4e / GSL WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Flatus Maximus]

So a more "user-friendly" GSL is...

...good for 4E -- more 3PP support for 4E means more options for 4Eers; those loyal to a particular 3PP will be more likely to give 4E a chance;

...bad for 3.5E -- more 3PP creative effort will be put into 4E and, thus, probably less 3PP creative effort will be put into 3.5;

...mixed for PF -- with less 3PP support for 3.5 , some 3.5ers will drift towards PF (or 4E); those loyal to a particular 3PP that might otherwise support 3.5/PF but is now supporting 4E will be more likely to give 4E a chance.

Approximately right?

[Darrin Drader]

Originally Posted by Flatus Maximus

So a more "user-friendly" GSL is...

...good for 4E -- more 3PP support for 4E means more options for 4Eers; those loyal to a particular 3PP will be more likely to give 4E a chance;

...bad for 3.5E -- more 3PP creative effort will be put into 4E and, thus, probably less 3PP creative effort will be put into 3.5;

...mixed for PF -- with less 3PP support for 3.5 , some 3.5ers will drift towards PF (or 4E); those loyal to a particular 3PP that might otherwise support 3.5/PF but is now supporting 4E will be more likely to give 4E a chance.

Approximately right?

I don't really buy that. I think it's clear that there's still a market for 3.5, and it's wide open for the taking now that WotC isn't making anymore of it. A more relaxed GSL will potentially make it easier for publishers to cater to both. A fairly huge number is already drifting towards PF (based on observation, not the company's word that they're doing well alone). If anything, Paizo might be able to start up a line of 4E books in addition to their PF RPG books, but they sound reluctant, even if all of their criteria for the GSL are met.

One thing to consider with them is that they have an ongoing publication schedule that exists regardless of edition change. Making a huge change from one edition to another can be very costly, especially if there is a gap between when the GSL potentially ends and the next license (if there is one) comes into effect. This kind of gap doesn't work at all with a monthly publishing schedule, so they're better off sticking to one edition for as long as their products continue to sell.

[Flatus Maximus]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

I don't really buy that. I think it's clear that there's still a market for 3.5, and it's wide open for the taking now that WotC isn't making anymore of it. A more relaxed GSL will potentially make it easier for publishers to cater to both.

Replace "3.5" with any other previous edition and your statements still hold. I would interpret that to mean that 3.5 is headed towards the bargin bin right along side all previous editions, replete with minimal 3PP support. Only time will tell?

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

A fairly huge number is already drifting towards PF (based on observation, not the company's word that they're doing well alone). If anything, Paizo might be able to start up a line of 4E books in addition to their PF RPG books, but they sound reluctant, even if all of their criteria for the GSL are met.

Sounds like good/bad news for PF, IMHO. (Note: PF, not Paizo.)

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Don't ever let it be said by anyone again (even those here on ENWorld), that the opinions of gamers on ENWorld and other Forums, and the importance of 3PP's, that they Do Not Matter. The argument that "ENWorld is such a small percentage of WoTC customer base that they do not listen to us", has been undeniably refuted. Without being to melodramatic, this news has renewed my confidence in WoTC that they believe our opinions are important and that gamers have a level of ownership of this hobby.

Now, we just have to wait and see what the new GSL says and how 3PP's receive it. I'm interested in it just to see their tone, and what intentions that may mean for their guidelines on fansites.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I think that the most likely explanation proposed so far is that the lack of 3PP support, and announcements that major 3rd-party players are actually totally out of the game, has probably given more traction to the elements in WotC (read: Linae & The Rouse) who have been pushing for a more sensible GSL. I know everyone likes to pat themselves on the back, but I imagine that in this--like in most things--it's the money that's talking. Without 3PP support, 4E loses a lot of legitimacy with the old guard players, and that's probably affecting sales.

[Orius]

Originally Posted by Waldorf

For better or worse, Wotc is starting to resemble TSR more and more.

A revision of the GSL is nowhere near the old T$R cease and desist tactics. Quite the opposite, IMO.

Originally Posted by Wyrmshadows

Any chance that 3pps can create a single product line for both the OGL and the GSL? If so, then I would be more interested.

I have my doubts about that. That sort of licence would just create the sort of competion WotC/Hasbro doesn't want.

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

There's evidence here and all over the internet that shows that up to 50% of the current player base has no intention of switching to 4E.

Honestly, if internet "evidence" is admissible in court, then it's shouldn't be. What we find on the internet is a non-representative sample of anecdotal accounts, personal opinions, and just outright jackassery in some cases. Even though ENWorld is a major community for the 3pp base, I still wouldn't count the random opinion because I have no idea how many lurkers are making up a silent majority.

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.

I remember a Usenet post from some years back where someone referred to them as Wizard$ of the £oast. The response to that was, "WTF is a Loast?"

Originally Posted by Filcher

However many publishers in this thread are bitter about how WotC goes about handling its IP.

I got the impression that the publishers weren't worried about WotC's IP, they were wooried about how the GSL was going to affect their own IP. I wouldn't say bitter, perhaps a tad paranoid, but not bitter.

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules?

Doesn't sound any different from DMs who continue to run OD&D, BD&D, 1e or 2e.

[mechascorpio]

Originally Posted by Atavar

You just lost a customer. At least you can console yourself with the fact that you had total control over the attitude that lead to that outcome, and it didn't even cost you one red cent.

I'm also totally stunned by the lack of professionalism and, IMO, hypocrisy from some in this thread. They really seem to enjoy putting the screws to "the man", taking this from professional disagreement to a dedication to shame individuals and their employer in public as much as possible.

Fine. I've also made some notes of who has said what, in this thread and others. They won't have my support as a customer, even if they're a contributor for a product of another publisher. You drag the hobby down. It's one thing to be understandably skeptical, but some here are just over the top. I bet that neither Scott nor Lidda nor a single employee at WOTC have ever been so rude, in such a personal fashion, to their colleagues in this industry as some here have been to them.

You should keep in mind that as "indie" (or small company) publishers, writers and designers, you are marketing youselves with every post you make. As far as I'm concerned, some in this thread blundered far more in the past day or so than WOTC has all year. Hope it was worth it to you.

OTOH, others are showing real class under the circumstances. I bet your enthusiasm and professionalism carry through to your products. I've noted that too, and I look forward to purchasing them.

[Darrin Drader]

Originally Posted by Orius

A
Honestly, if internet "evidence" is admissible in court, then it's shouldn't be. What we find on the internet is a non-representative sample of anecdotal accounts, personal opinions, and just outright jackassery in some cases. Even though ENWorld is a major community for the 3pp base, I still wouldn't count the random opinion because I have no idea how many lurkers are making up a silent majority.

So the half on this poll here Changeover poll who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.

Doesn't sound any different from DMs who continue to run OD&D, BD&D, 1e or 2e.

The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.

[Najo]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So the half on this poll here Changeover poll who are not switching are non-representative? How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.



The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.

I agree that the OGL was an impressive achievement and a great gift. But the issue it has is:
a) The game is stuck in its evolution
b) No really money behind it to make it greater than it is. Profits = company support, professional presentation and stronger development of the game engine.

3.x has some great stuff about it. The OGL has some great stuff about it. But, the facts are 3.x has some issues with it too. The math scales wrong, multiclassing is inbalanced, there are dead areas in the game, DMing the game is requires alot of adherence to rules and all of the math links together, making on the fly adjustments difficult. 3.x is too rules heavy.

However you feel about 4.0, there is some real impressive and brave leaps forward in it and the evolution of role playing games. Sure, not everything is 100% perfect, but some of the new ideas within it or the way it handles old ideas in a new way are impressive and something anyone doing a RPG from here forward can learn from.

I hope the GSL gives us everything we want. It would be wonderful for WOTC to continue to share D&D with us. I applaud WOTC for revising their GSL and working with the 3PP as business partners and not as underlings.

I rather see the game I love evolve and become better with age then stay stuck in a system that had as many frustrations as it has shining points.

[Samuel Leming]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So the half on this poll here Changeover poll who are not switching are non-representative?

Maggan has buggered that poll and he didn't even use any lube. The numbers may be correct for all we know, but since some people will be voting more times than others we can't trust the results.

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

How about the 150+ people I talked to a week and a half ago at the convention in Spokane where I was a guest, half of whom didn't have very positive things to say about 4E? Or how about the local game store where I'm seeing the same trend? I suppose that you'd count that as anecdotal, or better yet, question my integrity since I've made up my mind about which game I'm playing.

The very definition of anecdotal. In the much smaller circles I'm familiar with acceptance of 4e is MUCH LOWER than 50%. If I go by groups it's a flat zero. They're all either sticking with 3.5 or C&C, playtesting Pathfinder or trying out one of those other games they've been meaning to try(I think over half have purchased the 4e books though.) Up here in message board land many people have said they've seen the opposite, or that they've seen what your witnessing or that they're seeing what I'm seeing. Anecdotal. Just another datapoint.

Since this is a thread on the GSL, I recently wondered if the designers were working under the impression that there would be a generous license and a robust group of third party publishers after the launch. All the [choke] 'gamist' optimization and paring back on flavor seem much less pernicious on the part of the designers if they though there would be an army of publishers ready to provide these traditional roleplaying elements right out of the gate.

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

The difference is that the choice was taken away from WotC by Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison eight years ago. It was the greatest gift they gave to the gaming community because it ensures that there will always be a version of D&D in print, regardless of what Hasbro ends up doing with the official brand. I'm flabbergasted that anyone who is passionate about the game would see this as a bad thing.

Agreed. Actually this could be a great time for the D&D game. Between C&C, Pathfinder & 4e anybody can have just about any kind of D&D game they want.

Sam

[Darrin Drader]

Originally Posted by Najo

I agree that the OGL was an impressive achievement and a great gift. But the issue it has is:
a) The game is stuck in its evolution
b) No really money behind it to make it greater than it is. Profits = company support, professional presentation and stronger development of the game engine.

The evolution and the money is right here: www.paizo.com

3.x has some great stuff about it. The OGL has some great stuff about it. But, the facts are 3.x has some issues with it too. The math scales wrong, multiclassing is inbalanced, there are dead areas in the game, DMing the game is requires alot of adherence to rules and all of the math links together, making on the fly adjustments difficult. 3.x is too rules heavy.

I agree that 3.x isn't perfect. No game system is. The biggest problem that I see with it is that the math breaks down at the higher levels. How do you fix it? Even I don't have that answer to that (I have a few ideas, but I don't think very many people would like them). At any rate, this is the biggest area that Paizo has yet to work on, and they have made it a priority for the final version of the Pathfinder rules. I'm really looking forward to what they come up with. Even if they can't fix high level play and maintain backwards compatibility, I'm fairly certain that they will come up with a fix of some sort.

Anyway, getting this thread back on track, it will be good for the industry if the next iteration of the GSL is less restrictive. Despite my current cynicism and general grumpiness with 4E, I want to see it succeed. Failure would mean hard(er) times for the industry and I don't want to see that. Nobody does.

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by Samuel Leming

Maggan has buggered that poll and he didn't even use any lube. The numbers may be correct for all we know, but since some people will be voting more times than others we can't trust the results.

I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.

I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.

I'm not the only one on these boards who knew about the flaw, and the voting pattern of lots of posts in short time for one side or the other side, ie "surges", was in my mind indications that such rigging could be taking place.

Sure, for all I know, every single one of those votes are legit. But I honestly don't think so, and there were 800+ votes before I "buggered" the poll, so if you trust that there were no problems before my "buggering", then just discount about 50 votes or so.

Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.

/M

[amethal]

Originally Posted by Maggan

Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.

I could tell you, but grandma wouldn't approve.

[jmucchiello]

Originally Posted by The Little Raven

That's understandable. However, he said he was now even MORE skeptical, as if he was suggesting that the GSL is going to get even more restrictive (despite Linae openly saying it would be "opener"). I can understand being skeptical that these changes are what you're looking for, but to say that you're even more skeptical of the GSL after these changes just seems kinda silly.

I don't know Gareth reasons for being more skeptical but when I don my tinfoiled-hat I am confronted with the boiling frog theory in reverse.

Suppose the first GSL was purposely overly restrictive and expected to be a complete "disaster" so the 3pps would accept the next (new improved) GSL having only a few onerous bits. So unless all the problems with the GSL are removed, my tinfoil hat says to be skeptical of the motivation behind this change of heart.

Taking off the hat, well, I will wait and see before passing judgment.

However, I don't expect much from the changes since I'm fully in the 4e OGL camp and anything short of that is a disappointment. I lament the diminished state of the art in RPGs since no one can make those killer 3e/4e hybrids that a 4e OGL would allow. (Admittedly, lament may be too strong a word here.)

[Samuel Leming]

Originally Posted by Maggan

I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.

I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.

It was the right thing to do. My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.

I had though the main problems with these polls were selection bias and sock puppets. Just those would leave the polls unreliable, but still useful for entertainment purposes. At least for seeing trends. Being able to vote 10 times in less then five minutes leaves this kind of poll open to outright vandalism. Given the high emotions, number of known idiots on both sides and the advanced age of that poll I wouldn't even try to argue that it's clean.

Anyway, I do think that acceptance of 4e is much lighter than it could have been, but because of these problems that poll can't be used to show that. This is a bunnytrail for this thread anyway.

Sam

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by Samuel Leming

My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.

Thank you for your clarification!

/M

[Charwoman Gene]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

The evolution and the money is right here: www.paizo.com

No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous_Bean

whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).

Originally Posted by Scribble

A nitpick, but it says nothing about any other rules system. It denies further use of the OGL for that product, but not EVERY other rules system uses the OGL. Again I know it's a nitpick, but it's inacurate to say it the way you did.

I don't think it's a nitpick. It's a pretty crucial point.

Maybe what Carnivorous Bean has in mind is that you would have to rewrite your product to conform with your GSL obligation not to use any part of the core rulebooks content outside the terms of the licence. In which case you couldn't print literally the same product.

But you could still print substantially the same product, just substituting your own language for the 4e SRD language that you are not permitted to use.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by Dr. Awkward

I think that the most likely explanation proposed so far is that the lack of 3PP support, and announcements that major 3rd-party players are actually totally out of the game, has probably given more traction to the elements in WotC (read: Linae & The Rouse) who have been pushing for a more sensible GSL. I know everyone likes to pat themselves on the back, but I imagine that in this--like in most things--it's the money that's talking. Without 3PP support, 4E loses a lot of legitimacy with the old guard players, and that's probably affecting sales.

The far more likely affect on sales of non-uptake of the GSL by 3PP is not the old guard failing to come along, but rather the failure of the game to enjoy a lot of support (modules, settings etc) all of which increase the saleability and longevity of an RPG.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Charwoman Gene

No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.

Time to break out the popcorn, me thinks...

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Charwoman Gene

No, that's a ... of a company and game.

Between this, and the sexual reference earlier, I'm going to as folks to tone down the rhetoric. This is not a game of "who can disturb the most people with vehement imagery."