What's new with the GSL?

Garnfellow

Explorer
Adopting a release strategy for D&D that deliberately holds back core parts of the rules for later books to force us to buy more supplements. A 'give less, get more' strategy.
I agree that this was an annoying decision, but it's not like WotC invented the practice. In an interesting bit of serendipity, over at DragonsFoot Frank Mentzer was recently asked why no giants or other cool high level monsters were included in the D&D Basic set. His answer might surprise you:
Frank Mentzer said:
Another factor [in excluding these monsters] was the need to put good stuff into every product. You display the "I want it All right NOW!" mentality, forgetting the big picture.

If we'd loaded the giants and other kewl higher-level monsters into Basic, I'm sure there would have been heaps of criticism about the lack of good ones in subsequent products.

As it was I had to invent lots of new Undead so that group wouldn't fall into that same trap.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I agree that this was an annoying decision, but it's not like WotC invented the practice.

The fact that it's been done before - even in older editions of D&D - isn't the point though. The point is that WotC didn't do this in the previous edition of D&D; so it's very easy to note how before they did, in fact, give us all of the materials that we're seeing parceled out a few at a time now.

Haffrung Helleyes said:
I think they've been incredibly arrogant throughout this entire process.

Killing Dungeon and Dragon

Announcing grandiose plans for an online initiative then utterly failing to deliver

Running a marketing campaign that denigrated the existing version of D&D, then releasing a version that fixed a bunch of problems by introducing just as many new ones.

Announcing a timetable for a licensing scheme that had the effect of preventing third party companies from preparing for the situation that eventually evolved, by keeping them on a string. I will never know whether this was intentional or not, but I am less inclined to give WoTC the benefit of the doubt with each passing day.

Adopting a release strategy for D&D that deliberately holds back core parts of the rules for later books to force us to buy more supplements. A 'give less, get more' strategy.

Laying off Johnathan Tweet !! What does it say about WoTC management when they think it's a good idea to let go the best game designer on earth?

Ken

I agree, though I wouldn't call this arrogance so much as a series of incredibly poor decisions. The nature of marketing is to call everything a success, whether that's the case or not - their job is to put a good spin on anything, even if it's a total disaster.
 

Monkey Boy

First Post
Utter failure? The Compendium is regularily updated, with lots of material. The other minor tools are OK, but not great. The character builder preview shows that it will be a VERY nice tool, coming in a month or so. Overly ambitious, yes. Arrogant? No. Utter failure? No.

This late in the piece Utter failure looks about right. 4e launched and I bought it. I go to DDI first week out of launch. As noted in the nice colour full page ad in the back of the PHB I can 'get more at DDI'. I log in and get... a whole lot of nothing. FAIL.

Oh and that ad tells me it's powered by Gleemax. Gleemax was a big costly FAIL. Once you have angered the ENWorld optomist you know your time is up.

DDI = big promises, so far we are only just beginning to see results. We have a compendium and a Beta character builder 6 months after launch. And while Dragon and Dungeon may be good they are not particularly difficult to implement. They are PDF's. I hope the digital tabletop does not drop off the radar, that would be a travesty. I think to many it will be DDI's salvation.

DDI, hiring staff, firing staff, inhouse or outsourcing. From an outsiders perspective it appears they are making it up as they go along. The real life murder/tragedy that occured on the digital side of things didn't help things.

True WOTC have had a bad run but I think to a degree they have brought their FAIL on themselves with some poor decisions. I wish them luck but its been a brutal journey so far.
 

justanobody

Banned
Banned
Aha! I was wondering why someone from Wizards would have leaked this to me.

I switched to Pepsi after all that because "classic" just never tasted right after all the changes it went through to get back to where it was before.

What was the Pepsi of RPGs in the late 70's?

So 3 more days until Scott is on vacation. Wonder if they gave him any time to work on the GSL or if upper management have been creating more planned fiascoes to stick with him so he can't get any of his work done.
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I switched to Pepsi after all that because "classic" just never tasted right after all the changes it went through to get back to where it was before.

What was the Pepsi of RPGs in the late 70's?

So 3 more days until Scott is on vacation. Wonder if they gave him any time to work on the GSL or if upper management have been creating more planned fiascoes to stick with him so he can't get any of his work done.

I guess if any game fits the alegory then Traveller would have to be the RPG "Pepsi" of the late 70's.
 

smug

First Post
Runequest was Pepsi, but unlike Pepsi, it really was and is better than D&D's coke. My opinion and therefore RIGHT.
 

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com
Today I spent the first quality time with this in a while and got through the rest of the PHB, DMG and up to Ooze in the MM. I hope to be done with my review of comparing the GSL SRD to the OGL SRD tomorrow. I have some additions to the SRD I will recomend based on my work. Then the additions will need to be udpated into the SRD. While this is happening I'll finish the FAQ.

My goal is to have this posted before I go on Christmas break on the 19th.


I guess we will be seeing something, though no actual pledge to finish the actual GSL, before this weekend.
 


mxyzplk

Explorer
Why do we really care any more?

I was all about pushing for a better GSL back in the day. But now, it seems like everyone has either:

1. Given up, and hitched their wagon to a different horse - decided to instead invest in Pathfinder, True20, etc.

2. Decided to sign on to the GSL despite its predatory nature, and hope for the best.

3. Put out 4e-compatible stuff without the GSL.

Let's say the new GSL comes out and it's much better, perhaps as reasonable as the old d2STL. Is that a compelling enough case for any of the above 3 folks (well, #1 and #3) to change their direction? It doesn't seem like it; it would have to be as revolutionary as the original OGL to cause people to change direction at this point and everyone knows that's not going to happen.

In fact, with Hasbro finally dropping their Scrabulous lawsuit, the people in category 3 are probably more legally safe than ever. This reduces the main reason for the #3 people to uptake (legal-FUD). And the reports of 4e's less than stellar success - true or not, but certainly unrebuked with any real info from Wizards - doesn't give a compelling reason for the #1 crew to change their direction either.

A working GSL could have affected the direction of the industry - six months ago. Now - too little too late.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top