Scott or Linae: Any ETA on a new 4e D&D GSL FAQ?

[jaldaen]

Just wondering when the 4e D&D GSL FAQ might be updated with some of the questions and concerns of the last few days posted here and elsewhere.

I wanted to let WotC respond to the questions before making any decisions about 4e and would love to have a "ballpark" figure so I don't feel like I have to check back here (and WotC's website) every few hours in hopes of getting the clarification I need to feel comfortable with moving forward with 4e products (especially as regards campaign settings).

Thanks

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Just wondering when the 4e D&D GSL FAQ might be updated with some of the questions and concerns of the last few days posted here and elsewhere.

I wanted to let WotC respond to the questions before making any decisions about 4e and would love to have a "ballpark" figure so I don't feel like I have to check back here (and WotC's website) every few hours in hopes of getting the clarification I need to feel comfortable with moving forward with 4e products (especially as regards campaign settings).

Thanks

Mike Lescault has complied the questions and sent them on to me and Linae. I have read some of them but not formulated any answers. Many questions touch on legal questions which we may or may not answer based on advice from our legal team. The legal team is out all week (no we are not going crazy and breaking all sorts of laws while they are away ) so realistically I don't see this coming out until at least next week.

 

[lurkinglidda]

And further, I am disinclined to commit to a specific time frame. I'm sure you understand.

 

[Klaus]

And further, I am disinclined to commit to a specific time frame. I'm sure you understand.

I must say, Linae, you and Scott have the patience and fair play of saints.

 

[Lizard]

Mike Lescault has complied the questions and sent them on to me and Linae. I have read some of them but not formulated any answers. Many questions touch on legal questions which we may or may not answer based on advice from our legal team. The legal team is out all week (no we are not going crazy and breaking all sorts of laws while they are away ) so realistically I don't see this coming out until at least next week.

Scott, you might want to take a look at my "Vision" thread. This isn't about legal questions, but about WOTC's goals and desires, so it sounds like it's pretty much in your balliwick -- the legalisms are the means, but the vision is the end.

 

[jaldaen]

And further, I am disinclined to commit to a specific time frame. I'm sure you understand.

Thanks to both you and Scott for your replies. I can only imagine how busy the last couple weeks have been... and now that I know it'll be a while maybe I'll be able to take a break checking back here every few hours... or maybe not

 

[JohnRTroy]

I honestly don't think the "Vision" questions will ever be answered, as Scott doesn't speak for the entire company, and is probably not authorized to give out that information.

And, quite frankly, WoTC explaining their private decisions aren't really our business. If there's an executive who chooses to be open about their decisions, they will, otherwise, it's as private as the thousands of business decisions made by public companies every day.

Those are likely to be more controversial than even legal, because the legal questions are mostly publishers wanting some clarification. The "Vision" question involves people wanting to know why Wizards changed the license strategy, and answering those questions is a no-win situation. If it turns out that knowing the reasons why somebody made a decision could cause negative PR, why get into a debate with angry people, or add fuel to their fire.

 

[phloog]

I honestly don't think the "Vision" questions will ever be answered, as Scott doesn't speak for the entire company, and is probably not authorized to give out that information.
.

Actually, I don't think that there's any value to that information, anyway.

Having dealt with a large number of very large companies, I feel fairly secure in saying that with only rare exceptions, a large company's "long-term vision" lasts about three financial quarters. As soon as there is a downturn in business, an upturn in business, a change in management, or simply executive leadership that only feels it adds value when it is creating a 'bold new direction', vision statements are changed.

This is also why the mutable nature of the GSL should give people a great deal of concern.

 

[Lizard]

Actually, I don't think that there's any value to that information, anyway.

I disagree.

As noted, the GSL gives WOTC a lot of power to make arbitrary changes with no way for a publisher to change their products to be in compliance with the new license, no cure period or grandfather clause. Understanding what WOTC wants from the license enables publishers to stay in the 'safe zone' and be less likely to be caught unawares.

 

[phloog]

I disagree.

As noted, the GSL gives WOTC a lot of power to make arbitrary changes with no way for a publisher to change their products to be in compliance with the new license, no cure period or grandfather clause. Understanding what WOTC wants from the license enables publishers to stay in the 'safe zone' and be less likely to be caught unawares.

Yes, but my only point was that the vision, or what you describe now as "...what WOTC wants from the license..." is likely just as mutable as the GSL....

I will grant that the information WOULD HAVE value if vision statements or 'what the company wants' statements weren't subject to frequent change, but my experience is that an expression of this intent/vision would not be particularly helpful.

It's worse than the Uncertainty Principle - they can tell you the CURRENT state/position, but cannot tell you where it might be headed in the next week or even day.

Learning the current state of their "long term vision" can only instill a false sense of security - - the proper (pure opinion here of course) course of action is independent of any declarations from WOTC - you must assume that the worst possible interpretation of the terms and the worst possible application of what is permissable under GSL will occur - this is true whether or not they tell you how they feel about it right now.

Just as we should not use labels for human behavior on a corporation - WOTC is not 'evil', or 'vengeful', or 'out to hurt the little guy', neither should we apply positive human qualities to the entity - WOTC is not 'honorable', 'trustworthy' and cannot build trust by shaking your hand - it is a non-human entity that behaves as corporations must. Knowing the intent of the current players within that structure doesn't mean anything, no matter how much trust you have of those people (and I would state that your trust in the people is probably deserved).

Any 'safe zone' is illusory. Now you might be able to act as if there is a safe zone for a few weeks, because corporations don't turn on a dime, but to incorporate trust of some safe zone into your own strategy is inviting disaster.