GSL news.

[thecasualoblivion]

Between Player's/DM's Option and the hundred or so game settings, AD&D was splintered and at war with itself before 3E even came along. The current environment is nothing resembling that.

 

[JohnRTroy]

If open gaming has had no impact and is not important (is "miniscule" to quote you) then why is WoTC now risking serious fan-alienation by designing a GSL document whose sole stated aim is to make all 3rd parties jump into supporting 4E. This suggests to me that WoTC don't see the open gaming movement as a miniscule concern.

I think it may be a case like Scott stated--to make sure their partners are committed and not "on the fence". It may also be the fact that the OGL is "viral" which could make for a lot of legal stickiness--if people mix content they could potentially make it easier for them to try to open up the new 4e content. (I actually see this as being their biggest concern). I can also see them using them to strengthen their brand from what is now perceived as "generic fantasy". I too think it's a little heavy handed--I suspect the reason is more for legal purposes than anything else.

Please don't try and tar all Open gaming supporters with the same brush. Our arguments are as complex and well thought out as yours are Sir!

I really wasn't trying to tar and feather open gaming fans. The concept is ideal, I just don't think it's the majority opinion, and I do think at times some people start worrying more about the ideal than, for instance, whether or not 4e will actually be the game they want to play. To be honest, I would be pleasantly surprised if fans decided to stick with 3e, but if that happened (a) I doubt it will solely be based on the ideal of open gaming and (b) I'm more critical of the fans of open gaming engaging in severe hyperbole by doing what Chris Pramas called being stating their opinions are "facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them". There needs to be a little perspective in this, that's all.

 

[Wolfspider]

(b) I'm more critical of the fans of open gaming engaging in severe hyperbole by doing what Chris Pramas called being stating their opinions are "facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them". There needs to be a little perspective in this, that's all.

Hmmm?

 

[JohnRTroy]

That last statement was based on these two blog posts:

http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/03/debating-ogl.html
http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/04/picking-right-weapon.html

 

[Greg K]

If this doesn't happen then D&D could end up sold to someone far less capable of producing quality products.

Of course, it is also possible for them to be sold to someone capable of producing better quality products- depending upon how one views the majority of WOTCs non-core supplements and the revealed changes to 4e vs. the d20 and OGL products from other companies (although, I am unsure as to whether the two or three the d20 companies that I would like to see in charge of DND could afford it).

 

[Wolfspider]

That last statement was based on these two blog posts:

http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/03/debating-ogl.html
http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/04/picking-right-weapon.html

Thanks!

My real confusion was over your wording. There are way too many verbs in that sentence....

 

[D'karr]

Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?

 

[Zil]

Between Player's/DM's Option and the hundred or so game settings, AD&D was splintered and at war with itself before 3E even came along. The current environment is nothing resembling that.

I hear this all the time, but you know what, I really liked a lot of what came out of TSR at that time. We liked having all those different settings, variant rules like the C&T and Skills and Powers. It was an exciting time - at least with our group. All of the variety was good for the consumer (albeit perhaps not so much for TSR).

When WoTC shut down all those variant settings, I was disappointed and kept hoping more of them would be spun off to third party publishers so I could see new stuff for our favorite settings. Monoculture in the D&D sphere isn't all that interesting to me.

 

[DaveMage]

Is this another case of tempest in a teapot?

It's all a matter of perspective.

To those involved, it's a BIG DEAL.

To those who don't play RPGs, it's completely irrelevant.

All of us are somewhere in that continuum.

 

[Hussar]

There is another issue here that hasn't been touched on.

Say that WOTC allows publishers to publish both OGL and GSL material.

Now, say that 3PP X decides to publish a dual stat book.

All sorts of issues can result from this. Historically, 3PP have been somewhat laissez faire with their OGL sections. I've seen all sorts of crippled writeups. So, when you have two licenses in the same book, how often do you think 3PP's would get it right?

And, would it be worth it for WOTC to sue them? The time and money it takes to take someone to court, when the 3PP is some guy in the basement of his house, just isn't worth it. So, he gets away with it. Then someone else. And so on down the line.

And when WOTC finally does get around to suing someone, they get egg all over their face for being the big bad corporation. PR nightmare (see BOEF if you need proof).

So, realistically, how would you do it? Even if you make 4e as open as 3e was, there are still things in 3e that are not open in 4e. And vice versa.