New GSL Announcement

[Urizen]

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.

It's not a lack of trust in you, Clark. To be quite honest, I respect and admire you for your staunch support of this issue. We just find ourselves on two sides of the same coin here.

I didn't mean to inferr that you are only in it for the money, and apologize if I came across like that.

The point I was trying to make, is that I'm not going to trust Scott or Linae to have my best interests (or those of the kind people who have supported my company over the years) at heart, not becuase they might be horrible people (which I don't believe), but because they have an obligation to further the interests of their own company, whether they agree with the company or not.

 

[Delta]

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.

But Orcus wasn't talking about WOTC being better off or not. I'm responding to his position that "...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".

So it sounds like you & I agree that that's not actually the case for all gamers.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

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.

Someone must have said this before, but much of what has been happening, both in terms of delay and GSL terms, can be explained by assuming that WotC went through a process in which that philosphophy was dropped.
In short,
Licensing to drive sales of 4e core books: IN.
Licensing to keep players in d20 games for easy transition back to D&D: OUT.

 

[Gundark]

894......still counting.....

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This entire mess is caused by misunderstanding and a deliberate walking back from the OGL; trying to cram the genie back in the bottle.

EDIT: And drying up the "safe harbor."

It was always an option for WotC to continue 4e in the same Open tradition as 3e, even assuming they did not want to continue the d20STL.

If 4e were Open, it would neither encourage nor discourage the creation of "aberrant" stand-alone games any more than 3e did. The 3e SRD is still out there, and designers can still create stand-alone games to compete with 4e.

It is coming to pass as Ryan Dancey predicted...

In my opinion, the best possible course would have been an Open 4e SRD released under the same OGL; the revocation of the d20STL; and entering into strictly licensed D&D branding with the best 3PPs, chosen specifically by WotC under whatever criteria WotC desired.

Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman Games, Green Ronin-- all would have been at the top of my list for favored status and an exclusive (very juicy, mutually beneficial) licensing agreement.

It is as if WotC has disavowed any positive effect of the OGL other than driving their core sales. That is not and never was the sole benefit of the OGL.

 

[Thraxas]

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.

Clark,
I think you've earned the trust by being out front, sharing your perspective in a balanced manner and shining some light on things outside our view. I'd like to think a lot of the other players within WotC are supporting this effort behind the scenes as well, that Scott and Linae are not carrying the whole load. If you had to make the pitch to Hasbro, what would it be based on...what's the selling point, to them, for open gaming?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Respect. I think wizards gets a bad reputation and looses potential sales due to sneaky tricks they have pulled in the past. The OGL helped them to appear like a Community Leader rather then a BBEG you need to go to get your fix.

 

[Nellisir]

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.

:blink:
There was always going to be 4th Edition support, from the company that's always going to be the primary, core source for 4e material. WotC. Even if 4e was totally closed, WotC would produce material that would support most of the gamers out there, and the 3pp would continue to support the bubble of games around D&D. Instead, we've got a situation where 3pp are compelled to support 4e exclusively, and the "game bubble" goes away. My choices, as a gamer, will go down, probably dramatically. I'm not convinced that the GSL will support much in the way of variant rules; what little I've heard leads me to think the defination of fixed terms will dramatically expand from the d20STL. If my paranoia is correct, you'll be able to add onto WotC's rules, but not deviate from them or substantially step on their toes.

So, yeah, for gamers that are 100% happy with WotC's 4e D&D, this GSL is great. For the rest, not so much.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Even if 4e was totally closed, WotC would produce material that would support most of the gamers out there, and the 3pp would continue to support the bubble of games around D&D.

There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:

1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;

2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.

 

[Starman]

Someone must have said this before, but much of what has been happening, both in terms of delay and GSL terms, can be explained by assuming that WotC went through a process in which that philosphophy was dropped.

I agree. It is unfortunate because while there was a lot of chaff that came out of the OGL movement, there was also a ton of awesome books to come out of it. I would like to see that same level of support for the new edition of D&D, but whatever. I'm happy with my 3.x books and the third party support for them. I also know it is going to continue so that makes me very happy.