How about a deadline to WotC?

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

It seems to me that the 3PP have more to lose than WotC by walking away from the table, so to speak. And I imagine WotC knows this. As such an ultimatum would be completely counter-productive.

This.

[Cadfan]

Its a silly threat that no one with an understanding of business will sign.

The basic problem is that a 3rd party publisher can easily produce books for both Pathfinder and for 4e, and make money on both. Even if a 3rd party publisher was dumb enough to burn bridges that might lead to future employment or contract work and sign some sort of aggressive ultimatum, and even if as a result of that ultimatum they publish something under Pathfinder, once the GSL is done they will be faced with a problem- do they maintain their refusal to publish 4e material even though, with the GSL completed, that's essentially leaving money on the table?

Of course they won't. Not if they're business people. And if they're business people they'll know that's going to happen in advance, and won't sign. And if they're business people and they DO sign, if WOTC knows they're business people, WOTC will know that the threat is empty and that they'll go back on their word once there's money to be had.

The only way the threat could be even slightly credible is if there were something to bind the 3rd party publishers to their word. Maybe if their only product was a single Adventure Path or something. That's about all I can come up with.

[SteveC]

A threat to WotC won't mean anything because they simply don't care. What will matter (to me at least) is if you can get a third party company to file the fingerprints off of 4E and make an OGL version of it. I'd love that and would happily pick it up in a minute.

An OGL "4Eesque" game would allow third party companies to continue existing product lines as if nothing had happened, and I'm surprised no one has gotten this to print yet.

--Steve

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by billd91

And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes?

It is a collection of structured and focused anecdotes from a random selection, rather than a collection of biased anecdotes from a self-selected population.

Where and how you get your data is important, you know.

[Jack99]

So you prefer 3e over 4e, and 3e over Pathfinder. Would you rather have Pathfinder over 4e as well? If so, maybe you should convince the companies whose products you want, to produce Pathfinder products, instead of this, since whatever it is, it is doomed to fail, for the many reasons outlined by the illustrious members of this community.

[dmccoy1693]

Just remember, WotC could end the GSL at any point they desire. There almost wasn't any sort of license.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Delta

My understanding is the opposite. From Scott Rouse's last posts, it sounds like he's the only one who cares about it, and for the GSL to get updated he has to do the whole thing himself in his spare time at work (which he hasn't had).

To underscore this, one of the two people fighting hardest for it, Linae Foster, Licensing Manager, was fired from the company -- two weeks after a new GSL was approved.

So Scott, and at best a handful of internal designers, are the extent of the "we care about third party" bandwagon.

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by SteveC

An OGL "4Eesque" game would allow third party companies to continue existing product lines as if nothing had happened, and I'm surprised no one has gotten this to print yet.

I'm not surprised. The successful third-party companies like GR and Paizo are professionals who wouldn't just "file off the fingerprints" of someone else's work to make a buck in order to avoid the official license.

[JVisgaitis]

Originally Posted by Delta

My understanding is the opposite. From Scott Rouse's last posts, it sounds like he's the only one who cares about it, and for the GSL to get updated he has to do the whole thing himself in his spare time at work (which he hasn't had).

I actually meant Scott instead of they.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by The Little Raven

I'm not surprised. The successful third-party companies like GR and Paizo are professionals who wouldn't just "file off the fingerprints" of someone else's work to make a buck in order to avoid the official license.

On the other hand, my concern for Paizo in Pathfinder is that they are avoiding using good ideas from WotC due to both backwards compatibility and fear that they're accidentally duplicate something from 4E. As I noted about nine months ago, most of 4E's most important innovations are OGL content to begin with, and they're getting overlooked because of a mix of company loyalty and 4E-rage. Those self same ideas over in Star Wars Saga Edition (such as the math restructuring, defenses, skills, etc.) are getting rave reviews and applause.

[Wisdom Penalty]

The GSL doesn't mean much to me personally, and no one beyond myself and one or two other guys in my gaming circles know what the heck a GSL, OGL, or STL monster is. And I only know the barest of smidgens of info.

But I do know this: When someone commits to a date, and then consistently pushes that date back, he or she is exhibiting "bad form." That's a polite way to put it.

If WotC doesn't want or need the GSL, then just say so and be done with it. 98.6% of the gaming population won't give a wererat's ass.

But...if they say one is forthcoming, and that it fixes many perceived flaws of the previous artifacts...then do it, man. Simple as that. Mean what you say and say what you mean.

Off soap-box.

WP

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by Rechan

But the case is really simple:

3e is an older edition. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those that are not moving on to the new edition.

That in and of itself is a limited number.

Simple, but you have no indication if it's accurate. Just as simple is: 4e is an all new edition which means all new purchases. Therefore, the only players you are going to get are those who are willing to jettison all their prior books as a sunk cost and start all over again.

That in and of itself is a limited number.

Originally Posted by Rechan

New players aren't going to want to learn the old system; new players are like "I want to play D&D, what's this system you're going on about?".

Truly new players are like "Huh? This is the book you're using? OK." You're assuming a very odd level of market savvy for "new" players.

Originally Posted by Rechan

Not only that, but Pathfinder is an off-shot of 3.5. So you're splitting the numbers further between those sticking with 3.5 and those moving to Pathfinder.

It's limited because you're splitting your buyers, and new customers are harder to come by.

I love it how this argument is dragged out to use against anything except 4e. Which, all logic aside, is somehow immune from the charge of "splitting the customer base" even though by all indications that's exactly what it has done.

Originally Posted by Rechan

This isn't a dig at Pathfinder. I would like pathfinder to succeed; the more people playing the game they like, the better. But Pathfinder is a niche market in a niche market, and you're better off looking at the situation of sales and players in a realistic manner.

Realistically, so is every third party product, so I don't see how that comment is even pertinent. Heck, realistically, so is 4e for that matter.

Originally Posted by billd91

And what is statistical data but just a collection of anecdotes? Actually, if he's got a certain number of friends who are waiting for 3rd party support, then he's not just working with anecdotal evidence at all. He's just got a very small sample size with a lot of selection bias.

Originally Posted by Obryn

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Small sample size + large selection bias + lack of verification more or less renders the data unusable. It only tells you about the self-selected, non random group that's providing the anecdotes and cannot be extended to gamers as a whole.

I was just wondering how to respond to billd91's bizarre and highly wrong quote, when I see that it's already been done. Bravo, obryn!

[Scott_Rouse]

Sorry if this comes across as rude but you kicking and screaming on a message board isn't going to make me work on this any faster. Clark stopped doing this months ago and he has my phone number with skin in the publishing game.

It's not that it isn't important or a priority. The GSL revision is like a monkey on my back, sitting on my desk and in my mind everyday telling me I need to get the damn thing done. But even my own conscience nagging me constantly doesn't mean it is my #1 priority. So it nags me daily and I press on. You don't need a petition to tell me to get it done my brain is doing that for you.

But I also have a business to run and there is a lot of pressing stuff going on with the D&D brand and even in hobby business right now that needs more attention from me than the GSL. The GSL is important and the fixes are needed but we have a working version out now and although it is far from perfect it is functional enough that publsihers are using it.

I have five maybe six projects in the queue with my legal department right now. The GSL is on the top of that list but they are not the hold up. They are awaiting me to hand it all off to them for final clean up and publishing.

I am in Europe on business all next week and hope to have some plane and train time to finish what I need to so it can be done before I go on the winter break.

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by Wisdom Penalty

The GSL doesn't mean much to me personally, and no one beyond myself and one or two other guys in my gaming circles know what the heck a GSL, OGL, or STL monster is. And I only know the barest of smidgens of info.

But I do know this: When someone commits to a date, and then consistently pushes that date back, he or she is exhibiting "bad form." That's a polite way to put it.

If WotC doesn't want or need the GSL, then just say so and be done with it. 98.6% of the gaming population won't give a wererat's ass.

But...if they say one is forthcoming, and that it fixes many perceived flaws of the previous artifacts...then do it, man. Simple as that. Mean what you say and say what you mean.

Off soap-box.

WP

That would work great for a 1 man show. WotC is a large corporation. One manager may have agreed to allowing Scott to making changes, but if the budget committee says they won't pay for his time to work on it during business hours or if he has an endless stream of rush jobs that need done because the corporation now has the same amount of work to do with less people or if reviewing books before they goto the printer takes up 95+% of his time or if the person he needs to ask a few questions of never gets back to him or ... you get the idea. If you ever worked for a large corporation, give the man some slack.

[avin]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

The GSL revision is like a monkey on my back

Which color? Does it have wings? There will be a mini for it?

That said, I wish for a faster GSL revision... I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...

[Drkfathr1]

As Scott has said, there are publishers that are using the GSL as it is now, and I'm sure there are a lot of publishers that will jump on when a few points are clarified.

I don't think WOTC is using the GSL as a trap to shut down 3PP's, I think they would be very lenient and forgiving of those that made minor mistakes in their use of the GSL, heck, they probably wouldn't even notice most. WOTC mainly wants to maintain control over what D&D is, without other companies using their work to produce a variant game.

But you can bet that anyone that tries to file the serial numbers off and produce a clone, just to throw it in their face out of spite, is going to have one heck of a legal fight on their hands.

Don't poke the bear!

[Shroomy]

So far, I believe Scott Rouse was the only one to make this point, but there is already a functional GSL in release, and while it is far from perfect IMO, 3PPs are already using it or in the process of using it.

[CaptainChaos]

I think it speaks volumes that we haven't seen third party publishers pushing for the revised GSL. I suspect that those who felt beholden to WotC have already signed on, and those alienated by WotC's current attitude towards 3PPs and the continual changes and delays have moved on.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

I am in Europe on business all next week and hope to have some plane and train time to finish what I need to so it can be done before I go on the winter break.

If you stop by Denmark, let me know, and I will buy you a beer (or whatever your poison is), god knows, you deserve it..

Originally Posted by avin

That said, I wish for a faster GSL revision... I'm desperate for Monster Manuals with fluff...

You do not need a revised GSL for that.

[Wisdom Penalty]

Originally Posted by dmccoy

If you ever worked for a large corporation, give the man some slack.

I have, and I do. And you're absolutely right. I didn't intend to pick on Scott (though I know I use 'he' as a pronoun instead of 'they'), but rather the Corporation.

The problem, IMO, is not that the GSL is not out; the problem is that the GSL is not out, in a format as advertised, in a date that was publicized. It's why, oh, Blizzard doesn't give a firm street date for Diablo III; better to not promise anything than to promise and fall short. Works the same in business as it does in life.

Again, you're right, and I didn't mean to come off in such a negative slant - especially in a negative slant to the one cat that seems to care about the GSL within WotC.

WP