New GSL Announcement

[Orcus]

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.

I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that. Now we just have to trust Scott and Linae to do their thing. And it will either happen or it wont.

Bottom line is this: there is no magic world where 4E was supportable under the OGL. That didnt happen. In fact, recent events show that there was a time wher it was likely there wouldnt be a GSL at all. So gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all. Because a 4E OGL was never a reality, you cant say gamers are worse off, since that hypothetical more favorable position never existed. We've gone from "no support for 4E" to "support for 4E through the GSL (eitehr with or without a poison pill)". Its then up to the publishers to choose. Some may choose not to support 4E. That is their choice. No one is guaranteed consequence-free choices in life. Not even RPG publishers.

Clark

 

[dmccoy1693]

No one is guaranteed consequence-free choices in life.

[tangent]
You can't tell that to a gamer that use to be in my group. He'd do the dumbest acts and not care. I wonder if he realized that we kicked him out or if he still believes that he liberated his character from us.
[/tangent]

 

[Alzrius]

Respectfully, Clark, I disagree.

We didn't go from "no support for 4E" to "support 4E through the GSL." There was a time when 4E was going to be Open in a much truer sense of the word. At the announcement in Gen Con, it was said that 4E would be Open, and later a meeting was held to gauge publisher input as to exactly how that would work. The idea of 4E being closed completely was mentioned only in passing, and never seriously discussed.

Simply put, we were all given the message that, while the details weren't worked out, 4E would be an Open game system. The realization that 4E was very nearly closed is a very recent revelation, as is the "poison pill" clause.

And we can say that gamers are worse off, because a more favorable position does indeed exist - the position that the industry was in before all of this happened. The situation under the "GSL vs. OGL" paradigm is a net loss for the industry as compared to when only the OGL was around. Likewise, we were told that that paradigm would remain fundamentally unaltered with the advent of 4E. Now we're finding out that the exact opposite almost came true, and that the current GSL contains provisions specifically designed to nullify the most Open license the gaming community has ever known.

I respect your desire to do what's best for D&D. I think it's commendable, that it's phenomenal, that you put D&D's best interests ahead of Necromancer Games's. But as a fan, I want what's best for Open Gaming as a whole, since that gives me the greatest market to choose from. And I suspect other publishers want what's best for, if not the market that they work in, then at least their own companies.

And in that regard the GSL does not deliver.

Is any sort of GSL better than no D&D license at all? I'm not sure. But I know that the GSL, with the provisions we've been told about, has many drawbacks that compensate for the advantages that it gives to publishers; drawbacks that the OGL didn't have when it delivered advantages that were almost identical.

The GSL is a step up from having no license at all. But the price it demands is a steep one, maybe too steep, and it was a blow no one was expecting - even, no, especially, as a remedy for a bad situation that no one knew existed.

 

[Drow_Battlemind]

I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that. Now we just have to trust Scott and Linae to do their thing. And it will either happen or it wont.

<snipped, due to irrelevancy to my post. Sorry.>

Clark

Unfortunately, Scott & Linae aren't the top of the food chain in their business, they're just in charge of the D&D section of WotC, which is owned in turn by Hasbro. (Yes, I know you're aware of this, I'm just trying to make a point, please bear with me.) Because of that factor, there may not be anything that they can actually do, since they in turn have people that they must answer to or suffer the consequences (including the possibility of having their employment by Hasbro terminated if they buck the in-company political bandwagon too hard, only to be replaced at their supervisors whim with some corporate yes-man.) Then where would we be? Right back where we started (at first), then probably a re-enactment of the Lorraine Williams days of TSR.

Right now, as I see it, they have gone from having the best two jobs at WotC to having the worst two jobs at WotC, without even changing jobs, since they *may indeed* have their hands tied at this point, and yet have to face the flack all this is stirring up. Which is a point many of us in the gaming community seem to keep forgetting, since they are the public face of D&D.
It's my personal suspicion that Scott's found himself turned from the public face of D&D to suddenly being some Hasbro executive's public "meat-shield".

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that.

And for that I'm grateful.

 

[Delta]

So gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all. Because a 4E OGL was never a reality, you cant say gamers are worse off, since that hypothetical more favorable position never existed.

I am a gamer who is worse off. I'm going to stick with 3E, and I want as wide support as possible to choose from. In fact, for me the best option is to have 4E be closed and third-party publishers being forced to stick with 3E-compatible products. Second-best option is to have publishers be able to separately publish 3E and/or 4E according to taste. Worst option is the GSL with "poison pill" because it actively pushes 3E OGL support off the market.

So the upshot of this is that I can certainly say that some gamers are definitely worse off. Namely me. Frankly, it would be to my personal great benefit if Necromancer was actually forced to publish Pathfinder-compatible products due to a wholly closed 4E.

 

[Morrus]

I am a gamer who is worse off. I'm going to stick with 3E, and I want as wide support as possible to choose from. In fact, for me the best option is to have 4E be closed and third-party publishers being forced to stick with 3E-compatible products. Second-best option is to have publishers be able to separately publish 3E and/or 4E according to taste. Worst option is the GSL with "poison pill" because it actively pushes 3E OGL support off the market.

This is true; you certainly are worse off. However, you're not one of WotC's customers, 3.5 not being a game that they will be selling - you may as well be buying White Wolf products from their POV.

Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't want people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.

 

[Nikosandros]

Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't want people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.

On the other hand, enacting certain policies might also cost WotC some customers.

 

[Roland55]

FST (great name by the way)-

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but lets trust Scott and Linae.

I said that for the GSL when everyone was saying there wouldnt be one and lo and behold there is a GSL.

Now there is some confusion about the "poison pill" term of the GSL, and I admit I am a part of that confusion. But I still say lets trust Scott and Linae to get this resolved.

Will it be resolved on our timetable? No. Will that be frustrating? Yes. But they have done so much and for so long. Again, I think they deserve our trust here.

Clark

I can live with that.

I don't know them, but I've 'hung around' with you electronically for years. So ... I'm happy to do you this little favor.

You can repay me with excellent 4E-compatible products.

 

[Starman]

This is true; you certainly are worse off. However, you're not one of WotC's customers, 3.5 not being a game that they will be selling - you may as well be buying White Wolf products from their POV.

Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't want people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.

Part of the philosophy of the OGL, though, was to keep gamers in the fold with the philosophy that someone playing a different d20 game for awhile was more likely to come back to D&D. Wizards is putting up a big barrier now between 3.x and 4E when a more open license could have provided a similar situation.