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.