What is WOTC's Vision For The GSL?

[Lizard]

(From another thread)
It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties". Dancey's vision was clear: He wanted D20 Uber Alles. He wanted to encourage every company to buy into the D20 system and spread it throughout gaming. One die to rule them all. The OGC/PI split was there to encourage companies to produce valuable IP (settings, backgrounds, fluff) without fear of it being "stolen", while keeping all mechanics open so that they system could grow. It might not have worked out perfectly, but the "vision" was clear. I don't know what WOTCs "vision" is for the GSL.

So I'm asking: What does WOTC want/expect from the GSL? We had a lot of essays from Ryan Dancey about what he expected, what he believed, what motivated him, what his philosophy was, what his influences were, and so on. We haven't seen anything like that from WOTC this time around. We have the license itself, and, on the surface, the "vision" we get from the actual text is "We're not really comfortable with this whole concept". However, if they were really the case, there wouldn't BE a license, so, I have to assume that the license isn't the entirety of the "vision". I'd like to know what the purpose, goals, etc of the license is.

("Sell more PHBs" doesn't cut it. With the license as written, it's hard to imagine any produce for it which wouldn't sell only to people already active in D&D. Under the OGL, a cool setting (such as Freeport) or a cool variant (such as Spycraft 1.0, a D20 STL -- not OGL -- game) could bring in non-D&D players and encourage them to 'buy in'. But the GSL is so tightly written that I don't see much being produced that isn't of interest solely to currently active players. I could be wrong, of course, and we'll see what surprises come about...)

 

[ruemere]

(imho)

Succumbing to temptation...

1. Encourage third party publishers to deliver one-night-stands. Adventures or enhancements of low page count, minimum content of publisher's IP, building only on Wizards' material (no competing product lines).

2. Discourage third party publishers from establishing lasting brand names.

In short, they want the people to provide the most expendable type of product, which also happens to deliver least profit - IIRC, Ryan Dancey himself mentioned that adventures and niche expansions deliver smallest revenues.

Products which compete via introducing strong thematic elements, long products lines and alternative or modified rules are strongly discouraged.

regards,
Ruemere

 

[Alzrius]

WotC's vision for the GSL:

To crush the third-parties, see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of their customers!

 

[Zil]

WotC's vision for the GSL:

To crush the third-parties, see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of their customers!

To crush the OGL, see it driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of its fans.

 

[Garnfellow]

What is WOTC's Vision For The GSL?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcisPdJVNl8

 

[Lizard]

Y'know, I was actually hoping for a post from Scott or Lidda articulating their motivations and goals...understanding what WOTC expects to gain from the GSL might make interpreting and understanding it easier.

 

[Grazzt]

To crush the OGL, see it driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of its fans.

I would say the first part is definitely accurate: crush the OGL.

 

[Morrus]

I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.

So I don't expect anyone from WotC to come and post about wotC's motivations; different people at WotC may post their own motivations, if they're allowed to, but I imagine there's an official very neutral party line they all have to adhere to - so don't hold your breath!

 

[Grazzt]

I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.

Makes sense, and probably quite accurate. I believe (at least from what I heard in the past), even with regards to the OGL/SRD/d20 license, there were lines drawn. Some peeps loved the idea of open gaming, others couldn't believe that the company would even consider the idea.

 

[Nellisir]

I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.

So I don't expect anyone from WotC to come and post about wotC's motivations; different people at WotC may post their own motivations, if they're allowed to, but I imagine there's an official very neutral party line they all have to adhere to - so don't hold your breath!

I get the impression that individually a lot of people support open-gaming -- but that individual/personal support breaks down when it comes to identifying what is "best" for WotC and D&D. Or in other words, Open Gaming is great...for the other companies.