Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?

[dmccoy1693]

but I can't imagine that they have so much influence that WOTC's decision to revise the GSL was based solely on Necromancer's rejection.

solely, no. straw the broke the camel's back, yes. Orcus made his huge announcement that he's not going to go GSL as is and a week later, WotC announced changes to the GSL are coming. I'm sure Scott and Lidda have been begging their higher ups to agree to making changes, but when they had Necro to point to, their boss finally relented. Had the idea of making changes been approved before Orcus released the Advanced Players Guide back to Ari to take elsewhere, I'm guessing that someone would have told Orcus, "pst, don't do anything rash just yet. Wait a few more days."

Orcus said for months before the GSL's release that if he didn't like new license, he could always get a seperate license. His announcement was based on the fact that was unable to secure a definite that changes to the GSL are even being entertained and he was unable to secure a seperate license.

 

[Corjay]

dmccoy: I was thinking about something I said earlier and I realized that there's a big difference between the input I've given on the game in the forums and what a playtester might be able to give. My suggestions were more general and easy to say that what I suggested was applied, but for playtesters, their suggestions are considerably more specific, because they have an intimate involvement with the rules development. So I just want to apologize for the presumption on my part there. That said, the point I was making is still valid in that ideas come and go until the right one is chosen that achieves the general request. And my general requests were requested by more people than just me.

Sorry, I keep losing you here. Why risk coming across as an WotC apologist, when we agree on the practical end evaluation: As more than zero "things" in the GSL are bad, the GSL is bad.

I'm not an absolutest. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There's just no reason for it. I'm not going to ask WOTC to throw the whole thing out and start over only to recreate the same document from scratch minus the bad parts. It's meaningless.

To return on topic (i.e. speculating on WotC's goals for the GSL): My view is that WotC's intent with the GSL (as opposed to keep using the OGL) is to kill off variant d20 games, where you only need the PHB, and then can go off buying only the products for that other game line. Furthermore, my view is that this is specifically bad for WotC (not only its public image, but its coffers too), not to mention us the customers and our lack of choice, and certainly not to mention the financial health of the 3PP industry.

No argument here. If that was WOTC's intent, it was indeed a bad mistake. Even if not, the license that resulted still ended up in those circumstances and is costing WOTC tons of money. Now WOTC, with all it's mistakes in the past year is now in middle of what may very well be its biggest reorganization since acquiring TSR.

PS. After we have all contributed our wild speculations, there isn't really anything more to say in this thread, is there?

You keep saying things like that. Is it really that important to end the conversation because you want it to be so? No one asked you to be here. Like I said before, if you don't want to be a part of this conversation, you don't have to be here.

 

[Corjay]

solely, no. straw the broke the camel's back, yes. Orcus made his huge announcement that he's not going to go GSL as is and a week later, WotC announced changes to the GSL are coming. I'm sure Scott and Lidda have been begging their higher ups to agree to making changes, but when they had Necro to point to, their boss finally relented. Had the idea of making changes been approved before Orcus released the Advanced Players Guide back to Ari to take elsewhere, I'm guessing that someone would have told Orcus, "pst, don't do anything rash just yet. Wait a few more days."

Orcus said for months before the GSL's release that if he didn't like new license, he could always get a seperate license. His announcement was based on the fact that was unable to secure a definite that changes to the GSL are even being entertained and he was unable to secure a seperate license.

That makes sense.

 

[dmccoy1693]

dmccoy: I was thinking about something I said earlier and I realized that there's a big difference between the input I've given on the game in the forums and what a playtester might be able to give. My suggestions were more general and easy to say that what I suggested was applied, but for playtesters, their suggestions are considerably more specific, because they have an intimate involvement with the rules development. So I just want to apologize for the presumption on my part there. That said, the point I was making is still valid in that ideas come and go until the right one is chosen that achieves the general request.

I wasn't a playtester. I was referring to other scenarios. Best example I have (offhand) is settings. Wizards is releasing 3 books per setting and doing one setting a year. IMO, great for smaller, less played settings. But the Forgotten Realms?!? Books on how the dalelands have changes or Thay or Zentel Keep or etc would be great. Nothing, just a core book, players guide and an adventure.

There are other, better examples, but my mind is blanking.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's speculation.

Oh, I see how this is going to work. Someone will suggest a way in which WotC benefitted from the OGL, and you will say "That's speculation." whatever it is, right? Because barring actual WotC employees coming here and saying ways in which they benefitted, EVERYTHING anyone suggests could be argued to be speculation.

Personally, I don't think it's particularly "speculative" to suggest that the OGL benefitted WotC by making D&D even better known, by teaching mechanics that are generally very similar to those of D&D (by your OWN reckoning) to a lot of players, some of who were not otherwise D&D players, and very importantly, by generally helping to make "d20" the market standard in a way the d20 STL utterly failed to. It also benefitted WotC by helping to teach those mechanics and ways of manipulating those mechanics to a veritable legion of game designers, some of whom ended up employed in 4E's design.

Anecdotally, I would have been extremely unlikely to even have bothered with 4E if the OGL hadn't existed, because OGL games are the only things that kept me interested in the potential of d20-type games, and specifically, hearing that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls was big part of the design team. If I'd never seen Iron Heroes, I'd never have had cause to have been impressed with Mike Mearls, his name would have been meaningless, and that game only existed due to the OGL.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Double post.

 

[Ranger REG]

Yeah, you keep saying that, and I keep correcting you. See the thing is that you're coming from the view that if one thing in the GSL is bad, then it's all bad. I am coming from the view that good parts and bad parts can coexist in the same document. But here's the kicker: I recognize that it only take one bad thing to make the whole document unusable. But that doesn't change the fact that other parts can still be good. If you trade out the bad things for good things, then there's no reason to trade out the other parts that are good just because they co-existed at one time next to a bad part. It's not like the badness of any one part is insipid so that it infects the good parts like a bad apple. The GSL is not acceptable in its current incarnation. Replace the few bad parts of the GSL with good parts and the GSL can succeed. I do not support the GSL in its current form. I do support its potential if the bad parts are replaced.

And what are its potential, compared to the d20 System Trademark License?

 

[Corjay]

Oh, I see how this is going to work. Someone will suggest a way in which WotC benefitted from the OGL, and you will say "That's speculation." whatever it is, right? Because barring actual WotC employees coming here and saying ways in which they benefitted, EVERYTHING anyone suggests could be argued to be speculation.

Granted. Allow me to clarify what I mean by "speculative". I mean that there are no sufficient grounds for the speculation. I could use the word "specious" instead, but I figure that would be offensive.

 

[Corjay]

Personally, I don't think it's particularly "speculative" to suggest that the OGL benefitted WotC by making D&D even better known, by teaching mechanics that are generally very similar to those of D&D (by your OWN reckoning) to a lot of players, some of who were not otherwise D&D players, and very importantly, by generally helping to make "d20" the market standard in a way the d20 STL utterly failed to. It also benefitted WotC by helping to teach those mechanics and ways of manipulating those mechanics to a veritable legion of game designers, some of whom ended up employed in 4E's design.

You're changing what I made the statement in regard to. If you want to give back-up to dmccoy's theory that the 5e license is going to be even more restrictive than the 4e, then you would be on the right track, but that's not what you're saying here, so you've completely missed the point of what I said. You replaced my statement to him with my other arguments. That said, the OGL never even pointed to D&D. It pointed to d20. To claim that the OGL made D&D more famous is also lacking grounds, as no direct link between D&D popularity and the OGL can be established, especially since D&D is a cultural icon and no other RPG is.

Anecdotally, I would have been extremely unlikely to even have bothered with 4E if the OGL hadn't existed, because OGL games are the only things that kept me interested in the potential of d20-type games, and specifically, hearing that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls was big part of the design team. If I'd never seen Iron Heroes, I'd never have had cause to have been impressed with Mike Mearls, his name would have been meaningless, and that game only existed due to the OGL.

I don't think traveling down a completely different time line where the abscence of a pivotal event that would so drastically alter things that you can't possibly know what you would do in that universe would count as anecdotal evidence.

 

[pemerton]

Repeating something I said upthread, with respect to Mearls: TSR was able to recruit Monte Cook, who cut his teeth at ICE, and went on to become perhaps the most recognised of D&D/d20 designers.

Why would the absence of an OGL make things any different with respect to WoTC and Mearls? Mearls would have been designing games somewhere, and WoTC could have picked him up, and those familiar with his earlier work could thereby be attracted to 4e.