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

[Angellis_ater]

The principle behind "Ready, Shoot, Aim" is that without that first shot, you have no basis to work from. You do not "know the recoil" of the weapon or the margin error. So to ensure better hits and NOT get stuck inside a "Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim -loop" where you continously stretch out (as the GSL was delayed 6 months), you fire off after making sure you got the basics down (the Ready part).

A good idea for this is how the OGL was developed - WotC had an idea, released it to the OGL mailing list, did some revisions over time and included the concept of Product Identity. The GSL was very much the opposite.

 

[lurkinglidda]

Q) Is this going to take 6 months (or longer) to release like the last time?

A) I sure hope not. Our legal team has told us they will work on it next week but we are not committing to a time line as those things often shift.

Let me emphasize that we cannot commit to a time line. Six months again? No way! But two days? No way that'll happen either.

I've already drafted the official news blurb for the release. I've also finished the FAQ, so you know we're confident that our proposal will be successful.

 

[Lizard]

Because noone has ever done "Ready, Aim, Shoot, Miss, Aim Again, Shoot Again" before? Everyone gets it perfect the first time?

No, but it can be a lot easier to get it right -- or less wrong -- if you listen to the people telling you "Hey, you know, the target's OVER THERE."

Insert: Dead horse about the public development of the OGL vs. the private development of the GSL.

I greatly appreciate, support, and applaud the willingness of WOTC to go back to the mat on this, and especially the undoubtedly strong, personal, effort Scott and Linae have made to get a GSL in the first place and then get it looked at when the reaction was, shall we say, less than positive. I just wish this second go-round wasn't *necessary* and am quite convinced it didn't need to be.

 

[lmpjr007]

Oh, puh-lease. You're lambasting Scott for making decisions he didn't make, and claiming that you'd have automatically done better in his shoes. It comes across as nonsensical at best, and horrifically arrogant at worst.

Personally I don't know what I would have done if I was in Scott's shoes. Maybe he did the right thing. Maybe he didn't. No one knows and never will. But, I have to deal with the result of those actions like any other 3PP. What you forget is LPJ Design is the "mouse" sleeping next to the "elephant" of WOTC. Due to WOTC power and influence, that could easily but LPJ Design out of business completely by accident by a change in the market. The original GSL is a good example of that.

I have no malice toward Scott, we have never met. I know what it is like to work in a HUGE corporate environement. I wish this whole GSL had taken a different "road". But it didn't and I as a 3PP I have to deal with that.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Q) Is the GSL going to have significant changes?

A) We hope so. If the changes we recommended go through they will be significant.

*Sigh* This explains alot. As someone that use to work for a large corporate entity owned by an even larger corporate entity, I feel your pain. I know what its like to ask for a budget with plenty of inflated extras in the hopes that you get the core stuff you really want and end up only getting the inflated extras.

I hope you get everything you ask for.

Q) Why should we trust you?

A) You probably shouldn't. As the saying goes "seeing is believing" but know that our intentions are to make the license more user friendly. The proof of our efforts will be in the final output so I would hope for the best but maintain a certain level of skepticism.

I hope this sentiment is shared by many (if not everyone) in the gaming community. Scott, I trust you. AFAIC, having clark and everyone at Paizo that ever worked with you vouch for you is reason enough to trust you. But everything I have ever heard about you suggests that you are first and foremost a gamer with D&D's best interests at heart (whether I agree or not).

I trust Lidda. I trust just about everyone (if not everyone) on the R&D team.

However, I have lost confidence in those that sign the paychecks of everyone above.

I'm sure you are in a tough position. I hope no one here makes it any harder then it has to. Including me. I'm sorry if I have.

 

[Arnwyn]

Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL? Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off.

Yes, you are.

 

[ConanMK]

I'll chime in with a few things.

Q) Is the timing of this announcement in any way related to GenCon happening later this week?

A) Why yes. Linae and I wanted to actually release the changes to the license prior to the show but when it became clear that wasn't going to happen we decided to make the announcement of our intentions to stem off questions regarding the license.

Q) Is the GSL going to have significant changes?

A) We hope so. If the changes we recommended go through they will be significant.

Q) Am I going to like the changes?

A) I think many people will be happy. It probably won't please everyone but if the changes we recommended go through the license we appeal to a lot more people.

Q) Why should we trust you?

A) You probably shouldn't. As the saying goes "seeing is believing" but know that our intentions are to make the license more user friendly. The proof of our efforts will be in the final output so I would hope for the best but maintain a certain level of skepticism.

Q) Is Clark Peterson a payed shill or something?

A) No, but we value Clark's insight and opinion and want to see publishers like Necromancer make 4th edition compatible supplements.

Q) Is this going to take 6 months (or longer) to release like the last time?

A) I sure hope not. Our legal team has told us they will work on it next week but we are not committing to a time line as those things often shift.

I just wanted to say THANK YOU to Scott and Linae for their hard work on this and thie continued dedication to open gaming and a GSL that appeals to 3rd party publishers. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll be as supportive as I can.

 

[Voadam]

Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL? Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off. I mean they are using what WOTC did, doing minimal work of their own and publishing it as their product. Frankly any OGL that limited that would be welcome. Towards the end of 3e their were way too many products that were simply completle rip offs of what WOTC put out, complete with same class list, same race list and only the most superficial of diffrences.

I realize that people want to make money, but Id rather see 3rd party publishers publishing their own truly unique games with their own mechanics then see a ton of dnd rip offs.

Just my thoughts.

I am not with you.

I play D&D and I am glad 3pp can and did make OGL D&D variants. My D&D games have gained a lot from the D&D variants. I find it easier to use stuff from D&D variants in my D&D games than from truly unique games with their own mechanics.

 

[Lizard]

Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?

Doesn't matter, the OGL says "You can use any version of this document."

Mainly because what pazio is doing has me ticked off. I mean they are using what WOTC did, doing minimal work of their own and publishing it as their product.

Boy, if only someone had thought that might be possible back when the OGL was first released, and asked Wizards if this would be acceptable or permissable. It would be a common question, possibly even frequently asked, so maybe WOTC would put the question, and the answer to it, in some sort of list of such questions. Hmmm...

Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?

A: Sure.

Q: Could I publish the whole thing?

A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.

I realize that people want to make money, but Id rather see 3rd party publishers publishing their own truly unique games with their own mechanics then see a ton of dnd rip offs.

Have you, uhm, read ANYTHING about the OGL, why it was created, and what it was intended to do? The proliferation of incompatible game systems was seen as a major reason for the shrinking of the game market; the OGL and SRD were written *precisely for the purpose* of letting -- encouraging -- other companies develop games "compatible with" D&D, of making the D20 system the standard for all but fringe games. This isn't speculation, rumor, or innuendo -- it's what Ryan Dancey said in public, many times, and it's all over the web for anyone who bothers to look.

 

[Greg K]

Am I the only one who wants a stricter OGL?

Assuming that a) others understand the difference between the OGL and d20STL and b) what they were each designed for, the answer is yes.