Old news, Jong. And still enlargening the fuckup. Right now, I´m sure NOBODY at WotC knows what they want themselves. Because if the knew what they actually wanted, they could, well, say so. But they prefer not to, instead keep on contradicting themselves. Major fuckup, major lack of plan & vision.

And this is bad omens for 4e too.

I disagree.  I think, if true, this phrase changes my position significantly:

"they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc."

That sounds to me like a goodwill recognition of diversity in the hobby, something I've accused WotC of lacking for a long time now.  It sounds like they want the OGL to exist as a licensing tool for companies who are going to produce products that aren't 3.5 or 4e based and I think that is perfectly reasonable.

D&D is their license and product and I am okay with them asking license holders to choose between 3.5 or 4e and not giving them the right to support products for both.  But all the spinoffs, as mentioned above, do not compete with D&D and are effectively different games, so publishers who produce them should still have the right to produce either 3.5 or 4e products if they want.

Very cool.

So, as they are unstable, so is your opinion of them?

Quote from: walkerpI disagree.  I think, if true, this phrase changes my position significantly:

"they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc."

That sounds to me like a goodwill recognition of diversity in the hobby, something I've accused WotC of lacking for a long time now.  It sounds like they want the OGL to exist as a licensing tool for companies who are going to produce products that aren't 3.5 or 4e based and I think that is perfectly reasonable.

D&D is their license and product and I am okay with them asking license holders to choose between 3.5 or 4e and not giving them the right to support products for both.  But all the spinoffs, as mentioned above, do not compete with D&D and are effectively different games, so publishers who produce them should still have the right to produce either 3.5 or 4e products if they want.

Very cool.

It seems like a good assumption all along that is what they wanted. It's just probably a bear trying to get that intent codified in the GSL. Topped with Scott Rouse (and to a larger extent that other person, what's-her-name) failed to communicate that clearly in that ENWorld thread. *shrug* I guess I can understand people that jumped to conclusions reading into this some sort of malice towards those unrelated OGL games.

Still, I'm not the brightest bulb in the bunch and I still got it over a hundred posts back.

Oh no, my sense (pure speculation) is that they changed their minds.  Either they hadn't anticipated the online reaction or there was a conflict between departments and the online reaction allowed the good guys to win.

Still doesn't bode well for Conan or True20. If they're planning company-by-company restriction, that is, instead of game-by-game.

Quote from: walkerpOh no, my sense (pure speculation) is that they changed their minds.  Either they hadn't anticipated the online reaction or there was a conflict between departments and the online reaction allowed the good guys to win.

I find that extremely doubtful. Those posts got back-editted pretty damn fast.

To me it screamed there had been some half-baked internal talk about how the GSL and policy was going to go about accomplishing the actual intent (wedge between 3.5e and 4e), and some misunderstandings before WotC people started shooting off their mouths in public (and semi-private). Maybe it hadn't been fully thought through how certain specifics would play out? The impact on non-d20 OGL games probably weren't even something that got much thought since I'd find it hard to imagining WotC caring about them one way or another from a corporate POV (though individuals working at WotC may).

So indifference and perhaps some poor internal communication came out looking like malice. :shrug:

Does this even matter? They can't stop d20-ish OGL games from existing, as the OGL is forever. A few people will use the GSL, while others will use the OGL. d20-ish OGL games like Pathfinder and Conan will exist, and Hasbro can do jack shit about it, so it's irrelevant. The truth is, the GSL is a smoke screen, a feint, to make people forget that they could make a 4e clone or quasi-clone using the OGL anyway. I mean, shit, if you can use the OGL to make a Runequest or Traveller clone, then you can do the same for 4e. Just rewrite everything in your own words, and you're good to go.

But whatever. We shall see what happens...

Content is the thing.  It isn't the games. If you want the shiny D&D text on your book that content has to eschew the old. It's about marketing. I'm an RPG publisher and I've got the choice of putting something out for Pathfinder (a cap of maybe a few 10's of thousands of customers, sometime in the future) or D&D 4e (100's of thousands of potential customers the first day I could possibly start selling it). Assuming I like being in business and keeping the lights on, which am I more likely to pick?

P.S.  This idea of it being company-wide requirement, if it happens, would also create problems for a few companies that are in a good position to continue non-d20 OGL and also 4e, like Green Ronin.

Quote from: DwightSo indifference and perhaps some poor internal communication came out looking like malice. :shrug:

Yes, that could well be.  Most of the time, in my experience, what looks like corporate conspiracy from the outside tends to be incompetence.  Still I like the idea of the good creators versus the bad suits.  It makes me believe there are some real gamers who care about the hobby at WotC.  I'm trying to work with you guys here!