New GSL Announcement

[S'mon]

I dont have new 3E stuff on my mind at all. I am firmly 4E. I was just going to provide that as an accomodation to fans. Thats all.

Well, if you ever get around to releasing Tegel Manor I guess I'll run it with C&C, so 3e stats won't make much difference (I suspect). I'm running 3e Caverns of Thracia with C&C right now.

 

[Orcus]

This does not DIRECTLY (ie saying "Yes Clark was right in that post") confirm Clark's stance interpretation of the situation, but it certainly sounds like it could be correct. We DO still have the chance that someone read something wrong or the phrasing was slightly wrong and we don't have the GSL (Red Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) or OGL (Blue Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) only. Yes, I'm an eternal optimist.

I would also say that allowing companies to either actively produce for a)3.x or b)4E, but still be allowed to sell any OGL material released prior to the GSL could be a good middle ground.
I would also suggest that in that scenario, a non-fantasy OGL product would be free of the OGL or GSL only clause, since games like Mutants & Masterminds are competing with HERO, GURPS Champions and Silver Age Sentinels (plus more) and something like Spycraft would be against more modern era games rather than D&D.

I just want to see more posts of bullet points saying what IS and IS NOT permissible if someone publishes games using the GSL. Specifically the 4E D&D GSL. It's possible that if someone produces non-fantasy games w/the also mentioned d20 GSL, they might not have the same restriction about supporting the OGL as well. Who knows.

You are right. I, too, want this clarified.

Perhaps I misunderstood Wizards when my question was answered earlier today. Or maybe they misunderstood my question.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Urg.

The more I think about this, the more I don't like it--or at least aspects of it.

Now, I still have no problem with WotC wording the license so that companies cannot support 3.5 and 4E at the same time. I know that fact would disappoint some people, but I stand by my assessment that it would be foolish of them to allow it. They want to drive people to the current version of the game, not to older ones, and I fully support them in that. In both cases, they're dealing with their game specifically.

But...

The notion that games such as M&M, C&C, or T20 have to be ditched along with it just doesn't make any sense. I cannot see any way in which such games viably compete with, or have any real impact on, 4E. And I agree with those who have said that the industry is richer for having them.

Does it really make any sense to keep Green Ronin out of 4E, just because of M&M? Does it make sense to keep Paizo out of 4E because of Pathfinder (assuming PF winds up being more than just 3.5 under a different name)? I can't see how it does.

Surely there must be some way to word the license to disallow 3.5-compatible material (which would, I imagine, be the primary intent anyway) but to still allow totally unrelated games that also happen to be published under the OGL.

Isn't there?

 

[Nlogue]

The notion that games such as M&M, C&C, or T20 have to be ditched along with it just doesn't make any sense. I cannot see any way in which such games viably compete with, or have any real impact on, 4E. And I agree with those who have said that the industry is richer for having them.

Does it really make any sense to keep Green Ronin out of 4E, just because of M&M? Does it make sense to keep Paizo out of 4E because of Pathfinder? I can't see how it does.

Surely there must be some way to word the license to disallow 3.5-compatible material (which would, I imagine, be the primary intent anyway) but to still allow totally unrelated games that also happen to be published under the OGL.

Isn't there?

Word.

As a publisher focusing primarily on kickass, drop-em-in-anywhere adventures, I want to be able to offer my customers wicked (or in this case, sinsiter) adventures for ALL the good systems out there (including 4E). This is a bummer.

 

[Jack99]

Edited: Was a stupid unnecessary post, after thinking about it.

Sorry.

 

[Nlogue]

Lots of people here who want their cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes in English.

I don't understand how people can complain about this. WoTC is a business, and they have more money invested in 4e, than all the 3rd party publishers put together make in a year. (yeah, thats a guess, I am sure you get the point).

Do you really expect them to say, hey, come mooch off this awesome system we have made, use our (extremely recognizable) brand name, all while you still produce products that competes with us, not to mention, products based on something we made and allowed you to earn money off? Doesn't make any sense to me, if they allowed that.

Also, by saying it is either the OGL or the GSL, they will hopefully assure that those who go 4e, go there whole-heartedly and use all their resources on making great 4e products, for us, the consumers.

Anyway, just my 2cp

Cheers

Well...yeah.

They did it a few years back...

Okay...I just included that ranged smiley cause it looks pretty cool...it didn't mean anything.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Sadly this was what I was expecting and really hoping I was wrong about. Not the exact thing but something along the lines of this.

WotC is certainly in their right to do this and it might even be the best business choice for them. Short term it certainly will be i think, long term i have my doubts.

I am annoying and highly disappointed with WotC decision if this all turns out to be true and it seems to be at least.

While I agree it is WotC right to force companies to be with them or against them aka use the GSL and do 4e or stay with the OGL. It is attitudes like that, that I personal find annoying and refuse to support. So while it is their right, it is mine to let my feeling be known.

Which is simply, if WotC does this, they will never see another penny from me as a customer. 4e could be the greatest game ever, but I will personally never know now.

Sleep well Clark, I hope you can still feel joy inspite of things anyways.

 

[Delta]

You know, one last thought before I go to bed:

The publishers here may want to consider -- ever so briefly -- if it's a good idea to publicly discuss how they might end-run around the no-OGL restriction (i.e., via multiple business entities). It's possible that WOTC can pick up on that and again re-write the GSL to prevent those options. (Which is more or less exactly what's happened since January.)

 

[Henry]

Linae, do you remember the thanks I gave you for sticking with the fans, thick and thin? Keep remembering that thanks. We're an ungrateful lot.


I don't think people are looking at the silver lining in this cloud:

IF, and I stress IF, Orcus, Lidda, and The Rouse are in agreement with what the actual contract terms will be, then the people who want to keep playing 3E should be on Cloud Nine. The GSL ensures that Green Ronin WILL be a content creator of OGL-based products for a long time to come (at least as long as M&M and True20 keep being "staples" for the company); it almost ensures that Paizo will be joining them, assuming they continue to support Pathfinder through 2009 and further.

Therefore, two of the ten biggest OGL game companies on the block are STILL going to be using the OGL, and in a position to produce 3E-based content.

Heck, make that FOUR: If Monte continues to dabble occasionally in the RPG waters, he's darned sure not going to be jettisoning his entire back product line just to do a couple of books a year for fun. Then, there's Mongoose, who's doing unbelievably well by licensing everything under the sun; they MIGHT jettison their 3E stock, but that's a more iffy call than the first three. So, FOUR of the Big Boys of OGL are still going to be catering to your needs, near as I can tell.

There will still be a good many companies following 4E because it's a better game in town for them than the OGL has been; the increased compatibility from the new logo etc. will help them get noticed in the 4E community better by general D&D fans, and without Green Ronin or Paizo in the mix, they'll only have Necromancer and a few others to compete against, a much narrower field. Heck, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, et. al. had to start the same way, and build recognition through quality, it means there's a chance for others to rise in the same way.

So IF that's the correct way to interpret the GSL license, then I'd say it ensures that some of the topmost publishers will stay with 3E, not the other way around, and give it the support that its fans will need.

 

[wickederror]

In reference to Jack (and Nick's comment) this isn't a dumb question but you have to see how it's looked at.

The OGL is basically a contract that cannot be revoked...it's permanent and will be forever. This may now be considered a mistake by the company, but it was done, and what's done is done. In my opinion it made the gaming community flourish.

Now other companies made material based off of this OGL (which just to reiterate is a permanent contract and cannot be revoked). The material made by these publishers is their property and it's property they have a right to sell, just like a house or a car. WotC is basically telling them to be in business they must give up the right to sell their hard work and property and also expand on that property.

Given that analogy, I hope you can understand why it puts many of the publishers in a sticky situation.