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

[Corjay]

I think you're being overly optimistic.

I made no optimistic statement. I made a conditional statement. "Depends on" is a conditional.

There almost wasn't any license for this edition.

I beg to differ. There was simply internal debate over the wording of the license and tabling it was discussed. (I was keeping up with the lead up to 4e's release and all the stuff about the GSL, so I'm familiar with that much.)

My best guess (and the guess of several publishers I've talked to) is that the 4E license will be free. Once publishers are more use to working with a more restrictive license, the 5E license will be paid license only.

That's very speculative. The logic there seems to be that because the license was tightened up for 4e, it will be further tightened in 5e. My thought is that if they had any such intentions, they would be working it out sooner than later, as there is no fiscal reason for creating a 14 year transition. They either want it or they don't.

While there is nothing wrong with that, it does move away from the core idea of Wizards of 8 years ago. The core idea of 8 years ago at Wizards was listen to the customer and give them EXACTLY what they want. Wizards today definitely listens to their customers. (Hell, the current model they're using for campaign settings originated at ENWorld and I was one of many people that suggested something quite similar to its current incarnation.) But enough of the decisions ... well ... appear to have gone through many committees, and the final product barely resembles the initial intent.

I again beg to differ. When you look at the playtesting credits, there was clearly more input coming in than your limited circle. In fact, this is the most playtested game I have ever seen and they've been working on it for four years. That's a long time to come up with new ideas and innovations. Actually, I have seen every one of my own suggestions implemented in this edition, including my ideas for the license. Not everyone's ideas are going to fit with everyone else's. But what you just testified to is that your ideas were explored and over time they chose ideas that tested better.

The GSL is a prime example. The original intent at GenCon 07 was to have 4E be OGL. But to me the GSL reads like something that started off as OGL 2.0 but got went through 10 months of committee meetings and various departments and each making changes and the final product is far from its initial intent, ineffective at reaching its stated goals, and confusing.

You're probably right. In fact, in the end it was slow going out the door because they could not come to a consensus. I have a feeling it has more to do with their legal department than the committee, because there was a whole lot of legal text in the GSL, whereas the OGL is virtually devoid of legal speak.

So when I was quick to point out a page ago that I didn't say that WotC is the world's most evil corporation, I quickly pointed out that I never said that. Wizards today appears to be a corporation filled with "weasels" (to borrow the Scott Adams definition of the term), atleast to me. Is that good, no. Is that bad, ehhh no. It just is. But I do not see it as effective in the long run as Wizards of 8 years ago.

I believe the weaseling to be coming from their contract division. That's my opinion and yours is your opinion, but I believe the legalese to be testifying to my viewpoint. I would be interested to hear any more that you would like to offer to support your view as it speaks to WOTC's motive. Regarding game mechanics, you are saying that WOTC listens to the fan base, but in regard to the GSL, you say they are being weaselly. I merely interpret the GSL to be a response to suggestions from those such as myself who said WOTC needed a tighter license that protects their bottom line, while an overzealous lawyer executed this instruction to the extreme.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Ok. If you're certain about such things, then there's nothing more I can really add.

 

[Corjay]

By saying I was interested in what else you have to offer on the subject, I was trying to relate my willingness to adjust my viewpoint in light of further information. By stating that it was based on concrete evidence, I mean only to state that it's the strongest evidence available to me at this time, so I only need opposing or better evidence to open my view up.

I hope I didn't block you from speaking further about it.

 

[Ranger REG]

By saying I was interested in what else you have to offer on the subject, I was trying to relate my willingness to adjust my viewpoint in light of further information. By stating that it was based on concrete evidence, I mean only to state that it's the strongest evidence available to me at this time, so I only need opposing or better evidence to open my view up.

I hope I didn't block you from speaking further about it.

And I have yet to be convinced that GSL is a good thing if not better than the previous predecessors, as it stand. So far, there is no mention of content sharing, only between WotC-to-3PP (not 3PP-to-3PP), even then 4e Reference cannot be reprinted.

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Corjay]

I never said it was a good thing as it stands. I said it would be good if and when section 2, and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 are rewritten to protect the licensee. Anyway, this discussion isn't about whether the GSL is good or bad. It's about WOTC's motives with the GSL.

Content sharing is prohibited in the GSL. The reason being (as far as I can tell) that WOTC doesn't want 3pp's using the D&D system to create a thousand different systems. They want a unified system where everyone's product is compatible with everyone else's, and it all relies upon the D&D core rulebooks. ...one system to rule them all.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Content sharing is prohibited in the GSL. The reason being (as far as I can tell) that WOTC doesn't want 3pp's using the D&D system to create a thousand different systems. They want a unified system where everyone's product is compatible with everyone else's, and it all relies upon the D&D core rulebooks. ...one system to rule them all.

3 core books compatable with everyone else's was the way it was in 3E.

But the #1 most referenced book (outside the SRD itself) is Necromancer's Tome of Horrors. Oddly enough, Orcus (the president of Necromancer Games) is one of the most respected voices in d20 community. His rejection of the GSL got Wizards to change it. Coincidence, no. Content sharing builds community. Lack of content sharing ... well ... divide and conquer. Remember, not crush, but slowly grind (away at the community) into a fine powder.

 

[Ranger REG]

I never said it was a good thing as it stands.

Really? Because all this time your posts seems to support the GSL.

 

[Corjay]

Really? Because all this time your posts seems to support the GSL.

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.

 

[Corjay]

3 core books compatable with everyone else's was the way it was in 3E.

I know that. But I wasn't talking about simple compatibility. I was talking about how now licensees (GSL) and their customers must depend on the D&D books. It's more than just compatibility.

But the #1 most referenced book (outside the SRD itself) is Necromancer's Tome of Horrors. Oddly enough, Orcus (the president of Necromancer Games) is one of the most respected voices in d20 community. His rejection of the GSL got Wizards to change it. Coincidence, no. Content sharing builds community. Lack of content sharing ... well ... divide and conquer. Remember, not crush, but slowly grind (away at the community) into a fine powder.

I seriously doubt it was his rejection alone. If you have something to support that statement, I'll accept it. But if Orcus had been the only one to reject it, I don't think it would have had any impact at all. It's clear to me that the problem is that less than a handful of publishers accepted the GSL and the whole community went up in arms. That's not a good thing. I haven't seen anyone chanting "Necromancer" or "Orcus". All the opinions I've seen were people either identifying the problems independently, or incorrectly diagnosing the problems or parroting the misguided views of others. I don't doubt that Necromancer has some amount of weight of influence regarding the GSL, 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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

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.

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.


Cheers,
Zapp

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