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

[xechnao]

Doublep

 

[dmccoy1693]

My basic point is that 20% of the 5 large companies known for quality that felt that the old business model acceptable to work with do not feel that the current model is acceptable. 80% are either going other routes or are not announcing what they are doing.

Goodman Games ... seems to indicate that they're not using the GSL. However, they've also announced that they're canceling their 3.5 DCC line, which seems to be in line with the GSL.

Necromancer Games [has] been silent

Necro hasn't announced if they are or are not GSL compliant or not. Neither has Goodman. That's my basic point. They are "not announcing what they are doing." So from a strict, Go/No-Go standpoint of the License, we have confirmation of 1 being Go and 4 are either No-Go or unannounced.

Its been a month. There has been enough time for Mongoose to be apply and be approved. If Goodman and Necro were going to do so, they probably would have done so by now.

As for Goodman having a 50% sell off of the DCCs well, that could simply be a "trying to clear the warehouse before the clock runs out on the d20 license," or maybe trying to quickly generate additional revenue for large print runs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No one paid the $5000. We were all waiting on the GSL that was never delivered.

Thank you for the insight, and I'll take a look at the threads that you linked to.

Well, from what I understand, Tome of Horrors 4e is off the table because Clark doesn't want to lock away that IP.

The Advanced Player's Guide is tricky because of the "can't redefine" issue and the assumption that eventually things like druids, monks, etc. will be added to the SRD later. But that's easily avoided by the lame name game of a "Druidic Protector" class, and such.

But Clark's silence on his specific plans since the GSL release isn't comforting.

Agree.

Clark being on board was the one real ray of light in the 4e tunnel.

Of course, if Clark sticks with 3e or a modified 3e, that will probably end up much, much better for me!


RC

 

[Voadam]

A simple question (or maybe two, not sure)

For all those claiming "glut" and "quality" were the motivators behind the change from the OGL/STL to the GSL, answer me this:

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

In that area, the GSL is identical to the OGL/SLT: WOTC will not ask you for money for using it, will not limit the number of products you can produce using it, and will not require any specific level of quality in terms of writing, production values, rules balance, or any other area. If you think "defined terms" mean anything...read the STL.

If you can't explain, clearly, how "free, no approval license" leads to "fewer products of higher quality", I must humbly request you strike the word "glut" from your arguments over the potential merits of the GSL or the motivations behind drafting it.

Thank you.

By providing additional onerous terms such as OGL product line poison pill that continues after termination, termination of products using terms defined in future updates of the GSL, at will changing of terms, etc. the GSL can narrow down the pool of licensed 4e product creators or products that creators will be willing to make under the GSL compared to what they were willing to make under the OGL.

Therefore the GSL can reduce the number of 4e 3pp products. This reduces the volume of product glut.

Similarly the GSL can delay the release of 4e 3pp products, leading to less initial glut.

It does nothing, however, to drive up the quality of 3pp products or drive them to fill niches not filled by WotC.

The restrictions about what types of things you can do or not do seems to drive 3pp to create things that compete directly with WotC products.

Straight up adventures seem fine as do class/race/power splat books, monster books, and most campaign settings that correspond to baseline D&D assumptions. (In other words the same types of things that wizards is planning to put out).

On second thought, the delay of publishing can be seen as a drive towards quality, to force 3pp to wait a bit before publishing any 4e GSL books gives them some extra time to get familiar with the rules before they write supplements for them.

 

[Voadam]

As for Goodman having a 50% sell off of the DCCs well, that could simply be a "trying to clear the warehouse before the clock runs out on the d20 license," or maybe trying to quickly generate additional revenue for large print runs.

Except that for the warehouse argument it is not a physical warehouse sale to clear up warehouse space but a pdf sale in which they anounced they will discontinue selling pdfs of this product line in the future.

Also it is just this one d20 product line of theirs that they are selling, which they coincidentally anounced they will be making 4e products as a continuation of the line. The sale does not extend to any of their other multiple d20 lines for which they have not anounced any plans to go 4e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, I mean, you've been told repeatedly what the order of events was and clung to your opinion regardless, so what's the point in debating further?

Accepting evidence on the basis of authority ("you've been told repeatedly...") depends upon one trusting the validity of that authority in the case in question.

As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him. Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.

Seriously, if you'd paid attention at the time you'd know that no one ponied up the $5k, because the product was never ready. There was no early adopters kit.

I agree with you that very likely "they were refining stuff to the very end", but I again point you to kenmarable's perhaps-wrong, fuzzy NDA memory that

Now, there may have once been an offhand offer of "If you want to skip #4 for now since it's not ready, we can take the money and give you the rules." But it was more them trying to help publishers meet deadlines than to trick publishers into investing into 4e without seeing the license. And I don't know if it was even an official offer to all, or just a "let's see what we can work out" idea. But without the license, we opted not to (since, as stated above, we were waiting for the license before we paid).

Or that might not have happened. I'm not sure, my memory under the NDA is hazy if you know what I mean.

If we examine what might have happened (NDA memories being hazy and all that) without ascribing motive, there may have been an offhand offer to take the $5,000, give the publishers the rules, and let them see the GSL later, which the publishers declined since they we were waiting for the license before they paid.

This jibes quite well with what Clark said, IMHO, and which WotC never contradicted. It also jibes with the WotC press release (although not with the Q&A telephone conference reported thereafter...which is not, however, a WotC statement AFAICT).

So, from my viewpoint, the jury is still very much out. But I will examine the threads ken provided, as I said, and perhaps that examination will change my mind. Or perhaps it will not. Either way, repeatedly stating your opinion/interpretation as fact is not sufficient to change my mind, you are correct. Any more than the repeated assertation that 4e wasn't coming soon was enough to sway my opinion that the evidence suggested that it was, or the repeated assertation that 4e would be published under the OGL was sufficient to sway me from the evidence that it would not be.




RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

By providing additional onerous terms such as OGL product line poison pill that continues after termination, termination of products using terms defined in future updates of the GSL, at will changing of terms, etc. the GSL can narrow down the pool of licensed 4e product creators or products that creators will be willing to make under the GSL compared to what they were willing to make under the OGL.

That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP. It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.

RC

 

[JVisgaitis]

I disagree. Their front is to capitalize and profit as much as they can for 4e and I doubt these heavy duty soldiers would be of significant more help than their logistic weight.

How many people have said they would switch if Green Ronin or Paizo was on board? You'd have respected companies not only releasing products for their system, you'd also not have so much negative press generated through threads like this. That's a win win in my book.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Accepting evidence on the basis of authority ("you've been told repeatedly...") depends upon one trusting the validity of that authority in the case in question.

Everyone involved said it was one way, and you still say it was another. Erik Mona commented on it in another thread, it's been commented on here. The only thing to say that they wanted money before seeing the OGL was the press release which did not specifically say you couldn't see the OGL first.

As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him.

Orcus comment was about the Poison Pull, right? No where does Orcus say you had to pay before you could see the OGL? I'm not debating what Orcus said about the poison pill, I'm just saying that the "pay up front so we can sneak stuff in on you, ha ha ha!" stuff you've got going is totally unsupported by the events of the timeframe.

Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.

Again, there was no payment, there was no early release. It was a plan which (much like DDI) fell apart before seeing completion. The plan as originally stated, and only ever existed as, was for them to sign an NDA, see the OGL, pay money and see the SRD/ game.

So, from my viewpoint, the jury is still very much out. But I will examine the threads ken provided, as I said, and perhaps that examination will change my mind. Or perhaps it will not. Either way, repeatedly stating your opinion/interpretation as fact is not sufficient to change my mind, you are correct.

I just don't know where you've gotten the "pay us, then we'll tell you the terms" thing that you've been asserting. The only place I've seen it is on this board, and it has always been pointed out to be wrong by those engaged in the process at that time.

Any more than the repeated assertation that 4e wasn't coming soon was enough to sway my opinion that the evidence suggested that it was

disingenuous though, as folks said it was coming in 05, 06, 07 and finally some folks were right and it came in 08. I can say 5e is coming, and eventually I'll be right also.

, or the repeated assertation that 4e would be published under the OGL was sufficient to sway me from the evidence that it would not be.

I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.

 

[Vocenoctum]

That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP. It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.

RC

Definetly it opens it up to a much more reactive way. Sure if Bob's Games cranks out 5 crappy products real fast they may stop future stuff, but it's a little late then.

In addition, hopefully the "illusion" of 4e having "better content for 3rd party" doesn't convince distributors and such to go overboard again, hoping for the cash bonanza.