Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[Angellis_ater]

Yup. Wouldn't it be great if some folks would get their heads out of their backsides and make 4e OGL? Then we really could have the best of both worlds......!

Something like this: http://4esque.pbwiki.com ?

 

[carmachu]

I'm flattered, guys, and I share your frustration--not just for my own work, but others' work that I'd like to see.

But don't throw in the towel just yet. As Clark said in his initial post, he's still hoping to work stuff out. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not worried or frustration, but I'm going to cling to hope as long as I have it.

I hope it works out for you and clark, if for no other reason than folks are fans of the work. But really, why is wotc going to make a special deal, what reason do they have for it?

The apparantly wanted total control back and with eth GSL got it.....especially in the light of various comments from scott and Lin that they had to fight to even get the GSL outthe door....

 

[The_Universe]

What I would really like to know is how many people just went into a store to pick up a RPG to play. There is no significant marketing campaign for 4e. Every single person that I have talked to has said they were introduced to D&D and RPGs by someone else. That train goes all the way back to miniature wargamers, people that watched D&D cartoons, and Boy Scout leaders. Name recognition means nothing if nobody plays. If I go into my FLGS and they are playing Pathfinder, that's what I'm going to be introduced to. Has anyone that never played D&D gone into Borders of B&N and just bought D&D because some computer games were based off of it? D&D and RPGs in general are word-of-mouth hobbies. I would love to see marketing data that points otherwise.

To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?

I bought all three 2e core D&D books based on adds on the backs of comic books.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Hello, evilref! Thank you for responding to my thoughts.

I don't see Wizards buying up or eliminating any competition.

To clarify my point, the GSL seems, in my perception (and that of several other posters in this thread), like a thinly veiled attempt to discourage any 3pp from creating content that can compete directly with the niche created by WotC's 4e product line.

Beyond this, I am conjecturing that Wizards may attempt to lure the best writers away from Paizo and NG. This would be a bad thing, IMO, for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the editorial freedom afforded by publishing at Paizo or NG. RPGeniuses such as Clark or Logue or Baur (or Marmell or Drader for that matter) should be allowed as much creative freedom as possible, IMO. Pure speculation on my part, but the rationale seems within the realm of possibility (or at least her majesty's Britannia).

Every RPG company with employees produces books to make money. To think otherwise is to have an overly idealistic view of the company.

I appreciate the reminder about this fundamental nature of companies. It is shocking how often I forget such commonplace bits of knowledge. Anyway, my admittedly maudlin point was this: the olde guard at WotC gave me several good reasons to be idealistic. They administered the company from what appeared to be an idealistic position. The new guard is ... different. Although I am neither womanish nor a child, this makes me want to cry. A lot.

<sniffle>

 

[evilref]

To clarify my point, the GSL seems, in my perception (and that of several other posters in this thread), like a thinly veiled attempt to discourage any 3pp from creating content that can compete directly with the niche created by WotC's 4e product line.

I think that's an oversimplification. The GSL (absent whether you like its overall language or not) doesn't discourage adventures, or campaign settings (albeit redefining races is out). I think in the main it's there to prevent or discourage new games using the system. It has a knockon effect (possibly unintended) of making certain other products harder to do.

There's certainly a much stronger focus on protecting 4e and limiting a company from putting out a cheaper version of the rulebook, or a different game using 4e and 'forking' 4e the way 3e was forked. That said, one of the oft-stated intentions of the OGL was for everyone to be 'playing the same game'. However, a number of derivations of the SRD led to very different versions of that game, so different in fact that some companies had their own licenses to put out material to support their lines.

If (and this is conjecture) that's the primary focus of the GSL then it certainly accomplishes that, but I think does so at the expense of unduly limiting other products and the protections a number of publishers would like to have.

Beyond this, I am conjecturing that Wizards may attempt to lure the best writers away from Paizo and NG. This would be a bad thing, IMO, for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the editorial freedom afforded by publishing at Paizo or NG. RPGeniuses such as Clark or Logue or Baur (or Marmell or Drader for that matter) should be allowed as much creative freedom as possible, IMO. Pure speculation on my part, but the rationale seems within the realm of possibility (or at least her majesty's Britannia)

If by lure away you mean hire then I don't see that myself. NG, as much as I like them, has never been a major seller and many of Paizo's core staff are ex-wotc employees. If WotC wanted to rehire those people I'm sure all they had to do was pick up the phone, not create a new license to drive writers towards them. Moreover, both of those companies primarily produce work created by freelancers. Those freelancers are as able to write for WotC (who also use a lot of freelancers) as they are for any other company in the industry. WotC also pays if not the best then among the best rates in the industry, so certainly on a financial basis there's no disincentive there for succesful writers to write for them.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

I think that's an oversimplification. The GSL ... doesn't discourage adventures, or campaign settings (albeit redefining races is out).

Um ... except that is what's happening here, my friend. To summarize, Clark Peterson, 4e's "staunchest supporter," is discouraged by the GSL from publishing several adventures his company already has in the pipeline.

... it (sic) does so at the expense of unduly limiting other products and the protections a number of publishers would like to have.

I completely agree with this.

...disincentive...

Totally. My concern is not that WotC will hire these folks to do some freelance work. That would be peachy. My concern is that these writers will have no other choice but to write exclusively for WotC if they wish to continue to produce D&D material. Observe the writing on the proverbial wall. It reads "MONOPOLY" in largish, blood-soaked letters. WotC's new GSL is designed to put companies under their thumb or, worse, out of business. They have the right to conduct their business this way. I'm just saying ... it kinda sucks.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Any time a post devolves into line by line rebuttles, you know it has gone too far.

Preposterous!

 

[pemerton]

He wants legally binding 'clarifications'. The sort you can rely on in court as a shield against litigation (in UK law, per the doctrine of estoppel the claimant is 'estopped' from bringing action when the defendant made a good-faith reliance upon their assurance. I believe US law works similarly).

I agree. I mentioned estoppel in my earlier post. I also assume that evidence of a mutual understanding of certain clauses could be led to help interpret the contract at least in some cases (how strictly does the US apply the parol evidence rule?).

 

[evilref]

Totally. My concern is not that WotC will hire these folks to do some freelance work. That would be peachy. My concern is that these writers will have no other choice but to write exclusively for WotC if they wish to continue to produce D&D material. Observe the writing on the proverbial wall. It reads "MONOPOLY" in largish, blood-soaked letters. WotC's new GSL is designed to put companies under their thumb or, worse, out of business. They have the right to conduct their business this way. I'm just saying ... it kinda sucks.

I think you're taking a supportable position and argument (The GSL is not as open as the OGL) and spinning it into an unsupported and illogical conclusion (WotC wants to put companies out of business). If there was no GSL it would be a more supported position, but still not actively show 'WotC wants to put companies out of business.

For that matter, where's the outrage and arguments aimed at every company in the industry that doesn't have an open license for their systems? Which also includes companies that use the OGL and have developed products which have their own restrictive licenses (some of which more limited than the GSL).

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

I may be an "illogical" and "over-simplified" ragamuffin. I'll take that. Hell, I sometimes "exaggerate" and even think in "overly-idealistic" terms.

My best quality, though, is my ability to condescend without any hint of subtlety whatever.