Boing Boing on the GSL !

[Wulf Ratbane]

I love that headline, though .... straight out of the handbook of yellow journalism, you might say ....

"Sleazy proposed new Dungeons and Dragons license seeks to poison open gaming systems"

Ah, neutrality.

Huh?

He's not a journalist.

Why in the world would you assume that Corey Doctorow and BoingBoing are neutral on Open systems?

That's like reading a glowing 4e press release from Wizards and calling it "yellow journalism."

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Still it can really hurt a small company since they can no longer get access to both revenue streams. The fact is many people aren't going to upgrade simply because (at least in the US) they can't afford to -- or because they are happy with what they have. It would be nice to serve both markets with one product

I really want to go and edit that to say "citation needed". Who are these "many people" - the support for 4e on these boards far outweighs the negative comments in every poll that someone has run - and I whilst I fully appreciate that this is a somewhat biased set of people to be running polls for, it seems unlikely that 4e won't sell extremely well.

You might as well make an argument that Microsoft put software companies out of business by changing an edition of Windows - nothing that WotC is doing is stopping people from having great ideas and publishing books to make money from those ideas (I believe the $5000 was only for those companies that wanted the Core books early?)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your understanding of the process and your summation is facile at best.

Uhm, I'm gonna let Wulf field this, since his knowledge is probably more complete than my own, but my understanding matches his. The d20STL was to sell core books. The OGL was a different beast entirely, and its purpose was manifold.

And, again, nothing in any new GSL will ever be able to prevent a company from making a compatible 4e product and just not calling it that, or even from taking 4e, mixing it up a little, and publishing it under a different name.

What WotC would hope to accomplish with a "poison pill" tactic would be...arcane at best, since it makes them seem like jealous feudal lords and does absolutely nothing from stopping people from mimicing or making things compatible with their system.

I love that headline, though .... straight out of the handbook of yellow journalism, you might say ....

"Sleazy proposed new Dungeons and Dragons license seeks to poison open gaming systems"

Ah, neutrality.

Do you have any familiarity with the topics and nature of Boing Boing or even Cory? Have A Look.

I'll leaven the discussion of media neutrality up to the professors and the scholars, but really, accusing Boing Boing of pushing some anti-WotC agenda is at best, missing the point.

They (and others) have a problem with what appears to be WotC trying to close a system that was open. There's a lot more significance behind that then our little game, that's for sure.

 

[Kishin]

If by "Well said," you mean, "Utterly Incorrect," I agree with you.

The OGL was NEVER about pimping D&D. It was about pimping the d20 system and milking network externalities.

There is not one word in the OGL about Dungeons and Dragons, unless you count the copyright notice in itty bitty type on the last line of the OGL itself.

The d20STL was about pimping D&D. THAT is the license that requires you to refer back to Dungeons and Dragons, or Wizards of the Coast, by name.

My apologies. I seem to have swapped them in my mind. Though I still say at the very least, the mere existence of the OGL refers back to D&D, as some people make the d20 leap in their minds. However, I readily concede this is from the perspective of someone who follows the community/industry through websites like ENWorld; It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in some cases that connection wouldn't be as readily made.

They (and others) have a problem with what appears to be WotC trying to close a system that was open. There's a lot more significance behind that then our little game, that's for sure.

Hence the reason Cory Doctorow has decided to stick his nose in it.

Let's be realistic. Stuff like this happens all the time. If a company wants to do something like what's being speculated, they can and will, and there's very little people can do about it.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Huh?

He's not a journalist.

Why in the world would you assume that Corey Doctorow and BoingBoing are neutral on Open systems?

That's like reading a glowing 4e press release from Wizards and calling it "yellow journalism."

And never did I state that this was journalism or that this goon, whoever he is (and frankly, I don't care) is a journalist.

I was employing "yellow journalism" as a descriptive, comparative term -- like "mudslinging," even though mud is not involved. Or "smearing," even though no physical substance may be repeatedly rubbed out to a thin layer.

But I forgot that I was dealing with gamers, who pursue semantic hairsplitting with frantic diligence. A thousand pardons.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I was employing "yellow journalism" as a descriptive, comparative term -- like "mudslinging," even though mud is not involved. Or "smearing," even though no physical substance may be repeatedly rubbed out to a thin layer.

The point is, it's not any of those things.

Neither BB nor Cory nor, really, anyone else that I know of, have any need or desire to blaspheme against the holy name of WotC.

You're obscuring the issue by casting aspersions on the source. BB used the kind of language it always uses to bring up the kind of thing is ALWAYS brings up, and you mention it like that should discredit it.

It doesn't.

The issue isn't "Do these guys want to hurt WotC?" Because a quick glance of the author or the blog would tell you, no, they're not particularly interested in that.

It would turn up Cory's (and by extention Boing Boing's) obvious Open System leanings and reveal the *true* biases, which aren't hidden under a veneer of attempted neutrality, but presented from a specific perspective, as readers would expect.

That's not yellow journalism or mudslinging or smearing. That's basically someone posting their opinion in place where people who care about that opinion will see it. Related, really, to what you just did in posting there.

By claiming that it's any of those things, you seem to want to say "They cannot be trusted because they hate Wizards!" when obviously that's not true.

But I forgot that I was dealing with gamers, who pursue semantic hairsplitting with frantic diligence. A thousand pardons

Oh, plus, you're being a jerk. Kindly stop.

 

[Mistwell]

At some point it is not a matter of what I can afford, but my making a ethical decision with my money. I can afford to own a gas guzzler, I choose to ride my bicycle to work. I can afford to own a home theater, I choose to take my family on overseas vacations. I can afford to by 4E several times over, but with this announcement (and the delayed GSL), I've decided that I prefer the products put out by 3rd party companies. I hadn't pre-ordered 4E, I've been on the fence and withholding my decision. This latest GSL fiasco has convinced me to buy another 4 of Goodman Games DCC adventures and keep putting the pre-order 4E on hold. I ordered the DCC adventures today. I still have not pre-ordered 4E. (I actually have so many Necromancer Games sourcebook/adventures lying around that I will not have a chance to read the DCC adventures for a few months).

That isn't a decision about being able to afford 4e, however, which is what I was responding to.

I also think it's unwise to make a decision based on rumor and hearsay, which is what we have right now. "The latest GSL fiasco" is exactly that. This idea that the same company cannot work on both 3e and 4e products isn't confirmed, and that is the "fiasco" part of it from what I have seen.

 

[Eridanis]

Let's take a break from name-calling on all sides, please. Stick to the topic.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But I forgot that I was dealing with gamers, who pursue semantic hairsplitting with frantic diligence. A thousand pardons.

I call shenanigans. I only count one "pardon."

 

[Kishin]

The issue isn't "Do these guys want to hurt WotC?" Because a quick glance of the author or the blog would tell you, no, they're not particularly interested in that.

One could argue that this certainly is a stab at WoTC, because, while Cory Doctorow bears WoTC itself no ill will, he definitely doesn't think very highly of those who don't share his view on copyright.