GSL FAQ up

[Jack99]

'In other news, clarifications were issued regarding the GSL which mollify me. As someone who owes much of his career to the ability to write for some awesome third party publishers, I've been rooting for the ability for 3PPs to have some freedom when it comes to publishing 4E compatible products. And, frankly, I'm jazzed to see what my favorite publishers do with it. I may yet be proven wrong, but I think once some of my fellow designers get their hands on 4E they're going to quickly find themselves addicted to how easy it is to design for.

Yeah. I agree. But it is a pity that it does seem as we have "lost" Paizo for 4e. I had hoped they would produce some sweet 4e adventures on the side of their 3.75.

 

[Roland55]

The day that happens is the day I turn in my notice.

Hmm. I just don't think you're going to have to worry about that.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):

The GSL is a legal document. I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was. It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.

The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....

I'm not suggesting that the statement (or what you are teeming as a simple misstatement) was nefarious - - I am CERTAIN (because of my faith in people) that the statement was made honestly based on what they believed.

I'm suggesting that the structure of a document that is easily revokable, and that has already apparently led to interpretation differences at WOTC, can easily lead to situations that are bad for 3pp.

Clark posted the issue to begin with based on a conversation he had. He has since said:

"and I think the answer we have gotten is reasonable and acceptable and is likely what the person who told me that meant in the first place" I think that answers some of your concerns.

 

[GVDammerung]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GVDammerung
The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.

The day that happens is the day I turn in my notice.

Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released. I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible. I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it. The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable. Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out. As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will. Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."

 

[Jack99]

Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released. I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible. I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it. The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable. Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out. As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will. Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."

This is pure guesswork. They might as well close down the 4e GSL and offer an identical GSL for 5e. Maybe it is time to chill on the far-fetched speculations.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think that if WotC leaving the OGL behind means the end of Open Gaming, then the whole Open Gaming thing was a failure. I mean, if the entire premise of publishing under the OGL depends on one company, how can anyone possibly call it a success? Paizo wishes to prove that there was such traction, as well as perhaps a few other companies. Bemoaning the end of Open Gaming because WotC is no longer involved... well I know complaining is what you do on the Internet, but it does anyone involved in the OGL a disservice for fans of their products to talk like that. Maybe its true, but I've now decided to wait and see.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GVDammerung
The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.



Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released. I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible. I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it. The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable. Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out. As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will. Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."

Maybe I am giving lurkinglidda more leeway then she does herself, but if the 5E will com with a new GSL, I'd say she might stay around. The 5E GSL would be an alternative, at least in my eyes.

 

[drjones]

Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released. I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible. I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it. The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable. Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out. As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will. Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."

Well obviously, but everyone will be working the alien slave mines by 2013 anyway so I don't think it matters much.

CRISWELL PREDICTS!!

 

[Green Knight]

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one--"complete absence of a poison pill." I dont see it that way. I dont begrudge WotC spinning it and using marketing speak and not calling it a poison pill. I mean, who in the world would want to call it that. And I agree that it was not the poison pill that we thought it would be. But thats still a poison pill, in my parlance. Just a smaller one. And one that is much easier to swallow But I'll let Wizards spin it how they want. They deserve that much at least.

Clark

Ah, point. I was considering just the "company by company" bit as a poison pill. Didn't know we were calling the "product line by product line" bit a poison pill, too. Though yeah, not a bad one. More like a Flintstones Kids pill.

 

[Lacyon]

Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released. I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible. I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it. The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable. Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out. As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will. Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."

It's quite possible that this will happen.

It doesn't seem likely that this will happen.

The original OGL is at least somewhat of a threat to WotC in the long term because it leaves open the possibility of a prior edition of D&D rules to continue competing with the current edition. That ship has already sailed - the license is irrevocable and there will always be the possibilty of 3rd-party publishers either returning to 3E or maintaining a 3E line "just in case".

The GSL itself, being revocable, is no threat to 5th-edition D&D. Likewise, a revocable 5E GSL would be no threat to 6E, etc. While this is of course a disappointment to those who favor ideological purity to practicality, most of the benefits of openness remain - fans get more product options to choose from, WotC benefits from the fact that this ensures more fans find what they want in D&D instead of some other RPG.

I can't see any real reason that the GSL would cost WotC more than it benefits them, and thus can't see why they'd forgo having one in future editions. If, for some reason, openness does cost more than it brings in benefits, I can't think of very many unselfish reasons to continue supporting openness in general.