Adamant Ventures 4th early as well

[catsclaw227]

As stated in another thread (the Goodman Games one) I can't imagine that Adamant and Goodman got some special treatment and Necromancer Games didn't get an option to play.

I am also interested in seeing how this settles in a few days. I imagine that it will all make sense in time. Whether they are "going copyright" or not is still not known.

Clark -- if others use the copyright route, and it is encouraged by Paizo to do the same, what will Necromancer Games do?

 

[Scribble]

Someone has said "Oh but new publishers will fill the gap!". I'm sure they will. With crap. Just like the d20 STL caused floods of total junk to appear, because serious designers and publishers were less than keen on messing with that, in many cases.

It was filled with Crap because WoTC opened the flood gates without:

Any sort of guidelines about how things were done. People had to dig through and find the rules, and many weren't able to do this, or just didn't care to do this, or even notice that they needed to.

Any sort of controls. Anyone could use it for anything they wanted, and claim "Hey look it's D&D 3e compatible even though I have no idea how the system actually works, but I can put "official D&D on it!"

 

[I'm A Banana]

In fact, I have long thought that one of the reasons for the OGL was to prevent this exact thing

Indeed. Why build a wall around yourself when you can get your neighbors to build a wall around everyone? The "safe harbor" was, in part, to create a zone of lawsuit-free clarity so that the lawyers didn't have to get involved, which is expensive and embarassing for everyone.

If a preponderance of publishers for 4e decide that the little compatibility logo ain't worth what the liscence offers, they may very well go the other way. Certainly by the end of 3e, the d20 logo wasn't seen as having a very high value. Gamers who wouldn't buy anything non-WotC STILL wouldn't buy d20 stuff, and gamers who WOULD buy things outside of the juggernaut don't care that much about the compatibility logo.

But I sent an email to Wizards some months ago reminding them that as they were doing the GSL to remember the benefits of the safe harbor and that if too restrictive people could just use copyright law. That was seen as a threat and wasnt well recieved.

That saddens me, perhaps more than "going copyright" does. That WotC can be so paranoid about this as to see legitimate legal behavior as a threat is remarkably chilling. Behavior like this should be expected, even if it's not gladly accepted (and even if it is of possibly questionable legality).

I love the folks over there, but man...it doesn't look nice right now.

 

[Nadaka]

Fair Use is not something you can build a business around. For one, the burden of proof is on those doing the "Fair Use". You can be sued even if you are complying 100% with fair use, but you will likely win if it comes to court.

Re: mindflayers & displacer beasts. Check out final fantasy some time. Both of these creatures and variations have been in use since the beginning of the game series. At least Squaresoft admits that the displacer beast originally belonged to A. E. Van Vogt.

 

[Angellis_ater]

This is EXTREMELY interesting news. So far, we've only seen adventures being posted as coming out before October 1st.

 

[Jack99]

I don't know how valid your assumptions are. It seems like plenty of 3E products sold without the D&D name, perhaps simply because of where they were stocked in RPG stores, and I think "the average D&D gamer" is rather better informed, in 2008, than you give him credit for. This is not 1988, after all.

Perhaps. I have never been able to find any figures on how much D&D/d20 products make. Maybe you could provide those, it would surely be an interesting read, and it would teach me a lot about how much 3PP products actually sold.

And about the average D&D gamer - lets just agree to disagree.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Back when Paizo was considering if they should go it alone or convert to 4E, several Paizo staffers mentioned a few things that would drive them away from the GSL. Among them: GSL can be changed in the future by WotC, WotC more or less has final say over what they can publish, etc. Incase it did, Paizo had a plan B. It turns out that Paizo went plan B because publishing deadlines were coming and they didn't like how compatable/non-compatable the system sounded with established setting canon.

It would make sense that Goodman and AE both had a plan B should there be no license or the license be unfavorable to their businesses.

(Its also possible that they got special permission to publish some products early.)

 

[Jhaelen]

At least Squaresoft admits that the displacer beast originally belonged to A. E. Van Vogt.

I guess, you're referring to the 'Voyage of the Space Beagle' here. It's a novel I remember quite fondly, however, the 'Coeurl', the tentacled cat creature, didn't really have much in common with D&D's displacer beast, except being a tentacled cat.
It was more like one of those illithid-kin beasts, the 'Kigrid'. Especially considering its feeding habits.

In fact the 'Coeurl' have been my prototype for a psionic race in my first homebrew campaign. Very intelligent, very nasty

 

[Arnwyn]

Perhaps.

/snip/ and it would teach me a lot about how much 3PP products actually sold.

As I already noted in my previous response, some 3PP of note (eg. Paizo) have already stated that their products "sold/are selling good enough for them".

Many had long since dumped the d20 logo and went with no logo whatsoever, as there never was a fully agreed upon common "OGL" logo.

I'm afraid you'll probably have to take the publishers at their word (unless you have an as-yet unstated compelling reason not to...).

 

[Angellis_ater]

Gareth, want to share your wisdom? Because I'm sure you're reading this.