I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Thornir Alekeg said:
In that respect, the new GSL is no different from the old d20 STL. In fact, that's basically the same restriction the d20 STL had.: no character creation.
It still couldn't prevent something like AU.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
GSL news.
- Thread starter TheLordWinter
- Start date
In that respect, the new GSL is no different from the old d20 STL. In fact, that's basically the same restriction the d20 STL had.: no character creation.
It still couldn't prevent something like AU.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Arcana Unearthed is OGL, is it not? Or am I interpreting the acronym wrong? (Arcana Evolved definitely doesn't have the d20 logo)Kamikaze Midget said:
But either way, it was not stopped by the d20 STL.
So, here's my understanding so far:
I think the GSL might no be that different from the d20-STL. The key difference at this point is that there is no OGL-material from the 4E PHB to refer to, so you can't use the OGL to re-use 4E rules. But you apparantly could still try to create 4E compatible material, as long as you don't directly state that that's what you're doing, and you don't copy any 4E rule text verbatim.
It changes more if there is indeed a poison pill making it impossible to create OGL products while creating GSL products.
This means that you'd have to stop using the OGL, which would suck if you want to re-use OGL material from third parties (your own material is not restricted by the OGL), or if you want to continue working both on 3E/OGL and 4E/GSL. This would for example be a problem for True20 or Paizos Pathfinder 3E/4E. We still don't know if this scenario applies. I'd see it as a worst-case scenario. But it still won't stop everyone.
That you can't put the same product under both licenses should pose little problems (unless you wanted somehow re-use OGL material or dual-stat). I think at worst, you'd have to change the name of your product. (Tome of Horrors becomes The Horror Tome? Arcana Evolved becomes Evolved Arcana? And Iron Heroes becomes Heroic Irony
).cybernetic
Explorer
shocklee said:
Actually, Spycraft did it under the old d20 STL license. The first Spycraft book, which I happen to have in my bag right now, did not "Describe a process for Creating a Character". It simply gave different options to use when creating a character and refered you to teh 3rd Edition PHB for the rules to put the peices together.
On another note. My personal opinion on the situation, from both the perspective of a writer and a gamer, is that in the end I think this will be good for gaming. I think WotC is playing this round smart. They're obviously very confident and worked very hard on 4th Edition and I think they want any 3PP who supports it to put a lot into their products as well. By forcing 3PP who work with 4th Edition to turn their back on 3.X, it puts their focus on making better products for 4th Edition. It does seem as though it is going to exclude some of the bigger names in 3PP from supporting 4th Edition (which is a shame), but that has a positive side as well. Those companies will be able to focus more on their own systems to give us great non-4th Edition products as well! It'll also give us some new blood and has the potential of giving us a new generation of 3PP.
Grymn Studios has been developing an OGL-based game for the passed few years. They system is compete and the setting for the game has been developed. I have faith in the system I created (it is OGL but diverges from d20 quite a bit). However, It is likely that it will never be published, because we will be going 4th Edition. The setting we had developed actually fits perfectly with the feel and implied "setting" of 4th Edition D&D, almost too perfectly
. The system I developed (which pre-dates the setting) will either go onto my own personal book self or I'll shop it to a 3.X Publisher down the road.
HalWhitewyrm
First Post
Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.
I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.
I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I think this is the right of it. Anyone who thinks that WotC is doing this in order to stop people from competing with it is probably barking up the wrong tree, because it won't stop it (and I assume WotC is clever enough to know that).
Which leaves me wondering about what a poison pill could really achieve? I can't see any benefit for WotC in doing that, so I've gotta assume things aren't quite as dire as speculation might have us believe.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
Never mind, I'm tired and wasn't thinking clearly...Kamikaze Midget said:
Last edited:
The main thing it could do is prevent WotC's 4Ed from competing with its strongest competition- some version of its own robust and popular 3.5 system- thus minimizing the risk of 4Ed becoming the RPG world's equivalent of New Coke.
However, HalWhitewyrm's post indicates that there may be something else going on, and the GSL may not include a true "poison pill" type provision.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
HalWhitewyrm said:
I'm still not getting this. How is depriving customers of a part of the value of products that they purchased from you, or from other businesses (under your encouragement) good business sense? The way I see it, WOTC/Hasbro is directly reducing the value of a product that I bought from them. That is a harm, and it seems like terrible business sense.
If WotC is trying to ensure that 4Ed doesn't get into a fight with 3.5 based games & products, it makes business sense for them to try to get the major 3.5 producers to bail on the OGL and go 4Ed/GSL all the way. Without support from WotC and the top 3PPs, 3.5Ed based games and products will be devalued because of market saturation. After all, how many people will want to buy a 7 year old game supplement for a game no longer in print? Extant copies- the as-yet unsold and the resale/used market- will be sufficient to supply the demand for that old supplement.
And a devalued older product is at a competitive disadvantage to a "new & improved" entry into the market.
By pressing the OGL/GSL issue, WotC could avoid the "New Coke" problem.
In the automobile world, this was called "planned obsolescence."
In the software world, its called "upgrading." Heck, even my computers of choice (Macs) don't have as much of the backwards compatibility they were once famous for.
However, as stated a few posts above, there may be less to this than we think.
And a devalued older product is at a competitive disadvantage to a "new & improved" entry into the market.
By pressing the OGL/GSL issue, WotC could avoid the "New Coke" problem.
In the automobile world, this was called "planned obsolescence."
In the software world, its called "upgrading." Heck, even my computers of choice (Macs) don't have as much of the backwards compatibility they were once famous for.
However, as stated a few posts above, there may be less to this than we think.
Similar Threads
- Locked
