GSL news.

[Hussar]

I didn't think that Lord Zardoz was talking about dual statted books but rather a company producing books for both 3.5 and 4e....

I would point to the second part of my post then. Publishing two of the same book is too expensive. Particularly when only half as many people, at best, buy each book.

 

[vagabundo]

This is a long long thread, I wasnt able to keep up with it over the weekend. Has it been confirmed anywhere that a company cannot make other RPGs under other licences if they do GSL content?

Or that they cannot make and publish separate content that is under OGL and GSL? What about freelancers if one project is OGL and another is GSL is that prohibited too?

 

[Lizard]

This is a long long thread, I wasnt able to keep up with it over the weekend. Has it been confirmed anywhere that a company cannot make other RPGs under other licences if they do GSL content?

Or that they cannot make and publish separate content that is under OGL and GSL? What about freelancers if one project is OGL and another is GSL is that prohibited too?

Nope, nothing's been confirmed yet. And I'm firmly on the side which says "This is all a big mess up in communication; the rule is to keep people from making 3x and 4e versions of the same product at the same time, and is not a company-wide ban", because, frankly, I can't believe WOTC/Hasbro would be that stupid. It would pretty much have the opposite of the effect they want -- instead of encouraging top-tier companies with solid reputations to produce the first wave of 4e product, it will appeal mostly to those with no 3e history, and to people looking to start up new companies to jump on the 4e bandwagon. We will see the established players with successful OGL lines sticking to their core business, while the market is flooded with products from people no one ever heard of. Sure, some of them will turn out to be great -- but WOTC doesn't want another flood of material of dubious quality, they want good stuff. The original release plan would have done that -- created a 'first wave' of high quality product -- but that didn't quite work out and I'm pretty sure we won't know why 'till someone involved decides to leave gaming forever and posts a juicy tell-all blog now that they don't care about their career.

 

[Belen]

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?

You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum. If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL. If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books. You either publish 4e or OGL. You cannot do both.

This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.

 

[Piratecat]

You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum. If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL. If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books. You either publish 4e or OGL. You cannot do both.

This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.

This isn't confirmed yet, and won't be until later today. Best not to spread one interpretation as the unvarnished truth.

Mind you, it may be how the actual license is written, but that's still unclear.

 

[Wolfspider]

I would point to the second part of my post then. Publishing two of the same book is too expensive. Particularly when only half as many people, at best, buy each book.

I still don't think that's what he was talking about (and what I was referring to), but for what it's worth, I agree with you in this regard--dual statted books and the same books done for different game systems don't seem to do very well.

 

[Hussar]

You should read the GSL thread in the OGL forum. If you publish a 4e book, you cannot use the OGL. If someone like Green Ronin wants to publish a 4e book, for example, then they cannot publish any new M&M or True20 books. You either publish 4e or OGL. You cannot do both.

This is Wizards poison pill for the OGL.

Thank you, I did realize that.

I was pointing to a hypothetical. People keep talking about how they should allow publishers to do both OGL and GSL material. If they did do that, how would you handle material that's open under the OGL but closed under the GSL?

 

[Belen]

Thank you, I did realize that.

I was pointing to a hypothetical. People keep talking about how they should allow publishers to do both OGL and GSL material. If they did do that, how would you handle material that's open under the OGL but closed under the GSL?

You do not need to worry about it as you cannot use OGL material with GSL material. Technically, since it is open material, then a publisher should be able to use that material in a GSL product, except that you cannot use both licenses in the same product, so the point to moot.

 

[xechnao]

-- but WOTC doesn't want another flood of material of dubious quality, they want good stuff.

You seem to forget that the GSL is different than the OGL. They can better exploit this flood now.

The original release plan would have done that -- created a 'first wave' of high quality product -- but that didn't quite work out and I'm pretty sure we won't know why 'till someone involved decides to leave gaming forever and posts a juicy tell-all blog now that they don't care about their career.

IMO the original plan and their biggest priority is to attract people and build a strong community on their online services. Your ideas are in conflict with this plan. They do not want you to post at Paizo. They want you to engage more with Gleemax.

 

[D'karr]

They do not want you to post at Paizo. They want you to engage more with Gleemax.

If that is the case they really need to do something major to fix Gleemax. IMO, right now it totally sucks to go there.