New GSL Announcement

[Alzrius]

I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.

Nothing ever ends edition wars. That's why a certain company tried to make products that had Third Edition rules, but First Edition feel.

Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe.

The "point of light" therein is that maybe they'll just get rid of the provision that bans use of the OGL on a company-wide basis because of the uproar here.

Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.

Because WotC would never, ever change something about the GSL after they made a public announcement about it.

 

[Bacris]

I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.

The only way to end that division is for one edition to not exist. So, no way to do it.

And, to be perfectly honest, I'm not upset, I'm not angry.

I'm quite calm.

I'm also quite disappointed if this is as it appears - but I reserve final judgment until I see the GSL in its final form.

 

[mxyzplk]

The primary appeal of the third party publishers to Wizards has been "Help us help you support 4E."

Now its time for us to put our money where our mouths have been. If we really want to support 4E, which is most likely the main argument that won the day in keeping 4E open, then we shouldnt have any problem with this restriction.

No, Clark, it's not anyone's goal except WotC's to "support 4e" for its own sake. It's to support themselves, and ideally a smart licensing play that would allow people to support themselves with an additional benefit of being allowed to use 4e, with an exchange of benefit to WotC that they get more 4e support. Not get screwed over and sign away your busienss plan to WotC.

First priority for all 3p OGL publishers is to rip and replace the OGL with another open license. Reprint M&M with creative commons in the back and you're golden. Then the people that were more D&D/d20 oriented have to figure out what it's worth to terminate all sales, current and future, of any d20 products thay had produced. For most people it may be smarter to just go back to their own system or throw in behind Pathfinder.

I have to say, this is awfully disappointing, and is a spiteful move to all the people who had throught they were partners with WotC over the years.

 

[Orcus]

Consider if you will, three examples:
- A small company has a particular specialty area that has given it a small but dedicated buyer pool for its OGL fantasy products. Upon hearing there is no early buy-in fee and seeing that their area of specialty is not covered under 4e, immediately and publicly contemplates the creation of a 4e product in their niche. But now, to do so, either their existing fans or prospective new buyers interested in their niche will come away with their gaming tastes unfulfilled.

Yeah, so? Welcome to publishing. You dont get to do the thing you are "contemplating." Happens all the time. I cant tell you how many times I have contemplated a product and not been able to do it. Dashed hopes arent moving me here.

- Another company has a somewhat broader array of products, but has also developed a few niches, including niches that fit a particular non-d20 game well that just so happens to be an OGL product (not based on the D20 SRD). Though d20 fantasy sales have flagged, this company may well be enticed to dip into the refreshed 4e GSL market... but at the cost of no longer catering to the non-d20 game.

Again, to me this is the "dabbler" that is more intersted in the license as a way for them to make money by dipping into the refreshed market and has nothing to do with truly supporting 4E. I'll admit, I am not crying that they wont be making 4E products. I think the worst of the worst of the 3E products were companies that did this--made 3E stuff to capitalize on the 3E wave. Great example, Elric d20.

Now I dont know what real company you are alluding to here, but my guess is that they would actually be the next one. I havent seen anyone post here that I wouldnt love to see in 4E.

- Another company has strong non-d20 STL, but OGL/D20 SRD based lines. Company also had a strong reputation as a d20 fantasy publisher, but had retreated from the D20 fantasy market due to weak sales therein. Many old fans who have switched to 4e would love to see a new generation of D&D targeted fantasy products from them, but the company in question's other OGL based lines are too strong to simply scuttle.

This, clearly, is the company that suffers. This is also the company that could credibly have supported their own lines and helped support 4E in a meaningful way beyond just making a quick buck on the trend. I wish the license allowed this. I have to agree. I see Paizo and GR as good examples of this.

 

[mxyzplk]

Sigh. (and I dont do that much).

I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.

Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.

This scheme, as it's being portrayed, I'd rather it get yanked. Take your ball and go home, but don't make me beg to play with you.

 

[Orcus]

No, Clark, it's not anyone's goal except WotC's to "support 4e" for its own sake.

I think I used the word "appeal" without good explanation.

When I said "appeal" I mean that the primary plea and argument that we used (our "appeal" to Wizards) to Wizards to convince them to open 4E is that it would help support 4E's launch and contribute to its overall success. And by we I mean many of the publishers from the conference call. I dont presume to speak for them. But I know that many of us made our plea to Wizards in terms of "make it open so we can support it and make it successful."

 

[lurkinglidda]

Because WotC would never, ever change something about the GSL after they made a public announcement about it.

Heh. You got us on that one. We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.

We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters.

We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.

 

[Psion]

Yeah, so? Welcome to publishing.

Well, sure. My point was, it's not hypothetical. There are ripples in the pond.

Now I dont know what real company you are alluding to here, but my guess is that they would actually be the next one.

To be clear, the three companies I spoke of were Dreamscarred, Adamant (who has talked of adapting their pulp and mars products to FATE/Spirit of the Century, an OGL game), and Green Ronin.

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

Sigh. (and I dont do that much).

I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.

Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.

Clark, here's the thing--I didn't have a 3e/4e division before this policy. I didn't care whether I use 3e or 4e for any mechanical reasons. But I do like the games that current 3e third-party publishers produce (mainly Pathfinder and M&M) and I would like to see them (and others) be able to do both.

This feels like WotC consulted with Brian Bendis about what to do about the GSL--and now they are looking out from Renton and (and trying) to say "No More 3e."

 

[BryonD]

Would it be OK for Microsoft to try to enforce a rule that any company that wanted to make software that worked with the most recent version of Windows must agree to never use any Open content compatible with any prior version of Windows? or any Open content at all?

Clearly that would be a completely rational self-interest thing for Microsoft to do. It wouldn't be anything other than an attempt to 100% support their latest product which they have invested vast sums of money into.