New GSL Announcement

Orcus said:

I dont see how things are worse today than yesterday. Yesterday, you had the OGL and no GSL. You couldnt make 4E products. All you had was the OGL.

Click to expand...

It's worse than yesterday, because the hope that there'd be a reasonably open option in the marketplace was still there.

I assume all the people saying "yay wotc, and you doubters eat crow" are lining up in the crow line themselves? No? Unsurprising.

Anyway, so are we sure this doesn't affect M&M? If the same company can't use the GSL and OGL - M&M is OGL published. It doesn't use the d20 SRD, but it is OGL. So is it a choice for them between True20 and M&M vs. 4e Freeport stuff?

I think that the communications on this are unacceptably confusing the old OGL and the d20 STL. Hopefully. Or else Wizards is saying "don't touch the OGL at all." Which is fine; frankly the "copyright WotC" at the start of it should have tipped all the smart 3p companies to go with Creative Commons licensing instead.

Orcus said:

Up till now, they did not have any access to the 4E market base. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Clark

Click to expand...

I mean they have had access to the D&D fan base.

And yes, I agree that they don't have a RIGHT to that.
But for the first time ever it is being used as a stick to coerce publishers into walking away from Open Gaming.

If one single publisher walks away from open gaming because they choose 4e over it, then that will be a lose for the Open Gaming community.

Totally wild hypothetical here:
Do you think Green Ronin closing shop on all True20 and Mutants and Masterminds would make the gaming community better or worse?
If the alternative is Green Ronin chooses to provide zero 4E support then is the gaming community better or worse off than it was before 4E was announced?
I'd say either choice they make is at least slightly worse for Green Ronin AND solidly worse for gamers.

The primary appeal of the third party publishers to Wizards has been "Help us help you support 4E."

Now its time for us to put our money where our mouths have been. If we really want to support 4E, which is most likely the main argument that won the day in keeping 4E open, then we shouldnt have any problem with this restriction.

Its a strong play, but it is a sound business one.

I think the biggest problem is that it is a surprise and it came out real strong and we werent warmed up to receive it. I think when the dust settles and people calm down this will not look so bad in the morning.

mxyzplk said:

It's worse than yesterday, because the hope that there'd be a reasonably open option in the marketplace was still there.

Click to expand...

I agree that the reality of today is worse than the hope we had yesterday. But certainly no worse than the reality we had yesterday. That feels like when a friend of mine got dumped because he never lived up to be the guy his girlfriend hoped he would be (but never was). I dont think you can judge success by failure to live up to a hope that isnt real.

Orcus said:

Alzrius, sorry if I am a little frustrated. I am not frustrated at you. I think you and I have always carried on reasoned debates even if we disagree. I respect your position. I dont not agree with it. I would be happy to discuss it.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm happy to keep the debate going, since I think a lively debate is always a good thing. Arguments are another matter entirely.

I dont see how things are worse today than yesterday. Yesterday, you had the OGL and no GSL. You couldnt make 4E products. All you had was the OGL.

Today, you have the OGL just the same as you did then. And if you dont use the GSL (just like yesterday when it didnt exist) you still continue to use the OGL unabated forever, as was your plan without the GSL.

Instead, today, you have an additional option--you can use the GSL if you forgoe the OGL. You can say no to that. And if you do, you get the OGL just like you had yesterday, unfettered and free and no access to 4E. Just like yesterday.

Click to expand...

Except things aren't exactly the same as they were yesterday (or day-before-yesterday now).

Yesterday we were operating under the assumption that the OGL and GSL would not be mutually-exclusive at the business level. That level of restriction had never even been hinted at (so far as I was aware, anyway). Yesterday, supporting both the OGL and GSL was a viable publishing option.

Today, that option has been suddenly removed. Now, many publishers with a large established catalogue of OGL products - products which still have a market - will need to abandon those to use the GSL. You're correct in that they could just ignore the GSL altogether and stay OGL-centered. But that'd minimize their marketing ability, since 4E will now cover the majority of the RPG base. They could use the GSL, but that means giving up their existing, and viable, catalogue of OGL games and sacrificing that part of the market - a sacrifice that has no rationale except that WotC said so.

So today you have a new choice. And EXTRA choice you didnt have yesterday. Now, you may not like that choice. You may wish that use of teh GSL didnt require you to give up the OGL. In a perfect world, I do too. But you cant say you are worse off. Nor was yesterday better. It was the same--you use the OGL exclusively and you have no access to 4E content. Whether you use the OGL and dont have access to 4E content because there is no GSL (yesterday) or because you choose not to use the GSL (today) your right and power to use the OGL is the same.

Click to expand...

That wasn't what we'd been led to believe was the case though (albeit by having no information beforehand that this would be the paradigm). Several companies had already declared that they'd support the OGL and GSL, and now have to alter their plans and compromise the maximum number of gamers they can reach because of this new restriction.

"Yesterday...all my troubles seemed so far away..."

BryonD said:

Do you think Green Ronin closing shop on all True20 and Mutants and Masterminds would make the gaming community better or worse?
If the alternative is Green Ronin chooses to provide zero 4E support then is the gaming community better or worse off than it was before 4E was announced?
I'd say either choice they make is at least slightly worse for Green Ronin AND solidly worse for gamers.

Click to expand...

Bryon, you've got me on that one.

If GR closed T20 and MM, the community would be worse off. Similarly, if they dont support 4E then the community is worse off too.

I do think there are some publishers who could reasonably, responsibly and appropriately have 4E support products and support products for their own open game lines. I have to concede that.

Clark

Scott_Rouse said:

We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e why so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?

Click to expand...

You absolutely 100% should not. But there is a big difference between not supporting one thing and actively undermining other people's support for something else.

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?

Click to expand...

It surprises me that in the first sentence you say you are not trying make people stop growing things in a certain field and in the second sentence you state that you are.

It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.

Click to expand...

I agree. But either choice is a step backwards and I personally think that is a very bad thing. I'm not disputing your right to do it. That doesn't make it any less negative.

If the Paizo / Necro 3.x / 4E deal ends up being legal, I guess I'll need to separate Dreamscarred Press into two separate entities, with two separate legal documents, and two separate business accounts, because I have too much invested in a variety of 3.x / True20 / M&M products to drop the OGL and migrate to 4E.

I guess I could take GSL and Andreas could take OGL, and figure out the logistics after the fact.

Mentalis Design was originally going to be a separate legal entity, I guess we'll go back to that, since this doesn't leave us any other option to support multiple systems and move forward with 4E.

Pramas said:

Well, that's the question, isn't it? I've asked Scott to clarify. If Linae wants to jump here though, I'd love to know. If we must choose to support the OGL or the GSL as a company, that will drastically affect our strategy.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah... This.

It's a big deal for Green Ronin to have to abandon their successful systems if they want to develop for 4e. Same for Paizo. Same for Monte.

Frankly I don't see how GR can just walk away from Mutants and Masterminds, and to a lesser extent, True20.

This unexpected development seems that WotC doesn't much want GR along for the ride.

They've flat out put Paizo in the position of having to disappoint a chunk of their fans no matter what they do.

The fans lose.

And any publisher that goes along for the 4e ride this time is going to have to look at this turn of events and wonder what happens next time. It's a Frog-and-Scorpion moment.

EDIT to include this:

Orcus said:

I do think there are some publishers who could reasonably, responsibly and appropriately have 4E support products and support products for their own open game lines. I have to concede that.

Click to expand...

That's it exactly. WotC sees a player of OGL M&M as a loss of a 4e player. WotC sees the gamer pie as finite, and I thought we had settled that that's just not true. The pie is not finite-- I have dollars I'd like to spend on lots of different kinds of games, and I'd far prefer to spend them with those few companies that have a proven track record of creating and supporting successful (and divergent) product lines.

BryonD said:

You absolutely 100% should not. But there is a big difference between not supporting one thing and actively undermining other people's support for something else.

It surprises me that in the first sentence you say you are not trying make people stop growing things in a certain field and in the second sentence you state that you are.


I agree. But either choice is a step backwards and I personally think that is a very bad thing. I'm not disputing your right to do it. That doesn't make it any less negative.

Click to expand...

Bryon, please dont bash on Scott. He has done way too much for us. I dont know for sure, but my guess is that the GSL was a battle. Just look at the time it took. And he got it done. He and Linae got us the ability to support 4E. Is it exactly like we want it. No. But for goodness sake we need to respect the man that accomplished what a few weeks ago I thought was impossible--4E can be supported by third parties. That is a huge accomplishment.