GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[DM_Jeff]

Nope. Check some of the pages. Linae signed off on at least one of them. Their current people have signed off on this stuff.

Right you are. Huh. Well, then I al right there with you, miond boggled and all. I do wish you were not left hanging by a line however!

-DM Jeff

 

[Lizard]

The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the legal team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.

Again, I support the OGL. I want 4E to be open. And I respect that, for some people, if it's not, that's a big enough issue not to switch. But it's a big enough issue on its own; let's not go making it a bigger deal than it actually is. And what it's not is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes. It would be bad for D&D and for the industry. But it wouldn't be fatal.

Well, two things:
a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles. With reduced third party support, it will be a LONG time before 4e matches 3e in depth and breadth, and no matter what form the GSL takes, at this point, I think it can guaranteed that it will be much more restrictive than the OGL.

b)WOTC has a profound financial reason to return to the "failed policies of TSR" -- Gleemax. They do not want fan sites, PCGen, and other things cutting into their projected profits. I'd be very surprised if the bulk of expected revenue from 4e isn't supposed to come from DDI subscriptions and not from book sales. If "Netbooks" rebound in popularity due to obstacles placed in the way of commercial publication due to the GSL, look for a return to C&D letters.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, two things:
a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles. With reduced third party support, it will be a LONG time before 4e matches 3e in depth and breadth, and no matter what form the GSL takes, at this point, I think it can guaranteed that it will be much more restrictive than the OGL.

Yep. And I did indeed say that I understand why it could be a deal-breaker for some. It's a big deal for me as well, though not quite a deal-breaker. I wouldn't have the career I do if not for the OGL; trust me, when I say it's a big deal for me, I mean it.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not claiming that a closed 4E wouldn't be a major step in the wrong direction. I think it's a hideous idea. It'll harm D&D, it'll harm WotC, it'll harm the industry, it'll harm the hobby.

All I said is that it wouldn't kill D&D.

As far as Gleemax and C&D letters, that's a level of speculation I'm simply not comfortable getting into until we have more info, one way or the other.

 

[Ydars]

I have to agree with you about Gleemax Lizard. It was the news about the DDI coupled with the OGL silence that first raised my concerns. I am seriously worried that WoTC has a new business model for 4E that is imcompatible with GSL.

 

[AZRogue]

And what it's not is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes.

I don't agree, Ari. I respect you a great deal but I would see such a move as a major step towards the TSR way of doing business. Would it end DnD? Of course not. The OGL is still out there.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Deleted.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't agree, Ari. I respect you a great deal but I would see such a move as a major step towards the TSR way of doing business. Would it end DnD? Of course not. The OGL is still out there.

Thing is, there's a wide gulf between "open as the OGL was" and "borderline fascist as TSR's later policies were."

The bulk of creative endeavors, be they RPGs or otherwise, aren't open-licensed. There's nothing intrinsically evil about not giving stuff away. I just don't see "lack of license" as equating to the TSR method of doing business.

Sure, anything's possible. But I hardly think the one guarantees or even implies the other.

 

[dmccoy1693]

The bulk of creative endeavors, ..., aren't open-licensed.

A Cat in a Dryer can dream, can't he?

Edit

Problem is thought, its kind of like Dr. King saying a few years after his "I have a Dream" speech that segragation is better or the Wright Brothers say, "Flying sucks, we should all just stick to land travel," or Mel Brooks saying, "I never should have made a parody of Star Wars." Great advances like these should never be taken back. And it is a sad day when the once great champion of open gaming walks away entirely from the advance they founded.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A Cat in a Dryer can dream, can't he?

As a guy who makes his living on creative endeavors, it sounds more like a nightmare to me. But that's a discussion for a different thread, and possibly not one that can happen on ENWorld at all.

 

[xechnao]

Well, two things:
a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles.

If that be the case what we/you are discussing here it wouldn't be such a deal. OGL is still out there, isn't it? Why do we suspect it will stop to "guarantee almost any whim of gaming be satisfied" then?