GSL FAQ up

[The Little Raven]

That is the truth that matters.

Not to me. It's the facts that matter.

 

[Green Knight]

Not to me. It's the facts that matter.

Exactly. And this...

Apparently they decided to "play nice" and listen to those of us who called them on their poor behavior.

...is not a fact, and is wholly unfair to the people who put out the GSL.

That is the truth that matters.

That the GSL is out matters. But what also matters is treating people fairly. And that's something you're not doing, by claiming they weren't "playing nice" or "behaving poorly" when that's not the case.

 

[Greg K]

Simple.

Mourn,
I thought there is also a useage in sports contracts meaning a clause with unbalanced impact. To me, the clause seems to have unbalanced impact. However, not being a lawyer I could still be misunderstanding the useage in sports contracts.

 

[Voadam]

Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.

I'm not sure if they just mean 3.x or any OGL versions here. Can Goodman Games do 4e Dungeon Crawl Classics and still put out Castles and Crusades versions of the same modules as long as they don't do 3.5 versions?

 

[tomBitonti]

Concrete product lines

So ... we have been talking about product lines and how the restriction on product is less strict than a restriction on companies as a whole. I am thinking that a few concrete examples would be useful so to know what this means practically.

For example:

Necromancer Games
- Rappan Athuk

Monte Cook
- Ptolus

Green Ronin
- Freeport

Paize
- Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords

 

[Voadam]

The only thing that has changed, apparently, is our perception and how much we know and as a result the attitude has shifted dramatically. Honestly, I didn't know for sure either way on the poison pill issue, but I think it was fairly obvious where I stood on the issue (which is to say, staunchly incredulous that WotC would include a "poison pill" and strain its 3pp relationships more than necessary).

The only change in the "poison pill" situation is that they state in the FAQ that it applies on a product line basis instead of a company-wide one.

It is still there exactly as everyone was discussing it before, just limited to product lines.

It is still an attempt to cut out ogl products and drive D&D consumers from 3e to 4e by cutting out 3e published options in the market.

This is a change in degree, not in nature IMO.

Am I mistaken and overlooked something here?

 

[Voadam]

So ... we have been talking about product lines and how the restriction on product is less strict than a restriction on companies as a whole. I am thinking that a few concrete examples would be useful so to know what this means practically.

For example:

Necromancer Games
- Rappan Athuk

Monte Cook
- Ptolus

Green Ronin
- Freeport

Paize
- Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords

Goodman
- Dungeon Crawl Classics
- Complete Guide
- Morningstar
etc.

For Necromancer I think its an open question if their modules in general are a single product line or if each one without the same name is an independent product line.

I expect that Tome of Horrors is a product line for Necromancer.

 

[GVDammerung]

Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?

1. GSL is a revocable. Meaning, among other things, that it is changeable.

2. GSL is revocable, so any products released under this license have timer attached. Meaning: your investments may be in real and reasonable danger of being liquidated by license onwer (there is no OGL for 4E products to escape to).

Regards,
Ruemere

Exactly correct. This license is one giant step _BACK_ from open gaming as in OGL. It is not "O;" it is faux "O." Ask Paizo how easy it is to have a revocable license that forms the core of your existing business model revoked - Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.

Revocable licenses are made to be revoked. So. Get everybody playing 4e. Put 3X years in the rear window so no one remembers it as other than "old.". Issue 5e as a closed system and revoke the 4e license. That's about as close to being able to put the OGL genie back in the bottle as possible.

The GSL isn't a "poison pill." Its a Trojan Horse. Now open those gates real wide for the nice horsey. Pony rides for everyone!

 

[The Little Raven]

Its a Trojan Horse.

Except the Trojan Horse was an act of deception, while the openly declared nature of the GSL and it's revocable status is anything but deceptive.

 

[Lizard]

The GSL isn't a "poison pill." Its a Trojan Horse. Now open those gates real wide for the nice horsey. Pony rides for everyone!

To be fair, that's what a lot of people said about the OGL...It was WOTC's Secret Plan To Destroy Gaming, And By 'Secret' We Mean Ryan Dancey Spelled Out Everything Out Explicitly.

It's somewhat amusing how times (don't) change:
2000: By allowing people to just use the D20 system to make their own games, WOTC is destroying the industry!
2008: By NOT allowing people to just use the D20 system to make their own games, WOTC is destroying the industry!

I supported the OGL fully in 2000; I think the GSL is misguided. I think the end result will be slowing adaption of 4e. WOTC's policy here is more likely to hurt them than third parties; I think we'll see a lot more "innovative" systems and market fragmentation due to it. ("Innovative" in quotes because, really, the world doesn't need yet another dice mechanic to swing an axe at an orc. It really doesn't. Honestly, if you look at the OGL systems out there -- Tri-Stat, FUDGE, FATE, Action!, Runequest, Traveller, True20, D20, and I'm probably missing some more -- it's hard to see a setting/game/style, other than wonky self-indulgent naval gazing Forgie stuff, which can't be done within the space of OGL games.)