Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 4204437" data-attributes="member: 19857">You're right - I misspoke.  Not zero incentive, there's actually a negative incentive to put out a new game with the d20 GSL IF it includes a revocation clause.  Your game falls to the mercy of Wizards publishing calendar as well as to the whim of whether the next edition will have a similar GSL or not.  With the OGL/d20STL you have the option of continuing your game on without the d20 trademark.  If the d20 GSL has a revocation clause you'd be a fool to put out a new game line under it, unless you plan your game's lifespan to be less than 4e D&D's lifespan.  D&D supplements are a completely different story - in fact the new D&D GSL looks like you'll actually be able to use the D&D brand.  Which is a good thing for 3rd party publishers.  But putting out a new "Mutants & Masterminds" or Spycraft when another company has the revocation clause on the mechanics?  Silly.  Even if you can "advertise compatibility" with D&D.Not compared to a "hypothetical GSL" at all - compared to the actual d20 STL and OGL that have been in effect for the last 8 years.  The OGL and d20 STL gave publishers strong incentive to take the d20 mechanics and play with them for their own game lines.  You got the benefit of having something compatible with D&D AND you didn't have to give up your control over your publishing schedule.  That was a strong incentive to put your game out using OGL mechanics.  If the new d20 GSL is revocable like the D&D GSL is (and if it isn't that changes things), then the incentive for putting out new games using it is not only going to be severely reduced, you actually have a very strong incentive NOT to do it.Again, I'm speaking specifically about new games, not 3rd party D&D supplements.  For those the benefit is all about putting out D&D compatible products, and the benefit of having a non-revocable license is negligible - if you're in the business of putting out D&D supplements you probably want to keep with the current version of D&D anyway, and if they "force" you to upgrade to the next edition each time they're probably only "forcing" you to do something you would do anyway.  If you've invested heavily into your own new game separate from the D&D brand, however, the cost of a revoked license is going to be much more of a burden.(My hope is that the D&D GSL will be revocable while the d20 GSL will not - honestly that would be the best route for Wizards to take IMO as it would give them the most control over the 3rd party products for their own D&D brand while simultaneously allowing publishers the freedom to do their own thing with the d20 system as a whole.  Which, as I said, keeps players in the "D&D orbit" instead of pushing them out to new systems and other publishers.  I doubt that this will be the case, but I do think that it would be the best of both worlds for Wizards.)</blockquote>

Verification