You reap what you sow - GSL.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Ruin Explorer said:
I dunno about you, I was too lazy/didn't care enough to find out. You seem to be joining in the "psychology" of not telling us, though. Why are you trying to disconcert me, Cadfan? WHY?!?!?

That should be easy to explain - Cadfan is just evil and out to get anyone - starting with you.

Mercule · Jun 18, 2008

Erik Mona said:
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.

You're right, of course. Mongoose was never a threat to WotC. That doesn't mean the PPH wasn't still in bad taste. But it wasn't a business threat enough to shut down the OGL.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I'm not fond of the draconian IP laws that exist, currently. I really, really like the OGL in principle and think it was the right thing to do. On the other hand, the IP laws are what they are and I think WotC has been getting an inordinate amount of BS hurled at them for tightening things up, but still playing looser than most companies in the industry.

So, yeah, I'd like to see the OGL applied to 4e. But, I'd also like to see the people with their hair on fire about the GSL shoved in a lake (no cement blocks).

I can appreciate the 3rd parties who have staked their livelihood on D&D's open content feeling threatened. The thing is, you've all been pretty professional about it and I haven't seen any professionals go beyond justifiably frustrated.

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.

Again, quite true. But...

My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means. I've also seen several people on these boards and others trumpet the fact that they only use the HTML SRD and intended on doing the same with 4e.

A business threat to WotC? I doubt it. But both are pretty rude.

A certain amount of my irritation in my prior post was due to sleep deprivation (I don't know why I surf the boards when I'm tired and cranky), but my experience says there are some people being twits about the whole OGL issue.

Psion · Jun 18, 2008

Cadfan said:
I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down. I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.

Like I said, I respect some of the folks who fall into this category enough that I'm not going to threaten my relationship with them over this. I'm not looking to drag anyone's name into the mud. That doesn't mean I won't decry the behavior and hope people come to a better understanding.

In short, I hate the sin, not the sinner.

Achan hiArusa · Jun 18, 2008

I like the pocket books, my hope is that if you dump everything else that you will keep these in print.

Delta · Jun 18, 2008

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 quote from the Wizards website (SRD: Frequently Asked Questions). It can't possibly be disrespectful to do something Wizards literally told them to do, in public, and in writing. ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c )

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.

DaveMage · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
WOTC gave away their core product, basically, to help other companies.

No, IIRC WotC gave away their product because they believed that doing so would ultimately lead to more sales of the D&D Player's Handbook.

Aus_Snow · Jun 18, 2008

Mercule said:
My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means.

What the hell did they do for magic items, monsters and all the rest?

Lizard · Jun 18, 2008

Mercule said:
You're right, of course. Mongoose was never a threat to WotC. That doesn't mean the PPH wasn't still in bad taste. But it wasn't a business threat enough to shut down the OGL.

Again I ask, how was doing what WOTC explicitly said you could do in "bad taste"? Whence comes this meme that they were somehow shocked someone would reprint the SRD, when the fact they could do so was addressed years before the PPH came out?

I am much more offended by people bragging about their downloaded PDFs of the core books than by people using the PPH. Perhaps you need to refocus your rage on the proper target.

redcard · Jun 18, 2008

DaveMage said:
No, IIRC WotC gave away their product because they believed that doing so would ultimately lead to more sales of the D&D Player's Handbook.

That wasn't what the intent of Ryan D was, in his repeated instances that this was a new frontier.

The long and short of it is this. WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else. Not a lot of that was returned. The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back. People stopped giving stuff back. The OGL has failed. WOTC moved on.

I know lots of companies relied on the OGL and it's looseness to create products and publish their works, and if the new GSL is that much of an impact to your business, I'm really, really sorry and hope you can manage. But by the same accounts, perhaps if there was more give and less take in the last deal, the OGL would have been seen as a viable success to WOTC, and you won't be seeing this now.

Aus_Snow · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
The long and short of it is this. WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else. Not a lot of that was returned. The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back. People stopped giving stuff back. The OGL has failed. WOTC moved on.

What the?!

No. WotC did not 'give a lot of OGC as compared to everyone else' - hardly. Some entire lines, and many, many books from 3PPs are all OGC or damn close to it.

How much of the D&D line or the d20 Modern line is OGC? Exactly.