Revised GSL TODAY!

[Spinachcat]

Thank you Scott Rouse!

Now get that DDI game table up and running!

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

Thank you Fred Hicks!

When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?

A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.

Absolutely!

A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.

Absolutely!

So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.

Amen! This is the best environment - tremendous diversity and lots of choices for gamers.

 

[Sir Brennen]

So then, are 3PP's free to redefine things which aren't covered by the SRD? For instance, I notice the Shaman isn't included in the new SRD. Does that mean a 3PP in the future could come up with a completely different type of Shaman, with the name 'shaman', basically redefining the class? It seems like it would be acceptable.

But you can't create a new Druid class, because it's listed in the SRD, unless you call it something like the "Greenmountain Druid".

(I also propose that all discussions of theoretical variants must have an assumed origin of Greenmountain...)

 

[Henry]

I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)

It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.

From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.

 

[Mark]

I've written a side-by-side comparison of the two GSL versions. (BTW -- the new version of the GSL is now out.)

http://stirgessuck.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gsl_comparison_v1.pdf

I feel compelled to point out that it should not be taken as legal advice, yadda yadda yadda. But it might be interesting to some people.

Cheers,
Roger

That's handy. Thanks!


Obviously, they've addressed some of the major problems and have appeased a few 3pps with this new version. However, there are other portions that still cause some concern. Given the track record, this will require a much more thorough vetting than can be done with a quick read through. While some might feel it suits their purposes, there are still some potential dealbreakers that need a closer look. They've made the basket prettier but haven't necessarily made it the best place for everyone's eggs.

 

[Scribble]

From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.

Well then... Nevermind!

 

[Krensky]

Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.

Um... those are all still in print, and they've all had new editions in the past few years.

Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.

SJG still publishes quite a bit, but some of it has shifted to PDF (which is something they were headed for before d20), and a lot of it has been that GURPS isn't where SJG is making it's real money from anymore.

I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem. Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety. I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry. Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome. You all have a game system that has been weakened. The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.

Really? Mongoose Publishing got started as a d20 publisher. They've gone on to put Paranoia, Classic Traveller, and Runequest back in print, as well as publishing a number of non-d20 games for other companies.

A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.

There are tons currently supported of alternatives to d20. Paranoia, Runequest, HeroQuest, Warhammer Fantasy, Traveller, Hero, Twilight 2013, GURPS, nWoD, Exalted, Basic Roleplaying, Silhoutte, Fuzion, FATE, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, Cortex, CthuhluTech, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, HARP, Unisystem, the list goes on.

As for true innovation, I would strongly argue that some of the most innovative games of the past ten years are based on d20. Sometime because the rules are innovative (M&M, True20) sometime because the setting is (Etherscope). Some of the most innovative ones aren't (FATE, Burning Wheel).

 

[LurkMonkey]

I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.

It appears my earlier optimism was misplaced:

... This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
I do appreciate that it makes life easier for some other parties, though.

[from Paizo's website]

Ah well.

 

[James Jacobs]

Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Don't your two statements completely conflict with one another?

"Creativity and new games" (neither of which need the OGL as we see with HARP, GURPS 4th edition,, Warhammer 2nd edition, etc...the OGL games that have survived like Castles and Crusades, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan, etc...)

and then it been weakened because they're not all D&D based.

Not seeing it.

I think the opposite happened. Too many companies went to suckle at the teat of D&D via d20 and when that went boom, those that didn't diversify like Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds, their systemless Freeport and other materials, or Mongoose with Runequest and Traveller, etc...

The only ones suffering in this OGL ecology are those that stick too close to the d20 fantasy system where many people have either moved on, or those many loud internet voices that cliam they haven't, aren't buying.

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.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!

Given the time it's taken for an acceptable GSL to show up, I can understand Paizo's reaction...but nonetheless, it seems foolish to pass up easy chances to grow your customer base in economic times like these!