So..um..how's that GSL coming along?

[Lord Zardoz]

I suspect that the primary intent of the GSL with regards to what they want it to prevent would be roughly as follows:

1) No online and free versions of the rules in their entirety.
- This is in part to protect sales of the core books.
- Wizards wants to sell searchable digital content of this sort.
2) No 3rd party taking any WotC older 3rd edition stuff and converting it to 4th
- I expect that Wizards wants to have the option of revisiting successful 3rd Ed products.
3) No wholesale redefinition of rules
- This is to prevent a break in compatibility, and prevent people trying to cram non D&D stuff into D&D.
4) A reasonable amount of brand protection
- This is just to prevent the PR nightmare of say, thinly disguised racist propaganda from being marketed under the D&D / D20 name.

It sounds to me like they are still working on item 3.

As an aside, I am not surprised much of the digital initiative slipped. The online game table is at least as difficult to implement as a full on computer game. They want a 3d graphic interface with user customizable characters, realtime voice communications, and a means to access a rules database, as well as the dice rolling. On top of that they also need that database to be usable by players who just want to generate and store characters for use in non digital games. Wizards / Hasbro is not a game developer, and it would not surprise me if the people that were hired to implement it were hired on the cheap.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[justanobody]

Which also goes to show that the vast majority of people will buy D&D because of brand recognition, even if the edition turns out to be a McRib. So what, then, is the point of preventing Cut & Paste publishing, esp. given the general notion that "It's kinda like D&D" eventually gets people to try D&D?

I would love a good answer to that question.

It seems to me as though WotC is jumping through hoops to try to prevent something that doesn't actually harm the "900-lb gorilla" of name-brand recognition, but their attempts to prevent it harm both 3pp that would support them and the customers that would buy their products.



RC

Hey I was waiting for a reply to my post so I could say something to the effect of what you just said more eloquently and concise than I could have put it. =P

So, yeah. That was my point as well. So many people are blinded by the brand and conditioned by society to buy the brand name for whatever reason that it matters little what an off brand does.

Some will always buy the brand name, and others will always buy the product they feel has better quality.

 

[Fifth Element]

So many people are blinded by the brand and conditioned by society to buy the brand name for whatever reason that it matters little what an off brand does.

Heh. Way to be dismissive of whole swaths of people.

Some will always buy the brand name, and others will always buy the product they feel has better quality.

And some will realize that both have their advantages in certain situations, and don't "blindly" follow one or the other.

And of course, nothing prevents a brand name from being high quality as well. Assuming that brand name = low quality is invalid.

 

[justanobody]

Heh. Way to be dismissive of whole swaths of people.

I wasn't dismissive of them, I acknowledged their existence.

And some will realize that both have their advantages in certain situations, and don't "blindly" follow one or the other.

And of course, nothing prevents a brand name from being high quality as well. Assuming that brand name = low quality is invalid.

If you buy the brand because it is the superior product, or better quality product then you fit within the given statement.

I think you are arguing to argue.

 

[Fifth Element]

I wasn't dismissive of them, I acknowledged their existence.

Yes, and you called them brainwashed sheep, essentially. That's fairly dismissive.

If you buy the brand because it is the superior product, or better quality product then you fit within the given statement.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that sometimes, brand has advantages over higher quality, and vice-versa. So that sometimes, buying a brand name even though you know it to be lower quality can be a legitimate decision, and not the mark of a brainwashed sheep.

I think you are arguing to argue.

And that's dismissive of me now. Keep it up! You're doing great!

 

[Qwillion]

Open Source and the GSL

My meger company supports Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved

I would love to one day let one of our writers do a 4E if they wished too, but alas that will never happen with GSL until it is changed for the better.

Mr. Ryan brings up a very good point and one I remember from the seminar about it, WotC wants a bar to enter to stop a glut of bad products from damaging the brand, I personally think that is like trying to fight the last war.

However, Nothing would have stopped a "certain company" that thank heavens is no longer in bussiness from publishing a great deal of bad material even if the GSL had been in place as is, because even when they made mistakes they refused to acknowledge the mistakes and never corrected them.

Other much better than that publisher produced better products (take Creature Collection I and compare it to Creature Colleciton III), but sold less copies becuase of competition and because of the readers who got burned on bad products from places like this "certain company".

Here is the think about Open Source, the best products need to become "Official" and be recognized as "Official" this will bring greater support to the market, as the best products are recognized by the only "Official" authority on DnD.

An Example of this would be the 3.5 version of Unearthed Arcana, however IMHO, the authors should never have been allowed to promote thier own material the best of the industry should have been culled by editors and then presented in a single book, and added to the "Official D&D"

In this manner WotC reaps the rewards of other people hard work, who reaped it from WotC's hard work. You can very rarely stop crappy products if your not going to police content which is very expensive and something WotC is never going to want to do. You can however recognize and reward quality which encourages others to strive for the same.

I have seen Neverwinter Nights I do this with thier open sources as has Warcraft III. WotC has always failed to prop up 3PP for excellent work in support of D&D.

Sorry if that was Rantish

I hope to see the new GSL and I hope the changes are all positive ones.

 

[justanobody]

5th are you capable of saying that no one on this planet is blinded by branding things and that society has not conditioned anyone to buy brand names?

I am not dismissing anyone. I agree that they exist and are a problem in the business world. The problem being they drive it therefore the quality of products is lessened by those who just buy brand names over a higher quality product.

It is in part vanity, and in part conditioning. Keeping up with the Jones' as well that started at least in the 50's if not much before and just became widespread in the 50's.

You don't need an X just because your neighbor needs an X, but society today does so. Look at many car commercials and other advertisements. People are being taught to act in this manner.

If you are constantly buying the brand for brands sake, then you are buying the brand only if you don't give something else a look or chance to see if it is better than Brand X.

This is why blind studies or product tests are made to see why is superior or not. But the tests really prove nothing, because it will never be unanimous and each person flaws the results because quality is subjective to the individual.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Consider this the standard civility warning. Let's tone the rhetoric down a couple notches.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that recent announcement of the new mini distribution model is kind of the nail in the coffin for a good GSL. If WOTC is moving to a mini/card format for products any GSL that comes out has its days numbered from the start.

I don't see Hasbro letting another company produce power cards or minis for its game.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Some will always buy the brand name, and others will always buy the product they feel has better quality.

You know what's funny? You've just said the same thing twice.

If you "feel [that product X] has better quality," then you are reacting to its brand attributes. You have made a judgement about the product that will colour your buying decision. If you've used a widget and were happy with its performance or value, you're going to consider buying that widget again. Or a something from the same company, if you need a different widget. That's what brands are all about.

Unless you conduct blind, scientific lab studies of the widget's "quality," you'll decide that quality based on experience, recommendations, reviews, packaging text, ads, and so on. All of these things create an impression of the widget in your mind; a relationship between you and the widget. That's what the brand is!

The dark side of branding is when the mythical aspects of the relationship overshadow everything else--they slap a designer logo on some otherwise mediocre widget, and people willingly pay through the nose for it.

But light side is when the brand tells you something. You can make a widget decision because the widget's brand gives you information. When I drive my family across the US, and I see an Applebee's sign at the next exit, I know something. They serve food (not just booze). They have high chairs and kids are welcome. There will be bathrooms, and they'll probably be clean, and they'll have a changing station. I have some idea of what I'll see on the menu.

In contrast, when I drive my family around the UK, and I see a village pub, I know nothing. Do they serve food, and if so, when? Can my kids come in and can I change the nappy? Will I like what they have? Should I even bother stopping? In a random UK pub, the only way to know these things is to stop, go in, and ask.

So, the Applebee's brand--the brand alone--offers me value by helping me decide whether to stop. Setting aside anything you like or don't like about Applebee's, the brand alone offers you something.

Perhaps this conditions some people toward the dark side; perhaps a few too many people accept brand glamour over more substantive qualities. But we live in a frenetic, confusing world, and not everyone has time to conduct blind, scientific lab studies of every available widget option. (Or to stop at every random pub till you find one that's child-friendly.) Relying on your past experiences with a brand to guide your decisions isn't always as contemptible as it might seem.