You reap what you sow - GSL.

Mercule said:

Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO. The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face. It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway. But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.

When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea. If there are people who are more irritated at WotC for the GSL than at Mongoose for the PPH, then.... hmm.... I'm afraid the site rules prohibit the completion of my sentence. How about: I think they have their perspective out of whack.

Click to expand...

I'm the complete opposite. I remember when Ryan Dancey basically dared companies to try and produce a PHB that was as well done as WotC's for the same price. No one came close.

I think the pocket PHB was genius and earned Mongoose a lot of money, which was well deserved in my opinion.

Hyrum.

5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).

Click to expand...

If i read correctly the bold text (emphasis mine), does it mean that no press RPG magazine can ever publish a D&D4 adventure as part of many other articles (for different RPG), for instance ?

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Pretty sure that's not how it's going to work.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, pretty sure isn't enough to base a business on.

Hyrum.

Darrin Drader said:

While there's a potential risk of this happening, I don't think it's very likely, to be honest. WotC usually looks at big picture kind of problems, and unless something changes in the near future, 3rd party publishing isn't really a big picture kind of problem for them.

Now, let's say hypothetically, that one of the larger 3rd party publishers decides to go all out by guessing what WotC has coming down the pike for the next year or so, creates full color books intentionally designed to precede those books, hires on some big name talent (like myself ) and markets the heck out of those products, like say, placing an ad in GQ or Popular Mechanics, then I can see where they might get a little concerned.

In other words, if niche publishers remain niche, then I think they're safe. If someone comes along with the intention of knocking WotC off their pedestal, then they may have reason to fear.

That said, I'm pretty happy that Pathfinder will be keeping 3.x around for some time to come. Its nice having someone supporting a version of the game that cannot be summarily revoked.

Click to expand...

Hi Darrin!

Warlord Ralts said:

So what publishers kept who from using what?

Seriously, I'd like to hear this. I've spent quite a bit of time offline and away from the gaming scene and from writing, so I'd really like to hear about who asked which company for what and was denied.

Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?

Click to expand...

On general prinicple, the OP is exactly right. While I never had any publisher turn down my request to re-use their stuff, the fact remains that "Open" does not mean "ask me for permission first" - it means "permission is granted by default."

It's why pretty much the only stuff (besides art, which wasn't mine in the first place) I ever declared as closed content were my own name, email address, and products/product line names.

HyrumOWC said:

Unfortunately, pretty sure isn't enough to base a business on.

Click to expand...

Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.

Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.

Click to expand...

Meh. I strongly believe in the "Open Source" and "Open Game" movements. It's one of the reasons I jumped full bore into the 3E experience.

The GSL steps away from this and requires me to give up the OGL. Philosophically, I'm not prepared to do that. I don't need a lawyer to review it to tell me what I need to worry about it if I'm not considering using it because I'm philosophically opposed to the idea to begin with.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the GSL essentially grants me the ability to use the D&D logo - but in return, it restricts me even more than Fair Use does. Sorry, the logo ain't worth it to me.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.

Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.

Click to expand...

I'll admit it, I'm irritated AFTER talking to a lawyer, and with good reason.

If the Modern GSL (when it comes out) that will pertain to the Modern system supposedly coming down the pipe has the same language in Section 7, then it pretty much I won't bother to convert to the new Modern, and that's not even covering how the rest of the SRD might look.

But then, I'm known for being drunken, violent, and prone to unreasonable fits of rage.

Mercule said:

Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO. The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face. It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway. But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.

Click to expand...

This strikes me as a particularly 20th century way of looking at open systems. I can certainly understand the impulse that might inspire WotC to feel like they were being cheated out of something by a company that simply reprinted their core system, but the fact of the matter is that Mongoose sold, at best, 10,000 copies of that book. Vs. the "Real" Player's Handbook, which probably moved something like 350,000 units. Sure, that easily seen as cutting into WotC's pie, but it's really not that significant a chunk of their expected profits for the book, and surely most of Mongoose's audience owned the real Player's Handbook anyway.

In fact, for a customer to have such an exotic D&D fetish as to A) know about and B) purchase the Pocket Player's Handbook the chances are very high that the buyer owns not just the Player's Handbook, but probably the entire core rules and a brace of expensive hardcover support volumes direct from Wizards of the Coast.

The Pocket Player's Handbook amounts to a vanity press effort before the mighty juggernaut of WotC's publishing operation, especially on the scale of the core rulebooks.

Several years later, the entire text of the SRD is available for free online in a searchable format. How silly it seems in this environment to scapegoat the Pocket Player's Handbook as some sort of affront to the concept of the OGL or threat to Dungeons & Dragons.

The OGL is about preserving the system and opening the "lingua franca" of 30 years of gaming history to independent development. It can survive existing for free on the internet, and it can survive a cheap and dirty reprint of the SRD.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.

Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.

Click to expand...

Some of those people freaking out have JD's or incredibly easy access to them. Some have also dealt with contracts for a very long time and know how to read them.

To each their own though. Right now the GSL isn't a license I'm willing to sign on to and it'll take a lot of revisions to make me comfortable. I'm sure others will fall on either side.

Hyrum.