To Scott and Linae

[WhatGravitas]

QFT. Compared to this, I honestly would have preferred no license at all. It's just that bad.

Seriously? No choice is better than a bad choice?

If publishers don't use the license, the net effect is the same. If they do use it, there's a gain compared to a total lack of the GSL.

I'm not happy about the current state, but pragmatically, it's still better than nothing.

Thanks for your work, Scott and Linae.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Alzrius]

Seriously? No choice is better than a bad choice?

We have a choice; it's called the OGL. That said, I think that in this case no choice for 4E-compatible products would have been better than this monstrosity. The GSL has negative effects, by way of its restrictions, that it imposes on a company forever, far outliving its termination. It would have been better not to offer it in the first place, since that would've solidified the OGL community more.

If publishers don't use the license, the net effect is the same. If they do use it, there's a gain compared to a total lack of the GSL.

Look at the eternal restrictions. There's a net loss there, and it lasts forever, unlike the gains (which only last until the GSL is revoked).

I'm not happy about the current state, but pragmatically, it's still better than nothing.

I disagree.

 

[Lizard]

Seriously? No choice is better than a bad choice?

If there had been a "No license" announcement alongside the 4e announcement, there would, now, be a much more robust "post WOTC" 3x environment, instead of one just beginning to coalesce. That's why it would have been better to have none, announced honestly, than one which went through constant changes, came late, and is seemingly designed so that publishers will be very limited in what they can do, and will be smacked down if they try to stretch the limits, even under the terms of the license. The inability to reproduce stat blocks in adventures, for example, makes third party products more cumbersome than WOTC products. The "no redefinitions of defined terms" clause means anyone making a druid or bard class risks having their products become invalid if there's a new GSL -- and that means constantly second-guessing WOTC.

There's other problems.

According to the license, you can "upgrade" any OGL product. In the Tome of Horrors, there's a big fat demon prince called "Orcus". This was licensed properly to Necromancer and is Open Game Content. If Necromancer were to go ahead and produce TOH 4e, technically, they'd be able to use any OGC in that product -- including Orcus. How would that interact with the removal of Orcus from the list of "defined terms"?

Overall, it seems odd to me that anything which underwent such a protracted period of development -- remember, as soon as WOTC decided there would be a 4e, they had to know they'd have to do something about how the OGL with interact with it -- comes to us with so many open issues.

 

[WhatGravitas]

We have a choice; it's called the OGL. That said, I think that in this case no choice for 4E-compatible products would have been better than this monstrosity. The GSL has negative effects, by way of its restrictions, that it imposes on a company forever, far outliving its termination.

*shrug* - only for one product line and the products. It's not like it's they're springing a trap on you. Furthermore, previously you had the choice between (for a single product/product line): OGL and non-publishing. Now you have the choice between: OGL, non-publishing, and GSL-exclusive publishing.

It would have been better not to offer it in the first place, since that would've solidified the OGL community more.

Ah, you're coming from there - I could also say: The negative reaction to the GSL solidifies the OGL community more than ever, especially as Pathfinder, a viable alternative, is already there and can catch all people not going GSL (which are now aggravated due to the restrictive GSL and hence actively search an alternative!).

Overall, it seems odd to me that anything which underwent such a protracted period of development -- remember, as soon as WOTC decided there would be a 4e, they had to know they'd have to do something about how the OGL with interact with it -- comes to us with so many open issues.

Yeah, the same here. I start to think that some part of it may be due to directed effort to produce such an effect (though I cannot fathom by which parties - though I really don't think that the direct D&D team was related - Scott and Linae).

All of this could have been much better. It makes me sad, because I fear that 3rd party support for 4E will drop close to zero, where as Pathfinder will get a lot of support (which isn't bad, but a fragmentation of the D&D player base isn't exactly great, regardless how big the chunk is).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Yeah, the bait and switch with the OGL/SRD/GSL over a year was annoying. We released our product after two years of development on April 4th for crying out loud. We knew we were screwed, and after two months of impressive numbers, it fell off sharply with the release of 4ED. People are soaking up 4ED in numbers nearly unheard of. Sure, OGL has a large pool to play in...but could all of us reasonably fit in without crushing most of the swimmers...and there are a handful of 3PP companies that are mighty big sumo wrestlers wading around with their ham hands in that pool. The first to feel the flabby flesh against porcelain will be us smaller ones.

How WOTC handled 4.0ED is downright unforgivable, worse given the nonchalance and positive spin they throw on all their announcements. But its here...and we have to make do. Paizo and Green Ronin and a few others might have developed a large enough base to survive with OGL but many of us smaller ones may not be so lucky.

I do also fully predict that those from WOTC reading these posts knew very well how the GSL was going to be received. They knew very well and didn't care. There will be a proper FAQ that explains everything in time and by then, we'll receive some clarification that may help or hurt the industry further.

 

[Admiral Caine]

Seriously? No choice is better than a bad choice?

If publishers don't use the license, the net effect is the same. If they do use it, there's a gain compared to a total lack of the GSL.

I take your point, and I'm not saying you're incorrect.. however, in your own words, that is a purely pragmatic outlook.

When dealing with people's feelings (and consumers are rife with those), sometimes you do have to take perception into account. This isn't just a case of the 3rd Party companies themselves, but those that looked to be able to buy products from them.

It comes down to some people didn't want to be disappointed like this. Sometimes it's easier to accept that there is no chance, rather than get one's hopes up and see them die, or be left unrealized.

An old boss of mine once said, "One should never be surprised in life, but it's alright to be disappointed."

 

[Alzrius]

*shrug* - only for one product line and the products. It's not like it's they're springing a trap on you. Furthermore, previously you had the choice between (for a single product/product line): OGL and non-publishing. Now you have the choice between: OGL, non-publishing, and GSL-exclusive publishing.

They are springing a trap on you; it's not just a single product/product line. 6.1 outlines that the same - or similar - content between two books can count as a conversion. So if even the tiniest bit of one of your 4E books is similar to an OGL book, that book and everything in its product line are now hit with the 6.1 restriction. That seems like springing a trap to me.

Ah, you're coming from there - I could also say: The negative reaction to the GSL solidifies the OGL community more than ever, especially as Pathfinder, a viable alternative, is already there and can catch all people not going GSL (which are now aggravated due to the restrictive GSL and hence actively search an alternative!).

It does do that. I just think that the lack of a GSL altogether would have done that more, and without the fact that some publishers are going to get screwed at some point by choosing to adopt the GSL.

 

[jaldaen]

That seems like springing a trap to me.

Channeling Inner Hong:

Is a trap in plain sight still a trap? Or is it a hazard?

 

[lurkinglidda]

They knew very well and didn't care.

My. Oh, my.

Next time you're in Renton let's grab some coffee or drinks. I guarantee by the end of our conversation your opinion on us not caring will be different.

 

[Jack99]

My. Oh, my.

Next time you're in Renton let's grab some coffee or drinks. I guarantee by the end of our conversation your opinion on us not caring will be different.

Too bad that your caring couldn't be converted to something that wouldn't seem to have alienated just about every single 3rd party publisher.

Ah well, I guess I should be grateful that you have saved me a ton of money. Or maybe tomorrow things will look different. One can always hope.