WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Maggan]

Maggan has buggered that poll and he didn't even use any lube. The numbers may be correct for all we know, but since some people will be voting more times than others we can't trust the results.

I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.

I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.

I'm not the only one on these boards who knew about the flaw, and the voting pattern of lots of posts in short time for one side or the other side, ie "surges", was in my mind indications that such rigging could be taking place.

Sure, for all I know, every single one of those votes are legit. But I honestly don't think so, and there were 800+ votes before I "buggered" the poll, so if you trust that there were no problems before my "buggering", then just discount about 50 votes or so.

Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.

/M

 

[amethal]

Whatever "buggered" is supposed to mean, btw.

I could tell you, but grandma wouldn't approve.

 

[jmucchiello]

That's understandable. However, he said he was now even MORE skeptical, as if he was suggesting that the GSL is going to get even more restrictive (despite Linae openly saying it would be "opener"). I can understand being skeptical that these changes are what you're looking for, but to say that you're even more skeptical of the GSL after these changes just seems kinda silly.

I don't know Gareth reasons for being more skeptical but when I don my tinfoiled-hat I am confronted with the boiling frog theory in reverse.

Suppose the first GSL was purposely overly restrictive and expected to be a complete "disaster" so the 3pps would accept the next (new improved) GSL having only a few onerous bits. So unless all the problems with the GSL are removed, my tinfoil hat says to be skeptical of the motivation behind this change of heart.

Taking off the hat, well, I will wait and see before passing judgment.

However, I don't expect much from the changes since I'm fully in the 4e OGL camp and anything short of that is a disappointment. I lament the diminished state of the art in RPGs since no one can make those killer 3e/4e hybrids that a 4e OGL would allow. (Admittedly, lament may be too strong a word here.)

 

[Samuel Leming]

I feel the need to say this: the flaw in the poll system was known before I pointed it out, and was in all probability used e.g. in the "What should the Warlord be named?" poll. Prior art, so to say.

I felt that the right thing to do was pointing out this flaw in the poll system for people who were drawing far reaching conclusions based on the results.

It was the right thing to do. My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.

I had though the main problems with these polls were selection bias and sock puppets. Just those would leave the polls unreliable, but still useful for entertainment purposes. At least for seeing trends. Being able to vote 10 times in less then five minutes leaves this kind of poll open to outright vandalism. Given the high emotions, number of known idiots on both sides and the advanced age of that poll I wouldn't even try to argue that it's clean.

Anyway, I do think that acceptance of 4e is much lighter than it could have been, but because of these problems that poll can't be used to show that. This is a bunnytrail for this thread anyway.

Sam

 

[Maggan]

My gripe is with the way these polls work, not with you.

Thank you for your clarification!

/M

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The evolution and the money is right here: www.paizo.com

No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.

 

[pemerton]

whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).

A nitpick, but it says nothing about any other rules system. It denies further use of the OGL for that product, but not EVERY other rules system uses the OGL. Again I know it's a nitpick, but it's inacurate to say it the way you did.

I don't think it's a nitpick. It's a pretty crucial point.

Maybe what Carnivorous Bean has in mind is that you would have to rewrite your product to conform with your GSL obligation not to use any part of the core rulebooks content outside the terms of the licence. In which case you couldn't print literally the same product.

But you could still print substantially the same product, just substituting your own language for the 4e SRD language that you are not permitted to use.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the most likely explanation proposed so far is that the lack of 3PP support, and announcements that major 3rd-party players are actually totally out of the game, has probably given more traction to the elements in WotC (read: Linae & The Rouse) who have been pushing for a more sensible GSL. I know everyone likes to pat themselves on the back, but I imagine that in this--like in most things--it's the money that's talking. Without 3PP support, 4E loses a lot of legitimacy with the old guard players, and that's probably affecting sales.

The far more likely affect on sales of non-uptake of the GSL by 3PP is not the old guard failing to come along, but rather the failure of the game to enjoy a lot of support (modules, settings etc) all of which increase the saleability and longevity of an RPG.

 

[Jack99]

No, that's a deformed mongoloid stillbirth of a company and game.

Time to break out the popcorn, me thinks...

 

[Umbran]

No, that's a ... of a company and game.

Between this, and the sexual reference earlier, I'm going to as folks to tone down the rhetoric. This is not a game of "who can disturb the most people with vehement imagery."