Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Najo" data-source="post: 4408000" data-attributes="member: 9959">First Paizo, now Clark and Necromancer Games. Neither is doing the GSL. This is a shame as both companies brought alot to the D&D game and I don't think they made a negative impact on WOTC's bottomline. The 3pp sell a 10th to a 50th of WOTC sells in volumn, and most of the purchasers of the 3.x 3pp still spend a considerable amount of money with WOTC. I love 4e. I understand the reasons for most the system and GSL changes and agree with them, except the lack of 3pp safe harbor with GSL and the retro active clause towards the OGL. The reason the GSL is so restrictive is either a) WOTC is trying to protect their brand from abuse by amature 3PP or b) WOTC is trying to wipe out the OGL and regain a RPG monopoly with the D&D brand.WOTC, I think a happy medium needs to be met. The 3pp are essentially glorified DMs who want to produce high quality materials to share on a larger scale. I think this is a natural element for D&D of any edition to have. You need to look at company's like Microsoft with the Xbox 360 and treat your game engine like you would a video game system. Give publishers safety to publish and support your product instead of trying to figure out ways to compete with it. The issue with the OGL was that it was to open, but the GSL is not open enough. Any rate, this thread is intended for two things. 1) Scott and Linae, I know you do not want to comment on timelines or legalities of the GSL, but what I like to know is what is the intention of the GSL? Does WOTC want 3pp playing the the D&D sandbox or not? Please at least let us know what the goal is.2) To the fans, how do you feel about the effect of the GSL on the 3pp and the current facturing occuring in the 3pp community? Vote in the poll and place your comments in the thread.</blockquote>

Verification