Revised GSL TODAY!

thundershot said:

The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.

Click to expand...

I don't want to sound dismissive, because this is a legitimate concern. But there's also a juicy irony to this.

In the OGL era, adventures were specifically one of the categories of product that WotC wanted to see the 3PPs pursue. The 3PPs, in general, concluded that they didn't want to be stuck in such a loser business, and instead flooded the market with splatbooks. Seeing a hole in the market, WotC returned to the adventure business. And now there's an outcry that the GSL isn't friendly enough to adventure publishers. I love it!

(Note: I say "the 3PPs as a whole," fully aware that there are exceptions--companies that didn't view adventures as "WotC's table scraps," but rather as an unserved market need. I'll note that those companies have a much higher survival rate into the current day than the overall field of d20 publishers.)

mxyzplk said:

Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly.

Click to expand...

Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?

Alzrius said:

Aren't you?

The GSL can still be changed at will, without notification; I don't see anything in there stating that should such a change occur, you're exempt from the new terms. Yes, you have the right to opt out of the GSL now (with six months to sell off your GSL materials), but they can change whatever they want, including the opt out option - unless you can divine beforehand any forthcoming changes and cancel your entry with the GSL prior to their release, it seems like you'll be subject to whatever changes they make (which could include killing the opt out option).

Click to expand...

As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.

thundershot said:

The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.

Click to expand...

I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time. Or print pages from my Monster Manual.

I was worried about this, too, at first. Having done this a few times now, it works fine.

-O

evilhat said:

If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind

Click to expand...

I meant the 3PP's who didn't join the 4e bandwagon because they didn't like the old GSL - sorry, I thought it was obvious. I have been following your numbers, but frankly, I have no idea if they are crap, medium or great. I hope they are great, because I love your work.

Obryn said:

I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time. Or print pages from my Monster Manual.

I was worried about this, too, at first. Having done this a few times now, it works fine.

-O

Click to expand...

The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with. Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once. Its a silly restriction.

malraux said:

The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with. Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once. Its a silly restriction.

Click to expand...

Not silly, annoying. There are perfectly fine reasons explaining why WotC thinks iti s a good idea to do it this way. But it doesn't change in the slightest that the comfort of having an entire encounter complete with stat blocks on one double page won't be possible in 3pp adventures.

wedgeski said:

Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?

Click to expand...

Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly. Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money. In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.

Lord Xtheth said:

As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.

Click to expand...

Sections 9 through 20 survive the termination of the GSL, true, but I don't think it's a question of it surviving termination.

If they make a change to the GSL, you've effectively agreed to it before you can even exercise the option of opting out, as per Section 2.

Now, to be fair, Section 2 does say that you can opt out if you do not accept the changes (per 10.1), and in doing so, that termination will survive any further changes that are made (with exceptions for the surviving clauses - and I wonder if there could be some sort of retroactive language put in future revisions, but I have no idea about that).

The problem with the above is that, as defined by Section 2, it seems to be very difficult to not "accept" new GSL revisions.

The second-to-last sentence of Section 2 notes that any company that continues to publish and/or distribute GSL materials after a revision is posted has automatically accepted any new GSL changes. For PDF publishers, this means that if they post a revised GSL - which you might not even know about, since they don't have to tell you - then if you keep selling your PDFs after they do so, you've effectively agreed to the new GSL, despite not knowing about it. That effectively undermines your ability to opt out of a revised GSL, in the event that you don't accept whatever changes they make.

I am very happy that the GSL has improved to the point that Necromancer Games (and others) can support it.

I am grateful to Scott Rouse personally for his yeoman's work in making this happen.

But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.

The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.

To use a purely natural example, I fear the GSL is equivalent to taking a thriving woodlands and diverting one of its primary water sources to a dune plain which lacks mineral soils - neither the woodlands nor the plain will thrive under this scenario. I really, really hope that Wizards is not replacing one Central Valley with two Dust Bowls.