New GSL Announcement

[see]

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.

Even without your reassurances, I would say that's probably true.

However, assuming what we've been told about the GSL is true, it is pretty clearly evidence of fear on the part of some important decision-maker(s) at Wizards of the Coast.

The by-company by-license xor approach has some pretty wide-ranging effects. If a company wants to support D&D 4th Edition, they won't be able to sell stuff for, say, Mongoose's upcoming Traveller game (which is licensed under the OGL but mechanically unrelated to the SRD). That's a pretty big splatter effect. But, since it is not (apparently) banning GSL publishers from publishing for non-OGL third-party games, the GSL clause is pretty clearly not concerned with other RPGs in general. The target is not games like Mongoose Traveller, any more than it is GURPS. And it seems unlikely that it would be aimed at something similarly far away from D&D 4th Edition as, oh, Mutants & Masterminds.

The only really logical target is D&D 3.5. Apparently, Wizards of the Coast (that is, a decision-maker at the company or its corporate parent) is afraid that continuing support for D&D 3.5 from third parties could significantly undermine D&D 4th Edition, and accordingly wants to cut off that support.

After all, if third-party support for 4th Edition is a bad thing, the logical move is no GSL. If having third-party support for 4th Edition is good but restricting the number of third-party support companies is necessary, the logical move is no general GSL, but a limited contractual license with specific publishers. If wide support for 4th Edition is a good thing and third-party support for D&D 3.5 is not a threat, the logical choice is a GSL which allows people to produce 3.5 material on the side, because that would maximize the number of companies willing to dip their toe into 4th Edition support.

But if third-party support for D&D 3.5 is viewed as a threat, well, barring a company from making both is going to be an effective way to reduce the available support for that game, killing things like continued sales of the 3.5-compatible versions of Tome of Horrors.

So, assuming a basically rational decision was made, somebody in an important decision-making capacity at Wizard of the Coast (or at a level in Hasbro with oversight of Wizards of the Coast) thinks that, e.g, the Pathfinder RPG is a threat of some measurable significance to D&D 4th Edition.

Interesting. And it reminds me (IIRC, of course), that Ryan Dancey said that the RPG division's biggest competitor was previous editions of the D&D game.

 

[Greylock]

And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled.

Yet somehow, I've managed to be boggled and amazed at the number of posters in this thread who represent in some capacity, owner, writer or other, RPG publishers who I respect and value above many others. These are posters whom, once I realised what I was seeing, I had to stop and take note of, if for no other reason than that their books own significant chunks of space on my RPG bookshelves and, in pdf form, on my computer. And pretty much all of them are aghast at what is being suggested. Even Orcus, who owns more of my bookshelf space than the Wizards themselves [and I'm not sure what I'm going to do when he goes 4E yet .]

The only major publisher, by my personal reckoning and my personal tastes and cares alone, who has stayed out of this fray is Troll Lords, although I am doubtful that they really care what happens with 4E. They don't plan on going that route, and in fact have been converting their 3.x books to C&C OGL.

Appearing so far:

• Necromancer

• TheLe

• Green Ronin

• Dreamscarred Press

• Reality Deviant

• Inner Circle

• Paizo

• RPGObjects

• Adamant

• [And by association, Louis Porter Designs]

And those are all publishers I care deeply about.

[I'm probably missing some folks, but see, I have signatures turned off and I'm only noting the folks I know and regard.]

Edit: I KNEW I was leaving someone out. Sorry, GMSkarka.

 

[der_kluge]

For me, it's the idea of WotC putting the crunch on 3pp companies to either pick one or the other system to support. I honestly do not think it is WotC's place to be telling another company what they can or cannot produce. Many of these 3pp companies would love to be able to support both systems and their respective customers. Just as their loyal customers would like to be able to support their favorite 3pp company.

It's because of that kind of strong arm tactic that I will not be supporting 4th Ed myself. If WotC does not have the faith and conviction in 4th Ed to succeed alongside of 3.x, well then, I guess I won't be going along for the ride.

That's a completely valid argument, but I don't entirely agree with it. It's in WoTC's best interest to ensure that all publishers either come on board 100% or don't come on board at all. The market is already fragmented enough - we've got gamers playing 1e, 2e, 3e, C&C, and other variants. Really, if everyone just switched to the same system, everyone would be better off for it. Of course, I don't believe that will actually ever happen, but you have to agree that if it were to happen, it would be the most ideal situation.

Hey, look at me white-knighting WoTC. That's Clark's job.

 

[Goobermunch]

Interesting. And it reminds me (IIRC, of course), that Ryan Dancey said that the RPG division's biggest competitor was previous editions of the D&D game.

Never more so than now, when the previous edition will continue in development and in the market long after the release of the new one.

--G

 

[Flynn]

I am a very small-time publisher. I have produced a number of works as a freelancer, and have been the creator and editor of a fanzine for Traveller for over three years now. I've published a few minor PDF products, the most lucrative of which is Fantasy Concepts, and that only hit the 50 copies mark this month. By far, this is not my living, but really something I do because I enjoy the experience of creating a product and seeing it from start to finish.

I was considering using the GSL to publish 4E products, but I am more interested in supporting the new open version of Traveller. It's where my heart beats the strongest. Way back on page 8, I think, I asked a question in regards to the matter of this discussion that is of the highest importance to me.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173645&postcount=230

I repeat that question now, in the hopes that it will not be lost in the massive backlog of questions:

Assuming that there is a restriction on a publisher such that the publisher using the GSL cannot release OGL materials without losing their ability to publish under the GSL going forward, does that restriction on OGL publications apply to any and all OGL publications? Or does it only apply to OGL publications that identify the System Reference Document or the Modern System Reference Document in its properly updated Section 15? (i.e. Can I publish Traveller OGL products and D20 Fantasy GSL products at the same time, or do I have to make a choice?)

Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

With Warm Regards,
Flynn

 

[Moon-Lancer]

2) last I checked, WoTC didn't have a gun held to any publisher's head telling them they had to switch to 4e "or else".

true, but the "or else"... seems to be very real at the moment.

I hope tomorrow that this post is wrong.

 

[Wicht]

Really, if everyone just switched to the same system, everyone would be better off for it.

You are absolutely right. Glad to see you are supporting the new Pathfinder RPG. Or did you perhaps have a different system in mind for everyone to switch to?

 

[mxyzplk]

Two points:

1) you're just being snarky.
2) last I checked, WoTC didn't have a gun held to any publisher's head telling them they had to switch to 4e "or else".

1. That's the proper response to being dense, senor baffled.

2. True but irrelevant. It will actively reduce choice in the marketplace by making third party companies less viable, as they have less choice with their product lines.

I as a consumer lose Freeport, the D&D milieu that I bought at the same time as the 3e PH at Gen Con 2000, or I lose Mutants & Masterminds, the only supers RPG I've ever liked. WotC is taking something away from me the consumer, and giving me nothing in return. So screw them. It's not like I haven't bought hundreds of dollars in 3.5e books from them. It's a directly hostile act to RPG consumers. As a consumer, I don't care if it's "their right," I don't care why they are doing it. I care that it impacts the products I can choose to partake in, and there's no upside to me the consumer.

 

[mxyzplk]

Assuming that there is a restriction on a publisher such that the publisher using the GSL cannot release OGL materials without losing their ability to publish under the GSL going forward, does that restriction on OGL publications apply to any and all OGL publications? Or does it only apply to OGL publications that identify the System Reference Document or the Modern System Reference Document in its properly updated Section 15? (i.e. Can I publish Traveller OGL products and D20 Fantasy GSL products at the same time, or do I have to make a choice?)

Hey Flynn! So it's not clear yet and they're supposed to be clarifying tomorrow, but there's reason to believe the answer is "no" - they said "OGL vs GSL." It would be understandable if they were talking loosely and meant d20 OGL vs GSL, but several people asked about that and the subsequent posts from Scott/Linae didn't answer directly but did say things like "We know this is a hard business choice for other publishers..."

We all hope this isn't what they mean, but confidence level isn't too high at the moment. And the specific commitment by Scott to clarification was just about OGL backstock, not about OGL vs d20 OGL, so we may not find out soon.

 

[der_kluge]

I as a consumer lose Freeport, the D&D milieu that I bought at the same time as the 3e PH at Gen Con 2000, or I lose Mutants & Masterminds, the only supers RPG I've ever liked. WotC is taking something away from me the consumer, and giving me nothing in return. So screw them. It's not like I haven't bought hundreds of dollars in 3.5e books from them. It's a directly hostile act to RPG consumers. As a consumer, I don't care if it's "their right," I don't care why they are doing it. I care that it impacts the products I can choose to partake in, and there's no upside to me the consumer.

But aren't you making a gross assumption here? That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?

Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.

Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.