New GSL Announcement

[Arrond Hess]

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.

Well said, and I agree completely.

 

[SSquirrel]

As Linae has mentioned previously, that would mean another 6 months of arguing heh. I don't publish, I just play. Speculation is the name of the game around here lately, esp when information is given out in incomplete and maybe poorly worded fashion. These situations will remain until the bullet point Q&A post I requested above materializes from WotC

 

[James Jacobs]

That being said, it does seem to be aimed rather directly at the heart of Paizo. Paizo simply can't go 4e at this point. This is a deadly serious judo throw to the Pathfinder announcement. Something's gonna die, now much sooner than later.

I'm not sure how this is a "judo throw" to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG. We weren't planning on supporting 4th edition with Pathfinder anyway... the whole POINT of Pathfinder RPG is to give us something of our own to build on. It looks like that means we won't be able to support 4th Edition at all, which is very disappointing, but it's certainly not anything like a death blow to Paizo. We're doing quite well as it is right now without any 4th edition support.

I also disagree about the "somethign's gonna die" part of this statement. I'll be the first to point out that the tabletop RPG industry is really really small... but it's not THAT small. It's been going for decades, and there's been plenty of games that have survived for those decades. I strongly suspect that there's room in the industry for OGL products like Pathfinder and M&M and Spycraft and the rest AND for D&D. Will D&D make the most money? Sure, but it HAS to make more money. Wizards of the Coast is larger than the next largest RPG company by ten times at least; their overhead requires a huge success, and I think that they've got a great R&D team over there and that 4th edition will absolutely give them that success.

A smaller company like Paizo doesn't need to be #1 in the industry to survive. Pathfinder's doing VERY well for us right now, and I'm really excited to see what we've got coming up for the next few years. I'm pretty sure that Paizo will make it through with Pathfinder into the next decade, as long as we can keep up with the frantic pace we've set for ourselves.

I wish WotC the best of luck with 4th edition. I'll certainly be buying the game when it comes out to try it out. I'm also confident that Paizo'll be okay as well. The only part of this whole thing that really depresses and disappoints me is that a lot of our customers who were looking forward to Paizo 4th edition support are probably going to have to make some pretty tough decisions. I wish they didn't have to be put into that position.

 

[kalanijasmine]

Im with you on this one Clark... While I am unhappy with the decision, I understand the reasons behind it and support those reasons.

Wizards has made the best possible decision for their company, while still catering to third party publishers. As you yourself has said exhaustively on this thread - Wizards had no obligation to give us a 4th edition GSL at all, and given the time it has taken to draft up the revision, I believe you are 100% right that we came close to having the GSL pulled completely.

With that being said, I have been an amature game designer for going on a decade, and have reverse engineered many gaming products from a variety of companies (Palladium, White Wolf, FASA, Wizards, TSR, etc) in order to determine what made their products successful; the hidden design philosophy/mechanics used in their products; and to determine the detracting factors to each game in the hope of avoiding them in my own product.

Within the last 4 months, I have made the decision to transition from amature designer, to professional game developer, and, while I felt supporting 3.X was an untennable option (due to my product line having too much competition from the sheer volume of third party material), with 4th edition I will have a more even footing with which to launch my company.

While I am in full support of the 4e engine, and believe it to be a very intuitive and graceful engine (based on pre-release information), I am concerned that if I publish 4th edition products under the GSL, the exclusive nature of the GSL will prevent me from publishing products under my own game system (which has been in development for 10 years) at a later date.

Failing that, I am concerned that, when I eventually launch my own game system (in 2 to 3 years time, in order to wait for 4th editions hype to stabilize) that publishing my own game engine will prohibit me from continuing my 4th edition product line, or from publishing new 4th edition content.

Do you have any information in this regard, as I have made the decision to stop procastinating, and take my chances as a professional full-time author, but the restrictive nature of the GSL is making me cautious and uncertain as to what my options are.

 

[Goobermunch]

I'm sorry Delta, but half the time when I see BryonD posting about 4e, I wonder whether he's trolling.

BryonD has a provocative way of conveying his feelings via the written word that triggers a combative response from others. And the prose he used was certainly . . . purple.

this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community.

This kind of overwrought language can suggest that the author isn't interested in engaging in a discussion so much as he is interested in stirring up a fight.

That said, I know BryonD is sharing his true feelings about passionately-held beliefs. Ergo, he's not a troll.

But I'd be inclined to cut Linnae some slack at the same time. I suspect she and Scott fought hard over the past several months to convince corporate to even permit any kind of open gaming. They've just fought an uphill battle and made a big announcement, and the beneficiaries of all that hard work are throwing it back in their faces. I'd be a little punchy too.

--G

 

[Cergorach]

I've not read the entire discussion, but I have a question:

What would happen if company X has an IP, for which it makes things like novels, comics, setting encyclopedia, miniatures, etc. But it doesn't make an RPG, it is open to licensing it out for RPG companies to make RPGs of the IP. What would happen if for example Paizo made a 3E version and Necromancer made a 4E version under license?

 

[Goobermunch]

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.

I don't think it's a "yer either with us, er agin' us" deal. I don't think that WotC views folks who choose to continue on under the OGL as against them.

But, I do think that they're looking to make sure they get the full support of those who wish to follow them into 4e. Given the glut of crap that came out with 3e, I'm not surprised they're taking this route. If you want to play in the new sandbox, you need to commit to it.

On an entirely unrelated note, did anyone else see that Le Rouse indicated that under the GSL, 3pps would be able to use both WotC's IP and their PI?

Does that mean we'll see mind-flayers and aboleths in 3rd party 4e books?

--G

 

[Goobermunch]

Im with you on this one Clark... While I am unhappy with the decision, I understand the reasons behind it and support those reasons.

Wizards has made the best possible decision for their company, while still catering to third party publishers. As you yourself has said exhaustively on this thread - Wizards had no obligation to give us a 4th edition GSL at all, and given the time it has taken to draft up the revision, I believe you are 100% right that we came close to having the GSL pulled completely.

With that being said, I have been an amature game designer for going on a decade, and have reverse engineered many gaming products from a variety of companies (Palladium, White Wolf, FASA, Wizards, TSR, etc) in order to determine what made their products successful; the hidden design philosophy/mechanics used in their products; and to determine the detracting factors to each game in the hope of avoiding them in my own product.

Within the last 4 months, I have made the decision to transition from amature designer, to professional game developer, and, while I felt supporting 3.X was an untennable option (due to my product line having too much competition from the sheer volume of third party material), with 4th edition I will have a more even footing with which to launch my company.

While I am in full support of the 4e engine, and believe it to be a very intuitive and graceful engine (based on pre-release information), I am concerned that if I publish 4th edition products under the GSL, the exclusive nature of the GSL will prevent me from publishing products under my own game system (which has been in development for 10 years) at a later date.

Failing that, I am concerned that, when I eventually launch my own game system (in 2 to 3 years time, in order to wait for 4th editions hype to stabilize) that publishing my own game engine will prohibit me from continuing my 4th edition product line, or from publishing new 4th edition content.

Do you have any information in this regard, as I have made the decision to stop procastinating, and take my chances as a professional full-time author, but the restrictive nature of the GSL is making me cautious and uncertain as to what my options are.

I don't have the new GSL yet, but I don't think you need to worry about your own system. As long as the system you've designed is not based on the OGL, the "poison pill" provision of the GSL won't trigger. From what we've read, the kill switch is publication under the OGL.

--G

 

[wickederror]

If you want to play in the new sandbox, you need to commit to it.


--G

LOL

For some reason when you said this, I pictured an overly-enthusiastic father commanding his child during playtime....

Sorry for that

/threadjack

 

[brianm]

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.

Which is why this doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

The big problems everyone grinched about with the OGL were that it created direct competition for D&D's core books and flooded the market with poor product.

By basically forcing Paizo, Green Ronin, Sinister Adventures, Adamant, etc. to focus on their OGL product, WotC appears to have created more, not less, competition for 4e.

In addition, outside of Necromancer Games and anyone else willing to jettison their OGL products, the publishers of third-party support materials for 4e are going to be neophytes, unused to the rigors of the printing process. Without the experience to juggle editing, layout, art direction, and dealing with print runs, it's guaranteed that, once again, the majority of third-party support will be sub-par.

That's certainly better than no GSL at all, but I really have to wonder at this apparent disconnect between strategy and goals.

- Brian