Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4308948" data-attributes="member: 1054">I was unaware I'd been empowered to make that decision for other people. Wow! I am LIKE UNTO A GOD!If I say "I really don't like the guy who was elected. I think someone else should have won.", does that mean I am somehow cancelling other people's votes, or expressing a desire to do so?If I say, "I hated the Star Wars Prequels. They should have just stuck to the original three.", will George Lucas recall them all from the DVD racks?I stated an opinion. You may disagree with it, which is fine, but you seem to be attacking my right to state it.As it is, I might still do work under the GSL, if anyone is going to be publishing under it, or take a chance with my own line of PDFs, which offer minimal risk of loss. I'm also looking at Pathfinder, as I suspect a lot of people are. I don't consider a willingness to use the GSL while considering it an inferior license is hypocritical. This is, as many have noted, what we've got, and it's way too early to see how things will shake out. In a perfect world, 4e was released under the OGL, with a revised Trademark license which would make the logo worthwhile. In a somewhat less perfect world, WOTC would have said "No open license" and made deals with specific publishers as needed. In our world, we have the GSL, and I'm not going to ignore it because it isn't as good as it could be, but I expect my opportunities, both as a freelancer and a (hopeful) self publisher, will be limited. My point above was not "The GSL is utterly worthless!", but, rather, that if there had been none announced or expected, the process of "forking" D&D that Pathfinder has begun would have started in August, 2007, and by Gencon 2008, some sort of core rules, "bought into" by several major D20 publishers, would have been on sale at GenCon. I can see where WOTC desperately did not want this scenario to occur (and almost certainly knew it would), and using "bait and switch" tactics with the GSL (August, 2007:"It will be released under the OGL". December, 2007:"We have a revised OGL, pay us 5 grand." January, 2007 "Did we say OGL? We meant GSL."  Feb, Mar, April 2007:"Any day now...", May 2007:"June 6!", June 6, 2007:"Next week!") looks just a little bit underhanded, even if every statement made was believed true at the time. It takes a certain degree of faith to believe there is no connection between the "nightmare scenario" of a multi-publisher 3.5 clone being on sale within two months of 4e and the long delay in the GSL which kept a lot of publishers from committing one way or the other. Based on the comments by people who know the people involved, I will say I do believe that there was no planned larceny and that it was all a series of corporate snafus and miscommunications.</blockquote>

Verification