WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Khairn]

The gamer in me offers a sincere & heart felt "Thank You" to Linae and Scott for pushing through a decision to take another look at the GSL. 3PP's made some of the very best 3E products. Creating the GSL which shackled much of that same creativity for 4E was a mistake from my point of view.

The cynic in me has a couple of thoughts ...

-interesting timing on this announcement, just before Gen Con. Certainly a good way to diffuse criticism and generate buzz without having done much of anything at all.

-the motivation behind this decision is an interesting subject for debate. Are those motivations as altruistic as stated below...

Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle". Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.

... or have there been business reasons which gave leverage to your arguments that they didn't have when the initial decisions on the GSL were made?

-and my last cynical observation is that we haven't actually seen anything yet. We do know that some of the decisions WotC have made to date about the GSL has driven away both customers and 3PP partners. So I hope WotC will understand if many of us remain skeptical on how (or if) this announcement will actually help the 3 PP's or the community.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I am sorry but being a 3rd party publisher, I am even MORE skeptic to the GSL.

How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?

 

[frankthedm]

Very interesting! I didn't think WotC would actually do it.

Nor did I. But since my expectations are so pessimistic, when I wind up eating crow, folks are better off for it.

 

[radferth]

My theory (which I can't write enough of) is that WotC wanted to structure to GSL so 3pps could publish modules, but not D&D variants (they don't wand someone to make to 4th edition version of T20). I don't think they intended the OGL to allow them, but no one was thinking about them at the time. They made the GSL so that it would not allow variant, and so they could close any other loopholes at will. They ended up with a license so restrictive lots of folks would not even publish adventured for it. We'll now get to see what they can come up with to allow modules, not variants, and that won't scare off 3pps entirely.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?

It's not as if WotC has made any prior announcements that sounded good, but were light on details, and generated some great buzz... and then failed to deliver when the actual details were revealed.

I think "cautious optimism" is the right approach, and while I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "skeptical," I would say I am "exhausted" by the process.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?

(I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)

At this point, it's too early to say. If WotC decides to axe them, then yes, they made objectively bad decisions. If they survive and prosper, then no, their decision -- which was, basically, a calculated gamble -- paid off.

Note that I didn't say that WotC would do anything detrimental to 3rd party publishers -- I simply warned against excessive trust in a situation where strangers and money are involved.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle". Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.

Yes. Those are very pretty words.

 

[The Little Raven]

You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.

Well, with the fact that Amazon is reporting excellent sales, the NYT Bestseller's list is reporting excellent sales, and the fact that a subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation making false statements about their sales or productivity is a legal no-no, I'll take it over any forumite's (admittedly) uninformed opinion any day.

 

[GMSkarka]

How does this make any sense? They are releasing a more relaxed version of the GSL because everyone had issues with it. Why in the nine hells would you be more skeptical?

I'll go there.

I'm VERY skeptical.

I've been playing the game of "adjust expectations downward" ever since being on the 10-publisher conference call with WOTC back in January. Every part of this process, from announcement to roll-out, has been a case study of being told one thing, and getting far, far less.

I like Linnae and Scott -- and I really appreciate their efforts... but at this point, WOTC has close to zero credibility with me on issues surrounding the GSL.

I have to admit that my first response to this was to assume that the announcement exists purely to divert the flood of criticism and questions that they'd have to field at GenCon this week.


You all know that I pretty much never agree with Louis Porter. However, in this case, we're totally on the same page.

Skeptical.

....although I'll be very, very happy to be proven wrong.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm VERY skeptical.

That's understandable. However, he said he was now even MORE skeptical, as if he was suggesting that the GSL is going to get even more restrictive (despite Linae openly saying it would be "opener"). I can understand being skeptical that these changes are what you're looking for, but to say that you're even more skeptical of the GSL after these changes just seems kinda silly.