My LGS seems pretty positive on 4e, or so the boss has told me. He's selling the slipcover set at about the same price as Amazon, so I cancelled my Amazon order and put in one with him. (He has a really pathetic gaming selection -- it's mostly a comics store -- but runs a lot of game nights and will special order anything I ask for, and I believe in supporting my local store.)
New GSL Announcement
- Thread starter Blacksway
- Start date
- Status
Pramas
Explorer
Filcher said:
Well, it makes sense. GTS is the only real trade show for the game industry. We are debuting our 2008 catalog there. We waited until the very last minute to print it in case some news should break that would allow us to include potential 4E products or at least news of same in the catalog. No such luck.
I'm back in Seattle early but you can bet I had some conversations with other publishers while I was in Vegas.
CaptainChaos
First Post
Orcus said:
At this point, I think it's fair to ask, "Why should we?" Now Scott and Linae seem like nice folks and I don't doubt they are doing their best. This whole OGL/GSL thing has been handled very poorly though and they haven't given us any good reason to trust them. Everything has been late and/or messed up. They are actively harming good companies that have done nothing but support D&D. That's not a track record that inspires confidence. Trust Monte Cook or Chris Pramas? In a heartbeat. Scott and Linae? They haven't earned it yet.
Goobermunch
Explorer
CaptainChaos said:
I don't know Scott or Linae. But I trust Orcus (never thought I'd say those words). If Clark thinks we should extend them a portion of our trust, I'm willing to do so. I suspect he knows much more about what's going on than the rest of us do.
--G
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Goobermunch said:
I second this. To date, I have heard Orcus, Pramas, and MANY of the Paizians vouch for them. If these guys (all of whom wanted to publishing 4E products from their respective companies) can stick up for them even through the whole OGL/GSL ordeal, that's good enough for me. I trust that Scott and Lidda are doing the best they can.
EDIT: I should clarify that I believe they'll do their best. I don't believe that the final result will lead to the next gaming renaissance.
Last edited:
CaptainChaos said:
I have to agree here.
While believe they have been working hard to keep the GSL to a certain extent "open," I don't believe this situation will be resolved in a manner which benefits any 3PP who wants to support both the ogl and the gsl.
I mean, they've already said as much in previous posts.
Now, with all due respect to you Clark, you are 100% pro 4th editon, so you are obviously going to look at any openness to the GSl as a 'win." And that's fair. At the end of the day you have to be concerned about the success of your company.
I can't say the same for myself or other companies who want to produce products in support of Pathfinder, C&C, M&M, or True20, but won't be able to if previously statements by Scott and Linea hold true.
So as far as "trust" is concerned, no. I don't trust them to resolve this situation in a way I can be happy about.
Orcus
First Post
Urizen said:
Actually, my help here and my requests are what I believe are in the good of D&D.
I've addressed this issue before. And while I am getting tired of repeating it, I can see how people on the face of it think this is me acting in the interests of Necro. But I am a gamer first and a president of Necro third (lawyer second).
I have a great relationship with Wizards. I feel, as I have said before, that even if 4E is closed I may well be able to get permission to make some supplemental products for 4E. So really, if I was purely a sharp businessman, I would be wanting 4E closed so that I am the only one (possibly) who can support 4E. Yet I am the one leading the charge for openness. Why? Why would I want competitors when I could, possibly, be the guy with the golden ticket? Because I strongly believe that the greatest age of D&D were the early days when third party companies were able to support D&D and provide us different products and different visions of the game. And I see a public license as the best way to achieve that.
People have even asked me directly why I am so vocal in support of openness, given the fact that a closed system would likely benefit me substantially. In fact, in another thread, someone told me "Clark, why dont you just shut up and let them goof this up and there be no GSL, cause you are the one that wins from that." While that is true, I think that is bad for D&D. And I love D&D. I want it to succeed.
So to the extent your criticism of my position stems from a belief that my position is controlled by self-interest, if that was the case I would be taking a totally different course of action
Now, that said, if there is a GSL do I stand to make money? Of course. But so do others. And, if it is the way I think it should be, so would everyone who wants to. I believe in fairness and equality. But just because I might make some money from this doesnt mean that the actions I am taking are driven by that. I have an interesting luxury here--I make six figures from my day job. I dont need Necro. It is a hobby for me, that supports the game I love. So what I do, I do because I feel it is in what I believe are the best interests of D&D.
Just to clear up that little issue
I dont have a problem with you raising it. What you say makes sense on its face. I encourage openness because I think it is right. And, given my circumstances, I have the luxury of doing what I think is right, regardless of whether I might make more money doing something else. Believe me, I'm not in gaming for the money.
Clark
Orcus
First Post
So I guess what I am saying is either trust me or not, that is fine with me. That is your call. But please dont base that decision on the fact that you believe my conduct is shaped by financial interests, 'cause that isnt the case. But, like I said, in the end it is up to you. I am just saying that in my experience, Scott and Linae are tireless advocates for open gaming and they deserve our trust. The twists and turns of all of this can't be blamed on them.
But, like I said, in the end it is up to you. I am just saying that in my experience, Scott and Linae are tireless advocates for open gaming and they deserve our trust. The twists and turns of all of this can't be blamed on them.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
I think that the point here is not about you being self-centered. As you argued, you would be likely to be able to publish even for a closed D&D.
The point is that Necro is moving ahead 100% towards 4e. So for Necro and other companies intending to do the same, the solution that is currently looming on the horizon is relatively favorable.
But there are several other companies that would like to be able to still produce OGL material. For them the so called "poison pill" might be very damaging. I also believe that gamers as a a whole will be worse off with a clause forcing the choice between OGL and GSL.
The point is that Necro is moving ahead 100% towards 4e. So for Necro and other companies intending to do the same, the solution that is currently looming on the horizon is relatively favorable.
But there are several other companies that would like to be able to still produce OGL material. For them the so called "poison pill" might be very damaging. I also believe that gamers as a a whole will be worse off with a clause forcing the choice between OGL and GSL.
- Status
