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

[Treebore]

I'd say they are probably going GSL, whereas at one time I'd have said they were certainly going to.

At one time we were going to get Tome of Horrors, Alternative Players Handbook and Adventure Path.

Now the ToH is off the list. There are also concerns about whether the APH is possible (or at least sensible) under the GSL.

So far, the Adventure Path seems to still be a go.

Orcus's enthusiasm sold the ToH 4 to me even though I have no plans to switch to 4th edition. I really hope they produce 4th edition stuff because it would be such a shame to see all that enthusiasm finally drained away by WotC. I think they will, but its no longer a certainty in my opinion.

I am pretty sure we will see a full color 3E Pathfinder version, which will be more than satisfactory in my book.

 

[Shadeydm]

Thanks for giving me a reason to dig the GSL. I'm still basically neutral towards, it but I'm all in favor of something to keep umpteen-billion drow sourcebooks from coming out.

I must confess I am a bit of a drow hater myself, but I really did like Plot & Poison which IMHO is a true gem of a third party book. If the GSL means we lose out on products like that or the next Midnight, or even the next BotR then it is truly a loss for the entire community.

 

[Starglim]

There's something to be said for the renaming element, I suppose. But that doesn't really seem to make things much better, in terms of the original worry regarding third-party products. Now instead of several books about drow, you've got books about "cave elves" "spider elves" "reverse-albino elves" "dark elves" "shadow elves" and many others, none of which are compatible.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If third party publishers wanted and had reason to do it, is there an obstacle to including SRD content under the GSL and third party IP under an open gaming licence, lower case, under clause 10.2? Thus (again, if the first publisher to put out a "black spider elf" sourcebook chose to do it) there could be a closed WotC drow description and a common open black spider elf description.

 

[Alzrius]

That doesn't necessarily follow. If third party publishers wanted and had reason to do it, is there an obstacle to including SRD content under the GSL and third party IP under an open gaming licence, lower case, under clause 10.2? Thus (again, if the first publisher to put out a "black spider elf" sourcebook chose to do it) there could be a closed WotC drow description and a common open black spider elf description.

That depends, but I'd say the very act of creating and releasing such a license would be quite an impediment in and of itself.

That said, Roger Carbol recently tried doing something like this via a Creative Commons license. It's uncertain if that'd actually work, though. Reactions, over on this thread and this thread are uncertain, but that seems to maybe be the case.

Irregardless though, the fact that there's no such license in existence now for the GSL (the CC possibility notwithstanding), is in and of itself quite a deterrent to shared content among GSL publishers.

 

[billd91]

I made the comments Nicole brought up in reference to WotC's decision to get back into the adventure publishing business. At the time there was great demand for adventures, but only a couple 3PP were publishing them, whereas dozens of 3PPs were making harcover splatbooks, often on the same sorts of topics WotC was covering, often even cloning the WotC look and feel. Some of those books were real gems, to be sure--I own many a 3PP d20 book--but they were drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Since the 3PPs (I'm generalizing here) were not innovating or focusing on the opportunities in the marketplace, WotC changed course and re-entered the adventure business, along the way innovating with new adventure formats and product types.

Well, what would you expect? If Hasbro's bean-counters are smart enough to realize that there's a larger potential market for splatbooks than adventures, then of course other companies are going to try to get a piece of that pie. I'd say that's keeping an eye on the marketplace, though clearly not one set to exploit all opportunities (rather like WotC themselves until they finally decided to get back into the adventure biz). Let's put it another way, WotC would be foolish to assume they'd have that pie all to themselves or that 3PP would only confine themselves to other segments of the market.

 

[Starfox]

I am also hopeful to see a proliferation of 3rd party products via copyright. I think the power of the internet will allow such companies to be more successful then ever before. I would love to see a new generation of Flying Buffalo, Judges Guild, etc... be born.

This is an interesting angle; I think with the GSL being so restrictive, we might get some small companies probing these waters. Of course, Hasbro has a lot more resources than TSR had to put them down - but every legal battle will cost them prestige in the market.

Interesting times.

 

[delericho]

Simply copying the drow and slapping a new label on them, or using drow in defiance of the fact that they are not in the SRD will probably be cause of revocation of the GSL for that publisher.

Yep. As much as considering "what will the strict wording of the license allow us to do?", companies signing up to the GSL have to consider, "what will WotC allow us to do without revoking our license?"

WotC don't have any hold over the term 'succubus', or even 'drow'. And yet, by signing up to the GSL one is agreeing not to use them - either because the conditions of the license state as much, or simply because WotC's intent was that people not use them, and they reserve the right to cancel your license at any time and for any reason.