GSL news.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Luckily, I can just rename Tide of Iron to Shield Push and I'm pretty good.

And as a bonus, I'd have some idea of what the the feat did.

 

[Zil]

I've seen this, to use Lizard's phrase, meme bounced around a lot. I'm not sure if I really buy it. If someone leaves 3e for a d20 game, they've likely left because they don't like 3e for whatever reason. Why would they then later come back to 3e?

Take my gaming group for example. Occasionally we like to scratch an itch and try something else for a bit. If that game is also d20, then when we are done scratching that itch, it will be easier to come back "home" to D&D. Fantasy flavoured games are our default resting spot, so if all our games are under the d20 umbrella, we'll always come back to D&D eventually. I suspect we've easily purchased over 95% of the WoTC 3E/3.5 catalog - often multiple copies. They're not losing anything by us trying another d20 based game for a bit because we always do come back.

 

[Greg K]

I think people are forgetting a 3rd option.

3. The gaming opportunity gets Mutants & Masterminds 4th Edition (crazy edition skipping!) under the new d20 GSL for non-fantasy games.

I'm not interested in a 4e version of MM or True20.

 

[Morrus]

Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.

Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."

The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.

It's not that black-and-white, and I suspect you know it. There's a big difference when the "lending" of the toys included an invitation to make irreversible business and livelihood decisions based on the non-enforceable but strongly implied promise that those who did make such large business decisions and invest large amounts of their own money in ventures which - at least, at the time in WotC's eyes, would lead to sales of their own PHB - would not get screwed over at a moment's notice.

 

[Moonshade]

Except for one tiny little problem. It's their ball and more importantly, they're the ones that invited everyone to play their game. Calling the kid who not only supplied the ball but actually invited everyone over spoiled because he wants to play a new game seems well, weird.

That's the thing I find funny in this discussion. People seem willing to believe the worst of WOTC yet we wouldn't even be talking about this WITHOUT WOTC willing to play

Isn't it more like a rich kid having a green ball and inviting everyone to play with it? He says they can make their own green balls with the little changes they like, as long as they're green. But then the kid gets a blue ball and tells people that they have to choose between playing with the green balls they have and the right to play with and modify his fancy new blue ball. And if the other kids choose to play with their old green balls, they won't be allowed to play with blue ones. If they do choose the blue ball, the kid is going to set lawyers on them if they try to play with their green balls ever again. Never mind that they have their own green-coloured balls that sometimes look quite different from the original despite maintaining the same basic shape - if they want to give the new blue ball a try, they won't be allowed to return to their green balls or even let other kids play with them anymore. They'll have to give up on the green balls they've spent their own time and money on, and if they'd like to try playing with both green and blue ones, or find out they don't like the blue balls, tough. They continue half-heartedly playing with blue balls, give up on playing, or risk facing the kid's lawyers if they return to their green balls.

And heh. That's basically a lengthy answer to the sarcastic "What, is WOTC going to come to your house and steal your 3.x books?" comment I've seen on a lot of 4E threads. WOTC isn't saying that no one else is allowed to play with the blue ball at all, but if what I read is true, it does seem like they're telling publishers that you can't use or return to your old books if you want to give 4E publishing a try. IMO, it's a little like saying you can have EN World or you can have our glorious new Gleemax, but if you log in to your old EN World account after registering at Gleemax we'll be making use of our right to ban you and try to have EN World mods ban you too since you agreed to give up on that site when registering at Gleemax.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think toy metaphor is really clouding the issue in insincere sentimentality.

Remoras and sharks is more appropriate. Except the sharks have bitten the remoras before. 3.5 HURT a lot of publishers. So did announcing 4E. I think that the "poor pitful publishers" angle fails to see that these are mostly ventures that wouldn't have existed without WotC creating the market.

BTW, this "publisher exclusivity" is solely the brainchild of a publisher who has been really close to conspiracy theory before. Just because WotC hasn't said "no" doesn't mean they are tacitly supporting the idea. The Whole GSL can celling thing never woul;d have amounted to much without Orcus egging it on. I'm not saying he is wrong or doesn't have a point. He's a smart guy and this is the core of his companies concern. But he is a little alarmist in tone and others tend to spin his stuff very strong.

 

[HeinorNY]

Hey, I want to make a toys and kids analogy too.

WOTC is the kid inviting others to play with his toys, but he says to the other kids:
-These are the toys for us to play together so we can have fun together. You can't take a toy and go to your beroom to play with it by yourself.

 

[Jack99]

Hey, I want to make a toys and kids analogy too.

WOTC is the kid inviting others to play with his toys, but he says to the other kids:
-These are the toys for us to play together so we can have fun together. You can't take a my toy and go to your bedroom to play with it by yourself.

I can also make an analogy (just changed yours, since I am lazy).. doesn't make it right, though.

 

[Oldtimer]

Umm, no. More like they are the kid that brought a bunch of toys to the playground and offered to share only to see half the other kids snatch up their toys and walk away.

Then they brought some new toys and said, "Hey we'll share these toys with you too, but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time."

The only "spoiled" kids are the ones who somehow feel they are entitled to have toys that don't belong to them.

What a silly analogy. No one has taken any childrens' toys here. No one has even "taken" the D&D rules from WotC.

What people did do was utilize a license designed to allow sharing.

Stealing toys...

 

[Shroomy]

Here is what I see happening. Third party companies with a successful proprietary OGL system will not drop their systems for 4e unless they've become completely unprofitable. Some will choose not to support 4e at all and some will spin-off new companies (and will not have the marketing advantage of their brands) or form partnerships similar to that of Paizo-Necromancer.