DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
GentleGiant said:I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).
Yep.
GentleGiant said:I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).
Wulf Ratbane said:I'll add a question:
Why is the GSL under NDA?
Belen said:1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
I think that option 2 is the more likely reason. I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.
Belen said:1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
I think that option 2 is the more likely reason. I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.
Voadam said:Another possibility
3: The GSL and rules were originally supposed to be sent to 3rd party publishers long ago so they could get used to the rules and develop material to supplement the release of 4e. WotC did not want the rules allowed out before their own public unveiling such as in DDX or the actual relase of 4e books. Even though the passing of DDX may have obviated the rationale for the NDA, institutional inertia at the corporate level may keep it in there.
Orcus said:I am 100% convinced that WotC believes Third Party support is a good idea and that they are dedicated to making it happen for all of us--meaning the publishers and the gamers. It is clear that third party support gave more choice to the gamers and expanded options and that we really made some great stuff. I've talked to these people. I know they are dedicated to helping us support them. They read these boards. They see the people who say "I wasnt going to consider 4E but now that [trusted publisher] is in, I am going to try it!" They saw the impact we had on bringing people to 3E.
WotC are the good guys.
Dont blame them if they are just a little busy getting their flagship product to press by the various deadlines.
Like it or not, third party publishing is a secondary goal for them, not a primary one. And that makes sense. It is more important for them to use their man-(and woman-)hours to hitting the 4E release than it is to finalize the GSL. That is just a business reality. And I am OK with that. But that doesnt mean we cant keep asking questions. I just want to encourage everyone to be supportive of WotC and not overly-critical. I have dealt with Scott and Linae and they are great and they want us to have this stuff and they dont like that there has been a slowdown. So ask all the questions you want, but please dont throw grenades.![]()
Voadam said:Another possibility
3: The GSL and rules were originally supposed to be sent to 3rd party publishers long ago so they could get used to the rules and develop material to supplement the release of 4e. WotC did not want the rules allowed out before their own public unveiling such as in DDX or the actual relase of 4e books. Even though the passing of DDX may have obviated the rationale for the NDA, institutional inertia at the corporate level may keep it in there.
Orcus said:I agree with you in theory, but I see a possibility that you are not accounting for--that a product could be covered by BOTH the GSL and the OGL. I see that as a possibility. For instance, perhaps the GSL -ONLY- covers use of content from the 4E SRD. If that is the case, you could create a product that uses the GSL for the 4E parts and then also uses the OGL to pull from 3E/OGC sources. That would work nicely.
I also dont see it as a legal nightmare at all to upgrade existing works. If you were the creator of the intial work, even if under the OGL, you own the concepts and can easily do them in a new incarnation of the license.
This leads me back to something I was a HUGE advocate of under the OGL--asking permission even if you didnt have to. I always advocated that if you were going to reuse someone else's OGC that you give them the courtesy of asking permission.
It is going to be intersting to see how this all plays out.
Belen said:1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
I think that option 2 is the more likely reason. I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.
Lizard said:It could, but I'd be wary of such a product, because declaration of content would be very, very, critical. As it is, many publishers have vague/confusing declarations of OGC/PI; imagine if you added mixed-license content to that!
Lizard said:Well, here's the problem.
a)The copyright holder of the SRD is WOTC. Therefore, for the huge bulk of OGL material which is SRD-derived, the publishers don't hold the copyright. Say I want to release spells 'missing' from 4e, but which were in the SRD. Unless the SRD is placed under some kind of license, I can't, because I don't own the copyright to the SRD.
b)There's also a problem of derived content. I used Atlas' "Tide of Years" when I worked on Seafarer's Handbook; Seafarer's Handbook shows up in the S15 of a lot of other works on underwater adventuring. The exact material used is not specified. A third party would need to be sure which material in a book came from which source, and that's not always easy -- it can be sut, chopped, edited, spread out, or even non-existent! (The SFH S15 referenced Tide of Years. A third publisher might use a feat from SFH which had nothing to do with TOY, but TOY will still be in their S15 due to the way the OGL works.)) This is, obviously, not a problem if there is no content except that derived from the SRD. (You address this further on; I just wanted to call it out in detail for other readers.)
Orcus said:I wouldnt look at it that way at all. Its just what we lawyers do. ALL of my licenses and contracts--with WW, Paizo, JG, everyone--have all had confidentiality provisions. Its not that unusual. What IS unusual is to release draft agreements publically. So its the OGL that was unusual, not the GSL.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual in normal business circles with proposed licenses not being public. Nothing. WotC should take no heat for this.
Clark
Brown Jenkin said:To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.
Brown Jenkin said:It looked like tro me that Belen was aslking why the final GSL licence would be under NDA until June, not why a draft license like the OGL situation would be under NDA. Since as far as we have been told the GSL priomised to the publishers would be a final license and the same as the one to be released to the general public in June.
To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.
Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).GentleGiant said:I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).
Ranger REG said:Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).
Orcus said:I sure do hope you get some answers to those questions of yours, to loop this back to where you started![]()
Admiral Caine said:However, this morning I woke up and saw something I wish now, I hadn't seen. And I'm embarrassed to show it to anybody, but I am going to anyway.