently.  It would be entirely rational for a new director to revisit many prior decisions ... it isn't necessarily anything to feel 'doom and gloom' about.  A new director cannot retain power without immediately seizing the reins and getting 'into' the new business (well, often 'new' to the 'new director').  A little soul searching does not always lead to change.
> 
> Or it may.  Time will tell.  I've seen it go both ways -- and I've worked at various levels in major corporations and enormous organizations for over 40 years.  So, stay tuned.




I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.

BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!

Rethinking the GSL could lead to a decision to simply release 4E under the OGL. 

So I dont want people to go all gloom and doom. Yes, I am concerned. I am concerned at the twists this has taken. The initial meeting with the publishers was awesome. It was well done, professional, and clearly a part of a well-integrated plan. Then upper management got involved and it got yanked. Then, silence. We knew the GSL was intended to be more restrictive. Frankly, I was ok with that. There were thinigs that didnt make sense for Wizards in the OGL if the d20 STL was not used, which it didnt have to be because the d20 logo lost all value and meaning. Now they are back to the drawing boards. There are three options:

1. Use the GSL, or a version of it, as planned. With some of the restrictions from the STL and Guide built into the GSL itself. I'd be fine with that.

2. Swing to one extreme and say there is no license for 4E at all.

3. Swing to the other side and say 4E can be used under the existing OGL (with a stripped down SRD).

Until last week, it seemed clear that option (1) was in play and we were told that things were proceeding along with option 1. Now, it is clear that option (1) is not the only option in play and that higher ups are considering option (2). Which means they may also be considering option (3).

Clark


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Fans are painfully ineffective at doing anything except whining and being consumed by pitiful nerd rage.





If you wish to continue to engage in insulting people, please do it somewhere else.  

That goes for everyone - be respectful, or don't post.  It's pretty simple, really.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

Mods,

I know the rules about where threads go, but this isnt so much an OGL question as it is a question about what will you, the gaming public, do if 4E is not open.

That belongs in the general 4E forum, in my view. 

Yes, there is some overlap. But most people dont care about the nuts and bolts of the OGL (which is what the OGL forum is for) but they may well care about open gaming and third party publishers. I know they do. Please return this to the main 4E forum. I think that was the intent of the original poster--to take the temperature of gamers what impact no third parties would have on everyone, not just those interested in the details of the license. 

Clark


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 29, 2008)

You know, about 2-3 months ago, I remember making a prediction: 

"I think that WotC is going to let the 3rd party publishers twist in the wind, and at the last minute decide not to have an OGL for them to use w/ 4E to weaken/destroy some 3rd party publishers, so that they will be the only source of D&D material."

At the time, a lot of 4E marketing tactics apologists branded me a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for saying so.  Now we know that it IF they have 3rd party support is is with a "GSL" and not an "OGL" for $5k, and alsot now they are saying that "Just kidding, we may not even have a GSL at all.  Have a nice day filing chapter 11 former competitor."  Anyone who justifies this as acceptable is a WotC employee or should be.

I certainly hope this is not the way it goes-- that at least Necromancer and Goodman will get some special liscence granted in case that is true-- if they didn't allow them to publish for 4E that would be the ultimate stab in the back to these companies that even pledged to go "all in" way back when the $5k tribute was announced, and have likely been banking on 4e, and spending a lot of their R&D on projects for it (at least I know necro has).  To tell them "oh well" now is not good enough.  

*If WotC does decide not to make a GSL* this late in the game, I encourage ALL 3rd party publishers to use the 3.X OGL to make and support a "4E OSRIC".  I might even found a new combany called "Four Elves Press" and Publish lines of products like "4E Fantasy Classes" and "4E Adventures" and "4E monstes & booty"  All those things, while written under 3.x OGL will "just by coincidence" happen to be perfectly compatable w/ 4E D&D, but likely say that they are for "4E OSRIC and "other" 4th Edition Games" Without stating implicitly what it is the 4th Edition of (is it GURPS 4E?  M&M?  We just don't know...)

Or on the other hand, we could make & support PATHFINDER.  I think that WotC might discover what happens when they sow the wind a few times to many.  They can fool some of the people all the time, All of the people some of the time, but they won't fool all the people all of the time.  Deciding this late in the game to take away the GSL would be the last straw for many people I expect.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm gonna have to agree with Orcus about the threads and their location.  

I find that a lot of people ignore the OGL forum, for whatever reason.  I noticed a few threads started in the 4e forums end up dead when they are moved here.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 29, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ok, here's where I really run into trouble with your point.  I largely don't buy third party products.  I certainly don't consider them 'support' for the main system, so their non-existence wouldn't diminish it in any meaningful way.  Even if it did, if the 'old guard' doesn't like 4e, it will be on the basis of the core game.  3rd party products aren't going to go in and fix the essential problems in the basic system- they're going to be based on that system.




While that is your experience, it's the polar opposite of mine.  3rd-party products brought me back to D&D b/c they showed me how easy it was to modify the d20 engine to suit the interests of GMs, players, and the needs of any given campaign setting.  I have significantly more 3rd-party product than WotC product.  And in many cases with 3.x, 3rd-party products did "fix" the D&Disms that drive me nuts.  Products like Grim Tales (grittier games, toolkit approach), Conan (classic swords-n-sorcery rather than D&D-Fantasy superheo), Game of Thrones (political games, grittier combat), and Thieves' World & True Sorcery (non-Vancian magic).  Whether you call them fixes or options, they added to the game in ways WotC would never have done.  That's as valid a support model as 3rd-party adventures which coincidentally compete with WotC's adventures.  The only difference there is that WotC doesn't care about that level of competition as they view them as table scraps anyway.

Bottom line, open gaming and continued ability for 3rd-party is a BIG deal for a lot of people.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Nope, its my interpretation, too. And I believe it is the 100% truth. This is not conjecture. Dont dismiss it as conjecture.




Note how the word "conjecture" did not appear in my post.

Whether or not you believe it to be true was not the point.  The point was misrepresenting _what the post actually said_.  

If we did that to people actually posint here (probably including yourself), we'd get complaints about allowing people to put words in other people's mouths.  It is rude.

It is fine to quote them, and say, "I interpret this to mean X."  It is not fine to quote them, and say, "They are saying X."  The former is being clear about your thought process, and admitting it is yours.  The latter is rude.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Mods,
> 
> I know the rules about where threads go, but this isnt so much an OGL question as it is a question about what will you, the gaming public, do if 4E is not open.
> 
> ...




I absolutely agree with Orcus.  Please put this in the 4e forum.  It's really where it belongs.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Mods; Please move this back to the main forum.

My intention with this post was to reach all gamers interested in 4E, not just industry insiders.

There are serious issues here that need a wide audience.


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.
> 
> BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!
> 
> ...




Clark, I admire your optimism in times like this.  I honestly hope that it all works out for you!


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> If WotC does decide not to make a GSL[/B] this late in the game, I encourage ALL 3rd party publishers to use the 3.X OGL to make and support a "4E OSRIC".




I can tell you now, I would never do that. I have massive issues with the whole OSRIC thing. But I dont want to get into that. 



> Deciding this late in the game to take away the GSL would be the last straw for many people I expect.




I agree with that. I dont know if Wizards understands that.

I cant tell you how many emails I have gotten over the life of Necro that say: "I had no interest in 3E. The stuff I saw from Wizards with spikey bits and their version of the rules just didnt appeal to me. It didnt feel like the D&D I wanted. Then I downloaded your Wizards Amulet. Now I am hardcore into 3E!" Or "I wasnt that into 3E. I didnt even buy the books. But then I saw Tomb of Abysthor/Tome of Horrors on teh shelf at the store and I picked it up, and I said 'hey, someone is making D&D stuff the way I think it should be made.' Now I play 3E. Thanks Necro!" Seriously, it is amazing how many of those emails I get. Heck, I still get one occasionally! 

Not only are there current players who would not want to see their favorite companies not be allowed to support 4E, and make choices based on that. There are also tons of people who may have fallen away from D&D and are looking at whether or not to come back. And they want to see if the new rules let them play the D&D they want to play. I speak to those people. The people that I speak to with my products are NOT the people that the core 4E marketing will hit. Which makes my role in the transition from 3E to 4E all the more valuable. 

Clark


----------



## arscott (Mar 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> p.s. Did anyone ever ask SJG/Palladium why they never went with an OGL of their own?



SJG seems to do really well with the sort of weird niche products that the WotC was trying to farm out to third parties with the OGL--heck, they've published a GURPS supplement based on a webcomic .  Palladium... Well, the company never struck me as being business savvy as such.


			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Hmm guess they didn't.  So used to seeing it included in everyone else's product.  I think WotC doesn't have to list it b/c they are the originating publisher.  Not entirely sure how that one works.



Well, the core books were never actually covered by the license.  Instead, WotC released The SRD as a parallel, open content version of their ruleset.  Obviously, they're not planning on doing that this time around, but I'm sure whatever their solution it won't take up a spare page at the back of the book.


			
				Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Does this mean you now resume your state of being a lawyer?



Shh.  I'm trying to use HTMLomancy to get myself a better job.  Don't alert the powers that be to my plan.


			
				Oldtimer said:
			
		

> And this would the whole story but for one thing - the 3.x SRD.



Which makes the task of creating a 4e compatible product both easier and harder.  Easier in that you can use the bits that follow logically from 3e, but harder in that by entering into the OGL, you limit your rights to publish Product Identity (which can be interpreted so broadly that it includes quite a bit of rules content) and indicate compatibility.


			
				Delta said:
			
		

> But, in the history of RPGs no one has had the money to fight a court battle with TSR/WOTC when and if they send a cease & desist letter over something they don't like. So in theory it's allowed, in practice no one's been able to do it to date.



But when the Copyright office talks about Game Rules, they're talking about things like the rules to Monopoly or Scrabble.  If the issue ever actually made it to court, it's conceivable that the judge will rule that RPG rulebooks don't actually count as 'game rules' for the purposes of copyright.


----------



## Henry (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> ...And they want to see if the new rules let them play the D&D they want to play. I speak to those people. The people that I speak to with my products are NOT the people that the core 4E marketing will hit. Which makes my role in the transition from 3E to 4E all the more valuable.




I'm kind of one of them.  If anyone has gotten me interested in 4e over the past few months, it's been you and Ari (and Ari's enthusiasm).


----------



## Orcus (Mar 29, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Clark, I admire your optimism in times like this.  I honestly hope that it all works out for you!




Thanks!

I am still optimistic (though concerned). I am optimistic because Wizards has good people like Scott and Linae who I KNOW FOR A FACT understand open gaming and its value and the value of third parties like Necro to the continued success of D&D and I know they are fighting to get things done. I cant tell you how much respect and admiration I have for them. (even when Linae is cruely teasing me about how she is going to her 4E playtest group, knowing I am dying to play). My optimism is based on the good people who I know are involved here and their dedication. 

Clark


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm unsure how to state it more simply, but the theory is that all roads lead back to D&D. The shorter those roads, are, the more frequent the pilgrims make the return trip. The OGL is a way to make those roads shorter.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that having a market full of systems with hit points, hits to kill, persistence points, toughness points, strength points, etc. all to mean the same thing is beneficial, nor 40 systems that have 30 different dice mechanics to create the same effect, and the OGL has been one way that cut down on some of those. Heck, just looking at the Warhammer RPG, designed by Chris Pramas and company, incorporated some d20 rules intentionally or unintentionally, and it turned out to be for the better for that game (Half Actions and full actions are the first that come to mind, as are cyclic initiative.)
> 
> I also think there's enough evidence among independent games over the years from 1980 to 2000 that building games from the ground up creates unnecessary reinventions, often for the poorer. There's probably scores, maybe hundreds, of different ways to figure initiative in a combat alone, and most of them really create lots of extra work for the end result of "who goes first." I'm all for innovation, but innovation should also allow for people finding a rule mechanic among someone else's game that works REALLY well, and then being able to pull it whole cloth into their own game without having to figure out how to avoid copyright violations, because having to stop just so you can reenvision the wheel to avoid lawsuit can be counterproductive.




I disagree with what you are saying here. I am sick that most RPGs still base their systems on the 6 same defined attributes . And the fact that some systems may replace strength to power or dexterity to agility but still be based on the same structure of concepts is not considered an innovation in the industry. These "innovations" are doomed to failure.


----------



## Roland55 (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.
> 
> BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!
> 
> ...




Or ... even an Option 4 that hasn't been mentioned here.

I, too, do NOT want to incite any 'doom and gloom.'  It's far too soon for that, since nothing we consider 'bad' may ever happen.

Unfortunately, the key matter is this:  on what basis was the new director hired?  What ground rule or rules was he given as the basis for that hiring?  This is something none of us know now ... nor will we ever know it.  It is unlikely that the new director will pay any attention to fans/customers at this stage of the corporate game.  He is very likely to pay attention to well-regarded  subordinates, unless the expressed opinions of those subordinates disagree with the basis of hire.  

It's a pain to be given charge of a new organization just before a major product appears.  It is such a sensitive time that any decision you make will likely have unintended consequences.  Unfortunately, it is NOT an option to simply sit back and do nothing.  Right now, the new director is working very hard to decide which subordinate or subordinates deserve his trust, which people are his 'key' people.  It is these people who will actually help him develop his governing strategy and the policies that will mark his tenure.  

With just a little luck, those 'key' people will be skilled gamers who understand the community as well as the business.  All will then be well.

Only after these early stages are complete can a new director afford to reach out past his employees to explore other possibilities.  The exploration stage will probably not be reached until after 4E is released, much to the chagrin of well-respected industry professionals such as Clark.

Or, I could be wrong.  But I don't think so.  You see, I've been there ... several times.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 29, 2008)

bramadan said:
			
		

> I am with the let the OGL die camp.
> I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times.
> What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity
> (N
> Sure, there were occasional gems in the d20 midden heap: Iron Heros and Ptolus certainly, Midnight and its attendant material, some Pazio stuff, and I have been told Necro adventures were good for the folks who are into their style.




Well, I personally wouldn't call Iron Heroes a gem, but that aside,  WOTC has, imo, produced more than it's fair sharre of rubbish (I consider very few non-core rules supplements from WOTC to not be sub par and the info regarding 4e has not convinced me that this is about to change). It has been the third party companies with their variant material (e.g., EN Publishing's Elements of Magic, Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might, and Green Ronin's Master Class books) that have kept me playing  DND and, thus, purchasing the few WOTC books I do consider worth buying (e.g., Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Fiend Folio, Heroes of Horror, and the dedicated monster books).  The same is true with regards to d20Modern.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.
> 
> BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!
> 
> ...




Clark, you have a fantastic way of hoping for the best.  Great post. 


I'll hold off on saying anything further, for now. I hope those guys at WotC who are supporters of Open Gaming manage to talk some kind of sense to whoever is fighting the idea. I wish Scott and Linae much luck. Scott! It's time to go al Sūn Zǐ Bīng Fǎ on 'em!


----------



## Greg K (Mar 29, 2008)

Azgulor,
I may not have purchased all the games that you listed, but you pretty much summed up my experience. Third party products fixing D&Disms that drove me nuts to showing me what could be done with with the system.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> While that is your experience, it's the polar opposite of mine.  3rd-party products brought me back to D&D b/c they showed me how easy it was to modify the d20 engine to suit the interests of GMs, players, and the needs of any given campaign setting.  I have significantly more 3rd-party product than WotC product.  And in many cases with 3.x, 3rd-party products did "fix" the D&Disms that drive me nuts.  Products like Grim Tales (grittier games, toolkit approach), Conan (classic swords-n-sorcery rather than D&D-Fantasy superheo), Game of Thrones (political games, grittier combat), and Thieves' World & True Sorcery (non-Vancian magic).  Whether you call them fixes or options, they added to the game in ways WotC would never have done.  That's as valid a support model as 3rd-party adventures which coincidentally compete with WotC's adventures.  The only difference there is that WotC doesn't care about that level of competition as they view them as table scraps anyway.
> 
> Bottom line, open gaming and continued ability for 3rd-party is a BIG deal for a lot of people.


----------



## Sora Justice (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I am still optimistic (though concerned). I am optimistic because Wizards has good people like Scott and Linae who I KNOW FOR A FACT understand open gaming and its value and the value of third parties like Necro to the continued success of D&D and I know they are fighting to get things done.




Clark, I have some advice to you. I know, from having read your material, that you're one of the best third-party publishers, and I know, from having read your posts, that you're a smart man. I believe that the people behind this decision know exactly how third parties can boost sales.

Which is why my advice to you is to take the foot out of your mouth and shut up. Shut up and look at the incredible deal you might well be getting for a second: a perpetual exclusive period in which to produce supplements with Fourth Edition rules and that First Edition feel, for what, exactly? The same price you were, as you yourself have repeatedly noted, willing to pay for a mere early look at the rules and a six month exclusive period?

And what else will you gain? The elimination of the majority of your competition, mostly fly-by-night outfits who released product with no quality control whatsoever. There will be no more "d20 glut" for you to struggle against, and your products will have an air of legitimacy that they never had in the Third Edition days.

What will WotC gain from this? Simple, a tighter control over their intellectual property and actual, honest-to-G-d quality control. In exchange they will... lose a few sales from butthurt fanboys who don't understand how this benefits them and their favorite third parties instead of hurting them, and they'll lose "support" from fly-by-night affairs - quoted as it was historically mostly comprised of barely-edited houserules and mongoloid interpretations of the d20 System, not anything an honest critic could call support.

So stay optimistic, Clark, but stop provoking fanboys into a tizzy and just watch yourself win big. Please?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

Omg Oh Noes Mike Lescault Posted Language That Denotes Dotting Eyes And Crossing Tees And Now  Thanks To Mean Spirited Spinn And An Uncharacteristicall Gloomy Archfiend There Is A Crisis


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora; if Clark has meant anything he has said on these forums then he is not the type of person to just let D&D die while he profits.

Your posts have a seriously insulting tone and I am a little taken aback that someone would write what you just wrote. Please try and post things you would actually have the courage to say to someone if they were in the same room with you. Otherwise, take your own advice and don't post.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

You don't "vet" an undecided policy.
You vet a policy by the lesser stakeholders who look over the final policy for corner cases and to get approval on the parts that affect them.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> You don't "vet" an undecided policy.
> You vet a policy by the lesser stakeholders who look over the final policy for corner cases and to get approval on the parts that affect them.




Is there any way you could formulate that in another way, so that people like myself, for whom English is the third language, can make some sense of it?

Cheers


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 29, 2008)

He's saying whatever decision Wizards makes has already been decided, but "stakeholders", people who are involved in the company need to review the policy and make final decisions on certain areas that might affect them.  Stakeholders can include shareholders, the legal department, the financial department, the game designers, customer representatives, etc.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Is there any way you could formulate that in another way, so that people like myself, for whom English is the third language, can make some sense of it?
> 
> Cheers




It's not English, its corporate-speak.

Basically, still vetting a final policy means you are dropping it off on finance, and legal, and various people who have roles that overlap with the policy.  They basically look at what has already been decided and basically see if there is an overlooked issue.  You finalize your drafts before getting the other people to vet them.  Otherwise its brainstorming.

Is the fact that they haven't said much in a few months disturbing?  YES!
Is this thread started based off a ridiculous misreading of the same exact lame "Still working" corporatese we've been hearing?  I think so.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 29, 2008)

Thanks guys, that was easier to understand.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

How strange that an industry insider and head of Necromancer Games (namely Orcus) doesn't agree with you Charwoman Gene.

I have been reading about the OGL issues for months on this board and others. I don't have the time or the skill to put ALL the arguments before people in a format like this (most wouldn't read it anyway) but I wanted to do something before it was "too late".


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I wanted to do something before it was "too late".




If you are right, it already is too late.

Anyway, I'm done for now.  Sleep is happy.  Dream of More OGLINESS


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Are you always this cheerful Charwoman?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 29, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Which is why my advice to you is to take the foot out of your mouth and shut up.




My advice to you is that you clean up your act or you will face a suspension. You've got no call to speak to someone else like that.

I'd appreciate it if you would edit your post somewhat.

If you can't understand why I've said this, do feel free to email me.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Something profound is going on; some internal debate at Hasbro.




No. There's an internal discussion happening at *Wizards of the Coast*. Being owned by another company doesn't mean they constantly stick their nose in your business. WotC is the most successful RPG company in history, and Hasbro isn't going to mess with that. Hasbro bought Wizards because they were a successful, money-making company that knew how to handle themselves in a risky market.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> “We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”




What is amusing is that Mike said this...



> "Higher-ups in the company are having second thoughts about whether we want to support Open-Gaming".




...and some people, for some reason, try to reframe it as this.


----------



## Andre (Mar 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Whether or not you believe it to be true was not the point.  The point was misrepresenting _what the post actually said_.
> 
> If we did that to people actually posint here (probably including yourself), we'd get complaints about allowing people to put words in other people's mouths.  It is rude.
> 
> It is fine to quote them, and say, "I interpret this to mean X."  It is not fine to quote them, and say, "They are saying X."  The former is being clear about your thought process, and admitting it is yours.  The latter is rude.




Yep.

I respect the concerns of those who fear that WOTC is going to gut or eliminate entirely the GSL, but that's all it is at this point - fear.  We don't *know* what is happening. We're all just guessing. 

It's threads like this one that lead me to understand why WOTC reps don't post more often. It's far too easy to be crucified for a comment that, taken literally, is completely innocuous.

And as Umbran says, if you're not going to take it literally, at least be clear that you are expressing an opinion, not fact.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Mar 29, 2008)

While I'm not defending Sora Justice's post per se, I do think he has a valid point. 

Tighter control over their IP and an assurance of quality.

One does not need an OGL to allow licenses that grow the industry, both in innovation and profit.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Are you always this cheerful Charwoman?




I am actually very very tired and hungry.  I ran out the door after 3 hours of sleep and forgot to make sure I had food or anything.

I am stopping posting cause I'm acting like a bit of an idiot.

My basic idea of disagreeing with you is valid.

My methods are questionable.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree that there are some things about open gaming that dont help Wizards, and I have said as much. They dont get any benefit from bulk reprinting of their rules. They dont get any benefit from products that dont help sell D^D proiducts. They dont get any benefit from the creation of competing stand alone games like Mutants and Masterminds. I wouldnt be surprised to see any new license change all that. I would support such a license.



Your point says it all. WOTC should change the license to get rid of all situations that don't benefit them and may actually hurt their business. 
If for some reason we all come to agree that any kind of open gaming is bad for WOTC business, I'm pretty sure you would keep the logic of your statement and you would, even if it was bad for your business, agree with their decision of banishing any kind of OGL.

That's my point. I'm only presuming WOTC is going to make a decision based on what is good for their business and just that. If the final decision is the correct one, or if it was made by the right person or group of people, that's another discussion. 

And if after all that, we simply disagree with WOTC's decison because we believe open gaming is good for everyone and even for WOTC, what to do? IF open gaming is really the wave of the future, if the RPG market won't survive without it, why don't all the small 3rd party publishers unite themselves and make up their own, completely open and free, set of RPG rules? Does open gaming only work if it's headed by WOTC? 

I'm sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. All this sounds like all the 3rd publishers can't survive if they are not under the wing of momma duck WOTC. Momma duck decides to close her wing and the little quackers are completelly lost without knowing what to do, waiting to see what momma duck next step will be. That doesn't sound like a real Open Gaming Movement to me. IMO, a real OG movement would be a group of publisher with a common interest (RPG market) that would unite themselves to create something they can all benefit form it together and, when possible, bring others like them to join the party. 

WOTC tried to do it, but failed. Maybe WOTC was too big for that, maybe the small publishers forgot about the mutual aspect and started using the OGL to do things for themselves only (it won't harm WOTC because their big, but will benefit us a lot 'cause we are small).  WOTC can't just keep supporting it with the promise of some possible indirect benefit like the "doorway to RPG" argument. It was clear the OGL was much better to 3rd party publisher's business than it was for WOTC business. There were many things in the OGL that didn't help WOTC, but I think there was nothing in it that could be bad for 3rd parties. Well, such a "OG" movement is fated to an end.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. All this sounds like all the 3rd publishers can't survive if they are not under the wing of momma duck WOTC. Momma duck decides to close her wing  and the little quakers are completelly lost without knowing what to do, waiting to see what momma duck next step will be. That doesn't sound like a real Open Gaming Movement to me. IMO, a real OG movement would be a group of publisher with a common interest (RPG market) that would unite themselves to create something they can all benefit form it together and, when possible, bring others like them to join the party.




This is a good point. 
I guess what they need is to adopt the right mentality and some good talent. 
Is it so hard to it?


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Your point says it all. WOTC should change the license to get rid of all situations that don't benefit them and may actually hurt their business.
> If for some reason we all come to agree that any kind of open gaming is bad for WOTC business, I'm pretty sure you would keep the logic of your statement and you would, even if it was bad for your business, agree with their decision of banishing any kind of OGL.




Well I would assume that people who ignore WotC's books and go for alternate games like M&M, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, True 20 etc would be bad for their business b/c none of those books refer you back to the core rulebooks.  So those would be right out.  Campaign settings can easily point back to the core books for base classes and such, most of the actual rules of the game etc, thus focusing on the fluff and mentioning any tweaks to standard rules that need made (ex. no Dragonborn, no Paladins).  So campaign settings should be good to go.

Adventures would pretty clearly point right back to the core books and thus help their business.  Books of new rules and classes like WotC's own Unearthed Arcana would be good as you need the core of the game to use the tweaks and new classes.  So basically, alternate PHBs and maybe things like sexually explicit material seem to be the only things I could see as bad for their business of selling the core books and/or coloring the view of the game by the general public.

Clark, would you say this is a fair summary of what you think they might be pondering as far as what is and isn't helpful to thier sales totals?


----------



## vazanar (Mar 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> "we" who?
> The players?
> So Wotc pays tribute to me with open gaming? How? I don't even care about most 3rd party produtcs.
> I believe WOTC "pays a tribute" to me by selling me great products. And that's why I think
> ...




Well one they do a nice press of GSL call to 3rd parties then drop it. Makes me wonder how much of the other things they've told us will be dropped. When will the full ddi go online?

Also where do you think 4e is coming from? Its coming from ideas in the mess of OGL. Heck they only reason Mearls was hired was his work with 3rd party products. DD can only be improved by more ideas. Not one groups vision.

However, WOTC doesn't owe OGL anything, however the GSL delay is silly. The offer early this year, intended or not, was just a sign of bad planning on wotc's part.


----------



## drjones (Mar 29, 2008)

I would not be involved in dnd were it not for the OGL and I would lose a lot of interest in 4e if I knew WOTC was going to be the only source of content.  

BUT I think you are going off less than half cocked.  If you want to cancel your preorder that is perfectly fine but for all you (or anyone else not privy to WOTCs bigwigs) know "We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." means they have a robust, totally awesome new from of OGL that they have teams of lawyers looking over night and day for any lack of awesomesauce. 

We really don't know and this message does not change that at all.  But more importantly I doubt highly that they are going to make all the money they plan on making from 4th in the first month.  They want this to be a milkable cash cow for years and years so if they come out with some neutered/crappy OGL then stop buying their junk then, it will hurt them just as much.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Do you think I care if they notice?  I think it's an appropriate response so it's the one I take and they can bite me if they think their notice, opinion, or anything else matters to me more than the bug I stepped on this morning.




What is the purpose of a boycott that is not intended to get the thing you are boycotting to notice the boycott?

It seems you don't mean boycott.  Boycott is intended as a form of communication, to express dissatisfaction or demand for change from something.  If the goal is not to actually communicate something to Hasbro, then why does it matter to you? Why even post about it?


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No. There's an internal discussion happening at *Wizards of the Coast*. Being owned by another company doesn't mean they constantly stick their nose in your business. WotC is the most successful RPG company in history, and Hasbro isn't going to mess with that. Hasbro bought Wizards because they were a successful, money-making company that knew how to handle themselves in a risky market.




Hey, you just pushed a bit of a button with me. All my friends and I have worked in the game industry (computer games, specifically), where there's very rapid startup-buyout-closure cycles. 

One thing that we've learned very keenly is that at the time of buyout, parent companies always *say* exactly this, that they'll "leave the subsidiary alone and not mess with it". That's standard PR when a company is bought (helps keep staff & customers from fleeing) -- but they always *do* mess with it, because they think they can make it run more profitably than what they bought it for.

It happens every time. My friends and I all laugh when we hear that now, it's almost like a drinking game for us. Same with my bank -- any time my bank gets bought I know to immediately run to a smaller independent bank now.

The level of frustration and hands-tying that we're hearing from WOTC spokespeople actually sounds a lot like you've got either (a) the new WOTC management or (b) Hasbro lawyers gumming up the works at the moment, actually. It seems pretty familiar to me.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Since that annoucement the OGL forum has suddenly gone silent in terms of hard info and all official WoTC statements seem to be treading a very careful line with GSL, not even wanting to confirm or deny its existance. Why would this be the case if the they are just ironing out the details?
> 
> Something profound is going on; some internal debate at Hasbro.




It's possible, but not the most likely scenario.

I'll tell you, as a lawyer who worked almost his entire career as in-house counsel for companies, here is the most likely scenario: A lawyer drafts a change to the new licensing document.  It's sent to another lawyer, who changes the change, and sends it back.  They do this 5-6 timed, always trying to get the document out of their office and into someone else's.  Eventually, it's sent to a third and fourth lawyer, who make changes, and send it back to the first lawyer to start that process again.  And each section of the document is done this way, between lawyers who may have never met each other, and may not even be in the same part of the country.

These changes being discussed will seem mostly irrelevant to gamers.  They will involve things like "can we bind people under Australian law with this particular clause that says this about a copyright that isn't filed in Australia? No? OK, someone get on a list of countries where we need to separately file copyright, while another group works on trying to rework the clause to be more broad and have an alternate clause in case a particular jurisdiction rejects that clause". 

This goes on for months, until a non-lawyer gets involved and yells at the lawyers to quit messing around with drafts and finish it.  Then, the lawyers stay up for two days straight on conference calls and get it done.  

They celebrate, then the non-lawyers look at the "final" draft, make a huge fundamental change now that they see the draft (though the non-lawyers do not think of it as a huge change but just a minor one), and send it back to the lawyers.  The lawyers cry, and start everything over again.

That is a more likely scenario than some actual profound internal debate about the entire theory of an OGL or GSL whatever you want to call it now. 

I think as gamers we tend to be gamer-focused when it comes to things like this.  But, usually delays (in anything) are not about fundamental issues, but minutia and passing the buck and people being overworked.


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> What is the purpose of a boycott that is not intended to get the thing you are boycotting to notice the boycott?
> 
> It seems you don't mean boycott.  Boycott is intended as a form of communication, to express dissatisfaction or demand for change from something.  If the goal is not to actually communicate something to Hasbro, then why does it matter to you? Why even post about it?




Note: The person you're responding to, HeavenShallBurn, has never used or implied the word "boycott" in this entire thread. All he said was that he personally wouldn't be buying. So your rant is at least a bit mis-directed.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Sora; you misunderstand me; the boycott I was advocating was purely temporary. I would fully expect most people to play 4E in the end. I was just suggesting that we should delay buying or cancel pre-orders and couple this with some kind of protest letter to WoTC to advocate some sort of OGL.
> 
> But as someone has already pointed out; this was not likely to work. I am new to these boards but did realise this was the likely outcome; yet I would have kicked myself If I had stood by and done nothing.
> 
> Now I can subside into impotent fury with a clear conscience.




I didn't realize you were new.  Welcome to the boards!  Your posts have been thought provoking, and I hope I get the opportunity to read them for years to come.


----------



## Delta (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's possible, but not the most likely scenario.
> 
> I'll tell you, as a lawyer who worked almost his entire career as in-house counsel for companies, here is the most likely scenario: A lawyer drafts a change to the new licensing document...
> 
> I think as gamers we tend to be gamer-focused when it comes to things like this.  But, usually delays (in anything) are not about fundamental issues, but minutia and passing the buck and people being overworked.




I'll say that as someone who worked 6 years in the computer game industry before teaching (and having most of my friends work at various different game companies), I think that a significant strategic change actually is the most likely scenario at this point. There aren't _that_ many lawyers involved in game companies the size of WOTC (the income stream simply won't support them). Recent backpedaling, change to name, delays, and recent management switchover are clues to a strategic change regarding OGL/GSL. Could be wrong, but that's the way I'd bet in my game-industry experience.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 29, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> For the prosperity of the rpg hobby, fans and publishers should become less fanatics for D&D and stronger followers of tabletop rpgs interests. I am not convinced that another round of OGL that at this point will mostly serve to reupdate old stuff for the sake of compatibility is a good idea. Wotc is making a new game and intends to support it. IMO there should be others doing the same. The hobby needs more games and more support of these new games.




I agree with this. I think that the OGL stank largely because it resulted in everything becoming a clone of one set of rules, and becoming a huge mass of flavorless, indistinguishable goo. The existence of multiple sets of rules, rather than variants of one hyper-generic one, seems like a good thing to me. You can tailor the rules to the setting and mood more that way.

For example, take the d20 version of Fading Suns. The classes in it are just the PHB classes with different names -- and they even added a completely new one lest they miss out on the druid!    I took one look at it and thought, "Why didn't I just rename the PHB classes and stat up a couple of guns, and run it that way, instead of paying for a bland clone of a generic game system?" 

Down with the OGL and the GSL, IMO. Let there be more systems again -- maybe everything won't end up looking like grey cardboard cutouts.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Mar 29, 2008)

Something I found interesting yesterday was that WotC had a job notice up for an inhouse attorney position. I just checked and it's been taken down though.

Hyrum.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this is true. I shure hope it is. But, for instance, they havent offered me such a license. And I am historically their best and closest third party publisher (other than Paizo). They licensed Tome conetnt to me, etc. And I think over the years we have proven to be excellent partners and caretakers of that content. So if I'm worried, you all should be too.




I think assuming that, if you are worried, everyone else should be too, is not a very open minded way to look at things.

Of course you are not SURE it is true (until it is), and hence as an executive who really needs it to be true you are worried.  If there is a 1% chance it's not true, as a person in your position you should be worried.  But for most people, that would be an awful reason to be actually worried.  

For example, let's apply the "I am worried, therefore you should be to" to another company.  I run a clothing manufacturing company.  Right now, the odds of a customs/duty increase on Chinese made clothing products has gone up from about 10% to a 15% chance.  This has me worried.  And you wear clothing.  So, under your way of looking at things, you should be worried to.  But you're not - and really, you shouldn't be.  A 5% increase in the chance that some select products of something you like (clothing made in China) will cost more in the future is not something anyone other than clothing manufacturers and sellers should really be worried about right now.

You're in a nearly unique position to worry about this sort of thing.  Your livelihood and the livelihood of people employed by your company is at stake, so any threat to that (even a minor one odds-wise) is a reason for perhaps major concern.  But I think the reality of the situation is that the odds are very much against the thing you are worried about actually coming to pass, and the vast majority of gamers should not be scared into worry and panic at this point.

So, let's not all worry based on speculation. Some folks have reason to, but not most people.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistwell; Thank-you for your courtesy sir! It is a rare thing in these days. I hope to tread these boards for many a year.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Hey, you just pushed a bit of a button with me. All my friends and I have worked in the game industry (computer games, specifically), where there's very rapid startup-buyout-closure cycles.
> 
> One thing that we've learned very keenly is that at the time of buyout, parent companies always *say* exactly this, that they'll "leave the subsidiary alone and not mess with it". That's standard PR when a company is bought (helps keep staff & customers from fleeing) -- but they always *do* mess with it, because they think they can make it run more profitably than what they bought it for.
> 
> It happens every time. My friends and I all laugh when we hear that now, it's almost like a drinking game for us. Same with my bank -- any time my bank gets bought I know to immediately run to a smaller independent bank now.




Grr.

I do Mergers and Acquisitions.  It's one of my biggest areas of experience.  NOT all acquisitions go like that.  Many do, but not all.  Usually, the ones that work the best don't do that.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Note: The person you're responding to, HeavenShallBurn, has never used or implied the word "boycott" in this entire thread. All he said was that he personally wouldn't be buying. So your rant is at least a bit mis-directed.




Calling what I wrote a "rant" is also misdirected.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...For example, let's apply the "I am worried, therefore you should be to" to another company.  I run a clothing manufacturing company.  Right now, the odds of a customs/duty increase on Chinese made clothing products has gone up from about 10% to a 15% chance.  This has me worried.  And you wear clothing.  So, under your way of looking at things, you should be worried to.  But you're not - and really, you shouldn't be.  A 5% increase in the chance that some select products of something you like (clothing made in China) will cost more in the future is not something anyone other than clothing manufacturers and sellers should really be worried about right now.
> 
> You're in a nearly unique position to worry about this sort of thing.  Your livelihood and the livelihood of people employed by your company is at stake, so any threat to that (even a minor one odds-wise) is a reason for perhaps major concern.  But I think the reality of the situation is that the odds are very much against the thing you are worried about actually coming to pass, and the vast majority of gamers should not be scared into worry and panic at this point.
> 
> So, let's not all worry based on speculation. Some folks have reason to, but not most people.




Your example isn't specific enough. I happen to know that you are a specialty clothing manufacturer, with a very specific clientele. If a supplier hits you with and increase, or a material spikes upward, then both you and your customers (after you are forced to adjust either prices or stock) are affected. 

If Clark gets nervous about 4e open licensing, its because he's affected, his employees are affected, and his customers are affected. As a customer of his (and other 3rd party publishers who will be likewise affected), I'm more than a little worried I will have to get the kind of content he (and they) can provide directly from WotC - or more likely that I won't be able to get it at all.

Now I completely understand the business case for not having a GSL - now that D&D's d20 engine has spread out to so may other genres (and in some cases, dominates them) its past time for WotC to start getting direct revenue from that product. But that doesn't mean that I, as a consumer, don't have a small stake in 4e being open.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> What is the purpose of a boycott that is not intended to get the thing you are boycotting to notice the boycott?



I never said boycott you'll notice, in my experience boycotts are pointless and usually just get ignored.  Think of what I'm doing as punitive consumerism.  I don't buy from companies that piss me off even if it costs more and causes a measure of hardship.  I don't plan on moving to 4e and had already decided to throw my support behind the Pathfinder RPG.  This policy seems likely to be dropping into WoTC from its Hasbro parent so if I want to be punitive I have to go after Hasbro as well.  I'm not out to be heard or to let some company I value less than the dirt I wipe from my boots know how I feel.  Instead I'll just hand my money to their competitors and do all within my ability to promote their competitors at their expense.  And if they notice fine, if they don't fine either way every dollar I support their competitors with is one they will never see.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2008)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Your example isn't specific enough. I happen to know that you are a specialty clothing manufacturer, with a very specific clientele. If a supplier hits you with and increase, or a material spikes upward, then both you and your customers (after you are forced to adjust either prices or stock) are affected.
> 
> If Clark gets nervous about 4e open licensing, its because he's affected, his employees are affected, and his customers are affected. As a customer of his (and other 3rd party publishers who will be likewise affected), I'm more than a little worried I will have to get the kind of content he (and they) can provide directly from WotC - or more likely that I won't be able to get it at all.
> 
> Now I completely understand the business case for not having a GSL - now that D&D's d20 engine has spread out to so may other genres (and in some cases, dominates them) its past time for WotC to start getting direct revenue from that product. But that doesn't mean that I, as a consumer, don't have a small stake in 4e being open.




I think that misses the point a bit.

I am saying that a small increase in the chance that something bad will happen to the GSL, lets say a 1% increase, is reason for Clark to be concerned.  But it's not necessarily reason for Clark's customers to be concerned.  Clark said if he is worried, everyone should be.  I dispute that.  Clark should be worried about all sorts of things that shouldn't worry the rest of us, because a small increase in the chance of something bad happening to his company is a reason for a small business owner to be concerned, but is not reason for their customers to be concerned (unless it actually happens, or is a large increase in the odds it will happen).

You do have a stake.  But, I was more discussing odds, and the impact of those odds.  Small chance of something bad happening should have more impact on the owners of small businesses that the bad thing happens to.  It's big chance of something bad happening that should have an impact on customers, and you cannot measure "is it a big chance" by "a small business owner directly impacted by the threat is concerned".  

The small business owner is probably spooked by all sorts of things all the time that we don't even hear about, because they never come to be reality.  If "Clark is spooked, therefore we all should be" were a good way to look at things, odds are we would all be spooked almost every month about something


----------



## JeffB (Mar 30, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let us be 100% clear: That is _your interpretation_.
> 
> Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate.  People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others.  Golden Rule, dude.




Uhm...I think I made it pretty clear that it was my interpretation(?) I mean..thats what I actually said in my post. By all means, feel free to edit my post if you feel I have somehow said differently.


----------



## Zelster (Mar 30, 2008)

No I don't think it's worrying that none of the 3rd parties have seen the OGL yet.  I'm sorry for all those players that popped a tent when the Book of Erotic Fantasy went live, but for the most part 3rd party sources are crap and they produce sub-standard products.

None of the big gaming studios rely on 3rd party sources to improve their brands, and I am sure that WotC will feel the same way the closer 4E comes to release.  Blizzard doesn't outsource their game design, just their GMs and product support phone lines.  Magic the Gathering doesn't use Korean designers, just artists.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 30, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> And if only they were the final decision makers, this would be fine. But I dont think they are. In fact, I know they arent.




Great. Now I am worried...


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 30, 2008)

Zelster said:
			
		

> No I don't think it's worrying that none of the 3rd parties have seen the OGL yet.  I'm sorry for all those players that popped a tent when the Book of Erotic Fantasy went live, but for the most part 3rd party sources are crap and they produce sub-standard products.
> 
> None of the big gaming studios rely on 3rd party sources to improve their brands, and I am sure that WotC will feel the same way the closer 4E comes to release.  Blizzard doesn't outsource their game design, just their GMs and product support phone lines.  Magic the Gathering doesn't use Korean designers, just artists.




So, you're saying that open gaming is a bad idea? You don't think that it's in WotC's best interests to maintain a strong 3rd party support base?


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...You do have a stake.  But, I was more discussing odds, and the impact of those odds.  Small chance of something bad happening should have more impact on the owners of small businesses that the bad thing happens to.  It's big chance of something bad happening that should have an impact on customers, and you cannot measure "is it a big chance" by "a small business owner directly impacted by the threat is concerned"....




The difference between our POVs is that my perception of risk is greater than yours. I see a far greater chance than 1% that something bad will happen to the GSL, in great part because _something bad (its delay past the point of usefulness during the GenCon launch season) has already happened to it_. With my limited information (the same info that Clark and the rest of the 3rd party pubs have), I can only view this as at best a sign that the GSL simply isn't viewed as useful enough to play a role at launch. Its not a big leap to see that this POV can be easily linked to the idea that 4e won't benefit from open licensing at all.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The small business owner is probably spooked by all sorts of things all the time that we don't even hear about, because they never come to be reality.  If "Clark is spooked, therefore we all should be" were a good way to look at things, odds are we would all be spooked almost every month about something




I think it's important to remember that Clark is not at all dependent on Necromancer or d20 for his income, or even a significant portion of his income.  I think he's more spooked as a D&D fan, and, in the last eight years when people were fretting about all kinds of things, I haven't seen him spook at all really.

That's what makes us concerned.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell; the point is that WoTC have not communicated with their closest 3rd party publisher over GSL, three months after a conference call where they promised GSL. They have not fulfilled one of their promises made in their press statement about how GSL would be handled.

I know it could all be a simple legal glitch, but I seriously doubt it. They have had years to think about all of this stuff even before the GenCon announcement. I don't think lawyers are that bad (LOL).

As for affecting only the small publishers; this is not true. GSL will affect you and me because D&D is not the juggernaut that everyone seems to think it is. It is under attack by computer RPGs and it is vulnerable; look at TSR; they managed to run D&D almost into the ground with bad decisions. It was a powerful brand then but bad decisions can even kill a game as powerful as D&D. 

All we are saying is, NO GSL, plus the creative direction of 4e (alienating MANY long time players) plus the fact that many 3PPs can continue to make 3.5E products, plus the rise of games like WoW could be enough to derail the juggernaut again, by splitting the RPG community up to the point where, sometime down the line, WoTC drop D&D because it doesn't cut it anymore.

I want D&D 4E to be a success; a run-away success and so I support GSL because it could bring the 3PPs back into core 4E D&D and maybe most of those gamers who have left D&D for Pathfinder etc.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 30, 2008)

Zelster said:
			
		

> None of the big gaming studios rely on 3rd party sources to improve their brands, and I am sure that WotC will feel the same way the closer 4E comes to release.  Blizzard doesn't outsource their game design, just their GMs and product support phone lines.  Magic the Gathering doesn't use Korean designers, just artists.




Except that WotC did actually.  Several of the updates found in Unearthed Arcana came from 3rd party games first and as they were OGL, were included in WotC's big book of rules modifications.  Some of these changes went into 4E.  Also Blizzard allows players to make their own mods for WoW and then almost every major patch you can see at least a couple of different mods get subsumed into the base game.  Scrolling Combat Text, KTM, more extra bars, etc have all been added to the game along the way as well as many other things.

Companies use the innovations of others all the time in their own work.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 30, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Note: The person you're responding to, HeavenShallBurn, has never used or implied the word "boycott" in this entire thread. All he said was that he personally wouldn't be buying. So your rant is at least a bit mis-directed.




The OP however DID call for a boycott and HSB was talking about how he will refuse to buy any WotC products, which could have been assumed to mean he was joining said boycott.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 30, 2008)

I must also add that Ptolus, Arcarna evolved and Iron Heroes are some of the best 3.5E material that exists and all is 3rd party.

In addition, many major designers of 4E cut their teeth designing games in 3rd party companies like Paizo, Goodman Games and Necromancer e.g. Mike Mearls. We NEED that pool of people making cool stuff for D&D. 

The next generation of D&D designers could be sitting in Paizo or Necromancer Games right now. What happens to them if GSL screws them up and makes them work on some other system. Some will never return to it. Other designers will never get a chance to make games and so will be completely lost to the industry. 3PPs are an important nursery for talented writers for D&D and this needs saving.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 30, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> You don't think that it's in WotC's best interests to maintain a strong 3rd party support base?



Yes! But does it have really anything to do with open gaming?

What's "open" if one company controls the license? If the OG movement is at check because of one company's decision, if one company controls and gives itself the rights to change it, is OGL really "open" gaming? If only one company dictates if the OGL is a GO or not, wouldn't it be more of a Free Gaming License? D20 system belongs to WOTC. OGL is just a FGL.

A true Open Gaming can only exists when the rules system it is based upon belongs to everyone and to no one. When there is no momma duck watching everyone. When all part contribute to it mutually, instead of individual parts basking in one's work.

But you are right, it is in WOTC's best of the best intersts to maintain a strong 3rd party support base but, as we are going to see in the next months, there is no need of "open gaming" in order to achieve that.


And just to be clear, I not against open gaming. I'd love it. It would be great for the RPG market, and I hope I see it one day.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 30, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Yes! But does it have really anything to do with open gaming?
> 
> What's "open" if one company controls the license? If the OG movement is at check because of one company's decision, if one company controls and gives itself the rights to change it, is OGL really "open" gaming? If only one company dictates if the OGL is a GO or not, wouldn't it be more of a Free Gaming License. D20 system belongs to WOTC. OGL is actually just a FGL.
> 
> ...




I don't necessarily disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I expected the GSL to be more restrictive. My complaints, as of the last day or two, have been based upon the fear that there MIGHT (very small chance, to be sure) not be ANY license at all, or that it will be too restrictive to allow 3rd party publishers to explore gaming options that WotC might not have any desire to explore themselves.

The question you quoted was a direct question to Zelster who implied that there was nothing to gain from 3rd party publishing at all. As a matter of fact, he basically insulted 3rd party publishers by saying that all they were good for was to come up with sub-par material like the Book of Erotic Fantasy. I'm sure he thought he was being clever but he only managed to be dismissive and insulting of 3rd party publishing as a whole.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 30, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I don't play WW games, mostly because they don't support open gaming.




Eh, neither does anyone else. Neither did D&D until 3.0 and it's just not reasonable to expect that they will do so forever afterwards. It's obvious they've simply re-thought their position. You should probably be glad they're doing even the limited GSL.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Or on the other hand, we could make & support PATHFINDER.  I think that WotC might discover what happens when they sow the wind a few times to many.  They can fool some of the people all the time, All of the people some of the time, but they won't fool all the people all of the time.  Deciding this late in the game to take away the GSL would be the last straw for many people I expect.




I think this is the best route for several reasons.

1.  Paizo has been the 'story' leader for D&D, via Dungeon, Dragon, and the APs, for some time now.  
2.  They were probably the one 3p that was best integrated with WotC.
3.  Pathfinder will be open.
4.  The design and playtest of Pathfinder is being conducted in a completely open manner.
5.  In general they've always seemed into working together with other 3ps.  Clark was part of their RPG Superstar contest, etc.
6.  Pathfinder isn't "set" yet so all the 3ps that get on board can shape it.
7.  Actually going for a 4e clone invites the long-awaited lawsuit about "can the game rules be copyrighted."  Though the patent/copyright environment is finally realizing somewhat that it's been abusively in favor of claimants for some time, it's still a hard roll to make.

I'd love to see one Pathfinder RPG that Freeport, APs, Necro and Goodman modules, etc. all support.  It's got a good shot if it's not further fragmented (into True20, C&C, OSRIC, Pathfinder, etc.).


----------



## jakspade (Mar 30, 2008)

Has anyone stopped to consider the fact that the GSL is owned by WotC, and that they have the sole right to create it, change it, update it, basically at will? They can decide to release a strict GSL now, and at a later date, change it or update it to whatever they freaking want... or start with a more free and open license, and then tighten it up... so, this discussion is pretty much moot.

jak


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

jakspade said:
			
		

> Has anyone stopped to consider the fact that the GSL is owned by WotC, and that they have the sole right to create it, change it, update it, basically at will? They can decide to release a strict GSL now, and at a later date, change it or update it to whatever they freaking want... or start with a more free and open license, and then tighten it up... so, this discussion is pretty much moot.
> 
> jak




Oh, you're right there slick!  No one can ever talk about what an almighty company does!

If this were true, the entire Pathfinder thing wouldn't have been possible.  They let that genie out of the bottle.  Yes, they can declare themselves more closed in the future.  That's something that people are discussing and deciding what to do about it.  Any discussion involving major 3p publishers about it is anything but "moot" for anyone who doesn't trest WotC's flavor of the month as the inerrant Word of God.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

jakspade said:
			
		

> Has anyone stopped to consider the fact that the GSL is owned by WotC, and that they have the sole right to create it, change it, update it, basically at will? They can decide to release a strict GSL now, and at a later date, change it or update it to whatever they freaking want... or start with a more free and open license, and then tighten it up... so, this discussion is pretty much moot.
> 
> jak




Oh, you're right there slick!  No one can ever talk about what an almighty company does!

If this were true, the entire Pathfinder thing wouldn't have been possible.  They let that genie out of the bottle.  Yes, they can declare themselves more closed in the future.  That's something that people are discussing and deciding what to do about it.  Any discussion involving major 3p publishers about it is anything but "moot" for anyone who doesn't treat WotC's flavor of the month as the inerrant Word of God.


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.




Personally, I don't find it scary at all. If the GSL or whatever they want to call it suddenly went away, well, shrug. I'll just buy something else. 

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> ... most posts have the sub-text "I am smarter than you; and now I am going to prove it".




Yeah. Especially the original post. 

Seanchai


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 30, 2008)

> The next generation of D&D designers could be sitting in Paizo or Necromancer Games right now. What happens to them if GSL screws them up and makes them work on some other system. Some will never return to it. Other designers will never get a chance to make games and so will be completely lost to the industry. 3PPs are an important nursery for talented writers for D&D and this needs saving.




The OGL one way or another did not have a specific influence in "discovering new talent".  In the old days, New talent was either discovered by those willing to submit to Dragon Magazine, or hired at other companies before they came to TSR or Wizards.  For instance, Monte Cook came from Iron Crown Enterprises, Warren Spector from another company I can't remember, Ed Greenwood and Roger Moore from Dragon Magazine.  

Arguing the OGL helps game designers get hired by Wizards is like saying Superman or Spider-man have to be public domain for people to get hired by DC or Marvel.  What usually happens in this day and age is independent comic creators eventually end up working on Marvel or DC projects.  

People usually like to play more than one game.  Game Designers that are truly versatile have to be familiar with multiple systems.

In fact, one drawback of the OGL--at least to Wizards point of view and not my own (since I like what has happened)--was it gave a market to people, so Monte Cook and other were able to leave employment at Wizards and form their own companies.  If that didn't happen, there might be more incentive for them to stay or work exclusively for Wizards.


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> If I am wrong and we cancel our pre-orders, what do we lose.?




Our place in line. I'm hoping I ordered early enough on Amazon to be among the first orders sent out. If I'm not and my FLGS has all their copies accounted for by pre-orders of their own, well...

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You really think Hasbro would notice?  I doubt, if every single D&D player boycotted all Hasbro, that Hasbro would even notice aside from the D&D portion of their business (which itself is relatively small to Hasbro).




A more apt question might be: If every single player/DM who was vocal on gaming forums suddenly boycotted WotC, would they notice? 

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> So if I'm worried, you all should be too.




No. I'm not in business with you. I'm just a dude who buys gaming books and plays games with his friends. If Necromancer Games went out of business, it would not disrupt my life one whit. I'd just buy Paizo or Green Ronin products instead. Or White Wolf ones. Or maybe ones from a company that doesn't exist yet. 

I can understand why you'd be concerned - this is your livelihood we're talking about. It's the way you pay your bills, support your family, etc.. I can understand why you'd like us to believe that we have to act to promote your interests, but, really, we don't.

Seanchai


----------



## jakspade (Mar 30, 2008)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Oh, you're right there slick!  No one can ever talk about what an almighty company does!
> 
> If this were true, the entire Pathfinder thing wouldn't have been possible.  They let that genie out of the bottle.  Yes, they can declare themselves more closed in the future.  That's something that people are discussing and deciding what to do about it.  Any discussion involving major 3p publishers about it is anything but "moot" for anyone who doesn't treat WotC's flavor of the month as the inerrant Word of God.




Well, you guys can wave your hands around and gnash your teeth, parade up and down in front of Wizards headquarters and fill up the boards with "OMG ONOZ" talk all you want. Or you can just go out and buy what you want and talk about what you like and let the purchase numbers make the vote for you.... there, "slick".

jak


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Mar 30, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> One thing that we've learned very keenly is that at the time of buyout, parent companies always *say* exactly this, that they'll "leave the subsidiary alone and not mess with it". That's standard PR when a company is bought (helps keep staff & customers from fleeing) -- but they always *do* mess with it, because they think they can make it run more profitably than what they bought it for.



It's because of this profit motive that Hasbro probably doesn't even _care_ what happens with D&D, much less open gaming.  The $ difference between 4e bombing and becoming a fantastic success probably isn't even larger than the rounding error of a company of Hasbro's size.   D&D's valuable to Hasbro primarily for its IP, for video game licensing and its novel lines.


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Your example isn't specific enough...If Clark gets nervous about 4e open licensing, its because he's affected, his employees are affected, and his customers are affected. As a customer of his (and other 3rd party publishers who will be likewise affected), I'm more than a little worried I will have to get the kind of content he (and they) can provide directly from WotC - or more likely that I won't be able to get it at all...




To nitpick your nitpick, can you really be a customer of his if he doesn't have any product to sell you? At this point, you're someone who intends to buy something he plans to produce.

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Mistwell; the point is that WoTC have not communicated with their closest 3rd party publisher over GSL, three months after a conference call where they promised GSL. They have not fulfilled one of their promises made in their press statement about how GSL would be handled.




You know what happens when RPG consumers complain to RPG publishers about the lack of communication, inaccurate press releases, missed deadlines, etc.? They're giving a song and dance, told to stop whining, that they're lucking to be getting any product at all, and that they'll get whatever it is they're waiting on when they get it. 

As I said in a previous post, for us, this is just a hobby and for publisher, it's their source of income, but it is interesting to see publishers get a sense of what it's like to be told something they're looking foward to is coming down the pike, then...nothing.

But, really, it strikes me that this is just business. Not the way I'd conduct business or would like business to be conducted, but the manner in which it is. Delays happen. People tell you stuff and it doesn't pan out. You end up sweating deadlines and decisions. 



			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> The next generation of D&D designers could be sitting in Paizo or Necromancer Games right now. What happens to them if GSL screws them up and makes them work on some other system. Some will never return to it. Other designers will never get a chance to make games and so will be completely lost to the industry. 3PPs are an important nursery for talented writers for D&D and this needs saving.




Now you're really stretching it. 

It could also be, for example, that publishing using the GSL would have allowed the next Hitler to amass enough capital to start a political campaign that would eventually allow her to become President of the United States, declare martial law, secretly wipe out Congress, kill a bunch of innocent people, etc.. It could be that the lack of a GSL prevents an American dictator from taking over the world!

Seanchai


----------



## lrsach01 (Mar 30, 2008)

OK...just slogged through 7 pages of this topic. Wow...look, I don't think there is any reason to start screaming about the falling sky, but the topic is worth a good discussion.

One point I think is getting and that is the reason the OGL was started in the first place. Ryan Dancey, I believe, stated that WotC was going to make a small consistent amount of money as the creator of the rules books and SOME adventures. The OGL would let lots of others to come up with the games and some side content WotC wasn't interested in doing. AT THE SAME TIME, making sure that the content was available to them IF they thought they could do something with it. Sure, lots of small companies came out with lots of bad stuff...and they are gone now. It was only when WoyC decided they wanted to make the cash from successful third parties that you saw them start doing more modules, more settings books and LOTS more rule books.

The point is, the OGL was there to make money for WotC. Someone earlier stated that gaming companies didn't license their work? But they do...the engines! The game engines are licensed all the time. Doom, Quake, Monolith are the ones from when I used to play PC games. 

If WotC wants to pull out from their GSL, they can. Its their party and they can do what they want. But, they need to be ready for the backlash when people start complaining about the modules (either quality or quantity). They've already pulled back EVERY setting and the magazines. This means THEY are going to be accountable for EVERYTHING. After 3.0 came out and people started complaining about quality, WotC could say, "Hey, its third party! If you want quality, come to us!" Not if they kill the GSL. 

Ok...time for this post to go through the buzz saw.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> If WotC wants to pull out from their GSL, they can. Its their party and they can do what they want. But, they need to be ready for the backlash when people start complaining about the modules (either quality or quantity). They've already pulled back EVERY setting and the magazines. This means THEY are going to be accountable for EVERYTHING. After 3.0 came out and people started complaining about quality, WotC could say, "Hey, its third party! If you want quality, come to us!" Not if they kill the GSL.




Exactly, and so far it's not looking good.  Dragon and Dungeon got pulled a while ago, and what they've published so far in their name is a sad joke.  The screenshots of their digital play initiative make me shudder.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 30, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> No. I'm not in business with you. I'm just a dude who buys gaming books and plays games with his friends. If Necromancer Games went out of business, it would not disrupt my life one whit. I'd just buy Paizo or Green Ronin products instead. Or White Wolf ones. Or maybe ones from a company that doesn't exist yet.
> 
> I can understand why you'd be concerned - this is your livelihood we're talking about. It's the way you pay your bills, support your family, etc.. I can understand why you'd like us to believe that we have to act to promote your interests, but, really, we don't.
> 
> Seanchai




As an aside, I dont appreciate your suggestions that I am trying to trick anyone. 

But that aside, Necro doesnt pay my bills. It isnt my livelyhood at all. Its a hobby. A hobby I happen to be passionate about. Does it make money? Yes. But if Necro closed its doors the financial impact on me would be this: I wouldnt be able go buy new guitars as often as I do. I'm an attorney. Necro is not my day job. I am fixed financially. I;m not trying to brag or be a dick or be better than anyone. I' not. I'm a gamer like everyone else. But Necro isnt even remotely relevant to my income. Its fun money. Its easy to just say "they are a publisher so they are trying to get this to make money! they are crying cause they cant make money." I guess people will always be able to say that. Will I make money with a license. Sure. But that has nothing to do with my position on things. And if you knew me and worked with me, ever, you would know that. Just ask Erik Mona. Ask Ryan Dancey. Ask Steve or Stewart Wieck from WW. Heck, you could probably even ask Linae and Scott. My heart is in D&D. Its what got me to start Necro in the first place. 

I'm not trying to get you to believe that you have to act to promote my interests. 

You can believe that or not. My guess is you wont. 

I love D&D. I want D&D to be strong when my daughter goes to college. 

I think not licensing third parties to support 4E is a mistake. I dont care if they put in reasonable restrictions, such as ones in the d20 STL. Those make sense to me. I dont want to see the people who run D&D make a mistake and fracture the game's fan base. And I am not the only one that sees this. 

But, if you want to characterize me falsely as someone who is trying to trick others for my best interests, go ahead. 

Or, you could take as proof that I am not doing that the fact that I specifically am NOT doing what a prior poster said.

Basically, if I just wanted to exploit things I would not be saying a word. I have a good relationship with Wizards. I likely could get a license to do some products. So I could just lay in the weeds, watch Wizards kill off third party support, then get a license and make a killing. But that isnt how I operate. I'm not here just to make money for me. Which is the joy of running a game company as a hobby. I dont have to do stuff like that. I can do what I happen to think is right--and, in this case, that is try my darndest to convince Wizards that not opening 4E in some form is a horrible mistake. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 30, 2008)

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Clark, I have some advice to you. I know, from having read your material, that you're one of the best third-party publishers, and I know, from having read your posts, that you're a smart man. I believe that the people behind this decision know exactly how third parties can boost sales.
> 
> Which is why my advice to you is to take the foot out of your mouth and shut up. Shut up and look at the incredible deal you might well be getting for a second: a perpetual exclusive period in which to produce supplements with Fourth Edition rules and that First Edition feel, for what, exactly? The same price you were, as you yourself have repeatedly noted, willing to pay for a mere early look at the rules and a six month exclusive period?
> 
> ...




Sora, 

By the way, I dont think you should get in trouble for posting this. I didnt take it the way I think the mods did. I didnt see you as telling me to "shut up" like you were shouting me down. You were saying "hey, be quiet for your own good and make some freaking money for yourself, silly!"

I get what you are saying. 

I hope the fact that I am here, and I am talking shows you that I care more about D&D than I do about me.

Becaue you are right. I could do exactly what you say. I could be quiet. I could let Wizards nuke any 4E licensing. Then I could, likely, get permission to do a few products and make a killing.

But that isnt how I work. I want to see D&D strong. I want to see it last. I'm not about the quick buck. 

See, Necro isnt my livelihood. Its a hobby for me. It puts me in a unique position in this industry. I dont have to make my decisions based on money. I have the luxury of doing what I think is right.

You are right. I am smart. I have thought of what you proposed. And I rejected it as quickly as I thought of it.

I am a huge supporter of Wizards and of D&D. I am a gamer and a D&D fan first, and a publisher second. And if you ever needed proof of this (I'm looking at you Seanchi), all you have to do is notice that I am NOT doing what Sora said. That alone should show you where my interests are on this.

Clark


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

But you're a lawyer.  Now we *know* you're lying.   

j/k.  I like  how people that are rabidly defending WotC can ignore information no matter how much better positioned the person is than them to give information and/or analyze it.  What do you know mr. runs an RPG company man!  I'm an internet smartypants.  Win!


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 30, 2008)

I've seen much more rudeness in this thread than I prefer. Thank you to everyone who has worked to phrase things politely, even when they didn't agree with others.

For folks who haven't done that? Best to start, please. It isn't optional.


----------



## bramadan (Mar 30, 2008)

I was never a great fan of OGL so I guess this thread is not really for me but, I do feel like I need to warn against the "sky is falling" sort of feeling that is often attendant to this sort of discussions.

Fantasy gaming (and other sorts of role playing) are not going anywhere no matter what happens to OGL and - frankly - no matter what happens to WotC and DnD. Gygax came up with his brilliant idea and noone can un-invent it any more then people could un-invent a safety razor if Gillette went out of business. 

People talk about mid 1990ies as "dark ages" and yet in the mid '90ies we all gamed as much as now (perhaps more as we were younger) and there was tons of excellent games to choose from. 

Only thing that can "kill" PnP RPGs is if someone comes with better sort of entertainment that appeals to the same social, mathematical and creative impulses. And even when such inventions come about the overall gaming hobby only benefits in the long run. 

In early '80ies DnD was getting a bit stale with its insistence on the dungeon delving and lack of out-doors, social and military rules. People worried if the RPGs will become forever locked in a tiny niche and wither on a vine. As it turns out from that worry we got Glorantha/Runequest, Traveller and Harn

In late '80ies TSR moved DnD much more into mainstream and made it more kid-friendly and bland. People (me included) screamed about corporate sellout and end of RPGS - we ended up getting bunch of edgier games such as WFRP and Vampire-The Masquerade that influenced the genre and brought gaming to many of the folks who would not have gone for something as geeky as "vanilla" DnD

In 90ies Magic came and everyone was talking about the "end of RPGS" even of "end of gaming as we know it" it turned out it was quite the contrary, Game stores got a shot in the arm, general player base increased and it became easier to find players for the RPGs. Also, mathematicians started being more involved with game design (a Good Thing if you ask me).

Then came WotC buyout of the TSR and another wave of "sky is falling" predicaments. We ended up with a servicable new edition of DnD. 

Then came german board games and I heard people decry even those as the end-of-gaming phenomenon and finally WoW which got folks to pull out all those finely preserved arguments from mid 80ies how computer games will finish off the hobby once and for all. As it turns out there are at least two WoW players that I know who will be trying their first PnP RPG come June and who would not have touched it with a ten foot pole before getting their feet wet online.

So, to finish off, OGL or no OGL, sky is not falling. Gaming will survive and thrive as long as there are intelligent sociable folks with some creativity and imagination kicking around. Companies and games can come and go but that - as it were - is their problem. As long as there is market someone will cater to it, particularly in this age of long tails and niche marketing.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 30, 2008)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> But you're a lawyer.  Now we *know* you're lying.
> 
> j/k.  I like  how people that are rabidly defending WotC can ignore information no matter how much better positioned the person is than them to give information and/or analyze it.  What do you know mr. runs an RPG company man!  I'm an internet smartypants.  Win!




LOL. You got me! 

I know you are kidding. That was funny. AND it was just what this thread needed. We can all laugh at ourselves, I hope. 

Bottom line: Its up to Wizards. I've stated my thoughts. I trust Scott and Linae and the people there. And it will be what it will be. 

Clark


----------



## hossrex (Mar 30, 2008)

Its weird.  I agree more with the logic, and ideology of the people who support the OGL, and worry 4E DnD will change that policy...  possibly after they've already shipped core books.

Yet...

I can't help but to think that I have never personally gained any advantage from the Open Game License, and while I'm sure the *MAJORITY* of people on this message board have benefitted from it in some form or other (just my guess), the vast majority of DnD players haven't (again, my guess...  we all realize that for every one of us who posts to a DnD message board, there are ten casual players who just want to play the game once a week without bothering to think as much about the *SYSTEM*, as they do about their *GAME*).

Wizards of the Coast released more then a book a month (on average) during the 3.X era.  Is it so terribly important that we also get all this other content from smaller publishers?  I'm sure there is more then a handful of positively genius content released because of the OGL...  the quality unfortunately doesn't change the sad fact that the vast majority of DnD players will be blissfully ignorant of said quality.  WoTC measures the movement of its product by the hundreds of thousands.  The collective moralistic of us here (myself tentatively included...  at least on principle) are biting our lips, and wringing our hands over a few companies that measure its sales...  not in hundreds of thousands...  but in hundreds, *OR* thousands.

These handful of people creating genius material for 3.X under the OGL wont simply throw up their hands in defeat and walk away into the sunset because they (entirely theoretically) can't create 4E material.  They'll either continue to create 3.X stuff, in which case if you're following a particular campaign, or world setting you can continue to do so...  or they'll just start creating alternate game rules.  If you're interested enough in the role playing game environment that you post on ENworld, and worry about how Hasbro will influence the new edition of Wizards of the Coasts game Dungeons and Dragons...  well...  you're probably well read enough to know when these special people are creating new genius works, and you're likely as able to find a game to play them, as you are to find a game to play third party "unofficial" 3.X DnD rules.

The majority of casual DnD players (of which five players out of our seven person group would be considered) had no idea there were third party DnD material...  have no idea there might be no future third party DnD material...  and really care far more about how they're going to find that Ancient Lich, or one of the seven parts of that damned Rod then they're concerned with who else gets to create DnD material.

Moral concern is good...  moral outrage is occasionally warranted...  picking your battles is divine.

This entire debate is to ensure that product lines that don't even exist yet (4E third party material) are maintained.  If they never exist, who'll miss em?  No one is saying people can't keep making 3.X stuff.  I've read enough about the OGL to know they can't do that.

Feel free to pick apart my statements, purposely misinterpret my words, and flame me mercilessly.  I don't come here often enough to likely read the replies anyway.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 30, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> SJG seems to do really well with the sort of weird niche products that the WotC was trying to farm out to third parties with the OGL--heck, they've published a GURPS supplement based on a webcomic .



Well, doing "really well" may be hard to quantify.  Clearly it is successful, at least by RPG standards.  Yet, 70% of Steve Jackson Game's business is from Munchkin.


----------



## Roman (Mar 30, 2008)

I really doubt that WotC is seriously considering not including 'open' gaming in the 4th edition. Unless Orcus has some inside information, and I doubt that, there has been little evidence to suggest that apart from his own hunch. Now, I know that he has industry experience and all that, but a hunch is still merely a hunch. 

What is probably happening is the final approval of the exact details of 'open' gaming under the 4th edition. I keep putting 'open' in quotation marks, because it can mean different things: there are different levels of 'openness' and it is likely that 4E will have a more restrictive license than 3.5E, but nonetheless I think it will still be 'open' enough to warrant the 'open' label. 

There is no reason for the panic, the single post concerning policy vetting really does not imply what people here seem to fear. I suppose it _could_ imply that, but it could also imply many other possibilities. For some reason people jumped to their worst fear and think that it is that possibility among many, which will manifest, but the probability of that happening does not seem particularly high.


----------



## Roman (Mar 30, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> Its weird.  I agree more with the logic, and ideology of the people who support the OGL, and worry 4E DnD will change that policy...  possibly after they've already shipped core books.




I have probably* never bought a third party d20 or OGL product before and throughout the course of the 3.X edition, my RPG book purchases have been exclusively from Wizards of the Coast. As such, one would think that the presence or the absence of third party support for 4E should not concern me. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I dislike many of the changes made in the process of making 4E and regardless of my previous purchasing behavior, if I do switch to 4E (and I am still undecided, but leaning against switching) I will have to rely on third party products that reverse those bad changes, while maintaining the positive aspects of 4E. If there are no 4E products that do this for me, there will be no agonizing decision process of whether to switch or not. I will simply automatically stay with my houseruled 3.5 edition or one of the '3.51' evolutions, such as the Pathfinder RPG, being developed by Paizo. That said, though, I really doubt that this will be an issue, as I doubt that 4E will not have an open license. I think this is needless panic on the part of many here - the plans for an open license have been announced a while back and I have seen no real evidence to indicate that this has changed. The single post by Mike Lescault does not really lead to the conclusions people are jumping to. 

*I say probably, because none come to mind - I might have bought some, but at the moment I certainly cannot remember doing so.


----------



## Psion (Mar 30, 2008)

I am a big fan of the OGL and think that gaming would be worse today if it wasn't for it. I think that the GSL is regrettable.

But I don't think Wizards is under any obligation to continue to distribute their games under the OGL.

So, no petition signing from me. Even if I thoght it would make a difference.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of the OGL and think that gaming would be worse today if it wasn't for it. I think that the GSL is regrettable.
> 
> But I don't think Wizards is under any obligation to continue to distribute their games under the OGL.
> 
> So, no petition signing from me. Even if I thoght it would make a difference.




This is a little confusing.  If a company has an obligation to do something and they don't, you sue them.  They're legally liable.

In all other cases, whether it's Starbucks, your local dry cleaners, or Wizards of the Coast, customers provide a variety of feedback - solicited to unsolicited, angry letters to petitions. That's the expected way of customers getting their opinion to a company that clearly doesn't want or value  it.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 30, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> I can't help but to think that I have never personally gained any advantage from the Open Game License, and while I'm sure the *MAJORITY* of people on this message board have benefitted from it in some form or other (just my guess), the vast majority of DnD players haven't (again, my guess...  we all realize that for every one of us who posts to a DnD message board, there are ten casual players who just want to play the game once a week without bothering to think as much about the *SYSTEM*, as they do about their *GAME*).




Y'all don't even use OGL adventures from Paizo, Goodman, Nrecromancer, Atlas, etc?   Do you just do all your adventure design yourself?  (WotC puts out the occasssional adventure but not enough to sustain a group; and half the time they're stinkburgers besides)

My gaming group plays games other than D&D, sometimes OGL games.  But half of our ongoing campigns are D&D.  When we play D&D, we do pretty much just rely on Wizards sources for rules content - bringing in p-classes, feats, etc. from external sources is too dicey.  But adventures, that's a different story.  last WotC adventure we ran was return to the demonweb pits.  It was mostly notable for fungal bats and us killing a bunch of gods at 9th level.  Didn't get a good reaction.  (A corollary is that for us it's about the game and not the system too.)

Anyway, my contention is that you're benefitting from the OGL whether you ever buy a product from anyone other than WotC or not.  This is because WotC benefits from the OGL.  It provides them with additional sales, skilled freelancers/new hires, and more players familiar with their ruleset.  These translate into benefits to you.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> I can't help but to think that I have never personally gained any advantage from the Open Game License ...



Simply put, you're wrong.

The reason the OGL is a good idea for WotC is because it makes them money.  It makes the whole industry money.  It expands the size of the industry, and draws in more customers, which encourages sales of every product.  And frankly, anything that drives sales of every product is going to disproportionately benefit Wizards of the Coast.

Look at it this way--say you have a group of gamers who are looking for a new game.  One of them picks up Paizo's _Rise of the Runelords_, flips through it, and decides to run it.  Now that drives sales of Paizo's products--at least 6 _Pathfinder_ issues, maybe some Golarion products, maybe some minis, maybe a Harrow deck.  And for Wizard of the Coast?  Probably everybody picks up a _Player's Handbook_.  The guy playing the Wizard wants more options, so he buys _Complete Mage_ and the _Spell Compendium_.  There's a woman who wants to play a Scout, so she buys _Complete Adventurer_.  And someone else wants to play a kobold, so they pick up _Races of the Dragon_.  Without Paizo, those sales don't happen.  That drives down the profitability of Wizards.  That means less products get produced, which means less products for you to choose from, even if you _never_ personally buy a third-party product.

Want a more subtle example?  Take a look at Mike Mearls' design experience.  How many projects are third-party d20?  By my count, _all of them_, save one, since 2001.  Without the OGL those projects don't exist, it's less profitable to be a freelancer, and a lot of great designers never even get their break in the industry.  That's bad for the industry, bad for WotC, and bad for you as a gamer.


----------



## jgbrowning (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Want a more subtle example?  Take a look at Mike Mearls' design experience.  How many projects are third-party d20?  By my count, _all of them_, save one, since 2001.  Without the OGL those projects don't exist, it's less profitable to be a freelancer, and a lot of great designers never even get their break in the industry.  That's bad for the industry, bad for WotC, and bad for you as a gamer.




I'm sure many people haven't thought of this reason why the OGL is positive for WotC and positive for individual gamers who don't purchase 3rd party products. Without the OGL, there would have been no way for Mike to get the large amount of experience he did that lead to him becoming a designer for 4e.

This was one of the main advantages of Dungeon & Dragon Magazines as well. They acted as a talent locating and training device, although at a slower rate than the OGL did given their format, IMO.

joe b.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 30, 2008)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This was one of the main advantages of Dungeon & Dragon Magazines as well. They acted as a talent locating and training device, although at a slower rate than the OGL did given their format, IMO.
> 
> joe b.




And now they want to rise the rate even more with Gleemax. Plus make money. See? Gleemax is the new beneficial side of OGL to them.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 30, 2008)

Its crazy for me to think that an Open 4e may go the way of the dodo. Like Clark, working on Violet Dawn and on D&D is a hobby for me as well. If this is the case and 4e isn't open, there is no way we'll get a license or anything like that. We're so damn small that I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even show up as a blip on Wizard's radar.

If this does happen, we won't try and support 3.5 or create a new super cool 3.75 system. We'll throw in the towel and close our doors as a publisher and I'll just be Jeff the DM again. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it looks like its a very real possibility.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 30, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I think it's important to remember that Clark is not at all dependent on Necromancer or d20 for his income, or even a significant portion of his income.  I think he's more spooked as a D&D fan, and, in the last eight years when people were fretting about all kinds of things, I haven't seen him spook at all really.
> 
> That's what makes us concerned.




I would like to reinforce this point.  Clark is generally _the voice of reason_ on these forums.  And he's a practicing lawyer too.  I'm sometimes worried about things when he isn't, but I'm _always_ worried when he is.

Ken


----------



## jgbrowning (Mar 30, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> And now they want to rise the rate even more with Gleemax. Plus make money. See? Gleemax is the new beneficial side of OGL to them.




Possibly, but I doubt that talent farming had anything to do with the Gleemax decision. Gleemax is a social networking site, with all that entails. IMO, talent farming of any real effect rarely works without monetary compensation as a creative will only labor of love for so long. Were these same creative people provided compensation for their work they would have a longer period in which to hone their chops and become even better creatives.

But this is close to a threadjack so that's all I'll say about creative works in a paid vrs unpaid environment. I do think the OGL provided a feedback mechanism where those who were good at creating were spurred on to be even more creative and try even harder.

joe b.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Look at it this way--say you have a group of gamers who are looking for a new game.  One of them picks up Paizo's _Rise of the Runelords_, flips through it, and decides to run it.  Now that drives sales of Paizo's products--at least 6 _Pathfinder_ issues, maybe some Golarion products, maybe some minis, maybe a Harrow deck.  And for Wizard of the Coast?  Probably everybody picks up a _Player's Handbook_.  The guy playing the Wizard wants more options, so he buys _Complete Mage_ and the _Spell Compendium_.  There's a woman who wants to play a Scout, so she buys _Complete Adventurer_.  And someone else wants to play a kobold, so they pick up _Races of the Dragon_.  Without Paizo, those sales don't happen.  That drives down the profitability of Wizards.  That means less products get produced, which means less products for you to choose from, even if you _never_ personally buy a third-party product.




In my experience it is exceedingly rare that someone who doesn't play a game system sees an adventure and is spurred to then have their entire group go out and spend about $70 from the description of this group.  While it is possible a scenario like you describe could happen, I don't see it as all that likely.  Why would someone who has never played D&D before spend the extra money on Complete Adventurer or Races of the Dragon, etc?  Maybe my friends are just a bit more cautious when they get into a new game system, but most folks I know would just pick up the PHB (if they even all bought it) and maybe the DM would pick up the XPH.  

Yes OGL games can drive sales of WotC products, but I have never seen an adventure that made me buy into a game system as described above.  I've bought game systems before simply b/c the concept was very cool and it had great art (I remember when I was a freshman in high school and RIFTS was released) and had lost of fun w/the game.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 30, 2008)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Possibly, but I doubt that talent farming had anything to do with the Gleemax decision.




Gleemax and DDI have to do with everything. It is their overall new business plan or so it seems.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 30, 2008)

There are obviously three _basic_ sides to this argument; those who don’t give a rat’s arse about the OGL and it’s implications, those who support the OGL for the varied additional content above and beyond what WotC publishes, and those who actually work in the OGL-created environment.

I fall into that third category.  As an artist and part-time writer, I make what pathetically meager income I have from my work in the 3PP industry.  I’d love to broaden my work experience with more publishers (maybe even WotC at some point), but Ralts keeps me buried under a lot of friggin’ work.  Maybe once this GSL issue is resolved I’ll see if Orcus needs an artist for something sometime, I’m liking the cut of his chaff in this thread.   But this is beside the point.

The point is that, while technically it *is* Wizards’ call whether or not to have an OGL/GSL at all, given that we HAVE an OGL already means that if they decide to not provide one for 4E they really are shooting themselves in the foot and all but guaranteeing a severe fracturing of the D&D game market, because those 3PP will then have no choice (unless they can afford to, or have contacts that allow them to, get special licenses to do books.  And having worked with people who _have_ gotten special permissions from WotC to do this or that in the past, even with a good working relationship with them it’s a slow and annoying process) but to revert back to the 3.5 OGL and adjust it to fit into what they would have otherwise done to support 4E – or ignore 4E entirely and branch off in a Pathfinder-esque manner.

And while I’m speaking ATM from my own personal concerns, not as an avid and life-long player, but as a freelancer in the industry, I for one can say that the possibility of an absent or gimped GSL scares the 5h!t out of me.  I got into the RPG industry with the advent of 3E and the OGL, which was a dream of mine since I was 18 (some 18 years ago).  The idea that the doors could close on that to any extent is highly disturbing in a way I cannot even form words for.

Personally, I think it’d be *Damned* nice if Rouse would pop up in here and give us SOMETHING..  even if it was liberally coated in NDA-speak, to give us something to work off of except fear and speculation.  Given that we’re the #1 location for internet fan communication (and whatever anyone may think about “vocal minority”, that’s a HUGE thing), I think it’d be the ONLY smart move on his part to step in and say SOMETHING useful to us.

Mods: I know, I cursed at least twice.  Given the emphatic strength of what I was trying to say, I didn’t think any faux-cursing or “granny-words” would suffice to carry the impact.  I may not be a well-known poster, but I’ve been a poster since EN World first went live, I know the rules, and don’t do it often.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 30, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Does this mean you now resume your state of being a lawyer?



Ha ha ha!


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> In my experience it is exceedingly rare that someone who doesn't play a game system sees an adventure and is spurred to then have their entire group go out and spend about $70 from the description of this group.  While it is possible a scenario like you describe could happen, I don't see it as all that likely.



If the _only_ sale for WotC it drives is a single shared copy of the PHB, it's a net positive for WotC.  It's money they wouldn't have seen otherwise.

More likely, the DM has run 3.5 D&D before.  Maybe the whole group has.  And they're trying to decide what to play for the next campaign--someone's arguing for Call of Cthulhu, someone else likes Exalted, and someone finds _Rise of the Runelords_ and offers to run the campaign because they're really excited about it.  _That_ means people are going to keep playing D&D, and _that_ means they're much more likely to buy WotC products.  

And even if they never buy a Wizards of the Coast product at all, one of the things Ryan Dancey noticed about why RPG gamers leave the hobby is not because they grew bored, or couldn't find a system they liked.  It's because they couldn't find anyone else to play with.  To the extent the OGL helps maintain a healthy industry, it mitigates that problem.  Sure, my group might break up, but if there's an Iron Heroes group starting up I can join that, and two years later when it breaks up maybe there's going to be a d20 game starting that I jump back into.  The chance that I could come back and buy 3 or 4 Wizards of the Coast products is well worth the risk that I might buy a d20 product instead, today.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes OGL games can drive sales of WotC products, but I have never seen an adventure that made me buy into a game system as described above.



There's a thread on the Paizo boards where Eric Mona solicited the opinions of Paizo customers on whether they should switch to 4e or remain 3.5.  Check it out.  There's a lot of people swearing they'll never switch to 4e, and a smaller number saying they're switching and are going to stop playing 3.5 altogether.  But there's a not insignificant percentage saying _they'll switch if Paizo does_.

Paizo's sticking to the 3.5 OGL, and all those potential 4e customers aren't switching.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it’d be *Damned* nice if Rouse would pop up in here and give us SOMETHING..  even if it was liberally coated in NDA-speak, to give us something to work off of except fear and speculation.



Really, all this thread needs is a WotC employee to drop by and say "Calm down everyone.  There's _is_ going to be a GSL, and while we're still nailing down the details and it is going to be more restrictive than the OGL, we're sure it's going to allow most people to do everything they want to with 4e."

It's possible they just haven't noticed this thread (it being the weekend), but I think the likelihood they haven't drops significantly with each passing day.  And since they _have_ reassured the community there will be a GSL in the past, at some point their silence becomes a de facto admission that it's now not certain.


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> As an aside, I dont appreciate your suggestions that I am trying to trick anyone.




I can understand why you wouldn't. Nevertheless, it _is_ in the publishers' best interests to convince the public to put pressure on WotC to release the GSL. It's great that you say you would never speak out against something for personal gain, but I don't know you personally, I live a commerical society, and the bad guys claim to be personally offended, too, in order to sell products or smooth over ruffled feathers. Sorry, but I'm going to take what you say with a grain of salt. 

Seanchai


----------



## grimslade (Mar 30, 2008)

I'd wait for close of business Monday to worry about the Rouse or Linnae not posting a reply to this thread or some other.

I think Mistwell has the right of it. The GSL is being passed back and forth between lawyers to close suspected loopholes and quibbling over the definition of the word 'IS'. There are a bunch of people committed to open gaming at WotC and they will continue to push for the GSL to be released. 

There is reason for concern, however. WotC has a new president, Greg Leeds, who came over from Hasbro International Marketing and helped develop Hasbro's  global brand management methodology. The OGL/GSL would be in his sandbox. He would be an additional 'vetting' step. I would interpret it as more of a delay than an abandonment of OGL/GSL. Of course, I don't know what Hasbro global brand management methodology looks like, so I can't be sure. 

Hopefully, we will have Le Rouse come out tomorrow and post a nice Kevin Bacon moment of "All is well. Remain Calm."

Clarke, keep up the optimism. The other way leads to madness and stunts your creativity. What will be, will be. Keep touting all the great stuff you can add to 4E and maybe some GSL naysayers will be intrigued!


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> The reason the OGL is a good idea for WotC is because it makes them money.




Yes. But it also creates additional players in the marketplace. (I would say "additional competitors," but they're not really.) And these additional companies can adversely affect D&D's image (i.e., Book of Erotic Fantasy). 

I







			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> It expands the size of the industry, and draws in more customers, which encourages sales of every product.




Except it doesn't draw in more customers. What we've got is what we've got. 



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> Look at it this way--say you have a group of gamers who are looking for a new game.  One of them picks up Paizo's _Rise of the Runelords_, flips through it, and decides to run it...And for Wizard of the Coast?  Probably everybody picks up a _Player's Handbook_.




Probably? Publishers complain all the time about not everyone in a group picking up a core rulebook. 



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> Without Paizo, those sales don't happen.




Possibly. A few things, however. 

First, third party publishers don't sell as much as WotC does. The chances some is going to be unfamiliar with D&D but familiar with Paizo's products aren't that great. 

Moreover, not everyone exposed to and favorable toward Paizo products will pick up another company's product, even if it's the PHB. You can play D&D without your own PHB, especially in the age of the SRD. 

And would WotC even notice if reality got bent and all the Paizo-driven sales suddenly went away? WotC says it has 4.5 million D&D players - just how many of them really could have come from someone running Rise of the Runelords? 

In conjunction with the above, WotC actually has to do work to "support" the SRD, d20 license, and OGL. It costs them money. When you subtract all the money they're making via third-party sales from the money they're outlaying for the OGL, how much is really left? 

Finally, folks buying WotC because of a Paizo product is one scenario, but there are others. For example, Timmy's mom sees Book of Erotic Fantasy on the shelf next to the D&D books and decides maybe tabletop gaming isn't for Timmy. Or maybe a new gamer who started with White Wolf products decides to give D&D a go, but her DM picked up a really bad third-party adventure and now the potential D&D consumer decided to stick with World of Darkness products... 

Seanchai





			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> Without the OGL those projects don't exist, it's less profitable to be a freelancer, and a lot of great designers never even get their break in the industry.  That's bad for the industry, bad for WotC, and bad for you as a gamer.


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 30, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I'd wait for close of business Monday to worry about the Rouse or Linnae not posting a reply to this thread or some other.




Yeah. Getting worried because a 9 to 5 employee hasn't made an official response on an unofficial forum over the weekend is taking it just a bit too far...

Seanchai


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 30, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, it _is_ in the publishers' best interests to convince the public to put pressure on WotC to release the GSL. It's great that you say you would never speak out against something for personal gain, but I don't know you personally, I live a commerical society, and the bad guys claim to be personally offended, too, in order to sell products or smooth over ruffled feathers.




Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.    


But, seriously, if there's anyone here I'd trust to be above-board with regard to this subject, it's Clark Peterson.  If anyone would have a good relationship with WotC it would be him, and the fact that *he* is worried says volumes.


----------



## Andre (Mar 30, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Really, all this thread needs is a WotC employee to drop by and say "Calm down everyone.  There's _is_ going to be a GSL, and while we're still nailing down the details and it is going to be more restrictive than the OGL, we're sure it's going to allow most people to do everything they want to with 4e."
> 
> It's possible they just haven't noticed this thread (it being the weekend), but I think the likelihood they haven't drops significantly with each passing day.  And since they _have_ reassured the community there will be a GSL in the past, at some point their silence becomes a de facto admission that it's now not certain.




Given that this thread began when a WOTC employee posted a fairly innocuous statement which others have chosen to interpret in the most pessimistic way, WOTC should stay far, far away from this thread. Until they announce the GSL, based on what I've seen the last two days, they should just avoid the whole subject.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 30, 2008)

Andre said:
			
		

> Given that this thread began when a WOTC employee posted a fairly innocuous statement which others have chosen to interpret in the most pessimistic way, WOTC should stay far, far away from this thread. Until they announce the GSL, based on what I've seen the last two days, they should just avoid the whole subject.



Wow.  That's about the _exact_ opposite advice you get from PR professionals.  The _worst_ thing you can do in these situations is stop talking to your customers.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> Yes. But it also creates additional players in the marketplace. (I would say "additional competitors," but they're not really.) And these additional companies can adversely affect D&D's image (i.e., Book of Erotic Fantasy).



Everyone expects the GSL is going to be more restrictive.  The d20 license prevents the _Book of Erotic Fantasy_, for example.  And products that are most likely to cannibalize WotC sales--namely incompatible game systems (Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft)--are very likely to be prohibited as well.







			
				Seanchai said:
			
		

> Except it doesn't draw in more customers. What we've got is what we've got.



What's your basis for saying this?  I know one of the _major_ considerations  behind the OGL was to expand the size of the market by keeping people playing RPGs beyond the time they usually leave the hobby.







			
				Seanchai said:
			
		

> Publishers complain all the time about not everyone in a group picking up a core rulebook ... third party publishers don't sell as much as WotC does ... not everyone exposed to and favorable toward Paizo products will pick up another company's product ... would WotC even notice if reality got bent and all the Paizo-driven sales suddenly went away?



You're missing the forest for the trees.  There are two major misconceptions people keep making about the RPG market:

First, that it's zero-sum.  It's not.  Owing the _Book of Iron Might_ does not significantly diminish the value of owning the _Complete Warrior_.  If anything, it enhances it--if I'm trying to build a warrior, having twice as many options is worth more than double the cost.  And the number of people who only have $30 to spend and have to choose between the two is not really that great.

Second, that WotC would benefit by driving the independent publishers out of existence.  You can't get an effective monopoly in the RPG market.  Ignoring the fact that it would be nearly impossible to hold, people aren't forced to choose between RPG X and RPG Y.  They're choosing between RPG X, and MMO Y, and movie Z, and cosplay, and board games, and just getting drunk in a bar.  And WotC has market research showing that once people stop playing RPGs, it's nearly impossible to get them to start playing again.  They get invested in Axis and Allies or the raid schedule for their Level 70 Dwarf Hunter, and no longer have the time.

Even if the OGL _costs_ WotC money--and I'm certain it does not--it's a sound investment in the future of the industry.


----------



## Andre (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Wow.  That's about the _exact_ opposite advice you get from PR professionals.  The _worst_ thing you can do in these situations is stop talking to your customers.




Normally I would agree, but notice - I didn't say they shouldn't talk to their customers. Just that they shouldn't touch this subject until they are ready to make their announcement. The only thing that will stop all the speculation is a clear statement from WOTC concerning what the GSL will and won't allow (in other words, their announcement). 

Trying to post calm, non-sensational comments hasn't worked. In fact, it seems to have the opposite effect. This particular thread will die out soon, unless WOTC feeds it. Other threads may be opened on the subject, but without anything new from WOTC, they will just have the same old conjectures and will also die out.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> There's a thread on the Paizo boards where Eric Mona solicited the opinions of Paizo customers on whether they should switch to 4e or remain 3.5.  Check it out.  There's a lot of people swearing they'll never switch to 4e, and a smaller number saying they're switching and are going to stop playing 3.5 altogether.  But there's a not insignificant percentage saying _they'll switch if Paizo does_.
> 
> Paizo's sticking to the 3.5 OGL, and all those potential 4e customers aren't switching.




Paizo is taking the 3.5OGl, pumping up the base classes, creating more work to be able to continue using your 3.5 adventures and other books you already own.  They're doing this b/c they don't feel the core classes match up to later released classes.  If the alpha stays anything like it is now, it's not making anything easier on the buying customer.

You should also know that a thread on the internet is not a representative portion of the customer base.  There are ALWAYS people who swear up and down they will never buy X and then you ask them 2 months after X has been released and they're quite happily playing it.  It's like trusting internet polls, esp ones that don't allow you to require people be logged in to an account to participate in *wink*


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

Andre said:
			
		

> Trying to post calm, non-sensational comments hasn't worked. In fact, it seems to have the opposite effect. This particular thread will die out soon, unless WOTC feeds it. Other threads may be opened on the subject, but without anything new from WOTC, they will just have the same old conjectures and will also die out.



The _only_ reason this thread has traction is because Clark Peterson, easily the biggest booster 4e has among the independent gaming companies and friends with a lot of industry people both in and out of WotC, is worried.  _I_ wasn't concerned until Clark said he was.  I think there are a lot of people here in the same boat.

If WotC thinks the best way of dealing with the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist, then their PR is worse than I thought.  And if they're unwilling to say everything they discussed in the January GSL conference call is still true with the exception of the timing, I think there _is_ good reason to be worried.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> If WotC thinks the best way of dealing with the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist, then their PR is worse than I thought.




What would you do in their place?


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Paizo is taking the 3.5OGl, pumping up the base classes, creating more work to be able to continue using your 3.5 adventures and other books you already own.  They're doing this b/c they don't feel the core classes match up to later released classes.  If the alpha stays anything like it is now, it's not making anything easier on the buying customer.



So what?  You're welcome to argue whether Paizo is making a smart move or a stupid move on a different thread; it's completely irrelevant to this one.







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> You should also know that a thread on the internet is not a representative portion of the customer base.



Really?  And here I was basing my entire self-worth on Hot or Not.

You said you didn't know anyone who switched systems just because of an adventure.  I pointed you to a whole thread-load of them.  Clearly, there _are_ some people who base their decisions on those kind of concerns.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> What would you do in their place?



Assuming they're just mucking about with the terms of the GSL, I'd do exactly what I suggested above.  Post on this thread that there _is_ going to be a GSL, it's going to allow most publishers to do most of what they want, and WotC just isn't prepared to make more details public at this time.

Assuming they're actually thinking about scrapping the GSL, I'd stay completely quiet and hope whoever was in charge of the decision came to their senses.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> So what?  You're welcome to argue whether Paizo is making a smart move or a stupid move on a different thread; it's completely irrelevant to this one.Really?  And here I was basing my entire self-worth on Hot or Not.
> 
> You said you didn't know anyone who switched systems just because of an adventure.  I pointed you to a whole thread-load of them.  Clearly, there _are_ some people who base their decisions on those kind of concerns.




I was disputing what you said about Paizo sticking to the 3.5 OGL, b/c that isn't entirely accurate.  While pointing this out I showed why I feel it is a bad move.

Wonderful way of comparing 2 things that are completely different.  You gave an example that I felt was highly unlikely, a group of people who had never played D&D seeing an adventure of Paizo and then jumping whole hog into D&D and Paizo material.  Now you try linking to a thread of people who already play D&D and utilize Paizo's adventures and try to claim it's the same thing.  Not buying it.  

This thread you pointed to is current customers saying what they would or wouldn't do based on what Paizo does.  Staying 3.5 instead of upgrading to 4E is not switching systems.  It wouldn't be switching systems until the Pathfinder RPG is available in August 2009.  So no, it doesn't support your argument in the least.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I was disputing what you said about Paizo sticking to the 3.5 OGL, b/c that isn't entirely accurate.



It is _exactly_ what they are doing.  They've already said the PRPG rules will be released under the OGL.  What they _haven't_ promised is that it will be completely compatible.







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Wonderful way of comparing 2 things that are completely different.



You said:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> In my experience it is exceedingly rare that someone who doesn't play a game system sees an adventure and is spurred to then have their entire group go out and spend about $70 from the description of this group. While it is possible a scenario like you describe could happen, I don't see it as all that likely.



I pointed you to an entire thread _full of people who don't play a game system seeing an adventure and being spurred to then have their entire group go out and spending about $70_.  And you really can't argue above that Pathfinder RPG is radically different than the 3.5 ruleset, then turn around and argue my example doesn't work because 3.5 is so similar to the Pathfinder ruleset.







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be switching systems until the Pathfinder RPG is available in August 2009.  So no, it doesn't support your argument in the least.



The Pathfinder Alpha is available now, and people are playing it.  The Pathfinder Beta will be available as a book and a free download by GenCon.  And a good number of people have already preordered both the beta and the final version.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> It is _exactly_ what they are doing.  They've already said the PRPG rules will be released under the OGL.  What they _haven't_ promised is that it will be completely compatible.




Except where in the announcement and again in the alpha they speak about how important it is for them to be very compatible w/3.5?



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> You said:I pointed you to an entire thread _full of people who don't play a game system seeing an adventure and being spurred to then have their entire group go out and spending about $70_.  And you really can't argue above that Pathfinder RPG is radically different than the 3.5 ruleset, then turn around and argue my example doesn't work because 3.5 is so similar to the Pathfinder ruleset.




Pathfinder is still 3.5 until August 2009, they aren't producing any adventure paths set in the new RPG until said new RPG is available on store shelves.  Your example doesn't work b/c these people all ALREADY PLAY 3.5 and buy Paizo's products to use in their 3.5 game.  That is so NOT the same as saying people who have never played D&D will see a Paizo adventure and then buy lots of books for both just so they can run that adventure.



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> The Pathfinder Alpha is available now, and people are playing it.  The Pathfinder Beta will be available as a book and a free download by GenCon.  And a good number of people have already preordered both the beta and the final version.




Yay, goodie for them.  The official release date of the RPG isnt' until August 2009 and everything until then is a public Beta.  People are already using what they know about 4E and running games with it, it doesnt' make me say that WotC has released 4E 3 months early.  There is a year and a half between now and when the book actually gets released, so we'll have to wait and see how many of those pre-orders cancel b/c what changes in the alpha and beta stages of the PRPG doesn't appeal to them or they decide to just go 4E.  Maybe everyone will keep their order and Paizo will gain lots of converts besides.  Only time will tell.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 31, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> I can understand why you wouldn't. Nevertheless, it _is_ in the publishers' best interests to convince the public to put pressure on WotC to release the GSL. It's great that you say you would never speak out against something for personal gain, but I don't know you personally, I live a commerical society, and the bad guys claim to be personally offended, too, in order to sell products or smooth over ruffled feathers. Sorry, but I'm going to take what you say with a grain of salt.
> 
> Seanchai




I'm sure that deeply, deeply concerns him.


----------



## jefgorbach (Mar 31, 2008)

Some have suggested the recent events signal an end of open-licensing and thus third-party support for D&D. I disagree - for the sequence of events suggests we, the loyal customers, may have been blooded but won the adventure. 


1) loyal customers have repeatedly reviewed every press-release, stressing their dislike for the majority of the proposed changes. 

2) Paizo, listening to those customers, publicly affirms their commitment to continue supporting the existing rules indefinitely. 

3) Within days, President/CEO Loren Greenwood who spearheaded the proposed revision steps aside a few scant months before seeing the final version of his pet-project reach market. 

4) His replacement (Greg Leeds) "immediately" announces the open-license is being rewritten instead of released in April as announced several months ago. ​
Granted, I could be wrong but considering the final version should have already been “at the printer’s” as it were since it was on the verge of being released, any rethinking at this late stage signals a MAJOR change in the works – especially given the coincidental presidential change. Therefore its quite likely Hasbro’s Board noticed the division repeatedly failed to notice fan's reactions to the proposed changes and decided corrective actions was needed. 

Hasbro invested far too much in acquiring the D&D brand to casually watch it be irrepairably harmed which is what fan feedback to the press-releases have implied WOULD happen if v4 was released as planned. Therefore it would not suprise me to hear the proposed schedule has been completely scrapped as the design team returns to the drawing board to ensure the end result is fully backwards per customer demand.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Except where in the announcement and again in the alpha they speak about how important it is for them to be very compatible w/3.5?



Earlier you were arguing about how _dissimilar_ Pathfinder was from 3.5, and now you're arguing how similar they are?  If you can't bother to keep your argument straight, I have no idea what you're doing trying to debate other people.







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> That is so NOT the same as saying people who have never played D&D will see a Paizo adventure and then buy lots of books for both just so they can run that adventure.



That's _not_ what you were arguing before.  I repeat, you said:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> In my experience it is exceedingly rare that someone who doesn't play a game system sees an adventure and is spurred to then have their entire group go out and spend about $70 from the description of this group. While it is possible a scenario like you describe could happen, I don't see it as all that likely.



And I pointed out a scenario where _exactly_ that happened.  *Exactly* that.  And now you're trying to argue it's not for sale so it doesn't count, or they're obviously lying on the thread and they won't switch, or you didn't mean "someone who doesn't play a game system" but "someone who doesn't play Dungeons and Dragons".  Stop trying to pretend you were right.  You were wrong.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 31, 2008)

jefgorbach said:
			
		

> 1) loyal customers have repeatedly reviewed every press-release, stressing their dislike for the majority of the proposed changes.
> 
> 2) Paizo, listening to those customers, publicly affirms their commitment to continue supporting the existing rules indefinitely.
> 
> ...




This could just as easily herald that the new president is far less enamored of Open Gaming in any form, and has decided to create a license that is even more restrictive...or to simply not have such a license at all. I seriously doubt that the howling of a few fanboys, and the grumbling from some VERY small publishers has had such a massive effect as to oust the president of WotC and replace him with one who is far more loyal to those malcontents.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 31, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> Yes. But it also creates additional players in the marketplace. (I would say "additional competitors," but they're not really.) And these additional companies can adversely affect D&D's image (i.e., Book of Erotic Fantasy).




Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image. I doubt many people are even aware of the book that much, and those who are inclined to kick up a fuss over it don't seem like potential gamers anyway. I've never heard one person say "Well I thought I might try out D&D but then I heard about this 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' and I don't want anything to do with that! No sir!" 

Unless you're Tracy Hickman, most people in the industry didn't really have a reaction to it, and no one outside of the industry (that I'm aware of) had a reaction to it at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2008)

So let's follow the order of events here.

I say:



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Guys, even if the entire OGL concept were scrapped in it's entirety, WOTC would still likely license out their stuff to third party publishers for a relatively modest fee.  That's the way of the world now.  All it would mean is only the larger companies could afford to purchase a license, and it wouldn't be free anymore.  It wouldn't mean an end to all third party support for D&D.  And in addition, it would probably mean free third party fan-made stuff would also be OK (at least on an unofficial basis).




Orcus says:



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this is true. I shure hope it is. But, for instance, they havent offered me such a license. And I am historically their best and closest third party publisher (other than Paizo). They licensed Tome conetnt to me, etc. And I think over the years we have proven to be excellent partners and caretakers of that content. So if I'm worried, you all should be too.




And now, a couple of days later, in reply to someone else, Orcus says:



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Becaue you are right. I could do exactly what you say. I could be quiet. I could let Wizards nuke any 4E licensing. Then I could, likely, get permission to do a few products and make a killing.




So what was your point again Clark?  You do think WOTC would be willing to license it out to a few of the bigger companies (like Necro), or you don't?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image. I doubt many people are even aware of the book that much, and those who are inclined to kick up a fuss over it don't seem like potential gamers anyway. I've never heard one person say "Well I thought I might try out D&D but then I heard about this 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' and I don't want anything to do with that! No sir!"
> 
> Unless you're Tracy Hickman, most people in the industry didn't really have a reaction to it, and no one outside of the industry (that I'm aware of) had a reaction to it at all.




True. It didnt tarnish the image of D&D (maybe a little, but not significantly). BUT it was one of the key catalysts for the restrictions in the d20 STL/Guide on sexuality and other content. So it had a negative impact on how the company viewed open game products.

There were people in the industry other than Tracy who had a reaction to it. And many of those reactions were negative.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So what was your point again Clark?  You do think WOTC would be willing to license it out to a few of the bigger companies (like Necro), or you don't?




My point is the same as it was: As of right now, they have not approached me with a license. BUT I believe that if they decide not to publically license 4E that I could probably get permission to do some things. 

I think that is because they are deciding what they are going to do. There is no need to license out 4E on a publisher-by-publisher basis if they are going to publically license it. 

If you are confused by my posts, I am sorry if I didnt explain it better.  If you are trying to find a contradiction in my posts, there isnt one and again I should have explained myself better. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

It is a bit ironic that the "why you should care" thread has not been moved back into the main forum.

I mean, here we are -- at ENWorld. If ever there is a place that is all about open gaming it is here. Heck, this site does the ENNies for goodness sake!

This site would hardly continue to exist if not for open gaming. It started as a 3E scoop site and quickly became the home of the open gaming movement and all the publishers.

Yes, somehow, why we should care about no open gaming for 4E isnt a main page thread. I still dont get that. 

And for the many posters, here on this site, who say "I dont care about open gaming, what has it done for me." Well, one answer is -- this community. This community exists in large part because of open gaming.

Sort of funny how time changes all things and we lose our point of view. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

I was worried friday. I have calmed down a bit. It isnt like me to get all freaky. But I do feel so very strongly that it is a huge mistake to not allow third party publishers to support 4E.

So I appologize for my public statements of concern. I dont retract them. I still have them. 

But as I have said on my own boards, I shouldnt panic. (and to the extent I am causing that, I am sorry and should be more well behaved). In the end, I know there are good people who are trying to get this done. Scott. Linae. Et al.

And, in the end, this is the company that saved D&D, opened up open gaming and continued to support it. They certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, despite my concerns. 

I still believe the openness of 4E will be supported, whether by GSL or not and whether as open as I want it to be or not. Perhaps more restrictive than the OGL, perhaps not. 

My faith remains! Go Scott, Go Linae! Go Wizards!

Clark


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Everyone expects the GSL is going to be more restrictive.  The d20 license prevents the _Book of Erotic Fantasy_, for example.




Sure, but it doesn't prevent products that are undesireable in other ways, such as being bad in general. 



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> What's your basis for saying this?




Er, the customer base not being any bigger than when the OGL was released. The industry's not growing. 



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> First, that it's zero-sum.  It's not.  Owing the _Book of Iron Might_ does not significantly diminish the value of owning the _Complete Warrior_.  If anything, it enhances it--if I'm trying to build a warrior, having twice as many options is worth more than double the cost.




How does owning Mongoose's Lone Wolf help me build a better fighter in my Midnight game?

It _can_ be that one product will enchance another, but, then again, maybe they're useless and stuck somewhere on the shelf. They might be useless because the systems aren't that compatible, because they rely on subsystems that haven't crossed the gap, because they're redundant, because they're too powerful, because they're not powerful enough, because of tonal imcompatibilities, because the DM won't allow it, etc.



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> And the number of people who only have $30 to spend and have to choose between the two is not really that great.




If that were the case, I think the RPG industry would be in better shape than it is...Everything I've heard suggests that it's not doing too well, which means people _are_ picking and choosing what to buy. I believe you put it this way: "They're choosing between RPG X, and MMO Y, and movie Z, and cosplay, and board games, and just getting drunk in a bar."



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> You can't get an effective monopoly in the RPG market.




No, but they can do it with the D&D market...



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> Even if the OGL _costs_ WotC money--and I'm certain it does not--it's a sound investment in the future of the industry.




You're certain it doesn't? Do you believe all the folks who type up the SRD entries, the lawyers they consult, the people who deal license violations, et al., are volunteers? Take the process surrounding the GSL, for example - all that communication, writing of the contracts, lawyering, vetting, releasing, and so on costs time, resources that could be used elsewhere, and man hours. 



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> If WotC thinks the best way of dealing with the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist, then their PR is worse than I thought.




Well, so far, they've only "pretended it doesn't exist," for two days on the weekend. 

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 31, 2008)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> I'm sure that deeply, deeply concerns him.




You can be snotty, but it concerned him enough to comment on it. 

Seanchai


----------



## Seanchai (Mar 31, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image.




I think the past tense is the problem here. I don't think it tarnish_ed_ D&D's image, but I do think it's a good example of a product that has the potential to do so. As I understand it, it was sold in major chains such as Barnes & Noble and Borders. I know it can be found on Amazon.com. It's there for concerned parents to run across. 

But, really, in the context of this thread, I don't think of it as an example of something that tarnished D&D's image so much as an example of a OGL product that has the potential to turn folks away from D&D. 

Seanchai


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 31, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Earlier you were arguing about how _dissimilar_ Pathfinder was from 3.5, and now you're arguing how similar they are?  If you can't bother to keep your argument straight, I have no idea what you're doing trying to debate other people.




You had claimed they hadn't promised full compatibility.  I disputed that.  Actually read what is written b/c right now it merely appears you are just trying to pick fights.  (Admins note I said APPEARS not YOU ARE..I'm trying to clarify here)



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> That's _not_ what you were arguing before.  I repeat, you said:And I pointed out a scenario where _exactly_ that happened.  *Exactly* that.  And now you're trying to argue it's not for sale so it doesn't count, or they're obviously lying on the thread and they won't switch, or you didn't mean "someone who doesn't play a game system" but "someone who doesn't play Dungeons and Dragons".  Stop trying to pretend you were right.  You were wrong.




It was a thread asking what people would do.  Typically people posting about how they will switch to whatever Paizo supports who have a tag stating "Pathfinder charter member" are already customers playing the game.  NOT like in your example of people new to D&D buying up WotC and Paizo product for the first game.  

This was a 9 page thread and not a single person on the first 2 pages said that they started playing D&D b/c of a Paizo adventure they saw.  THAT was the scenario you put forth and has yet to be borne out as something that pretty much ever happens.  

I don't see how comparing someone who doesn't play D&D seeing an adventure, then their whole group spending about $400 on various gaming products is anything close to the same as people saying they would continue playing Paizo products that remain 3.5 (no mention of a possible Pathfinder RPG spinoff) or that they would upgrade to 4E.  One is a direct continuation by the parent company (4E), the other option is adventures put out supported by the 3.5 SRD.

//For clarity, here were Erik's 3 questions posed:
1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?//

Start a new thread if you want to continue this or use my messages, we're veering way off-topic here.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> This site would hardly continue to exist if not for open gaming. It started as a 3E scoop site and quickly became the home of the open gaming movement and all the publishers.
> 
> Yes, somehow, why we should care about no open gaming for 4E isnt a main page thread. I still dont get that.




This site would hardly continue to exist if we didn't impose organization upon it.  Without some segmentation, dealing with EN World is like drinking from a fire hose. 

EN World, first and foremost, is (and has always been) here to discuss games - what people play, and how they play it.  If we start to actively push threads about particular movements to center stage, we cease to be a place of communication, and we become instead a place to push particular agendas.  There are other sites for that sort of thing.


----------



## Melan (Mar 31, 2008)

Umbran: I would normall agree with you, and you are technically right, but this thread might be of wider general interest than what usually passes here. Very few people read OGF-L regularly (I certainly wouldn't have come here if I weren't linked to it from the Necro messageboards), but this may concern several people on this site... including their decisions to buy 4e or stay with 3.5 or an alternate system.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 31, 2008)

With all due respect Umbran, Clark was not asking you to "move this thread to center stage", he was pointing out that I originally posted this in the main 4E forum and it was moved here by the MODS. It was attracting huge discussion and the whole point of it was to let people in the main area of the site discuss the issues surrounding OGL.

I wanted to do this becasue most people don't think OGL has anything to do with them and I was trying to point out some things they may not have considered. By moving this thread, my intention was partially thwarted.

I would appreciate having this moved to where I originally posted it; the 4E section of the site.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 31, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> This site would hardly continue to exist if we didn't impose organization upon it.  Without some segmentation, dealing with EN World is like drinking from a fire hose.
> 
> EN World, first and foremost, is (and has always been) here to discuss games - what people play, and how they play it.  If we start to actively push threads about particular movements to center stage, we cease to be a place of communication, and we become instead a place to push particular agendas.  There are other sites for that sort of thing.




What you say may be true, but I think Clark has a point. A thread about why people should care about the OGL is something that could be considered broad enough, as a subject, to be posted in the General forum without it being seen as "pushing an agenda" but simply as putting the question raised by the OP to a larger audience.


----------



## Melan (Mar 31, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> A thread about why people should care about the OGL is something that could be considered broad enough, as a subject, to be posted in the General forum without it being seen as "pushing an agenda" but simply as putting the question raised by the OP to a larger audience.



Moreover, what exactly is wrong with "pushing the agenda" of _open gaming_, something which strongly influenced the last eight years of the hobby? It is more important than the narrowly technical focus of this sub-forum.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 31, 2008)

Melan said:
			
		

> Umbran: I would normall agree with you, and you are technically right, but this thread might be of wider general interest than what usually passes here. Very few people read OGF-L regularly (I certainly wouldn't have come here if I weren't linked to it from the Necro messageboards), but this may concern several people on this site... including their decisions to buy 4e or stay with 3.5 or an alternate system.



Full agreement here. This thread, is of general relevance and shouldn't be relegated here.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 31, 2008)

We probably need to make a thread in the Meta forum, maybe a poll, asking if OGL-related threads should go back to the appropriate forum.

The forums name actually says it's the home of the new "OGL-F" list, and I think a lot of people ignore it when just discussing D&D.  And technically, a GSL will be different from the OGL, so what's gonna happen if/when the GSL replaces the OGL.

I don't think the criticism about where the mods are putting these threads are unwarranted.  I think the OGL forum is ignored by many people who have a vested interest in discussing these items.  I've noticed that if a thread gets started in the other forum, once it's moved here it gets a lot less traffic.  That hints that separating OGL subjects about D&D (or GSL about the future of D&D).  What that tells me is that the forum structure setup is failing in some aspects.

ETA:  I've posted a poll (about where to put such threads) in the meta forum, I suggest people vote there to let your feelings be known so the mods can take that into consideration.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=222757


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Mar 31, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> Well, so far, they've only "pretended it doesn't exist," for *two days on the weekend.*
> 
> Seanchai



Quoted for emphasis. The internet works 24/7, but the Brand Team doesn't report to work until 8 AM Pacific (which is 11 AM Eastern) on Monday.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 31, 2008)

Yeah, this thread isn't really about open gaming in general, it's specifically about whther 4e willb e open and therefore should be in the 4e forum.  This forum is for discussing the details of OGL licensing and whatnot, not burying 4e discussions.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 31, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I was worried friday. I have calmed down a bit. It isnt like me to get all freaky. But I do feel so very strongly that it is a huge mistake to not allow third party publishers to support 4E.
> 
> So I appologize for my public statements of concern. I dont retract them. I still have them.
> 
> ...




Orcus, you have to be the eternal optimist (not meant as an insult, merely an observation).  Myself, I'm an engineer.  My glass contains 50% water, 50% air.  Here's how I see it.  I see "vetting their policy concerning open gaming" as bad news.  Here's why.  Wizards is using tactics common to either a person or an orginization that is only learning the basics of PR.  I will give Wizards this credit, they have learned alot about PR since the Dungeon/Dragon mags license catastrof***, but their still not a politician grade at PR.  Here's what I see:

1) They announced bad news on a friday.  Managers that don't know any better fire employees on a friday.  The thinking is that they won't have to deal with the reprocussions if they do it on a friday.  Studies have shown that that is the worst thing a manager can do.  Reason being is that if you lose your job on a friday, a person has all weekend to sit and stew and get angry and show up to work on monday and cause some violence.  Studies also show that those that lose their job Monday-Wednesday tend to polish their resume right away and more quickly make looking for a new job their full time job, usually the next morning.  With most offices closed Saturday and Sunday, a fired person has nothing to do but sit and stew in their anger.  

2) Their news was ambiguous.  Your first reaction, Orcus, was that someone from wizards needed to come on right away and clarify it.  Reason they say something ambiguous so they don't feel like the bad guys.  Nobody wants to be the bearer of the bad news.  So saying something that is not wholely one thing or the other "weasels" themselves out of being the bad guy (to borrow the term from Scott Adams).  Their description was not as polished as a greater weasel, because initial reaction was negative.  

(For the record, Scott Adams does not use the term "weasel" in a bad way, but merely defines it as the "gigantic gray area between good moral behavior and outright felonious activities."  Usually only a greater weasel can spot a lesser weasel.  So maybe that makes me a greater weasel then Wizards.  I don't know.) 

So what is it that I see?  I have to agree with Joe Browning on this:  Wizards is following a logical path that has a logical conclusion, which is no public license.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 31, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> You had claimed they hadn't promised full compatibility.  I disputed that.  Actually read what is written b/c right now it merely appears you are just trying to pick fights.



I said Pathfinder was being released under the 3.5 OGL.  Which it is.  You then argued it wouldn't be very compatible:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Paizo is taking the 3.5OGl, pumping up the base classes, creating more work to be able to continue using your 3.5 adventures and other books you already own. They're doing this b/c they don't feel the core classes match up to later released classes. If the alpha stays anything like it is now, it's not making anything easier on the buying customer.



I _then_ said they hadn't promised complete compatibility.  Which they haven't.  And you argued:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Except where in the announcement and again in the alpha they speak about how important it is for them to be very compatible w/3.5?



So what *is* your position?  I'm not going to take crap from you arguing both sides of the issue.

For the record: my position is that Pathfinder will be released under the 3.5 OGL, but there are likely to be rules changes which make it somewhat incompatible with vanilla 3.5.  In the Alpha, those changes are extensive.  They've promised those changes will be reduced, and they say compatibility is one of their primary goals, but it's clear they're not committing to complete compatibility.







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I don't see how comparing someone who doesn't play D&D seeing an adventure, then their whole group spending about $400 on various gaming products is anything close to the same as people saying they would continue playing Paizo products that remain 3.5 (no mention of a possible Pathfinder RPG spinoff) or that they would upgrade to 4E.



So it's good I *never argued that point*.  You originally said:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes OGL games can drive sales of WotC products, but I have never seen an adventure that made me buy into a game system as described above.



I showed you a *whole thread* of people who saw some adventures and decided to buy into a game system, point unseen, because of the quality of them.

I never said those people in the Paizo thread had never played D&D before.  I never said they had never played 3.5 before.  I was showing you that _some_ gaming groups _do_ make their buying decisions based on the adventures rather than the system--and that's proved equally well by the number of people saying they would have switched to 4e if Paizo did.

I understand you think it was a poor example, and everyone on that thread is lying.  You can believe the OGL is a plot of the Trilateral Commission, for all I care.  But please stop lying about my position.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> This site would hardly continue to exist if we didn't impose organization upon it.  Without some segmentation, dealing with EN World is like drinking from a fire hose.
> 
> EN World, first and foremost, is (and has always been) here to discuss games - what people play, and how they play it.  If we start to actively push threads about particular movements to center stage, we cease to be a place of communication, and we become instead a place to push particular agendas.  There are other sites for that sort of thing.




I'm not challenging your decision. Its your decision, not mine. I'm just noting how time changes things, even ENWorld. I think "no open gaming? how would you respond"" is front page stuff for ENWorld. Arguing about details of the license and the specifics, that seems like OGL thread stuff to me. But its your call, not mine. 

I'm not asking you to push a thread. I'm just asking you to reconsider your decision. You have, and it apparently isnt being moved. End of story, in my opinion. 

I'm not sure ENWorld is first and foremost about just "games" generically. I think it is first and foremost about 3rd edition news, then it evolved into open gaming and third party publsihers, along with a continuing strong presence of 3E D&D content, so much so that it can clearly be claimed that ENWorld is the place with the strongest link of any boards to open gaming and D&D 3E. What place represents that more? I mean, for goodness sake, ENWorld publishing is a third party d20/OGL publisher that publishes stuff for 3E! How much more evidence does it take? 

I appreciate the need for forum rules. But I also dont think the site would "not continue to exist" if, nodding to the origins of this site, a thread discussing these issues was in teh main forum. 

It appears I have upset you, for whatever reason, based on the tone of your response to my suggestion. If so, I'm sorry. 

I made a request that I wanted considered, you considered it. Its done.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

It appears that this issue is now being discussed in the Meta forum. I posted my thoughts there. I wont discuss it anymore here.

Thanks for listening, even if you rule against me 

Clark


----------



## see (Mar 31, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> And, in the end, this is the company that saved D&D, opened up open gaming and continued to support it.



Well, my question would be, are they still that company?

This isn't the Adkison-run WotC which saved D&D.  This isn't the Ryan Dancey-run roleplaying division that invented open gaming.  And, as best I can tell, they stopped actively supporting open gaming a while back.  We had the 3.5 revision of the SRD, Unearthed Arcana was printed in February '04, and since then?  A far cry from the "fairly regular occurrence" the SRD FAQ still promises.

Maybe as a major publisher, you've been getting some inside support that those of us on the outside aren't seeing.  But it looks from here like Hasbro-WotC switched off support years ago.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 31, 2008)

see said:
			
		

> We had the 3.5 revision of the SRD, Unearthed Arcana was printed in February '04, and since then?  A far cry from the "fairly regular occurrence" the SRD FAQ still promises.




In all fairness, Wizards has added a number of Domains and feats to the SRD over the years.  Granted their total additions amount to less then the OGC in some 3rd party supplements, but additions are still additions.  

Domains and Spells

Feats and such


----------



## Jadeite (Mar 31, 2008)

They also added the Expanded Psionics Handbook. But of over 50 Base Classes, less then 20 are open game.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 31, 2008)

Jadeite said:
			
		

> They also added the Expanded Psionics Handbook.




Forgot about that one.


----------



## Delta (Mar 31, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> In all fairness, Wizards has added a number of Domains and feats to the SRD over the years.  Granted their total additions amount to less then the OGC in some 3rd party supplements, but additions are still additions.
> 
> Domains and Spells
> 
> Feats and such




All that stuff was added in the Divine SRD back in 2004, so that actually reinforces his point. Anything since 2004 from WOTC OGC?

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=122619


----------



## Orcus (Mar 31, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> All that stuff was added in the Divine SRD back in 2004, so that actually reinforces his point. Anything since 2004 from WOTC OGC?
> 
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=122619




I'm not sure this reflects a lack of support for open gaming. I think what it shows is how annoying the SRD is and how hard it is to update with content from new products.

They way they did it for 3E is not optimal from either Wizards' or our standpoint. We want to be able to reference all the new WotC stuff. That helps us help them sell books. But they dont want to have to edit and cut and reformat all the text from each book and jam it in the SRD. That takes time and man-hours of work, which is limited and which tehy can better use working on new books!

Which is why I have propesed doing a "smarter" SRD for 4E that essentially updates itself. It would be simple to do. BUT the result is that you would not have a searchable online rule book like you do for 3E (whcih I think is fine. while I love d20srd.org, i dont think that was ever the intent of the srd). 

I think it it was less of a pain and a time suck to update the srd that it would ahve been updated more.


----------



## Wardook (Mar 31, 2008)

*My 2 Cents*

I would not have seen this thread if it had not appeared in the main forum. I believe that this topic is very relevant to 4e. This is the best thread on this particular subject. 

I have a teenage son and have inducted him into geekdom, he plays in my group. We were at the local Borders one day and he asks me,"Dad what is this Book of Erotic Fantasy?" Luckily the book was sealed, but I was taken aback a little.

Back on topic.
Paizo is a good example of what can happen with an OGL. WoTC has been slapped in the face with this. What remains to be seen is how they will react. They already have let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back now. If they want to bring the d20 adopters along they will have to offer a new OGL, otherwise they don't have a reason to change to 4e. I have a feeling that they will try to put the genie back though and be more restrictive. This has little chance of success. This applies to people and companies who already play the game, new adopters will differ of course. From what I understand their initial push is for this group though. I do wish them luck and hope that they make intelligent decisions, because I do love this hobby.

Space


----------



## xechnao (Mar 31, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> BUT the result is that you would not have a searchable online rule book like you do for 3E (whcih I think is fine. while I love d20srd.org, i dont think that was ever the intent of the srd).
> 
> I think it it was less of a pain and a time suck to update the srd that it would ahve been updated more.




They will have already been providing this with DDI.


----------



## Delta (Mar 31, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think it it was less of a pain and a time suck to update the srd that it would ahve been updated more.




We'll have to agree to disagree about that one, Clark.


----------



## Roman (Apr 1, 2008)

I have made a poll on the issue of purchasing behavior with respect to 4E and whether it is open or closed. You can find it here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4138993&posted=1#post4138993


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 1, 2008)

> They already have let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back now. If they want to bring the d20 adopters along they will have to offer a new OGL, otherwise they don't have a reason to change to 4e.




Technically, they are replacing the Djinn with an Efreet.     Seriously, 3e and 4e are so different that it will be sufficiently new enough for people to consider it a new game.  The OGL version of D&D is the Djinn, while 4e is an Efreet, still a Genie, but the Djinn is out there and breeding like a rabbit, but the Efreet is guarded by Salamander Eunuchs and Mordenkainen's Chastity belt.


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 1, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> They will have already been providing this with DDI.




I can only speak for myself (obviously), but I'm a little skeptical that DDI is going to provide this in any sort of a timely manner.  So, instead of being out of date and free like the SRD, it will be out of date and cost money.

As for the BoEF, there's been a copy at my local Borders since it was released.  I think it caused more trauma in the industry than to the general public who mercifully didn't buy it.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 1, 2008)

I am all for a more restrictive GSL. I don't mind standards, as I think most of the 3rd party books I bought would have met them easily (GR's demons/devils books, Monte's Arcana Unearthed material, Tome of Horrors). It would be sad to lose the opportunity for new offshoot systems, like Mutants and Masterminds, but I can live with that. No big deal.

But I really want some kind of 3rd party support, even restrictive support. I don't believe that Wotc is capable of providing every different sourcebook that I might be interested in as some ideas just aren't worth their trouble, but I might be able to buy that book from a 3PP. I'd like that option. I'd like another Tome of Horrors, adventure paths, monster books, setting material, etc. 

Regardless, I'm sure that WotC has already essentially made its decision. All that's left is for them to finalize and announce it. So, I hope it's good news.


----------



## Wardook (Apr 1, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Technically, they are replacing the Djinn with an Efreet.     Seriously, 3e and 4e are so different that it will be sufficiently new enough for people to consider it a new game.  The OGL version of D&D is the Djinn, while 4e is an Efreet, still a Genie, but the Djinn is out there and breeding like a rabbit, but the Efreet is guarded by Salamander Eunuchs and Mordenkainen's Chastity belt.




I'm hardly a game designer, but folks on this thread have said that they believe they could get close to 4e under the OGL and give it a different name. 

I had more in mind current players not switching to 4e, but sticking with OGL material. Back in 1e days when I first started playing, we all sat down and figured out the rules together. That was a different era, most players are brought in from an existing DM these days. If current players don't switch en-mass? I've been pushing 4e with my group, we all have ordered the gift set from Amazon. The numbers from Amazon would indicate that WoTC is sitting pretty right now.


----------



## hossrex (Apr 1, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by hossrex
> > I can't help but to think that I have never personally gained any advantage from the Open Game License ...
> 
> 
> ...




LOL.  Unless third parties had an influence over the core books, the Forgotten Realms Campaign book, and a handful of class books...  I'm not wrong.

Everyone here just assumed that everyone uses SOME third party book, or...  I guess worst case scenario uses enough books for the official books to have been influenced by third parties.

Everyone here is transposing their own playing habits onto other people, and the fact that they don't realize it pretty much disproves everything they're saying.  Generalizations.  Assumptions.  Semantics.

We use the core books, and a VERY small splash of other stuff.  Most of our campaigns are from old Dragon Magazines, or updated second edition stuff.  Its silly to say "there isn't enough material to continue playing without using third party product" (which people have literally said above).  We've been playing since month One of 3.0, and aside from a couple *VERY* small breaks to play something else (Star Wars for six months, Hackmaster for about the same, and first edition DnD for another six months), we've never been without something to play.

If you're going to try to convince someone they're wrong, making fallacious assumptions about them probably isn't the best way to go about it.


----------



## Wardook (Apr 1, 2008)

*New Front Page*

They've updated some things. Any new word on the license?

Strike the above. I guess it's only the countdown, besides the silly April Fool's Joke.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 1, 2008)

That's just the April's Fool's day joke.


----------



## Jasperak (Apr 1, 2008)

I just ran Goodman Games The Transmuter's Last Touch over this past weekend, and it was much better than the sucktastic Return to The Temple of Elemental Evil. Nuff said about 3rd party publishers there.


----------



## mxyzplk (Apr 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> I just ran Goodman Games The Transmuter's Last Touch over this past weekend, and it was much better than the sucktastic Return to The Temple of Elemental Evil. Nuff said about 3rd party publishers there.




Yeah, really.  I am frankly surprised at all these folks who've never used 3p adventures - I hope they're rolling their own and not depending on the Wizards adventures.  That would be... sad.


----------



## see (Apr 1, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this reflects a lack of support for open gaming. I think what it shows is how annoying the SRD is and how hard it is to update with content from new products.




Quite possible.  

But, SRD updates (or other released of open content) would be at least one form of supporting for open gaming.  I can't think of anything Wizards has done since the last SRD updates in '04 that shows support for open gaming.  (Again, you'd be in a better position than I to judge something like that.)  And while individuals _at_ Wizards might support open gaming, there seems to have been only benign neglect from Wizards as a corporate entity for almost four years.


----------



## Grogtard (Apr 1, 2008)

So I've been ghosting here for years now.  Finally, this discussion just calls out to me say something.
First, I'm no expert on business.  I'm no expert on law or marketing.  I have no idea what WOTC's balance sheet looks like.  I'm just guy who likes to play RPG's.  
My peeve with WOTC.  First, they said 4th Ed was going to be OGL, then GSL and now the internet fervor has been riles up that it might be closed.  Could all this confusion be due to the suit at WOTC (Greg Leeds) , my personal guess.  Probably.  Think about the timing of that "final vetting".    Personally, I wish they would have just come out with and said, "This is the way 4th Edition will be...." on day one back at GenCon.
My thoughts on the OGL and what it's done for the gaming industry.  Let's face it lots.  I look at my book shelf and there's the Farscape RPG, Conan D20, OGL Horror, Monte Cook's World of Darkness and Mutants & Masterminds.  I don't want to even think about all the third party PDF's  I have sitting on my hard drive.  Throw in things like Spycraft, Stargate and many more d20 products. All that stuff is next to GURPS, Hero, White Wolf, Unisystem, Runequest, Savage Worlds and few other smaller non-d20 games.  And next to that there's all 3.0/3.5 books and d20 Modern.  So yes, I dip into lots of different games and systems.  I personally feel many of these products wouldn't have made it to my FLGS if it hadn't been for the OGL.  Yes, I admit that there was and still is a bunch of third party stuff that is just raging crap.  But there are good games and supplements too.
D&D has always been considered the "gateway" RPG that got most people into the hobby.  Having other games with a similar system keeps the new gamers in the hobby and more likely to still be around to buy 5th Edition.  In the meantime, they can learn play whatever non-d20 games that strike their fancy. IMHO, I think it's best for WOTC to open up 4th Ed.  It may not be what's best for their books in the short term but it just might help long term.  And it will help keep the gaming hobby alive.
Will this influence my design to buy 4th Edition?  Yeah, probably.  But I admit that it would only be out of spite and will probably cave if it's a good game.  (Personally, the jury is still out on that one.)
I've rambled long enough here.  Just keep it civil folks.  We're one big community even if we're playing different editions.


----------



## catsclaw (Apr 1, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> If you're going to try to convince someone they're wrong, making fallacious assumptions about them probably isn't the best way to go about it.



Nope.  You're still wrong.  If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you might understand why.

You claiming you haven't personally benefited from the OGL is like a native New Yorker saying they haven't personally benefited from the Interstate Highway System.  To the extent that the OGL expanded the size of the industry, employed a number of people who were able to freelance for WotC, and made it more profitable for WotC to publish books--you _have_ personally benefited.  Without touching a single d20 product yourself.


----------



## Delta (Apr 1, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I'd wait for close of business Monday to worry about the Rouse or Linnae not posting a reply to this thread or some other.




Okay, and now?


----------



## BadMojo (Apr 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Okay, and now?




Can someone email me when we're officially allowed to panic?


----------



## Wystan (Apr 1, 2008)

Seanchai said:
			
		

> I think the past tense is the problem here. I don't think it tarnish_ed_ D&D's image, but I do think it's a good example of a product that has the potential to do so. As I understand it, it was sold in major chains such as Barnes & Noble and Borders. I know it can be found on Amazon.com. It's there for concerned parents to run across.
> 
> But, really, in the context of this thread, I don't think of it as an example of something that tarnished D&D's image so much as an example of a OGL product that has the potential to turn folks away from D&D.
> 
> Seanchai





Just a note, there are copies of the BOEF in at least 4 book stores that I frequent, I have shown it to my non-roleplaying wife and she has called it disgusting and demented...so it is still affecting the image of RPG's...


----------



## Wystan (Apr 1, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> LOL.  Unless third parties had an influence over the core books, the Forgotten Realms Campaign book, and a handful of class books...  I'm not wrong.




Well, simply put, those third parties did have an impact on the books you name. The people that worked on them got their start in the 3rd party 'stuff' that you tend not to use. They added and changed D&D for all players with their innovations and they were absorbed by Wizards to do it on a more broad scale...

Any other questions?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Okay, and now?




Would you, in fact, believe anything they announced _today_?


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 1, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Would you, in fact, believe anything they announced _today_?




That would very entertaining.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 1, 2008)

Adding "DISCLAIMER:Yes it's April 1st but this is NOT an April Fool's joke" would do it for me


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Apr 1, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Would you, in fact, believe anything they announced _today_?




More significantly, if I were WotC and came back from the weekend and saw a 10-page thread in response to a rather short comment made on Friday, I'd very carefully go over my response with WotC legal, marketing, and various other people before releasing it into the wild.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 1, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> More significantly, if I were WotC and came back from the weekend and saw a 10-page thread in response to a rather short comment made on Friday, I'd very carefully go over my response with WotC legal, marketing, and various other people before releasing it into the wild.



Cause this is the first time a 10 page thread ever happened, and they need to consider this new intraweb thingy real quick.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 1, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> I just ran Goodman Games The Transmuter's Last Touch over this past weekend, and it was much better than the sucktastic Return to The Temple of Elemental Evil. Nuff said about 3rd party publishers there.




Hmm, I find your statement incredibly ironic and amusing, given that Return to Temple of Elemental Evil was written by Monte Cook, one of the premier 3rd party writers.

So yeah. Nuff said about 3rd party publishers, indeed!  

(For the record, I like Monte's stuff. But the irony was too good to ignore!  )


----------



## GentleGiant (Apr 2, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Just a note, there are copies of the BOEF in at least 4 book stores that I frequent, I have shown it to my non-roleplaying wife and she has called it disgusting and demented...so it is still affecting the image of RPG's...



So, I assume that she didn't read it (being a non-roleplaying wife I'd imagine she wouldn't understand much of the rule stuff anyway)?
No?
Sorry, in that case I'm putting this one down to a knee-jerk puritanical reaction.

Is BOEF a good book? Not really, but that's because it details a lot of things that really don't need detailing anyway - much like a book full of various statistics on how various kinds of alcohol, food and sleeping patterns  would affect your PCs woldn't really be all that useful.
It's a book concerning itself with sex and eroticism. Is sex and eroticism bad?
Have you shown your wife a copy of the Kama Sutra? If so, did she react the same way?
There's really nothing "demented and disgusting" about it, it's about sex, something all people (well, most anyway) engage in in their adult life.
To me (but hey, I'm European  ) all the fuss about BOEF is really much ado about nothing.


----------



## Henry (Apr 2, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> (For the record, I like Monte's stuff. But the irony was too good to ignore!  )




For the record, I love Monte's stuff, too, and RTTOE was not one of his better offerings. His stuff from Malhavoc has been much, much better, and the man can write a sourcebook like unto a god. But the megaadventures Wizards turns out I just don't like.


----------



## Bacris (Apr 2, 2008)

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC just didn't know what to say to all this blow-up.

It might be hard to say "4E will be Open" if that's not how the GSL is phrased, but since the GSL is under NDA, they can't say "4E will be licensed," especially if it's still under review.  They could come and say "No need to panic," but that might likely just cause more speculation or cause people to say "yeah right, they didn't deny it, 4E is closed."

I'm not saying no response is a good thing, I'm just saying it's the kind of situation where there might not be a good response to give, and a response may just add fuel to the fire when it really isn't as bad as folks fear.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 2, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC just didn't know what to say to all this blow-up.
> 
> It might be hard to say "4E will be Open" if that's not how the GSL is phrased, but since the GSL is under NDA, they can't say "4E will be licensed," especially if it's still under review.  They could come and say "No need to panic," but that might likely just cause more speculation or cause people to say "yeah right, they didn't deny it, 4E is closed."
> 
> I'm not saying no response is a good thing, I'm just saying it's the kind of situation where there might not be a good response to give, and a response may just add fuel to the fire when it really isn't as bad as folks fear.




The proper answer is from Liz and goes like this. "I'm sorry about my quote. I was in a hurry to give Mike a quote to give you guys something and I accidently said we were reviewing our Open Gaming Policy when I ment to say we were reviewing the Open Gaming License policy. I am still astounded  by the love of all the gamers for having 4e be open to some extent and how my leaving out one word could cause all this commotion. We are still committed to open gaming and are still finalizing the OGL so that everyone can work together in a way that allows for both WotC and Third Party Publishers to be successful in this transition to this great new edition. Sorry again about all this confusion."

To me that would be a wonderful answer that covers just about anything except that WotC really is considering making 4e closed.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 2, 2008)

Question to third party publishers:

What would your reaction have been at Gen Con 2007 if you were told you wouldn't get to see the license or the rules to the new game until at least April 2008?


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 2, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Question to third party publishers:
> 
> What would your reaction have been at Gen Con 2007 if you were told you wouldn't get to see the license or the rules to the new game until at least April 2008?




Not a publisher, but I have a feeling if it had been given out like that, you would have seen that 3.75 alliance of companies happen.  Several 3rd party publishers were talking about it rather freely here on ENWorld.  Now we just have the Pathfinder RPG, some companies sticking to their OGL material and not really sweating D&D and some who have closed up shop.


----------



## Andre (Apr 2, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Can someone email me when we're officially allowed to panic?




Panic is always acceptable. The only question is how much company you'll have.


----------



## Starman (Apr 2, 2008)

Andre said:
			
		

> Panic is always acceptable. The only question is how much company you'll have.




No one, 'cause they'll all be...dead! The sky is falling! Soylent Green is made of people! I can't take it anymore! :sobs:


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 2, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Just a note, there are copies of the BOEF in at least 4 book stores that I frequent, I have shown it to my non-roleplaying wife and she has called it disgusting and demented...so it is still affecting the image of RPG's...




The really ironic thing about the BOEF, is that it was by an ex-WOTCer (and a pretty big name one) and written by a WOTC staff member (who I think is still there?).


----------



## Grazzt (Apr 2, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The really ironic thing about the BOEF, is that it was by an ex-WOTCer (and a pretty big name one) and written by a WOTC staff member (who I think is still there?).




And edited by Andy Collins' wife (or future wife), IIRC.


----------



## Enkhidu (Apr 2, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The really ironic thing about the BOEF, is that it was by an ex-WOTCer (and a pretty big name one) and written by a WOTC staff member (who I think is still there?).




Anthony Valterra, right? IIRC, there was hubbub about the book being rushed to print to avoid the "new" morality guidelines of the d20 logo.


----------



## mxyzplk (Apr 2, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The really ironic thing about the BOEF, is that it was by an ex-WOTCer (and a pretty big name one) and written by a WOTC staff member (who I think is still there?).




Yeah, Gwendolyn Kestrel, she's credited with a large number of post-BoEF WotC works - MMIV, Howling Horde, Races of the Dragon, etc.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...ex=books&field-author=Gwendolyn F. M. Kestrel

I also don't have a problem with the BoEF.  People that say "oh it reflects poorly on the hobby" need to be neutered so they don't reprodce.  RPGs are a medium.  Like books, TV, movies, comics, etc.  I bet most of the people that say "Oh Lawdy a RPG book with !!!" go to see R-rated movies, etc.

Choice is good.  If you only want G-rated fantasy, you can go see Bridge to Terabithia, read Daffy Duck comics, and buy Races of Fluffy Bunnyness.  If you want R-rated fantasy you can go see Conan the Barbarian, read Transmetropolitan, and buy the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  Viewing all d20 as some comprehensive body of work that you need to guy into all of is ridiculous and no one but people against the BoEF ever claim it's a good idea.

This is another reason for openness.  Even the level of gore found in the Rise of the Runelords Pathfinder series would run afoul of WotC's baby-friendly "content standards", which are just as execrable as the old comics code.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 2, 2008)

> This is another reason for openness. Even the level of gore found in the Rise of the Runelords Pathfinder series would run afoul of WotC's baby-friendly "content standards", which are just as execrable as the old comics code.




But it's not up to you to decide.  It's up to the owner of the brand, the D&D and d20 owners, to decide.  Brands are powerful statements and I think it's up to WoTC to define their standards.  

This is one reason I'm for a licensed version of D&D but not the same level as the OGL.  Poor quality reflects poorly on the brand, as well as things that don't reflect their standards of taste and ethics/morals.  Franchises and licenses usually have those types of requirements.

If you don't like it, play another game, or find a game that's truly open and decentralized so nobody's in charge.


----------



## mxyzplk (Apr 2, 2008)

Sure, that's why if they keep on this retarded path it's Pathfinder RPG all the way baby!  Everyone keeps harping that it's "their decision" - sure.  It is.  And those decisions are going to lose them customers, so they are bad decisions.  No one contests their right to drive D&D into the ground if they'd like.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 2, 2008)

Based on the polls going on, I don't think the amount of customer loss will be significant, especially if they do license it but have more stringent standards.  Right now only 5-7% need it to be of the level of the OGL.

I've got no problems with "freedom of speech" arguments, but I do blanch on others saying it's their right to have complete freedom with other's creations.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Based on the polls going on, I don't think the amount of customer loss will be significant, especially if they do license it but have more stringent standards.  Right now only 5-7% need it to be of the level of the OGL.
> 
> I've got no problems with "freedom of speech" arguments, but I do blanch on others saying it's their write to have complete freedom with other's creations.




5-7% is significant. The fact here IMO is that the value of the poll is insignificant.


----------



## Wystan (Apr 2, 2008)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> So, I assume that she didn't read it (being a non-roleplaying wife I'd imagine she wouldn't understand much of the rule stuff anyway)?
> No?
> Sorry, in that case I'm putting this one down to a knee-jerk puritanical reaction.
> 
> ...




Yes she actually opened it and saw what it contained...on that note, she also plays Runebound and Magic the Gathering so does understand what roleplaying is about, just not her cup of Tea... However, that book was marketed at pre-teens and teens. It was a slap in the face of roleplaying to put it out there to Tweak Wizards nose. It does not need to be read by parents to have them nay say roleplaying based on it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> But it's not up to you to decide.  It's up to the owner of the brand, the D&D and d20 owners, to decide.  Brands are powerful statements and I think it's up to WoTC to define their standards.



I think you've said that a million times by now.

They can start using their trademark for wholemeal donuts instead if they want. What is your point? Can't customers have opinions? Isn't it a good idea for companies to listen to their customers?


----------



## xechnao (Apr 2, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I think you've said that a million times by now.
> 
> They can start using their trademark for wholemeal donuts instead if they want. What is your point? Can't customers have opinions? Isn't it a good idea for companies to listen to their customers?




I believe that the fact is that not everyone around here is just customers.


----------



## GentleGiant (Apr 2, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Yes she actually opened it and saw what it contained...on that note, she also plays Runebound and Magic the Gathering so does understand what roleplaying is about, just not her cup of Tea... However, that book was marketed at pre-teens and teens.



Who marketed it to pre-teens and teens? The bookstore? Nothing on the book itself proclaims this.
RPGs and D&D are wide ranging products, some appeal to "kill the monsters and loot the treasure, then onwards to the next dungeon" players and some appeal to "you have now successfully infiltrated the King's court" players and some appeal to all the people in between.
So, are you making the argument that just because it's D&D (well, OGL really) it's automatically marketed at pre-teens and teens?
Would you argue that for every single OGL product out there?



			
				Wystan said:
			
		

> It was a slap in the face of roleplaying to put it out there to Tweak Wizards nose.



Hardly, I'll again argue that it's only people who have issues with sexuality, and average to bad RPG design, who really have a problem with BOEF (and the latter could be said of many, many other products, so it really comes back to issues with sexuality).



			
				Wystan said:
			
		

> It does not need to be read by parents to have them nay say roleplaying based on it.



I'd argue that parents who dismiss a whole hobby, especially one as diverse as RPGs, because of one single book have other issues they need to deal with.


----------



## Orcus (Apr 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Based on the polls going on, I don't think the amount of customer loss will be significant, especially if they do license it but have more stringent standards.  Right now only 5-7% need it to be of the level of the OGL.
> 
> I've got no problems with "freedom of speech" arguments, but I do blanch on others saying it's their right to have complete freedom with other's creations.




I agree with this post in general. My guess is that the customer loss for not doing 4E under the OGL would not be huge (it would be some, but not that huge. 5-7% seems about right to me as a gut number). BUT I think the loss would be more significant if not open at all. 

I have long said I understand the desire for a GSL with the old restrictions from the STL/Guide worked in. As a result, I predicted Wizards would choose this path.

However, the other issue is simply annoyance factor. It would be far EASIER to simply do it under the OGL. It is an existing license. It is well-understood. The mechanism for releasing content is clear and easy. The risk of competing products is pretty small, particularly since they already exist any courtesy of the current OGL and SRD.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Why not just release it under the OGL? The protections of a GSL are of less value since the 3E SRD allows for all those types of products anyway taht they are worried about (to the extent they are even worried). I'm not sure it is worth the man hours and headache to make a new license. 

Just a thought. 

Clark


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 3, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Yes she actually opened it and saw what it contained...on that note, she also plays Runebound and Magic the Gathering so does understand what roleplaying is about, just not her cup of Tea... However, that book was marketed at pre-teens and teens. It was a slap in the face of roleplaying to put it out there to Tweak Wizards nose. It does not need to be read by parents to have them nay say roleplaying based on it.





Try again.  Direct quote from the introduction section:

"Warning! Adult Content! The Book of Erotic Fantasy is a sourcebook that deals with the topics of sex in the world of fantasy roleplaying games, written with the adult player in mind. It
deals with mature adult subjects and is not meant for immature players."

The book was a book to cover a niche not covered.  I can't find any pictures of the back cover of the book to review, but I seem to recall a similar "mature audience" message there as well.  White Wolf has the Black Dog Games line of books that are usually full of more sex and violence than normal and they don't get run out of the industry for it.  Yes it's their game not a license owned by another company, but the book was legal when it was produced.  

I don't see an issue w/it, but I also believe in personal responsibility and (as a parent) I believe it is the parent's job to pay attention to what their kid is buying and not blindly buy them GTA when they are 13.  Many parents don't see things that way, but then want to go off about how X or Y is so terrible for their kid.  After they ignored warnings on the product and bought it anyway.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 3, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I can't find any pictures of the back cover of the book to review, but I seem to recall a similar "mature audience" message there as well.




In capital letters on the back, "THIS PRODUCT IS FOR MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY."  



> _I don't see an issue w/it, but I also believe in personal responsibility and (as a parent) I believe it is the parent's job to pay attention to what their kid is buying and not blindly buy them GTA when they are 13.  Many parents don't see things that way, but then want to go off about how X or Y is so terrible for their kid.  After they ignored warnings on the product and bought it anyway._




I could not possibly agree with this more.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think the OGL actually hurt us because instead of having a heterogenous market with a wider variety we just have a lot of semi-, demi-, quasi-, and psuedo- versions of D&D 3e.  Maybe if the license is more restrictive, people will focus on building good games from the ground up and actually create something really innovative.





I dont know about that....OGL gave us some pretty GOOD things: Ptolus and AE, Iron heros and Iron Kingdoms. And more thana few other things.


----------



## Michael Morris (Apr 3, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not challenging your decision. Its your decision, not mine. I'm just noting how time changes things, even ENWorld. I think "no open gaming? how would you respond"" is front page stuff for ENWorld. Arguing about details of the license and the specifics, that seems like OGL thread stuff to me. But its your call, not mine.




ENWorld 2 supports the ability to promote threads to news items.  A news hound can write up a summary or introduction to the ongoing conversation of the thread, then the comment link can lead into the thread itself. The hope is to highlight the best threads of the board on the front page regardless of the forum in which they are classified.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 3, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Yes she actually opened it and saw what it contained...on that note, she also plays Runebound and Magic the Gathering so does understand what roleplaying is about, just not her cup of Tea... However, that book was marketed at pre-teens and teens. It was a slap in the face of roleplaying to put it out there to Tweak Wizards nose.



And yet Gwendolyn M Kestrel -- wife of Andy Collins and is one of the book's contributors along with former WotC Prez Anthony Valterra -- is still on Wizards payroll.

I don't know about being marketed to teens and pre-teens. The FLGS retailer should have exercised reasonable judgment when it comes to displaying their inventory. Then again, it's not like family-friendly Borders have put their adult magazines in the back of the cashier's counter which can be viewed upon request.

But as everyone noted here, it does have a mature warning label.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 3, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And yet Gwendolyn M Kestrel -- wife of Andy Collins and is one of the book's contributors along with former WotC Prez Anthony Valterra -- is still on Wizards payroll.




Actually, just for the record, Gwen left WotC mid- to late last year. (It was, also for the record, a personal decision on her part to do so.)


----------



## bramadan (Apr 3, 2008)

I don't give a fig for puritanism and even less for scandalizing the kids.
Hell, I wrote the campaign setting and rules to support it where one of the most popular classes is courtesan-assassin and where stuff like seduction and sex are about as common as combat in the actual gameplay. 

That said, BoEF is a piece of garbage

I bought it exactly because I was looking for good, well thought out rules for using sexuality in RPGs. For things like virginity bonuses for paladins, sexual sacrifices for necromancers, seduction rules to match DnD combat rules in complexity, charm and enchant effects (magical and mundane) available to skilled courtesans - generally things to bring sexuality into the context of an adventure game. 

Instead it was 95% full of such inanities as the "spell to make your dick bigger" and "magical nipple rings". It was a book aimed squarely at the most juvenile segment of DnD market and the fact that it had those "Mature" warnings only made it more so. 

There was OGL crap before - hell there was some fairly bad WotC stuff as well - but no published book was ever so _egregiously_ horrible on every level - from good taste to gaming applicability. Subject matter notwithstanding if I were a company I would make damn sure I do whatever I could to prevent such items from ever being associated with my IP again.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 3, 2008)

Bramadan, I found your points quite interesting regarding the things you were looking for and didn't find in the BoEF. That said, I don't understand your comments about not liking what was there.



			
				bramadan said:
			
		

> For things like virginity bonuses for paladins, sexual sacrifices for necromancers, seduction rules to match DnD combat rules in complexity, charm and enchant effects (magical and mundane) available to skilled courtesans - generally things to bring sexuality into the context of an adventure game.




All of these things sound cool, though I'd think that seduction rules that are as complex as combat rules would be a little too much. That sounds like it'd almost be making combat-style interaction rules. Likewise, there seemed to be plenty of charm and enchant effects, which a courtesan-style character could use.



> _Instead it was 95% full of such inanities as the "spell to make your dick bigger" and "magical nipple rings". It was a book aimed squarely at the most juvenile segment of DnD market and the fact that it had those "Mature" warnings only made it more so. _




This part I don't understand. I don't recall any such spell or magic item. That said, such an item doesn't sound like a necessarily bad idea, since magic items are a standard d20 staple, so magic nipple rings seem like an obvious idea (though, as I mentioned, the book didn't seem to have any, except for that piercer PrC). 

Also, in a book about sex and sexuality, with photoshopped images of naked people, why does a "mature" warning make it juvenile?



> _There was OGL crap before - hell there was some fairly bad WotC stuff as well - but no published book was ever so egregiously horrible on every level - from good taste to gaming applicability._




I personally think the BoEF needed more material that went beyond just new crunch - it should have given an entire sex-based adventure, and some sort of location or setting to show how the material is used, among other things - but the stuff it had seemed applicable, and not in bad taste. It just wasn't anything particularly special.


----------



## hossrex (Apr 4, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Nope.  You're still wrong.  If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you might understand why.
> 
> You claiming you haven't personally benefited from the OGL is like a native New Yorker saying they haven't personally benefited from the Interstate Highway System.  To the extent that the OGL expanded the size of the industry, employed a number of people who were able to freelance for WotC, and made it more profitable for WotC to publish books--you _have_ personally benefited.  Without touching a single d20 product yourself.




WTF are you talking about?  I'm telling you that aside from the core books, we bought the Forgotten Realms book, and a VERY small handful of other class books.

You're *STILL* telling me that I've benefited from an expanded industry...  even though I've not bought/used/read/cared about/had any interest in/etc any product created by this industry?

LOL!

People who've never touched "a single d20 product" have benefited from the OGL?

LOL!

You crack me up!

Lets try someone different, see if they make more sense.



			
				Wystan said:
			
		

> Well, simply put, those third parties did have an impact on the books you name. The people that worked on them got their start in the 3rd party 'stuff' that you tend not to use. They added and changed D&D for all players with their innovations and they were absorbed by Wizards to do it on a more broad scale...
> 
> Any other questions?




Um?  Yes?

First question:  How does this effect someone who still uses almost exclusively core books?  How does this 'back slide effect' help people who don't use content that was released after said 'back slide'?

You're all still assuming that everyone is using new books.  You're all still assuming that everyone is going out every month and buying DnD content.  That simply isn't true.  I've tried to say that ten times now.  Some groups are happy with the content they had with the edition came out, and don't generally expand upon that.

Your "reasoning" (and I am being generous) requires that a person be constantly buying books...  and that they be buying WotC books.  I entirely agree, as was indicated in my previous post (the part where I said something to the effect of 'if you buy enough books that the books you buy have been influenced by the newer books'), that the new WotC books have something to be thankful of from the third party books.  It is, as is any, a synergistic market.  Product A builds to product B, which was necessary for Product C.

If you enjoy product C, you can't say it would have happened without product A (well, you can...  but even I'm not arguing that at the moment).

I'm however saying that while "Product A" (first party content) led to "product B" (third party content), which in turn led to "product C" (another piece of first party product)...  none of that matters if all a person plays with is "Product A".

The person who plays with "Product B", and "Product C" might be beholden to the person who created "Product A", but yet the person who only plays with "Product A" is in no way beholden to the person who created "Product B", or "Product C".

This is simple economics, and wishful thinking is interfering.  That so many fail to recognize the bias interfering with their opinions is just sad.  That so many think there personal preference would be for the best of WotC is pathetic.

Not everyone has the same gaming trends as you.  Not everyone has the same gaming trends as me.

The problem is that I'm allowing for other people to trend differently from myself, and you are not.

Epic.  Fail.


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 4, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> WTF are you talking about?  I'm telling you that aside from the core books, we bought the Forgotten Realms book, and a VERY small handful of other class books.
> 
> You're *STILL* telling me that I've benefited from an expanded industry...  even though I've not bought/used/read/cared about/had any interest in/etc any product created by this industry?




Yup...I'll say it...YOU benefited....most probably. By letting other companies work on the less profitable aspects, WotC was free to devote all their time and effort to the core stuff. If someone complained that Faerun was getting too much attention, WotC could say, "This is where our focus is but Company X is doing the things you want. Go see them. See we are one big happy family!" This was the reason I was able to buy so many good Dragonlance source books (Thank you Margaret Weis Productions). I also got lots of modules to run in my games (Thanks Goodman and all the others...even those guys who aren't incorporated and selling their stuff at $5 a pop at RPGNow). 

I'll be the first to admit the benefit might not be direct or even quantifiable, but its there EVEN if you didn't buy a single product outside WotC.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 4, 2008)

Less rudeness, folks. It distracts from the point you're trying to make.


----------



## catsclaw (Apr 4, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> WTF are you talking about?  I'm telling you that aside from the core books, we bought the Forgotten Realms book, and a VERY small handful of other class books ... People who've never touched "a single d20 product" have benefited from the OGL? ... LOL! .. You crack me up! ... Lets try someone different, see if they make more sense.



Just because you can't imagine the world is round, it doesn't mean it must be flat.

Somewhere in the depths of WotC, before they write a splatbook or a campaign setting or an adventure, they hold a meeting.  And at that meeting they discuss the likely health of the industry when the book is released, and how their previous sales did, and their expected profit, and how much money they're going to spend on art and freelancers and paper and ink, and whether it makes sense to risk publishing the product at all.

The larger the RPG market is, the easier those decisions are.  If you double the number of potential buyers, you double your potential profit.  To the extent that the OGL increased the size of the audience--yes, you _have_ benefited from the OGL.  Because that audience means Wizards of the Coast makes more money, and publishes more books, and _those_ are books you _do_ buy.



			
				hossrex said:
			
		

> Epic.  Fail.



Classy.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 4, 2008)

hossrex said:
			
		

> You're *STILL* telling me that I've benefited from an expanded industry...  even though I've not bought/used/read/cared about/had any interest in/etc any product created by this industry?



Yes, you most certainly have.  You may be oblivious to how that works.  But that doesn't change anything.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 4, 2008)

Of course, if you only ever bought the 3 core books and never buy another D&D book again for the span of the edition, you aren't much of a WotC customer now are you?


----------

