New GSL Announcement

[Orcus]

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

How abotu this--release those books, then go 4E. What is wrong with that?

 

[BryonD]

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.

I disagree.
First just in attitude. It is bluntly an us or them stance. You even said so yourself above. It is "an attempt to close off support for 3E."

It is worse than no GSL because in the case of no GSL Open Gaming would move on. By this play, in order to maintain contact with the bulk of the market base, some publishers will be forced to abandon the Open Gaming field. I agree that some big names will likely be vastly better off sticking with their established OGL lines. But that is no credit to WotC's new stance. That is purely in spite of WotC's move.

It is a pure declaration of war on the OGL.

Yeah, WotC is a self-interested company. That is all well and good. Just imagine the howls if a self interested company such as an oil company or Halliburton made a somehow comparable move.

 

[Orcus]

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

Do you have a single book in the works for 4E? If not, then what are you worried about? Publish your books for 3E, just like you were planning all along. It not like you have to tell Wizards you are going to use 4E in 3 years and thus cant do anything in the meantime.

 

[BryonD]

Troll much?

Nope. And accusations of trolling are frowned on here.

 

[Lizard]

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.

If they do, wouldn't that mean they'd need to stop publishing True 20/M&M, as they are OGL-based games?

I doubt they'd do that. Perhaps the potential sales of 4e product outweigh the strength of the brand equity they've built in those two lines, but given the new True 20 license, I really doubt it.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Clark, I agree that this could be worse (heck, things can always be worse), but it's somewhat hard to focus on that when things have, up until now, been better than what the GSL is offering in this regard. The OGL itself never had a restriction on what other kinds of products you could write, and even before now the GSL was never said to have this level of restriction.

Yes, things could be worse, but up until now they've been a whole lot better also.

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.

I disagree. I know you run a successful company, so maybe you have a more accurate view of this, but I don't agree with the above.

The choice isn't hypothetical. You yourself outlined a scenario wherein someone would be producing both 4E (in books) and 3E (in compatible downloads) material. I know of several smaller PDF companies that had planned on supporting 3E and 4E simultaneously in PDF releases of products, both with different versions of the same product, and with various differing products. Some companies would be carving out a 3E niche for the same reason Paizo (your new partner) is - because it still looks viable. That they'd also be able to appeal to the 4E crowd could only help. But they don't have that option now.

This choice that is being taken out of the publishers' hands is anything but hypothetical.

 

[Orcus]

I disagree.
First just in attitude. It is bluntly an us or them stance. You even said so yourself above. It is "an attempt to close off support for 3E."

It is worse than no GSL because in the case of no GSL Open Gaming would move on. By this play, in order to maintain contact with the bulk of the market base, some publishers will be forced to abandon the Open Gaming field. I agree that some big names will likely be vastly better off sticking with their established OGL lines. But that is no credit to WotC's new stance. That is purely in spite of WotC's move.

It is a pure declaration of war on the OGL.

Yeah, WotC is a self-interested company. That is all well and good. Just imagine the howls if a self interested company such as an oil company or Halliburton made a somehow comparable move.

I think I am going to just give my defense a rest for a few days.

It has become abundantly clear to me that some people are just going to complain and look a gift horse in the mouth. No matter what they get, it wont be enough.

I dont endorse that thinking at all.

This is not war on the OGL. Go, use the OGL all you want. Your ability to use the OGL today is no different than it was before this announcement and before you had a GSL. If you are happy using the OGL then you shouldnt care about not using the GSL.

 

[TheLe]

Do you have a single book in the works for 4E? If not, then what are you worried about? Publish your books for 3E, just like you were planning all along. It not like you have to tell Wizards you are going to use 4E in 3 years and thus cant do anything in the meantime.

No SRD man. I wasn't in a position to bribe anyone to get it early.

I was planning on publishing 4e books once I get my hand on usable rules, but there are none in actual production now.

I have plenty of books in production for the other systems.

You know, I was planning on selling fish online on my website. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in their 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.

`Le

 

[JohnRTroy]

Lidda, a question.

How does the GSL work with third party content. (This is in reference to the "viral" question asked earlier).

Say publisher (a) rights creates some new rules in a product.

Can publisher (b) use the rules like they did in the old OGL? (Can use but must reference it in the license).

Can publisher (a) control that right so publisher (b) has to get permission from publisher (a). In other words, can publisher (a) reserve some rights so that their content won't be freely distributed on-line?

 

[Pramas]

If they do, wouldn't that mean they'd need to stop publishing True 20/M&M, as they are OGL-based games?

Well, that's the question, isn't it? I've asked Scott to clarify. If Linae wants to jump here though, I'd love to know. If we must choose to support the OGL or the GSL as a company, that will drastically affect our strategy.