So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

Orcus said:

Listen, I understand that argument that the license allegedly doesnt on its face permit termination at will and it hasnt been amended to permit it (which ignores the possibility that, as a license, it is freely revocable at any time), and whether or not it is revocable, Wizards hasnt officially done what is required to revoke it.

But really, what is the point? As I can see it, there is no value in the d20 logo. So the only reason to not do it is the contrarian gamer desire to stick it to "big bad Wizards" with a "neener neener you didnt do it right, I am smarter than you, so I dont have to do it."

Scrub the logos from your pdfs. Put stickers on any backstock. Its not hard.

Click to expand...

Wow Clark, no need to become patronising here. Thankyou for admitting that there has been no official revokation (or termination, since some people are sticklers for exact word usage here).

No, there is no value in the D20 logo. We've already removed our D20 logos or are in the process of removing them from our products. However, has it never struck you that a discussion can be interesting by itself? That the act of communicating, by itself, is rewarding? That we, as humans, have always thrived on sharing information and it is this act, by itself, that helps build community?

I'm sorry - there's no "wish to stick it to the big bad" or even a childish "neener neener" around my part of the discussion. Merely honest interest if there has actually BEEN an official termination/revokation of the license, as the license itself defines it.

Why do I wish to discuss this - well, first of all because I hoped to learn if I had missed something (the official termination), second of all to learn if there was some way a company, regardless of the text inside the license and without informing licensors, could withdraw a license. All this, because it DOES affect me as a publisher - perhaps not directly with the D20STL (since, as I said earlier, we are removing the logo already) but with other licenses.

Thankyou for taking the time to agree with me, and I'm VERY SORRY to have used your name in this thread.

Apology accepted.

Wulf Ratbane said:

Click to expand...

*Snorts a laugh*

For the record; while I am not impressed with WotC's handling of the GSL (to say the least), if its revised existence would mean new shiny 4E adventures ("with a 2nd edition feel" this time? ) from Necromancer Games, that would be enough reason for me to support it!

CapnZapp said:

For the record; while I am not impressed with WotC's handling of the GSL (to say the least), if its revised existence would mean new shiny 4E adventures ("with a 2nd edition feel" this time? ) from Necromancer Games, that would be enough reason for me to support it!

Click to expand...

I love Necromancer stuff as well, but they'd have to release another book changing a fairly large number of base 4E rules to get me to switch to 4E, but if they did I'd likely bite (Can't imagine any new GSL ALLOWING that though).

For now I'll have to be content with about 3000 pages of bargain basement d20 stuff purchased before the (whether real or illusory) end of the license. I'd say I can take four or five groups from 1st to 15th before I'm out of old stuff.

CapnZapp said:

For the record; while I am not impressed with WotC's handling of the GSL (to say the least), if its revised existence would mean new shiny 4E adventures ("with a 2nd edition feel" this time? )

Click to expand...

"2nd Edition feel"? Eww. There's a reason why I jumped over to 3e.

phloog said:

I love Necromancer stuff as well, but they'd have to release another book changing a fairly large number of base 4E rules to get me to switch to 4E, but if they did I'd likely bite (Can't imagine any new GSL ALLOWING that though).

Click to expand...

Actually, I happen to think that is EXACTLY the kind of variant stuff that a revised GSL would allow. I have talked to Scott about that very issue and that exact product and he seemed receptive and excited. In fact, I spoke to him recently to re-confirm my excitement and intent to use a revised GSL and publish products supportive of 4E if the revised GSL meets the needs and issues that he and I have discussed repeatedly. In fact, I've been very clear in my desire to support 4E and to produce a supplement along the lines of a classic rules variant book (a la Monte's stuff, but with a 1E feel) that provides some alternate versions of the classic races, classes, powers and magic items for 4E. I think Scott would love to see me do that.

I would LOVE to do this. And then I would do a core Necro reboot with an adventrue or set of adventures that revisits Fairhill from Crucible of Freya and the Stoneheart Mountain Dungeon from Tomb of Abysthor and the city of Bard's Gate.

Orcus said:

Actually, I happen to think that is EXACTLY the kind of variant stuff that a revised GSL would allow.

Click to expand...

So, it is still possible to tweak the rules to fit the setting.

Will that backfire against the numerous customers who thinks that any game under the GSL must be 100% (or 110%) compatible with the current 4e ruleset ... no deviation whatsoever?

Ranger REG said:

So, it is still possible to tweak the rules to fit the setting.

Click to expand...

I dont know if it is or isnt, since I havent seen the revised GSL and dont know if it will be finalized. I think it will, but I dont know.

Will that backfire against the numerous customers who thinks that any game under the GSL must be 100% (or 110%) compatible with the current 4e ruleset ... no deviation whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Dont know. But I dont think you want to go very crazy. If you did what I propose you would likely have to make it playable either way--with core rules or with the variants.