Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

BryonD

Hero
This I'm not so sure about. Did the OGL save D&D? Not really. No one published under the OGL for quite some time.
Huh? Creature Collection came out BEFORE the Monster Manual. And right there in the back is the OGL. There were OGL products out the very day that 3E was released. And lots of titles came out very rapdily.

The D20 STL certainly saw lots of use under 3e and it wasn't until late 3e, 3.5ish that the OGL saw regular loving.
I think you don't understand the D20 STL / OGL setup. Please provide me a list of a few D20 STL products that were not OGL products.

How much the STL or the OGL helped 3e is anyone's guess really. We can play hypotheticals all day long. Considering that 3pp never saw any large share of the D&D market, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was the OGL that made 3e the powerhouse it was.
There is a huge difference between comparing individual 3PPs to WotC and weighing the entire OGL movement's impact on the market.
And even that misses the real point.
You could buy ten products from WotC and have one or two products from a 3PP that really had a big imapct on your game and that would keep you playing. There were tons of long tail opportunities buried in the 3PP stuff that kept interest in 3E going well out of proportion to their sales figures.

That said, I agree that the 3E mechanics were what really created the boom. But the OGL was a huge support.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BryonD

Hero
So... for me, this is how it looks right now:

Keep in mind that I have ZERO interest in 3.x or Pathfinder or any other non-4E system.


COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Wizards of the Coast
Paizo
Necromancer Games
Green Ronin
Goodman Games
Adamant Entertainment

The three scratched out ones? They'll be added to my list as soon as they produce 4E material. I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat as me....
There are a lot of people in the same boat as you. A whole lot of people.
Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Is anyone aware of what some potential problems could be with the Advanced Player's book for example?

Having to call the barbarian something other than barbarian, the bard something other than bard, and the druid something other than druid, or risk having to pulp your product line when WotC reclaims control of the terminology.
 


Banshee16

First Post
Those above anecdotes are vital to the discussion because if you have owners and other people in the hobby recommending one over the other, I think that has a large effect on market share. Now granted, just because one poster says their FLGSs are leaning toward Pathfinder that does not mean all of them are. But the more people post about what is happening at their FLGSs, the more we all understand what is going on. I think all of us in this hobby have a vested interest in how this GSL v. OGL thing plays out, because it will shape the future of our hobby in the long term.

That's what I'm getting at. The four (actually, five) stores I'm referencing supporting one vs. the other does not mean that it's that way with all stores.....nor does it mean that 4E isn't selling there. At least in those stores, the annecdotal accounts seem to indicate that uptake of the game isn't as strong as the owners expected. They've commented on how split their customers are on the issue, and in some of their cases, the owners and the regulars aren't even fans of the new game. At least at the places I've been to, Paizo products are getting equal shelf space with 4E....they're not a little shelf at the back.

Does it mean anything empirical? No....I stated that from the beginning. Just pointing out the observations I've made, while visiting my local stores. Someone else might state that 3 stores they went to are full of customers raving about the new edition.

But if the owners, and the customers who spend lots of time coming back to the store are leaning towards one or the other, and a new customer comes in asking about what game to get into, the opinion he's going to hear isn't going to be "4E is the way to go". He's going to find he's got choice.....in the change from 1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E, I don't think that same type of choice was available. Yes, there were other gaming companies out there, and other game systems...but there was only one D&D. Now, there are a bunch of different flavours...if Pathfinder takes off, then you're going to have two main types. I don't *think* we've really had that kind of situation before.....the OGL opened up pandora's box, and I don't think anyone can really predict what's going to happen now. If WotC wants to sell the game, those are the kinds of people they need to win over.

Paizo's benchmark for success is likely much smaller than WotC's. They can probably afford to sell 10% of the copies that WotC does, and still be doing well.

Given that 4E came from, in large part, creativity and minds that were enabled and "blooded" in the 3E/d20/OGL market, I suspect that WotC might find that they have a smaller pool of talent to draw from in terms of designers than they did during the previous edition. And, IMO, that's really not good for anyone.

I'm curious though.....how much of the shrinking market in the last few years is due to appetite for RPGs drying up, and how much of it is actually because economic times are tightening overall? People spend their discretionary income far more carefully when times are tight, and RPGs are firmly in the "discretionary income" sector.

Banshee
 

Lizard

Explorer
Having to call the barbarian something other than barbarian, the bard something other than bard, and the druid something other than druid, or risk having to pulp your product line when WotC reclaims control of the terminology.

That's a biggie.

I also think the lack of clarity on "extend" vs. "redefine" makes books like the APH -- or, really, any splat -- risky.

Let's suppose I want to a swashbuckling setting, with flintlocks and so on. I think giving rangers a bunch of gun-based exploits is a good idea. To avoid some redundancy, I might just borrow a lot of the bow powers and recast them as gun based. So I rename "Knockdown Shot" as "Kneecapping", and give it the same effect. Here I run into problems:

a)Unlike the OGL, I cannot use any text. But let's face it -- there's not too many ways to say "Target takes damage and falls down". There's almost no way, other than the flavor text, that "Kneecapping" will not be written very, very, closely to "Knockdown Shot". Will WOTC care? The seeming intent of the GSL is to prevent wholesale copying of the rules, not to make it impossible to make similar powers, but "seeming intent" has no legal value.

b)Does giving gun based powers to the ranger "extend" him, or does it "redefine" him? I have no clue.
 

Creeping Death

First Post
There are a lot of people in the same boat as you. A whole lot of people.
Of course, there are also a whole lot of people, myself being just one, whose list is exactly the opposite.

I agree. In fact my group is doing Star Wars Saga, 3.xE, and a modified version of Iron Heroes. We will grab other 3.xE OGL stuff for use in our games, but 4e? No, not going to switch.
 

SavageRobby

First Post
Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.

Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced. On reflection and rereading the licenses, however, I think the Superlink license is only more restrictive in requiring a copy of the product to be sent for approval, and the true 20 license lies somewhere between the OGL and the GSL for restrictions.

Note, i'm in no way saying that Green Ronin can't have limitations on what products they allow to use their branding, but I find it amusing that WotC gets criticism for changing a license that is still allowing use of its materials (albeit with in my opinion overly harsh clauses) but the dozens of companies and games without such a license get a free pass. And a company such as Green Ronin which also had a harsher license than the OGL likewise skates free of this upswelling of criticism for how they choose to protect their PI and image.


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.
 

The Little Raven

First Post
b)Does giving gun based powers to the ranger "extend" him, or does it "redefine" him? I have no clue.

If it's the PHB Ranger + Guns, then it's extending.

If it's the PHB Ranger - Anything + Guns, then it's redefining.

We've been having this same discussing in my development circle, as we were trying to figure out ways to differentiate our versions of PHB races and classes from the core without running into the problem of redefining.
 

Knight Otu

First Post
That's a biggie.
Actually, I think that's the least of it. The real biggie is power names. If you name a power the same as a WotC power that hasn't been released yet, or release a not quite as well researched as necessary book with a power that has the same name as a WotC power... You could avoid this by adding some nonsense names to your powers, presumably, but what if you reuse one those names in an OGL product eventually without realizing it? While it takes malevolent intent to use such a nonsense name as a "same product line" link, you might open yourself to that.

Essentially, with the GSL, you want to use IP to separate your work from GSL-SRD material, but you don't want to use IP because it'll be eternally removed from OGL land.

Necro made the right call not signing this GSL.
 

Remove ads

Top