Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[Sunderstone]

My choice to stop supporting Wizards has everything to do with two things: the GSL and the simple fact that 4E doesn't appeal to me personally.

lol. I was thinking along similar lines a few minutes before this on the necro board equivalent thread.

an excerpt from my NG board post

That said 4E still doesnt appeal to alot of people based on fluff alone, let alone the rules. Regardless of the GSL there is still a huge rift between 3.5 and 4E gamers, and it seems like alot of folks like me are firmly planted in the 3.5 camp since before the GSL was released. Its too different a game for alot of us. Regardless of my opinions, I will miss the Necro of old. I love the modules NG put out along with the ToH Revised (which im glad Paizo seems to be drawing some creatures from). I have nothing but respect for your ideals and wish you continued success when you resume putting out some quality 3PP products no matter what edition (even if I dont buy the 4E books).

 

[Banshee16]

Well, through 1E and 2E, there was always Basic D&D that (kind of) competed with AD&D (1 and 2), so there *were* two versions of D&D being supported in the past. They were just put out by the same company.

Well, that is true....but I guess I should clarify my thinking in pointing out that I meant that there weren't options for D&D by companies that weren't WotC or TSR, right?

Obviously, in 3E, everyone got into the game....but in most cases, players were still using the PHB sold by the creator of D&D. Under this new scenario, it could be like we have two (or more) D&D versions, all made by different companies.

Regardless of whether something is called Pathfinder or 3.75E, it's still D&D.....they just can't use the name. But if it looks like a duck...

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Banshee

 

[evilref]

I don't mean to be obtuse at all, but I completely and totally fail to see how those are more restrictive than the GSL. More restrictive than the OGL, perhaps a bit yes, but the GSL? Not a chance.

So you ignored the part of my post with 'on reflection and rereading the licenses...'

It still doesn't escape the fundamental point, however, why the outrage at WotC for a restrictive license, when there's no outrage at every other game company which doesn't have a license at all?

Why does D&D need to be licensed, just because one edition was open?

 

[Darrin Drader]

Regardless of whether something is called Pathfinder or 3.75E, it's still D&D.....they just can't use the name. But if it looks like a duck...

I'm using the term "alternate new edition."

The changes with Pathfinder rewrite nearly half of the core rules from 3.5. The changes are good ones for gameplay while maintaining backwards compatibility. All of the modules from 3.5 can be run with very few changes. It would be interesting to run a 3.0 module, like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and see how that works, but I'm not anticipating any major problems. I'd estimate that about 90% of the splat material can still be used as-is. Alternate core classes that Wizards produced for 3.5 are also still usable, and because there was power creep throughout 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG core classes are a bit more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, they're actually more balanced than they were before.

The fact that Monte Cook is acting as an advisor means that there is a direct line of continuity in the system from 3.0 to Pathfinder. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...."

 

[Lizard]

So you ignored the part of my post with 'on reflection and rereading the licenses...'

It still doesn't escape the fundamental point, however, why the outrage at WotC for a restrictive license, when there's no outrage at every other game company which doesn't have a license at all?

Why does D&D need to be licensed, just because one edition was open?

It doesn't. If WOTC had said, at Gencon '07, "Screw you guys...we're going home.", I think most people would have just said "So it goes". Instead, WOTC has engaged in constant misidrection, missed deadlines, and conflicting messages, and it's hard not to watch it all and not conclude it is a deliberate attempt to keep competitors off balance, to make sure something like Pathfinder wasn't available at the same time 4e was released -- because, guaranteed, if WOTC had said "No license" or "Here's the GSL, like it or lump it" back in August, something very much like Pathfinder -- but completed, not in beta -- would be on sale at this GenCon. It's hard not to imagine they knew this, too -- by design, and by explicit statement (not "by accident" or "unespectedly"), the OGL "freed" Dungeons&Dragons from the control of any business entity. One of its goals was to make sure D&D could survive WOTC's collapse, or Hasbro's disinterest, or any other factor which might end the game line.

There is no such thing as a "right" to publish for D&D. WOTC is perfectly within their rights, morally and legally, to offer no license, or a bad one. By the same token, there's no obligation for people to just say "Thank you sir, may I have another" when they read the GSL. There's a right to feel a bit let down when you were reasonably expecting one thing and got something else. It's like getting socks for your birthday. Sure, socks is better than nothing, but it's not what you wanted and, assuming you always used to get cool toys, not what you were expecting.

As a freelancer, I am disappointed that the GSL will probably lead to fewer companies needing my services. As a D&D player, I am disappointed that there will be fewer Cool Things for use with 4e -- and that means I'm likely to turn to other game systems entirely when I want to run something that isn't bog-standard fantasy. About the only good thing I can see about the GSL is that it's an interesting window for me to go into the PDF business on my own. I have no existing, high-value IP to risk, if I'm PDF only I have no costs if the GSL changes, and I can focus on purely mechanical supplements of the type least likely to offend WOTC. (And I can't be the only one, so I think one of the main effects of the GSL will be to encourage a flood of new "garage band" publishers while the established, high quality firms become WOTCs competitors instead of partners. Meet Mr. Law Of Uninteded Consequences.)

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, I think that's the least of it. The real biggie is power names.

Total agreement. Power names, feat names, magic items names: they are all restricted such that you can't redefine them. So you call your bard a skald. Great, but if you gave it a power called inspire confidence.... ooops. PHB2's bard has the same power name and it finds its way into the GSL. Pulp. Now, that's an easy one to avoid. But there are only so many ways to name a power unless you start translating all of your powers from English to Mandarin to English. Just to be safe.

 

[jmucchiello]

The fact that Monte Cook is acting as an advisor means that there is a direct line of continuity in the system from 3.0 to Pathfinder. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...."

I'm pretty sure Monte's said he had nothing to do with 3.5 so at best that's a dotted line of continuity.

 

[Lizard]

But there are only so many ways to name a power unless you start translating all of your powers from English to Mandarin to English. Just to be safe.

Then you'd end up with Book of Nine Swords. ("Quick! Use Hopping Turnip Attack!" "No, that won't work on golems! I have to use Fist Of The Inverted Bagel!")

Thank all the gods that most of that stuff was ultimately dropped from 4e, despite threats to the contrary.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm pretty sure Monte's said he had nothing to do with 3.5 so at best that's a dotted line of continuity.

I can't dispute that. Despite all the handwringing at the time, there were relatively few large changes to 3.5. In fact, Wizards was releasing 3.5 support products before 3.5 was actually available, such as Fiend Folio.

 

[evilref]

Instead, WOTC has engaged in constant misidrection, missed deadlines, and conflicting messages, and it's hard not to watch it all and not conclude it is a deliberate attempt to keep competitors off balance, to make sure something like Pathfinder wasn't available at the same time 4e was released -- because, guaranteed, if WOTC had said "No license" or "Here's the GSL, like it or lump it" back in August, something very much like Pathfinder -- but completed, not in beta -- would be on sale at this GenCon.


Having worked for large corporations I don't think there was any deliberate attempt myself. Instead I think things changed. Looking back over the timeline I think there was an earnest desire to have something similar but tighter than the OGL. At some point people in positions of authority at WotC (possibly including WotC legal) said something along the lines of 'hang on, do we want this?' and there then began a lot of back and forth. Note, I've seen an update to an existing contract that only changed one line take 2 months to be resolved, so the time isn't that surprising to me.

I wouldn't doubt that there are people at WotC who didn't want the GSL, or that there are people who wanted something comparable to the OGL. I don't personally see anything to ascribe malice to, however, and I doubt Pathfinder is as big a perceived threat in WotC as the Pathfinder boards and champions would have it.

There is no such thing as a "right" to publish for D&D. WOTC is perfectly within their rights, morally and legally, to offer no license, or a bad one. By the same token, there's no obligation for people to just say "Thank you sir, may I have another" when they read the GSL. There's a right to feel a bit let down when you were reasonably expecting one thing and got something else. It's like getting socks for your birthday. Sure, socks is better than nothing, but it's not what you wanted and, assuming you always used to get cool toys, not what you were expecting.

That's a great argument, and probably closest to my views on the GSL. Unfortunately it's not the argument I see most people make about WotC, and it's a lot more justified, but this is certainly a good rationale for why certain people feel let down by the GSL but don't feel any umbrage against companies without a license.

As a freelancer, I am disappointed that the GSL will probably lead to fewer companies needing my services. As a D&D player, I am disappointed that there will be fewer Cool Things for use with 4e -- and that means I'm likely to turn to other game systems entirely when I want to run something that isn't bog-standard fantasy. About the only good thing I can see about the GSL is that it's an interesting window for me to go into the PDF business on my own. I have no existing, high-value IP to risk, if I'm PDF only I have no costs if the GSL changes, and I can focus on purely mechanical supplements of the type least likely to offend WOTC. (And I can't be the only one, so I think one of the main effects of the GSL will be to encourage a flood of new "garage band" publishers while the established, high quality firms become WOTCs competitors instead of partners. Meet Mr. Law Of Uninteded Consequences.)

Now this, having read your work, certainly interests me. I'm interested to see what you do with 4e (though I think you can do a lot more than 'bog standard fantasy with it'), especially as there are certain parts of the system with a lot of flexibility for doing interesting things with.