New GSL Announcement

[Orcus]

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone will be mad at you...

I dont think anyone should be mad at Wizards either.

Heck, the concept of letting us use their license is to help sell core books. In my view, this restriction--more than any of their other restrictions about content and sexuality and violence--actually aims right at the heart of that key purpose.

Now, dont get me wrong, I would strongly prefer that this clause not exist. But I'm not really in a position to gripe about that. They want to crush out 3E support and drive people to 4E, that's their choice. And I cant say it is a bad one. Others may feel differently. But it makes perfect business sense to me. I didnt see that coming. And I like to be right. So it aggravates me on that level. But it makes sense. The point of the GSL is to help sell 4E. One way to do that is to close off support for 3E. They cant revoke the OGL/3E SRD, so the only way to accomplish closing down 3E is to do exactly what they are doing. As their attorney, I probably would have advised them to do exactly that.

Clark

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that and still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?

I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.

 

[BryonD]

I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.

Is that at least a partial loophole?
If I read it right, a Necro/Paizo partnership could simply result in both doing whatever they want and all the 4E stuff being published by the Necro side and all the 3E stuff being published by the Paizo side. Am I wrong?
What if Necromancer goes pure 4E but Clark Peterson also forms Illusionist Games and Illusionist Games does 3E stuff (completely unrelated to Necromancer products). Is that ok?
(I'm just using you as a 100% hypothetical example).

 

[DaveMage]

Heck, the concept of letting us use their license is to help sell core books. In my view, this restriction--more than any of their other restrictions about content and sexuality and violence--actually aims right at the heart of that key purpose.

Now, dont get me wrong, I would strongly prefer that this clause not exist. But I'm not really in a position to gripe about that. They want to crush out 3E support and drive people to 4E, that's their choice. And I cant say it is a bad one. Others may feel differently. But it makes perfect business sense to me. I didnt see that coming. And I like to be right. So it aggravates me on that level. But it makes sense. The point of the GSL is to help sell 4E. One way to do that is to close off support for 3E. They cant revoke the OGL/3E SRD, so the only way to accomplish closing down 3E is to do exactly what they are doing. As their attorney, I probably would have advised them to do exactly that.

Clark

Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.

 

[Orcus]

If I read it right, a Necro/Paizo partnership could simply result in both doing whatever they want and all the 4E stuff being published by the Necro side and all the 3E stuff being published by the Paizo side. Am I wrong?

Nope you are not wrong. That is correct. And, frankly, that is the plan of what I intend to do.

What if Necromancer goes pure 4E but Clark Peterson also forms Illusionist Games and Illusionist Games does 3E stuff (completely unrelated to Necromancer products). Is that ok?
(I'm just using you as a 100% hypothetical example).

I'd have to see the GSL to answer that. But it certainly seems possible. Hypothetically of course. I have no intent of doing that. We are 4E.

 

[Orcus]

Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.

Yeah, funny, huh?

Believe me, I will do everything in my power to do something. What that will be I dont know.

 

[Lizard]

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that and still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?

I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.

Well, it means some publishers which are doing well with OGL product (Mongoose, Green Ronin, to name two) will not just drop their successful lines and make 4e products. So their goal of getting the best existing 3x publishers over is weakened by not letting them smoothly transition.

 

[DaveMage]

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that and still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?

From a business perspective, I certainly agree.

From an RPG fan perspective, I don't. "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride. YMMV, of course.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that and still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?

I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.

By that thinking they never should have done the OGL in the first place because the OGL allowed spin-offs.

I agree with you completely that they are a business and don't owe anything to anyone.

But first, there is more than ample basis for being a lot less pleased because, as presented so far, they are moving sharply away from being the overall gaming community heroes. The GSL is well better than most everyone else. But it is well less than true Open gaming. So they have moved backward.

But beyond that, this isn't just leaving 3E behind. They can not take back the OGL. But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community. I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.

 

[Wicht]

From an RPG fan perspective, I don't. "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride. YMMV, of course.

I gotta agree. Turns me off as a consumer. Moreover, what it says to me is that they don't feel their new product can compete with their old product and as a discerning consumer, I have to wonder why?

 

[BryonD]

From an RPG fan perspective, I don't. "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride. YMMV, of course.

Yep, its WotC's "You are either with us or against us" day.

 

[BryonD]

I have no intent of doing that. We are 4E.

Yeah I know. Thanks for the reply.
I'm not part of your 4E market, but I will thank you for all the great stuff you made before.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC.

Please don't "should" on me.

I've thought this through, and I'm plenty mad at WotC. Is this a good strategic business decision on their part? Yes. But that's not an aspect that I'm particularly concerned with. WotC could still make money, promote their product, and be successful without deliberately attempting to hamstring other publishers.

This is, frankly, a step backwards from the spirit of Open Gaming. I tend to get upset whenever anything moves from a paradigm of more freedom to less freedom. Basically demanding that companies give up the OGL if they want to use the GSL at all (to say nothing of all of the other restrictions built in) just rubs me the wrong way on principle alone.

That's not even taking into account that, as a fan, I like 3.5 and want companies to stick with it. Now there will be less of that, because companies that would be inclined to do both 3.5 and 4E material won't have that option. That, in turn, gives me less options as a consumer. That also holds true for the 4E customers as well - companies that stick with the OGL won't be producing 4E materials (for example, I doubt Green Ronin, with their Mutants & Masterminds and True20 lines, will dump the OGL), giving those fans less third-party works as well...which ultimately hurts WotC.

Declaring war on the OGL just makes battle-lines be drawn, and it's ultimately a loss, not a win, when that happens. Hence why I'm rather upset at WotC that they've stepped so far away from the "enlightened self-interest" that was Open Gaming, and have instead used their new GSL as a weapon against the OGL.

[/rant]

 

[Wicht]

I assume this rule only affects publishers and that freelancers are still able to work for a company that produces one and then work for a company that produces another at the same time?

 

[TheLe]

I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.

In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.

That sounds quite absurd. So, if I go with 4e, I am not allowed to do True20, Mutants and Masterminds, 3e, Spycraft, etc? My company is essentially locked into to 4e?

Is this right?

Are they also going to tell us that we can't publish our own Role Playing Games too? So if I publish 4e games, it means I cannot release my own new self contained RPG (with OGL): "Unorthodox Insurance Salesman: The Role Playing Game"?

I was thinking about making a board game some day -- maybe WOTC can put a new clause in the 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.

`Le

 

[Orcus]

Guys, come on. This is hardly declaring war on the OGL. If there was no GSL things would be exactly as they are right now with the GSL. You choose to make 3E products all you want. It cant possibly be worse to give us more choice than we had without the GSL.

Yes, I think the "with us or against us" mentality is not my first choice and it is a step back in open gaming. But I think everyone needs to understand that my belief is that there was a strong chance that 4E was not going to be open at all. This is a far cry better than that.

As a practical matter, there are very few people this affects more than marginally. If you are carving out a 3E niche, then what the heck do you want to do 4E for? If you are going 4E, there is little sense in going back to 3E. I dont think there would have been many people "riding the fence," so to speak. Certainly not in the long term, anyway. Other than the company that maybe wants to do a quick 4E exploit book (which, frankly, doesnt benefit Wizards, it benefits the one-shot exploiter), there are probably very few people other than Paizo perhaps who could credibly and legitimately carried both a 4E and 3E product line, and they will get to do that with us anyway.

So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice. As a practical matter, all you lose is the company that might have dabbled with one or two books. And guess what, they can do those one or two books and then go back to 3E all they want.

 

[Orcus]

That sounds quite absurd. So, if I go with 4e, I am not allowed to do True20, Mutants and Masterminds, 3e, Spycraft, etc? My company is essentially locked into to 4e?

Is this right?

Are they also going to tell us that we can't publish our own Role Playing Games too? So if I publish 4e games, it means I cannot release my own new self contained RPG (with OGL): "Unorthodox Insurance Salesman: The Role Playing Game"?

I was thinking about making a board game some day -- maybe WOTC can put a new clause in the 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.

`Le

I guess they could condition use of teh GSL on that, but I dont think that is even remotely being suggested. The word I got from Wizards is that there is no riding the fence. You are in as a company. But lets not make this something it isnt. They arent trying to limit all that stuff you mentioned.

 

[lurkinglidda]

But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community. I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.

Edited out. My apologies to ByronD for gut-reaction posting. You're right in that it is OK for you to be mad. The part about our blatant attempt got under my skin. Now you know what buttons to hit with me!

 

[JohnRTroy]

This is, frankly, a step backwards from the spirit of Open Gaming. I tend to get upset whenever anything moves from a paradigm of more freedom to less freedom. Basically demanding that companies give up the OGL if they want to use the GSL at all (to say nothing of all of the other restrictions built in) just rubs me the wrong way on principle alone.

This is personally why I am glad they are doing a GSL instead of an OGL. The "Spirit of Open Gaming" crowd tends to annoy me a little. They are the ones who would get mad at Monte Cook for creating "crippled OGL", think that a free online SRD is "good" when it creates a free alternative to the PHB, think the guy who did the True 20 SRD is in the right, think it was okay to put the entire Unearthed Arcana online, etc. I don't like the religious zeal towards the OGL...it's a license that Wizards graciously gave, and I think this new license is designed to prevent some abuses.

Having a morals clause and not letting it be "viral" is not a key element in letting publishers use D&D compatible rules. I at least like Orcus' stance, he's a little annoyed with restrictions, but as a lawyer he sees it as good advice from the companies' standpoint.

That's not even taking into account that, as a fan, I like 3.5 and want companies to stick with it. Now there will be less of that, because companies that would be inclined to do both 3.5 and 4E material won't have that option.

Actually, it's much more likely some will stick full bore, creating competition on that front. I think Green Ronin is thinking long and hard now about whether or not to do 4e adventures.

People want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time--if Wizards decides to change the rules completely and go 4e, I would rather the guys who don't like the terms stick with 3e. Is 3e still viable? Let them prove it! WoTC was never obligated to release any content as OGL.

 

[TheLe]

So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice.

It is actually a very real choice. I have 3 books in the works for Mutations and Monsters, 2 books in the works for True20, 1 book for Earth AD, and a major release of my new ogl non-d20 book: Forgotten City.

3e has been my core focus, but to go with 4e I have to drop all those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the money I put into those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the loss of potential sales from those books which I may not be able to publish?

I was thinking about developing a Windows computer game someday based on chess. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in 4e that will prevent me from doing that too.

`Le