New GSL Announcement

[webrunner]

I'm confused here... the reasoning given for doing this was so that they get people to support 4e, but isn't the 'poison pill' only reason NOT to support 4e? Wouldn't a system that allowed transitioning to 4e fit that reasoning better? Something that says, you can produce 3.5e content, but must make more 4e content than 3.5 content.. or something that says, you can make 3.5e content for two years? Or why would that even be necessary? Either stuff is not supporting D&D 3.5 at all (say, stuff like M&M), or in time 4.0e will be the one that makes sense (since everyone will slowly move to it naturally unless it fails on it's own merits, in which case forcing people won't help)

the poison pill, to me, makes no business sense.. not just in terms of alienating people, but it's actively anti-4.0 by itself.

"Hey, Wizards, can we make 4.0e content?"
"Sure, yeah, if you really WANT to make 4.0e content you can, but you have to give stuff up first and possibly go out of business. Do you really WANT that?"
"Oh.. um. Not really. Okay, we'll stick with 3.5e"
"GOOD!"

 

[Moleculor]

That's not good. They're using mxyzplk as their info source?!? And he's telling everyone that WotC has stated things that they, as yet, have not?

Ah, good to see that on here. Others in that article have commented on its lack of actual basis in fact, and I just wanted to see it confirmed here. Thank you. Now I'll have to keep an eye on this thread in case it DOES become true.

I'm confused here... the reasoning given for doing this was so that they get people to support 4e, but isn't the 'poison pill' only reason NOT to support 4e? Wouldn't a system that allowed transitioning to 4e fit that reasoning better? Something that says, you can produce 3.5e content, but must make more 4e content than 3.5 content.. or something that says, you can make 3.5e content for two years? Or why would that even be necessary? Either stuff is not supporting D&D 3.5 at all (say, stuff like M&M), or in time 4.0e will be the one that makes sense (since everyone will slowly move to it naturally unless it fails on it's own merits, in which case forcing people won't help)

the poison pill, to me, makes no business sense.. not just in terms of alienating people, but it's actively anti-4.0 by itself.

I would think the best thing for WotC to do would be to offer a legal way for companies to separate their products from the poisoned licenses so as to continue publishing them and supporting them, while also publishing 4th edition materials. Not all publishers can afford crack teams of legal advisors, and if the legal advice is coming straight from the people who are trying to make this change happen, and they're offering alternatives so that people can continue to do both, then everyone should be happy... right?

 

[Lizard]

EDIT: However, a scroll through some of the comments of the Slashdot article seem to indicate that all of this is misinformation, and that Wizards hasn't made any sort of announcement of this kind at all, just that they might be THINKING about providing such a preventative measure in any license they attach to D&D 4. Which is the story?

At the moment, this is all rumor based on conflicting statements and probable miscommunication. The only official statement we have indicates it will be per-product, not per-company, but others have been told different things, so, we're all waiting for a solid answer. Posting this story on slashdot, when it's still unconfirmed and may well be false, strikes me as very immature and irresponsible.

 

[Morrus]

Ah, good to see that on here. Others in that article have commented on its lack of actual basis in fact, and I just wanted to see it confirmed here. Thank you. Now I'll have to keep an eye on this thread in case it DOES become true.

Oh, there's a possibility it might. But at present it could be either; we're hoping for clarifcation today. But baldly stating that WotC has said things that they have not is disingenuous. Let's wait till (if) they say it before we all start posting it across the intrawebs as truth.

One would hope that mxyzplk will go back and correct that article.

 

[Lizard]

Oh, there's a possibility it might. But at present it could be either; we're hoping for clarifcation today. But baldly stating that WotC has said things that they have not is disingenuous. Let's wait till (if) they say it before we all start posting it across the intrawebs as truth.

One would hope that mxyzplk will go back and correct that article.

I wouldn't take that bet.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's not good. They're using mxyzplk as their info source?!? And he's telling everyone that WotC has stated things that they, as yet, have not?

Yeah, slashdotting this rumor is a complete dick move.

And I suspect some mxyzplk sock-puppetry at work, and much grinding of axes.

 

[Matthew_]

TLG's sticking with its current line of quite successful products. So the 4e business wont affect C&C or TLG's other product lines since the company isn't going in the GSL/4e direction.

Sure Peter, I know it won't affect Troll Lord Games, I was thinking more of third party support for Castles & Crusades, such as the conversion of Dungeon Crawl Classics from Good Man Games or the much anticipated Free Port conversion from Green Ronin.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Sure Peter, I know it won't affect Troll Lord Games, I was thinking more of third party support for Castles & Crusades, such as the conversion of Dungeon Crawl Classics from Good Man Games or the much anticipated Free Port conversion from Green Ronin.

Ya, not sure about those folks either. We'll just have to see. ^_^

In both cases, as folks have mentioned, these two companies have other quite successful in their own right lines to consider.

 

[Moleculor]

Yeah, slashdotting this rumor is a complete dick move.

And I suspect some mxyzplk sock-puppetry at work, and much grinding of axes.

Eh. Getting folks up in arms about a proposed idea before the idea becomes "The Official Word" would be a more certain way of making sure it isn't "The Official Word", rather than waiting for "The Official Word" and then trying to make those with "The Word" to reverse their decision once made.

That said, they really should have marked this as a rumor.

 

[phloog]

Eh. Getting folks up in arms about a proposed idea before the idea becomes "The Official Word" would be a more certain way of making sure it isn't "The Official Word", rather than waiting for "The Official Word" and then trying to make those with "The Word" to reverse their decision once made.

That said, they really should have marked this as a rumor.

Agreed completely...while I don't like posting rumor as fact, posting rumor as a highly likely possibility in a wide distribution to a fairly reactionary group (basically everyone I've ever met on the web) might be an acceptable tactic to get the right thing done...assuming WOTC doesn't get their backs up.

If it truly is open (oops, there's that word!) to alteration, since it hasn't been fully released, hearing this kind of outcry might turn the conversation with Orcus into a 'trial balloon' - - it may not have been this when they had the initial conversation, but if it looks like it might explode in bad PR, perhaps they WILL reconsider...versus everyone being reasonable, calm, and collected, then when WOTC announces that the worst we imagined is indeed the truth, it becomes much harder to back away for them.