# GSL news.



## TheLordWinter

Hey all! Just saw this on Wizard's main page:

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

    Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.

    The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.

    The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.

    Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.


----------



## Stormtalon

> Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.




This part is interesting, for sure.  Sounds like 4E Spycraft and other such things might be feasable after all....

Hmmm, on further reading it sure looks like the $5000 early buy-in fee has been dispensed with.  Iiiiinteresting.


----------



## Wystan

This might be why Orcus has gone quiet as of late...


----------



## DanChops

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Hmmm, on further reading it sure looks like the $5000 early buy-in fee has been dispensed with.  Iiiiinteresting.




Indeed - kudos to WotC for realizing that the $5000 fee was not really feasible this late in the game.

I wonder which companies got contacted?


----------



## breschau

Those that bought into the 5 grand damn well better get something for that chunk o' change.


----------



## BSF

There was never an opportunity for anybody to pay anything.  So, nobody is out any money at this point.


----------



## DanChops

breschau said:
			
		

> Those that bought into the 5 grand damn well better get something for that chunk o' change.




Hopefully someone who knows will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that no one bought into the 5 grand - that wasn't going to be available until the new license was ready, and since the new license took so long, they seem to have dispensed with the 5 grand fee.  

Instead, they appear to have identified a select group of companies, presumably those with good reputations, and given them early access to the license for free so that they can have products ready on October 1st.


----------



## Dragonblade

breschau said:
			
		

> Those that bought into the 5 grand damn well better get something for that chunk o' change.




No one paid anything.


----------



## Saitou

Incoming Necromancer Games announcement in five.... four.....


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Great news!

We'll have to get a cleaning crew to mop up the mess from the conspiracy theorists - their heads just 'sploded all over the place.


----------



## JeffB

Good news!

Glad to see they got this worked out internally


----------



## MatrexsVigil

I wonder who and when I need to contact someone to get this 4e GSL or at least try and register to get it...

-P.C.


----------



## Xorn

So this means that VTTs like Fantasy Grounds will be able to provide a ready made character sheet and SRD module, correct?


----------



## Halivar

My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.

EDIT: Kudos the WotC. While I never purchased, nor cared to purchase 3rd-party content, it pleases me on an ideological level that WotC has decided to offer the GSL as a free license with an SRD. It shows good-faith and good-will; something the corporate gaming industry can continue to learn from.


----------



## Dragonblade

Xorn said:
			
		

> So this means that VTTs like Fantasy Grounds will be able to provide a ready made character sheet and SRD module, correct?




We won't know until June 6. The SRD won't be publicly available until that time.


----------



## JeffB

Halivar said:
			
		

> My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.




Maybe as some kind of competition to WOTC sales (if it EVER was), but Pathfinder I'd suspect is FAR from "done" as a system. It will continue to be a refuge for those who dont want to go with 4E or become disenchanted with it after trying it.


----------



## bgardner

Halivar said:
			
		

> My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.




Why?  I don't see this announcement affecting Pazio's plans at all.


----------



## Piratecat

Halivar said:
			
		

> My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.



I hope not. They're going to do great things. They're just _different_ great things than the 4e line.

To confirm, no one paid the $5K licensing fee. So no problems there.

And heads up, gang: this is NOT the thread to discuss merits or concerns about Pathfinder, except specifically how Paizo is affected by the GSL. Please shunt that conversation off into a different thread if it interests you.


----------



## Baka no Hentai

Well I'm sure the fact that A.)  There is a GSL out and B.) Publishers wont have to buy-in to it is good news for those that enjoy buying third party products.

Im curious to see just what exactly it allows publishers to do with 4E and what other restrictions may be in place, but its good to see some movement on this front.


----------



## Halivar

JeffB said:
			
		

> Maybe as some kind of competition to WOTC sales (if it EVER was)



That was the implication I was making; not that Paizo would suddenly drop it (if I remember correctly that the lack of GSL was not the reason for the creation of the Pathfinder system).

For the success of 3rd-party content, (I believe, IMO, that) community involvement is essential. Without a GSL, Pathfinder is the obvious second-best place for 3rd-party publishers "re-center" the open-gaming community. With free-and-clear GSL, I don't think there will be such a shift at all.

Hence the "stick a fork in it" comment. Sorry if there was confusion.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

breschau said:
			
		

> Those that bought into the 5 grand damn well better get something for that chunk o' change.




No publisher paid a fee since the license was delayed.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

This is really good news, and so far looks even less restricting than expected. 

It's always nice to be pleasantly surprised!


----------



## SteveC

Well this is certainly, on the surface, EXTREMELY good news. The devil's in the details, however...I'd quote The Wolf from Pulp Fiction if it weren't entirely against the grandma rule.

I'm excited, however. I guess this means one shouldn't doubt Orcus about things like this. I hope this means we'll see the new Necro stuff at Gen Con.

So color me modestly    by this news!

--Steve


----------



## Saitou

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> No publisher paid a fee since the license was delayed.



Scott
Hey Scott

Tell us who are the publishers who have ealry access pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase  :3


----------



## Harshax

Halivar said:
			
		

> My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.
> 
> EDIT: Kudos the WotC. While I never purchased, nor cared to purchase 3rd-party content, it pleases me on an ideological level that WotC has decided to offer the GSL as a free license with an SRD. It shows good-faith and good-will; something the corporate gaming industry can continue to learn from.



 Pathfinder had to have some small part in the announcement. I mean, if you read the polls on paizo, the support for their RPG is significant. Just my opinion.

And I hope the Pathfinder RPG is hugely successful. While I don't play 3.5, and have no plans to buy 4.0 at this time, more RPGs means more ideas to steal for my own game (Savage Worlds).


----------



## Brown Jenkin

How come the publishers get to see the license early and not everyone else?


----------



## Scott_Rouse

DanChops said:
			
		

> Indeed - kudos to WotC for realizing that the $5000 fee was not really feasible this late in the game.
> 
> I wonder which companies got contacted?





I will let them speak for themselves and they may not say anything until they finalize/execute the the license. 

I will say that they were many of the companies that gave us great feedback at GenCon last year, were on the call in January, and that you really want to see products come from.

It's a good day!


----------



## RichGreen

Really good news!


Richard


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Great news 

Lol, the D&D staff must be all grins with releasing all this new game-info and the GSL info, etc.


----------



## withak

I have celebrated this announcement by buying my first third-party product! (Okay, I was planning on buying it anyway, but it's a happy coincidence, no?  )


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> How come the publishers get to see the license early and not everyone else?




Because they are in the business of publishing for sale products and the ones that we wanted to see make stuff for 4e ASAP.  They were some of the first to commit to the NDAs and were willing to pay the $5k before we eliminated the idea of an early dev kit.

I don't think it is a big deal for everyone else to wait until June.


----------



## Stormtalon

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I will let them speak for themselves and they may not say anything until they finalize/execute the the license.




Before anyone jumps on this, I think it best to posit that Scott _probably_ means "may not" as a probability reference ("It may not come to that," "He may chop your nose off, he may not," etc) rather than as a prohibitory thing ("No, you may not do that.")

Of course, only The Rouse knows for sure, but that's how I'm reading it (does that make me an apologist?  I need to keep score, after all).

(Why, yes, I am fond of parenthetical expressions, why do you ask?)


----------



## Henrix

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> It's a good day!



Amen to that!


----------



## dmccoy1693

Halivar said:
			
		

> My prediction is that we can stick a fork in Pathfinder as an independent system.




Pathfinder was never meant to be a replacement for D&D, but a system for those that WANT to stick with a game closer to 3.5.  It is in no danger of being "done" since Pathfinder is a game that some want, regardless that the 4E license is actually seeing the light of day.

EDIT:  And to the Wizards team, Congrats.  Glad to see that things are moving along.


----------



## Tewligan

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> How come the publishers get to see the license early and not everyone else?



So they can get to work publishing, obviously.


----------



## eleran

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> How come the publishers get to see the license early and not everyone else?





Who else needs to see it, and why do they need to see it?


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Before anyone jumps on this, I think it best to posit that Scott _probably_ means "may not" as a probability reference ("It may not come to that," "He may chop your nose off, he may not," etc) rather than as a prohibitory thing ("No, you may not do that.")
> 
> Of course, only The Rouse knows for sure, but that's how I'm reading it (does that make me an apologist?  I need to keep score, after all).
> 
> (Why, yes, I am fond of parenthetical expressions, why do you ask?)





Yes this was a little vague. We have interested partners and I will let them speak up about their thoughts and plans for the future.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

Perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't know if I ever knew who WotC was talking to earlier in the year.

Does anyone know who was (or might have been) part of that January call?


----------



## keterys

I have to admit. This has been a great week for 4E news/marketing.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Because they are in the business of publishing for sale products and the ones that we wanted to see make stuff for 4e ASAP.  They were some of the first to commit to the NDAs and were willing to pay the $5k before we eliminated the idea of an early dev kit.
> 
> I don't think it is a big deal for everyone else to wait until June.




I have no problems with NDAs on the SRD and actual rules. Yes publishers need the rules early and there is good reason for them to have those rules early and to have an NDA on the rules. The license though has no IP. It would be nice to know though what kind of third party support we could expect, what the rules are for setting up our own websites and reuse of the material on those sites. This can effect some peoples choice to purchase or not. Unfortunately by keeping this info secret (again this is not about not the SRD) people will make assumptions about what they think is being kept from them and likely make the worst assumptions possible. 

As for me I don't think it is a big deal to make the license public now. Unfortunately by your statement that you think it isn't a big deal to wait comes off as either it being an arbitrary decision to keep it secret, or that you are dodging the question as to why.


----------



## Piratecat

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't know if I ever knew who WotC was talking to earlier in the year.
> 
> Does anyone know who was (or might have been) part of that January call?



I don't have time to track it down right now, but my news article on the call listed every company that was part of it. That might help.


----------



## LordArchaon

keterys said:
			
		

> I have to admit. This has been a great week for 4E news/marketing.




Yes.
Purely hypothetically speaking, I guess they gained something near to 50% more buyers this week.
Reason number one the preview of better and/or more comprehensibly improved monsters, reason number two this free GSL announcement. Because they gained both on the product quality side, and on the "company moral" side... 

Me, I was bought since the beginning, I'm always optimist towards changes, even more if they're presented as improvements by a company which really managed to improve things since 3.0. I tried to play 3.0 Icewind Dale videogame some time ago, and I got bored in few minutes by the rules themselves. On the other side, my 3.5 campaign which always had feat retraining, no penalty for multiclassing, and no banned material when it was from WotC, is a completely different thing. 4e is just going to be EVEN BETTER.


----------



## mach1.9pants

As has already been said- excellent news! I am not a huge buyer of 3rd part stuff (10 or so hard backs, WotBS mainly) but I am really excited about the Necromancer APHB. Just to have some of the classic (not included) classes we can use, straight away. When the official ones come out I will keep the Necro or swap as I see fit.

And to those WotEE*C/PFoH** conspiracy theorists, time to start on the next ones, eh? 

*Wizards of the Evil Empire's Coast
**Peoples Front of Hasbro, terrorist organisation.


----------



## Lacyon

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Unfortunately by your statement that you think it isn't a big deal to wait comes off as either it being an arbitrary decision to keep it secret, or that you are dodging the question as to why.




It doesn't really seem that way to me. It looks pretty clear that the reason is just to give a bit of a reward to those were willing to commit early:



			
				The Rouse said:
			
		

> They were some of the first to commit to the NDAs and were willing to pay the $5k before we eliminated the idea of an early dev kit.


----------



## Morrus

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I don't have time to track it down right now, but my news article on the call listed every company that was part of it. That might help.




Yes, people can deduce from that if they want to make the effort to track down that news article.

Obviously, I wouldn't speak for other the publishers involved, but I will confirm that EN Publishing is _very_ happy to be able to to participate fully.  And, while I can't reveal the contents of the Q&A part of the email, I can say that 4E WotBS is a go (deduce from what what you will).

I'm sure other publishers will identify themselves (the email sent gave them permisison to do so, NDAs notwithstanding).


----------



## CleverNickName

I can always tell when there has been a major news release regarding 4th Edition: ENWorld's bandwidth drops to nil.  

A couple of comments, both from the announcement and from reading the posts so far in this thread.

1.  This is the best news I've heard all year.  Seriously.  It looks like I will be able to play 4E with my online friends using Fantasy Grounds just like we do with 3.x, and that is the _biggest and best selling point I have seen for 4E thus far_ for my little gaming group.  Bar none.

2.  Pathfinder was never intended to be a replacement for 4th Edition.  If anything, it was presented as an alternative system to both 3.5 and 4E.  It has always stood alone, for good or bad, and will continue to do so.  Like GURPs.

3.  Maybe the SRD could have more generic names for powers and feats?  You know, in the same way that "Tenser's Floating Disk" became "Floating Disk" in the 3.5 SRD?  This would make me happy...and save me a lot of trouble when/if I start a 4E game.

4.  Publishers get to see the OGL and the SRD before anyone else simply because they are _publishers_: they are creating demand for the main product by increasing the amount of accessories.   Making them available to the general public before the release of the initial product could decrease demand, and nobody wants that.

5.  Glad to hear it, Morrus.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

In case anyone else was wondering like I was, here is the excerpt from the News page:

WotC announces plans for 4e SRD and OGL: On January 7th 2008, Wizards of the Coast held a courtesy call with the 3rd party publishers who had expressed close interest in gaining advance access to the 4e rules. Attending the call were:

    * Adamant Entertainment
    * EN Publishing
    * Expeditious Retreat Press
    * Fantasy Flight Games
    * Goodman Games
    * Green Ronin Publishing
    * Mongoose Publishing
    * Necromancer Games
    * Paizo Publishing
    * Paradigm Concepts
    * Privateer Press

On the line for WotC were Scott Rouse, Linae Foster (Licensing Manager), Sara Girard, Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, and Chris Perkins.


----------



## James Jacobs

Yup; to reinforce what several folk have already said... the Pathfinder RPG isn't Paizo's crazy attempt to replace D&D. Far from it. If there's room in today's market for Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Mutants and Masterminds, True20, etc. etc... there's room for the Pathfinder RPG.

I'm really excited about the GSL news, in any event. YAY!


----------



## Rauol_Duke

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I don't have time to track it down right now, but my news article on the call listed every company that was part of it. That might help.




Here it is.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Attending the call were:
> Adamant Entertainment
> EN Publishing
> Expeditious Retreat Press
> Fantasy Flight Games
> Goodman Games
> Green Ronin Publishing
> Mongoose Publishing
> Necromancer Games
> Paizo Publishing
> Paradigm Concepts
> Privateer Press
> On the line for WotC were Scott Rouse, Linae Foster (Licensing Manager), Sara Girard, Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, and Chris Perkins.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> 4.  Publishers get to see the OGL and the SRD before anyone else simply because they are _publishers_: they are creating demand for the main product by increasing the amount of accessories.   Making them available to the general public before the release of the initial product could decrease demand, and nobody wants that.




No one is arguing about the SRD and not releasing that before June. No one is arguing that publishers need that information early or that their accessories won't increase demand. 

What seems to happen allot is that the GSL and the SRD get conflated and tied together. This is not the case. The GSL provides the rules for using the SRD, it does not contain any information in the SRD. Unless the GSL has really bad provisions that would offend the D&D community there is not as far as I can see a good reason to keep the terms of the GSL secret, especially if the plan is to release it publicly anyway. Keeping the terms of the GSL secret has no impact one way or another on whether 3rd parties will publish anything to support 4E or not, or how soon those publications can get to press or not.


----------



## Ydars

This announcement is a triumph for WoTC; they have done EXACTLY the right thing and anyone who accuses them of not listening to us (by which I mean we, the community on EN World) are not looking hard enough.

I have detected an enormous WoTC presence on these boards in the last week (Le Rouse and Mike Mearls have been all over the forums) and all the comments from WoTC staff seem designed to engage with us in a positive way. 

I applaud the creation/release of the GSL, the fact that WoTC have obviously said to all the 3PPs that they can make public their support for 4E, and the fact that this is obviously a way of allaying the considerable fears that many of us expressed about the inclusion of 3rd party publishers in support for 4E.

Oh and by the way; those in on the conference call with WoTC were 

Adamant Entertainment 
EN Publishing 
Expeditious Retreat Press 
Fantasy Flight Games 
Goodman Games 
Green Ronin Publishing 
Mongoose Publishing 
Necromancer Games 
Paizo Publishing 
Paradigm Concepts 
Privateer Press


----------



## mach1.9pants

Morrus said:
			
		

> ... I can say that 4E WotBS is a go (deduce from what what you will)...



w00t! I hope that it will be both a convert to 4E of existing (with a nice reduced price for those of us who already have 3E ) and a new WotBS campaign starting from 1st 
For both, count me in!


----------



## mach1.9pants

@Brown Jenkin: I agree that the _GSL_ should be released for public consumption now, I can see no reason not to. It doesn't mean there is no reason. However I disagree with your inference that they are trying to hide something. I would imagine that Hasbro legal has some reason that we just don't know about, maybe even how the GSL and SRD operate together, for example.


----------



## breschau

Scott, thank you for responding here. It is appreciated.

If you would, please answer one more:

How do the smaller publishers--not on the list--go about getting the SRD before June to get their products ready by the October opening sales date?


----------



## Qualidar

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> As for me I don't think it is a big deal to make the license public now. Unfortunately by your statement that you think it isn't a big deal to wait comes off as either it being an arbitrary decision to keep it secret, or that you are dodging the question as to why.




They want people talking about the new game, not the new license.


----------



## Flynn

I had been looking forward to making two 3PP purchases from Necromancer at GenCon this year in regards to 4E (Tome of Horrors 4E and Advanced Player's Guide). From reading the announcements, I believe that I'll have to wait until October now. Is that correct?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Orcus

If you want to see what Necro is up to, here is a link to our announcement.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4170348#post4170348

Scott, nice work. You know how I feel about all of this. I am so glad you guys were able to bring this home. I know how hard it was and you and Linae and everyone at Wizards really deserves our thanks. I have always felt that open gaming was a rebirth of the golden age of D&D when Judges Guild and other third parties made products for D&D fans. I was pleased to see the return of that thinking for 3E and I am thrilled it will continue for 4E. 

You guys have been such great caretakers of the game we all love. My hat is off to you, my friend.

Clark


----------



## Montkiva

Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, but how is this a change from previously? Hadn't WoTC said that after a few months the 5k fee would be dropped anyways?


----------



## CaptainChaos

breschau said:
			
		

> Scott, thank you for responding here. It is appreciated.
> 
> If you would, please answer one more:
> 
> How do the smaller publishers--not on the list--go about getting the SRD before June to get their products ready by the October opening sales date?




The way I read it, they don't. A few companies get early info and everyone else gets it in June. Since June is pretty close, that doesn't seem all that unreasonable.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Good for WotC. This was beginning to make me nervous.


----------



## Nahat Anoj

I, too, am please to hear this news.  I was beginning to think that there wouldn't be any kind of "open" license in 4e.  I hope this time around that they got it right so that it does what they intend (that is, sell more WotC books).


----------



## Yair

Excellent news. 

I'm particularly happy that the license will apparently be a free license, and not require registration with WotC if you don't use the D&D logo. I was (I admit) pretty certain that it would impose such a barrier to entry, at least registration if not actual fees.

My fears are not completely alleviated as I'm still leery of STL-like terms, but I'm now fairly confident the license will allow entry for individual fans or fan groups in the future, which was a huge concern for me (I'm thinking of the entry of people that aren't a business, at least initially - like the folks of Inner Circles Games, Dreamscarred Press, and so on - I enjoyed their products, and only a free license could allow me to enjoy similar innovations in the future).

I doubt the GSL will satisfy my personal desires, but I certainly think it's looking good from what little information WotC released regarding it.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Flynn said:
			
		

> I had been looking forward to making two 3PP purchases from Necromancer at GenCon this year in regards to 4E (Tome of Horrors 4E and Advanced Player's Guide). From reading the announcements, I believe that I'll have to wait until October now. Is that correct?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn



Looks like it to me 







> The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008



Bugger I wanted the APHB ASAP!


----------



## cthulhu_duck

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> Well I'm sure the fact that A.)  There is a GSL out ...



Maybe I'm misreading everything, but it sounded to me like Wizards announcement was that there will be a GSL, not that it's out yet - 

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4170348 for example says:


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> We have yet to see the Game System License that will govern the exact products we can create...


----------



## Ydars

Flynn; if you look carefully at the announcement it is Oct THIS year, not next. I am not sure when GenCon is in the US (never managed to get over there for it) but if Necro get writing with the GSL/SRD supplied now or shortly, they should be able to get something out for Oct.

Montkiva; this annoucement is a very significant shift because, as I understand it, WoTCs previous policy was not to let any 3rd party publish before GenCon and only those paying $5000 would be allowed to do even this; everyone else would have had to wait until Jan 2009 to publish!

Now anyone can publish from October this year; OK so if you don't get the SRD and rules until June this is not much time to get soemthing together, but I think the gesture from WoTC is VERY significant. They are really trying to send a message to the 3rd party publishers and to us, the dedicated gamers, that they WANT 3rd party support for 4E.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

breschau said:
			
		

> Scott, thank you for responding here. It is appreciated.
> 
> If you would, please answer one more:
> 
> How do the smaller publishers--not on the list--go about getting the SRD before June to get their products ready by the October opening sales date?




The license and SRD will be available to everyone starting June 6th. The idea behind this and our decision to choose a handful of publishers to get it early was based on a number of criteria including publishers who sell print products. The lead times on print necessitate that they get a jump.

Small publishers who sell direct, print on demand, or PDF products can be quicker to market than larger publishers who sell books through more traditional multi-tiered distribution systems.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The license and SRD will be available to everyone starting June 6th. The idea behind this and our decision to choose a handful of publishers to get it early was based on a number of criteria including publishers who sell print products. The lead times on print necessitate that they get a jump.
> 
> Small publishers who sell direct, print on demand, or PDF products can be quicker to market than larger publishers who sell books through more traditional multi-tiered distribution systems.



 Oh, come on.  We all know the selected publishers ended up on the list because they paid for your beer at GenCon and then ended up with those photos you don't want to see posted on the internet.


----------



## breschau

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The license and SRD will be available to everyone starting June 6th. The idea behind this and our decision to choose a handful of publishers to get it early was based on a number of criteria including publishers who sell print products. The lead times on print necessitate that they get a jump.
> 
> Small publishers who sell direct, print on demand, or PDF products can be quicker to market than larger publishers who sell books through more traditional multi-tiered distribution systems.




Thank you.


----------



## Jon Wake

So wait, I was lead to believe that WoTC was just holding all the millions of dollars they extorted from beleaguered publishers (most of whom are being kept in locked hot boxes in the Mexican desert like that really good episode of Batman) to fund their continued experiments with cat-duck hybrids.   Are you telling me all those people on the internets were wrong?  Is that it?

I find that hard to buy, Sir.

I'm glad.  

Unfortunately, this is very bad news for Paizo.  Breaking even with Pathfinder just got harder: they stood a good chance when there was the implication that only a tiny handful of publishers would be able to afford the GSL and Pathfinder would be the only game in town for the disgruntled D&D kid.   Now there will be a plethora of alternatives takes on D&D (like there are now) and  the potential marketshare just dropped through the floor.

I'd put even money on Paizo doing 4E books inside of two years.


----------



## Sara_G

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Oh, come on.  We all know the selected publishers ended up on the list because they paid for your beer at GenCon and then ended up with those photos you don't want to see posted on the internet.




We don't talk about that.


----------



## Starman

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is very bad news for Paizo.  Breaking even with Pathfinder just got harder: they stood a good chance when there was the implication that only a tiny handful of publishers would be able to afford the GSL and Pathfinder would be the only game in town for the disgruntled D&D kid.   Now there will be a plethora of alternatives takes on D&D (like there are now) and  the potential marketshare just dropped through the floor.
> 
> I'd put even money on Paizo doing 4E books inside of two years.




I disagree that this is bad news for Paizo. While this announcement is good news, it does not change the fact that there are still people who want to stay with 3.x. This does not change that. I think Paizo will continue to do very well for themselves.

As for Paizo and 4E, I don't recall them ever saying they were _not_ going to do any 4E books, just that they were going to continue supporting the 3.x market with Pathfinder. I bet they do some stuff for 4E just as I also bet that a majority of their support goes to Pathfinder and that they do all right for themselves with it.


----------



## Piratecat

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> I'd put even money on Paizo doing 4E books inside of two years.



I think that's absolutely okay. Heck, I expected it anyways; they'd be clever to do a separate line of 4e products in addition to Pathfinder. Erik et al are smart cookies.


----------



## Baumi

THATS GREAT NEWS! 

I already gave up on seeing Adventure and Supplements from Publishers like Necromancer or Goodman Games ... but all my fears were unfunded and it is now even possible to create such creative things like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, C&C, etc. for 4E!


----------



## Jack99

This is awesome. Pure win.

Thanks again to WoTC for proving the nay-sayers wrong. 

Cheers


----------



## lurkinglidda

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Great news
> 
> Lol, the D&D staff must be all grins with releasing all this new game-info and the GSL info, etc.



you know it!


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean

Bravo! Bravo! And bravo again!!!!   

I'm absolutely thrilled to hear that the third parties and small press publishers aren't going to be cut off from 4th edition/d20 branding.


----------



## Grogtard

Good job!  Thanks Scot and crew!


----------



## dmccoy1693

I had a long post but I instead chose to delete it.  Instead I'm just going to ask that interested in saying that Paizo is done for to hold those kinds of comments for another day.  Lets all just make this a happy day for Wizards instead of a desire to dance on the 4E disloyalists and ultimately starting _another_ fight.  

Let's we just give the Wizards crew a happy pat on the back.  Alrighty?


----------



## AZRogue

I am very happy, and very pleased. WotC, thank you for going forward with open gaming. I admit that you had me extremely worried, but this news release, combined with making it free, restores my faith. What was a major hurdle to me has now gone away and I am excited for what the future will bring.

Whoever worked to get this done, thank you! I know we aren't the easiest fans to get along with sometimes, but this sort of thing is much appreciated.

Clark! Adventure path! Now!


----------



## HeinorNY

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I had a long post but I instead chose to delete it.  Instead I'm just going to ask that interested in saying that Paizo is done for to hold those kinds of comments for another day.  Lets all just make this a happy day for Wizards instead of a desire to dance on the 4E disloyalists and ultimately starting _another_ fight.
> 
> Let's we just give the Wizards crew a happy pat on the back.  Alrighty?



Victory dance!


----------



## Halivar

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I think that's absolutely okay. Heck, I expected it anyways; they'd be clever to do a separate line of 4e products in addition to Pathfinder. Erik et al are smart cookies.



IIRC, they explicitly stated in their Pathfinder announcement that they were also planning on having 4E material when (not _if_) the GSL was released.

But, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Today. Around an hour ago.


----------



## Fifth Element

Hopefully we'll see some of the doomsayers come in, man up, and admit their speculations were completely unfounded.

Unlikely. But a great day for certain!


----------



## dmccoy1693

Halivar said:
			
		

> IIRC, they explicitly stated in their Pathfinder announcement that they were also planning on having 4E material when (not _if_) the GSL was released.




Latest word (25 minutes ago) from Paizo.  Link


			
				Vic Wertz said:
			
		

> We're committed to the Pathfinder RPG for future Pathfinder products, but we've always said that we would consider doing some non-Pathfinder 4E products. (Assuming the GSL allows that.)


----------



## Moon-Lancer

i was a doom and gloom naysayer, but I'm glad i was wrong.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo

Halivar said:
			
		

> IIRC, they explicitly stated in their Pathfinder announcement that they were also planning on having 4E material when (not _if_) the GSL was released.
> 
> But, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Today. Around an hour ago.




Here are a couple posts from the Paizo boards describing their current intentions:



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Doesn't impact Pathfinder or Paizo much at all. All of the Pathfinder and Gamemastery products we publish are done so under the OGL, not the d20 license.





			
				Vic Wertz said:
			
		

> We're committed to the Pathfinder RPG for future Pathfinder products, but we've always said that we would consider doing some non-Pathfinder 4E products. (Assuming the GSL allows that.)


----------



## WhatGravitas

Dr. Confoundo said:
			
		

> Here are a couple posts from the Paizo boards describing their current intentions:



Meh. Pathfinder is their most polished product. And the one, that carries the most of the "Paizo-style" - that somewhat retro-Greyhawk-Sword-and-Sorcery-mixture. I like it. But I don't want their side projects, I want the cream of the crop.

But boy, I'm happy that the GSL is finally on its way!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## HeinorNY

Well, I guess we can all stop our WOTC boycott by now and pre-order the books again right? 

The lunatics didn't take over the asylum afterall...


----------



## dmccoy1693

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Hopefully we'll see some of the doomsayers come in, man up, and admit their speculations were completely unfounded.




I'll admit, I was getting more and more skeptical about whether Wizards still supported open gaming or not.  I am glad that they indeed are and am happy for them.


----------



## Rauol_Duke

ainatan said:
			
		

> Well, I guess we can all stop our WOTC boycott by now and pre-order the books again right?




Don't forget to move your bookmarks back too.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

I'm glad to see that this was finally able to be resolved.  Good work guys.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## CleverNickName

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> I'd put even money on Paizo doing 4E books inside of two years.



Of course they would.  Any RPG publisher would be wise to have at least one 4E-compatible product line, no matter what.  4E products for the 4E gamers, Pathfinder products for the Pathfinder gamers...it's a win/win scenario.


----------



## HeinorNY

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> Don't forget to move your bookmarks back too.



It just reminded me to move The Rouse out of my MSN blocked contacts list.


----------



## zoroaster100

It sounds like this is very good news.  Of course, that depends on what specific limitations, if any, apply to the GSL in terms of what type of products can be done with it.  I hope the GSL is sufficiently nonrestrictive that Paizo would  still be willing to produce adventure paths and a campaign world for 4E at some point.


----------



## SSquirrel

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I think that's absolutely okay. Heck, I expected it anyways; they'd be clever to do a separate line of 4e products in addition to Pathfinder. Erik et al are smart cookies.




I've been predicting Paizo 4E by GenCon 2010 for awhile now   Very glad (if completely expected) to see this note today.  No, the inmates did not take over the asylum and that boycott of pre-ordering 4E never got organized.  I think the important thing to take home from all this is that I was right.  (and yes I'm being silly here, I'm not THAT guy heh)


----------



## smetzger

I am very happy that WOTC will have a free license available.  My hope is that it will not be too restrictive.  I would of course like to see the license now (don't need the SRD) so that I have time to digest the legalise, but if I have to wait until June thats better than waiting 6 months.

My biggest concerns deal with conversion of older material, interactive programs (char generators etc), and how Gleemax fits into all of this.  My hope is that everything will be open.

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## RandomCitizenX

This is good news indeed. I am looking forward to seeing what gems will come about from the third party publishers.


----------



## pawsplay

Apparently my quiet ranting on the Internet aligned with what WotC decided to do anyway, after all.  I think this is a good decision for WotC, good for gaming, good for everyone. Even if the GSL isn't everything some might have hoped for, it means the door is open and third parties can continue to do that thing they do. 

As for Pathfinder... this might make a slower climb at first, but I think Pathfinder was intended primarily to support 3e fans in the first place, rather than compete with 4e, and secondly, as a resource for people who have plenty of 3e games to play before they liquidate their libraries and "go 4e." I think in the long run this is good for Pathfinder, because a split market probably isn't good for anybody.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Huzzah!  

Now for a much harder task; convincing my WOTC only DM to accept 3 party stuff


----------



## Nylanfs

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Huzzah!
> 
> Now for a much harder task; convincing my WOTC only DM to accept 3 party stuff



 Show him anything by Bastion Press (now Dragon Wing Games).

I am MUCH in love with the Oathbound setting (RIP), and their Torn Asunder, and their Faeries books.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Nylanfs said:
			
		

> Show him anything by Bastion Press (now Dragon Wing Games).
> 
> I am MUCH in love with the Oathbound setting (RIP), and their Torn Asunder, and their Faeries books.




I'm liking all this Oathbound love lately. In fact, I just wrote a blog entry about Oathboudn here - http://darrindrader.blogspot.com/


----------



## charlesatan

Montkiva said:
			
		

> Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, but how is this a change from previously? Hadn't WoTC said that after a few months the 5k fee would be dropped anyways?




Depends on which side you are. For the "early adopters", it's a give and take. They get the material later than was originally intended but then again, they don't have to pay the $5,000 fee anymore.

As for the rest, instead of waiting for January 2009 to publish material, they can release them later this year.

Honestly, I think WotC was faced with two choices: the present scheme, or to either push back  when the license would be open for everyone else to give those who forked $5,000 more lead time.


----------



## psionotic

Great news...!

And while it might be somewhat unfortunate that we won't have third party products on day one, the flip side to this is that everyone will have at least three months with the system (longer, for those with playtesters or that received rules materials early) to get to know its ins and outs before publishing for it.  Better familiarity with the system can only mean better products for us rabid consumers....


----------



## Ydars

Fifth Element; Hopefully we'll see some of the doomsayers come in, man up, and admit their speculations were completely unfounded.

Unlikely. But a great day for certain!


I am MORE than happy to concede that I was WRONG!!! YAY!!!


----------



## Orcus

Ydars said:
			
		

> Fifth Element; Hopefully we'll see some of the doomsayers come in, man up, and admit their speculations were completely unfounded.
> 
> Unlikely. But a great day for certain!
> 
> 
> I am MORE than happy to concede that I was WRONG!!! YAY!!!




Lets not get too much into revisionist history here. Some of the doomsaying was well founded. What was not well founded was the evil conspiracy nonsense. But there were some dark days along this road, some times were I believe it was possible that open gaming wasnt going to happen for 4E. But luckily Scott and Linae pulled this out and got it done. Lets not pretend there was no resistance and no struggle and that this was how it was supposed to work all along, cause it wasnt. 

But what we had (and have) is a company with some real good people that hear us, that listen, that understand the benefits of open gaming and are able to convince the powers that be that open gaming is the right course. 

This is an awesome day for open gaming and, in my view, for D&D. But the trip to get to today was fraught with peril and there were quite a few times when it was a legitimate possibility that we would not end up where we are today. It is an absolute credit to Scott and Linae and the other good folks at Wizards that this happened. 

So rather than requring doomsayers to man up, how about we just all celebrate that this got done!

Hurray Linae and Scott! 

Clark


----------



## Khaalis

*Adamant Entertainment* announced that they have received the advanced notice. 

“I will confirm here that Adamant Entertainment is one of those publishers who have received advanced notice.

I will not be making any announcements regarding our plans for 4th Edition until such time as I have actually seen the Game System License, and can thereby determine if the terms of the license are acceptable, and the sort of products we wish to produce are allowed.”

http://adamantenter.livejournal.com/


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I don't have much to say except: Good news.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Victory dance!



hey!


----------



## vagabundo

I@M SOO ANGRY AT THIS ANNO~UNCEMENT!!!!


Only kidding, great news!!!

Ironically this is the first year I have bought any 3e 3rd party stuff, after the 4e announcement.  PDFs mostly. I'm definitely interested in it now, I used to be a 3 core book person+setting+ adventures.

Note to 3rd parties: publish high quality stuff, good art, good layout and be selective.


----------



## andrew

Does the name change seem interesting to anyone else? 



> Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new *Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL)*




instead of a relatively generic *d20 System License*, we've now been given a highly recognized and branded *Dungeons & Dragons* system license. Maybe I'm reading too much into things....


----------



## essenbee

andrew said:
			
		

> Does the name change seem interesting to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> instead of a relatively generic *d20 System License*, we've now been given a highly recognized and branded *Dungeons & Dragons* system license. Maybe I'm reading too much into things....




But:



> Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.


----------



## Khaalis

andrew said:
			
		

> Does the name change seem interesting to anyone else?
> instead of a relatively generic *d20 System License*, we've now been given a highly recognized and branded *Dungeons & Dragons* system license. Maybe I'm reading too much into things....



I can see the logic to what they have done. This allows them to control 2 distinctly different aspects of licensing.

Aspect 1) D&D 4E GSL
D&D Fantasy Products - the GSL will likely have a lot of controllers on the exact type of content to be allowed so that no "issues" can arise like the much maligned _"Book of Erotic Fantasy"_ fiasco.  WotC wants to be able to maintain a Brand Image (if not quality control). The GSL allows them to manage that specifically for the D&D Brand.

Aspect 2) D20 GSL
WotC made a good business decision here to allow the d20 core system stand as an open gaming format for systems other than D&D. This license will be applied to all products based on d20 OTHER than D&D such as _Mutants and Masterminds_, _d20 Modern_ etc. This again will allow them to dictate some restriction on the type of content allowed, but allow them to word the license in a format that isn't specific to the D&D brand image.

Pretty straight forward actually when you think about it.


----------



## jgbrowning

Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not pretend there was no resistance and no struggle and that this was how it was supposed to work all along, cause it wasnt.
> 
> But what we had (and have) is a company with some real good people that hear us, that listen, that understand the benefits of open gaming and are able to convince the powers that be that open gaming is the right course.




Indeed.



> Hurray Linae and Scott!




Indeed as well. As a company that has released almost all published material (over 99% I believe) as Open Game Content, we at Expeditious Retreat Press are pleased to see a more open license than expected.

Pending review of the GSL, you can expect XRP to produce 4e compatible material as part of our publishing goals.

Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press


----------



## Fifth Element

Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not get too much into revisionist history here. Some of the doomsaying was well founded. What was not well founded was the evil conspiracy nonsense.



Indeed. That's what I was referring to. Cautious skepticism is always fine. "WOTC IZ KILLING OPEN GAMING!!!1", not so much.


----------



## Gundark

Orcus said:
			
		

> Scott, nice work. You know how I feel about all of this. I am so glad you guys were able to bring this home. I know how hard it was and you and Linae and everyone at Wizards really deserves our thanks. I have always felt that open gaming was a rebirth of the golden age of D&D when Judges Guild and other third parties made products for D&D fans. I was pleased to see the return of that thinking for 3E and I am thrilled it will continue for 4E.
> 
> You guys have been such great caretakers of the game we all love. My hat is off to you, my friend.




Agreed. WotC gets a lot of unfair crap from the "fans". Sure they've made mistakes, I'm sure they'll be the first to say that, however they had been really great.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Slashdot has a link up about this - which amusingly directs folks back to us:

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/17/2144248

EDIT: fixed link


----------



## Orcus

andrew said:
			
		

> Does the name change seem interesting to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> instead of a relatively generic *d20 System License*, we've now been given a highly recognized and branded *Dungeons & Dragons* system license. Maybe I'm reading too much into things....




It is awesome. Frankly, its what most of us wanted back for 3E. 

I think Scott "got it" one day when many of us were discussing the reason why everyone made OGL products. Because the d20 STL was irrelevant. The d20 logo lost its value to publishers because it no longer meant D&D. Once that got watered down, the need to use it got less and less. Many of us mentioned that if allowed to use the D&D name and some type of logo that we would accept just about any restriction.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Khaalis said:
			
		

> I can see the logic to what they have done. This allows them to control 2 distinctly different aspects of licensing.
> 
> Aspect 1) D&D 4E GSL
> D&D Fantasy Products - the GSL will likely have a lot of controllers on the exact type of content to be allowed so that no "issues" can arise like the much maligned _"Book of Erotic Fantasy"_ fiasco.  WotC wants to be able to maintain a Brand Image (if not quality control). The GSL allows them to manage that specifically for the D&D Brand.
> 
> Aspect 2) D20 GSL
> WotC made a good business decision here to allow the d20 core system stand as an open gaming format for systems other than D&D. This license will be applied to all products based on d20 OTHER than D&D such as _Mutants and Masterminds_, _d20 Modern_ etc. This again will allow them to dictate some restriction on the type of content allowed, but allow them to word the license in a format that isn't specific to the D&D brand image.
> 
> Pretty straight forward actually when you think about it.



 I'm wondering what this will really mean when it comes down to it.  

My initial thought is that WotC will be staking a claim that all 4e d20 fantasy gaming _will_ be D&D.  3rd party publishers can supplement it, but they cannot create their own fantasy setting game from it (ala Monte's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved).  You can create a setting, but it will use the D&D system.

They are OK with the system being used for other genres, but they are not staking out that ground for themselves, so they are more open to alterations in the system to fit the genre.


----------



## Mistwell

Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not get too much into revisionist history here. Some of the doomsaying was well founded. *What was not well founded was the evil conspiracy nonsense.*




In response to Orcus:



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Indeed.




OK, now that is some serious spin there JG.  You were one of the guys putting out evil conspiracy theory for the public to chew on all this time:



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> If one had no intent to have any form of real open license to begin with, one would benefit the most by delaying that revelation as opposed to making it clear up front. Delaying the announcement places those you view as competitors in a state of waiting where actions cannot be determined and then marketed. This would allow you the most time to work on your own marketing and customer migration unhindered by the efforts of other companies. It also allows a greater time to unwind to the customer base how detrimental the loss of an open system is to them. It's like pulling the band-aid off slowly enough that it's not noticed. Customer choice is not benefited by a closed system when the previous system is open.
> 
> Also, by appearing to ask for "input" one gains information from one's competitor about potential products and lines of attack that one may have not thought of alone. By asking for "input" one continues the delaying time-line (composed of initial statements, Q&A sessions, private conversation, bureaucratic hold ups, unexpected legal changes, etc) before the revelation process, providing the best chance that competitors will delay making business decisions for the longest time possible. Done properly, one could not only increase your product's success, one can damage the business of the competitor. If done properly neither the consumer base or the competitor will be aware of what has occurred.




It's not revisionist history to say that the above speculation was a completely unfounded conspiracy theory that you put out there (whether you believed it yourself or not).  And given a lot of us folks have had to deal with that sort of conspiracy theory being thrown around for weeks now, and the negativity it created, I think it's fair to say "Hey, it would be nice to see a few more mea culpas in here".  Those who do make such apologies will look much better than those who pretend they were entirely right all along, or who remain silent.


----------



## Gundark

Jon Wake said:
			
		

> I'd put even money on Paizo doing 4E books inside of two years.




Yeah I think Pazio will be making 4e stuff sooner than what they were saying they will


----------



## Gundark

snip....double post


----------



## jgbrowning

Mistwell said:
			
		

> OK, now that is some serious spin there JG.  You were one of the guys putting out evil conspiracy theory for the public to chew on all this time




Mistwell, I know you personally dislike me and I personally dislike you.

Since you're utterly unaware of the relationships between myself, Suzi, Scott, and Linae, I'd like to see an apology from you.

Seeing as we're one of the few publishers invited by Scott and Linae to participate in the early section of 4e, and knowing that they have read my posted opinions about the subject from the other thread, I think your view of my "negativity" is not shared by those who actually make decisions about 4e and the GSL. Your post is as unnecessary as it is representative of your character. I don't appreciate attempted smears.

I think that's all I need to say at this venue. This is neither the proper time nor the proper place, which is why I'm utterly unsurprised by your actions.

joe b.


----------



## Mistwell

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Mistwell, I know you personally dislike me




No I don't.  I don't even know you.  I like a lot of your posts, even some I disagree with.  I like your company's products, and advocate that folks buy them.  If I gave you the impression I do not personally like you, I apologize.  I have no problems at all with you, and if anything I in general like what you write, both here, at CM, and in gaming in general.



> and I personally dislike you.




You do? Why? You don't even know me. I'm sorry to hear that.  I won't be bothered if you decide to put me on ignore.



> Since you're utterly unaware of the relationships between myself, Suzi, Scott, and Linae, I'd like to see an apology from you.




For what? Orcus mentioned that some folks simply speculated about an issue that had some validity to it, and others posted wild conspiracy theories, and the later were a bit unhelpful.  You posted that you agreed, as if you were not one of the folks posting conspiracy theories.  I wouldn't have said a word if you hadn't posted in response, but you did.  So, I felt it was fair to point out that some of your posts fell into that very conspiracy theory camp, that uit was not helpful at the time, and AS SOMEONE WHO LIKES YOUR COMPANY'S PRODUCTS I thought it would be nice, and smart, if you were to own up to it so nobody got the impression you still felt that way or that you didn't admit when you made an error.

What did I say that was in any way inaccurate? What does this have to do with your relationship with others?



> Seeing as we're one of the few publishers invited by Scott and Linea to participate in the early section of 4e, and knowing that they have read my posted opinions about the subject from the other thread, I think your view of my "negativity" is not shared by those who actually make decisions about 4e and the GSL.




Are you saying that you stand by the theory that you posted?  That what you posted didn't foster negativity? If not, what are you saying, specifically. At the time, you said it was speculation.  Now you seem to be at least implying it was not speculation and is related to private knowledge you had.  So which is it, speculation that was wrong, or not speculation that was accurate?



> Your post is as unnecessary as it is representative of your character. I don't appreciate attempted smears.




No reason to attack my character, particularly since I was not attacking yours (just hoping you would be one of the folks to apologize).  I am not trying to smear you Joe - everyone saw your posts, and relative to this announcement your prior posts look at bit like wildly inaccurate conspiracy theories. I am posting what you posted, and comparing it to WOTC announcement, and suggesting a mea culpa would be nice from you and folks like you. I didn't smear you, nor was that my intent.  I just reposted what you wrote, given your response in this thread to Orcus.



> I think that's all I need to say at this venue. This is neither the proper time nor the proper place, which is why I'm utterly unsurprised by your actions.
> 
> joe b.




My email is freely available at my user name.  If you think this is the wrong time and place, you were and still are free to email me privately.  You made the posts publicly, and then you responded publicly.  I'd even be happy to edit my prior comments and take it entirely to email if you wish (or PMs).  I certainly am not trying to damage your reputation.  But lets not be passive aggressive about it.  If you want to talk about it offline, lets do that rather than bash me here and then walk away.


----------



## Orcus

Hey guys. I didnt mean for the first part of my post to get people off track.

My goal with the second part of the post was to encourage people to not bother who were naysayers and so forth. Lets not get into finger pointing. 

Let's just be happy for D&D and for Scott and Linae's accomplishments. I think yesterday was a great day for the game we all love.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Mistwell, Joe - if you feel like continuing your discussion of who said what/when/why, please take it offline.  Let's not derail this thread with it.

Thanks,

Kid Charlemagne - ENWorld Moderator


----------



## Orcus

Come on, peeps.

I'm not a moderator, but here we are in the thread about the announcement that 4E will be open. You gotta think we can put our difference aside and play nice in this thread. 

Naysayers shake hands with conspiracy theorists. 4E Fanbois shake hands with grognards. Paizonians shake hands with Enworlders. 

None of that matters now. 4E is open and that is a good thing for all.

Clark


----------



## jgbrowning

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey guys. I didnt mean for the first part of my post to get people off track.




No problem, it's only Mistwell, Clark. Anyone who has interacted with him and knows how we feel about each other understands what he's trying to do and understands why he's going to claim that he's not actually doing it. He's just getting in the personal digs he can with the hopeful side-effect of damaging a business relationship of mine and he must absolutely deny that is what he's doing in order to have a chance of actually damaging that relationship.

If he disliked you I wouldn't be surprised if he'd attempt to turn your statement that not using the OGL would be a foolish decision into meaning that you had called Scott and Linae Fools were it to have turned out that 4e was actually a closed system.   

To get the conversation back on track, we're pleased with the announcement that 4e is going to be open and accessible to 3rd Party Publishers and we look forward to seeing the GSL.

joe b.


----------



## Mistwell

Orcus said:
			
		

> Come on, peeps.
> 
> I'm not a moderator, but here we are in the thread about the announcement that 4E will be open. You gotta think we can put our difference aside and play nice in this thread.
> 
> Naysayers shake hands with conspiracy theorists. 4E Fanbois shake hands with grognards. Paizonians shake hands with Enworlders.
> 
> None of that matters now. 4E is open and that is a good thing for all.
> 
> Clark




True nuff!


----------



## Plane Sailing

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> No problem, it's only Mistwell, Clark. Anyone who has interacted with him and knows how we feel about each other understands what he's trying to do and understands why he's going to claim that he's not actually doing it. He's just getting in the personal digs he can with the hopeful side-effect of damaging a business relationship of mine and he must absolutely deny that is what he's doing in order to have a chance of actually damaging that relationship..




15 minutes after a moderator has told you to can it? There is a reason why we ask people to respect moderators instructions.

You're suspended for 3 days.


----------



## The Little Raven

Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not pretend there was no resistance and no struggle and that this was how it was supposed to work all along, cause it wasnt.




Honestly, I think it's better that it wasn't just a simple cut-and-dry process for them to get this policy vetted. When an idea like this encounters resistance, it means it's supporters really need to justify to the doubtful why it's a good idea and sometimes even revise and compromise in order to make sure all parties affected get something they want out of it.


----------



## Spatula

Mourn said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think it's better that it wasn't just a simple cut-and-dry process for them to get this policy vetted. When an idea like this encounters resistance, it means it's supporters really need to justify to the doubtful why it's a good idea and sometimes even revise and compromise in order to make sure all parties affected get something they want out of it.



And I wonder if the new commitment to non-D&D material arose from that process, since I don't recall that even being on the table before.  On the other hand, if the license was out in January as originally intended, there would be 3rd party support out of the gate, and at GenCon (albeit with a $5k pricetag).  In any case, it's good news for the community.

I am curious if a product like Necro's APHB will be allowed.  It doesn't seem like WOTC will really want people publishing 4e versions of no-longer-core material, like the druid, when they have their own plans for that same material.


----------



## The Little Raven

Spatula said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if the license was out in January as originally intended, there would be 3rd party support out of the gate, and at GenCon (albeit with a $5k pricetag).




Remember, with the original plan, Phase 1 publishers could have put out a product on August 1st, two whole months after the game's release. That's not "out of the gate" support, unless "out of the gate" has been changed to mean "months after the game is released" when I wasn't looking.



> I am curious if a product like Necro's APHB will be allowed.  It doesn't seem like WOTC will really want people publishing 4e versions of no-longer-core material, like the druid, when they have their own plans for that same material.




http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172697&postcount=3

If the Rouse is correct, and they implement similar policies in the GSL that he cites in this post, then the APHB should have no problems presenting alternate takes on anything, so long as they don't violate the guidelines given.


----------



## Disconzi

This _seems_ like very good news. One can only know for certain, though, when the GLS actually comes to light. 

I myself am a bit concerned -- even though I'm thrilled about a good number of 4e's innovations (static defenses and the unified 1/2 level progression mainly), there's a lot I'm not crazy about (slots, AC, classes, way magic is handled and so forth). 

I wonder if the GLS will make products like True20 or Blue Rose possible -- which is what I'm playing at the moment, just love how classes and magic and handled. The only books from Hasbro I ever bought were the 3 core books and Eberron books (only because of the setting itself) -- other than that, I only buy 3rd party products (alternate stand-alones such as True20, Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved among my favorites). Well, it won't hurt to wait a few more weeks to decide whether to shift to 4e or not -- if alternatives to the rules I dislike aren't a possibility, it's better to stick to 3.X.


----------



## HeinorNY

Disconzi said:
			
		

> I wonder if the GLS will make products like True20 or Blue Rose possible -- which is what I'm playing at the moment, just love how classes and magic and handled. The only books from Hasbro I ever bought were the 3 core books and Eberron books (only because of the setting itself) -- other than that, I only buy 3rd party products (alternate stand-alones such as True20, Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved among my favorites). Well, it won't hurt to wait a few more weeks to decide whether to shift to 4e or not -- if alternatives to the rules I dislike aren't a possibility, it's better to stick to 3.X.



The answer is no. No stand alone products under the GSL.
From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15649982&postcount=40


			
				The Rouse said:
			
		

> Trailfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the D&D 4e GSL allow standalone games (Iron Heroes style) or not? By my reading, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.
> 
> If not, is there any way that a designer could make a 4e-d20 based standalone fantasy game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to both questions is no. The GSL will not allow for products that have character creation (applying ability scores) or character advancement (applying XP).
Click to expand...


----------



## Moon-Lancer

so thats how they are going to do it...


----------



## Lizard

I will admit this is better than what I expected, but I still want to see the exact terms of the license before I start celebrating. Things like "fantasy games only" is a very odd clause with some hard-to-define legal aspects.

And as I've noted before, Spycraft 1.0, Broncosaurus Rex, Sidewinder 1.0, and quite a few other non-D&D games WERE published under the STL. The "rules for character creation" and "rules for applying levels of experience" don't really need to be reprinted to make a near-standalone game. (Also, it's hard to imagine someone buying a 4e non-fantasy game who isn't already a 4e D&D player.)

I actually think a lot of the 4e concepts work better in non-fantasy settings, especially those already pulpy and cinematic. WOTC owns the rights to Iron Lords Of Jupiter; I'd be happy to do a 4e version for them.  Now THERE'S a genre that calls for mowing down mooks by the dozens...


----------



## HeinorNY

Lizard said:
			
		

> Things like "fantasy games only" is a very odd clause with some hard-to-define legal aspects.



That's not quite accurate.
From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15647512&postcount=34


			
				The Rouse said:
			
		

> Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, what does this mean for the D20 Modern or Star Wars systems? Will WotC be updating those systems to be 4.0 compliant? Or will these systems be phased out with the 3.5 material?
> 
> And if these systems will be updated, why is the GSL only protecting the "fantasy" portion of the system and not the "modern" or "future" systems?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, mind you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Star Wars will not change (but will likely evolve) as the system is already very close to 4e. d20 Modern and/or Urban Arcana are highly likely to get a 4e update (there will be something but don't know what we'll call it).
> 
> There are 2 licenses the D&D 4e GSL and the d20 GSL. The d20 GSL is designed for games like d20 Modern and Urban Arcana so publishers can do modern style products.
Click to expand...


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

It makes sense, though. This way, you can use the stuff that WotC worked on and paid money to develop, but the end product must tie back to D&D.

I never understood why WotC allowed 3pp to make a product that was 90% D&D and toss the OGL in the back and sell it as a competitor to their flagship rpg product. The only thing I can think is that it was an oversight in the development of the OGL.


----------



## Lizard

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> It makes sense, though. This way, you can use the stuff that WotC worked on and paid money to develop, but the end product must tie back to D&D.
> 
> I never understood why WotC allowed 3pp to make a product that was 90% D&D and toss the OGL in the back and sell it as a competitor to their flagship rpg product. The only thing I can think is that it was an oversight in the development of the OGL.




Yes, it was a terrible, horrible, oversight. They apparently never bothered to READ THE FAQ ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE. 



			
				WOTC SRD FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?
> 
> A: Sure.
> 
> Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
> 
> A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

They "allowed" it because a large part of the purpose of the OGL was to standardize gaming on a single system, which would help WOTC by keeping gamers in the same system space and also keep the from leaving the hobby due to an inability to find people playing a system they knew. The idea was to prevent the ongoing fragmentation of the hobby into "White Wolf games", "GURPS gamers", "D&D Gamers", and so on.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yes, it was a terrible, horrible, oversight. They apparently never bothered to READ THE FAQ ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE.
> .



Easy there, killer.

There is no need for that sort of vitriol. I had an opinion and apparently not read the SRD FAQ. There are other (and better) ways of letting me know that this question was answered in a WotC document.

Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.


----------



## Lizard

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Easy there, killer.
> 
> There is no need for that sort of vitriol. I had an opinion and apparently not read the SRD FAQ. There are other (and better) ways of letting me know that this question was answered in a WotC document.
> 
> Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.




It's just that this KEEPS COMING UP. It's the meme that will not die. "WOTC never expected this!" "The OGL wasn't intended to be used like that!" "This isn't the way things were supposed to go!" People keep repeating this like it's absolute fact, when it very clearly isn't and never was. The funny thing is, the Big Why We Hate WOTC movement of 2000 was "They're trying to take over the industry and make all games into D20!" Now this has been forgotten and somehow mutated into "Poor, innocent WOTC was duped and tricked by those evil third parties into releasing a flawed license and letting them abuse their IP!"

Die, pernicious meme! Die!


----------



## Aezoc

ainatan said:
			
		

> That's not quite accurate.
> From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15647512&postcount=34



I don't really see anything in that post to contradict Lizard's point. So far I don't think anything stated about the GSL really prevents you from making a separate game. Not technically standalone since you can't have creation/advancement rules, but otherwise distinct from D&D. I'm also very curious about the fantasy clause. Unless they have a specific blacklist of subjects that can't be covered, "fantasy" is wide open to interpretation.

For instance, I'd call Star Wars fantasy. Is it sci-fi? If so, what about about steampunk settings? Etc... obviously WotC might have a perfectly black-and-white definition all ready to go, but I'm kind of surprised that they'd mention the licensing restrictions at all without at least some rudimentary details.


----------



## HeinorNY

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Easy there, killer.
> 
> There is no need for that sort of vitriol. I had an opinion and apparently not read the SRD FAQ. There are other (and better) ways of letting me know that this question was answered in a WotC document.
> 
> Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.



I think Lizard was refering to WOTC not reading their own FAQ, thus commiting their mistake of allowing anyone to sell the SRD verbatim. No nitpick intended I think.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think Lizard was refering to WOTC not reading their own FAQ, thus commiting their mistake of allowing anyone to sell the SRD verbatim. No nitpick intended I think.



If that is the case, then I apologize to Lizard for taking his comments in the wrong light. I shall wait and see if that is the case.

EDIT: I missed Lizard's last post. I see what he meant now. Sorry Lizard, it looked liked it was directed at me and I took it that way.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

I was very worried about this, because I have been helping a novelist friend of mine make a D20 game out of his world. We created about 12 classes, 8 races and heavily modified the magic system, among other things... We were thinking of maybe making up a .pdf of the final setting, including the SRD, for our buddies to download for some donation money, or maybe set it up as a print-on-demand.

And then, when we were 85% finished with our heavily houseruled game, the 4th edition announcement came up... And I for one had already resigned myself about not being able to adapt our game to 4th edition, since it was very likely that the new license would not allow our derivative.

So I am really glad to hear that we will be able to make this, as long as we don't include character generation rules or experience points to our work (which we weren't planning to do, anyway)


----------



## Fifth Element

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think Lizard was refering to WOTC not reading their own FAQ, thus commiting their mistake of allowing anyone to sell the SRD verbatim. No nitpick intended I think.



I think the comment in the SRD makes it pretty clear. They knew that it could be done, but didn't think anyone would actually do it. Lesson learned, presumably.


----------



## HeinorNY

Aezoc said:
			
		

> I don't really see anything in that post to contradict Lizard's point. So far I don't think anything stated about the GSL really prevents you from making a separate game. Not technically standalone since you can't have creation/advancement rules, but otherwise distinct from D&D. I'm also very curious about the fantasy clause. Unless they have a specific blacklist of subjects that can't be covered, "fantasy" is wide open to interpretation.



Where is the mention of this fantasy clause? I completelly missed it.


----------



## Lizard

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then I apologize to Lizard for taking his comments in the wrong light. I shall wait and see if that is the case.




No, to be perfectly clear:
a)WOTC always intended people to be able to sell the SRD verbatim or use it as the core of standalone games.

b)Any question of their intent in this area is clearly rebutted by their own FAQ which, I suspect, they've read. 

As I noted in my other post, I find the constant assumption that this wasn't the case, when it very clearly WAS, to be annoying -- it's like the modern version of the "TSR[1] tried to trademark 'Nazi'" meme of the 1990s.

Perhaps I flew off the handle, but I've whacked this mole way too many times.

[1]Sorry, "T$R".


----------



## Saitou

ainatan said:
			
		

> That's not quite accurate.
> From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15647512&postcount=34



 Oh , confirmation of d20 Modern Second Edition!

YESSSSS! Best day ever!


----------



## beverson

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's just that this KEEPS COMING UP.




Gosh, doesn't this sound familiar.  Annoys the heck out of you, doesn't it?  Let that sink in for a while....


----------



## Lizard

beverson said:
			
		

> Gosh, doesn't this sound familiar.  Annoys the heck out of you, doesn't it?  Let that sink in for a while....




And if you can point to where I keep repeating a statement as fact after it's been contradicted by an official source, I'll be happy to stop saying it. Near as I can tell, most of annoying repetitions are of my opinions, not of putative facts. Indeed, I make a strong effort to couch anything I say in terms of "it seems" , "it looks like", "I get the impression that", etc. Perhaps I don't do this as often as I should, but I do try.


----------



## Wolfspider

Gundark said:
			
		

> Yeah I think Pazio will be making 4e stuff sooner than what they were saying they will




Did they actually put a timetable on when they would release 4e books?  I seem to recall that months ago they were planning on doing 4e books with Necromancer Games.  If I remembering carefully, that would mean that doing 4e was part of their short-term plans all along.....


----------



## AZRogue

I just re-read things and once again was filled with warm fuzzies. I have to admit that I thought the whole thing was going out the door but WotC happily proved me wrong. For which I'm very grateful!

I, too, am curious about the restriction on the license to "fantasy". I don't mind it, of course, since they ARE, they said, coming out with a second part that is for the non-fantasy stuff (which I love too). I'm just curious how it will all work together.

I don't think that I'll ever know just how difficult this was to get through and get done. I honestly don't have a clue to even make up a decent theory. All I do know is that I'm happy, grateful, and impelled to once again say thank you. I don't know who is responsible, but whoever you are, thanks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> b)Any question of their intent in this area is clearly rebutted by their own FAQ which, I suspect, they've read.



Reminds me of a (police education) logic test my father told me about: 
"Pencils can write, but not read. Books can read, but not write. Can Books read Pencils?"
<enter some permutations>
"WotC can write FAQs. Fans can read FAQs. Can WotC read FAQs?"


----------



## Ydars

The strange thing is, Le Rouse has really changed his tone on the GSL since the post he made about "no standalone 3rd party products" that Ainatin linked to. I detect that the WoTC staff in general are now bending over backwards to show us how open this game is going to be! I suspect that the final GSL WoTC will release is going to be significantly different from the one they envisaged when they made the original GSL annoucement; perhaps even more open than was originally planned.

I would like to think we all had something to do with that, given that WoTC staff seem to spend time here. Orcus does evenseem to hint that this might be the case. Intriguing!!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Ydars said:
			
		

> The strange thing is, Le Rouse has really changed his tone on the GSL since the post he made about "no standalone 3rd party products" that Ainatin linked to.




Stranger still, the position and the tone is still evolving! 

It's like Christmas morning every day, a little something new and exciting to discover about the GSL every time you come back to the thread.

Well, that is, if on Christmas morning you got an X-Box but your folks said you could only play with it if you ditched your PS2.


----------



## DaveMage

"As The License Turns."


----------



## lurkinglidda

Ydars said:
			
		

> I suspect that the final GSL WoTC will release is going to be significantly different from the one they envisaged when they made the original GSL annoucement; perhaps even more open than was originally planned.
> 
> I would like to think we all had something to do with that, given that WoTC staff seem to spend time here. Orcus does evenseem to hint that this might be the case. Intriguing!!



qft!


----------



## lurkinglidda

DaveMage said:
			
		

> "As The License Turns."



It's funny cuz it's true.


----------



## Imaro

I just wanted to weigh in with some of my thoughts about this...

I think this isn't a particularly "gamer friendly" move by WotC.  My biggest beef with all this is that they are, through the GSL, purposefully destroying (if certain publishers choose to go this route) alot of creative work.  Games such as True20, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan d20, Babylon5 d20, Midnight 2nd ed., etc. Must basically cease to exist if these companies want to go with 4e.  These are games that were created before 4e was even known about and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these creative works must disappear in order for these publishers to support D&D.

I honestly hate the stifling nature that this new GSL seems to be imposing.  D&D rules as RAW may not support every fantasy setting and I have seen WotC's general lack at pushing the envelope when it comes to this...yet the 3rd party publishers did, and many benefited from being willing to take that risk.  Now they are being told to either give up what they have created or be unable to support a game which, IMHO, was made richer by their contributions. 

 I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg which was a much simpler and easier to grasp version of a d20 game that I used to introduce new people to the basics with...I have less of a problem with WotC saying from the point you accept the new GSL you must only publish 4th ed products(though I still find this heavy handed since the game could still have less than stellar reception from gamers)...but it just seems a disservice to the hobby to try and take away the range of choice that the OGL has offered gamers. 

 I saw a lot of prople get offended when White Wolf offered a copy of Exalted for the PHB and it was made known the book would be destroyed, yet in my mind this is worse on a much larger scale.  YMMV of course but just a few of my thoughts about this announcement.


----------



## beverson

Lizard said:
			
		

> Near as I can tell, most of annoying repetitions are of my opinions, not of putative facts.




THIS was my point.  As much as the endless repetition of false facts annoys you, your endless repetitions of the same opinions annoys others.  Perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes for a few miles...


----------



## Lizard

beverson said:
			
		

> THIS was my point.  As much as the endless repetition of false facts annoys you, your endless repetitions of the same opinions annoys others.  Perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes for a few miles...




So, it's exactly like that, except that it isn't -- unless you consider facts and opinions of equal worth.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Okay, crew, knock off the sniping.

That includes, but is not limited to:

Mentioning ignore lists
Pointed comments at other users
Allegations of ulterior motives


----------



## Shadeydm

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just wanted to weigh in with some of my thoughts about this...
> 
> I think this isn't a particularly "gamer friendly" move by WotC.  My biggest beef with all this is that they are, through the GSL, purposefully destroying (if certain publishers choose to go this route) alot of creative work.  Games such as True20, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan d20, Babylon5 d20, Midnight 2nd ed., etc. Must basically cease to exist if these companies want to go with 4e.  These are games that were created before 4e was even known about and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these creative works must disappear in order for these publishers to support D&D.
> 
> I honestly hate the stifling nature that this new GSL seems to be imposing.  D&D rules as RAW may not support every fantasy setting and I have seen WotC's general lack at pushing the envelope when it comes to this...yet the 3rd party publishers did, and many benefited from being willing to take that risk.  Now they are being told to either give up what they have created or be unable to support a game which, IMHO, was made richer by their contributions.
> 
> I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg which was a much simpler and easier to grasp version of a d20 game that I used to introduce new people to the basics with...I have less of a problem with WotC saying from the point you accept the new GSL you must only publish 4th ed products(though I still find this heavy handed since the game could still have less than stellar reception from gamers)...but it just seems a disservice to the hobby to try and take away the range of choice that the OGL has offered gamers.
> 
> I saw a lot of prople get offended when White Wolf offered a copy of Exalted for the PHB and it was made known the book would be destroyed, yet in my mind this is worse on a much larger scale.  YMMV of course but just a few of my thoughts about this announcement.



I find myself agreeing with much of your thoughts. Midnight is also one of my favorite settings I would be sad to see it die.


----------



## Umbran

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.





*Saishu_Heiki*, perhaps you have forgotten that we expect a higher than average level of civility around here.  Allow me to remind you, and everyone else...

The license and policy changes may frustrate some folks around here.  However, we still expect you to be civil and polite.  There is no excuse for taking frustration out on the people here.  If you descend into this kind of childish rudeness, you will not be happy with the consequences, I assure you.

So, folks, be aware - we'll be watching these GSL threads as closely as our time permits.  Don't expect a lot of leeway on the civility rules from this point forwards.  If you choose to post, we expect to see your best behavior.  Feel free to disagree, but don't be a jerk.


----------



## Wolfspider

It looks like WotC has found a pretty effective way to put the OGL genie back in the bottle....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> It looks like WotC has found a pretty effective way to put the OGL genie back in the bottle....




Well, he's not exactly back in the bottle, but he may be standing around all alone yelling, "Doesn't anybody love me anymore?"

Poor genie.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just wanted to weigh in with some of my thoughts about this...
> 
> I think this isn't a particularly "gamer friendly" move by WotC.  My biggest beef with all this is that they are, through the GSL, purposefully destroying (if certain publishers choose to go this route) alot of creative work.  Games such as True20, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan d20, Babylon5 d20, Midnight 2nd ed., etc. Must basically cease to exist if these companies want to go with 4e.  These are games that were created before 4e was even known about and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that these creative works must disappear in order for these publishers to support D&D.
> 
> I honestly hate the stifling nature that this new GSL seems to be imposing.  D&D rules as RAW may not support every fantasy setting and I have seen WotC's general lack at pushing the envelope when it comes to this...yet the 3rd party publishers did, and many benefited from being willing to take that risk.  Now they are being told to either give up what they have created or be unable to support a game which, IMHO, was made richer by their contributions.
> 
> I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg which was a much simpler and easier to grasp version of a d20 game that I used to introduce new people to the basics with...I have less of a problem with WotC saying from the point you accept the new GSL you must only publish 4th ed products(though I still find this heavy handed since the game could still have less than stellar reception from gamers)...but it just seems a disservice to the hobby to try and take away the range of choice that the OGL has offered gamers.
> 
> I saw a lot of prople get offended when White Wolf offered a copy of Exalted for the PHB and it was made known the book would be destroyed, yet in my mind this is worse on a much larger scale.  YMMV of course but just a few of my thoughts about this announcement.




Sort of.  What they're saying is that the 3PP can't have their cake and eat it too.  If they want to stay with those products, like True 20 etc, they can certainly do so.  They just cannot, at the same time, take advantage of what WOTC is offering.  It does make a fair bit of sense.  You can stay with the game that you are doing, or you can dance to WOTC's tune.  

Why would WOTC allow companies to compete with them using their own IP?  The only reason games like Conan etc. exist is because those companies took the 3e OGL and created new games.  Not supplements for D&D, but entirely new games that actually serve to draw away gamers from WOTC products.

Imaro, you're actually, in your own words the poster child for this.  You state, "I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg".  In other words, you already weren't buying WOTC material.  From their point of view, it doesn't matter if you were still playing d20, because they're not getting anything out of that.  You may as well be playing White Wolf or Paladium as far as they are concerned.

I think it's a case of realizing that the original OGL didn't do what they wanted it to do which was get companies to support D&D and sell PHB's, but rather created their own competition.


----------



## Zil

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> It looks like WotC has found a pretty effective way to put the OGL genie back in the bottle....



There is a small risk for them of a backlash if some gamers are put off by this and simply refuse to move to the new system.   But the risk is likely quite small because I suspect that most D&D gamers aren't fully aware of the OGL, the new GSL, and the implications of the restrictions in the new GSL (or they simply don't care).  

Is this more likely to make me not move to 4E?  Sure, but I was already on the fence and looking to stick with 3.x (or Pathfinder) anyway.   This announcement makes we want to support the "little" guys who choose to stay with 3.x even more.


----------



## Lizard

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, he's not exactly back in the bottle, but he may be standing around all alone yelling, "Doesn't anybody love me anymore?"
> 
> Poor genie.




D20
Traveller
Runequest
SOTC
Action!
FUDGE

That is not a lonely genie.

And all material for all of those games is equally open and can be mixed and matched. The OGL does not recognize game systems, just Open Game Content. Convert the MM to SOTC! Use Traveller system generation rules and FUDGE characters! Take the insanely large library of open D20 content and convert it to Runequest!

If you ask me, the GSL is the lonely one.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why would WOTC allow companies to compete with them using their own IP?



They certainly shouldn't do that.  But their selection in solution makes attacking the Open Gaming movement (and by extension, gamers as a whole) part of the issue.
I believe an attitude that saw what is best for gamers and what is best for WotC as being more of a synergy would have been much better.

The idea that Green Ronin must choose between True20 and 4E support is a no-win situation for gamers.  I consider it bad that WotC has thoughtfully put their fans in that situation.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you ask me, the GSL is the lonely one.




With all due respect to you and the games/companies you mentioned, you're dreaming. 

Don't get me wrong-- it's a nice dream; I don't particularly want to wake up myself.


----------



## Wolfspider

BryonD said:
			
		

> The idea that Green Ronin must choose between True20 and 4E support is
> a no-win situation for gamers.




Excellent point.  The GSL means that one of the two will happen:

1.  The gaming community will lose True20 and Mutants & Masterminds; or
2.  The gaming community will not have Green Ronin producing books for D&D 4e.

Ouch.


----------



## Zil

Hussar said:
			
		

> Imaro, you're actually, in your own words the poster child for this.  You state, "I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg".  In other words, you already weren't buying WOTC material.  From their point of view, it doesn't matter if you were still playing d20, because they're not getting anything out of that.  You may as well be playing White Wolf or Paladium as far as they are concerned



Some of the products mentioned there are settings and adventures, which certainly do feed back into supporting the core D&D area.  If some of the people playing in these third party settings continue to buy various WoTC  'crunch' products (the Complete series, Weapons of Legacy, etc)., then Wizards was still potentially getting something back.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> Imaro, you're actually, in your own words the poster child for this.  You state, "I honestly would have stopped playing D&D a while ago if it wasn't for Midnight and Iron Kingdoms giving me settings I really liked, the adventures by Paizo, True20 that kept me in d20 with it's adaptability and Mongoose who gave me the Lonewolf rpg".  In other words, you already weren't buying WOTC material.  From their point of view, it doesn't matter if you were still playing d20, because they're not getting anything out of that.  You may as well be playing White Wolf or Paladium as far as they are concerned.
> 
> I think it's a case of realizing that the original OGL didn't do what they wanted it to do which was get companies to support D&D and sell PHB's, but rather created their own competition.




I disagree...to a point.  Those products didn't get me to buy more PHB's, because your right I didn't need the PHB's if I can buy a complete game for maybe 10 dollars more than what the PHB by itself cost.  However I did purchase WotC sourcebooks to see what I could grab for use in whatever game I was playing.  Classes, feats, skill uses, spells, new rules like taint, etc. were all stuff I could convert and use.  Now if my only option had been to play D&D as RAW...I probably would have stuck with the core 3.5 books...especially after the poor quality and shodiness of WotC's 3.0 sourcebooks.


----------



## Psion

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> With all due respect to you and the games/companies you mentioned, you're dreaming.
> 
> Don't get me wrong-- it's a nice dream; I don't particularly want to wake up myself.




(shrug) That dream is my reality.

Now I know that in the big scheme of things, my reality is more like a demiplane, but still.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Psion said:
			
		

> (shrug) That dream is my reality.
> 
> Now I know that in the big scheme of things, my reality is more like a demiplane, but still.




Touche.


----------



## Lizard

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> With all due respect to you and the games/companies you mentioned, you're dreaming.
> 
> Don't get me wrong-- it's a nice dream; I don't particularly want to wake up myself.




How so?

It's all legal. And I think as people begin exploring niches, they'll find that the way the OGL lets them take a lot of the classic D&D IP and convert it to other systems is valuable. There's a (false) perception that the OGL licenses systems. It doesn't. It licenses text, and all text is equal...


----------



## amethal

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other words, you already weren't buying WOTC material.  From their point of view, it doesn't matter if you were still playing d20, because they're not getting anything out of that.  You may as well be playing White Wolf or Paladium as far as they are concerned.



I believe Ryan Dancey has said that it did matter to WotC.

The idea is that d20 gamers looking to try another system could well switch back to D&D, as they already know the system. Those playing White Wolf would have to relearn d20, and might decide to try Palladium instead.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:
			
		

> They certainly shouldn't do that.  But their selection in solution makes attacking the Open Gaming movement (and by extension, gamers as a whole) part of the issue.
> I believe an attitude that saw what is best for gamers and what is best for WotC as being more of a synergy would have been much better.
> 
> The idea that Green Ronin must choose between True20 and 4E support is a no-win situation for gamers.  I consider it bad that WotC has thoughtfully put their fans in that situation.




I disagree with the assumption that bringing all gaming systems under the d20 umbrella is good for gamers.  I think that a lot of games are getting stifled simply because everything must be d20 or it won't sell.  

Note, I believe that a publisher could publish their own game and 4e material if they wanted to.  What they cannot do is publish 4e and 3e OGL material at the same time.  

So, if, say, Mutants and Masterminds came up with its own system, then it could be published as well as 4e.

Or, if M&M was updated to 4e mechanics under the d20 GSL, then GR could sell D&D products under the D&D GSL.  (I'm getting my acronyms screwed up.)

From what I understand though, they cannot sell a d20 M&M using d20 OGL material.  

That doesn't mean that M&M has to die.  It does mean that it will likely see revision though.


----------



## Hussar

amethal said:
			
		

> I believe Ryan Dancey has said that it did matter to WotC.
> 
> The idea is that d20 gamers looking to try another system could well switch back to D&D, as they already know the system. Those playing White Wolf would have to relearn d20, and might decide to try Palladium instead.




I've seen this, to use Lizard's phrase, meme bounced around a lot.  I'm not sure if I really buy it.  If someone leaves 3e for a d20 game, they've likely left because they don't like 3e for whatever reason.  Why would they then later come back to 3e?

I think, and this is purely my gut feeling, the reality was closer to:  Enter gaming through D&D, become disillusioned with D&D for whatever reason, move on to another pasture.  The amount of gamers who circled back into D&D was much smaller than the numbers who left.  So, basically, you're allowing your competitors to bleed off your customers using your own creations.

No one has ever been able to say how much the OGL actually succeeded in keeping gamers within the D&D umbrella.  Myself included.  It could very well be that d20 did.  I don't know.  I doubt it quite honestly, but, I could very well be wrong.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> I disagree with the assumption that bringing all gaming systems under the d20 umbrella is good for gamers.  I think that a lot of games are getting stifled simply because everything must be d20 or it won't sell.
> 
> Note, I believe that a publisher could publish their own game and 4e material if they wanted to.  What they cannot do is publish 4e and 3e OGL material at the same time.
> 
> So, if, say, Mutants and Masterminds came up with its own system, then it could be published as well as 4e.
> 
> Or, if M&M was updated to 4e mechanics under the d20 GSL, then GR could sell D&D products under the D&D GSL.  (I'm getting my acronyms screwed up.)
> 
> From what I understand though, they cannot sell a d20 M&M using d20 OGL material.
> 
> That doesn't mean that M&M has to die.  It does mean that it will likely see revision though.





The problem with this thinking is that most gamers are casual gamers and while the casual gamer is willing (most of the time) try variations on something he/she knows...IMHO most casual gamers are very adverse to having to learn a totally different system, especially as they grow older and less time can be focused on rpg's as opposed to other things in life.  Right now most of my group knows the storyteller system and d20, whenever I announce we are playing a variant of those systems my players are automatically at ease...the minute I start talking about a totally new system, I really have to sell them.


----------



## Mighty Veil

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> * Adamant Entertainment
> * EN Publishing
> * Expeditious Retreat Press
> * Fantasy Flight Games
> * Goodman Games
> * Green Ronin Publishing
> * Mongoose Publishing
> * Necromancer Games
> * Paizo Publishing
> * Paradigm Concepts
> * Privateer Press
> 
> .




FFG might get back into PNP games? That's neat. Interesting to see which D20 companies could still be around for 4e. Too bad AEG isn't interested. I read their stuff and I felt it was one of the better 3rd party groups. Very surprised to see a couple names on this list as their stuff was awful.


----------



## Hussar

At the end of the day, I guess it depends on whether or not you see the OGL as a success or not.  I generally don't, to be completely honest.  I don't think the OGL was as successful as some make it out to be.


----------



## dm4hire

The license is going in the direction I figured it would, but in the same regards I have to agree that WotC is being over reactive.  Their stance puts them more in the role of a spoiled kid where everything has to be about them.  If players decide they don't want to keep playing D&D then I would think that they would want them to continue playing something similar for the sole reason that the odds are more in their favor they will return later.  Players who switch to completely different systems tend to not go back as they find the mechanics simplier or more fluent to their desires.  Those who stick with d20 though can still buy WotC books, as mentioned, to assist them with their game and thus at least give some money back.

I just hope that the lawyers at WotC don't move to stifle it even more by placing a restriction that any individual who uses the license cannot work with the OGL.  Which would put the partnering of companies in jeopardy, as writers then would not be able to work between companies.  As it sits there is no reason why anyone who doesn't go with the GSL cannot do their thing and then partner with someone who did, thereby doing both.  That is the only legal loop hole I am seeing so far without seeing the license.  We may see a lot of partnering in the third party world soon.


----------



## SSquirrel

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Excellent point.  The GSL means that one of the two will happen:
> 
> 1.  The gaming community will lose True20 and Mutants & Masterminds; or
> 2.  The gaming community will not have Green Ronin producing books for D&D 4e.
> 
> Ouch.




I think people are forgetting a 3rd option.  

3. The gaming opportunity gets Mutants & Masterminds 4th Edition (crazy edition skipping!) under the new d20 GSL for non-fantasy games.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Here's something: how restrictive is the "one or the other" clause?  I'm specifically thinking of Paizo.  They're planning to work with Necro on 4E, but keep publishing their own 3E stuff.  However, their main business is actually being a storefront for games and gaming accessories including their own.  If they stick with 3E, will they be able to sell Necro's 4E stuff in their online store, or vice versa: if they move to 4E will they have to discontinue selling all the 3E stock they have sitting around...back issues, older books, etc.?

Some related questions: how distanced do Necro and Paizo have to be in order for one to sell 4E stuff and the other to sell 3E stuff?  If most of the Paizo guys have writing credits on Necro books, does that violate the GSL?  Will writers have to pick sides or else risk violating their publishers' contracts?  If Paizo can keep publishing Pathfinder, but still work with Necro on 4E stuff, what's the difference between that and just starting up a 4E company, keeping it distanced from Paizo, but still selling its stuff in the Paizo store and getting the best of both worlds?

This sounds like a disaster to me.  If not immediately, then a few months from now, when companies like Paizo and Green Ronin are going to have their backs to the wall: abandon support of your popular main lines, or force your fans to discard their existing books and buy all new books to achieve compliance with the new system.

This also looks to me like it could turn into a PR nightmare for WotC.  I'm not a big GR fan, but I bet there are going to be a lot of people who are pretty pissed off that GR must choose between supporting True20 and supporting 4E.  The fan base will split between the people who want GR to move to the new system and write supplements, and people who want True20 to keep getting support.  That could endanger GR's existence, and the loss of a quality company like that can only hurt the hobby.  Same goes for Paizo, although they'll probably have an easier time migrating Pathfinder since it's a world, not a system.

I strongly disapprove of this measure.  I think that some amount of nudging to convert to 4E is probably okay, but not arm-twisting like this.  It should be a carrot, not a stick.  This "you're with us or you're against us" mentality has a precedent of blowing up in the face of the one making the ultimatum.  As a consumer, I take offence at this deliberate hamstringing of companies that are beloved by the community.


----------



## Dragonblade

dm4hire said:
			
		

> The license is going in the direction I figured it would, but in the same regards I have to agree that WotC is being over reactive.  Their stance puts them more in the role of a spoiled kid where everything has to be about them.




Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.

Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."

The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.


----------



## AllisterH

dm4hire said:
			
		

> The license is going in the direction I figured it would, but in the same regards I have to agree that WotC is being over reactive.  Their stance puts them more in the role of a spoiled kid where everything has to be about them.  If players decide they don't want to keep playing D&D then I would think that they would want them to continue playing something similar for the sole reason that the odds are more in their favor they will return later.  Players who switch to completely different systems tend to not go back as they find the mechanics simplier or more fluent to their desires.  Those who stick with d20 though can still buy WotC books, as mentioned, to assist them with their game and thus at least give some money back.
> 
> .




Except for one tiny little problem. It's their ball and more importantly, they're the ones that invited everyone to play their game. Calling the kid who not only supplied the ball but actually invited everyone over spoiled because he wants to play a new game seems well, weird.

That's the thing I find funny in this discussion. People seem willing to believe the worst of WOTC yet we wouldn't even be talking about this WITHOUT WOTC willing to play


----------



## Lizard

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen this, to use Lizard's phrase, meme bounced around a lot.  I'm not sure if I really buy it.  If someone leaves 3e for a d20 game, they've likely left because they don't like 3e for whatever reason.  Why would they then later come back to 3e?




I love Chinese food. But if I have it every night for a month, I'm going to want Italian. This doesn't mean I've stopped liking Chinese, I just want a change.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Is no-one realizing that Mutants and Masterminds is as close to 3e as it is to 4e?
That True 20 made enough changes as to be incompatible except in vague "Resolution Mechanic" ways.

True 20 can crib all the game play improvements it wants.  Rules are not subject to copyright.  The OGL was just WotC giving a little bit of IP out in an open way and releasing their rules texts.  I can make a 4e SRD that ignores the GSL and post it on line.  I just have to be REALLY careful to not use their text.  Luckily, I can just rename Tide of Iron to Shield Push and I'm pretty good.

(IANAL, and this is just based off my own lay interpretation of similar laws.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.
> 
> Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."
> 
> The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.



You're overlooking the only people in this situation who are entitled to act like spoiled kids: the consumers.  If we want to play both 3E and 4E, and have those lines both supported by our favourite companies, we're SOL.  But we're the ones who pay for this stuff, and we're getting screwed by this policy.  The game publishers may not have a right to demand that WotC make life easy for them, but we paying customers have the ability to raise a stink about it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Luckily, I can just rename Tide of Iron to Shield Push and I'm pretty good.




And as a bonus, I'd have some idea of what the  the feat did.


----------



## Zil

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen this, to use Lizard's phrase, meme bounced around a lot.  I'm not sure if I really buy it.  If someone leaves 3e for a d20 game, they've likely left because they don't like 3e for whatever reason.  Why would they then later come back to 3e?



Take my gaming group for example.  Occasionally we like to scratch an itch and try something else for a bit.  If that game is also d20, then when we are done scratching that itch, it will be easier to come back "home" to D&D.   Fantasy flavoured games are our default resting spot, so if all our games are under the d20 umbrella, we'll always come back to D&D eventually.  I suspect we've easily purchased over 95% of the WoTC 3E/3.5 catalog - often multiple copies.  They're not losing anything by us trying another d20 based game for a bit because we always do come back.


----------



## Greg K

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I think people are forgetting a 3rd option.
> 
> 3. The gaming opportunity gets Mutants & Masterminds 4th Edition (crazy edition skipping!) under the new d20 GSL for non-fantasy games.




I'm not  interested in a 4e version of MM or True20.


----------



## Morrus

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.
> 
> Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."
> 
> The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.




It's not that black-and-white, and I suspect you know it.  There's a big difference when the "lending" of the toys included an invitation to make irreversible business and livelihood decisions based on the non-enforceable but strongly implied promise that those who did make such large business decisions and invest large amounts of their own money in ventures which - at least, at the time in WotC's eyes, would lead to sales of their own PHB - would not get screwed over at a moment's notice.


----------



## Moonshade

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Except for one tiny little problem. It's their ball and more importantly, they're the ones that invited everyone to play their game. Calling the kid who not only supplied the ball but actually invited everyone over spoiled because he wants to play a new game seems well, weird.
> 
> That's the thing I find funny in this discussion. People seem willing to believe the worst of WOTC yet we wouldn't even be talking about this WITHOUT WOTC willing to play




Isn't it more like a rich kid having a green ball and inviting everyone to play with it? He says they can make their own green balls with the little changes they like, as long as they're green. But then the kid gets a blue ball and tells people that they have to choose between playing with the green balls they have and the right to play with and modify his fancy new blue ball. And if the other kids choose to play with their old green balls, they won't be allowed to play with blue ones. If they do choose the blue ball, the kid is going to set lawyers on them if they try to play with their green balls ever again. Never mind that they have their own green-coloured balls that sometimes look quite different from the original despite maintaining the same basic shape - if they want to give the new blue ball a try, they won't be allowed to return to their green balls or even let other kids play with them anymore. They'll have to give up on the green balls they've spent their own time and money on, and if they'd like to try playing with both green and blue ones, or find out they don't like the blue balls, tough. They continue half-heartedly playing with blue balls, give up on playing, or risk facing the kid's lawyers if they return to their green balls.

And heh. That's basically a lengthy answer to the sarcastic "What, is WOTC going to come to your house and steal your 3.x books?" comment I've seen on a lot of 4E threads. WOTC isn't saying that no one else is allowed to play with the blue ball at all, but if what I read is true, it does seem like they're telling publishers that you can't use or return to your old books if you want to give 4E publishing a try. IMO, it's a little like saying you can have EN World or you can have our glorious new Gleemax, but if you log in to your old EN World account after registering at Gleemax we'll be making use of our right to ban you and try to have EN World mods ban you too since you agreed to give up on that site when registering at Gleemax.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

I think toy metaphor is really clouding the issue in insincere sentimentality.

Remoras and sharks is more appropriate.  Except the sharks have bitten the remoras before.  3.5 HURT a lot of publishers.  So did announcing 4E.  I think that the "poor pitful publishers" angle fails to see that these are mostly ventures that wouldn't have existed without WotC creating the market.

BTW, this "publisher exclusivity" is solely the brainchild of a publisher who has been really close to conspiracy theory before.  Just because WotC hasn't said "no" doesn't mean they are tacitly supporting the idea.  The Whole GSL can celling thing never woul;d have amounted to much without Orcus egging it on.  I'm not saying he is wrong or doesn't have a point.  He's a smart guy and this is the core of his companies concern.  But he is a little alarmist in tone and others tend to spin his stuff very strong.


----------



## HeinorNY

Hey, I want to make a toys and kids analogy too.

WOTC is the kid inviting others to play with his toys, but he says to the other kids:
-These are the toys for us to play together so we can have fun together. You can't take a toy and go to your beroom to play with it by yourself.


----------



## Jack99

ainatan said:
			
		

> Hey, I want to make a toys and kids analogy too.
> 
> WOTC is the kid inviting others to play with his toys, but he says to the other kids:
> -These are the toys for us to play together so we can have fun together. You can't take a *my* toy and go to your bedroom to play with it by yourself.




I can also make an analogy (just changed yours, since I am lazy).. doesn't make it right, though.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.
> 
> Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."
> 
> The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.



What a silly analogy. No one has taken any childrens' toys here. No one has even "taken" the D&D rules from WotC.

What people _did_ do was utilize a license designed to allow sharing.

Stealing toys...


----------



## Shroomy

Here is what I see happening.  Third party companies with a successful proprietary OGL system will not drop their systems for 4e unless they've become completely unprofitable.  Some will choose not to support 4e at all and some will spin-off new companies (and will not have the marketing advantage of their brands) or form partnerships similar to that of Paizo-Necromancer.


----------



## ppaladin123

I'm confused. I understand that if company X produces product A and wants to switch to to 4e, they will have to stop selling the 3.5 version of product A. But what if they want to simultaneously sell 4e product A and 3.5e product B (i.e. update only one of their products)? Is that allowed? It looks like the answer is "no" but that may just be speculation by board members. Has it been confirmed?


----------



## Jack99

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> I'm confused. I understand that if company X produces product A and wants to switch to to 4e, they will have to stop selling the 3.5 version of product A. But what if they want to simultaneously sell 4e product A and 3.5e product B (i.e. update only one of their products)? Is that allowed? It looks like the answer is "no" but that may just be speculation by board members. Has it been confirmed?




Not yet, from what we have heard, we will know in 2 weeks.


----------



## pawsplay

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That's the thing I find funny in this discussion. People seem willing to believe the worst of WOTC yet we wouldn't even be talking about this WITHOUT WOTC willing to play




If WotC had tanked three months after the OGL was released, you can be darned sure we'd be playing.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Saishu_Heiki*, perhaps you have forgotten that we expect a higher than average level of civility around here.  Allow me to remind you, and everyone else...
> .



I did not realize that this was over the line. I did not mean it as an attack, but the intention is secondary to the perception. 

I will refrain form making such comments again. It is not my intention to disrupt the civil and engaging discussions here.


----------



## Wolfspider

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Remoras and sharks is more appropriate.  Except the sharks have bitten the remoras before.  3.5 HURT a lot of publishers.  So did announcing 4E.  I think that the "poor pitful publishers" angle fails to see that these are mostly ventures that wouldn't have existed without WotC creating the market.




And 4e wouldn't have existed with Iron Heroes, which was only possible due to the OGL.

So it's more of a symbiotic rather than parasitical relationship.


----------



## Wolfspider

Fenarisk said:
			
		

> This is almost a complete non issue. If paizo wants to stick with 3.x, then they form "Paizo so-and-so A" for those needs. If paizo also wants to do 4e, they then create a subsidiary or sister company to be a technically separate tax entity, "Paizo so-and-so B". Being two technically separate companies (even if they are under the same management umbrella) is perfectly legal in order for one to be GSL and the other be old OGL.




I wondered about this kind of arrangment as well, but IANAL (although my mother wanted me to be one) so I'm not sure how it would work.

By the way, thanks for letting WotC know about this loophole--I'm sure their talking with their lawyers about it right now.


----------



## pawsplay

I'm not going to bother with a toy analogy. Once upon a time, WotC descided to take the prudent step of creating a "safe harbor" for third party publishers. This practice aknowledged their obligation to allow others to create compatible and competitive products. Just like Hoover and Volkswagen and other companies, they realized that restricting that activity was not only impossible but ultimately unethical. Then one day they said, "It's my preciousss!!!" and attempted to drown third party publishers, the same guys who had supported, promoted and help developed their products, and in many cases even worked for them. 

The only reason WotC doesn't risk being sued/fined into oblivion over this form of IP racketeering is that the gaming market is too small for that to be realistic.

All WotC really owns is the specific text in their books, and their individually developed trademarks. One thing they do not own is the "System." A game system cannot be copyrighted, and only its true innovations can be patented.


----------



## Mistwell

There could be some nasty legal issues that arose if you tried to restrain individuals who happen to do some work for a GSL licensed company from conducting their writing trade elsewhere, as opposed to just restraining the companies that agreed to a license voluntarily.

So, a person should be able to write a book for a 3e-company, and a book for a 4e-company, without an issue.  And the same person should be able to be an officer and/or board member of a 3e-company, and a 4e-company, at the same time, and do work for both companies at the same time (as long as they are not the same company).

At least, that is my guess, based on what we know right now.


----------



## La Bete

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm not going to bother with a toy analogy. Once upon a time, WotC descided to take the prudent step of creating a "safe harbor" for third party publishers. This practice aknowledged their obligation to allow others to create compatible and competitive products. Just like Hoover and Volkswagen and other companies, they realized that restricting that activity was not only impossible but ultimately unethical. Then one day they said, "It's my preciousss!!!" and attempted to drown third party publishers, the same guys who had supported, promoted and help developed their products, and in many cases even worked for them.
> 
> The only reason WotC doesn't risk being sued/fined into oblivion over this form of IP racketeering is that the gaming market is too small for that to be realistic.
> 
> All WotC really owns is the specific text in their books, and their individually developed trademarks. One thing they do not own is the "System." *A game system cannot be copyrighted, and only its true innovations can be patented*.




Overwrought much? 

Any company whose livelyhood depends on the business decisions of another company faces challenges when the other company changes it's plans (let alone when you are dependent on that companys IP/licensing). 

Thats business. Anyone in this business should (and probably does) realise that. 

Wrt the bolded text - I see this all the time, but the normal answer is " I can't afford the lawyers in case I get a C&D". A related note - if this assertion is true (and I've seen the legal precedents it is based off) - who's making money off OSRIC?


----------



## SSquirrel

Greg K said:
			
		

> I'm not  interested in a 4e version of MM or True20.




That's you're option, I was just adding that there was another choice not listed.


----------



## FalconGK81

Moonshade said:
			
		

> they don't like the blue balls, tough




I can tell you this with 100% certainty.  I don't like the blue balls.

Giggle, Giggle, sorry I couldn't resist.  Too funny.


----------



## CleverNickName

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's something: how restrictive is the "one or the other" clause?  I'm specifically thinking of Paizo.  They're planning to work with Necro on 4E, but keep publishing their own 3E stuff.  However, their main business is actually being a storefront for games and gaming accessories including their own.  If they stick with 3E, will they be able to sell Necro's 4E stuff in their online store, or vice versa: if they move to 4E will they have to discontinue selling all the 3E stock they have sitting around...back issues, older books, etc.?
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I strongly disapprove of this measure.  I think that some amount of nudging to convert to 4E is probably okay, but not arm-twisting like this.  It should be a carrot, not a stick.  This "you're with us or you're against us" mentality has a precedent of blowing up in the face of the one making the ultimatum.  As a consumer, I take offence at this deliberate hamstringing of companies that are beloved by the community.



My thoughts exactly.

See, I happen to like 3.5E.  I still play it.  I plan to continue playing it.  It would be nice if I could be able to continue buying products for the system I like.  Does that make me a bad person?

And, I'm not completely sold on 4E.  I  haven't even seen the books yet.  I don't know if I will want to switch over to it.  Does this make me a bad person too?

Legal matters confound me, every time.  I would like some more clarification on this "4E or 3E" development.  Because it's got me nervous.


----------



## Vempyre

pawsplay said:
			
		

> ... This practice aknowledged their obligation to allow others to create compatible and competitive products. ...




obligation ?

Is there some legality you are aware of that we are not?


----------



## pawsplay

Vempyre said:
			
		

> obligation ?
> 
> Is there some legality you are aware of that we are not?




I don't know. How many of you are aware of antitrust legislation?


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So it's more of a symbiotic rather than parasitical relationship.




Unless the remora was Mike Mearls the Illithid Larva and it took over the D&D Sharks Brain.

And Remnora are commensal not parasitic.  It's not truly accurate though cause WotC does gain a little something.  It's weakly symbiotic.


----------



## pawsplay

La Bete said:
			
		

> Overwrought much?




I try not to touch the stuff.


----------



## Kishin

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> FFG might get back into PNP games? That's neat. Interesting to see which D20 companies could still be around for 4e. Too bad AEG isn't interested. I read their stuff and I felt it was one of the better 3rd party groups. Very surprised to see a couple names on this list as their stuff was awful.




AEG's pretty much put its focus back on publishing L5R in its old d10 ruleset, since they took some flak from fans for the d20 version. Their 3.5E output fell off in terms of quantity pretty quickly, but they did indeed publish some very good stuff, including some very nice short adventures.

FFG is probably there so they can continue to push Midnight, which means making it 4E. I still don't think they're going to have a major interest in the RPG market, since their boardgames line is way more successful. I think Dawnforge would be a fantastic 4E setting, though.

On the plus side, I'd like to thank Scott, Linae and everyone else involved with releasing the GSL information for winning me a wager with some friends as to which would see release first: the 4E GSL, FFG's English translation of the Anima RPG, or Duke Nukem Forever. (Only one person bet on the third, don't worry.)


----------



## Wolfspider

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Unless the remora was Mike Mearls the Illithid Larva and it took over the D&D Sharks Brain.




Hmmmm....   

*ponders*


----------



## med stud

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't know. How many of you are aware of antitrust legislation?



WotC has competition in other companies. If WotC are the owners of D&D and they are the developers of the d20 system, it sounds strange if they could be hit by antitrust- laws when they reign in their own property?

From a moral POV I don't care about this and I don't think about it much, but from a technical POV I think WotC are acting perfectly within their rights. They made the system, they copyrighted it and they licensed it out. If you accept the concept of intellectual property, I think this is a clear cut case.

---

The main thing I'm interested in from 3rd party producers is adventures and settings and the GSL seems like it's made for that. I wouldn't cry even if WotC went TSR either, of course.


----------



## Vempyre

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't know. How many of you are aware of antitrust legislation?




I personally wouldn't be talking of "obligations" in a legal way unless I had the knowledge to be able to make such statements. Which I don't happen to have. The question is, do you have the legal expertise (lawyer specialized in antitrust legislation for example) to make such statements yourself? I don't think we should take this discussion in that territory unless we have the proper expertise to do it.


----------



## pawsplay

med stud said:
			
		

> They made the system, they copyrighted it and they licensed it out.




They copyrighted the text. You can't copyright a system.


----------



## FalconGK81

On a side note, I just read through this whole thread, and the tone of it changes dramatically somewhere in the middle to 3/4 of the way through, but I don't see any quotes or any reason for it.  It goes from "Lets all be happy" to "GSL is gonna kill OGL, z0mg!!!".  Were there posts deleted out of this thread, or is there another thread running that is cross contaminating this one, or what?  I guess I'm just wondering how the mood shifted so dramatically.  Did I miss something?


----------



## med stud

pawsplay said:
			
		

> They copyrighted the text. You can't copyright a system.



OK I guess I have a moral POV on this anyway; if you can't copyright a system, it sounds very strange to me. WotC spends lots of money and time developing a system, and then anyone of the street can reword it and start selling it? It sounds weird. I don't doubt what you say though, I know next to nothing about US juridics.


----------



## med stud

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> On a side note, I just read through this whole thread, and the tone of it changes dramatically somewhere in the middle to 3/4 of the way through, but I don't see any quotes or any reason for it.  It goes from "Lets all be happy" to "GSL is gonna kill OGL, z0mg!!!".  Were there posts deleted out of this thread, or is there another thread running that is cross contaminating this one, or what?  I guess I'm just wondering how the mood shifted so dramatically.  Did I miss something?



Positive opionions tend not to create controversy, so after a few pages most of what is going on is stuff that _do_ create controversy. I think it applies to almost every thread I have read on just about any internet message board. Human psychology at it's most typical


----------



## Cadfan

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't know. How many of you are aware of antitrust legislation?



Statements like this put your credibility on this subject in great jeopardy.


			
				med stud said:
			
		

> OK I guess I have a moral POV on this anyway; if you can't copyright a system, it sounds very strange to me. WotC spends lots of money and time developing a system, and then anyone of the street can reword it and start selling it? It sounds weird. I don't doubt what you say though, I know next to nothing about US juridics.



You can't copyright a process, and in theory, a game is a process.  That being said, a game has a lot in common with a computer program, and copyright has special rules that mean you can (sort of) copyright a computer program.  This is due to extensive litigation that worked out the vagueness of how to apply old copyright principles from the 1700s to the modern era of information technology.  This litigation and resulting update has not occurred for games, and probably never will, because the status quo lets business move along and there isn't enough at stake to make serious IP litigation worthwhile for anyone in the business.

As long as no one kicks over the apple cart, everything will move along just fine.


----------



## Orcus

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's something: how restrictive is the "one or the other" clause?  I'm specifically thinking of Paizo.  They're planning to work with Necro on 4E, but keep publishing their own 3E stuff.  However, their main business is actually being a storefront for games and gaming accessories including their own.  If they stick with 3E, will they be able to sell Necro's 4E stuff in their online store, or vice versa: if they move to 4E will they have to discontinue selling all the 3E stock they have sitting around...back issues, older books, etc.?




Dont worry. I have been specifically told by Wizards that my arrangement with Paizo is kosher and that I can do 4E and Paizo can do its thing and we are fine.



> I strongly disapprove of this measure.  I think that some amount of nudging to convert to 4E is probably okay, but not arm-twisting like this.  It should be a carrot, not a stick.  This "you're with us or you're against us" mentality has a precedent of blowing up in the face of the one making the ultimatum.  As a consumer, I take offence at this deliberate hamstringing of companies that are beloved by the community.




For what its worth, I dont like it one bit either. I'm disappointed that they went this way. I am surprised, too. 

Clark


----------



## Mercule

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't know. How many of you are aware of antitrust legislation?



I do not think that word means what you think it means.

WotC may be the big fish, but there are plenty of viable RPG companies out there.  I'm not even entirely certain the "RP" is relevant, in this case.  There are plenty of viable game companies out there.


----------



## pawsplay

med stud said:
			
		

> OK I guess I have a moral POV on this anyway; if you can't copyright a system, it sounds very strange to me. WotC spends lots of money and time developing a system, and then anyone of the street can reword it and start selling it? It sounds weird. I don't doubt what you say though, I know next to nothing about US juridics.




It goes back to the concept of "You can't copyright an idea." You can copyright a book, having taken the time to arrange a bunch of words into their final published form and calling it an intellectual work. But you can't sue someone for writing a similar novel, unless you can demonstrate their novel is actually derived from the text of yours. That's what's called a derivative work. I can't make a movie called Space Wars about some schelp named Bo Starkiller fighting the galactic empire with his friends Duchess Florence and Max Lone using his psychic powers with the help of a grizzled old Woodoo Knight, unless I am going to claim I am fairly parodying Star Wars. But I can make Eragon, which uses similar themes, because George Lucas can't claim to own the concept of farmboys destroying tyrannical rulers. Indeed, Star Wars itself owes a lot to Doc Smith's Lensman, Kurosawa's film The Hidden Fortress, and of course Flash Gordon. 

So going back to D&D, they can copyright this text: 

_Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry. 
_

since for all practical purposes, they are the first to put those words together in a final form to express some idea. 

Compare to:

_Strength represents the character's raw physical power: how much damage he does in HTH Combat; how much he can lift, carry, throw, and so forth._

an equally copyrightable piece of text from Hero System Fifth Edition Revised.


----------



## pawsplay

Mercule said:
			
		

> I do not think that word means what you think it means.




But you really don't know, since we haven't conversed at length on the subject. I suspect that the same rules that prevented Microsoft from keeping other companies out of the Windows software game apply to WotC. "Antitrust" is a linguistic quirk of being an American; I am talking about anti-competitive business practices.


----------



## The Little Raven

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The only reason WotC doesn't risk being sued/fined into oblivion over this form of IP racketeering is that the gaming market is too small for that to be realistic.




You do realize that accusing a company of a crime of this magnitude is libel when you have no legal evidence of it, right?


----------



## pawsplay

Mourn said:
			
		

> You do realize that accusing a company of a crime of this magnitude is libel when you have no legal evidence of it, right?




Evidence of what? "IP racketeering" is a metaphor. It's well known largish companies often issue C&D letters or sue people with little expectation of going to court, confident the little guy will fold. 

If WotC wants to sue me for accusing them specifically of anti-competitive behavior, let them; as it stands it's my opinion. I have not accused them of any specific acts of which I do not have definite knowledge.


----------



## Green Knight

> I am talking about anti-competitive business practices.




There's nothing "anti-competitive" about this, though. WotC is doing nothing to keep people from using the OGL. WotC is allowing people to use 4E. They're just saying you can't use them at the same. And even then, companies can choose to go back to the OGL if they so choose. And this has zero effect on other game companies like White Wolf, Palladium, GURPS, Hero System, etc.


----------



## GRIMJIM

Mourn said:
			
		

> You do realize that accusing a company of a crime of this magnitude is libel when you have no legal evidence of it, right?




IF this were software I think they'd be in deep trouble, at least in the EU, the analogy of an Operating System works fairly well. Imagine the furore and the lawyer frenzy if Microsoft had insisted that anyone producing software for Vista had to drop all support for previous editions and couldn't make XP compatible products any longer.

From previous discussions a few years back now though, RPG books are considered a subset of either publishing or game production and so even if they did completely monopolise the TTRPG market it wouldn't register with the powers that be.


----------



## Orcus

Would people please not get sidetracked by the whole copyright/antitrust stuff. None of that is remotely applicable here. I am a lawyer. Lets not get sidetracked.


----------



## pawsplay

GRIMJIM said:
			
		

> IF this were software I think they'd be in deep trouble, at least in the EU, the analogy of an Operating System works fairly well. Imagine the furore and the lawyer frenzy if Microsoft had insisted that anyone producing software for Vista had to drop all support for previous editions and couldn't make XP compatible products any longer.
> 
> From previous discussions a few years back now though, RPG books are considered a subset of either publishing or game production and so even if they did completely monopolise the TTRPG market it wouldn't register with the powers that be.




Exactly; it might still be technically actionable, but there's no way the Dept of Justice is going to care.


----------



## Mercule

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Evidence of what? "IP racketeering" is a metaphor. It's well known largish companies often issue C&D letters or sue people with little expectation of going to court, confident the little guy will fold.



It has a better chance of sticking than the "antitrust" idea does.

WotC just spent a truckload of time and money to get the GSL written.  The "can't patent a game system" was part of the original rationale behind the OGL.  WotC is well aware of it, as are their laywers.

Yes, there is always the chance of a judge with indigestion, but I'm pretty confident that the GSL is solid and not going to fall to anti-trust, or other pitfalls.


----------



## pawsplay

Orcus said:
			
		

> Would people please not get sidetracked by the whole copyright/antitrust stuff. None of that is remotely applicable here. I am a lawyer. Lets not get sidetracked.




Sidetracked? This is the train.


----------



## Moonshade

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> On a side note, I just read through this whole thread, and the tone of it changes dramatically somewhere in the middle to 3/4 of the way through, but I don't see any quotes or any reason for it.  It goes from "Lets all be happy" to "GSL is gonna kill OGL, z0mg!!!".  Were there posts deleted out of this thread, or is there another thread running that is cross contaminating this one, or what?  I guess I'm just wondering how the mood shifted so dramatically.  Did I miss something?




I'm guessing that at first people were happy to have GSL news after much waiting and speculation. Mood change is probably due to information discussed here. Some people who were originally happy with the confirmation that there will be a GSL were less happy with these unexpected restrictions and what their implications are for their favourite non-WOTC/D&D publishers and products.


----------



## Sir Brennen

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But you really don't know, since we haven't conversed at length on the subject. I suspect that the same rules that prevented Microsoft from keeping other companies out of the Windows software game apply to WotC. "Antitrust" is a linguistic quirk of being an American; I am talking about anti-competitive business practices.



Except it isn't anti-competitive. 

1) The whole point of the OGL/GSL is to actually give other companies the ability to produce material to support the game. Most people -and WotC - take the long view that this is healthy for the industry overall, even though it is technically still competition.

2) Companies are still free to produce 3.x material, even though it will compete against 4E for market space.

3) Companies will be able to produce 4E material (just not if they also produce 3.x)

4) Companies are still free to produce whatever non-d20 game they like and compete directly with WotC in the marketspace.

So, anti-trust, anti-competitive - neither apply. Even if WotC had said "Nobody but us can produce 4E material", it still wouldn't be anti-competitive. I mean, I haven't heard White Wolf called  "anti-competitive", and they don't let anyone else publish game material based on their system/IP (with the exception of some very specific, short-term license agreements.)

Now, if WotC told retailers and distributors that they can only sell  D&D products if they remove all White Wolf and Steve Jackson Games material off their shelves/catalogs, that would be something else entirely. But even completely ditching the GSL for 4E wouldn't even be close to that.


----------



## Oldtimer

med stud said:
			
		

> Positive opionions tend not to create controversy, so after a few pages most of what is going on is stuff that _do_ create controversy. I think it applies to almost every thread I have read on just about any internet message board. Human psychology at it's most typical



You don't need to be quite that cynical about it.  

What happened is that the news about the new GSL rules leaked through from the (aptly named) OGL forum. That's when the proverbial excrement hit the fan.


----------



## pawsplay

_I mean, I haven't heard White Wolf called "anti-competitive", and they don't let anyone else publish game material based on their system/IP (with the exception of some very specific, short-term license agreements.)_

But what do people say about Palladium?


----------



## AZRogue

I don't mind the restriction ... BUT I really don't like that it impacts very popular games like MM, Spycraft, Conan, True20, etc. I wish the clause that prohibits companies from still releasing under the OGL could be made to exclude those games that developed into their own mini-systems. That's a lot of talent, and a lot of entertainment, that would be lost and that's very sad.

Adventures, supplements, settings, optional rulebooks, I don't mind being forced to be discontinued. But I think that the mini-systems that can stand on their own shouldn't be included in the restriction. I WANT those games out there. 

Anyway, we'll see how this all plays out.


----------



## Jon Wake

This is actually really good news for gaming itself.   D&D 4E products will be distinct from the current morass of d20 products, and hopefully it will force some publishers who could just slap the 'd20' OGL on with little more than the fact you rolled a d20 at some point to innovate their own game systems and stop thinking one mechanic fits all settings.    The greatest diversity in the market came from the old TSR days.


----------



## breschau

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's something: how restrictive is the "one or the other" clause?  I'm specifically thinking of Paizo.  They're planning to work with Necro on 4E, but keep publishing their own 3E stuff.  However, their main business is actually being a storefront for games and gaming accessories including their own.  If they stick with 3E, will they be able to sell Necro's 4E stuff in their online store, or vice versa: if they move to 4E will they have to discontinue selling all the 3E stock they have sitting around...back issues, older books, etc.?
> 
> Some related questions: how distanced do Necro and Paizo have to be in order for one to sell 4E stuff and the other to sell 3E stuff?  If most of the Paizo guys have writing credits on Necro books, does that violate the GSL?  Will writers have to pick sides or else risk violating their publishers' contracts?  If Paizo can keep publishing Pathfinder, but still work with Necro on 4E stuff, what's the difference between that and just starting up a 4E company, keeping it distanced from Paizo, but still selling its stuff in the Paizo store and getting the best of both worlds?
> 
> This sounds like a disaster to me.  If not immediately, then a few months from now, when companies like Paizo and Green Ronin are going to have their backs to the wall: abandon support of your popular main lines, or force your fans to discard their existing books and buy all new books to achieve compliance with the new system.
> 
> This also looks to me like it could turn into a PR nightmare for WotC.  I'm not a big GR fan, but I bet there are going to be a lot of people who are pretty pissed off that GR must choose between supporting True20 and supporting 4E.  The fan base will split between the people who want GR to move to the new system and write supplements, and people who want True20 to keep getting support.  That could endanger GR's existence, and the loss of a quality company like that can only hurt the hobby.  Same goes for Paizo, although they'll probably have an easier time migrating Pathfinder since it's a world, not a system.
> 
> I strongly disapprove of this measure.  I think that some amount of nudging to convert to 4E is probably okay, but not arm-twisting like this.  It should be a carrot, not a stick.  This "you're with us or you're against us" mentality has a precedent of blowing up in the face of the one making the ultimatum.  As a consumer, I take offence at this deliberate hamstringing of companies that are beloved by the community.




This.

WotC may be able to require OGL or GSL products by a single company. But, there's nothing stopping each of the companies listed from having a subsidiary (or closely related company using the same writers/devs on a freelance basis) enabling them to produce both. There are so many vagaries in this that's it's an almost pointless restriction. All this does is prevent GR from producing Freeport in 4E and continuing 3.x support. But, does it really? Couldn't GR sell the 4E rights to a subsidiary company? GR produces the 3.x products, while the sub produces the 4E stuff. I don't see how WotC could restrict any company from licensing their own Intellectual Property.


----------



## Gundark

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> What a silly analogy. No one has taken any childrens' toys here. No one has even "taken" the D&D rules from WotC.
> 
> What people _did_ do was utilize a license designed to allow sharing.
> 
> Stealing toys...




No sillier than the WotC=Spoiled children arguement made earlier


----------



## Lizard

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _I mean, I haven't heard White Wolf called "anti-competitive", and they don't let anyone else publish game material based on their system/IP (with the exception of some very specific, short-term license agreements.)_
> 
> But what do people say about Palladium?




Nothing which can be repeated under board rules.


----------



## Gundark

Orcus said:
			
		

> For what its worth, I dont like it one bit either. I'm disappointed that they went this way. I am surprised, too.




Surprised...a little. Dissappointed...well considering what Mr. Rouse said about the 7 figure development figure...I can see why they'd want to maximise their return potential


----------



## The Little Raven

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But what do people say about Palladium?




That their owner is kinda a punk sometimes, and their policies over their own material can be a bit draconian, but I don't think anyone with any merit has ever claimed to be able to litigate an anti-competition suit against them.


----------



## Jack of Shadows

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> FFG might get back into PNP games? That's neat.




Ummm,

You may want to do a search for a little thing called Dark Heresy. Just sayin'.

JoS


----------



## La Bete

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I try not to touch the stuff.




heh. touche, and all that.


----------



## epochrpg

Hmmm.  The choose 4E or 3.5 and only publish that choice / company rule seems sort of annoying.  I don't think that it will have any teeth, since they already said that PAIZO can make 3.5 support stuff and Necromancer can make 4E stuff.  All this would mean is that a company wanting to make stuff for both would have to make a subsidiary, perhaps nominally under the control of someone else.

For instance, Basic Action Games did make a couple 3.x OGL products, and may in the future, make more.  If we wanted to make 4e stuff, officially we'd have to stop making 3.x stuff-- but in reality, we could just set up a new company called Action Basic Games, perhaps nominally headed up by say... my wife or something... that makes 4e stuff.  

Sure, setting it up that way would be obnoxious, and perhaps confuse brand-loyal customers, but wouldn't really stop a company from making both (as long as they "seem" to actually be 2 companies).  

Note to folks w/ flamethrowers lit-- I am not saying that Basic Action Games will be doing this-- it was just an example!


----------



## Scipio202

Epoch: I asked this in the OGL forum - how hard would it be to set up such a subsidiary?  Is it just a matter of 10 hours of a lawyer's time, or would that be a real big pain to do?

Obviously the marketing would be a different issue.  Though if Paizo gets to put its name on it's joint products with Necro, maybe it wouldn't be that bad.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Y'know, AFAIK Wizards said they would do it for Paizo, but remember Paizo distributes Necromancer so they can prove they aren't in the same unit.

If this has "teeth", WoTC will probably either say you have to get special permission to do this in writing (and they will determine how different your companies are), or they will reserve the right to revoke the GSL due to "non-compliance".

In other words, I think if people try to form "shell companies" to exploit what could be considered a loophole, Wizards probably has an out ready.


----------



## Hussar

A thought occurs to me.

Those who solidly support the OGL usually cite the idea of network externalities as one of the big plusses of the OGL.  That keeping people in the d20 umbrella makes it better for everyone.

Why is this not being applied to 4e?

After all, if you go with OGL material, you are not within the GSL umbrella, you are playing a different system - it might as well be Storyteller as far as the GSL is concerned.

So, if one of the main reasons for the OGL was to keep people using D20, then why shouldn't the GSL contain clauses designed with the exact same goal?  Why is keeping everyone within d20 a good thing, but keeping everyone within 4e a bad one?


----------



## Scipio202

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Y'know, AFAIK Wizards said they would do it for Paizo, but remember Paizo distributes Necromancer so they can prove they aren't in the same unit.
> 
> If this has "teeth", WoTC will probably either say you have to get special permission to do this in writing (and they will determine how different your companies are), or they will reserve the right to revoke the GSL due to "non-compliance".
> 
> In other words, I think if people try to form "shell companies" to exploit what could be considered a loophole, Wizards probably has an out ready.



 Depends if the "one open license per company" rule is a result they specifically want for its own sake, or an unavoidable side effect of avoiding some other OGL/GSL problem (e.g. if the same legal entity having rights under both the OGL and the GSL causes some problem).


----------



## philreed

med stud said:
			
		

> OK I guess I have a moral POV on this anyway; if you can't copyright a system, it sounds very strange to me. WotC spends lots of money and time developing a system, and then anyone of the street can reword it and start selling it? It sounds weird. I don't doubt what you say though, I know next to nothing about US juridics.




See this:



			
				US Copyright Office said:
			
		

> Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.




http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Hussar said:
			
		

> Those who solidly support the OGL usually cite the idea of network externalities as one of the big plusses of the OGL.  That keeping people in the d20 umbrella makes it better for everyone.
> 
> Why is this not being applied to 4e?




Indeed you're correct that having everyone move over to 4e would create the same network externalities and everyone would benefit.

But the OGL is "safe." It can't be taken away. That is not true of the GSL.

The first and most important entity walking back from the OGL is WotC.

WotC always had the option to release 4e under the original OGL in the same tradition as 3e, with a new 4e SRD to bring everyone along to the mechanics as quickly as possible. 

It's definitely not a question of whether publishers would be happier supporting 4e wholeheartedly. Of course they would. If 4e was Open in the same tradition as 3e, the publishers would be falling all over each other to adopt it. (And if you go back and read the history of 4e OGL/GSL announcements, you'll see that exactly that happened.)

The problem is that the GSL does not offer the safety of the OGL, and it is fact WotC who has put the 3PP in the position of having to support the prior edition.

As Ryan Dancey predicted, WotC split the base.

Literally nobody would be staying behind with 3e if a genuinely Open 4e was an option.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I saw a lot of prople get offended when White Wolf offered a copy of Exalted for the PHB and it was made known the book would be destroyed, yet in my mind this is worse on a much larger scale.




That _is_ dissapointing- I can think of lots of organizations that would have accepted those books as a charitable donation.  I donated a lot of gaming stuff to the USO, personally.


----------



## The Little Raven

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The problem is that the GSL does not offer the safety of the OGL, and it is fact WotC who has put the 3PP in the position of having to support the prior edition.




Not "having," but "choosing." They chose to go into a business that finds itself somewhat reliant on another company's (WotC's) property. They knew, back when the OGL came out, that the next edition could be closed or under a different license, and this issue could occur. It's a peril of running a business that way.



> As Ryan Dancey predicted, WotC split the base.




It's too early to judge whether this "split" is any more substantial than any previous split that occurs when editions change. If you want to get technical, Gygax starting splitting the base with AD&D, since there are people to this day that use OD&D and won't ever change... and Dancey himself was involved in splitting the base by pushing 3e over 2e. It's an unavoidable consequence to releasing new material and happens in pretty much every industry.



> Literally nobody would be staying behind with 3e if a genuinely Open 4e was an option.




Not true. There would still be people staying behind, just like people stay behind with every edition. Hackmaster, yo.


----------



## breschau

Hey Phil... how about giving a bit more, like the next paragraph...



			
				U.S. Copyright Website on Game said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
> 
> Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. *For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game,* or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, *may be registrable.*




So, yeah, you can create a game with basically the same rules, but the entire rules description may be copyrighted, and good luck coming up with a similar enough description to convey meaning that is also distinct enough to avoid a lawsuit.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mourn said:
			
		

> Not "having," but "choosing." They chose to go into a business that finds itself somewhat reliant on another company's (WotC's) property. They knew, back when the OGL came out, that the next edition could be closed or under a different license, and this issue could occur. It's a peril of running a business that way.




Utterly incorrect. The OGL is not a license that can be revoked or changed (in any meaningfully detrimental way).

You may be confusing the OGL with the d20 STL. There is nothing inherent to adopting the OGL that creates a reliance on WotC's property. The d20 STL, yes. OGL, no.

Ryan's point (precisely correct, IMO) was that all future editions of D&D would be Open, because any edition of D&D that was far enough removed from the (irrevocably) Open version that it could not be derived from the Open version (whether by WotC or some other entity) would be rejected by the players.

4e certainly does not fit that criteria. 

It is still a distinct possibility that some entity will create a derivative version of 3e that is compatible with 4e. Such a version would have everything necessary to "compete" with the official version of 4e _except_ for the Dungeons and Dragons brand-- which of course, is no small thing.

The 4e GSL provides publishers with a new SRD to bootstrap them into the new edition. That's good. It also provides them with the significant advantage of being able to put a D&D compatibility mark on their products. That's beyond good, that's frakkin' amazing. 

Unfortunately, it also requires 3PP to abandon their old OGL lines. That's really bad. The biggest, brightest, best publishers, the ones with a proven track record for innovative design and the ability to provide ongoing support for those product lines, are the ones hardest hit.


----------



## The Little Raven

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Utterly incorrect. The OGL is not a license that can be revoked or changed (in any meaningfully detrimental way).




I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. There's no suggestion in my post that the OGL can be revoked.

I'm simply talking about WotC being the top dog, and most of the market following the top dog, which will negatively impact those that stay with 3e and the OGL. By choosing to stay with 3e and the OGL, they are choosing a market in which the top dog has moved on.



> Such a version would have everything necessary to "compete" with the official version of 4e except for the Dungeons and Dragons brand-- which of course, is no small thing.




One could argue that it's the biggest thing, since more people know what D&D means than the words RPG.


----------



## philreed

breschau said:
			
		

> So, yeah, you can create a game with basically the same rules, but the entire rules description may be copyrighted, and good luck coming up with a similar enough description to convey meaning that is also distinct enough to avoid a lawsuit.




In my opinion, that's not exactly a huge challenge.


----------



## Levi Kornelsen

breschau said:
			
		

> So, yeah, you can create a game with basically the same rules, but the entire rules description may be copyrighted, and good luck coming up with a similar enough description to convey meaning that is also distinct enough to avoid a lawsuit.




Grab rulebooks for playing Bridge and Whist.

Contemplate.


----------



## Piratecat

I think we've gotten back on track, but just in case -- no more anti-competition digression, please. Keep this thread focused. If you want to discuss anti-competition issues, feel free to start a new thread on the topic.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

I suspect that Wizards put the "Use one or the other but not both" clause in there, and made the other changes to the OGL / GSL, because the OGL did not have quite the effect they wanted it to have.  Since everyone else as their opinions stated (with plenty of toy analogies), here is my opinion.  Except with a comparison to Videogames instead.

Wizards wants to have the same kind of business model as Valve.  They want people to create user mods for their game.  They want to license out the game engine to other companies so they can also make content for that game.  However, Valve does not let someone take Half Life, make an entirely new game, and then sell it in direct competition to their games.

The OGL was intended to let other publishers make adventures and other content that could be used in D&D, specifically adventures.  What did happen was other companies tried to create their own source books.  Early on there were alternate monsterous manuals, and prestige class collections.  This was not a big problem for Wizards, since they could still be used with Wizards own books.

The publishers of those books realized that the OGL did not really work in their favor though, because people were copying those OGL derived D&D compatible rules and putting them in free rules collections.  This also hit Wizards, but Wizards could dictate what was OGL or not.   But if you published OGL derived material, than your material could be put online for free more or less in its entirety.  So how could a 3rd party publisher prevent their customers from cherry picking their best content from free online sources that they could not shut down?

The answer is to create an entirely new OGL derived game.  This is how we ended up with True20 and the like.  This works out because material created for something like True20 is not as directly compatible with D&D.  You can use it, but it takes a bit more work.  It also puts Wizards in the position of publishing material that could be used with their game.

The current situation for Wizards would be like people giving away full copies of Half Life alongside their own user created mods.  On top of that, people are doing the equivalent of also giving away or selling games that compete directly against half life.  There is a reason why videogames do not use the GPL license that Linux uses.

I have not taken a look at it, but based on what has been mentioned in different threads, I expect that the new GSL license will prevent people from creating entirely new games.  I also suspect it will have clauses that prevent people from essentially copying 97% of the rulebook and making it available for free.

Now here is where I get around to making a point rather than just saying things people already know...

If a company makes a 3.5 / 4.0 hybrid product, they would have to release some of that content under the old OGL.  At some point, someone would release rules very similar to 4.0 under the original OGL.  This would in turn result in the same problem for WotC.  Within about 1 year or less, Wizards would be right back to the situation of having 3rd parties who cannot create profitable products that directly support 4th Edition, so WotC would then end up with more games competing against their primary product line based on their own rule set.  They do not want that to happen.

The "use one or the other rule" is a work around.  It is not a very good workaround, but it is probably about the only one they have which would work.  They cannot stop any company from continuing to use the 3.5 ruleset as the basis of their products.  But they can prevent them from using the 4th edition rule set.  And they can take measures to make sure that the kind of 3rd party products they want to see are not subjected to legalized piracy.

The new arrangement will give Wizards and those who work with them the means to create the support products they want under more favorable conditions than the original OGL.  They protect their ruleset, and they protect the kind of works they want to see made to support 4th edition.  Finally, they get to keep all the 4th edition specifics out of the OGL.

The OGL was worth trying, but flawed in its execution.  It had a lot of benefits, but also a great many unintended side effects.  The GSL will probably remedy most of the problems for Wizards.  The 'One or the Other' rule is meant to keep the protections of the GSL from being eroded.  But it has the unfortunate side effect of screwing companies who aren't ready or are not willing to abandon OGL based products.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## SSquirrel

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But what do people say about Palladium?




Great ideas, horrible system?


----------



## breschau

Levi Kornelsen said:
			
		

> Grab rulebooks for playing Bridge and Whist.
> 
> Contemplate.




Are you serious? Those are both so old that they're public domain in every country in the world. Anyone can use them without fear of a lawsuit. We're talking about games made in the last century, preferably something still under copyright, like, I don't know... D&D. Bridge is at least 119 years old, Whist is at least 167 years old. D&D is 34 years old, even the original version is still under copyright.


----------



## Kishin

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> Ummm,
> 
> You may want to do a search for a little thing called Dark Heresy. Just sayin'.
> 
> JoS




They're printing it. I highly doubt they're going to publish a great deal for it. The Rogue Trader sourcebook already turned to dust, so I'm not expecting a lot of support for Dark Heresy.

Look at how much printed RPG material FFRPG has released in the last 3 years. I think they'll keep what push they have with Midnight, and do maybe 1-2 products tops for Dark Heresy.

GW was idiotic to dump the RPG in the process, but they probably were appalled it wasn't generating scads of cash like their miniatures were.


----------



## Zil

Gundark said:
			
		

> Surprised...a little. Dissappointed...well considering what Mr. Rouse said about the 7 figure development figure...I can see why they'd want to maximise their return potential



A seven figure development figure isn't all that surprising.  Sure, it might sound like big stuff for the PnP RPG world, but consider the number of designers and developers involved and then cost out their salaries for the time they were involved - add in cost of project managers, brand managers  and so on for however many years it was being worked on (including the under wraps period).  Did anyone really expect anything less than a 7 figure cost?


----------



## Nathal

philreed said:
			
		

> See this:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html




It must be tough for courts to arbitrate lawsuits concerning RPGs, as complex as they can be, without being familiar with what truly differentiates one system from another. I can only imagine uninformed lawyers groaning and scratching their heads when dealing with the lawsuit of TSR against GDW's Mythus (Gygax, 1991)...


----------



## kave99

i think that a lot of this is overly a attempt at the carrot and the stick approach to guiding 3rd party's to the 4th ed. the stick will be no new 3rd ed books if you want to do any thing 4ed, the carrot will be the logo,  and i suspect some access to gleemax market place and to the D&DI and the tools that come with it . not that i have any insider info. its just i don't think that WotC can afford to have many big 3rd party players not move to the 4th ed.


----------



## pawsplay

breschau said:
			
		

> Are you serious? Those are both so old that they're public domain in every country in the world. Anyone can use them without fear of a lawsuit. We're talking about games made in the last century, preferably something still under copyright, like, I don't know... D&D. Bridge is at least 119 years old, Whist is at least 167 years old. D&D is 34 years old, even the original version is still under copyright.




The point was that the books themselves contain copyrighted text, despite their being hundreds, if not thousands, of books describing the same games. Whether or not the game system itself is in the public domain is irrelevant to the point being made. You could publish a hundred, or two hundred, books that contain all the rules for D&D, all completely different texts.


----------



## Aezoc

IANAL, but a lot of this strikes me as being very wrong.


			
				Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> Wizards wants to have the same kind of business model as Valve.  They want people to create user mods for their game.  They want to license out the game engine to other companies so they can also make content for that game.  However, Valve does not let someone take Half Life, make an entirely new game, and then sell it in direct competition to their games.



This is an incorrect analogy. Valve licenses its engines to other companies who then use the engine to produce games which directly compete with Valve's. Ubisoft's Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is the first one that comes to mind. Now, Valve makes money from licensing the engine, so a more apt comparison might be a situation like id releasing the Quake 3 engine under the GPLv2. Anyone can take the engine, modify it, and release a new game. This is conceptually similar to the OGL, in that GPL-derived code cannot (in theory) be closed, Tivoization loopholes aside.



> The publishers of those books realized that the OGL did not really work in their favor though, because people were copying those OGL derived D&D compatible rules and putting them in free rules collections.  This also hit Wizards, but Wizards could dictate what was OGL or not.   But if you published OGL derived material, than your material could be put online for free more or less in its entirety.  So how could a 3rd party publisher prevent their customers from cherry picking their best content from free online sources that they could not shut down?



This doesn't make any sense. If I release a work under the OGL, I'm within my rights to release as much or as little of it under the OGL as I choose, so long as I don't try to exclude licensing material which was originally published in or directly derived from the SRD or other OGL source. For example, in Iron Heroes (the book I happen to have closest at hand), the entire stunts system is closed. So I don't understand your implication that 3rd party publishers were helplessly watching their innovations published online for free. If, as a 3rd party publisher, you created something innovative and didn't want to make it open content, you didn't have to. The only time you were forced to make something OGL is if it came from a previous OGL source, in which case I'd argue it's an enhancement, and not particularly innovative.



> The current situation for Wizards would be like people giving away full copies of Half Life alongside their own user created mods.  On top of that, people are doing the equivalent of also giving away or selling games that compete directly against half life.  There is a reason why videogames do not use the GPL license that Linux uses.



No, the current situation would be like someone making a game using the Quake 3 engine or a derivative, and distributing the source so anyone with the inclination can make their own tweaks to it as well. You're conflating the engine (Source, id Tech 3, d20, and so on) with the content (Half-Life 2, Quake 3, etc), which in OGL terms is protected as Product Identity. If I wanted to package a complete game along with my supplement (mod), the best I could do would be to get together all of the Open Game Content ever made, and release it all in one huge compilation. But without all of the PI (the fluff), it's still just an engine, not a game. There's no setting, no descriptions, stories, etc. It's a set of tools to simplify making a game, just like a video game engine is.

The rest of your post is predicated on two ideas that I don't think hold up - a) that companies cannot be profitable making supplemental products, and b) that the GSL will "protect" 4e's mechanical innovations from appearing in OGL works. As I said above, nothing obligates a 3rd party publisher to release all of their innovations under the OGL. Most 3rd party books that I own _do_ open the vast majority of the mechanics, but it's not required.

To your second point, others have already pointed out that the system itself isn't protected by US Copyright. To use another software analogy, I can't copyright the concept of a binary search (that would be patent territory, if anything, but I don't want to derail this thread with one of my software patent rants ), but I could probably copyright my specific implementation of a binary search algorithm if so inclined. Coming back to RPGs, 4e's rulebook text (the specific implementation) will be protected by copyright, but the general concept of, say, characters having at will, per encounter, and per day powers isn't copyrightable, so long as you describe it using text that differs significantly from 4e's. Point being, if 4e comes out and has mechanical innovations that current 3e publishers like, there's nothing stopping them from integrating those mechanics into material published under the OGL, ignoring the GSL completely.

Now, my own speculation is that WotC is well aware of this fact, and that's why the GSL contains at least one carrot - the ability to use the D&D name on GSL products. As others have said, the D&D name recognition is a very powerful draw, and (in theory) anyone who wants that signs away their ability to release 4e mechanics under the OGL. I suspect that there are probably myriad ways to wriggle around that license provision for someone who's so inclined, but that's a discussion best left to real lawyers, not armchair ones.


----------



## Wolfspider

kave99 said:
			
		

> i don't think that WotC can afford to have many big 3rd party players not move to the 4th ed.




Sure they can.


----------



## PeelSeel2

The mechanics of a game cannot be copyrighted.  The copyright comes from the IP surrounding the presentation of mechanics.


----------



## kave99

No, the presence of the OGL and the radical change in D&D4 mean that "we" have for the first time a viable alternative to the new ed, thats not good for WotC. I have no doubt that the first 3 books will sell well out of the gate but trick will be how well the book of magic items fares. if "we" don't except the changes that come with 4th ed then WotC losses. now i am all for the new rules and have already ordered mine but if i don't like them then i will stick with 3.5 and i bet i wont be alone.


----------



## Then

This is good news to me.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

Aezoc said:
			
		

> This doesn't make any sense. If I release a work under the OGL, I'm within my rights to release as much or as little of it under the OGL as I choose, *so long as I don't try to exclude licensing material which was originally published in or directly derived from the SRD or other OGL source.*




That is the point I was leaning towards.  The sort of content / rules that are most likely to be profitable would be content that is directly derived from SRD / OGL content.  I think that those are the materials most likely to be adapted for use in a game by someone who is not interested in the product as a whole.  But I could be wrong.

If you were to create a book of feats, magic items, and classes for publication, how much of it would be OGL?  If you want to content within to be sold as usable with D&D, isn't the whole thing derived?  And if it is, what is preventing someone from putting that content online for free?

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Levi Kornelsen

breschau said:
			
		

> Are you serious? Those are both so old that they're public domain in every country in the world.




This illustrates my point perfectly.

Bridge and Whist can't be "so old that they're public domain", because the actual means of play _cannot be copyrighted to begin with._

Only the actual text of the instructions is, or can be, copyrighted.  Writing new instructions for gaming with a d20 is no different legally than writing new instructions for playing a contract-style game with cards.

The processes and methods of play are procedures.  Procedures are not covered under  copyright law.

That's _patent_ law.  And the only patent WotC holds on game material is on the methods of play used in a certain card game of their own.


----------



## helium3

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Great news!
> 
> We'll have to get a cleaning crew to mop up the mess from the conspiracy theorists - their heads just 'sploded all over the place.




Silly conspiracy theorists.


----------



## helium3

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> The way I read it, they don't. A few companies get early info and everyone else gets it in June. Since June is pretty close, that doesn't seem all that unreasonable.




No to mention that there's enough information floating around in the aether for most interested parties to gin up the skeleton of a product and then fill in the little fiddly bits when they get access to the core books and the SRD.


----------



## Aezoc

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> If you were to create a book of feats, magic items, and classes for publication, how much of it would be OGL?



Obligatory IANAL disclaimer again. The definition of Open Gaming Content according to the OGL v1.0a is (emphasis mine)


			
				OGL v1.0a said:
			
		

> "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and *is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor*, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.



To me, this means that a book of all new feats, magic items, and classes could be entirely closed, i.e. not released under the OGL at all, if you want it to be. If anyone knows of a company that's done that, I'd be interested to know what reaction if any it got from WotC. But you would likely want to include the basic rules explaining feat progression, prerequisites, magic item creation, etc, however, and there's no reason not to include those straight from the SRD and designate them OGC (not that you could reprint them verbatim and claim they were closed anyhow).

Again, since Iron Heroes happens to be the book sitting beside my computer, I'll use it as an example. Its designation of OGC states in part


			
				Iron Heroes said:
			
		

> In Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine, all the material that also appears in the System Reference Document is open, and all other material is not.



The relevant chapters are titled Equipment, Combat, and Adventuring. In Equipment, for example, there are several new weapons that are not listed in the SRD. As I read the OGC designation, they are not OGC, even though the weapon template (meaning what attributes a weapon has - damage, size, etc) is in the SRD. Applying the same concept to your hypothetical book, the templates for feats, magic items, and classes are all in the SRD. But so long as your new creations didn't directly extend existing OGC (i.e. an improved fighter class that has only minor additions), you don't have to designate them OGC.

That said, most of the 3rd party stuff I have designates all or nearly all of the crunch as OGC, which in my mind is a great thing. The potential pitfall that I see for WotC is that the value of the core 4e is likely to be mostly crunch, if they follow the 3e trend of having a very minimal implied setting. And since the system itself isn't copyrighted, AFAIK there's nothing legally stopping someone from co-opting most of the 4e mechanics and releasing them as OGC. I disagree with your assertion that this is a flaw of the OGC though, I just think it is best suited to a service-oriented business model that doesn't really exist today in the pen and paper RPG world.

Please note that I'm not advocating either creating d20 compatible material without the OGL or trying to co-opt 4e mechanics and release them under the OGL, just that I don't see anything making it impossible. IMO the fact that WotC took a chance with the OGL in the first place was a great thing for the hobby, and I think we all benefit from publishers who are willing to openly exchange ideas via OGC.


----------



## The Little Raven

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Sure they can.




Indeed, considering WotC's market share is larger than every other RPG company's market share, *put together*.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Mourn said:
			
		

> Indeed, considering WotC's market share is larger than every other RPG company's market share, *put together*.




And the fact that this will only hurt established companies (and even then, only if they had planned on putting out stuff for both editions).

For every established company that won't (or can't) hop on board this, I predict we'll see several new companies form to take their place.  Some will be good, some will be bad.  

But just like before, I think there will be an initial glut of 3rd party products for a couple of years after the release of this new edition.  After a while, the bad companies will be winnowed out and we'll have several good companies that will produce quality stuff.

Those established companies that couldn't make the transition?  We'll miss them, but new companies will be around to take their place.


----------



## Dausuul

kave99 said:
			
		

> i think that a lot of this is overly a attempt at the carrot and the stick approach to guiding 3rd party's to the 4th ed. the stick will be no new 3rd ed books if you want to do any thing 4ed, the carrot will be the logo,  and i suspect some access to gleemax market place and to the D&DI and the tools that come with it . not that i have any insider info. its just i don't think that WotC can afford to have many big 3rd party players not move to the 4th ed.




Wizards can afford to not have _any_ "big" 3rd party players move to 4E... because "big" in the 3PP world is miniscule by most standards, including WotC's.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

Lizard said:
			
		

> D20
> Traveller
> Runequest
> SOTC
> Action!
> FUDGE
> 
> That is not a lonely genie.
> 
> And all material for all of those games is equally open and can be mixed and matched. The OGL does not recognize game systems, just Open Game Content. Convert the MM to SOTC! Use Traveller system generation rules and FUDGE characters! Take the insanely large library of open D20 content and convert it to Runequest!
> 
> If you ask me, the GSL is the lonely one.



Of the games you have mentioned (and I will mention that I LOVE SOTC IN ALL CAPS), I doubt their annual sales put together come up to even 10% of D&D's monthly sales. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if their annual sales put together don't even equal 1% of D&D's monthlies.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I personally think the "Open Gaming Movement" is really minuscule in the whole scheme of things.  I don't really blame Wizards for not supporting it.  It never got the traction deserved, and Ryan seems to have abandoned it.  

There are vocal fans of it, but it's trying to "solve" a problem that in my opinion never existed.  Because as gamers we can game, create, tweak, etc, privately.  There's no need for open content unless you really want to profit from your work.  I have concerns how the GSL will handle Internet fan sites.  But "open gaming" for its own sake is not really solving a need.  Most fans buy what they like and use what they like.  Whether its OGL or GSL doesn't affect me.

Open for openness' sake is not a goal.  Most people just wanna play games, D&D in particular.  The people who are most upset by this seem to be the ones who see open gaming as a "movement that will conquer the world".

I think too many people are trying to read into what publishers will do.  If one publisher decides to stick with the prior D&D base, and another goes to 4e, it may kill a few product lines, but that's the publishers choice.  Ultimately it was Paizo's decision to go 3.5, Necro's decision to go 4.0, and nobody else's, even if it's heavy-handed.  Too many people want both options, and simply put--it's not going to happen.  I'm not going to be mad at WoTC for that.  Those are the breaks when you license.


----------



## Ydars

JohnRTroy; I would like to pose a question to you.

If open gaming has had no impact and is not important (is "miniscule" to quote you) then why is WoTC now risking serious fan-alienation by designing a GSL document whose sole stated aim is to make all 3rd parties jump into supporting 4E. This suggests to me that WoTC don't see the open gaming movement as a miniscule concern. 

And to clarify; I don't see open gaming as the answer to all world ills. I see it as ESSENTIAL for D&D at THIS point. 4E is not accepted in the way that 3E was embraced and the community is now fractured. I think FAR more gamers will stay with 3.5E than many people believe and I also think that WoTC are always on dangerous ground with Hasbro, because the cost of making D&D requires a HUGE success. If this doesn't happen then D&D could end up sold to someone far less capable of producing quality products.

Please don't try and tar all Open gaming supporters with the same brush. Our arguments are as complex and well thought out as yours are Sir!


----------



## DandD

What fan-alienation? I mean, let's be serious, the people who actually care about all that stuff are the more hardcore ones who even bother to know about these third-party companies and register on ENWorld to talk about their concerns. And they're in no way a big size of the fan-market. Most gamers and GM are just casuals who see some stuff, with rules and pictures they kinda like and think will enhance their game, and then they buy it. Add dragons and some power-creep in form of new classes and equipment, and it's surely going to be a winner. 
No, I really can't see it being essential for D&D at all at this point. The community isn't fractured that much more like when 3rd edition was announced.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Between Player's/DM's Option and the hundred or so game settings, AD&D was splintered and *at war with itself* before 3E even came along. The current environment is nothing resembling that.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> If open gaming has had no impact and is not important (is "miniscule" to quote you) then why is WoTC now risking serious fan-alienation by designing a GSL document whose sole stated aim is to make all 3rd parties jump into supporting 4E. This suggests to me that WoTC don't see the open gaming movement as a miniscule concern.




I think it may be a case like Scott stated--to make sure their partners are committed and not "on the fence".  It may also be the fact that the OGL is "viral" which could make for a lot of legal stickiness--if people mix content they could potentially make it easier for them to try to open up the new 4e content.  (I actually see this as being their biggest concern).  I can also see them using them to strengthen their brand from what is now perceived as "generic fantasy".  I too think it's a little heavy handed--I suspect the reason is more for legal purposes than anything else.



> Please don't try and tar all Open gaming supporters with the same brush. Our arguments are as complex and well thought out as yours are Sir!




I really wasn't trying to tar and feather open gaming fans.  The concept is ideal, I just don't think it's the majority opinion, and I do think at times some people start worrying more about the ideal than, for instance, whether or not 4e will actually be the game they want to play.  To be honest, I would be pleasantly surprised if fans decided to stick with 3e, but if that happened (a) I doubt it will solely be based on the ideal of open gaming and (b) I'm more critical of the fans of open gaming engaging in severe hyperbole by doing what Chris Pramas called being stating their opinions are "facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them".  There needs to be a little perspective in this, that's all.


----------



## Wolfspider

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> (b) I'm more critical of the fans of open gaming engaging in severe hyperbole by doing what Chris Pramas called being stating their opinions are "facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them".  There needs to be a little perspective in this, that's all.




Hmmm?


----------



## JohnRTroy

That last statement was based on these two blog posts:

http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/03/debating-ogl.html
http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/04/picking-right-weapon.html


----------



## Greg K

Ydars said:
			
		

> If this doesn't happen then D&D could end up sold to someone far less capable of producing quality products.



Of course, it is also possible for them to be sold to someone capable of producing better quality products- depending upon how one views the majority of WOTCs non-core supplements and the revealed changes to 4e vs. the d20 and OGL products from other companies  (although, I am unsure as to whether the  two or three  the d20 companies that I would like to see in charge of DND could afford it).


----------



## Wolfspider

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> That last statement was based on these two blog posts:
> 
> http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/03/debating-ogl.html
> http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/04/picking-right-weapon.html




Thanks!

My real confusion was over your wording.  There are way too many verbs in that sentence....


----------



## D'karr

Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?


----------



## Zil

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> Between Player's/DM's Option and the hundred or so game settings, AD&D was splintered and *at war with itself* before 3E even came along. The current environment is nothing resembling that.



I hear this all the time, but you know what, I really liked a lot of what came out of TSR at that time.  We liked having all those different settings, variant rules like the C&T and Skills and Powers.   It was an exciting time - at least with our group.  All of the variety was good for the consumer (albeit perhaps not so much for TSR).  

When WoTC shut down all those variant settings, I was disappointed and kept hoping more of them would be spun off to third party publishers so I could see new stuff for our favorite settings.  Monoculture in the D&D sphere isn't all that interesting to me.


----------



## DaveMage

D'karr said:
			
		

> Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?




It's all a matter of perspective.

To those involved, it's a BIG DEAL.

To those who don't play RPGs, it's completely irrelevant.

All of us are somewhere in that continuum.


----------



## Hussar

There is another issue here that hasn't been touched on.

Say that WOTC allows publishers to publish both OGL and GSL material.  

Now, say that 3PP X decides to publish a dual stat book.  

All sorts of issues can result from this.  Historically, 3PP have been somewhat laissez faire with their OGL sections.  I've seen all sorts of crippled writeups.  So, when you have two licenses in the same book, how often do you think 3PP's would get it right?

And, would it be worth it for WOTC to sue them?  The time and money it takes to take someone to court, when the 3PP is some guy in the basement of his house, just isn't worth it.  So, he gets away with it.  Then someone else.  And so on down the line.  

And when WOTC finally does get around to suing someone, they get egg all over their face for being the big bad corporation.  PR nightmare (see BOEF if you need proof).

So, realistically, how would you do it?  Even if you make 4e as open as 3e was, there are still things in 3e that are not open in 4e.  And vice versa.


----------



## Roland55

D'karr said:
			
		

> Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?




Well, I think there is an actual teapot -- that would be the GSL.

But since no one has actually seen it, this particular tempest is actually occurring in the mere rumor of a teapot. 

Voltaire would be proud.  Possibly also Mr. Swift.

So would I, if I wasn't seeing so much genuine upset.  Instead, I hope something definitive will happen ... and soon.  I haven't seen this much upset over vapor since ... well, it's been quite awhile.


----------



## Greg K

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I really wasn't trying to tar and feather open gaming fans.  The concept is ideal, I just don't think it's the majority opinion, and I do think at times some people start worrying more about the ideal than, for instance, whether or not 4e will actually be the game they want to play.




See, I already know that 4e is not the game that I want to play. I was looking forward to a 4e since before Mearls joined WOTC. I have read WOTC design and development articles , designer blogs, listened to podcasts, and read both the so called 3e test products (e.g., Star Wars: SE, TOB: Bo9S, MM V) and actual 4e material that WOTC has offered to date. I like many of the stated goals. I even like a couple of specific items. However, the majority of the actiual implementations revealed,  I am not fond of.  In fact, many of the things being changed are done so in a way that I consider to be worse than the current edition, third party fixes, or mechanics presented in existing WOTC rpg supplements (not limited to just DND) .



> To be honest, I would be pleasantly surprised if fans decided to stick with 3e, but if that happened



Granted, I will too.  I do believe the majority of 3e gamers will go to 4e. However, of the 3e gamers that I personally know and have spoken with, none are switching to 4e and neither are their groups. They don't like what they have read of 4e on WOTC or heard from others about some of the new mechanics.  People in their groups are not interested nor are the people that they have talked to in thier extended gaming communities (e.g., LARP groups). 



> (a) I doubt it will solely be based on the ideal of open gaming and (b) I'm more critical of the fans of open gaming engaging in severe hyperbole by doing what Chris Pramas called being stating their opinions are "facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them".  There needs to be a little perspective in this, that's all.





True.  Even in my case, it not the ideal of open gaming that will keep me playing 3e-It is a combination of factors. However,  the third party support has played a large factor in keeping me with 3e to this point. If not for third party offerings, I would have left 3e a long time ago.  Third parties have given me alternate magic systems that I like, a take on mind powers that  prefer to psionics, new classes presented in a supplement format that I like, etc.  In contrast, while I like much of DND, I don't particularly care for the support material that comes out from WOTC.  I tend not to like direction taken, the crunch, fluff and mechanics, etc.  In most WOTC DND supplements, I am luck to find 5-10 pages to my liking.   Of the   WOTC non-core books/non-setting DND books, I consider only about a dozen to be worth owning. Of these dozen or so books, only 1 or 2 are a race/class book (actually, none are race books).    Yet, if not for the third party supplements keeping me playing, I would never have been around to have bought any of the 3e WOTC supplements that  I do like.

The same holds true for d20M.  I like d20M, In fact, unlike core 3.x DND, I  have only one major complaint about the d20M core rules - the fx rules (the WOTC support material is another story). However, if not for Blood and Fists,  I never would have checked out d20M.  And, if not for third parties, I would dropped d20M on the fx rules alone. However, the Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin), Elements Magic: Mythic Earth ( EN Publishing)  offered me replacements for fx rules and kept me.  RPGObects, The Game Mechanics (for d20M Player's Companion), and Adamant have only improved the game with their support which is far better, imo, to the WOTC supplements.

I have also kept other people in the d20 fold simply by recommending d20 third party products and OGL games. 

Just last week, somebody I discovered to be  a gamer was about to leave 3e.  This person is one of those people I mentioned above having  completely no interest in 4e. Until speaking with me, he had no knowledge that third party material existed. He wasn't happy with WOTC supplements and had a few issues with the core rules. Interestingly, they were some of my issues. So, I directed  him toward Unearthed Arcana (ok, this is WOTC, but he liked my description of the Death and Dying Rules and some other things in the book), EN Publishing (for the various Elements of Magic books), Green Ronin (for the Psychic's Handbook and a few other products), and Malhavoc (primarily for BOIM, but to check other things as well).  I don't know whether or not  these products will keep him with 3e.  However, he is interest in learning more about them and checking out this site to learn more about d20 and OGL offerings in general.  So, that is a start.  If not, I also interested him in checking out both True20 (which 4e has renewed my interest in) and M&M ( he is coming to my M&M game next week).


----------



## Greg K

Zil said:
			
		

> I hear this all the time



I do to, but only on message boards.  However, I also remember that a large part of TSR's financial woes had to do in part to large volumes of either books or magazine being returned or having to be refunded.



> but you know what, I really liked a lot of what came out of TSR at that time.
> We liked having all those different settings, variant rules like the C&T and Skills and Powers.   It was an exciting time - at least with our group.  All of the variety was good for the consumer (albeit perhaps not so much for TSR).  .




I hear you. I didn't like Skills and Powers, but I liked a lot what TSR released at that time as well- not everything, but a lot.  I still like several of the Complete Handbooks (Thief being my favorite) and prefer them to WOTC's 3e Complete books (which, imo, benefit only from having a better underlying mechanical system in the d20 system).  I also liked  PO: Spells and Magic, PO: Combat and Tactics, and several of the settings.



> When WoTC shut down all those variant settings, I was disappointed and kept hoping more of them would be spun off to third party publishers so I could see new stuff for our favorite settings.  Monoculture in the D&D sphere isn't all that interesting to me.



Yeah, I was too.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

D'karr said:
			
		

> Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?




Ultimately, I think so.

Open Content in any sort tends to attract some pretty dedicated zealots to the concept.

There is a real concern though, about WotC preventing companies from supporting both 3.5 and 4th edition.  While some of that concern is warranted, this is something that matters far more to the 3rd party publishers than it does to the customers.

Why?

I think that people who decide to stick to 3rd Edition are not really going to care if their favorite company cannot make 4th Edition content.  On top of that, while producing products for both versions of the game is a viable bridge strategy, it does not make a whole lot of sense in the long term.  Sooner or later a company is going to have to choose one or the other anyway.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Wolfspider

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> I think that people who decide to stick to 3rd Edition are not really going to care if their favorite company cannot make 4th Edition content.  On top of that, while producing products for both versions of the game is a viable bridge strategy, it does not make a whole lot of sense in the long term.  Sooner or later a company is going to have to choose one or the other anyway.




Why?


----------



## Imaro

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> Ultimately, I think so.
> 
> Open Content in any sort tends to attract some pretty dedicated zealots to the concept.
> 
> There is a real concern though, about WotC preventing companies from supporting both 3.5 and 4th edition.  While some of that concern is warranted, this is something that matters far more to the 3rd party publishers than it does to the customers.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I think that people who decide to stick to 3rd Edition are not really going to care if their favorite company cannot make 4th Edition content.  On top of that, while producing products for both versions of the game is a viable bridge strategy, it does not make a whole lot of sense in the long term.  Sooner or later a company is going to have to choose one or the other anyway.
> 
> END COMMUNICATION





You fail to consider the fact that just because customer 1 and customer 2 are both Paizo, Green Ronin/etc. fans doesn't mean both want to switch to 4e or stay with 3e.  So then this provision forces the company to, instead of actually catering to their total fanbase, cater only to a subset of it.  This in the end is either bad for customer 1 or customer 2 depending upon which choice the company makes.  So IMHO, it affects customers and publishers.


----------



## Hussar

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Why?




Because dual stat books turn people off.  And developing and publishing two sets of every book is too expensive.


----------



## Wolfspider

Hussar said:
			
		

> Because dual stat books turn people off.  And developing and publishing two sets of every book is too expensive.




I didn't think that Lord Zardoz was talking about dual statted books but rather a company producing books for both 3.5 and 4e....


----------



## kave99

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Wizards can afford to not have _any_ "big" 3rd party players move to 4E... because "big" in the 3PP world is miniscule by most standards, including WotC's.




3rd party support for 3ed is a cancer that WotC cant afford to support, look at how many guys still play 1st and 2nd ed without any support at all. so they will do all they can to mitigate the impact of the OGL and I cant blame them. if all go's well 4th ed will be a grate success and most of us will be hear in 10 years complaining that we don't have info on 5th ed. if 4th ed ends up sucking big time, well then "we" have a problem, a big problem. because a lot of good people will loss there jobs over it and we will be poorer for it. WotC's ability to reach out and grab the non gamer at the book store and lead them to the light of RPG's is unsurpassed and  with out it the hole industry will sufer...


----------



## Lord Zardoz

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I didn't think that Lord Zardoz was talking about dual statted books but rather a company producing books for both 3.5 and 4e....




Wolf Spider gets it right, and wins the prize.  Here, have a semicolon.

;



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> You fail to consider the fact that just because customer 1 and customer 2 are both Paizo, Green Ronin/etc. fans doesn't mean both want to switch to 4e or stay with 3e. So then this provision forces the company to, instead of actually catering to their total fanbase, cater only to a subset of it. This in the end is either bad for customer 1 or customer 2 depending upon which choice the company makes. So IMHO, it affects customers and publishers.




I suppose you do have a point about that.  However, I was being a bit more draconian, and going with the notion that for fan 2 who wanted Green Ronin / Paizo to make the same choice as him would soon end up decide either to follow is favored company, or that the company was no longer his favorite.

I am also considering a slightly longer timescale, say 1.5 to 2 years after 4th edition launches.  If people are still complaining about this at that point, than I will admit to being wrong, and award you the coveted semi colon.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Hussar

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I didn't think that Lord Zardoz was talking about dual statted books but rather a company producing books for both 3.5 and 4e....




I would point to the second part of my post then.  Publishing two of the same book is too expensive.  Particularly when only half as many people, at best, buy each book.


----------



## vagabundo

This is a long long thread, I wasnt able to keep up with it over the weekend. Has it been confirmed anywhere that a company cannot make other RPGs under other licences if they do GSL content?

Or that they cannot make and publish separate content that is under OGL and GSL? What about freelancers if one project is OGL and another is GSL is that prohibited too?


----------



## Lizard

vagabundo said:
			
		

> This is a long long thread, I wasnt able to keep up with it over the weekend. Has it been confirmed anywhere that a company cannot make other RPGs under other licences if they do GSL content?
> 
> Or that they cannot make and publish separate content that is under OGL and GSL? What about freelancers if one project is OGL and another is GSL is that prohibited too?




Nope, nothing's been confirmed yet. And I'm firmly on the side which says "This is all a big mess up in communication; the rule is to keep people from making 3x and 4e versions of the same product at the same time, and is not a company-wide ban", because, frankly, I can't believe WOTC/Hasbro would be that stupid. It would pretty much have the opposite of the effect they want -- instead of encouraging top-tier companies with solid reputations to produce the first wave of 4e product, it will appeal mostly to those with no 3e history, and to people looking to start up new companies to jump on the 4e bandwagon. We will see the established players with successful OGL lines sticking to their core business, while the market is flooded with products from people no one ever heard of. Sure, some of them will turn out to be great -- but WOTC doesn't want another flood of material of dubious quality, they want good stuff. The original release plan would have done that -- created a 'first wave' of high quality product -- but that didn't quite work out and I'm pretty sure we won't know why 'till someone involved decides to leave gaming forever and posts a juicy tell-all blog now that they don't care about their career.


----------



## Belen

Hussar said:
			
		

> All sorts of issues can result from this.  Historically, 3PP have been somewhat laissez faire with their OGL sections.  I've seen all sorts of crippled writeups.  So, when you have two licenses in the same book, how often do you think 3PP's would get it right?




You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum.  If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL.  If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books.  You either publish 4e or OGL.  You cannot do both.

This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.


----------



## Piratecat

Belen said:
			
		

> You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum.  If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL.  If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books.  You either publish 4e or OGL.  You cannot do both.
> 
> This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.



This isn't confirmed yet, and won't be until later today. Best not to spread one interpretation as the unvarnished truth.

Mind you, it _may_ be how the actual license is written, but that's still unclear.


----------



## Wolfspider

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would point to the second part of my post then.  Publishing two of the same book is too expensive.  Particularly when only half as many people, at best, buy each book.




I still don't think that's what he was talking about (and what I was referring to), but for what it's worth, I agree with you in this regard--dual statted books and the same books done for different game systems don't seem to do very well.


----------



## Hussar

Belen said:
			
		

> You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum.  If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL.  If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books.  You either publish 4e or OGL.  You cannot do both.
> 
> This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.




Thank you, I did realize that.

I was pointing to a hypothetical.  People keep talking about how they should allow publishers to do both OGL and GSL material.  If they did do that, how would you handle material that's open under the OGL but closed under the GSL?


----------



## Belen

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thank you, I did realize that.
> 
> I was pointing to a hypothetical.  People keep talking about how they should allow publishers to do both OGL and GSL material.  If they did do that, how would you handle material that's open under the OGL but closed under the GSL?




You do not need to worry about it as you cannot use OGL material with GSL material.  Technically, since it is open material, then a publisher should be able to use that material in a GSL product, except that you cannot use both licenses in the same product, so the point to moot.


----------



## xechnao

Lizard said:
			
		

> -- but WOTC doesn't want another flood of material of dubious quality, they want good stuff.



You seem to forget that the GSL is different than the OGL. They can better exploit this flood now.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> The original release plan would have done that -- created a 'first wave' of high quality product -- but that didn't quite work out and I'm pretty sure we won't know why 'till someone involved decides to leave gaming forever and posts a juicy tell-all blog now that they don't care about their career.



IMO the original plan and their biggest priority is to attract people and build a strong community on their online services. Your ideas are in conflict with this plan. They do not want you to post at Paizo. They want you to engage more with Gleemax.


----------



## D'karr

xechnao said:
			
		

> They do not want you to post at Paizo. They want you to engage more with Gleemax.




If that is the case they really need to do something major to fix Gleemax.  IMO, right now it totally sucks to go there.


----------



## vagabundo

Hmm, thanks for the update Lizard.

I'm hoping, as you say, that Wizards will not put an unnecessary restriction on companies that want to support their OGL lines and yet contribute to 4e. But, I can see how this concession might have had to be made to assure Hasbro, but I doubt that WOTC supported it if it is so.

Obviously it is not in WOTCs interest to have dual-licensed stuff or a slightly updated GSL release of OGL content. 

It does not effect me greatly, but I would prefer to see a healthy 3rd party DND industry.


----------



## Scribble

Belen said:
			
		

> You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum.  If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL.  If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books.  You either publish 4e or OGL.  You cannot do both.
> 
> This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.




If this is the case, then companies should simply do what every other industry does when faced with a similar matter... Start a new child company.

Call it like Green Ronin 4e or something. All it does is produce the 4e version of the green ronin stuff.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/1215234

Look its CONFIRMED!!!!!!

(No it isn't, but watch the rumor mill fly.)

All because Orcus keeps jumping at the shadows.  I hope I'm right and he is wrong.  I'm not THAT certain if they are normal shadows or D&D shadows yet.


----------



## La Bete

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/1215234
> 
> Look its CONFIRMED!!!!!!




Hmmmph. I know he can't reply to this, but that wasn't very cool.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

La Bete said:
			
		

> Hmmmph. I know he can't reply to this, but that wasn't very cool.




Your statement has too many unclear pronouns.  He, This, That.

Huh?


----------



## ChaosShard

La Bete said:
			
		

> Hmmmph. I know he can't reply to this, but that wasn't very cool.




If you mean the blogger jumping on a rumor? Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but it's not a major-big deal anyway, the author has his/her opinion, and is welcome to it. Of course treating rumor as fact is bad form.

If you mean Gene's posting of that link here, you need to turn up your humor radar   

If you mean the mind flayer tossing the gnome into the gelatinous cube, well, yeah, that wasn't too cool at all...


----------



## Mistwell

Ydars said:
			
		

> JohnRTroy; I would like to pose a question to you.
> 
> If open gaming has had no impact and is not important (is "miniscule" to quote you) then why is WoTC now risking serious fan-alienation by designing a GSL document whose sole stated aim is to make all 3rd parties jump into supporting 4E. This suggests to me that WoTC don't see the open gaming movement as a miniscule concern.




I am not JohnRTroy, but I will take a stab at your question.

I see an inherent contradiction in your question. If open gaming is minuscule, then WOTC does not risk serious fan-alienation.  They only risk such alienation if is not minuscule, because otherwise the overwhelming majority of fans will not care one way or the other about something so tiny.

And frankly, I think that is what fan polls on this very board (which in general I suspect is much more aware of these issues than the greater population of players and DMs out there).  Most folks, when it came down to it, didn't really care one way or the other about open gaming all that much.

Indeed, that points to the fact that WOTC does indeed view it as a minuscule portion of the market and thus does not risk serious fan-alienation.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

If my blaming Orcus... maybe.  I've learned more since some of my Orcus bashing and he doesn't really seem like he is speculating, just saying fairly clearly what he was told.


----------



## withak

kheris said:
			
		

> If you mean the blogger jumping on a rumor? Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but it's not a major-big deal anyway, the author has his/her opinion, and is welcome to it. Of course treating rumor as fact is bad form.
> 
> If you mean Gene's posting of that link here, you need to turn up your humor radar
> 
> If you mean the mind flayer tossing the gnome into the gelatinous cube, well, yeah, that wasn't too cool at all...



No, I think he means the submission of a rumor-based story to Slashdot, thus solidifying it as "fact" instead of rumor.


----------



## Mistwell

*The Two Company Scenario*

This is what I suspect will happen:

Company ACME has a 3e-type product called ADVENTURERS that is successful.  They want to continue to publish expansions to ADVENTURERS, and they also want to do a 4e-type version.

The owners of ACME form a new company, called EMCA.  ACME licenses ADVENTURERS to EMCA.  EMCA stays with 3e, and publishes expansions to ADVENTURERS.

ACME creates a new product, which is similar to ADVENTURERS but not the same.  It takes advantage of the new 4e system to go in a different direction, though at heart it has most of the feel of ADVENTURERS and is written by some of the same people and is marketed as "From the makers of ADVENTURERS".  ACME calls this new product EXPLORERS.  

From there on out, ACME goes with 4e, and continues to only publish products for 4e, while EMCA handles all 3e products, and continues to only publish products for 3e.  The two companies do not call their products the same thing, or make them too similar, but similar enough to offer much of the same feel and the goodwill that comes with having some of the same writers and owners behind both companies.

I do not see why this would not work, given what we know right now.  It is a bit of a pain, because you have to use two companies instead of one, and two administrative costs instead of one, and two marketing and promotional routes instead of one, and two settings instead of one, etc..  But ultimately, I think it could work. It might even get some people to buy both the 3e and 4e "versions" of the products since they are not identical and will have some significant differences.  It might appeal to people who like the general feel and the quality of the writing but who might have two different gaming groups, or groups that might want to switch off between games depending on the type they are interested in playing at that time, or people who want to pillage new stuff from one game to use in their other game.


----------



## Piratecat

Important!  We have a chance to get some answers, gang. Please head here.


----------



## Scribble

Mistwell said:
			
		

> This is what I suspect will happen:
> 
> Company ACME has a 3e-type product called ADVENTURERS that is successful.  They want to continue to publish expansions to ADVENTURERS, and they also want to do a 4e-type version.
> 
> The owners of ACME form a new company, called EMCA.  ACME licenses ADVENTURERS to EMCA.  EMCA stays with 3e, and publishes expansions to ADVENTURERS.
> 
> ACME creates a new product, which is similar to ADVENTURERS but not the same.  It takes advantage of the new 4e system to go in a different direction, though at heart it has most of the feel of ADVENTURERS and is written by some of the same people and is marketed as "From the makers of ADVENTURERS".  ACME calls this new product EXPLORERS.
> 
> From there on out, ACME goes with 4e, and continues to only publish products for 4e, while EMCA handles all 3e products, and continues to only publish products for 3e.  The two companies do not call their products the same thing, or make them too similar, but similar enough to offer much of the same feel and the goodwill that comes with having some of the same writers and owners behind both companies.
> 
> I do not see why this would not work, given what we know right now.  It is a bit of a pain, because you have to use two companies instead of one, and two administrative costs instead of one, and two marketing and promotional routes instead of one, and two settings instead of one, etc..  But ultimately, I think it could work. It might even get some people to buy both the 3e and 4e "versions" of the products since they are not identical and will have some significant differences.  It might appeal to people who like the general feel and the quality of the writing but who might have two different gaming groups, or groups that might want to switch off between games depending on the type they are interested in playing at that time, or people who want to pillage new stuff from one game to use in their other game.




Yeah... Ultimately if they have to go the one or the other route... I can see this happening.  You'd start seeing stuff like:

X Company Legacy... A new company designed to sell and upkeep all of the 3e stuff, while the main company moves onto 4e.

Of course, this is all assuming there is a market for supporting both, and it's not just more profitable to support 4e.

Shrug.

In the end, I don't care much, as long as cool game stuff keeps getting written.


----------



## La Bete

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Your statement has too many unclear pronouns.  He, This, That.
> 
> Huh?




he - mxplyk (or however it's spelled - modded out of the main GSL threads)
this - this post
that - his /.

Apologies for the confusion. Think before you drink before you post is my lesson learned today. No UnRouseness directed at you. Much UnRouseness directed at mzylplyk.

Regards


----------



## epochrpg

Hmmm.  I wonder if it is too late to register a trademark for my new 4E company, "Red Shogun"


----------



## La Bete

withak said:
			
		

> No, I think he means the submission of a rumor-based story to Slashdot, thus solidifying it as "fact" instead of rumor.




Indeed young padawan. Have a cookie.


----------



## D'karr

It must be true.  I read it on the Internet.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> I suspect that Wizards put the "Use one or the other but not both" clause in there, and made the other changes to the OGL / GSL, because the OGL did not have quite the effect they wanted it to have.  Since everyone else as their opinions stated (with plenty of toy analogies), here is my opinion.  Except with a comparison to Videogames instead.
> 
> Wizards wants to have the same kind of business model as Valve.  They want people to create user mods for their game.  *They want to license out the game engine to other companies so they can also make content for that game.  However, Valve does not let someone take Half Life, make an entirely new game, and then sell it in direct competition to their games.*




What is the difference between the two bolded sentences? In other words, what's the difference between licensing the Source Engine and making Dark Messiah Might and Magic, and making an entirely new game?  They have two income streams: their own product and licensed uses of the engine.  WotC has their own product (WotC-branded D&D books) and any income they gain from the licensed uses of their rule set (3rd party D&D books) is incidental, coming from increased enthusiasm for the D&D game as a result of 3rd party support.

I don't think that this sort of analogy works very well.



> The "use one or the other rule" is a work around.  It is not a very good workaround, but it is probably about the only one they have which would work.  They cannot stop any company from continuing to use the 3.5 ruleset as the basis of their products.  But they can prevent them from using the 4th edition rule set.  And they can take measures to make sure that the kind of 3rd party products they want to see are not subjected to legalized piracy.



I don't suppose that there's any reason that a company couldn't publish Product Line #1 as 3.5e stuff, and Product Line #2 as 4e stuff, as long as the two lines were adequately distinct from one another.  But Clark's reading of the agreement specifically prohibits this.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Sure they can.



Yeah, they won't be hurting.  However, I expect that if anyone does get ground under as a result of this policy, it'll turn into a bit of a bruise on their public image, at least among the online community.


----------



## Wolfspider

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yeah, they won't be hurting.  However, I expect that if anyone does get ground under as a result of this policy, it'll turn into a bit of a bruise on their public image, at least among the online community.




I won't argue with that, but as has been pointed out many times before, the online community really doesn't seem to amount to much....

Which makes me wonder once again at the wisdom behind basing so much on the Digitial Initiative....


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would point to the second part of my post then.  Publishing two of the same book is too expensive.  Particularly when only half as many people, at best, buy each book.



Well, let's say that Paizo can make a go of it with their Pathfinder line.  They have enough support from the 3.5-grognard crowd that they can exist for at least until 5th edition on it.

Now, let's say that Necromancer goes to 4th edition wholesale.  They make enough money at it that they can exist until at least 5th edition.

Now, let's assume that both companies deal with many of the same writers, editors, and developers, along with printers, shippers, wholesalers, etc.  The economics of the situation would suggest that if the companies were not two different companies, but in fact one company supporting both systems, they would save money in overhead and scale.

Perhaps if they just published a 3e Pathfinder and a 4e Pathfinder they might compete with themselves.  But if one company published both the 3e Pathfinder stuff and a line of 4e products distinct from Pathfinder, they'd do at least as well as two companies publishing two lines.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

xechnao said:
			
		

> You seem to forget that the GSL is different than the OGL. They can better exploit this flood now.
> 
> IMO the original plan and their biggest priority is to attract people and build a strong community on their online services. Your ideas are in conflict with this plan. They do not want you to post at Paizo. They want you to engage more with Gleemax.



I don't want to post at Gleemax.  They'd own my words if I did.

Hey wait, if they claim copyright of anything I post there, are they liable for anything I post there?  Hmm...


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

I just can't see Wizards making this possible.  I think they'll have a termination clause in the GSL that lets them go after companies that do this.

It's such an easy workaround (it only costs a few hundred dollars to form a company) that it would be universally employed if allowed.  And Hasbro has full-time lawyers who surely know this.

So, if WoTC were going to make this possible, there would be no reason to have an exclusivity clause in the GSL at all.  They would achieve the same end result, and a whole lot more goodwill, by just going without one.

Since they are going forward with one, I can only conclude that the GSL will be terminatable at will by them, and they plan on making it clear that that they intend to enforce the 4E only provision by threat of termination of the license.

Also, a lot of people seem to be counting on WoTC continuing to make their 3E catalog availbable via PDF.  I think this is extremely unlikely;  it doesn't make sense if they're trying to enforce system upgrade.

Ken



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> This is what I suspect will happen:
> 
> Company ACME has a 3e-type product called ADVENTURERS that is successful.  They want to continue to publish expansions to ADVENTURERS, and they also want to do a 4e-type version.
> 
> The owners of ACME form a new company, called EMCA.  ACME licenses ADVENTURERS to EMCA.  EMCA stays with 3e, and publishes expansions to ADVENTURERS.
> 
> ACME creates a new product, which is similar to ADVENTURERS but not the same.  It takes advantage of the new 4e system to go in a different direction, though at heart it has most of the feel of ADVENTURERS and is written by some of the same people and is marketed as "From the makers of ADVENTURERS".  ACME calls this new product EXPLORERS.
> 
> From there on out, ACME goes with 4e, and continues to only publish products for 4e, while EMCA handles all 3e products, and continues to only publish products for 3e.  The two companies do not call their products the same thing, or make them too similar, but similar enough to offer much of the same feel and the goodwill that comes with having some of the same writers and owners behind both companies.
> 
> I do not see why this would not work, given what we know right now.  It is a bit of a pain, because you have to use two companies instead of one, and two administrative costs instead of one, and two marketing and promotional routes instead of one, and two settings instead of one, etc..  But ultimately, I think it could work. It might even get some people to buy both the 3e and 4e "versions" of the products since they are not identical and will have some significant differences.  It might appeal to people who like the general feel and the quality of the writing but who might have two different gaming groups, or groups that might want to switch off between games depending on the type they are interested in playing at that time, or people who want to pillage new stuff from one game to use in their other game.


----------



## Piratecat

For reference, gang, we expect those interview results back in 2-4 days. Sorry for the delay; Scott is traveling, and they need him to go over the interview. We'll post it as soon as we get it back.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

thanks for the time estimate


----------



## Henry

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I don't want to post at Gleemax.  They'd own my words if I did.
> 
> Hey wait, if they claim copyright of anything I post there, are they liable for anything I post there?  Hmm...




This keeps getting repeated, but I keep correcting it out of fairness:

They don't claim copyright of whatever you post at Gleemax -- you grant them a license to use it as they see fit, which isn't the same thing. Re-read the Terms of Service carefully.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> What is the difference between the two bolded sentences?




As I wrote them, not much.  I chose my phrasing poorly.

A better way of stating it is that Valve will not let you use the Halflife Engine to make Half life 3.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## JohnSnow

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I just can't see Wizards making this possible.  I think they'll have a termination clause in the GSL that lets them go after companies that do this.
> 
> It's such an easy workaround (it only costs a few hundred dollars to form a company) that it would be universally employed if allowed.  And Hasbro has full-time lawyers who surely know this.




I agree. It's too easy a work-around. IANAL, but I've seen a lot of contracts. Most of them have a clause like:

"This applies to the company as well as any and all of its agents, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, sub-contractors, and independent contractors."

Which pretty much takes care of subsidiaries, but allows truly separate entities like Necromancer and the Game Mechanics (if they're still around) to have a publishing deal with Paizo or Green Ronin. 

To me, that means that either the restriction won't exist, or there won't be an easy work-around like setting up a subsidiary.


----------



## Orcus

Belen said:
			
		

> You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum.  If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL.  If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books.  You either publish 4e or OGL.  You cannot do both.
> 
> This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.




This mechanic of enforcement is not verified. 

In my view, it would be most likely that if you use the GSL then use the OGL you cannot go back to the GSL. It is difficult for me to concieve of a way they could prevent you from going back to the OGL. That is open and limitless. But they could prevent you from again using the GSL.

In other words:

1. Use GSL to make a 4E product. fine.
2. Go back to OGL for a product. fine (though you likely triggered a clause that means you cant use the GSL)
3. Go back to the GSL to do another 4E product. Nope. Your use of teh OGL revokes your permission to use teh GSL. That is the simplest way. 

Clark


----------



## Storm-Bringer

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Since they are going forward with one, I can only conclude that the GSL will be terminatable at will by them, and they plan on making it clear that that they intend to enforce the 4E only provision by threat of termination of the license.
> 
> Also, a lot of people seem to be counting on WoTC continuing to make their 3E catalog availbable via PDF.  I think this is extremely unlikely;  it doesn't make sense if they're trying to enforce system upgrade.
> 
> Ken



I was a bit confused over this.  I am nothing like a lawyer, but many posts seemed to be concerned with WotC suing someone for producing OGL & GSL products.  I saw it more or less right away; revoke the GSL.  No muss, no fuss, instant breach of contract/trademark violation.

It's not that WotC can prevent you from using the OGL, it's that they can revoke your use of the GSL.  What the exact terms are is hard to say, but there is almost certainly an 'at will' clause for both parties.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Granted, I will too.  I do believe the majority of 3e gamers will go to 4e. However, of the 3e gamers that I personally know and have spoken with, none are switching to 4e and neither are their groups. They don't like what they have read of 4e on WOTC or heard from others about some of the new mechanics.  People in their groups are not interested nor are the people that they have talked to in thier extended gaming communities (e.g., LARP groups).




I know exactly what you mean.

Right now, based on current available info, 3.X is winning 13-0-2 over 4Ed in as the future for gaming in my current circles of gamers.  The -2 are the people like me who are buying the Core and/or are taking a "wait and see" approach.

Granted, some of those might shift to wins for 4Ed when the thing finally becomes available, but knowing these guys as I do, I'm not holding my breath.

Then again, as I have griped on this site before, my current group is infamously conservative in their taste in RPGs.


----------



## SSquirrel

I love the anecdotal rebuttals found here   Now my old gaming group isn't here in Louisville, but of my friends who game here in town all 5 of us are excited about 4E and pretty much bored of 3E.  My other gamer friends back in Iowa who have looked at all the new info on 4E like what they've seen in a similar margin, so that's 10 of 10 of my gaming friends who are moving to 4E.  Personally the only way I see myself playing anything 3E related in the near future is if I finally get off my ass and run AE/Ptolus


----------



## Ds Da Man

3e has caused us to quit playing D&D for awhile now. No one wants to DM. 4e will definately be a refreshing RPG wind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Take it from an MBA- You have no idea where my buddies and I fall in the demographics.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Take it from an MBA- You have no idea where my buddies and I fall in the demographics.




I'm in two groups. Five guys in one, and (a ridiculously high number of) 9 in the other.

All of us are excited to try 4E. So we cancel you out. FTW!

Note that I said - _try_.  I'd say all of us have a varying degree of open-mindedness toward the whole thing, and that probably bodes well to giving 4E a fair shake.  Some of what we're read, we've liked. Some of what we've read, we haven't. What we aren't gonna do is burn our bras and run around campus shouting _Death to Healing Surges!!!_ without having actually (here's a thought) played the game.

And yes, I have an MBA, too.  Which basically means...squat.*

Wis

* If one defines "squat" as $60,000+ poorer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And yes, I have an MBA, too.  Which basically means...squat.*




Well, it means that you probably have a better understanding of "target demographic" than does someone else, and what it takes to exclude or include someone within it.

You probably also understand things like "early adopters," "trendsetters" and "disposable income" and what they mean for the success or failure of a product.



> What we aren't gonna do is burn our bras and run around campus shouting Death to Healing Surges!!! without having actually (here's a thought) played the game.




And you might want to include me in that group, but on the more pessimistic side.

I haven't decided on the quality of the game, and I won't until I have my pre-ordered Core 3.  I don't know- it may be a great game, but my gut feeling about how much I'm going to enjoy the game _as D&D_ based on everything I've read is, on the balance, negative.

I was, however, pointing out the purely anectdotal fact that I know a lot of gamers who have decided to give 4Ed a pass already, and know none who are gung-ho for 4Ed.  I was agreeing with another poster, and was told I "don't matter at all" for doing so.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> I'm in two groups. Five guys in one, and (a ridiculously high number of) 9 in the other.
> 
> All of us are excited to try 4E. So we cancel you out. FTW!
> 
> Note that I said - _try_.  I'd say all of us have a varying degree of open-mindedness toward the whole thing, and that probably bodes well to giving 4E a fair shake.  Some of what we're read, we've liked. Some of what we've read, we haven't. What we aren't gonna do is burn our bras and run around campus shouting _Death to Healing Surges!!!_ without having actually (here's a thought) played the game.
> 
> And yes, I have an MBA, too.  Which basically means...squat.*
> 
> Wis
> 
> * If one defines "squat" as $60,000+ poorer.



Three  groups - two with six players, one with six and a half (makes it every other session), not including myself. None of us have any interest in 4e. Your cancellation has been canceled.

We already have enough miniatures games with RPG elements to keep us satisfied, and the policies coming out of WotC, even when they have been rescinded, make it easy to decide where not to send our gaming dollars.

The Auld Grump, economic politics has more to do with these decisions than any other factor.


----------



## DandD

I am going to play D&D with the books, not with the miniatures. And my friends show interest in it. So, let's just stop with that cancellation of cancelling that cancels the amount of people who may or may not play D&D whateveredition. In the end, it all depends on the game mechanics and how much the gaming group accepts them.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

DandD said:
			
		

> I am going to play D&D with the books, not with the miniatures. And my friends show interest in it. So, let's just stop with that cancellation of cancelling that cancels the amount of people who may or may not play D&D whateveredition. In the end, it all depends on the game mechanics and how much the gaming group accepts them.



Meh, not all that interested in Algebraic Gaming, except in regards to zero sum games.  My comment on the cancellation being canceled was made with humorous intent.

If WotC goes through with the whole 'pick 3.X or 4.0 not both, and the choice is company wide' then I will be avoiding WotC products in the future. I am not advocating a boycott, but stating my personal choice as a gamer who still very much likes 3.X. I do not want to see an enforced choice. If market pressures lead to the dropping ox the older edition then fine, but I much dislike the strong arm tactics, if indeed that is the road that WotC chooses to take.

If they do not put through the purported policy then I will still not be likely to get 4.0, but more from lack of interest - I would still look at WotC products, and if someone else were running a 4.0 game (and there was no 3.5 or Spycraft 2.0 games available) then I _might_ play it. If they came out with some really great looking minis that I could repaint to my satisfaction then I might show interest.

To be fair, and I really wasn't before - I use miniatures in almost all my D20/OGL games, it was not so much the miniatures element that bothered me as that it feels like the minis (and the sales of the minis) are the main thrust of the game now. When I want a game like that I play Mordheim. (And win more than my fair share, too!  )

The Auld Grump, working on Steampunk material... me prose has gone all stilted 'n' stuff.


----------



## shocklee

While I understand the argument for creating the separate company, I'm not quite sure why anyone would bother.  Will the content that can be published under the new license be enough to sustain a company?  I think that point that nobody gets is that the new license is not only designed to push the company forward into 4.0, but also is much more restrictive on what the company can sell.  Precisely how can you create a Spycraft, Conan, Mutants&Masterminds... when you cannot "Describe a process for Creating a Character"?

The question is, how many companies can sustain their business by just selling adventures and add on books?  Yes, I realize that there are companies that do nothing but that, but my point is that the market has now shrunk because of the new license restrictions.  A Green Ronin 3.5 that can sell M&M and True20 is certainly a lot more profitable than Green Ronin 4.0. I imagine that it will be a very tough business decision to take Freeport into 4.0 and pull it out of True20.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

shocklee said:
			
		

> I think that point that nobody gets is that the new license is not only designed to push the company forward into 4.0, but also is much more restrictive on what the company can sell.  Precisely how can you create a Spycraft, Conan, Mutants&Masterminds... when you cannot "Describe a process for Creating a Character"?



 Actually you can still do all these settings and more, you just need to put into the book that you have to reference the Dungeons & Dragon 4th Edition PHB for details about character creation.  You then state that "instead of using base classes and races listed in the PHB, use the following:..."  and "When you gain experience points, refer to the Dungeons & Dragon 4th Edition DMG for information about how many experience points are needed to go up a level and what steps are taken to then improve your PC."  

I doubt (without seeing it to know for certain) there is anything preventing publishers under the GSL from creating new classes, races, feats, skills, powers etc.

The main thing WotC wants from the new restictions on the GSL is to prevent a group of brand new players from picking up the 4e d20 Spycraft source book and playing the game that WotC created without WotC ever getting anything for it.  By making them reference the D&D books for some of the most basic parts of the game, they ensure they WotC gets something for their efforts at creating the game and allowing others to use it under license.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> The main thing WotC wants from the new restictions on the GSL is to prevent a group of brand new players from picking up the 4e d20 Spycraft source book and playing the game that WotC created without WotC ever getting anything for it. By making them reference the D&D books for some of the most basic parts of the game, they ensure they WotC gets something for their efforts at creating the game and allowing others to use it under license.




In that respect, the new GSL is no different from the old d20 STL. In fact, that's basically the same restriction the d20 STL had.: no character creation.

It still couldn't prevent something like AU.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In that respect, the new GSL is no different from the old d20 STL. In fact, that's basically the same restriction the d20 STL had.: no character creation.
> 
> It still couldn't prevent something like AU.



Arcana Unearthed is OGL, is it not? Or am I interpreting the acronym wrong? (Arcana Evolved definitely doesn't have the d20 logo) 
But either way, it was not stopped by the d20 STL. 

So, here's my understanding so far: 

I think the GSL might no be that different from the d20-STL. The key difference at this point is that there is no OGL-material from the 4E PHB to refer to, so you can't use the OGL to re-use 4E rules. But you apparantly could still try to create 4E compatible material, as long as you don't directly state that that's what you're doing, and you don't copy any 4E rule text verbatim.

It changes more if there is indeed a poison pill making it impossible to create OGL products while creating GSL products. 
This means that you'd have to stop using the OGL, which would suck if you want to re-use OGL material from third parties (your own material is not restricted by the OGL), or if you want to continue working both on 3E/OGL and 4E/GSL. This would for example be a problem for True20 or Paizos Pathfinder 3E/4E. We still don't know if this scenario applies. I'd see it as a worst-case scenario. But it still won't stop everyone. 

That you can't put the same product under both licenses should pose little problems (unless you wanted somehow re-use OGL material or dual-stat). I think at worst, you'd have to change the name of your product. (Tome of Horrors becomes The Horror Tome? Arcana Evolved becomes Evolved Arcana? And Iron Heroes becomes Heroic Irony  ).


----------



## cybernetic

shocklee said:
			
		

> While I understand the argument for creating the separate company, I'm not quite sure why anyone would bother.  Will the content that can be published under the new license be enough to sustain a company?  I think that point that nobody gets is that the new license is not only designed to push the company forward into 4.0, but also is much more restrictive on what the company can sell.  Precisely how can you create a Spycraft, Conan, Mutants&Masterminds... when you cannot "Describe a process for Creating a Character"?




Actually, Spycraft did it under the old d20 STL license. The first Spycraft book, which I happen to have in my bag right now, did not "Describe a process for Creating a Character". It simply gave different options to use when creating a character and refered you to teh 3rd Edition PHB for the rules to put the peices together.

On another note. My personal opinion on the situation, from both the perspective of a writer and a gamer, is that in the end I think this will be good for gaming. I think WotC is playing this round smart. They're obviously very confident and worked very hard on 4th Edition and I think they want any 3PP who supports it to put a lot into their products as well. By forcing 3PP who work with 4th Edition to turn their back on 3.X, it puts their focus on making better products for 4th Edition. It does seem as though it is going to exclude some of the bigger names in 3PP from supporting 4th Edition (which is a shame), but that has a positive side as well. Those companies will be able to focus more on their own systems to give us great non-4th Edition products as well! It'll also give us some new blood and has the potential of giving us a new generation of 3PP.

Grymn Studios has been developing an OGL-based game for the passed few years. They system is compete and the setting for the game has been developed. I have faith in the system I created (it is OGL but diverges from d20 quite a bit). However, It is likely that it will never be published, because we will be going 4th Edition. The setting we had developed actually fits perfectly with the feel and implied "setting" of 4th Edition D&D, almost too perfectly . The system I developed (which pre-dates the setting) will either go onto my own personal book self or I'll shop it to a 3.X Publisher down the road.


----------



## HalWhitewyrm

Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.

I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.

In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.

Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.


----------



## Urizen

HalWhitewyrm said:
			
		

> Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.
> 
> I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
> 
> In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
> 
> Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.




Thanks for this information.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I think the GSL might no be that different from the d20-STL. The key difference at this point is that there is no OGL-material from the 4E PHB to refer to, so you can't use the OGL to re-use 4E rules. But you apparantly could still try to create 4E compatible material, as long as you don't directly state that that's what you're doing, and you don't copy any 4E rule text verbatim.




I think this is the right of it. Anyone who thinks that WotC is doing this in order to stop people from competing with it is probably barking up the wrong tree, because it won't stop it (and I assume WotC is clever enough to know that).

Which leaves me wondering about what a poison pill could really achieve? I can't see any benefit for WotC in doing that, so I've gotta assume things aren't quite as dire as speculation might have us believe.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think this is the right of it. Anyone who thinks that WotC is doing this in order to stop people from competing with it is probably barking up the wrong tree, because it won't stop it (and I assume WotC is clever enough to know that).
> 
> Which leaves me wondering about what a poison pill could really achieve? I can't see any benefit for WotC in doing that, so I've gotta assume things aren't quite as dire as speculation might have us believe.



 Never mind, I'm tired and wasn't thinking clearly...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Which leaves me wondering about what a poison pill could really achieve?




The main thing it could do is prevent WotC's 4Ed from competing with its strongest competition- some version of its own robust and popular 3.5 system- thus minimizing the risk of 4Ed becoming the RPG world's equivalent of New Coke.

However, HalWhitewyrm's post indicates that there may be something else going on, and the GSL may not include a true "poison pill" type provision.


----------



## tomBitonti

HalWhitewyrm said:
			
		

> ... . What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it...




I'm still not getting this.  How is depriving customers of a part of the value of products that they purchased from you, or from other businesses (under your encouragement) good business sense?  The way I see it, WOTC/Hasbro is directly reducing the value of a product that I bought from them.  That is a harm, and it seems like terrible business sense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If WotC is trying to ensure that 4Ed doesn't get into a fight with 3.5 based games & products, it makes business sense for them to try to get the major 3.5 producers to bail on the OGL and go 4Ed/GSL all the way.  Without support from WotC and the top 3PPs, 3.5Ed based games and products will be devalued because of market saturation. After all, how many people will want to buy a 7 year old game supplement for a game no longer in print?  Extant copies- the as-yet unsold and the resale/used market- will be sufficient to supply the demand for that old supplement.

And a devalued older product is at a competitive disadvantage to a "new & improved" entry into the market.

By pressing the OGL/GSL issue, WotC could avoid the "New Coke" problem.

In the automobile world, this was called "planned obsolescence."

In the software world, its called "upgrading."  Heck, even my computers of choice (Macs) don't have as much of the backwards compatibility they were  once famous for.

However, as stated a few posts above, there may be less to this than we think.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

HalWhitewyrm said:
			
		

> Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.
> 
> I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
> 
> In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
> 
> Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.




That sounds like they might do the exclusivity contract(use the GSL or the OGL, not both) thing, but hand out some exceptions for established stand-alone games like M&M, True20 ect.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If WotC is trying to ensure that 4Ed doesn't get into a fight with 3.5 based games & products, it makes business sense for them to try to get the major 3.5 producers to bail on the OGL and go 4Ed/GSL all the way.  Without support from WotC and the top 3PPs, 3.5Ed based games and products will be devalued because of market saturation. After all, how many people will want to buy a 7 year old game supplement for a game no longer in print?  Extant copies- the as-yet unsold and the resale/used market- will be sufficient to supply the demand for that old supplement.
> 
> And a devalued older product is at a competitive disadvantage to a "new & improved" entry into the market.
> 
> By pressing the OGL/GSL issue, WotC could avoid the "New Coke" problem.
> 
> In the automobile world, this was called "planned obsolescence."
> 
> In the software world, its called "upgrading."  Heck, even my computers of choice (Macs) don't have as much of the backwards compatibility they were  once famous for.
> 
> However, as stated a few posts above, there may be less to this than we think.




Not getting a fight is avoiding competition.  Competitive markets are all about getting into fights, and allowing that to select the best and lowest cost products.

3.5E products are devalued no matter what.  But why kill them off, except to scrape out an extra 10% of sales?  I just don't understand why WoTC is so *eric's granda's filter* bent on killing 3.5E.  Unless it would be more than 10%.

I thought that automobile obsolescence was about making sure the parts wore out at about the same time.  You've spent too much on a part if it lasts longer than all of the others.  (Or lasts a lot longer than all of the others.  I can see that you would want certain parts to fail last, or to not fail very often, which might force you to make ithose parts to last on average a lot longer.)

Maybe, WoTC is making choice that is truly in my best interest (and 4E is superb!), and is simply making that decision for me (and for all of the gaming companies out there).  I don't think that is appropriate.

(A reason that I can think of for preventing production of 3.5E products is to reduce the back-transfer of 4E ideas to 3.5E.  If a company produces a couple of 4E products and uses that to pay for their learning all about 4E, what would be stopping them from adapting those ideas to 3.5E and creating a transitional book?)

(On the other hand, why didn't WoTC do this themselves?  I have to say that having transitional products seems like a big win, keeping the existing fan base happy while making it breathing-air easy to move up to 4E.)

---

I am interested in the defensibility of my statement of being harmed by their licensing terms.  Could this statement be successfully argued?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Not getting a fight is avoiding competition. Competitive markets are all about getting into fights, and allowing that to select the best and lowest cost products.




Again, its the marketing lesson of New Coke.

New Coke was supposed to replace Classic Coke, however, despite outperforming both Pepsi and Classic Coke in countless taste tests, the new product failed _miserably,_ and is now only available in limited markets as Coke II.

Why?  Because Classic Coke (and Pepsi, for that matter) still had a huge following, and people didn't want a replacement.  Classic Coke was popular, and, doggone it, good enough (thank you, Stuart Smalley).  Since it was still a viable product in its own right with continued production, it continued to sell...while New Coke sat on the shelves.

WotC (_if_ they are trying to kill 3.5) is trying to avoid competing with its own product.  3.5, whatever flaws it has, is _THE_ 800lb gorilla in the RPG market.  Devaluing it in some way, shape, or form is simply good marketing strategy.

Yes, the mere presence of 4Ed devalues 3.5 somewhat, but as the saying goes, "If you strike a king, strike to kill."  The mere existence of other games cuts into 4Ed's potential market share, but the continued existence of the robust & popular 3.5 in its various forms is the single biggest threat to 4Ed's success.



> I thought that automobile obsolescence was about making sure the parts wore out at about the same time.




Nope- its an artifact of marketing.

Its a way of making products just good enough to last and gain/maintain market share & goodwill...until the next model is introduced that has just enough features & changes that the previous model is somehow less desirable to the buying public.  That way, there is a constant churn of new sales to keep the company's revenue up.  Its one of the major reason automobile body styles change, for example. 

And in the RPG world, its one of many reasons why new editions get released.  Sure, there are innovations in this game or that which should be incorporated or emulated in other games, or accretion of less-than-ideal mechanics or rulings that drive redesigns...

But the _business_ of RPGs means that the companies need to keep sales of their big-ticket items rolling- in WotC's case, the Core 3- to maintain a healthy bottom line.  And generally speaking, that means new editions.


----------



## SteveC

I see this issue is still hanging out there without an official answer on the policy. That prompts me to make a suggestion. It's a suggestion coming from someone who's looking forward to 4E and genuinely likes the people who are behind it, and hopes it will do well.

The GSL and its relationship to the OGL is a big deal to many people in your online audience. It's not a big deal to gamers as a whole, but the reason that WotC is updating the license in the first place is to deal with those companies and individulals for which this is a large issue.

My suggestion: get this done and taken care of. I have heard that 4E has had over a million dollar development budget. If that's so, what is the problem with getting this issue resolved? Companies who spend tiny fractions of 4E's development cost seem to be able to handle customer relations issues in a more timely and, I have to say it, professional manner.

When news of the "poison pill" hit Boing Boing, the problem left the world of OGL caring companies and gaming nerds, and went out into the larger Internet community. If I were in public relations for WotC, I would have had a release ten minutes after the story broke saying how this was a misunderstanding and that something would obviously be worked out. Not doing so is rather bush league, I have to say. Yes, I know that the people involved have been traveling and been involved with their own projects, but not controlling this issue immediately is just not professional. If I were in Hasbro, and I heard about the issue (which I might, Boing Boing gets a lot of hits) you would be certain I would be on the phone to WotC in about 30 seconds and getting something put out, travel times and convention issues notwithstanding.

I love the game, I love the people involved, but as a business person myself, I have to say that this is beyond believable at this point. Get and answer out and put this controversy behind us! Sometimes you need to say tough stuff to the people you respect the most ... I'm sorry if this comes off as overly harsh, but in a *business * sense, this lack of communication is insane.

--Steve


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Thanks SteveC!

I think that was a pretty eloquent restatement of why the delayed GSL release is a big negative for WotC.

Simply put, its bad business, harms relationships within the industry, and is overall bad PR.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why?  Because Classic Coke (and Pepsi, for that matter) still had a huge following, and people didn't want a replacement.  Classic Coke was popular, and, doggone it, good enough (thank you, Stuart Smalley).  Since it was still a viable product in its own right with continued production, it continued to sell...while New Coke sat on the shelves.




Plus, it failed to satisfy Coke's most ardent fans. Most people did not care much, or could not tell the difference, they just liked the label. But there was a solid following of people who really enjoyed Coke and resented losing it. Whereas there was no corresponding following of existing New Coke fans. Well, until after the fiasco, when New Coke had a second life as an alternative product....


----------



## The Little Raven

The key difference between the New Coke and D&D 4th Edition situations is simple: There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.


----------



## pawsplay

Mourn said:
			
		

> The key difference between the New Coke and D&D 4th Edition situations is simple: There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.




And there were other market leading alternatives, such as Pepsi and RC Cola? And it's a beverage? And it wasn't an early 20th century invention? and....


----------



## SteveC

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Thanks SteveC!
> 
> I think that was a pretty eloquent restatement of why the delayed GSL release is a big negative for WotC.
> 
> Simply put, its bad business, harms relationships within the industry, and is overall bad PR.



Thanks, Danny. That was very hard to say, because I really like the people who are behind the game. D&D's launch is going to be a big thing, and I hate to think it will be negatively affected by this situation. Boing Boing is read by a lot of people who aren't gamers, many of whom are the new audience WotC is looking for. Let's get this resolved one way or the other and move on!

--Steve


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.




Actually, there were- that's one of the big reasons why Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, RC and other _sweeter_ sodas were actually able to enter the market and succeed.  In Pepsi's case, enough to actually challenge Coke for #1, which was what prompted the market research into New Coke.

But that's not the point- the point is that it can be extremely difficult to compete with your own successful product, be it a physical product like a car, RPG or soft-drink, or a service, like actors complaining about being "typecast."

3.5/D20, in all of its forms, is hugely successful.  4Ed's best chance of success is if that competitor is swept from the marketplace.


----------



## Lizard

Mourn said:
			
		

> The key difference between the New Coke and D&D 4th Edition situations is simple: There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.




Perhaps as another analogy point, in the blind tests where people preferred new coke to old coke, they weren't told "This is a possible replacement for Coke". Many marketing analysts pin the failure of acceptance on that.

I think I'd like 4e if it were published by, say, Green Ronin as an alternative D20 system. It looks to be, solely on its own merits, a fun and playable game system. It just isn't *D&D* to me.

I mean, I enjoy Mutants&Masterminds, which is stripped-down from core D20 as D&D is. (Well, I had fun playing it in two long campaigns, but I felt very constrained and limited DMing it. OTOH, I only DMed it a short time and I was basically cajoled into it by my players -- I wanted to run Champions or Deeds Not Words.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I think I'd like 4e if it were published by, say, Green Ronin as an alternative D20 system. It looks to be, solely on its own merits, a fun and playable game system. It just isn't *D&D* to me.




I'm kind of in that camp- I see a lot of things in the press releases that sound good to me- VERY good- but some of the changes just seem like they were made for the sake of change, and don't jibe with my conception of what D&D is.

However, even if I don't like the game as a replacement for D&D, that is not an indictment of the inherent quality of the game!

But as I've said before, I'm taking a wait & see attitude- no final decisions for me until my pre-ordered Core3 are in my hands.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> I think I'd like 4e if it were published by, say, Green Ronin as an alternative D20 system. It looks to be, solely on its own merits, a fun and playable game system. It just isn't *D&D* to me.




Yeah, I'm getting a funny vibe as well from this.  This is really the most radical change ever made to D&D.  I'll try it but I too think it's changed way to much for me to enjoy, and we're just getting previews.

Attempting to reduce the 3.x alternatives will not be as successful.  Every time you change the system there's always some people who won't follow--it happened with all previous editions of D&D.  Dragonsfoot shows there is a viable market for this.  If the sole reason for the proposed GSL clause is to get licensees to move forward, I don't believe that's the right way to do it.  

Although, if most go with the new GSL and abandon 3.x for 4, I think the companies that choose to remain like Paizo and (I assume) Green Ronin will be even stronger, provided there are fewer of them.  I think the worst thing for a 3.x market to remain alive will be a dozen or more different publishers each competing with each other, a strong publisher needs to become the "de facto heir" to 3rd Edition for it to be a viable movement.


----------



## pawsplay

Lizard said:
			
		

> Perhaps as another analogy point, in the blind tests where people preferred new coke to old coke, they weren't told "This is a possible replacement for Coke". Many marketing analysts pin the failure of acceptance on that.




Between that and the fact that they generally only got a swing, not an entire can, and they didn't first screen for people who already HAD a strong taste preference, this is gone down in history as one of the most disasterous marketing studies ever done. Proof positive that even with good numbers, you want to be very, VERY leery of messing with a good thing.


----------



## pawsplay

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Although, if most go with the new GSL and abandon 3.x for 4, I think the companies that choose to remain like Paizo and (I assume) Green Ronin will be even stronger, provided there are fewer of them.  I think the worst thing for a 3.x market to remain alive will be a dozen or more different publishers each competing with each other, a strong publisher needs to become the "de facto heir" to 3rd Edition for it to be a viable movement.




Actually, I'm betting on 3-4 major alternatives to be standing in the end. There is a lot of diversity in the non-adopters, everything from "not enough anime" to "too much anime," from "I love reserve feats" to "back in my day, a sorcerer was a 7th level magic-user."

Wild guesstimation from me:
Pathfinder, at least for a couple of years. As the profits eventually slow, the Pathfinder as a commercial endeavor line slows down and the PAthfinder community will continue tinkering with the rules and remain somewhat distinct from, but linked with the other 3.5 based communities. 
Castles & Crusades looks like it has a lot of staying power. I predict a substantially revised version in a few years that sill maintains a high degree of backward compatibility. 
One or more publishers are going to market to 3.5 grognards, probably intensifying their efforts on one or two fan websites or portals that serve such a community.

I consider True20 a nearly separate development. It's not a D&D replacement, it's for people who want to run non-D&D games but like the d20 mechanics. Likewise, Conan, the modern games, M&M and the rest are pretty distinct. They are not in competition with D&D. They enjoy some symbiosis with it but are also games in their own right.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I think that that's a pretty good assessment.

What I really wonder about, though, are the really good FRPGs that are closer to the source like AU/AE or Midnight, or those that are in that middle ground between dependence on 3.X and standing alone, like Iron Heroes.


----------



## Vigilance

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Although, if most go with the new GSL and abandon 3.x for 4, I think the companies that choose to remain like Paizo and (I assume) Green Ronin will be even stronger, provided there are fewer of them.  I think the worst thing for a 3.x market to remain alive will be a dozen or more different publishers each competing with each other, a strong publisher needs to become the "de facto heir" to 3rd Edition for it to be a viable movement.




I believe nearly the opposite is true.

The more publishers stay with 3e, the longer it will remain popular.

More support equals a wider audience.

This is the reason for the OGL in the first place. Wizards knew that more support, in terms of adventures, but also more "out there" settings was good for keeping players and GMs in the loop.

What they felt, after looking at the TSR experience, was that one company couldn't afford to make a wide enough range of products (and support them).

So while a setting like Dark Sun or Spelljammer might keep more players in the network, one company couldn't make it all.

So you farm that stuff out, and suddenly the network is stronger than ever.

The whole lesson of the OGL is that one company doesn't need to "win". Companies working together synergistically is where it's at. 

In short, I think a wide range of companies, with a wide range of products, will help keep the OGL market strong. 

Chuck


----------



## olshanski

*My Prediction*

I am predicting that 4E is going to be closed. 
No GSL.
Certainly no OGL or SRD.

Why exactly does WoTC need 3rd party developers to be churning out adventure modules and settings? These are all theoretically money-making things for WoTC to be doing. It seems clear that a majority of people (certainly according to EnWorld and RPG.Net polls) are going gung-ho for 4th edition. People love the changes.

If all of those people adopt 4E, and you have a pool of in-house writers and developers, why not just keep putting out your own supplements for 4E?

I don't know what the market was like when 3E replaced 2E, but my guess is that there were not as many 2E players, and that many old players were playing new systems. Making 3E open encouraged everyone to pay attention and got everyone on the same page. Now that everyone is there, for the moment at least they have a captive audience. 

The bottom line is that it appears that 4E could be viable as a closed system. If it turns out not to be viable, _there is time to open it up later_. If it starts out open, you cannot really shut the door unless the agreement has a revocation provision... which is almost effectively a closed system, because any 3rd party developer will be wary of spending resources when they license could be revoked.

Now why isn't anyone from WoTC coming out and saying this? What good does it do to confirm or deny it?
4E is coming out very soon. Once its out, people will be spending money on 4E. 
If WoTC confirms that 4E is closed, the 3rd parties and presumably some players will get back to work on developing and playing OGL stuff. There seems to be a narrow window yet where 4E could hemmorage a small number of customers. The smaller the window, the fewer customers to be lost.


----------



## essenbee

olshanski said:
			
		

> I am predicting that 4E is going to be closed.
> No GSL.
> Certainly no OGL or SRD.



Well, the GSL and SRD have been announced, so looks like you're prediction is wrong...


----------



## Charwoman Gene

*Sip Tests vs. Full-Glass Tests*

New Coke didn't fail because of brand loyalty alone.

New Coke failed because for some people the additional sweetness that works in in its favor for almost everyone in sip tests gets unpleasant for some people in a full glass or can/bottle.  Some people genuinely prefer the battery-acidness of Coca-Cola on a longer scale.

I will not point out the similarities to 4e demo playtests.  I liked new Coke, dammit!


----------



## olshanski

essenbee said:
			
		

> Well, the GSL and SRD have been announced, so looks like you're prediction is wrong...



I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Spatula

Uhm... wut?  The GSL is being released publicly on June 6th, and book publishers already have an advance copy.  WotC put out a press release & everything.

As for the benefits of 3rd party support, I'm imagine that googling "Ryan Dancey" and "network" will turn up something.  Sure, 4e would work fine as a "closed" system.  But that's inefficient - there's a certain amount of overheard that goes into making any product at WotC, which makes some kinds of products (notably, adventures) not very profitable for them.  Wizards does not have an infinite number of designers, playtesters, nor time, so they will focus on the products that give them the most return for their investment, and the 3rd party support can handle the other stuff.  (in an ideal world)

That's without even getting into Dancey's networking theories.  I mean, why doesn't Microsoft produce all Windows applications itself?  Why not make it a "closed" operating system? (ignoring the anti-trust concerns)  It's more efficient for them to concentrate on certain areas (OS, business & web applications) and leave other needs for others to fill.


----------



## Lizard

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uhm... wut?  The GSL is being released publicly on June 6th, and book publishers already have an advance copy.  WotC put out a press release & everything.




They also put out an announcement it would be released in January with a 5000.00 early adopter buy in. How'd that work out? Until the license is actually posted -- or I hear from publishers saying "We have the license. It's in our hands. We can't comment on it, but we have it." -- it's all vaporware.

To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of WOTC has seen the GSL, and it seems (to judge from the long silence on the part of Lidda and Rouse) to have gone back for another round of "vetting".

I can announce I'm going to spend a week having a wild orgy with the Swedish Bikini Team. Don't believe it until you see the MPEGs.


----------



## SteveC

Lizard said:
			
		

> They also put out an announcement it would be released in January with a 5000.00 early adopter buy in. How'd that work out? Until the license is actually posted -- or I hear from publishers saying "We have the license. It's in our hands. We can't comment on it, but we have it." -- it's all vaporware.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of WOTC has seen the GSL, and it seems (to judge from the long silence on the part of Lidda and Rouse) to have gone back for another round of "vetting".
> 
> I can announce I'm going to spend a week having a wild orgy with the Swedish Bikini Team. Don't believe it until you see the MPEGs.



I must agree with Lizard here. I sincerely doubt that any of this is in the hands of either The Rouse or Lidda at the moment, but has gone further up the chain. The question of "can a company do both 3X OGL and 4E GSL products" still has not been answered, and that's the crux of the matter right now. I would guess that the decision is currently resting with someone who has absolutely no gaming or open source background at all right now, so that can be a lot to take in.

I hope that it gets worked out soon and that we can find something new to declare doomsday over.

Oh, good luck with the Bikini team, by the way, Lizard!

--Steve


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Lizard said:
			
		

> I can announce I'm going to spend a week having a wild orgy with the Swedish Bikini Team. Don't believe it until you see the MPEGs.




Here's hoping you're behind the camera.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Here's hoping its the ladies' Swedish Bikini Team, not the Co-Ed or Mens.

(Yes, I know a bikini is a particular kind of womens' 2 piece bathing suit, but I also know the Swedes.  )


----------



## Oldtimer

Lizard said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of WOTC has seen the GSL



True. No GSL so far. There hasn't even been any official word to interested parties since March 19.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I can announce I'm going to spend a week having a wild orgy with the Swedish Bikini Team.



I'll let them know you'll be dropping in.


----------

