Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[Raven Crowking]

I lack boardsearch, but your point would easily be proven by providing a link from the initial conversation, nay?

Sadly, I also lack boardsearch.

But it should be fairly easy to examine the following:

1. When was the $5,000 requested?
2. How much time is needed to develop product for August release?
3. When was the GSL available?

I will, of couse, admit error if any non-WotC publisher, anywhere, says that they saw the GSL prior to forking over the cash, if they did in fact fork over the cash.

Fair?


RC

 

[Scribble]

So, instead, you have a new race called "Aelfs" or whatever....

Sure, but then it's no longer an elf. It's an Aelf, or whatever.

(Also, thus far, WOTC has been close-mouthed and contradictory about what "redefine" and "extend" mean. There's no real explicit elf culture, history, etc, in the PHB. I can't reference the "implied world" in any 3PP; but can I create my own "elf history", as long as the elf mechanics are not changed? Can I create "Silver Elves", "Cave Elves" or "Cloud Elves"? Is that "extension" or "redefinition"? )

This is true. I don't have those answers, and am awaiting them myself.

And was there ever a problem with 3x supplements claiming to be about "Elves", but, instead, were about short fat hairy-footed farmers? Seems that any product which veered off from the common-law definition of an "Elf" just created a new race to begin with.

My use of the elf wasn't attempting to claim any specific issue. It was an example made to illustrate what I was saying. You have to take the entire thing into account.

Again I'm not Mr Ryan, so I have no real idea if that's actually what he meant.

In my oen idea, I think it's also attempting to encourage people to design for D&D, as opposed to just using D&D's concepts. (Whether or not you believe the concepts belong to D&D is open for debate.)

It's not designed to have someone take D&D and turn it into a new game. it's designed to let you make stuff for D&D, take it or leave it.

I don't think they really care if you leave it either. I think they feel the amount of business 3pp sent their way is negligeable, and if they sign off, so be it. Their choice. No animosity or anger, just business.

 

[Banshee16]

For example, by saying someone can't redefine what an Elf is, the consumer doesn't have to worry about a mass of products giving difefrent versions of elves burrying the product he's actually looking for- Feats designed to be used with WoTC's version of the elf.

They might still be poorly edited, and using bad math skillz, but at least when it says it's a product about an elf, you know exactly what "elf" means.

Again, whether or not you think this leads to a better product, is up for debate I guess.

This is where I, as a consumer, have a problem. If I, as a GM, am not interested in WotC's 4E definition of something (and there are plenty of things I don't care for), then the GSL is effectively preventing me from gaining access to products that have an alternate way of envisioning those things. As a consumer, why would I spend money on a game that doesn't do what I want, and is *also* limited by a GSL that doesn't allow third party publishers to create what I want to buy?

It's entirely in WotC's right to do this. They own the game. But as a consumer, it's my right to say "fine, you're not getting any more of my money".

Where it gets frustrating is that they've changed the direction of the game, and the GSL limits my ability to choose other products that do things differently, and more in line with what I would like to buy/play/run. It's a little like voting. If I don't vote, I can't complain about what the politicians do. In this case though, if I don't spend my money on their products, then I'm not really a consumer that they care to edit their products to serve. All I can hope is that if I go from spending hundreds a year on their books to zero, and other consumers do the same thing, then they'll take the hint.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I don't think they really care if you leave it either. I think they feel the amount of business 3pp sent their way is negligeable, and if they sign off, so be it. Their choice. No animosity or anger, just business.

Well, it's a bit of an ABAB experiment then. They can say that 3PP didn't send enough money their way........but 3E experienced a massive surge in players, and consumers.

If they end up drastically reducing the number of third party products, and sales continue to go up, then one could draw a rough, though unscientific conclusion that maybe third party companies didn't contribute much to the popularity of 3E.

But if sales levels go *down*, after reducing the number of third party products, then one could say that it's possible that the third party publishers brought more consumers to 3E than WotC thought.......though the vast difference between 3E and 4E would also be a factor to examine.

Banshee

 

[The Little Raven]

1. When was the $5,000 requested?

It was requested to be paid after an NDA was signed, and after the NDA-covered company/person read the GSL. So, you learn the terms of the license (but can't reveal it to anyone) before you are asked to pay for the development kit.

2. How much time is needed to develop product for August release?

At the time they were talking about it, there was going to be something like 6 months between the GSL and the development kit's availability and the August release date. That's not a lot of time for anyone, especially publishers like Paizo that need more lead-in time.

3. When was the GSL available?

It was supposed to be available in Q1 2008, but ended up being released after 4th Edition was released.

I will, of couse, admit error if any non-WotC publisher, anywhere, says that they saw the GSL prior to forking over the cash, if they did in fact fork over the cash.

Nobody paid the $5,000. At all. The plan for Phase 1 & Phase 2 publishing was abandoned sometime in Q2 2008.

 

[Scribble]

This is where I, as a consumer, have a problem. If I, as a GM, am not interested in WotC's 4E definition of something (and there are plenty of things I don't care for), then the GSL is effectively preventing me from gaining access to products that have an alternate way of envisioning those things. As a consumer, why would I spend money on a game that doesn't do what I want, and is *also* limited by a GSL that doesn't allow third party publishers to create what I want to buy?

Not at all. The GSL says you can't change what has already been defined. So an elf remains an elf.

It desn't say you can't add to it.

Like if I design a new version of device that stores information. I wouldn't call it a hardrive. I might call it an SD card, or a USB drive, but not a hardrive.

So if I'm designing a new version of an elf, maybe I'll call it the Alternate Elf or soemthing, so the option still exists to "improve" someone's game, but it won't get too confusing for those just looking for elves.

It's entirely in WotC's right to do this. They own the game. But as a consumer, it's my right to say "fine, you're not getting any more of my money".

Sure, you're free to spend your money however you want.

Where it gets frustrating is that they've changed the direction of the game, and the GSL limits my ability to choose other products that do things differently, and more in line with what I would like to buy/play/run.

See above... As it could be argued that it helps your ability to do just that.

Example: If I walk into a store that sells movies I would rather they each have a unique name instead of Sci-Fi Drama, or Comedy Film.

It's a little like voting. If I don't vote, I can't complain about what the politicians do. In this case though, if I don't spend my money on their products, then I'm not really a consumer that they care to edit their products to serve. All I can hope is that if I go from spending hundreds a year on their books to zero, and other consumers do the same thing, then they'll take the hint.

Sure, if you feel that strongly about the issue, more power to you...

Well, it's a bit of an ABAB experiment then. They can say that 3PP didn't send enough money their way........but 3E experienced a massive surge in players, and consumers.

Businesses usually have a bit more to go on about their consumers then just guesses.

My guess is they weighed the number of gamers that seem to purchase only "official" WoTC stuff vrs the number of gamers that have a vested interest in 3pp stuff, and made the choice based on that.

I have no inside info though, so my guess is just that- a guess.

 

[jeffh]

No, not really. Not like this. Imagine this: WotC doesn't like Mongoose's success with Traveller eating into their d20 modern/future market. So they change the GSL to include, "you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL" (which is what WotC wanted in there originally, so I believe it is just a matter of time before that comes).

And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?

 

[jeffh]

How does a free license with no approval process reduce product number (glut) or increase product quality?

Well, it can, and from the look of things, will, accomplish the first of those things simply by having other terms that are so unattractive that relatively few publishers are willing to play ball.

How it's supposed to accomplish the second, though, is indeed unclear. The arguments for it pushing quality down and for having no particular effect on it one way or the other seem about equally strong. The arguments for it pushing it up seem ill-thought-out at best.

 

[Delta]

And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?

The month before the GSL was released, WOTC presented a FAQ that actually asserted that was going to be the case ("you cannot publish anything again that uses the OGL"). You had a situation where at least one WOTC spokesperson responded to a direct question about it and said "yes" (along with some snide "why would you expect otherwise" commentary).

Then they went back and said they were revising it and it was toned down a bit. I followed that pretty closely.

 

[Delta]

Myself, I think that if Open Gaming failed at all it was because too many changes were made to the core of the D&D game... So in a sense Open Gaming started off on the wrong foot because it stated up front that D&D was so successful because it was so popular and familiar, but right out of the gate they made changes that ended up (a few years down the road, for many of us) alienating a lot of the core audience.

Korgoth, that was entirely a great post and really insightful. In particular, I'd never previously considered the above observation, but I totally agree with it now that you've pointed it out. It very much encapsulates my own struggles choosing between 1E and d20 gaming sources.