Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 4133390" data-attributes="member: 5724"><p>I can. That's why I'm now believing that the "There will be no GSL" announcement will be delayed until after the core products are released to minimize what little damage the announcement will create.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I believe there will be a minor backlash but very few purchasing opinions will change because of it. Those who were going to buy 4e won't change their mind about that decision because of no open gaming, IMO. I think the same opinion is shared, but prudence would support the announcement of such for the most beneficial time in the similar manner in which the existence of 4e was denied until the most beneficial time for that announcement.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think so. IMO, the most realistic reason for <em>any</em> delay in the creation of the GSL is that the terms have changed from what was described in the conference call, probably because of the need to prevent the utilization of open "traditional D&D fluff" mixing with 4e rules and the new 4e fluff. I think after closely looking at what was desired by way of 3rd party support, I suspect it was realized that not having 3rd party products would be more beneficial than having 3rd party products that are supporting product fluff from older editions when the goal of 4e is to break fluff tradition. And, IMO, that break from fluff tradition was designed to prevent backwards compatibility as backwards compatibility is into an open system while forward migration is into the tremendously profitable subscription model.</p><p></p><p>We'll see if I'm right or wrong and it would be nice if I'm wrong. We'll probably know in a few months. I remember when there was discussion of a 4e OGL, then that turned into discussion of a GSL, and now we're back to "vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." This is a backwards process that has one very logical outcome. Once 3rd party material was viewed as competition instead of beneficial, as demonstrated through the creation of the more restrictive GSL concept, IMO, the ultimate fiscal benefit according to that belief would progress to no 3rd party material at all.</p><p></p><p>joe b.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jgbrowning, post: 4133390, member: 5724"] I can. That's why I'm now believing that the "There will be no GSL" announcement will be delayed until after the core products are released to minimize what little damage the announcement will create. Personally, I believe there will be a minor backlash but very few purchasing opinions will change because of it. Those who were going to buy 4e won't change their mind about that decision because of no open gaming, IMO. I think the same opinion is shared, but prudence would support the announcement of such for the most beneficial time in the similar manner in which the existence of 4e was denied until the most beneficial time for that announcement. I don't think so. IMO, the most realistic reason for [i]any[/i] delay in the creation of the GSL is that the terms have changed from what was described in the conference call, probably because of the need to prevent the utilization of open "traditional D&D fluff" mixing with 4e rules and the new 4e fluff. I think after closely looking at what was desired by way of 3rd party support, I suspect it was realized that not having 3rd party products would be more beneficial than having 3rd party products that are supporting product fluff from older editions when the goal of 4e is to break fluff tradition. And, IMO, that break from fluff tradition was designed to prevent backwards compatibility as backwards compatibility is into an open system while forward migration is into the tremendously profitable subscription model. We'll see if I'm right or wrong and it would be nice if I'm wrong. We'll probably know in a few months. I remember when there was discussion of a 4e OGL, then that turned into discussion of a GSL, and now we're back to "vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." This is a backwards process that has one very logical outcome. Once 3rd party material was viewed as competition instead of beneficial, as demonstrated through the creation of the more restrictive GSL concept, IMO, the ultimate fiscal benefit according to that belief would progress to no 3rd party material at all. joe b. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault
Top