Matt James
Game Developer
How are they not cooperating? Can you provide me specific examples of what is needed/required?
Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias
- Thread starter Wicht
- Start date
- Status
That exists right here on EN World, 24/7, on a large scale. The fact that it's not WotC doing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example - free daily news updates about any publisher's work.
Wicht
Hero
WotC mentioning the products of 3pp on their website would be a nice start, imo.
Wicht
Hero
And I appreciate it too. Thank you.
But it would still be nice of WotC would toss a bone every now and then. YMMV.
Matt James
Game Developer
Wicht,
I don't feel like you and I are disagreeing completely. However, the open letter referenced in this thread reads more like a sense of entitlement than anything else. The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. It's entirely too easy for people to write letters like this and get nothing but attaboys from the community. It's pandering to a crowd that will gladly "damn the man".
I don't feel like you and I are disagreeing completely. However, the open letter referenced in this thread reads more like a sense of entitlement than anything else. The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. It's entirely too easy for people to write letters like this and get nothing but attaboys from the community. It's pandering to a crowd that will gladly "damn the man".
Perram
Explorer
I'm not interested in "damn the man." And I don't agree with every point in his article, but at the same time, I agree with the idea of it.
You call it whining, and I call it justified frustration. WotC's support for 3pp is almost non-existent. And I would say what they have is ANTI support in place, to be honest. They have left that community to completely fend for itself in a market where their direct competition is getting waves of support from Paizo.
I believe that the GSL was just a stalling tactic used to wind down any and all 3rd party publishing associated with "D&D", and that it worked. I am glad that there are a few people left hanging on and dealing with this environment to put out terrific products.
If WotC WANTS 3pp support, then they need to do something, anything to give a nod to them, to link the community and shape it.
From where I'm sitting, they are doing what they can to drive it away instead, intentionally.
Matt James
Game Developer
You realize you can publish content without the GSL, right? Open Design/Kobold Quarterly is the biggest example. You need to provide examples of how they are actively acting against 3rd-party publishers if you are going to make that claim. Your red herring is not in any way contributing to the debate.
Last edited:
Perram
Explorer
I don't see how a suggestion to publish material outside the GSL is a fair suggestion to publishers who are wanting support from WotC. In fact, it is explicitly abandoning the support and opening yourself up to legal complications as well as an even thinner tight-rope of what you are and aren't allowed to do. At least the GSL explicitly gives you guidelines of what will not incur the wrath of the WotC lawyers. (IANAL)
And this is, at least, is NOT a red herring. Many community sites were sent Cease and Desist letters following 4e's launch.
As to how I feel that WotC actually wants to discourage 3pp support? Again, I won't bring up publishing outside of WotC's licenses, as doing that is very clearly choosing to NOT be involved in WotC's support system.
1) The initial launch of the GSL was delayed so much that even the groups that would have payed for the 'early access' to the GSL ($5k) were not going to get it in time to have product ready at launch under the GSL. This is one of the main reasons that Pathfinder the game even exists.
You can follow Paizo's own blog posts on their site before the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG to see the role that the continued delay of receiving the GSL led to their decision to not support 4e.
2) WotC's requirement to reference their books product in the GSL meant that publishers material would become quickly out of date as 4e products have been subject to extremely heavy errata and revision, relying on DDI to an extreme.
3) WotC's push of DDI as /the/ way to play 4e, and at the same time locking out any 3rd party support of what they consider their most important product.
4) The GSL poison pill. While it got removed months after 4e's launch, it left publishers having to choose to abandon their old product / d20 or support 4e. BUT the ability to support 4e at all was delayed by the late release of the GSL.
Matt James
Game Developer
Perram,
I'm sorry man, but you keep using argument fallacies in an attempt to derail the original topic. If you want to have a discussion about DDI, let's open another thread. Furthermore, you keep pushing back to the GSL as another pillar of your argument, and fail to acknowledge that it is not what's holding anyone back. As it relates to the OGL (3.x), there is no other choice other than to be open and accepting--the license specifically lays all of this out. It is not some great gift to society from Paizo--they are following the license as well.
Can you point me to a specific 4e product that was revoked by WotC, or challenged by their legal staff? The CnD notification you speak of, were directly related to sites that were syphoning WotC's IP and repackaging it. Some of the sites adapted, others shut down. Let's go through your points.
1) GSL is not required. Problem solved. Unless you are specifically using images or content contained within the GSL, you are free to use it or not. This is how other 3rd-party publishers have largely adapted.
2) Means nothing when considering point #1
3) DDI has nothing to do with the GSL. You are trying to use additional argument fallacies to prove a point that doesn't exist. Or, in the very least, trying to stretch a point.
4) Not true, please see point #1
I have a 3rd-party sourcebook out right now, as we speak, and in no fashion have I received any complaints about its applicability to the existing game.
So lets try to steer this back on topic. The original author of the "open letter" wants WotC to advertise his products, dedicated space on WotC's servers, provide awards and rewards, and distribute his products.
What a load of crap. That open letter shows little more than a frustrated publisher (writer?) that wants the larger company to take over his responsibilities. The successful designers out there fight tooth and nail to develop quality products, while working to get the word out about said products. He is using the GSL (like some others) as a means to garnish dissent against WotC.
If you are upset because the GSL will not let you use specific monsters that belong to the Wizards' IP, cool. I get that. But to say you can't do your work because of it, is just plain incorrect.
I'm sorry man, but you keep using argument fallacies in an attempt to derail the original topic. If you want to have a discussion about DDI, let's open another thread. Furthermore, you keep pushing back to the GSL as another pillar of your argument, and fail to acknowledge that it is not what's holding anyone back. As it relates to the OGL (3.x), there is no other choice other than to be open and accepting--the license specifically lays all of this out. It is not some great gift to society from Paizo--they are following the license as well.
Can you point me to a specific 4e product that was revoked by WotC, or challenged by their legal staff? The CnD notification you speak of, were directly related to sites that were syphoning WotC's IP and repackaging it. Some of the sites adapted, others shut down. Let's go through your points.
1) GSL is not required. Problem solved. Unless you are specifically using images or content contained within the GSL, you are free to use it or not. This is how other 3rd-party publishers have largely adapted.
2) Means nothing when considering point #1
3) DDI has nothing to do with the GSL. You are trying to use additional argument fallacies to prove a point that doesn't exist. Or, in the very least, trying to stretch a point.
4) Not true, please see point #1
I have a 3rd-party sourcebook out right now, as we speak, and in no fashion have I received any complaints about its applicability to the existing game.
So lets try to steer this back on topic. The original author of the "open letter" wants WotC to advertise his products, dedicated space on WotC's servers, provide awards and rewards, and distribute his products.
What a load of crap. That open letter shows little more than a frustrated publisher (writer?) that wants the larger company to take over his responsibilities. The successful designers out there fight tooth and nail to develop quality products, while working to get the word out about said products. He is using the GSL (like some others) as a means to garnish dissent against WotC.
If you are upset because the GSL will not let you use specific monsters that belong to the Wizards' IP, cool. I get that. But to say you can't do your work because of it, is just plain incorrect.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
When Jon Brazer Enterprises considered expanding into a fantasy market a while back, we looked long and hard at Paizo's license vs WotC's license (good vs. scary). Then we looked at how Paizo and WotC treat their licensees (good vs apathy). Then we discreetly talked to hard core gamers of both groups and asked about their buying interests (generally open to 3rd party support vs. generally steadfastly against any 3rd party support except for tepid interest in adventures). Then we watched DriveThru/RPGNow's top 100 like a hawk and found that more Pathfinder 3rd party products were higher than their 4E counterparts.
In the end, we went Pathfinder. We didn't feel there was a choice to be made. The decision for us was obvious. We haven't considered switching since. From our prospective, 4E is just not a viable market.
If WotC really, actually wants a 3rd party market at all, they have to make changes. Its not a statement of entitlement or whining. Its a business decision. Plain and simple.
In the end, we went Pathfinder. We didn't feel there was a choice to be made. The decision for us was obvious. We haven't considered switching since. From our prospective, 4E is just not a viable market.
If WotC really, actually wants a 3rd party market at all, they have to make changes. Its not a statement of entitlement or whining. Its a business decision. Plain and simple.
- Status
Similar Threads
