GSL news.

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, I know you personally dislike me

No I don't. I don't even know you. I like a lot of your posts, even some I disagree with. I like your company's products, and advocate that folks buy them. If I gave you the impression I do not personally like you, I apologize. I have no problems at all with you, and if anything I in general like what you write, both here, at CM, and in gaming in general.

and I personally dislike you.

You do? Why? You don't even know me. I'm sorry to hear that. I won't be bothered if you decide to put me on ignore.

Since you're utterly unaware of the relationships between myself, Suzi, Scott, and Linae, I'd like to see an apology from you.

For what? Orcus mentioned that some folks simply speculated about an issue that had some validity to it, and others posted wild conspiracy theories, and the later were a bit unhelpful. You posted that you agreed, as if you were not one of the folks posting conspiracy theories. I wouldn't have said a word if you hadn't posted in response, but you did. So, I felt it was fair to point out that some of your posts fell into that very conspiracy theory camp, that uit was not helpful at the time, and AS SOMEONE WHO LIKES YOUR COMPANY'S PRODUCTS I thought it would be nice, and smart, if you were to own up to it so nobody got the impression you still felt that way or that you didn't admit when you made an error.

What did I say that was in any way inaccurate? What does this have to do with your relationship with others?

Seeing as we're one of the few publishers invited by Scott and Linea to participate in the early section of 4e, and knowing that they have read my posted opinions about the subject from the other thread, I think your view of my "negativity" is not shared by those who actually make decisions about 4e and the GSL.

Are you saying that you stand by the theory that you posted? That what you posted didn't foster negativity? If not, what are you saying, specifically. At the time, you said it was speculation. Now you seem to be at least implying it was not speculation and is related to private knowledge you had. So which is it, speculation that was wrong, or not speculation that was accurate?

Your post is as unnecessary as it is representative of your character. I don't appreciate attempted smears.

No reason to attack my character, particularly since I was not attacking yours (just hoping you would be one of the folks to apologize). I am not trying to smear you Joe - everyone saw your posts, and relative to this announcement your prior posts look at bit like wildly inaccurate conspiracy theories. I am posting what you posted, and comparing it to WOTC announcement, and suggesting a mea culpa would be nice from you and folks like you. I didn't smear you, nor was that my intent. I just reposted what you wrote, given your response in this thread to Orcus.

I think that's all I need to say at this venue. This is neither the proper time nor the proper place, which is why I'm utterly unsurprised by your actions.

joe b.

My email is freely available at my user name. If you think this is the wrong time and place, you were and still are free to email me privately. You made the posts publicly, and then you responded publicly. I'd even be happy to edit my prior comments and take it entirely to email if you wish (or PMs). I certainly am not trying to damage your reputation. But lets not be passive aggressive about it. If you want to talk about it offline, lets do that rather than bash me here and then walk away.

 

[Orcus]

Hey guys. I didnt mean for the first part of my post to get people off track.

My goal with the second part of the post was to encourage people to not bother who were naysayers and so forth. Lets not get into finger pointing.

Let's just be happy for D&D and for Scott and Linae's accomplishments. I think yesterday was a great day for the game we all love.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Mistwell, Joe - if you feel like continuing your discussion of who said what/when/why, please take it offline. Let's not derail this thread with it.

Thanks,

Kid Charlemagne - ENWorld Moderator

 

[Orcus]

Come on, peeps.

I'm not a moderator, but here we are in the thread about the announcement that 4E will be open. You gotta think we can put our difference aside and play nice in this thread.

Naysayers shake hands with conspiracy theorists. 4E Fanbois shake hands with grognards. Paizonians shake hands with Enworlders.

None of that matters now. 4E is open and that is a good thing for all.

Clark

 

[jgbrowning]

Hey guys. I didnt mean for the first part of my post to get people off track.

No problem, it's only Mistwell, Clark. Anyone who has interacted with him and knows how we feel about each other understands what he's trying to do and understands why he's going to claim that he's not actually doing it. He's just getting in the personal digs he can with the hopeful side-effect of damaging a business relationship of mine and he must absolutely deny that is what he's doing in order to have a chance of actually damaging that relationship.

If he disliked you I wouldn't be surprised if he'd attempt to turn your statement that not using the OGL would be a foolish decision into meaning that you had called Scott and Linae Fools were it to have turned out that 4e was actually a closed system.

To get the conversation back on track, we're pleased with the announcement that 4e is going to be open and accessible to 3rd Party Publishers and we look forward to seeing the GSL.

joe b.

 

[Mistwell]

Come on, peeps.

I'm not a moderator, but here we are in the thread about the announcement that 4E will be open. You gotta think we can put our difference aside and play nice in this thread.

Naysayers shake hands with conspiracy theorists. 4E Fanbois shake hands with grognards. Paizonians shake hands with Enworlders.

None of that matters now. 4E is open and that is a good thing for all.

Clark

True nuff!

 

[Plane Sailing]

No problem, it's only Mistwell, Clark. Anyone who has interacted with him and knows how we feel about each other understands what he's trying to do and understands why he's going to claim that he's not actually doing it. He's just getting in the personal digs he can with the hopeful side-effect of damaging a business relationship of mine and he must absolutely deny that is what he's doing in order to have a chance of actually damaging that relationship..

15 minutes after a moderator has told you to can it? There is a reason why we ask people to respect moderators instructions.

You're suspended for 3 days.

 

[The Little Raven]

Lets not pretend there was no resistance and no struggle and that this was how it was supposed to work all along, cause it wasnt.

Honestly, I think it's better that it wasn't just a simple cut-and-dry process for them to get this policy vetted. When an idea like this encounters resistance, it means it's supporters really need to justify to the doubtful why it's a good idea and sometimes even revise and compromise in order to make sure all parties affected get something they want out of it.

 

[Spatula]

Honestly, I think it's better that it wasn't just a simple cut-and-dry process for them to get this policy vetted. When an idea like this encounters resistance, it means it's supporters really need to justify to the doubtful why it's a good idea and sometimes even revise and compromise in order to make sure all parties affected get something they want out of it.

And I wonder if the new commitment to non-D&D material arose from that process, since I don't recall that even being on the table before. On the other hand, if the license was out in January as originally intended, there would be 3rd party support out of the gate, and at GenCon (albeit with a $5k pricetag). In any case, it's good news for the community.

I am curious if a product like Necro's APHB will be allowed. It doesn't seem like WOTC will really want people publishing 4e versions of no-longer-core material, like the druid, when they have their own plans for that same material.

 

[The Little Raven]

On the other hand, if the license was out in January as originally intended, there would be 3rd party support out of the gate, and at GenCon (albeit with a $5k pricetag).

Remember, with the original plan, Phase 1 publishers could have put out a product on August 1st, two whole months after the game's release. That's not "out of the gate" support, unless "out of the gate" has been changed to mean "months after the game is released" when I wasn't looking.

I am curious if a product like Necro's APHB will be allowed. It doesn't seem like WOTC will really want people publishing 4e versions of no-longer-core material, like the druid, when they have their own plans for that same material.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172697&postcount=3

If the Rouse is correct, and they implement similar policies in the GSL that he cites in this post, then the APHB should have no problems presenting alternate takes on anything, so long as they don't violate the guidelines given.