GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[xechnao]

You said a mouthful. Star Wars didn't suck then.

No, it didn't suck. But no comparison of the 90s and what comes just after. Internet, video games, new Star Wars films...the possibility for you and many others to publish due to OGL plus the ease of digital publishing...too many changes, a totaly different world to compare with.

 

[xechnao]

Please stop trying to browbeat others into believing it to be fact.

I am more likely defending it from people trying to convince me that it is nosense rather what you are saying I am doing here.

 

[DaveMage]

On what board do we start threads on "Strange Beliefs People Make Up Out Of The Whole Cloth"?

I think that's the Rules Forum.

 

[Bacris]

I am more likely defending it from people trying to convince me that it is nosense rather what you are saying I am doing here.

Actually, a few people have asked you for supporting evidence, but you have yet to give any while still claiming your statement to be accurate.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm honestly not sure they are trying to prevent "alternate PHBs" as much as protect against the following.

1) Gross republishing of the SRD rules by themselves, either for profit or for free. The free SRDs can be used as a replacement for their core products. Their core products sell more than all their supplements combined. Regardless of their use to the community, it would make sense for them to close up the license.

2) Right to revoke. I think Orcus might agree that licenses involved a contractual agreement between two parties. Most regular contracts have an exit clause--"tenant at will" for instance means the landlord and tenant can both decide to end the contract from month to month. The OGL has no built-in expiration date or any sort of revocation clause. This is great for the licensees, but not so great for the licensor. From a business standpoint, a perpetual license that doesn't allow any sort of revocation for standards, content, morals, etc., is not a good one from the creator's standpoint. Now, a lot of third-parties and fans don't like it because they're afraid Wizards could shut them down "just because they are too good", so I understand it's risky.

So those are the two areas I think they're trying to prevent from happening.

 

[xechnao]

Actually, a few people have asked you for supporting evidence, but you have yet to give any while still claiming your statement to be accurate.

Business does not run only with the evidence you are asking about. Do you disagree SW is a bigger franchise than D&D? Other than our general perception there are no other hard evidence for us.

 

[Ranger REG]

What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?

Star Wars may be the bigger franchise, but its fanbase contains tiny portion of roleplayers.

As I said earlier, during WotC's publishing Star Wars RPG for the past 8 years, I'm not seeing an increase of roleplayers within that fanbase.

You can talk about general, but my focus in narrowly on roleplayers. Granted, the potential for roleplayer increase is there. I'm just not seeing it. :\

At least the Pokemon franchise is big on both fans as well as TCG players.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I'm thinking this may be a topic for a separate thread, eh?

I'm loathe to be critical of anyone after what I did earlier this week.. However, I'm thinking you're correct DaveMage.

I wouldn't want the WOTC Reps to return next week and become sidetracked by this 'Did Star Wars energize DnD' discussion.

Xechnao, may I ask the favor of you starting a new seperate thread elsewhere with your basic premise? This isn't intended to be disrespectful to you.. But I'd like to see us at least remain focused on the DnD GSL.

 

[Orcus]

I'm honestly not sure they are trying to prevent "alternate PHBs" as much as protect against the following.

1) Gross republishing of the SRD rules by themselves, either for profit or for free. The free SRDs can be used as a replacement for their core products. Their core products sell more than all their supplements combined. Regardless of their use to the community, it would make sense for them to close up the license.

2) Right to revoke. I think Orcus might agree that licenses involved a contractual agreement between two parties. Most regular contracts have an exit clause--"tenant at will" for instance means the landlord and tenant can both decide to end the contract from month to month. The OGL has no built-in expiration date or any sort of revocation clause. This is great for the licensees, but not so great for the licensor. From a business standpoint, a perpetual license that doesn't allow any sort of revocation for standards, content, morals, etc., is not a good one from the creator's standpoint. Now, a lot of third-parties and fans don't like it because they're afraid Wizards could shut them down "just because they are too good", so I understand it's risky.

So those are the two areas I think they're trying to prevent from happening.

I agree.

Initially, the idea was that everyone would want the d20 license because that let people use the d20 logo, which was on the D&D books. What publishers really wanted to do was say "compatible with D&D" but the license didnt allow that. The d20 logo was the next best thing. And as a result, things like standards and stuff were tied to the d20 STL because it was presumed that was the thing we couldnt live without. But that isnt how it played out. In the end, that d20 logo proved to be pretty irrelevant, since WotC watered it down. It didnt just mean D&D anymore. So as the value of the d20 logo declined, so to did the need to use the d20 STL. All of a sudden, we could do D&D products without the d20STL and just with the OGL. Once that happened, there were no longer any restrictions. Now, that happened in part because people didnt want to use the d20STL because of the restrictions it included. But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we needed the d20 logo.

Clark

 

[xechnao]

You can talk about general, but my focus in narrowly on roleplayers. Granted, the potential for roleplayer increase is there. I'm just not seeing it.

IMO your focus is too narrow from a business perspective. Do you remember or know about the "satanist" period of D&D? It is not that satanists were potential roleplayers, it is the hype that boomed the commercial value of D&D. This however, I think was unintentional. OTOH, I think that SW is intentionaly used in a similar way. Albeit a more passive one, since SW lies on the positive, rather than the negative way of hyping.