TheRPGSite

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

Posting this because I know at least one person here was thinking about trying to do a 4e product anyway without dropping the 5Gs.  This would make things a bit easier.  I didn't see the text of the GSL though, and it looks like they are going to come out with something else after that.

Quote from: Dwighthttp://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

Posting this because I know at least one person here was thinking about trying to do a 4e product anyway without dropping the 5Gs.  This would make things a bit easier.  I didn't see the text of the GSL though, and it looks like they are going to come out with something else after that.

Gee, I guess they discovered that people weren't quite as quick to hand over $5K as they originally thought.  I never saw that coming...:rolleyes:

I suspect it's more a question of them not getting the legal stuff together in time.  I also am starting to suspect that a lot more problems cropped up in playtesting than they anticipated and the system isn't as "done" as we had been thinking.  I wouldn't be surprised if other things start dropping off too.

Quote from: walkerpI suspect it's more a question of them not getting the legal stuff together in time.

Yea, didn't the earlier press release talk about those who pay getting the SRD at the beginning of the year?  The utility of paying is greatly reduced if it gives you only a six week head start.

Quote from: NicephorusYea, didn't the earlier press release talk about those who pay getting the SRD at the beginning of the year?  The utility of paying is greatly reduced if it gives you only a six week head start.

But even then, they'd get Christmas to make it up.  Now it appears they won't have that.

I wonder if Wizards will give the folks who paid their money back.

Quote from: joewolzI wonder if Wizards will give the folks who paid their money back.

The Legal Coucil 8-Ball says: "If you don't you better invest that $5000 in KY." :o

Quote from: joewolzBut even then, they'd get Christmas to make it up.  Now it appears they won't have that.

I wonder if Wizards will give the folks who paid their money back.

I forget how many times this has been said now, but no-one has paid any money yet - because the GSL hasn't been completed! No GSL, no idea if you want to pay the $5000 to be an early adopter or not. Now it seems that the early adopter thingy is out because they've shilly-shallied so long.

Quote from: joewolzI wonder if Wizards will give the folks who paid their money back.

All 0 of them?

Quote from: One Horse TownI forget how many times this has been said now, but no-one has paid any money yet - because the GSL hasn't been completed! No GSL, no idea if you want to pay the $5000 to be an early adopter or not. Now it seems that the early adopter thingy is out because they've shilly-shallied so long.

Hey, I haven't seen that before.

everyone's being very negative about what seems to be good news!

I thought being very negative is what this board is all about?

QuoteI thought being very negative is what this board is all about?

Screw that.

So being negative about the negativity, does that make me positive?

Seriously, what is the upside of this announcement?  That there will be a general open license now that is free to everybody so they can develop product for the 4e line?  Not challenging, I'm just not totally up on all this GSL stuff.

Quote from: Age of Fableeveryone's being very negative about what seems to be good news!

I'm having trouble seeing anything but a company that seems to profoundly Not Have Their Shit Together.  This is how the biggest name in the hobby does business?  Fartknockering around then changing the plan at the last minute?  I'm mean, sure.  Pat them on the back for being smart enough to realize they were fucking things up, but why did things get fucked in the first place?

Quote from: jrients...but why did things get fucked in the first place?

A wizard did it.

Quote from: walkerpSeriously, what is the upside of this announcement?  That there will be a general open license now that is free to everybody so they can develop product for the 4e line?  Not challenging, I'm just not totally up on all this GSL stuff.

The problem is primarily that a number of core third-party companies (IIRC, they included Paizo, Green Ronin, Adamant, etc.) had originally been offered to get early copies of the system so they could produce supplements in time for the official 4e release (as was done for 3e).  

However, this time they were first told that it would cost them $5,000; they would only get limited print copies (I think it was 3 per company) and no electronic versions; and the system and license were not yet ready.  These companies were hesitant and waiting to see the goods before committing (Paizo going so far as to say, "No thanks, can't afford it.")  Everyone was getting nervous as the goods were still not ready -- they needed the lead time to produce quality products for GenCon.  

Now, the fee has been removed but the goods are still not ready, which means that even if WotC was to hand them tomorrow morning, there would still be little time to produce decent supplements for August.  In other words, it will be, for these core supporters of D&D, a choice between publishing very rushed products or missing GenCon.  They get no more favour from WotC than if they were Joe Schmoe in his basement.  It means losing a good chunk of reliability on what is for most of these company the main source of income.

Edit: IIRC, the early-adopters were also initially going to get a protected period during which no other third-party company could publish D&D supplements; I believe that was going to be through December.

Thanks, Anenome.  Yeah, that doesn't sound very positive at all.  And I second JRients' position as well.  It could be that they have most of their shit together, but not the department of Dealing with Outside Vendors and Caring About the Rest of the Industry which can probably be found "in the bottom of a filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard."

I suspect this has a lot to do with WOTC's strange status as a no-longer completely independent company. It is disconcerting.

Quote from: AnemoneNow, the fee has been removed but the goods are still not ready, which means that even if WotC was to hand them tomorrow morning, there would still be little time to produce decent supplements for August. In other words, it will be, for these core supporters of D&D, a choice between publishing very rushed products or missing GenCon.

No it won't be. No 3rd party products for GenCon this year, no 3rd party products till Oct. 1st.

Quote from: jgantsGee, I guess they discovered that people weren't quite as quick to hand over $5K as they originally thought.  I never saw that coming...

The $5k meant dick-all to WotC. They weren't charging the fee to make money, they were charging the fee to allow "serious" publishers early access, without having to determine on a case-by-case basis what constituted such a publisher.

Quote from: jrientsI'm having trouble seeing anything but a company that seems to profoundly Not Have Their Shit Together.  This is how the biggest name in the hobby does business?  Fartknockering around then changing the plan at the last minute?  I'm mean, sure.  Pat them on the back for being smart enough to realize they were fucking things up, but why did things get fucked in the first place?

The GSL is, ultimately, a minor aspect of 4E. It seems the lawyers got involved and caused lawyerly delays, but methinks they were more concerned with, you know, finishing 4E. The GSL was understandably not a priority.

Quote from: AnemoneNow, the fee has been removed but the goods are still not ready, which means that even if WotC was to hand them tomorrow morning, there would still be little time to produce decent supplements for August.  In other words, it will be, for these core supporters of D&D, a choice between publishing very rushed products or missing GenCon.  They get no more favour from WotC than if they were Joe Schmoe in his basement.  It means losing a good chunk of reliability on what is for most of these company the main source of income.

Definitely a good example of the 800lb gorilla peeing on all the other folks that worked hard and hand-in-hand to help them over the past few years by creating products compatible with the Gorillas goods.

I think IBM tried that already though in the 80's with the PC. Look where it got IBM in the PC Industry in the long run.

Quote from: GameDaddyDefinitely a good example of the 800lb gorilla peeing on all the other folks that worked hard and hand-in-hand to help them over the past few years by creating products compatible with the Gorillas goods.

Bullshit. They just revealed that the new GSL will be royalty-free. They dropped the $5k fee for early adopters. Despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past few months, it appears WotC really supports open gaming. Fears that only a select group could publish 3rd-party stuff were unfounded. Etc, etc.

Those who rode WotC coattails over the past several years can continue to do so now. Without paying anything for the privilege. But you're right: how dare WotC treat them like that?

What is really interesting, to me, is the "future clone" scenario.

Here is the scenario: the GSL and SRD come out, and are somewhat more restrictive than the licence and SRD we are currently used to. (It has already been confirmed that the SRD won't be a document you can download and use to run a game, like the current one - just a list of references to rules in the core 4E rulebooks which third party authors can draw on.)

Several folks have used the current SRD and OGL - which, most people concur, cannot be revoked by Wizards - to produce "retro clones" of previous editions of D&D. OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, in particular, are mechanically identical to 1E AD&D and Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D.

So, what happens when someone - and I think it's a case of "when", not "if" - makes a "future clone" - a document which is essentially 4E with the serial numbers filed off?

It would be almost painfully easy. One would simply publish it under the 3.5 OGL, and use the 3.5 SRD as a basis. You would need to put all of the new 4E rules into your own words - making sure that you are restating them as opposed to copy-pasting, since the copyright only applies to the specific words used to describe the rules - and be careful to leave out all trademarked content. Depending on the terms of the GSL, you may even be able to directly quote material from the core 4E books (in which case producing a usable 4E SRD would consist simply of copy-pasting all the material the 4E SRD allows you to use, and pasting over the cracks with material from the 3.5 SRD and/or your own rewrite of the relevant rules).

Now, what can Wizards do? Sure, they can bring a suit against you, but it would be pretty damn weak unless they also brought a suit against the OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord dudes. And you could point to various 1970s games which clearly cherry-pick rules from D&D (for example, almost all RPGs written in the 1970s had stats which map almost exactly to D&D's, and many of them even had them in the 3-18 range) and say "Well, since you didn't stop those guys doing it, the cat is well and truly out of the bag."

Such thoughts have probably occurred to Wizards. It's probably what's holding up the GSL. The fact that they are changing it about in the first place, rather than keeping the OGL (note, for example, that they are changing the way the SRD works, and removing the word "open" from the licence name), suggests to me that they want a more restrictive licence. But the legal realities mean that they can't enforce it, if it comes to court; they might, in the end, have to rely on their lawyers scaring people into rolling over and playing dead.

But what happens when they come across someone who won't do that, because they know damn well that Wizards is bluffing?

Brilliant, Warthur. Well played, sir.

I don't think they'd be too worried, however. Because the one thing the filed down version, and any material based on it, won't be able to do is say "compatible with 4e D&D" or whatever the trademark restrictions apply. WotC will rely on Branding to roll over any kind of competition that might arise. Why play a cheap knock off when you can play the real thing? At worst they will lose a sale, at best, they will gain a player that will one day become a customer of other products.

Just a thought.

IMHO, I think they should be more worried about the competition that arises from games that are built on the OGL that are not 4e clones. Paizo may or may not be successful, but I think that model would be the most likely to spawn something competitive on which they have little influence (because to react would be to back track).

In related news, it's surfaced (around page 2 of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224085)) that publishing under the GSL will prohibit publishing under the OGL. So companies are forced to choose one or the other.

This is all getting a bit silly.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIn related news, it's surfaced (around page 2 of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224085)) that publishing under the GSL will prohibit publishing under the OGL. So companies are forced to choose one or the other.

Pierce is right, this is getting silly. What's to prevent a business from creating a company for publishing OGL material and then a second company to create GSL material?

Quote from: jeff37923Pierce is right, this is getting silly. What's to prevent a business from creating a company for publishing OGL material and then a second company to create GSL material?

They idea appears to be by product, (EDIT:and maybe company?)  Although that still gets a little messy around "grandfather" products. EDIT:  which they won't allow  (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172736&postcount=44). Got a bunch of inventory? Either slit your throat and bleed or hold off on bringing that particular product to 4e till 3.5e inventory is out of your hands and in the channel and officially OOP. And I guess you have to stop PDF sales too?  "Systemless" (or really multi-system) stuff like Freeport? Hrmmm.

A whole lot of FUD right now. It's tough enough trying to sort this sort of thing with a document in hand. Oooo boy, wouldn't want to be a house heavy leaning heavy on d20. Scary times just got freaky.

Quote from: Fifth ElementBullshit. They just revealed that the new GSL will be royalty-free. They dropped the $5k fee for early adopters. Despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past few months, it appears WotC really supports open gaming. Fears that only a select group could publish 3rd-party stuff were unfounded. Etc, etc.

Those who rode WotC coattails over the past several years can continue to do so now. Without paying anything for the privilege. But you're right: how dare WotC treat them like that?

Hmmm... Just looked over the EnWorld Thread. Scott Rouse, D&D's brand manager confirmed they would support open gaming, for 4e only! and are happily in the process of Fooxering the 3x publishers who already have invested loads of cash in supporting the 3x OGL.

I'm so glad I bought another set of C&C books instead of Wotc books. It's going to be a long... long... long... time before I buy another book or game aid from Wotc, if ever.

Clark Peterson (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172981&postcount=61), Necromancer Games, in the same thread. I understand he'll have more info on this but it looks like he's not sure yet either. Not sure he'll be able to distribute a free PDF of 3.5e stat blocks for his planned 4e. He'll try because he promised fans he would as best he could but isn't sure he'll be able to do it. Or even let his authors put it out as "fan" material (which he likely could legally stop, so he might be obliged under the GSL to enforce his rights).

EDIT: Outside that he doesn't really care much and seems to think RPG customers shouldn't get their snot in a knot either? Hrmm. Fat chance of that methinks.  He thinks it's a surprising windfall that the GSL allows 3rd party publishers access to 4e at all.

The various threads elsewhere on this are hilarious (as at enworld.) And it's only gonna get better the closer we get to doomsday. Even Clark (orcus) was down in the dumps by the end of that thread.

GSL hysteria has the potential to be globalwarming + AIDS + abortion + mohammed cartoons. Get yer popcorn ready.

My two cents: with the GSL being exclusionary and potentially revocable, publishers who forgo the OGL and "upgrade" to the GSL better ask WotC for a complementary lubejob upfront.

Quote from: James J SkachBrilliant, Warthur. Well played, sir.

I don't think they'd be too worried, however. Because the one thing the filed down version, and any material based on it, won't be able to do is say "compatible with 4e D&D" or whatever the trademark restrictions apply. WotC will rely on Branding to roll over any kind of competition that might arise. Why play a cheap knock off when you can play the real thing? At worst they will lose a sale, at best, they will gain a player that will one day become a customer of other products.

You see, that's the thing. From Wizards' point of view, the important thing is the trademark, not the system itself. On the other hand, from the point of view of third party companies, the trademark seems to be much less valuable - Spycraft, M&M, True20 and Mongoose's Conan don't seem to have been hurt by being published under the OGL as opposed to the D20 licence; even though several of those games lost the right to use the little D20 logo, they seem to be perfectly happy. I suspect that unless you are Wizards or White Wolf, most of your customers are dedicated gamers, with perhaps a few browsers from mainstream bookshops picking things up occasionally (if you even have a presence in mainstream bookshops, which for most third party publishers simply isn't the case). Anyone who frequents game stores and has a passing knowledge of the field can tell an OGL product when they see it (especially since third party companies have found perfectly functional ass-covering ways of saying "this product is compatible with D&D", like "this product is compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game").

From the same thread: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99)

Quote from: Scott RouseWe have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?

It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.

:haw:

Quote from: WarthurSo, what happens when someone - and I think it's a case of "when", not "if" - makes a "future clone" - a document which is essentially 4E with the serial numbers filed off?

I think it would be a highly risky scenario.  People were able to essentially create 3e phb clones because the ogl is a bit sloppy in allowing things that aren't entirely intended.  Despite the attitude of OSRIC people who sometimes act like they're begging for the fun of a lawsuit, the big savior of the retro clones is that WOTC doesn't care enough.  So what if a few people who weren't likely to buy 3.5 products anyway play around with something?  WOTC didn't lose any sales; hell people aren't even rushing out to buy OSRIC compatible products.

Making a 4e clone might piss them off enough to take action.  I bet they have more things trademarked than before and are careful in spelling out product identity so it's probably harder to get super close to the same thing.  Plus the whole anti OGL+GSL thing.

The truth is though that American copyright law is very vague and untested so who knows what the outcome would be if someone had the money to survive a lawsuit.  Take a look at the recent Harry Potter case - the judge advised them to settle out of court as the law is unclear and it would like go through rounds of appeals.

Quote from: jeff37923Pierce is right, this is getting silly. What's to prevent a business from creating a company for publishing OGL material and then a second company to create GSL material?

In theory, nothing, so long as you make sure that the two companies are reasonably independent and have the sort of relationship that, say, Paizo and Necromancer have. Clark from Necromancer says here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51) that he has confirmed with Wizards that Necromancer will be able to do 4E, and Paizo will be able to do 3E. So long as people wait until Necromancer and Paizo have been operating that way for a while without complaint from Wizards, later people trying the same deal should be OK; they'd be able to point to Necromancer and Paizo and say "well, wait a minute, you knew damn well that these people were doing the same thing and you did nothing."

Quote from: James J SkachFrom the same thread: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99)

:haw:

Seriously, whats funny about that?  Companies publishing under the 3.5 OGL are going to be taking business away from their new game.  You are creating your own competition.  Closing off that loophole as much as possible makes business sense.

The software/hardware industry has been working like that for years.  New system comes out, you stop supporting the old system.  Eventually, all those who want to switch switch.  The rest live with what they got, and get friends to fix it when they get broken, or know how to fix it themselves.  Its a rare industry that actively tries to support people switching to their new system, and supporting those who want to stay with the old.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralSeriously, whats funny about that?  Companies publishing under the 3.5 OGL are going to be taking business away from their new game.  You are creating your own competition.  Closing off that loophole as much as possible makes business sense.

I think it's a matter of people becoming greedy and lazy.  It's like their mom came home to find that they've eaten an entire pie.  When she gets mad, they say "you said I could have pie!"  "Ok, next time, only one slice."  "Whaaah!"

Even a restrictive GSL is far more than most companies offer even if it's not entirely open.  Why aren't people railing against every other game that has no open content at all?  How many publishers on this board offer their system for free use by other companies?

Quote from: HackmastergeneralSeriously, whats funny about that?  Companies publishing under the 3.5 OGL are going to be taking business away from their new game.  You are creating your own competition.  Closing off that loophole as much as possible makes business sense.

It strikes me as funny on a number of levels. First, it's so...blatant. As I said over on d20 Haven, it's a great indicator as to how decisions are made. It's not wrong - in a way it's refreshing.  We did this for business reasons. Plain and simple. And that, to me, is amusing - in a good way.

Second, it means they understand what a shitty thing the OGL was in terms of the control they would have over it in the future. To me, one of two things is, then, true.

a) they had no idea when they made the OGL what it's long term effect would be. In which case, someone sold them a bill of goods.
b) they knew exactly what it would mean and planned on closing it off with a move like this in the future. This is a bit conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't put it past a company (not that there's anythign wrong with it - yay capitalism!)

Third, I love the whole "be glad we even let you use our IP," stuff.  I'm still trying to parse that (as I mention, also, over on d20 Haven).  I mean, what, other than the logo and trademark stuff, are they giving us at their great beneficence?

So, it just struck me as amusing on several levels...

Have fun guys, I'm out for a bit as the little league season starts in a few minutes.  Enjoy the debate!

What a fucking mess the GSL turned out to be.  Or should we start calling it the G$L (come on, you know you want to)?

I think WotC is making a big mistake with this one.  I'm not upset about it or anything, as I was never liked 3e and have hated nearly everything I've heard about 4e; I just think WotC is being very dumb.

Whatever other opinions I had about Dancey, the OGL/D20 idea was brilliant.  And he was proved right - the heavy 3rd party support only helped gain attention for D&D.  WotC is apparently convinced that they somehow missed out on money they were entitled to.

A couple other observations from the EnWorld thread:

* Scott Rouse is the kind of condescending ass that is so typical of WotC staff nowadays.  Is being an arrogant blowhard a job requirement at WotC now?

* Clark Peterson needs to grow some fucking balls and stop licking WotC's boots.  Seriously dude, when WotC pisses on you in public could you please have a fucking spine enough to at least not say "thank you Sir, may I have another?"

* WotC and Hasbro are morons if they think any of this will somehow lead to massive new profits.  I very much expect 4e to have a life cycle similar to 2e, just accelerated a bit.

* With the state of the economy, I would think now would not be the best time to go out of their way to piss off customers on the pie-in-the-sky hopes that a bunch of WoW teenz are going to come in like the cavalry and save the day.

Quote from: jgants* Clark Peterson needs to grow some fucking balls and stop licking WotC's boots.  Seriously dude, when WotC pisses on you in public could you please have a fucking spine enough to at least not say "thank you Sir, may I have another?"

Yeah, no kidding.

He should go off on Rouse like he did Rob Kuntz. Now THAT was some funny shit.

Quote from: FASERIPHe should go off on Rouse like he did Rob Kuntz. Now THAT was some funny shit.

I missed that one, got a link?

Here ya go.

LINK (http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/4487/t/A-Question.html?page=1)

Quote from: HackmastergeneralThe software/hardware industry has been working like that for years.  New system comes out, you stop supporting the old system.  Eventually, all those who want to switch switch.  The rest live with what they got, and get friends to fix it when they get broken, or know how to fix it themselves.  Its a rare industry that actively tries to support people switching to their new system, and supporting those who want to stay with the old.

Yes, but there is a major difference here.  If you have been making money selling products for XP, you don't have to stop selling XP stuff if you want to develop stuff for Vista.

Do I have that right, though?  If you want to make 4e products, you have to stop making OGL products?  How can such a legal restriction exist?

Quote from: James J Skacha) they had no idea when they made the OGL what it's long term effect would be. In which case, someone sold them a bill of goods.

Keep in mind the OGL 'They' are a completely different group of people. Different at the low level, different management, different ownership. And 8 years later different tack.

It is one hell of a ballsy move that, if they pull it off, shows that the irrevocable nature of the OGL didn't extend as far as many people thought it did.

Of course it could blow up in their face. But I suspect that'll happen only if 4e sucks in play [as judged by the masses, not us]. And as much as I think the internet wind matters know even more than 3e/3.5, just like then it isn't going to be decided by the loudest of the %20ish detractors you'll find in [uncontrolled] online polls.  Hell even more recently saw the same sort of numbers for Shadowrun 4e, and loud verbal outcry on the internet, and in it sold like gangbusters.

QuoteDo I have that right, though? If you want to make 4e products, you have to stop making OGL products? How can such a legal restriction exist?

How? It's a condition of the license. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me - in order to register with WotC for the right to publish material for sale (as opposed to fan-based content for free on the net), you have to abide by the terms and conditions of the GSL. Which includes the exclusivity clause - no 3.x products. If you break the terms of the license, they have the legal right to yank it and say "No more pie for you." It's like the STL - remember the whole flap over the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Because of the terms of the license, WotC had the legal right to say "Oh hell no, you're not publishing THAT under the STL."

Quote from: walkerpDo I have that right, though?  If you want to make 4e products, you have to stop making OGL products?  How can such a legal restriction exist?

There's currently lack of clarity on that.  It seems that it might be that no product can use both licenses and that there can't be two active versions of the same product.  No restriction at the publisher level.

It also looks a lot like WotC is going to set themselves up as arbitrator keeping it out of the courts as much as possible, DM of the GSL as it were. So no weenie shell company end-runs, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

P.S. Of course Clark was bummed. It was like he was a lone upbeat man starting into the face of a stampede of angry sheep, and not getting loads of help from WotC folks (he made a hell of a lot more sense than they did with their canned "we really, really, really believe in 4e". :rolleyes:  No it ain't gonna kill him but it's pretty fustrating, draining, and sometimes painful...voice of experience here. ;)

Linae Foster, Licensing Manager, in ENworld: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172583&postcount=36)

Quote

QuoteHm, could Linae possibly have meant that you can't produce the same book with both Licenses (the OGL and GSL) in it at the same time? Because that'd make a lot more sense.

Yes, that is what I was trying to convey.

We totally recognize that this mutual exclusivity will keep some publishers from joining us in 4E. That's a business decision they need to make, and we respect that.

and,

QuoteNo. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.

Quote from: FASERIPHere ya go.

LINK (http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/4487/t/A-Question.html?page=1)

Oh brother...

Can't we all just get along?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh brother...

Can't we all just get along?

Eh, reading it killed some time...

Thanks for posting that link JongWK.  It's hilarious how the thread starts out all "see all you Wizards bashers, how good they actually are" and then starts morphing into "WTF??!!" as people start to figure out exactly what this new license means.

For my part, I think it's clear what Wizards wants to do with the license, and it's nowhere as apocalyptic or destructive as the conspiracy theorists desperately want to believe (just check the matching thread over at TBP).

It seems pretty destructive to me.  They basically want to force all the big players who have published succesful OGL stuff out of their market or force them to kill their succesful lines in order to join the 4e bandwagon.

Am I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?

Quote from: GameDaddyDefinitely a good example of the 800lb gorilla peeing on all the other folks that worked hard and hand-in-hand to help them over the past few years by creating products compatible with the Gorillas goods.

I know! There was a delay in a delay-ridden industry! Bad, WotC! Bad, WotC!

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpAm I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?

From my understanding not only Conan, but also Babylon 5 since its OGL too.

Quote from: walkerpAm I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?

No. What they can't do is sell the same Conan product as 4E and 3E.

Suppose your Walkerp d20 products are doing just fine under 3E. You can keep them for as long as you want, but you can't "play it safe" and release the same products under both editions in order to milk both markets.

Suppose your d20 products under 3E are doing badly? You can jump to 4E, but you can't keep releasing under 3E to earn a few more pennies.

M&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.

Quote from: NicephorusI think it's a matter of people becoming greedy and lazy.  It's like their mom came home to find that they've eaten an entire pie.  When she gets mad, they say "you said I could have pie!"  "Ok, next time, only one slice."  "Whaaah!"

Even a restrictive GSL is far more than most companies offer even if it's not entirely open.  Why aren't people railing against every other game that has no open content at all?  How many publishers on this board offer their system for free use by other companies?

Hear fucking hear.

Is it perfect?  No.  Is it confusing?  Yes.

But what other company is using open source for its game content in any way shape or form.  Or, more to the point (because I'm sure some indie company some guy runs out of his garage does), what RPG company of any significance is doing this?

Is it great?  No.  But its miles ahead of what every other company of any size is doing.

Quote from: JongWKM&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.

I wonder if WotC is really worried about those at all? They don't really support 3.5e in any way.  This seems to be more about forcing a choice of what to support between 3.5 D&D and 4.0 D&D, with the intent of starving and encouraging the obsolescence of 3.5e, than forcing a choice between support of 4.0 D&D and say SotC or other OGL that are very much games apart from 3.5 D&D?  The devil is going to be in the details of the GSL, and probably in WotC's stated intentions with it since it looks they'll likely they'll take an active arbitration role.

Quote from: JongWKNo. What they can't do is sell the same Conan product as 4E and 3E.

Suppose your Walkerp d20 products are doing just fine under 3E. You can keep them for as long as you want, but you can't "play it safe" and release the same products under both editions in order to milk both markets.

Suppose your d20 products under 3E are doing badly? You can jump to 4E, but you can't keep releasing under 3E to earn a few more pennies.

M&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.

Exactly.  I don't think they are saying "if you publish any 4ed material you can't also publish ANY 3.5 ogl material."  What I think they are saying is you can't sell Conan OGL AND Conan 4ed.  

If Mongoose wants to publish Conan under 4ed rules because they feel it suits the game better, but wants to keep Babylon 5 under the 3.5 OGL, thats fine.  But they can't produce Conan OGL and Conan 4ed stuff at the same time.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralExactly.  I don't think they are saying "if you publish any 4ed material you can't also publish ANY 3.5 ogl material."  What I think they are saying is you can't sell Conan OGL AND Conan 4ed.  

If Mongoose wants to publish Conan under 4ed rules because they feel it suits the game better, but wants to keep Babylon 5 under the 3.5 OGL, thats fine.  But they can't produce Conan OGL and Conan 4ed stuff at the same time.

Actually, according to what I've read (to this point), you can't, as a company, produce OGL and SGL material. Once you publish something under the new license, you are not allowed to publish anything else - that's anything from any other product line, etc. - under the OGL.

Now if they've backtracked on that interpretation since 6:30 this morning - does anyone have a link? I'd be curious to see that...

Quote from: HackmastergeneralIs it great?  No.  But its miles ahead of what every other company of any size is doing.

But there is no other company of its size.  That's the problem here.

And I think they must realize this to some degree, otherwise why any open license at all?  Why not just charge companies a bundle to use the D&D brand?  Because they need those third party companies and they know they don't have the money to pay for a license.

Quote from: James J SkachActually, according to what I've read (to this point), you can't, as a company, produce OGL and SGL material. Once you publish something under the new license, you are not allowed to publish anything else - that's anything from any other product line, etc. - under the OGL.

Now if they've backtracked on that interpretation since 6:30 this morning - does anyone have a link? I'd be curious to see that...

Yes, this was my understanding of well.  It's a major question mark at this point and makes a big difference.

I mean there is no need to update games like M&M to 4th edition, but shouldn't Green Ronin be allowed to use the 4e license for other products still?

Quote from: James J SkachActually, according to what I've read (to this point), you can't, as a company, produce OGL and SGL material. Once you publish something under the new license, you are not allowed to publish anything else - that's anything from any other product line, etc. - under the OGL.

The quotes that Jong posted a few posts up read the other way to me.  They use the word product when talking about using both licenses, not publisher.

Latest word:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173921&postcount=279

"Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y."

So the brand manager doesn't even know for sure right now. (or claims not to, which means the same thing really = no definite answer now)

Quote from: NicephorusThe quotes that Jong posted a few posts up read the other way to me.  They use the word product when talking about using both licenses, not publisher.

I'll see if I can dig up the post I'm thinking of nicephorus. One in which is seemed clear that it was a company wide effect....

Quote from: JimLotFPSo the brand manager doesn't even know for sure right now. (or claims not to, which means the same thing really = no definite answer now)

That suggests last minute internal wrangling over details of the wording.

Quote from: NicephorusThat suggests last minute internal wrangling over details of the wording.

Yep, but not just the wording but the actual meaning as well.  I wouldn't even be surprised if they are backpedaling due to the online reaction.  It's very interesting how the internet is truly changing corporate behaviour, creating a much more dynamic relationship between producer and consumer.  Let's hope WotC listens to the people.  They sound like intelligent people with a love of gaming in their hearts.  I worry about a lack of understanding about the rest of the industry coupled with pressure from corporate.

walker,
I think WotC hasn´t got the say in these things right now.

Quote from: walkerpBut there is no other company of its size.  That's the problem here.

It's not a problem. The problem is the third party publishers being ingrateful for what they got. After all, they got to produce products for D&D for free for years. Now they're still getting to produce products for D&D for free, but they're unhappy because WotC is trying to correct their mistake with the OGL and actually gain an advantage from their license.

Yeah, what terrible, terrible people.

Quote from: walkerpLet's hope WotC listens to the people.

That's an interesting statement. So WotC listening to the people and designing a game that the people will like is bad. But listening to the people and making the GSL less restrictive is good.

That aside, I have no idea why consumers care. Well, I have some ideas why they care, but I'm not sure they would care it weren't WotC, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpI suspect it's more a question of them not getting the legal stuff together in time.  I also am starting to suspect that a lot more problems cropped up in playtesting than they anticipated and the system isn't as "done" as we had been thinking.  I wouldn't be surprised if other things start dropping off too.

Guess I'll wait for 4.5 this December.

Thanks to this announcement and a gaming-specific corrollary to Rule 34, the creation of an OGL-compliant clone of 4.0 is now inevitable.

It's odd - I went back to those posts I read this AM, and they are all edited. Perhaps they have changed their mind or don't have the final word yet. Because this AM, I could have sworn Ms. Foster had stated the it was a company by company choice, not product by product.

It's hard to see now, as both she and Mr. Rouse have edited quite a few posts.  As I said, perhaps there's some discussion about the ramifications of the current wording.

EDIT: Perhaps this is where I came up with it: try this post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4174108&postcount=334) and this post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4174108&postcount=338) from Clark Petersen.  I found them later in the thread. When I went back, I found he posted this (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51). So it's someone's interpretation of the GSL - someone with a vested interest in understanding. Now he could be wrong, but it will be interesting to see...

Quote from: James J SkachIt's odd - I went back to those posts I read this AM, and they are all edited. Perhaps they have changed their mind or don't have the final word yet. Because this AM, I could have sworn Ms. Foster had stated the it was a company by company choice, not product by product.

There is this (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99):

Quote from: Scott RouseIt won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralThe software/hardware industry has been working like that for years.  New system comes out, you stop supporting the old system.  Eventually, all those who want to switch switch.  The rest live with what they got, and get friends to fix it when they get broken, or know how to fix it themselves.  Its a rare industry that actively tries to support people switching to their new system, and supporting those who want to stay with the old.

It's rare now. It wasn't always that way.

Build a road today, you have to be repairing that road after five years. There's roman roads almost two thousand years old that require less maintenance than modern roads. Same deal with publishing. At on time it became cost effective to setup your own small-run print shop, nowadays though, the only thing you can find is a $20,000 printing press that uses oodles of supplies and requires constant maintenance. I still havent found a decent black and white printer that will push out a single 11x17 page for less than $5,000 US, but there are plenty of printers that will put out print quality a10 or 8 1/2 x 11 for less than $250. It's such a scam. The scam of the middlemen. There's a better way build things that last (including games).

Quote from: FASERIPHere ya go.

LINK (http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/4487/t/A-Question.html?page=1)

Actually, I'd say that Clark has some unreasonable expectations when it comes to gaming. Know the man personally only too well, and back in the early days of d20 + OGL, our conversations were the reason I chose not to publish anything under d20 for Wilderlands.

Please elaborate!

Quote from: James J SkachIt's odd - I went back to those posts I read this AM, and they are all edited. Perhaps they have changed their mind or don't have the final word yet. Because this AM, I could have sworn Ms. Foster had stated the it was a company by company choice, not product by product.

It's hard to see now, as both she and Mr. Rouse have edited quite a few posts.  As I said, perhaps there's some discussion about the ramifications of the current wording.

EDIT: Perhaps this is where I came up with it: try this post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4174108&postcount=334) and this post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4174108&postcount=338) from Clark Petersen.  I found them later in the thread. When I went back, I found he posted this (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51). So it's someone's interpretation of the GSL - someone with a vested interest in understanding. Now he could be wrong, but it will be interesting to see...

I'm at work and so can't access ENworld, but I was under the same impression that it was a forced 4e or 3e, GSL or OGL publishing decision to be made by individual companies this morning. If the wording in the posts has changed then I'm not too surprised because this would be WotC conducting a damage control evolution on the news.

Quote from: SettembriniPlease elaborate!

I'll let Mr. Peterson do that. He's a champion for publishers that advocate forcing the smaller gaming companies to either support 4.0 and the GSL, or 3.x and the OGL.

The result. Publishers that have invested a career in building support for 3x and the OGL are now faced with the choice of supporting one, or the other, but not both.

Sure, as a small publisher you can start a second company. Keep an extra set of books. Split your business focus. See how long you can keep that going. How do you build a bigger company, when now you have to run two, each with a separate set of rules. Mess up in applying the rules with either company, and you instantly lose half your customer base. That's a good business decision (not).

Then there are the fans and the gaming decisions. What do they get? Well, some companies will continue to support the OGL and 3x. Some companies will only support 4x and GSL, and some companies will straddle that division, at least for a while.

The 3x & OGL fans will get less new material. As  a small company can only produce so much, and having to rework each product a second time means putting in almost twice the work, to achieve the same results as was originally achieved.

Who loses there? The fans. Fewer new releases.

Mr. Peterson has gone on record as advocating that as a good idea.

What do you think?

Where does this willingness to swalllow everything WotC throws at him come from?

Quote from: SettembriniWhere does this willingness to swalllow everything WotC throws at him come from?

Because they're a big company exercising their rights so we must all bow down to our corporate overlords and never mind how shitty their decisions might be because they're right.

Or something.

Thing is that Clark a) actually holds a serious job outside the gaming industry, and that b) he's catering to an older school of gamers, which ordinarily would be two strikes against WOTC butt-kissing.

Quote from: JimLotFPLatest word:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173921&postcount=279

"Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y."

So the brand manager doesn't even know for sure right now. (or claims not to, which means the same thing really = no definite answer now)

I think it'd be a wise idea for the brand manager (and the rest of Wizards' staff) to wait until the actual lawyers have a proper explanation ready, one that they can quote with confidence.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThing is that Clark a) actually holds a serious job outside the gaming industry, and that b) he's catering to an older school of gamers, which ordinarily would be two strikes against WOTC butt-kissing.

I default to my "old wine" theory. NG re-sells 30 year old old stuff. Tome of Horrors NEEDS new editions. Everyone who wanted one for 3.5 already got theirs.
And the 1e nostalgic club isn´t going to grow that much. So he´s put al his eggs in the "ALWAYS THE RECENT EDITION with 1e FEEL" basket.


BTW, I´m totally aware of the sheer awesome that this "old wine" is, and how much work it takes to create such thing as the modern Wilderlands.

Well, after it was announced there would be a GSL at all, and not just some excuse not to have a real license, I was prepared to eat some serious crow... but it turns out it isn't crow, it's a shit sandwich. :rolleyes: Well, good apetite to whoever takes the bite, and my condolences to those who make a happy face doing it.

Best of luck to the Pathfinder dudes, I hope they can milk this announcement for its whole worth. :keke:

Quote from: SettembriniTome of Horrors NEEDS new editions.

Can they make the same product for 4e, though, with these rules? Can a company "update" a 3.* product for 4th edition? That would make sense, but open all kinds of loopholes... so I guess not likely. :raise:

The boat has sailed, Clark. They don't care that you had a special relationship with Ryan Dancey. Neither do most 4e fans. The writing is on the wall...

Quote from: SettembriniWhere does this willingness to swalllow everything WotC throws at him come from?

The fact that Necromancer Games's business model is based entirely on producing products compatible with the current edition of D&D? If 4E were not open at all he'd be sunk. As it is, it's open in such a way that Necromancer can continue to put out the sort of products they put out, so he's happy, even if it highly inconveniences others.

To be fair, later in the thread he does concede that the likes of Green Ronin have a damn good reason to continue publishing OGL games (because why would they throw M&M in the crapper?), and that it is therefore a loss that the GSL won't let them do that and produce 4E Freeport content. But before people thrust that example in his face he didn't see why any publisher would want to do both OGL and GSL products.

Quote from: MelanCan they make the same product for 4e, though, with these rules? Can a company "update" a 3.* product for 4th edition? That would make sense, but open all kinds of loopholes... so I guess not likely. :raise:

According to the Wizards people on that thread, they can, so long as they stop selling the OGL version.

So they have a choice of either:

- Throwing away all of their 3.5 stock and writing it off as a loss.
- Hoping that it will sell out quickly, and in the meantime be unable to publish 4E content until it does sell out.

Makes sense! That's almost as generous as handing out free sandwiches. :keke:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThing is that Clark a) actually holds a serious job outside the gaming industry, and that b) he's catering to an older school of gamers, which ordinarily would be two strikes against WOTC butt-kissing.

He doesn't cater to old-school gamers in any way, shape, or form my friend. ... and holding a real job outside the gaming industry isn't relevant for determining aptitude in that regard.

I don't really want to follow WoTC into their new dawn. I too pass the test. I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Gygaxian.

From the original D&D white bookset, volume 3, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures pp.36

There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires us to put in the essentials only, and the trimmings will ofttimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule intrepretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loathe to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing.

Quote from: Warthur- Throwing away all of their 3.5 stock and writing it off as a loss.

How much 3.5 stock do you imagine the average d20 company has? It seem like the majority of them deal in PDFs or use POD services. Of those that don't, how many really have a large backstock of printed materials? Mongoose and Green Ronin?

Seanchai

Quote from: GameDaddyPublishers that have invested a career in building support for 3x and the OGL are now faced with the choice of supporting one, or the other, but not both.

Yes, it certainly looks that way. Of course, running a business means taking risks, dealing with a changing market, etc..

Quote from: GameDaddyThe 3x & OGL fans will get less new material.

They would have gotten that anyway. Everyone is convinced that there'll be a huge market for 3.5 and OGL materials once 4e arrives, but that's just wishful thinking. Once publishers woke up to that reality, they'd have switched to 4e anyway...

Quote from: GameDaddyWho loses there? The fans. Fewer new releases.

Consumers in general loose if two conditions exist: 1. The majority of consumers are buying a majority of the releases (as opposed to picking and choosing a couple of projects). 2. The majority of products are high quality products.

If there's one less poor quality product on the shelf that no one would have picked up anyway, well, who cares?

Quote from: GameDaddyWhat do you think?

I think many of these publishers are damn ingrates.

I think if it were another company other than WotC, no one would notice or care.

I think you can't make some people happy. First the folks on EnWorld were in an uproar that the GSL might happen. Now they have the GSL - one which apparently lets them up the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover of their products - and they're complaining because WotC has shaped the license so that it benefits them. (Which, sorry, falls into the "Well, duh...!" category.)

Seanchai

The problem is this:

The interpretation of the wording given thus far doesn't stop at just saying 'You CAN do stuff for 4th Edition but we're playing our cards a little closer to our chest' it's being taken to mean that:

• You can't produce any more OGL products, not just d20 system 3.0/3.5 products but anything under the OGL IF you produce anything for 4th Edition.
• You can't continue to sell old versions of your products as and when you do update to 4th edition.

Needless to say this is quite a big deal, for example, if I were to rattle off a new 4th Edition version of Actual Assassin I would have to immediately remove the older version and any other OGL based products I'd done, that would mean no FATE, no MRQ, no M&M, no True20, nothing, nada, zilch.

Personally I have a hard time in believing that what these statements have been interpreted to mean can be the truth, I mean, it's just STUPID to do that to that extent and it'll cause massive amounts of ill will. PDF sales in particular rely on the long-tail model which means products can stay in circulation in near perpetuity, look how well the old 2nd Ed products etc do as PDFs on Drivethru and RPGnow.

There's supposed to be some important announcement about it tomorrow and hopefully that'll quash the out of control rumours and panic and outline things clearly and more sensibly.

One would hope.

%5

Quote from: DwightAgreed that is the fear, and it is not entirely unfounded. The tough part, the tricky part, for WotC is accomplishing what I expect WotC are trying to do, encourage the move from 3.5 D&D/d20 Modern to 4e D&D/d20[whatever they are going to call it], without the collateral damage you mention.

Personally I don't see that it hurts them to let people continue to support their old 3.0/3.5 based games. I have reason to think that their intention is not to blockade other OGL _licence_ based works such as MRQ, FATE and so on and that it isn't supposed to apply in that instance. I can see the point in saying 'make a 4th Ed version, ditch the old one' but much more than that seems to me that it would backfire massively.

If not for the strongarming I believe most would go along with a 4th Ed switch, with the strongarming - and the evidence it presents of a willingness to use contractual shenanigans to dick people over (as happened with the Book of Erotic Fantasy) - I think they're much more likely to have ongoing 3.0/3.5 support competing for their customer base. So it feels to me like this would backfire anyway, even without people going the subsidiary/new company end run - which may happen.

Quote from: GRIMPersonally I have a hard time in believing that what these statements have been interpreted to mean can be the truth, I mean, it's just STUPID to do that to that extent and it'll cause massive amounts of ill will.

From some folks online. Stop by your local FLGS, stop a random person, and ask them what they think about the OGL and GSL. They'll get a bewildered look on their face and ask, "What are those?"

And if the third party publishers abandon 4e...well, the the GSL is worded the way it is because third party publishers and the results of their efforts aren't what WotC hoped they'd be. So if they disappear or end up supporting the OGL...shrug.

Really, the only people WotC has to please are the silent masses, D&D players who don't get online or debate industry politics, who just by their official WotC products and play the damn game.

Quote from: GRIMOne would hope.

I think it'll end up being publisher, not product. Both make sense, but I don't think the d20 license and OGL ended up doing what WotC wanted them to do, going the direction they were anticipating, etc.. As far as I can see, WotC wanted a host of products that supported D&D and required the PHB. What they got was...well, FATE, MRQ, M&M, True20, Spycraft, et al..

Seanchai

Indeed they could be overplaying their position. My gut says there is still room to not cross that line if they can limit collateral damage. :shrug: But that's something that'll have to play out to be sure.

P.S.  Grandfathering existing PDFs, with no new PDF support for 3.5e/3e, and no grandfather of print sales (including POD) for 3e/3.5e might be an interesting concession to the PDF business model.

Quote from: GRIMIf not for the strongarming I believe most would go along with a 4th Ed switch, with the strongarming - and the evidence it presents of a willingness to use contractual shenanigans to dick people over (as happened with the Book of Erotic Fantasy) - I think they're much more likely to have ongoing 3.0/3.5 support competing for their customer base. So it feels to me like this would backfire anyway, even without people going the subsidiary/new company end run - which may happen.

Two things:

There's a poll on EnWorld about whether or not folks would buy 4e without GSL. Most folks reponded that they didn't care about the GSL or would prefer a GSL, but would buy it anyway.

Second, most the folks who say they're not going to buy or play 4e are going to end up at least buying 4e.

Seanchai

I am getting mighty tired of these appeals to a "great silent majority". They are unhelpful in politics, and they are unhelpful here. First, gamers, or more accurately game consumers tend to be better informed than they are given credit for. Second, while it can be safely assumed that they are mostly interested in a few official books and not much else, the appeal of niche materials can be just as safely be assumed to bring new people into the fold.

In the "grand scheme of things", of course most players switch. Sure, they swithced to 2nd edition AD&D. But this didn't stop 2nd edition from being overall less successful than first, and it is likely that taking away interesting game options (assassins, demons, illusionists, etc.) from the players had a role in this, even though TSR had a sensible business rationale for their decision (as elaborated in Dragon Magazine).

Quote from: SeanchaiSecond, most the folks who say they're not going to buy or play 4e are going to end up at least buying 4e.

And this one ranks right up there with the silent majority stuff, except it also insults the integrity of the posters in question.

Quote from: MelanI am getting mighty tired of these appeals to a "great silent majority". They are unhelpful in politics, and they are unhelpful here.

Seconded.  It's always the giant baseball bat that you can swing around in any argument about WotC and D&D and it's only vaguely accurate at best.

The new business plan is designed to keep sales at a higher level than in previous editions. It's a pretty well-known fact that core books sell better than supplements. So releasing 3 new core books each year is an attempt to keep sales high - maybe if they are kept high enough, postponing 5e for a couple of years.

See the business plan like that and it's no wonder that they don't want OGL games updated to GSL ones. Either work to the outmoded model that has given you some success or get with the program and don't rock the boat - but you can't do both.

QuoteIn the "grand scheme of things", of course most players switch. Sure, they swithced to 2nd edition AD&D. But this didn't stop 2nd edition from being overall less successful than first, and it is likely that taking away interesting game options (assassins, demons, illusionists, etc.) from the players had a role in this, even though TSR had a sensible business rationale for their decision (as elaborated in Dragon Magazine).

The question isn't whether 4e will sell, of course it will, it says D&D on the cover, and it's following the most successful edition of the game in decades.

The question is whether after buying it, it becomes for the players the point they will look back on as when they decided to move on from the game, much like happened with 2e.  And thus whether 5e will have to pull out as many stops as 3e did to get them back.

Quote from: MelanAnd this one ranks right up there with the silent majority stuff, except it also insults the integrity of the posters in question.

Shrug.

Seanchai

Quote from: MelanI am getting mighty tired of these appeals to a "great silent majority".

It's not an appeal. It's the simple truth. I suspect what makes you tired about the situation is that your tastes don't coincide with the majority. How about you just cowboy up?

Quote from: MelanSecond, while it can be safely assumed that they are mostly interested in a few official books and not much else, the appeal of niche materials can be just as safely be assumed to bring new people into the fold.

How's that? Non-gamers just magically know what's happening in the industry? Do they get owl mail a la Harry Potter, letting them know that there's a new supplement out that they might be interested in?

Quote from: MelanBut this didn't stop 2nd edition from being overall less successful than first...

Ah, you're one of those.

Seanchai

Quote from: GameDaddyHe doesn't cater to old-school gamers in any way, shape, or form my friend. ...

Well, I'm one, and I feel somewhat catered to.

QuoteFrom the original D&D white bookset, volume 3, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures pp.36

There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires us to put in the essentials only, and the trimmings will ofttimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule intrepretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loathe to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing.

That might as well have been the preface to the NG Wilderlands box.

In other words, if you think everything post-OD&D is decadence and decline, then NG material won't do anything for you. But it's another matter if you think 1E was as good or (gasp) better.

Quote from: SeanchaiFrom some folks online. Stop by your local FLGS, stop a random person, and ask them what they think about the OGL and GSL. They'll get a bewildered look on their face and ask, "What are those?"

But tell them that some of the games they play aren't being supported any more and why, or why their favourite third party company aren't supporting 4th Ed, and they may well care.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's not an appeal. It's the simple truth. I suspect what makes you tired about the situation is that your tastes don't coincide with the majority. How about you just cowboy up?

It is an appeal all right - an appeal to the "authority" of numbers which are "out there" but which you of course can't accurately cite because they are "silent". A pretty common tactic of attempting to silence/cancel out contrary arguments.

You would have a solid foundation if you actually had numbers. However, the fact is that you don't have any of that either, nor do game companies except Wizards and maybe a few others. Therefore, online debates must work from educated guesses and reasoning; bringing in "silent majorities" is essentially either non-representative anecdotal evidence (indicative but not conclusive - e.g. my anecdotal evidence says most casual gamers are adults happily playing 3.0 or 2.whatever and not switching any time soon) or an appeal to an invisible authority. Either way, it is not very useful.

Second, yes, my conclusions are influenced by my agenda/personal perspective, and so are anyone else's. It's counterproductive and dishonest to pretend there is some virginal "objective" standpoint here, and especially to pretend your arguments are based on it.

QuoteHow's that? Non-gamers just magically know what's happening in the industry? Do they get owl mail a la Harry Potter, letting them know that there's a new supplement out that they might be interested in?

This part takes my point and attempts to give it an absurd spin. Weak. You know perfectly well that non-committed gamers do gain information, and do it through their social networks (if they have a non-isolated game-related one, which game purchasers can be assumed to have). As a bit of anecdotal evidence, mentioning Green Ronin's Freeport brought a friend of mine into the 3e fold, and resulted in him buying into the WotC core books (rules and a few splats), although he was previously content to just play his 2e campaigns (to further the evidence, he eventually returned to that system).  It isn't owl mail, it is the diffusion of information through casual social relations, with a high role of people who can act as opinion leaders (quite a lot of GMs fulfill this sort of functions, and so do people who are active on messageboards and whatnot).

QuoteAh, you're one of those.

So what if I am? And you are one of "these", whatever that means (like all good ad hominems, it means something unflattering). 2e's relative lack of success is rather well documented - and not just by old USENET posts.

Quote from: walkerpSeconded.  It's always the giant baseball bat that you can swing around in any argument about WotC and D&D and it's only vaguely accurate at best.

If only it was just 'vaguely' accurate. :(  But IME it is more accurate than not. It certainly is a lot more accurate than asking around this board muchless trying to judge by noise volume.

Quote from: MelanYou would have a solid foundation if you actually had numbers. However, the fact is that you don't have any of that either, nor do game companies except Wizards and maybe a few others.

But I do actually have numbers.

As you said, Wizards has numbers. Wizards has publicly said how many players they have: between 4.5 and 6 million.

I say silent because if you add up the memberships of RPG forums - numbers which are publicly available (ours currently are: "Members: 1,413, Active Members: 402" - you can see that we're a mere fraction just the number of folks who play D&D. They're clearly not online and sharing their opinions.

I guess we agree, then, that I have a "solid foundation" for the whole silent majority business...

Quote from: MelanYou know perfectly well that non-committed gamers do gain information, and do it through their social networks (if they have a non-isolated game-related one, which game purchasers can be assumed to have).

Ah, the classic backtrack. First you say, "...to bring new people into the fold," and now those "new people" have become people who were already gaming ("non-committed gamers").

Quote from: MelanAs a bit of anecdotal evidence, mentioning Green Ronin's Freeport brought a friend of mine into the 3e fold, and resulted in him buying into the WotC core books (rules and a few splats), although he was previously content to just play his 2e campaigns (to further the evidence, he eventually returned to that system).

As a bit of anecdotal evidence, we were recently trying to decide what D&D game to play next. I posted a list of the D&D settings I own to our mailing list. The response was, "Holy crap! I didn't know half of those even existed." Of course, there are people who a) have played D&D for decades, b) shop at FLGSs, c) read Dragon, and d) who sat through me showing them these very same settings at my weekly show and tell sessions.

Quote from: Melan2e's relative lack of success is rather well documented - and not just by old USENET posts.

It's well-documented? Where? On Dragonsfoot?

Seanchai

Quote from: GRIMBut tell them that some of the games they play aren't being supported any more and why, or why their favourite third party company aren't supporting 4th Ed, and they may well care.

They might. They might not. Or they might be like the kid and the fire truck.

Take a kid who is surrounded by toys and currently playing with plastic dinosaur. Point to a fire truck, say, "You're not using that one - let's put it back in the toybox," and the child will exclaim, "No! I'm playing with it!"

But, of course, the child isn't playing with the fire truck. Outside of the idea putting away the fire truck, they have no interest in it. It's the idea that something might be taken away which bothers them, not the intrinsic value of the fire truck toy.

Personally, I think the consumers who are insisting that OGL is just the best thing since sliced bread are a bit like the kid and the fire truck. It isn't OGL products that they actually care about - it's WotC saying, "Let's put that back in the toybox."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiBut I do actually have numbers. ... I guess we agree, then, that I have a "solid foundation" for the whole silent majority business...

We don't. The fallacy is not that there are a lot of people who aren't participating in message board discussions, but rather that they can be expected to conform with your position and are wholly untouched by / uninformed about 3rd party products. Here your assumption strays from publically available information into the misty and opinion-coloured world of speculation, and ceases to rest on concrete evidence. That's why it is an appeal, not a factual argument. It also fails to take into account that there is probably a multiplicator effect in play, since DMs usually buy more books, and are more active - so an adventure module or monster book would impact larger numbers than its sales numbers. (For the sake of fairness, you'd also have to substract copies sold but not used.)

QuoteAh, the classic backtrack. First you say, "...to bring new people into the fold," and now those "new people" have become people who were already gaming ("non-committed gamers").

Non-committed gamer is the better term, but otherwise, the same could be said of "potential gamers". It is logical that if the list of available gaming options are wider, there is a higher probability of attracting people with niche interests, who then also buy the core rules. Recruiting new gamers and activating non-buying ones is equivalent from a business perspective, since both actions lead to extra slaes.

QuoteAs a bit of anecdotal evidence, we were recently trying to decide what D&D game to play next. I posted a list of the D&D settings I own to our mailing list. The response was, "Holy crap! I didn't know half of those even existed." Of course, there are people who a) have played D&D for decades, b) shop at FLGSs, c) read Dragon, and d) who sat through me showing them these very same settings at my weekly show and tell sessions.

That's fine, as anecdotal evidence.

QuoteIt's well-documented? Where? On Dragonsfoot?

Reminiscences posted by former TSR employees who were there in the 2e era, for one (in this case, I would give less credence to an EGG interview, and while fascinating and informative, Ryan Dancey's post-takeover piece on TSR must also be taken with a large grain of salt). There are no sales figures, and there won't be any, so we have to rely on circumstancial evidence - the success of competing games in the 90s is one potential indicator.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell, I'm one, and I feel somewhat catered to.

That might as well have been the preface to the NG Wilderlands box.

In other words, if you think everything post-OD&D is decadence and decline, then NG material won't do anything for you. But it's another matter if you think 1E was as good or (gasp) better.

Indeed. It took them four years to put out four JG products. How many other d20 and gaming products did NG put out during that same time? I contend they could have done better for Mr. Bledsaw, but opted not to.

On post 0D&D there are some simply fantastic products out there. I quoted that early epilogue becuase at one time, the fledgling RPG game companies encouraging the GM and players to create their own rules. Now you have game companies telling other game companies what they can and can't produce, and what the players can produce and distribute, and nowhere is creation on behalf of the players and GM mentioned, except, as you noted in a few old school products.

Quote from: Seanchai...

Personally, I think the consumers who are insisting that OGL is just the best thing since sliced bread are a bit like the kid and the fire truck. It isn't OGL products that they actually care about - it's WotC saying, "Let's put that back in the toybox."

This is quite possibly the most condescending attack I've ever read.  Certainly the most condescending thing I've read in recent memory.

Here's my opinion:  I go how Goodman Games goes.  If they make the switch to 4E and Dungeon Crawl Classics becomes a 4E line, then I'll switch.  If they choose to continue to support 3.5 then I'll stay with 3.5.  If they switch to supporting their own new system, Eldritch, I'll start playing that.

I'm sick of WOTC and their endless splatbooks and crappy adventures and absolute pandering to dumbasses.  I'm tired of them moving the game further and further away from what brought me into the game.  I'm tired of them pretending they're making a narrativist game while really supporting the worst sort of munchkinism and twinkiness.  

The only thing that has kept me playing D&D is the awesome 3rd party support from companies like Goodman Games, Judges Guild, and Necromancer Games.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's well-documented? Where? On Dragonsfoot?

I know you're too much of a jackass to ever admit when you're wrong and love being contrary and all...but do you truly believe AD&D 2e was any kind of business success?

Because if you do, you are quite possibly the sole person in the entire world with that belief.

A lot of people like AD&D 2e, including myself, but even the most ardent supporters of it admit that business-wise, it was something much less than a success.

If one simply looks at what went on during the time, even the biggest mouth-breathing moron in the world would be able to piece together the clues and figure out it was a relative failure.

Quote from: Melan...but rather that they can be expected to conform with your position and are wholly untouched by / uninformed about 3rd party products.

I see. They love third party products and know all about them, they just choose not to buy them...

Quote from: MelanIt is logical that if the list of available gaming options are wider, there is a higher probability of attracting people with niche interests, who then also buy the core rules.

Here your assumption strays from publically available information into the misty and opinion-coloured world of speculation, and ceases to rest on concrete evidence.

I mean,

Quote from: MelanReminiscences posted by former TSR employees who were there in the 2e era, for one (in this case, I would give less credence to an EGG interview, and while fascinating and informative, Ryan Dancey's post-takeover piece on TSR must also be taken with a large grain of salt). There are no sales figures, and there won't be any, so we have to rely on circumstancial evidence - the success of competing games in the 90s is one potential indicator.

First of all, I said, "Where are they?" not "What are they?"

Second, you said they were well-documented. Now you're saying there's no actual evidence, just "reminiscences," apparently posted online.

Third, why are you bringing them up if you're just going to discount them?

Finally, really? Here I thought you'd be bringing me numbers, as it seems numbers are what you consider evidence. Instead, I get reminiscences. If I can find some posts by WotC staffers talking about the behavior of the silent majority, will you consider that matter closed?

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsI know you're too much of a jackass to ever admit when you're wrong and love being contrary and all...

I don't know. I admitted I was wrong here on the forum just last week.

Quote from: jgants...but do you truly believe AD&D 2e was any kind of business success?

What I believe isn't the point - Melan showing us the well-documented evidence of 2nd edition's failure is.

Seanchai

double post.

This is great entertainment and all...

Just look (http://ogrecave.com/2008/04/17/because-you-werent-confused-enough-wotc-modifies-the-dd-4-license-deal/#comment-4097). That quote is fucking awesome!

Quote from: Starhawk"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Paizo will likely create a gaming license for their Pathfinder RPG when it is released, so that publishers may produce Pathfinder RPG material. Whether that will be an open gaming license, or part of the Open Gaming License remains to be seen...

more on this here
Paizo Messageboards (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/pathfinderTrademarkLicense)

Quote from: GameDaddyPaizo will likely create a gaming license for their Pathfinder RPG when it is released, so that publishers may produce Pathfinder RPG material. Whether that will be an open gaming license, or part of the Open Gaming License remains to be seen...

more on this here
Paizo Messageboards (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/pathfinderTrademarkLicense)

From reading the thread, it looks like Paizo intends to make the Pathfinder RPG open to Third Party Publishing once it comes out. Which is much more hopeful news than what we've been seeing about the GSL.

Quote from: SeanchaiI see. They love third party products and know all about them, they just choose not to buy them...

You are trying to use reductio ad absurdum, and failing. Hard.

QuoteHere your assumption strays from publically available information into the misty and opinion-coloured world of speculation, and ceases to rest on concrete evidence.

And I am not trying to sell it as objective, 100% proof truth.

You, on the other hand, either have unrealistic expectations about a message board discussion or are wilfully trying to demand data neither of us has in order to score cheap rhetorical points.

QuoteFirst of all, I said, "Where are they?" not "What are they?"

Second, you said they were well-documented. Now you're saying there's no actual evidence, just "reminiscences," apparently posted online.

Well documented by the standards of a message board discussion. If you have detailed, verifiable and accurate sales data or market research concerning the relative success of 1st ed and 2nd ed, you can supply them. Until then, reminiscences it is.

QuoteFinally, really? Here I thought you'd be bringing me numbers, as it seems numbers are what you consider evidence. Instead, I get reminiscences. If I can find some posts by WotC staffers talking about the behavior of the silent majority, will you consider that matter closed?

Numbers are superior evidence, if they are verifiable and accurate. However, you don't have them, I don't have them, and most WotC staff likely doesn't have them. There is some information about comparative print runs (http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html) on The Acaeum, but that's neither complete nor verifiable. That's where reminiscences enter the picture, and they tend towards saying that 2nd edition was less successful than 1st (and neither reached the market penetration of Moldvay/Mentzer Basic D&D).

There is, simply put, no grounds for your "silent majority" argument except what you want to see into a nebulous nothing. You can still argue your point, but you will have to do it on some other basis.

The Silent Majority plays Rifts.

Quote from: GRIMPersonally I don't see that it hurts them to let people continue to support their old 3.0/3.5 based games. I have reason to think that their intention is not to blockade other OGL _licence_ based works such as MRQ, FATE

No comment on the general point, but are MRQ and FATE relevant to the subject? Just because something is published under an open gaming license doesn't mean it's published under the OGL.

Okay, I just checked it out, and FATE does indeed use the WotC OGL (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate-srd-rest/Fate-SRD-2005-03-31.html#open-game-license).

And, huh, the same applies to Mongoose Runequest (http://www.mrqwiki.com/ogl.htm).

I wonder how much of the actual text from the d20 SRD either of these games use. If the answer is somewhere between "zilch" and "not much", then couldn't they be rewritten as necessary, and then issued under new distinct open licenses? Or does the fact they were once released under the WotC OGL preclude that somehow? That would make OGL a real tar-baby, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI wonder how much of the actual text from the d20 SRD either of these games use. If the answer is somewhere between "zilch" and "not much", then couldn't they be rewritten as necessary, and then issued under new distinct open licenses? Or does the fact they were once released under the WotC OGL preclude that somehow? That would make OGL a real tar-baby, wouldn't it?

None at all as far as I know so yes, they could have new licences written, but really THE OGL is just legal text that's been adopted, just one of many reasons the GSL (as it is alleged to operate doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI wonder how much of the actual text from the d20 SRD either of these games use. If the answer is somewhere between "zilch" and "not much", then couldn't they be rewritten as necessary, and then issued under new distinct open licenses?

Yes.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that MRQ and FATE were put out under the Wizards OGL was that their publishers didn't want to pay lawyers to come up with a new licence that amounted to the same thing when they could just copy-paste the handy-dandy free-to-use licence Wizards had cooked up.

MRQ while published using the OGL for the legalese, is not d20 game at all. So I wonder how much of the OGL/GSL dictates from WotC apply to it, if any actually do.

Quote from: jeff37923MRQ while published using the OGL for the legalese, is not d20 game at all. So I wonder how much of the OGL/GSL dictates from WotC apply to it, if any actually do.

You miss the point: There is no legal way to differentiate between MRQ, MM and stuff like Pathfinder. It´s all OGL, and that´s the only legally binding grouping you can put them into. NOBODY could differentiate between them in any meaningful way. If you think about it, you´ll surely see it.
Ask yourself the question: Who could define the d20-ness of a given product?
See, nobody.

Quote from: FASERIPThe Silent Majority plays Rifts.

Or the silent but Fun minority plays GURPS.
(Which sticks with editions a lot longer than other companies do)



- Ed C.

Huh?

4e GURPS is older than 4e D&D!

Quote from: KoltarOr the silent but Fun minority plays GURPS.
(Which sticks with editions a lot longer than other companies do)

Nobody sticks with editions longer than Palladium.

Quote from: SettembriniAsk yourself the question: Who could define the d20-ness of a given product?

The d20 STL defines it. I think. Maybe.

Quote from: SettembriniAsk yourself the question: Who could define the d20-ness of a given product?
See, nobody.

The OGL licensee could. And does. The section 15 of the OGL is supposed to contain the copyright statement of all works whose OGC you use (including their similar copyright statements.) If the D20 SRD or MSRD is among those, that's some indication your product is some flavor of (non-branded) d20.

Of course, there are corner cases that don't really pass this test in the common sense regard, games like Omni System that aren't D20 but just borrowed a few things like feats, etc. But from a legal standpoint, it's a clear and measurable aspect of a product, and manages to avoid collateral damage to products that never referenced any d20 product, like FUDGE/FATE/SOTC/OGL Trav/MRQ/Action! and the like.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe OGL licensee could. And does. The section 15 of the OGL is supposed to contain the copyright statement of all works whose OGC you use (including their similar copyright statements.) If the D20 SRD or MSRD is among those, that's some indication your product is some flavor of (non-branded) d20.

Of course, there are corner cases that don't really pass this test in the common sense regard, games like Omni System that aren't D20 but just borrowed a few things like feats, etc. But from a legal standpoint, it's a clear and measurable aspect of a product, and manages to avoid collateral damage to products that never referenced any d20 product, like FUDGE/FATE/SOTC/OGL Trav/MRQ/Action! and the like.

Interesting point. And, do you think WotC legal will review the specific OGL clause of all existing books?

Quote from: SettembriniInteresting point. And, do you think WotC legal will review the specific OGL clause of all existing books?

I'd say it depends on whether or not they want to be assholes about it.

Quote from: jeff37923I'd say it depends on whether or not they want to be assholes about it.

I suspect this is why we are getting the radio silence now.  I thought I had read that they were going to be making an official announcement on Monday.  Anyhow, I bet there is a lot of internal discussion going on that can be roughly divided between the "we shouldn't be assholes" camp and the other side (whose position I won't characterize).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe OGL licensee could. And does. The section 15 of the OGL is supposed to contain the copyright statement of all works whose OGC you use (including their similar copyright statements.) If the D20 SRD or MSRD is among those, that's some indication your product is some flavor of (non-branded) d20.

Okay, so FATE doesn't have that, but MRQ does (presumably, unless the MRQ Wiki uses the stuff but MRQ doesn't)

Quote15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins and JD Wiker.
System Reference Document Copyright 2000–2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
RuneQuest System Reference Document Copyright 2006, Mongoose Publishing; Author Matthew Sprange, based on original material by Greg Stafford.
RuneQuest Companion System Reference Document Copyright 2006, Mongoose Publishing; Author Greg Lynch et al., based on original material by Greg Stafford.
RuneQuest Monsters System Reference Document Copyright 2006, Mongoose Publishing; Author Greg Lynch et al., based on original material by Greg Stafford.
Sceaptune Games Fan Resources Copyright 2007, Sceaptune Games; Author Tim Bancroft.
MRQ Wiki OGL Fan Resources at mrqwiki.com; Author: Refer to article.

(Not sure of the relevance of the second bolded item but it's interesting to see it in there.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, so FATE doesn't have that, but MRQ does (presumably, unless the MRQ Wiki uses the stuff but MRQ doesn't)
(Not sure of the relevance of the second bolded item but it's interesting to see it in there.)

As Mr. Spock would say: Fascinating.

Does it REALLY borrow anything from the SRD, or was it just a brain-fart? Either way, it seems like Mongoose has made the legal claim that it does. :confused:

Quote from: SettembriniInteresting point. And, do you think WotC legal will review the specific OGL clause of all existing books?

That's a good question, one that I honestly don't have a fair answer or prediction to. Just saying they could make the announcement and trust that most licensees would police themselves. Most of them know who they are.

Right now, though, I'm not placing a lot of faith in WotC to "do the right thing" here. So my guess is no, they won't, and games like SotC will suffer.

What if someone didn't use d20, but instead used Mongoose's identical 'OGL System'?

Or didn't use either, but just copied the rules?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadRight now, though, I'm not placing a lot of faith in WotC to "do the right thing" here. So my guess is no, they won't, and games like SotC will suffer.

How would SotC suffer?  I'm assuming that Evil Hat won't be producing any 4e material, so they should be fine to continue using the OGL, no?

Quote from: walkerpHow would SotC suffer?  I'm assuming that Evil Hat won't be producing any 4e material, so they should be fine to continue using the OGL, no?

Well, Fred Hicks said in my livejournal that he was, indeed, contemplating doing some 4e stuff. That said, FATE is his bread and butter, so SotC won't suffer there (and nothing keeps Fred from doing what interests him for 4e for another company.)

More to my point, ADAMANT ENTERTAINMENT was doing conversions of their Pulp adventures and MARS setting for FATE/SotC. Adamant also has a scad of other D20 products and a long history of doing third party d20 stuff. It would be a shame is some of that FATE/SotC support stuff never happened.

This could also prevent other future, yet to be conceived/announced, collaborations.

I totally agree with your overall concerns, Caesar Slaad.  I was just curious about how it would specifically affect SotC.  Good point on Adamant.  It really is weirdly limiting.  I would really love to be a fly on the wall at WotC corporate this week, that's for sure.

Quote from: Age of FableWhat if someone didn't use d20, but instead used Mongoose's identical 'OGL System'?

Or didn't use either, but just copied the rules?

The point here is that Mongoose's OGL System is, apparently, derived from the d20 SRD, so anything derived from it is still under the WotC OGL.

The d20 license per se doesn't have anything to do with it. d20 is just a set of more stringent restrictions that are needed to be able to put "d20" on your product. But if you didn't care about that, you could just use the OGL without prejudice to any other aspect of your business. That is until now, it seems, where using material covered by the OGL will prevent you from being able to publish (at least some) stuff for D&D 4e.

Copying the rules is another matter. The OGL is basically a copyright license AFAICT; I don't think it was ever illegal to make a D&D clone that was algorithmically identical, as long as you didn't express the rules of your game in the same words as the D&D rules. What the OGL does is allow you to use large amounts of text without having to worry about that.

I should say though that (a) I'm not a lawyer, and (b) the OGL has some funny text:

Quote‘Open Game Content’ means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

While the definition of Open Game Content only directly pertains to stuff that can be copied under the license, the bolded section could be construed to imply a claim that "game mechanic", "methods", etc. would not be copyable unless they're designated as Open Content. I doubt that's the intent, though, and in any case concepts including mechanics can't be copyrighted, only fixed expression can. (Mechanics would properly fall under patent.)

In conclusion, "just copy the rules" won't get around this issue if you mean word-for-word copy, since you can't do that anyway without using the OGL. If you mean rephrase the basic concepts and algorithms, you might be be able to do that (IANAL, this isn't legal advice), but that option was always open...and always just as onerous.

Quote from: MelanAnd I am not trying to sell it as objective, 100% proof truth.

Right. I missed the part where you said the silent majority might be doing just what I said it was doing on my initial read through. Because, you know, if you said I definitely wrong you'd be trying to sell an objective, 100% proof truth.

Quote from: MelanWell documented by the standards of a message board discussion.

But the behavior of the silent majority is well-documented by those standards. Current and past WotC staffers have posted about what sells and to whom.

Quote from: MelanThere is, simply put, no grounds for your "silent majority" argument except what you want to see into a nebulous nothing.

No. In addition to WotC's numbers, etc., I have the same grounds you do for your argument about the success of 2nd edition: Some dudes on the Internet said it.

Quote from: MelanYou can still argue your point, but you will have to do it on some other basis.

Being a big boy now and watching you argue with nothing but tissue paper and wet dreams, I think I'll continue to argue in the manner I see fit, thanks.

Seanchai

As far as I'm concerned, the announcement didn't take anything away from third-party publishers.

* If you want to stay 3.x, stay 3.x.  Nobody can stop you.

* If you want to publish 4e, you can - but here are the stipulations, which you can take or leave.

* If your game is OGL, unrelated to D&D, why the heck would it matter if it's 3e or 4e?  M&M, for example, is so hugely unlike D&D that I don't think the D&D version would make a scrap of difference.

I'm glad that 4e will have some openness to it - it's not the whole hog that I would have liked, but it's not as closed as I'd feared.

-O

Quote from: obrynAs far as I'm concerned, the announcement didn't take anything away from third-party publishers.

It is designed to slowly weaken 3rd parties and make them irrelevant.

And it will most probably succeed.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt is designed to slowly weaken 3rd parties and make them irrelevant.

I don't think that's the case. I think it's designed to prevent licensing tomfoolery: folks using the OGL to make 4e open.

I think WotC saw folks not just producing supplements and adventures for D&D, but using the OGL and STL to make whole games and went, "Urk." So they wanted a more restrictive set of licenses for 4e.

Then folks online started talking about how no matter how closed 4e was, they could use the existing OGL to re-engineer something that was basically 4e compatible and release it as open content.

I think that's what made WotC go, "Wait, a minute. Let's go back to the drawing board with the 4e license and make sure things turn out as we expect this time."

I've seen a lot of folks talk about WotC using the "poison pill" to quash competition, but that's just silly. If WotC can throw down seven figures to produce 4e, they can smother any third party publisher by simply outspending them in the marketing, production, etc., arenas. WotC doesn't need to use licensing to do it.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI've seen a lot of folks talk about WotC using the "poison pill" to quash competition, but that's just silly. If WotC can throw down seven figures to produce 4e, they can smother any third party publisher by simply outspending them in the marketing, production, etc., arenas. WotC doesn't need to use licensing to do it.

Using the license is cheaper than outspending them.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolUsing the license is cheaper than outspending them.

Sure.

Let me put it this way: If WotC can afford to drop seven figures on product development, who else is really in the league? What third party publishers are actually competing with them? Or are they just selling product on the same shelf?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me put it this way: If WotC can afford to drop seven figures on product development, who else is really in the league? What third party publishers are actually competing with them? Or are they just selling product on the same shelf?

They're not afraid of competing with third-party product per se -- they're afraid of competing with previous editions of their own product.  A viable pipeline of third-party support for 3.5 isn't in and of itself any kind of real threat to 4.0's numbers, but it does provide a disincentive for 3.5 users to upgrade* to 4.0... and that is a threat to 4.0's numbers, because 4.0 is even more reliant on securing the business of existing customers than 3.0 was.

KoOS

* Note that I mean "upgrade" in the software business sense of the term, not as any kind of comment on 4.0 being superior to 3.5 (or vice versa, for that matter).

Quote from: King of Old Schooly're not afraid of competing with third-party product per se -- they're afraid of competing with previous editions of their own product. A viable pipeline of third-party support for 3.5 isn't in and of itself any kind of real threat to 4.0's numbers, but it does provide a disincentive for 3.5 users to upgrade* to 4.0... and that is a threat to 4.0's numbers, because 4.0 is even more reliant on securing the business of existing customers than 3.0 was.

You're still basically saying they're afraid of competing with third party publishers, that 4e won't be more attractive than third party 3.5 offerings. And I still don't buy it.

WotC has nothing to fear from customers who don't switch. The numbers are going to be, relative to the folks who are switching, tiny and there would have been folks who didn't switch, third party products or no third party products.

And with 4e, only part of the products revenue stream is coming from print sales anyway. It's DDI that's going to be the cash cow. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC viewed print sales as a loss leader of sorts just designed to get folks to subscribe to DDI.

Now if a third party publisher had the wherewithal to create something like DDI, I could see WotC creating a "poison pill" to deal with them, smothering them with the license.

But WotC afraid of third party publishers for any reason? Naw.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYou're still basically saying they're afraid of competing with third party publishers, that 4e won't be more attractive than third party 3.5 offerings. And I still don't buy it.

No, I'm saying that 4e won't be more attractive than the first-party 3.5 books published by WotC that players have already paid for, especially if there is going to be continuing support for that game from third-party publishers.

QuoteWotC has nothing to fear from customers who don't switch. The numbers are going to be, relative to the folks who are switching, tiny and there would have been folks who didn't switch, third party products or no third party products.

When WotC folks say that they actively don't want continued support for 3.5 and that they consider such support to hinder their ROI for 4e, I'm willing to take them at their word.

KoOS

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt is designed to slowly weaken 3rd parties and make them irrelevant.

And it will most probably succeed.

How's that supposed to happen, exactly?

A few weeks ago, third party publishers could use the OGL, and had no actual options for 4e publishing.  Hypothetical ones, sure, but no actual options at all.

Now, third party publishers can either use the OGL - but not the GSL; or the GSL - but not the OGL.

Any existing OGL party publisher can keep doing what they're already doing forever.

-O

Quote from: King of Old SchoolNo, I'm saying that 4e won't be more attractive than the first-party 3.5 books published by WotC that players have already paid for, especially if there is going to be continuing support for that game from third-party publishers.

First, the new edition is always more attractive than the old. That's why we continue to get new editions.

Second, about third party support for old editions, why would they do that? And will they do? How many companies are putting out actual OD&D and AD&D content? And look at Pathfinder - it initially promised a way for us to continue to use our 3.5 books, but it's getting farther and farther away from 3.5 as time passes.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolWhen WotC folks say that they actively don't want continued support for 3.5 and that they consider such support to hinder their ROI for 4e, I'm willing to take them at their word.

They did say, "We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?...This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?"

"We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us..."

They also said:

"We totally recognize that this mutual exclusivity will keep some publishers from joining us in 4E. That's a business decision they need to make, and we respect that."

(From the message from Scott Rouse in which he talks about the development costs:) "It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them."

"We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters...We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something."

"We had simple goals in mind with the license. 1) Support WotC's core RPG business. 2) Continue the notion set with the OGL that if publishers want to make books that work with D&D (and other WOTC brands) there will be an option for them. 3) Have a license that works for WoTC but keeps our involvement in the license to as minimal as possible 4) Keep the barriers to entry as low as possible. Simple goals but not always simple solutions."

It doesn't sound to me as if they a) require third party publishers to make 4e viable or b) are particularly afraid of third party publishers not supporting 4e. If either of those were the case, I'm sure they'd simply make a nicer GSL...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt doesn't sound to me as if they a) require third party publishers to make 4e viable or b) are particularly afraid of third party publishers not supporting 4e. If either of those were the case, I'm sure they'd simply make a nicer GSL...

Of course, one would expect them to flat out state "We are terrified of the OGL, and have massive concerns that it will put us out of business.  Please, please, please don't write anymore OGL material, and switch over to GSL!" if that were the case.

I don't think Mr Rouse or Ms. Foster are flat out lying with what they say.  They are both in a bad spot, and are trying to manage things as best they can.  I am sure there is a pretty severe disconnect between what Mr Rouse and Ms Foster know about the industry, and what their Hasbro assigned handler knows about the industry.  If it were up to the former, I am certain 4e would be pretty much as open as the OGL.  Since it is becoming more apparent with each passing day that it won't be, I suspect the latter.

But seriously, thinking they will come out and publicly state any worries about the OGL vs the GSL (assuming they have any)?  Preposterous.

Quote from: StormBringerThey are both in a bad spot, and are trying to manage things as best they can.

Yeah. Terrible. They're on the winning side. What straights they must be in.

Quote from: StormBringerBut seriously, thinking they will come out and publicly state any worries about the OGL vs the GSL (assuming they have any)? Preposterous..

Read the last few posts of the thread. I'm saying they don't have any worries.

As statements such as, "Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?" and "We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us..." seem pretty open and blunt, I'm thinking statements along the lines of, "Well, if you don't join us, cool. Best of luck to you" are also open and blunt.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringerOf course, one would expect them to flat out state "We are terrified of the OGL, and have massive concerns that it will put us out of business.  Please, please, please don't write anymore OGL material, and switch over to GSL!" if that were the case.

The OGL is forever.  It was put out there with a clause that prevents it from ever being rescinded.  WotC isn't terrified of OGL-based games; they're not real competition.

Anyone who wants to compete with 4e with an OGL game is still free to do so - as free as they ever were.

As for this decision - Hasbro/WotC have come to the conclusion that OGL products didn't support their core lines as much as they'd hoped.  The OGL has produced some damn fine games (M&M, Conan, Iron Heroes, etc.) but whether or not it drove sales of D&D is debatable.  (I personally think they did - but the opposite argument is credible, too.)

They want to keep some degree of openness with the new license, but want third-party products to directly support their flagship product.  I can't see that as unreasonable - it allows third parties to make D&D supplements, adventures, and helper products - but it doesn't allow standalone games to directly benefit from D&D's marketing.

I just can't see this as any kind of sky-is-falling event.

-O

Quote from: obrynThe OGL is forever.  It was put out there with a clause that prevents it from ever being rescinded.  WotC isn't terrified of OGL-based games; they're not real competition.

Anyone who wants to compete with 4e with an OGL game is still free to do so - as free as they ever were.

As for this decision - Hasbro/WotC have come to the conclusion that OGL products didn't support their core lines as much as they'd hoped.  The OGL has produced some damn fine games (M&M, Conan, Iron Heroes, etc.) but whether or not it drove sales of D&D is debatable.  (I personally think they did - but the opposite argument is credible, too.)

They want to keep some degree of openness with the new license, but want third-party products to directly support their flagship product.  I can't see that as unreasonable - it allows third parties to make D&D supplements, adventures, and helper products - but it doesn't allow standalone games to directly benefit from D&D's marketing.

I just can't see this as any kind of sky-is-falling event.

-O

I don't see any immediate problems, either.  I was commenting on the rather coy language being used.  It's not like they are going to tell people that the OGL is a major problem for their new product.  Even if the higher ups at Hasbro think so.  I was responding to:

"It doesn't sound to me as if they a) require third party publishers to make 4e viable or b) are particularly afraid of third party publishers not supporting 4e. If either of those were the case, I'm sure they'd simply make a nicer GSL..."

Which is simply ridiculous.  Especially b).  Whether they are afraid of third party publishers or not, they aren't going to publicly announce it.

Quote from: SeanchaiFirst, the new edition is always more attractive than the old. That's why we continue to get new editions.

This isn't computer software or hardware where we can quantify the improvements on an objective basis.  I don't doubt that the vast majority of 3.5 players will switch to 4e, but it remains to be seen how close to 100% that number will be.  Obviously, WotC wants it as close to 100% as possible.

QuoteSecond, about third party support for old editions, why would they do that? And will they do? How many companies are putting out actual OD&D and AD&D content?

You do know that OD&D and AD&D aren't open, right?

That said, there are any number of companies that publish products specifically aimed at players who prefer older editions: Kenzer (Hackmaster), Troll Lord (C&C), whoever the hell bothered with OSRIC, etc.  This kind of thing will be infinitely easier with 3.5 under the OGL, esp. considering the active and relatively fresh fanbase for that game (the period between editions is a lot, lot shorter in this case).

(WotC quotes snipped)

QuoteIt doesn't sound to me as if they a) require third party publishers to make 4e viable

This would be a more cutting insight on your part if anyone in this thread, myself included, had ever suggested that WotC required third-party publishers to make 4e viable (or that WotC thought that to be the case).

Quoteor b) are particularly afraid of third party publishers not supporting 4e. If either of those were the case, I'm sure they'd simply make a nicer GSL...

You're ignoring the obvious fact that WotC is the one writing a new open license which will prevent simultaneous support for 3.5 and 4e.  If third-party support is as beneath WotC's notice as you claim, why do this?  Why spend the not-insignificant legal costs to write up the new license when a perfectly serviceable one already exists?

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolI don't doubt that the vast majority of 3.5 players will switch to 4e, but it remains to be seen how close to 100% that number will be. Obviously, WotC wants it as close to 100% as possible.

It's not going to be a 100%. I think everyone realizes that.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolYou do know that OD&D and AD&D aren't open, right?

Yeah. And yet there's OSRIC: "OSRIC™ represents a compilation of rules for old school-style fantasy gaming. The book is intended to reproduce underlying rules used in the late 1970s to early 1980s, which being rules are not subject to copyright, without using any of the copyrighted "artistic presentation" originally used to convey those rules."

Quote from: King of Old SchoolThis would be a more cutting insight on your part if anyone in this thread, myself included, had ever suggested that WotC required third-party publishers to make 4e viable (or that WotC thought that to be the case).

"When WotC folks say that they actively don't want continued support for 3.5 and that they consider such support to hinder their ROI for 4e, I'm willing to take them at their word."

Quote from: King of Old SchoolIf third-party support is as beneath WotC's notice as you claim, why do this?

I didn't say it was beneath their notice, I said they weren't afraid of third party publishers, afraid of competition from third party publishers, or afraid third party publishers wouldn't use the GSL.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolWhy spend the not-insignificant legal costs to write up the new license when a perfectly serviceable one already exists?

As I said before, "I think it's designed to prevent licensing tomfoolery: folks using the OGL to make 4e open."

Also, there's the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Seanchai

Here's an interesting interview with Scott Rouse: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12449.html (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12449.html)

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. And yet there's OSRIC: "OSRIC™ represents a compilation of rules for old school-style fantasy gaming. The book is intended to reproduce underlying rules used in the late 1970s to early 1980s, which being rules are not subject to copyright, without using any of the copyrighted "artistic presentation" originally used to convey those rules."

It was very cute of you to cut the bit where I cite OSRIC as an example of current support for previous editions of D&D.

Quote"When WotC folks say that they actively don't want continued support for 3.5 and that they consider such support to hinder their ROI for 4e, I'm willing to take them at their word."

You do understand the difference between "viability" and "maximum profit," yes?

QuoteI didn't say it was beneath their notice, I said they weren't afraid of third party publishers, afraid of competition from third party publishers, or afraid third party publishers wouldn't use the GSL.

You still haven't answered the question of why WotC is including a clause which prohibits products which support both 3.5 and 4e.

QuoteAs I said before, "I think it's designed to prevent licensing tomfoolery: folks using the OGL to make 4e open."

How does a "no supporting both editions" clause prevent this?

KoOS

After reading the interview linked to, I just have to rant about one small point that was mentioned there and several other places.

WotC talks about "stoppers"- things that stop the action in the game.  Among these they mention looking up things in the book, ok I'd agree with that.  Then they talk about resting while the magic user regains spells.  What?  They make it sound like the PLAYERS have to rest for some period of time, breaking the game, while the character rests.  Meaning: Vancian magic=boring, stop and go, game.

That's ridiculous.  If you're DM is any good at all, he'll do either:

A) "Ok, the night is uneventful, you are rested and ready to go."  just simply skip over the in game down time.  DM's have been doing this from the beginning.

or

B)Present the party with a threat.  Just because they want to rest, doesn't mean they should always be able to do so.  If a monster attacks when they're out of spells, they'll have to be extra resourceful to earn a victory.  Pressure situations like this often turn out to be the most fun and memorable gaming moments.

Instead WotC acts like everyone sits around the gaming table staring at their watches and asking the DM if they've rested long enough yet.  Good grief.

Finally, the whole "rest for 6 hours and you are completely healed" rule that is part of 4e would make for more "stoppers" than all the spell memorization in the world.

So where the hell is the GSL?

Here is the kind of monopolizing horseshit that pisses me off:

QuoteWhen D&D 4th Edition was announced last year, some publishers were going to be allowed a buy-in to get early access to the material.  Did that happen?

No.  We had some delays with the drafting of the game system license.  One of those delays was adding this new alternate Modern roleplaying license.  

So they are just going to tack on a catch-all Modern category to the license when they don't even have a modern game?  Hello, Wizards, wake up to the rest of the roleplaying world!

Quote from: wulfgarWotC talks about "stoppers"- things that stop the action in the game.  Among these they mention looking up things in the book, ok I'd agree with that.  Then they talk about resting while the magic user regains spells.  What?  They make it sound like the PLAYERS have to rest for some period of time, breaking the game, while the character rests.

Ha ha. That threw me too.  Maybe it's because the players are tired from having to look up all those spells in the books?

And check out their lame advertising campaign:

QuoteThe shoot is a very fun, tongue-in-cheek, taking this obviously very fake monster (it’s absolutely huge, it’s 13 feet tall), and driving it around to generically iconic locations so the Beholder is at a city bus stop, it’s going to go to a coffee shop, a games store, the beach, a farm and even makes an appearance at the roller derby and makes a big payoff for the spot: “On June 6th, 4th edition will be everywhere.”  This will be running on some cable networks including G4 and Sci Fi.

It reeks of shame.  Don't they know irony is out.  Why not just have a really kick ass ad with some totally bored guy waiting at the bus when a real beholder comes along and eats his head off?  Then say something like "D&D is back.  Get ready."

Oh for fuck's sake:

Quotebut we're seeing the venues for print advertising dry up.

You mean like Dungeon and Dragon that you first neutered by making it in-house and then killed?

Holy fucking christ that interview has sent me into a friday afternoon rage.  It feels good!  Give me something to destroy!

(Savage Worlds Dark Sun tonight, part 2 baby!)

Quote from: King of Old SchoolIt was very cute of you to cut the bit where I cite OSRIC as an example of current support for previous editions of D&D.

You must not be reading the thread. I pointed to OD&D, saying folks could support it but chose not to because there's no point in doing so. You asked if I realized that OD&D wasn't open, as if OD&D not being open was the reason it wasn't being supported. Thus I pointed out OSRIC,

Quote from: King of Old SchoolYou still haven't answered the question of why WotC is including a clause which prohibits products which support both 3.5 and 4e.

Yeah, I did. Twice.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolHow does a "no supporting both editions" clause prevent this?

The current STL is ending in June. Publishers can't create new products under that license after the license ends. That means anyone who wants to create a product for 3.5 after June must use the OGL.

According to the OSRIC folks, it's the OGL which allows them to legally create materials compatible with OD&D. According to many forum folk when 4e was announced, people could use the OGL to create 4e compatible materials even if 4e were completely closed.

WotC apparently wants more control over the results of what happens when the release their licenses. Thus they need to control the OGL.

Legally, there isn't anything they can do to mess with what's already been released by themselves and others as open content, but they can make pretty darn sure there's no way anyone could mistake their intent with 4e - namely, it's not supposed to be covered by the OGL. As I understand it, that could help their standing if they ever chose to take a publisher who had created 4e compatible items without using GSL to court.

Also, they can try and entice publishers away from the OGL by offering them a big, juicy carrot: being able to publish materials for the biggest, most successful RPG on the planet.

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpYou mean like Dungeon and Dragon that you first neutered by making it in-house and then killed?

Yeah, it's the fate of Dungeon and Dragon that's killing off print materials. I'll just let newspaper and magazine publishers world-wide know who they can blame for their falling numbers.

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpSo they are just going to tack on a catch-all Modern category to the license when they don't even have a modern game?  Hello, Wizards, wake up to the rest of the roleplaying world!

You missed it in the link in this thread's original post? They've got 4e Modern in the oven, they are rolling it out later in this year.

QuoteWotC talks about "stoppers"- things that stop the action in the game. Among these they mention looking up things in the book, ok I'd agree with that. Then they talk about resting while the magic user regains spells. What? They make it sound like the PLAYERS have to rest for some period of time, breaking the game, while the character rests. Meaning: Vancian magic=boring, stop and go, game.

You never noticed that? All the bookkeeping stuff around "sleeping"? Sure it isn't a one-to-one with however many hours your character sleeps. But sitting back and watching it it was non-trival. Another bean counting action that broke up the flow of the game. :shrug:

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah, it's the fate of Dungeon and Dragon that's killing off print materials. I'll just let newspaper and magazine publishers world-wide know who they can blame for their falling numbers.

Newspapers are dying, but magazines are going stronger than ever.  But that's irrelevant to the discussion.  Dungeon and Dragon were profitable and had Dragon remained a general gaming magazine we would all have had subscriptions.

Quote from: DwightYou missed it in the link in this thread's original post? They've got 4e Modern in the oven, they are rolling it out later in this year.

It's one of those slow-cooking ovens, probably where they are currently roasing the GSL.

Will they actually put some thought into a general D20 game or is it going to be 4e stripped down and forced screaming and struggling into a non-WoW/high fantasy setting?

Quote from: walkerpNewspapers are dying, but magazines are going stronger than ever.

http://www.foliomag.com/2008/magazines-take-hit-newsstand (http://www.foliomag.com/2008/magazines-take-hit-newsstand)

"Magazines Take a Huge Hit at the Newsstand
ABC Fas-Fax report shows dramatic circ decline.

By Dylan Stableford
02/11/2008

"The latest figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations were released this morning, and, as expected, a number of high profile consumer magazines took a big hit in overall circulation while others saw a precipitous drop at the newsstand.

"Among the top 25 magazines in terms of total paid and verified circulation, only AARP (with a membership-based paid circulation of 23.4 million for its bimonthly magazine) showed an increase of more than two percent over the second half of 2006. Time (-17.57%) Playboy (-10.04%) and Reader’s Digest (-7.64%) all showed significant drops in overall circulation.

In terms of single copy sales, seven of the top 10 showed decreases in sales in the last six months of 2007 versus the previous year, with Glamour (down 13.24%) taking the biggest hit. American Media Inc.’s National Enquirer (-15.25%) and Good Housekeeping (-20.71%) also saw significant declines among the top 25 magazines sold at the newsstand. Even Every Day with Rachael Ray, one of the industry’s most heralded launches in recent memory, struggled to match its 2006 newsstand success, with its single copy sales dipping 6.37 percent. (The magazine, however, more than made up for it in total subscriptions, climbing 133.7 percent—one of the largest increases in the industry.)"

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYou must not be reading the thread. I pointed to OD&D, saying folks could support it but chose not to because there's no point in doing so. You asked if I realized that OD&D wasn't open, as if OD&D not being open was the reason it wasn't being supported. Thus I pointed out OSRIC

A closed game makes it a lot harder to support a game, or to make that support financially worthwhile.  It doesn't make it impossible.

You also ignored the example of Hackmaster, which has given Kenzer a decent amount of coin by basically providing (licensed) support for AD&D.  Or are you going to argue that people are buying Hackmaster for the puns?

(snip stuff about preventing the OSRICization of 4e)

So you're seriously arguing that WotC has more to fear from an OSRICized 4e than from 3.5?  Seriously?

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolA closed game makes it a lot harder to support a game, or to make that support financially worthwhile.  It doesn't make it impossible.

Sure. But here's the point: OD&D ain't exactly closed. Publishers can use OSRIC to create OD&D materials. The same OGL that allows them to produce materials for the current edition of D&D also apparently allows them to produce materials for older editions. But they ain't.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolOr are you going to argue that people are buying Hackmaster for the puns?

No, were I going to bother arguing about Hackmaster, I'd argue that they're not buying Hackmaster.

But that aside, how many companies used the OGL to produce materials for 3e or 3.5? And then there's Zenzer Co producing materials for AD&D. That's not exactly an example that proves your point.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolSo you're seriously arguing that WotC has more to fear from an OSRICized 4e than from 3.5?  Seriously?

Are you seriously going to mischaracterize my arguments again? Seriously?

Seanchai

Quote from: walkerpWill they actually put some thought into a general D20 game or is it going to be 4e stripped down and forced screaming and struggling into a non-WoW/high fantasy setting?

Given history, and the lack of WoTC drumbeating on "a great new D20 Modern product"...what do you think? ;)  D20 Modern wishes it had the attention and love that a redheaded step-child would get.

Quote...had Dragon remained a general gaming magazine we would all have had subscriptions.

Well some of you might have. ;) But that is an interesting question to pose.....

Quote from: DwightYou never noticed that? All the bookkeeping stuff around "sleeping"? Sure it isn't a one-to-one with however many hours your character sleeps. But sitting back and watching it it was non-trival. Another bean counting action that broke up the flow of the game. :shrug:

1)  Determine watch order
2) detect magic on all the shit you found.  Then possibly identify it if you had the pearls.
3) often healing before bed, or Heal skill checks.
4)  GMs often use these moments to tabulate XP, many groups use this opportunity to count money and divide loot.
5)  many groups also set specific things - traps alarms, magical alarms, etc - around the campsite.
6) and thats just the usual - depending on locale and game world, there may be any one of a hundred other actions to take before hitting the hay that have to be accounted for.  Its not the worst break in action - 3.5 high level shopping trips when you get a phat crash of loot and shit to sell can sometimes result in half an evening down the toilet selling and buying new shit - but it can be a big one.

Quote from: DwightGiven history, and the lack of WoTC drumbeating on "a great new D20 Modern product"...what do you think? ;)  D20 Modern wishes it had the attention and love that a redheaded step-child would get.

Well, this might be a wishful thinking on my part, but looking on how WotC makes SW Saga Ed. (good), DnD 4e (bad) there is nice chance, that D20 Modern will take the better parts of both and make nice pretty game. With some 3rd party support it could be a good game after all. Redheaded or not... :rolleyes:

Check this (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8791220&postcount=46).

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!