New GSL Announcement

[Urizen]

That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[GMSkarka]

The fact that we haven't had a WotC confirmation of the "company-wide" ultimatum --and, given continued posts on other subjects, it seems a rather purposeful lack of confirmation -- isn't helping things.

If it is a company-wide, all-or-nothing choice -- then it further demonstrates that WotC doesn't really understand the OGL -- because there are NON-d20-based games that are released under the OGL.

So, under an ill-considered policy such as the one that has been rumored, a company would be prevented from producing material for FATE, Fudge, or any of the other non-d20 systems that have been released under the terms of the original license-- Games which have no bearing at all upon D&D.

Scott said:

Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x.

But the problem is that OGL does not equal 3.x in all cases.

Choosing to support 4th Edition should not prevent us from supporting (for example) Spirit of the Century, just because SotC was released under the OGL.

So again -- give us a confirmation, please. Surely WotC isn't making such an unnecessarily draconian move....

 

[tomBitonti]

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?

Well, yes, and no.

Yes, because as a purchaser of 35E products, I have an expectation that WOTC will continue to support that product for a reasonable period following my purchase. My engagement with WOTC persists following the particular sale. WOTC made no provision that they would continue to support the 35E product, but that is my expectation, and what I see as necessary for WOTC to maintain me as a customer in good faith.

No, because I understand the desire to promote 4E. I can view this as a good thing, because it concentrates the market -- which may be unsustainable if it fragments. On the other hand, it may be a bad thing, if it only serves to prop up a substandard, or not sufficiently competitive product. (Put another way, if 4E is the bees knees, why are any restrictions necessary?)

Thx!

 

[Lizard]

That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.

Just to be sure we're all on the same page:

A company CAN produce both OGL and GSL products, at the same time.
A company CAN NOT produce both OGL and GSL versions of THE SAME PRODUCT at the same time.

If I may borrow Chris Pramas' good name and fine company for just a moment, let us speculate that, looking at the market, they decide Freeport is a good fit for 4e. They cease making any 3x version of Freeport and release "Freeport:The Next Generation" as a 4e supplement.

At the same time, they decide Mutants&Masterminds is doing just fine on its own and upgrading it to the 4e engine wouldn't add play value or meaningful sales. They continue to produce and sell new M&M products under the OGL.

There is no case (in this hypothetical) where the same product is sold as both an OGL and a GSL product concurrently. The 4e Freeport lines and the OGL M&M line share no "code", if you will, though both are (obviously) published by the same company.

Is this allowable under the GSL? Your comments, and Lidda's comments, indicate it *is*, but there seems to be some confusion and a great big official "Yes, this IS how it works" would cut out a lot of rampant speculation.

(I have, of course, no knowledge of any plans on the part of Green Ronin; I'm using their products solely because it's often easier to use real-world examples than made-up names.)

 

[BryonD]

Just to be sure we're all on the same page:

A company CAN produce both OGL and GSL products, at the same time.
A company CAN NOT produce both OGL and GSL versions of THE SAME PRODUCT at the same time.

Have there been ANY clarifications that actually say this? I'd love for you to be right. But I've seen statements that directly contradict this and nothing beyond wishful optimism to support it. Can you point me to what I missed?

 

[Belen]

Heh. You got us on that one. We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.

We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters.

We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.

I find this statement funny. Of course you were not going to support 3e anymore. When has WOTC ever supported an old edition of their game once the new edition is out? I am sorry, but I do not see how your statement is good for anyone but WOTC.

 

[Dragonblade]

Some of you people apparently spend so much time playing D&D that you can't get your head out of fantasy land.

I have seen posts in this thread comparing the GSL policy to exploitation of 3rd world workers, all the way to saying that the GSL is an anti-trust violation. Give me a #$%^ing break!

I've seen WotC compared to spoiled children, even. But really, they are more like the kid who offered to share their toys only to see the other kids snatch them up and walk off with them. So they brought some new toys and said we'll share these but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time.

The only "spoiled" children I see are the ones who feel they are entitled to toys that don't belong to them.

WotC doesn't have to have any GSL at all. Period. The fact that they have one is a generous gesture. If you don't like the terms, then don't use it. But lets cut all the childish whining and bitching, and this ridiculous sense of entitlement.

 

[Dragonblade]

I am sorry, but I do not see how your statement is good for anyone but WOTC.

So what? Why shouldn't it be?

 

[BryonD]

WotC doesn't have to have any GSL at all. Period. The fact that they have one is a generous gesture.

If Orcus' statements are correct then they are using the GSL as a tool to do as much damage to the OGL as possible. Your assessment completely fails to account for that.
This is about as generous as the Trojan Horse.

 

[Goobermunch]

Have there been ANY clarifications that actually say this? I'd love for you to be right. But I've seen statements that directly contradict this and nothing beyond wishful optimism to support it. Can you point me to what I missed?

I think that's Lizard's point. We're eating around the edges of the issue. Lizard has distilled the essence of the question and is now requesting the confirmation you desire.

Lizard is relying on Le' Rouse's most recent comment, but I think he may be reading beyond the words on the page.

I think the more accurate way to read Scott's comment is as follows:

A) You can continue to publish your existing back catalogue of OGL product.
B) You can also produce new GSL content.
C) You cannot also produce new OGL content.

What I think Lizard would like is a statement to the effect that:
A) You can continue to support your existing OGL lines.
B) You can also produce new GSL content.
C) You cannot produce new "3.5" derived content.

Is that a fair recapitulation of where you're at Lizard?

--G