GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Ydars]

Thanks for the support Goblinoid.............

In fact I will switch either to a 3rd party producing stuff under the original OGL, or to Runequest (produced by Mongoose games) which is also produced under an OGL, despite being a non-d20 game.

Having said this, if WoTC produce a decent OGL (or GSL if they like) then I am back on board with 4E. Until they do, they have lost me as a customer.

 

[Ydars]

To answer Mouseferatu specifically;

I feel very strongly that if the corperate types get control of the CREATIVE direction of WoTC then D&D is DOOMED. I see the GSL as a kind of acid test of who is really in control of the direction of D&D.

It has been stated many times by Clark of Necromancer games that Bill S and Linae etc are in favour of GSL, so IF GSL doesn't come through, then this indicates that gamers are not much listened to over at WoTC anymore, even the ones who work for the company.

So my logic is very simple. Gamers make good games. Corporate people FACILITATE this by making financial decisions. Corporate people are very important to keeping any business afloat but when they start meddling in the creative direction of games, then things go downhill VERY quickly. This is because Corporates like SHORT-TERM gain and generally don't stay in a company very long. Look at the state of our planet to see where the kind of Short-term business logic has got us. Gamers are in it for the long-term, because they all have a stake in the game at a much deeper level.

Take Games Workshop for example. They are a very successful company that makes business decisions that make perfect business sense, they just end up destroying whole swaves of the RPG market. They have just completely cut the most successful RPG of this year (at least in the UK it was outselling D&D 4:1) Dark Heresy because it doesn't fit in with their short-term business plans anymore. I see the same one day happening to D&D after they have alienated so many of us that no-one buys it anymore.

What I am saying is that if the corporates, who have no emotional attachment to D&D, take over then sooner or later there will not be a game called D&D or there will be a game called D&D that completely unrecognisable to those who love the game and is just a cheap ploy to get our money.

I would rather get out now than see the game I have loved for 25 years, rot before my eyes. I also feel that if more people took this stance then the corporate people at WoTC would be undermined and our gamer/designer friends would be empowered. I don't expect this to happen but one thing I have learned in this life is that I can control just one person; ME! So this is my protest. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept and respect my decision.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How does it make any sense to abandon D&D for another closed system?

Surely it makes sense to you that some folks will play 4e whether or not it happens to be the best game system for their style of play, simply out of brand loyalty? That's not at all a hard concept to grasp.

If 4e is not open, that is a knock against reciprocal loyalty. If you have your choice of closed systems, then 4e really has to compete on its own merits, and some folks are highly dubious on that count.

As for Clark, he's got a bit of an Anti-Chicken Little thing going lately. I guess it remains to be seen whether "You guys can't possibly be that stupid!" will open any doors to the D&D brand and Open Gaming, or to Necromancer in general.

And although Clark is right that Necromancer has value to WoTC with respect to gamers that they are able to bring along, I think that a closed 4e will peel away some of Necromancer's support, too. Necromancer stands for more than just quality products, they are champions of Open Gaming. Who knew that in just a few short years, being a champion of Open Gaming would be "old school?"

I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan and a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.

 

[Papa-DRB]

<snip> but one thing I have learned in this life is that I can control just one person; ME! So this is my protest. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept and respect my decision.

QFT

-- david
Papa-DRB

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan and a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.

That's what I think will happen. Those that pay the licensing fee of 5k will be able to be licensees for D&D (maybe limited to adventures or MM's that don't infringe in anyway on future WOTC products; i.e- creating your own bards, druids, monks or whatever as those PI's will be key in selling future PHB, MM's etc.), and those that don't, will not. I vaguely remember the Erick Noah "rumor" from 2006 about 4E- it seems pretty spot on.

 

[dmccoy1693]

When that game arrives, ask me.

Right now, there is not even any game close to what you describe--for me, anyway.

I hate to disagree with you, Orcus, but it does. Its currently called Pathfinder RPG Alpha test. Around GenCon of this year, it'll be called Pathfinder RPG Beta test. And at about GenCon of 09, it'll be called Pathfinder RPG. About a year a half out, all publishers (and gamers) can download a copy of the alphatest to begin planning material for it. Its completely free (no $5K for a preview peak). And the rules are fully open. Lisa of Paizo said last week they will soon be discussing some kind of license to indicate compatability.

A little over a week old and its already being herolded as the true successor of 3E/3.5, in the same vein that Hackmaster was the true successor to 2E.

EDIT: Ok, I apparently read over the last bit of your sentence, the part of "for me, anyways." So, I apologize if my statement came across as harsh, which I never intended it to. Also I didn't mean to sound like I was telling you how you should feel, I was merely trying to convey the pulse of a whole lot of gamers (that would love to see Necro produts for this game) that see this game as the true 4E.

 

[dmccoy1693]

There are plenty of open options.

You ain't kidding, and that number is only growing, not shrinking. Current and near future open games (that I know of):

3.5
OSRIC
Mongoose Traveller
Mongoose Runequest
Mongoose Battlefield Evolution (yes, that is a minis game, an open minis game)
Paizo Pathfinder RPG
Green Ronin True20
Green Ronin Muntants and Masterminds
Fudge System
Action System

I know there are more, but I don't know any more. And yes the list is short, but it is growing. And major publishers (Mongoose/Paizo/Green Ronin) are supporting it.

EDIT: Adde in all the Green Ronin stuff. Thanks Bacris for reminding me.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I really hope that my faith isn't misplaced and I hope that someone, somewhere, gives somebody permission to speak and put our minds at ease, because the "official" statement relayed so far really sounded like they were taking "three steps back."

To me, the official statement reads like they are preparing us for bad news in the future. IMO, WotC made two major screw ups with the pulling of Dungeon and Dragon Mags Licenses: 1) Paizo made the announcement while they stayed silent when they should have made the announcement themselves and 2) they didn't prepare anyone for this, at all, in any way shape or form. It came as a complete surprise to everyone in the gaming industry. Wizards has learned from that mistake (as is evident in things they've done since) and this feels like they are preparing us for more bad news that is not that far down the road.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm going to have to disagree with it being an "open movement". If the OGL was so successful, I think we'd see the biggest publishers adapt to it. I think the popularity of the SRD of 3.x is because it comes from D&D, not because it is open. Any variant of D&D counts as D&D to me.

Mongoose is interesting, but keep in mind Traveller and Runequest are classic games that have had hard-core followings rather than the huge success of D&D, and Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.

If White Wolf made Storyteller or Exalted open, or if Games Workshop made Warhammer open, that would be more indicative of it being the "wave of the future" for me. Or if fans decided that OGL SRD was better than D&D and boycotted D&D 4e "en masse", that would be telling. The latter is possible, but really, I think most players and DMs care more about whether or not the game is fun for them than any publishing philosophy. The lack of an OGL does nothing to prevent me from making my own adventures and campaign worlds, creating my own stories and characters--I just would have to keep them to myself. Not everybody wants to be a publisher and make money of the game.

Keep in mind, I think it would be a blow if the GSL was scrapped and nobody at all could license D&D material. I think they should give some kind of license to the fans for personal use (like putting D&D material on a web site). But it doesn't have to be the same style of license as the OGL was.

I will admit that the "silence methodology" has been pretty disappointing and I do have fears. They need to be more engaging with the fan base.

 

[Delta]

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

Hey, Clark. Your post about why you're interested and motivated to see D&D do well was downright moving and inspiring. It's comments like that that make me feel good to be part of the D&D community in any way.


This quote above I'll quibble with. The text you quoted earlier came from the Open Game Definitions FAQ that's been up since 2001 (with one minor revision in '04). I go to that a lot myself to re-confirm original motivation for the OGL. The box to the right specifically says "The author, Ryan Dancey, is not an attorney and makes no representation about the accuracy of the legal material contained herein." ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d )

Really, Open Gaming came from Ryan. Once he was gone, I don't think there was much remaining company buy-in for the idea. As soon as 3.5 came out in 2003 I very clearly recognized signs that WOTC was walking away from the principles of the OGL. ( http://www.superdan.net/down3-5.html -- wherein I quote stuff from that very FAQ again).

The fact that WOTC has left a web page up for 8 years doesn't really constitute a "policy on open gaming" (as you put it earlier). IMO, it's just an old web page they haven't taken down yet -- all of the publishing actions taken since 2004 have been counter to those principles.


That said, all of your motivations and hopes I totally, completely agree with. Me, I've already had to deal with my disappointment over the promise of the OGL and the direction that WOTC has chosen to go in thereafter. I'm sure that when/if other bad news comes down, you're even more invested in the situation, and you have my great sympathies.