Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[xechnao]

Do we have a specific scapegoat, at last?

MtG was such a sudden phenomenon and D&D so traditionally important that somehow managed to garner high responsibility to the Wotc of 10 years ago, the time they acquired the rights of D&D. Wotc needed to seem good and trustworthy to capitalize on the stunt value of this phenomenal suddenness to eventually establish itself as the overall hobby market leader.

From that perspective they should not fail D&D. Wotc bought D&D and had to deliver to capitalize as much as possible to increasing the brand value of Wotc first -rather than D&D's.

So they preferred to minimize risks. This is why they used the OGL and publicized it so much. D&D became a gift and part to the fan community and now the community took a share of that responsibility and this gave more comfort to Wotc's aspirations to rise its fame.

Now times have changed.

 

[Banshee16]

When the OGL was originally released, I remember an interview (with someone at WotC) where it was said that the d20 OGL had been released so every 3PP product would require to have the PHB, so they would sell more of it eventually. However, with games like C&C, True20, Arcana Unearthed or Conan d20 you really didn't need to buy the D&D books. In fact, at some point I entirely ceased to buy any WotC product, spending all my money on 3PP stuff. So, it's perfectly understandable and normal WotC does a license much more restrictive for 4e. Just I had ceased to buy WotC stuff because they had gone in a direction I didn't like. So, even without the OGL I wouldn't have bought WotC stuff anymore. I would have attempted some other game out there. There are many that seem really interesting, but there is so little time to try them all. In the end it's not OGL/GSL that will do the difference, but products' quality...

And this was somewhat necessary. Keeping in mind that the OGL and D20 licenses were intended to get a "core operating system" for RPGs into widespread use, so the rules could be used for any number of games. Great objective.....but D&D isn't one-size fits all....many settings or games have different underlying assumptions than what you find in the Players Handbook. Could you imagine trying to do Legend of the Five Rings with orcs, elves, and dwarves? Or what about Black Company or Thieves World with paladins, druids, and elven bards? It just wouldn't fit.

Thus the need for books with different assumptions. But I think it worked too well in some cases. It sounds like you were in a similar position as I. WotC, a few years ago (around the time of 3.5) started branching off in a direction I wasn't interested in. I guess, in the absence of an OGL and D20 license, it would have meant that I would have quit playing D&D at all....or at least quit being a customer. But under the D20 and OGL licenses I was able to find companies producing products that still appealed to me. I still did buy WotC books....I was just more picky about which ones I grabbed.

The new GGL seems intended to force the player base to buy and play D&D the way WotC wants it, and seems to be prohibitively against the innovation that arose when all these 3PP companies started producing books.

That in itself is kind of odd, because 4E, as it stands, might not exist if it *weren't* for the OGL and D20 licenses, and all that innovation from 3PP. Guys like Mike Mearls, who was involved in the creation of 4E, got their start in 3PP companies, did they not? This statement does not mean there never would have been a 4E.....just that WotC benefited from getting designers who arose because of the OGL and D20 licenses, and those designers contributed to the direction of 4E.

If I owned a publishing company, I'd be very hesitant about signing the GSL. As a consumer, the GSL sets off alarm bells for me in any case, because it seems intended to prevent companies from innovating and branching off the way they did in 3E......and that branching off is important to me, because *IMO* WotC has gone in the wrong direction with this edition of the game (again, IMO). So in my mind, innovation is what we need more than anything.

I tend to agree with the posters who posit that maybe the GSL was written in a restrictive fashion on purpose, in order to prevent consumers from getting up in arms, but with the intent of saying "hey, we tried, we made the GSL, but they didn't want to sign it". If that theory is correct, in 5E, we might not see a GSL at all.

Banshee

 

[xechnao]

A simple question (or maybe two, not sure)

For all those claiming "glut" and "quality" were the motivators behind the change from the OGL/STL to the GSL, answer me this:

How does a free license with no approval process reduce product number (glut) or increase product quality?

In that area, the GSL is identical to the OGL/SLT: WOTC will not ask you for money for using it, will not limit the number of products you can produce using it, and will not require any specific level of quality in terms of writing, production values, rules balance, or any other area. If you think "defined terms" mean anything...read the STL.

If you can't explain, clearly, how "free, no approval license" leads to "fewer products of higher quality", I must humbly request you strike the word "glut" from your arguments over the potential merits of the GSL or the motivations behind drafting it.

Thank you.

GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.

Actually, the GSL is a natural extension of the d20 STL, which you seem to be conveniently forgetting ever existed. That was a failure, and was responsible for more crappy adventures than the OGL ever was.

Do not confuse the d20 STL and the OGL.

 

[Lizard]

GSL is the natural extension of OGL in a capitalistic market. If you want to see GSL as a failure you have to recognize OGL as a failure too. The second was a failure to the hobby due to the glut it produced, the first is a failure by cutting short the possibilities the OGL provided.

And what does this have to do with my question?

 

[xechnao]

Actually, the GSL is a natural extension of the d20 STL, which you seem to be conveniently forgetting ever existed. That was a failure, and was responsible for more crappy adventures than the OGL ever was.

Do not confuse the d20 STL and the OGL.

I do not. Do not confuse legal and formal structures with the practical ways of how the actual modern market works.

 

[xechnao]

And what does this have to do with my question?

Tangent.

 

[Banshee16]

So WotC changed the terms of 3PP compatibility with D&D, and made it more restrictive. Insofar as it controls the glut and keeps 3PP focused on products that players actually want and don't get (or don't get enough of) from WotC, more restrictive is good for the RPG business as a whole, it's good for WotC, and frankly it's good for the third-party publishers. And if it also means that a relatively small number of 3PP participate (currently 3 to 5, as opposed to hundreds under the OGL), so that the choices offered to consumers and retailers are relatively narrow but desirable, so much the better.

But isn't whether WotC does something better entirely subjective? I'd generally say that sales numbers are not always indicative of quality. WotC has more reputation, better marketing, better distribution channels, and a bunch of other advantages....including simple history and brand recognition. These factors can help lead to increased sales.

But whether a book on spellcasting is better just because it's from WotC is something that I'd question....because a question like that is ultimately answerable only by the players themselves. There are many products where, as a consumer, I just didn't feel that WotC's efforts were worth spending money on. Or they just didn't seems to want to tackle something I wanted.....like freeform spellcasting.....that was done with Elements of Magic and True Sorcery, for instance. Or a Knight class.....as a consumer, I preferred Green Ronin's Cavalier, or RPG Objects' "Knight" from Legends of Excalibur, over the Knight from PHB II. And I liked the Ninja from Legends of the Samurai better than WotC's ninja, for instance. That doesn't mean my opinion is right. It's just my opinion as one DM.

I'm just one consumer, but to me, the advantage of the OGL and D20 licenses was that we had choice....instead of being forced to accept what one company decided we should like. I understand that they're not dumb, and they do their research, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean that their solutions work for any particular customer. Just like stats can predict broad trends, and behaviour in groups, but are inaccurate when you try to apply their findings to an individual.

Banshee

 

[kenmarable]

Why else try to make the big 3pp invest in the GSL before they could see it ($5,000)?

I suppose this is getting to the pet peeve level for me. But point of clarification, the plan was to see the GSL then pay the $5000 if you approve. The points of your post are still valid, but I just still see this incorrect information so often, I'm compelled to clarify. So publishers would only be ignorant of the rules (which were being rather steadily previewed anyway) and NOT ignorant of the license when they invested. So no one was going to be tricked into investing in a bad license.

The 3pps who can afford to adopt the GSL will more likely be the basement hobby operators, since if the license gets cut from underneath them they gripe about it on ENWorld and then get on with their life. Were it Paizo or someone in the same situation - well, people's livelihoods would be at stake. The hobbyists will dive in, and produce a mass of stuff widely varying in quality, and the more professional, experienced (and, quite often, superior) publishers will have to stay out.

This seems to obvious to me, that I have trouble conceiving of how people can think the GSL will improve the quality of RPG products. The opposite seems more likely. (Unless you get a conspiracy, long term view that WotC wants to discourage GSL use so that the other companies will fade away supporting the "outdated edition" or their "obscure niche games". But a) I'm not much of a believer when it comes to conspiracy theories, especially in corporations, and b) that seems to be an awfully risky bet on 4e wiping out all other RPGs including 3.5/Pathfinder.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suppose this is getting to the pet peeve level for me. But point of clarification, the plan was to see the GSL then pay the $5000 if you approve.

I think that you need to go back and reread what was happening then. The reason that you see this "incorrect information" so often is that it isn't incorrect.

The process, as announced, was

(1) Pay $5,000.
(2) See the GSL, presumably as part of the development kit (of course, in practice, not even then....the GSL was not available when you'd presumably be plunking down your cash...!). In any event, the release date of the GSL cements the fact that you invested before you saw it, if you invested at all.
(3) If you didn't like it, ask WotC for a refund.
(4) Get refund when WotC sent it.

I.e., you had already invested by the time you saw the GSL. You were just able to withdraw your investment at a future point. Of course, WotC having your money and not having a specific timeframe in which to refund would (presumably) be a real incentive to sign the thing.

RC