New GSL Announcement

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm really sick of people saying "WoTC knew what they were doing" when they made it viral. Yeah, maybe, but perhaps they now see negative effects and want to change their minds. When Andy Collins expressed disappointment about what happened to Unearthed Arcana, they probably didn't think the "egalitarian nature" of the license would bite them on the ass.

John, that's a valid point that can be made without repeating the canard that "all these blatant online SRDs caught WotC by surprise!"

The SRD has always been online. First at WotC, and still going strong there.

You would also do well to read the FAQ before you do any speculating on what WotC did and did not anticipate. It's still a great read today.

I don't know how much of what's provided in that FAQ is still "common wisdom" at WotC. But I would pay $24.99 to see that FAQ dissected, discussed, and updated by WotC insiders in a softcover volume I could read on the crapper. I'd value it more than Worlds and Monsters or Races and Classes.

 

[Lizard]

I didnt "mention" it.

I related it to all of you as it was told to me.

I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.

But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.

Yet, we have Lidda saying the following:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.

From: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224217

Which is what I based my (optimistic, for once) interpretation on.

At this point, the best I can say is that it looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and given that there have been several months of intensive work to get the license "just right", it's a bit worrisome that it can't be pinned down well enough for people whose livlihoods depend on it to decide what to do. It's very easy to spin conspiracy theories here...the delays and confusion have probably kept companies from committing resources to producing product which might have stolen some of the 4e launch thunder. I have no reason to believe this is the case, but conspiracy theories thrive on reading malice into simple human error.

The question of "Is the restriction per-product or per-company" really isn't vague, obscure, borderline, or edge. It's not like the "What is 'clearly defined'" debate WRT to PI/OGC which was the biggie with the original OGL. Either a company can produce some products under the OGL and some under the GSL, so long as they're different products -- or they can't. I honestly don't see why this is hard to state authoritively. (But I still have a page of replies to read, maybe it's recolsved by the end of this thread. Tally ho!)

 

[JohnRTroy]

You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too. The PC business doesn't help IBM. Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN. And Oldtimer, you can't refute that simple fact. I'm not saying the Microcomputer revolution wasn't beneficial to the industry, but IBM didn't get much out of it. I suggest both of you read that book, it is very enlightening and against the current popular memes.

WoTC is in no obligation to make the same mistakes. While this may sound cold, they are not responsible for the GGP (Gross Gamer Product). Competition existed without the OGL, it will continue if the OGL dies on the vine (if enough people decide to abandon it).

This may not be the best thing for the consumer--but I can't blame them for doing this either.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Ladies and Gents,

I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands.

I am reading the thread, absorbing all the opinions, rants, speculations, thoughts, and musings. I have chimed in on a couple posts but beyond that, sitting here on Saturday morning, with out the license in front of me, I am quickly skating into the realm of speculation and I don't not want to unnecessarily add gas to the fire that may or may not be there. Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y.

I will say this Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done.

First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products. We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us. We'll have two licenses, one that supports fantasy genre gaming and one that acts as a bit of a catch all to support everything else (modern, sci-fi, super-hero etc). In the end this license may not be for everyone but we are designing it to be good enough for most. Regardless of what we do with the license and system, on the spectrum of fully closed to fully open, there will be alternative viewpoints and opinions and they all have a level of validity.

Wizards clearly derived benefit from the OGL but I think the jury will be out for eternity on exactly what the benefits were and weren't. It's the stuff message boards were made for. Was the OGL perfect? No, but it certainly got a lot of people playing and making RPGs and the industry is stronger for it. I am a big proponent of open gaming, I get the network effect. The OGL and D20 SRD created benefits for D&D 3.x but I also recognize there are some bugaboos in the openness as well.

We had simple goals in mind with the license. 1) Support WotC's core RPG business. 2) Continue the notion set with the OGL that if publishers want to make books that work with D&D (and other WOTC brands) there will be an option for them. 3) Have a license that works for WoTC but keeps our involvement in the license to as minimal as possible 4) Keep the barriers to entry as low as possible. Simple goals but not always simple solutions.

I am at GAMA next week. On Thursday I am back in the office and on Friday I hope to have the license in my hand. Many of us will spend a week or so combing over it, again and again, making sure we are totally happy with it, only then will we send it out to folks like Clark, Chris, Erik, Russ, and the other publishers we are talking with.

I will keep you posted on the final results as I am sure folks like Clark will do as well.

First scout I would like to say thanks for your work, any feels i have expressed has not been towards you or any other person. Just the company. I am really really hoping what has been said is not what it really means. I really hope you get the GSL and find the way it is written it will allow 3rd party publishers to still make OGL and get on board with the GSL. Especially if they are different products, I wouldn't be happy if companies couldn't make 3.5 free downloads for their books. But it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

Anyways, here's to hoping I and many others are wrong. Have a nice weekend.

 

[crow81]

Based what is now known about the GSL and 4th edition. One thing is crystal clear WotC intent was geared toward getting away from the OGL regardless if D&D need an upgrade.

Their actions with DDI, Dragon and Dungeon magazines show this was a rushed process. Quality is secondary.

I suspect the secrecy regarding the GSL and SRD have more to do with there fear that 4e will pale in comparison to 3.5.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hrm,

First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products.

I am struck by the narrowness of this definition, that is,to sell 4e products. I would consider "selling 4e products" to be a business strategy, and the business was selling games and game related material.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

(But I still have a page of replies to read, maybe it's recolsved by the end of this thread. Tally ho!)

Is this the end of the thread? Are you here yet?

Welcome!

How's it looking from where you're sitting now?

 

[JohnRTroy]

You would also do well to read the FAQ before you do any speculating on what WotC did and did not anticipate. It's still a great read today.

I did. But I'm sure some people were surprised and disappointed. The FAQ says they can do it. But I'm sure people at WoTC thought people would be nicer and not exploitive. I would call republishing UA exploitive. It's not as egalitaran as some think. And I would say that behavior of people is one of the reasons why we are now getting a GSL. Maybe they expected better of people. I dunno.

I don't know how much of what's provided in that FAQ is still "common wisdom" at WotC. But I would pay $24.99 to see that FAQ dissected, discussed, and updated by WotC insiders in a softcover volume I could read on the crapper. I'd value it more than Worlds and Monsters or Races and Classes.

I assume that FAQ will be going away soon once the GSL replaces the OGL. I doubt Wizards will keep their own SRD up once 4e hits.

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

I didnt "mention" it.

I related it to all of you as it was told to me.

I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.

But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.

I appreciate that you tried to do so and I appreciate your forthright manner during the whole affair. Although the WotC fan in me (and make no mistake, I am/was one) is unsettled, I wish Necromancer the best of luck with 4e!

 

[tomBitonti]

In fairness, I am wondering if the restrictions have much to do with the practical difficulty in combinding the OGL with the GSL. That is, in relation to individual products.

On the other hand, if there is a company based restriction as opposed to a product by product restriction, I don't think that practical difficulty is an issue.

Thx!