|
There's no issue here.
The D&D GSL is for fantasy, and it is royalty-free.
The d20 GSL is for non-fantasy, and is still a work in progress.
There is though, the big issue being the "D&D GSL" will likely be stuff for D&D ONLY. They can put just enough in the SRD that you can't create a new game. Which means they can put a stop to games like Conan RPG or awesome alternatives like Arcana Unearthed for 4E.
d20 GSL will let companies continue to make products like Spycraft, Battlestar Galactic RPG, d20 BESM, etc. (using 4E rules) but those companies will have to pay Wizards.
My concern is still whether or not the GSL is revokable. When it comes time to do 5E will people still be able to produce 4E books if they like that better or will the GSL force them to convert so as to not have another 'Pathfinder' out there.
I'm betting it'll be revokable.
d20 GSL will let companies continue to make products like Spycraft, Battlestar Galactic RPG, d20 BESM, etc. (using 4E rules) but those companies will have to pay Wizards.
emphasis mine
Sorry, I must have missed this. Where is that stated? The release seems to say something different.
Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.
|
|
d20 GSL will let companies continue to make products like Spycraft, Battlestar Galactic RPG, d20 BESM, etc. (using 4E rules) but those companies will have to pay Wizards.emphasis mine
Sorry, I must have missed this. Where is that stated? The release seems to say something different.
Lol, says royalty free never mind, misread. :)
It sounds to me like wizards are trying to indirectly squeeze any income from publishers while maintaining global superiority over fantasy based RPGs.There's no issue here.
The D&D GSL is for fantasy, and it is royalty-free.
There is though, the big issue being the "D&D GSL" will likely be stuff for D&D ONLY.
Yes, but my quoted post was simply responding to Quijenoth's assertion that Wizards was going to "squeeze... income from publishers." This is not an issue - it isn't going to happen. The key words are, "royalty-free."
d20 GSL will let companies continue to make products like Spycraft, Battlestar Galactic RPG, d20 BESM, etc. (using 4E rules) but those companies will have to pay Wizards.
This... is not so clear. We haven't seen what will be allowed under the d20 GSL, but again, it is promised to be royalty-free.
[EDIT: I guess this has already been covered]
My concern is still whether or not the GSL is revokable. When it comes time to do 5E will people still be able to produce 4E books if they like that better or will the GSL force them to convert so as to not have another 'Pathfinder' out there.
I'm pretty sure Corridan is right about this. It has been announced that the current 3e d20 license (but not the OGL) is being retired by the end of 2008. And it makes sense from WOTC's point of view. They're not giving away their IP in order to foster a plethora of different, semi-compatible RPG's. They're allowing access to their IP in order to foster a unified, vibrant D&D-playing community, with a plethora of D&D options. When 4e is eventually retired in favor of 5e, WOTC wants to make sure that the 3rd party publishers also transition to 5e.
In saying this, I'm just attempting to channel WOTC's point of view. I'm not declaring whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
For Paizo, one of the strongest arguments for pursuing the OGL Pathfinder RPG is that they will be able to control their own destiny, and they won't have to live in fear of Wizards suddenly revoking the GSL at their whim. Unfortunately, it also means that Paizo's products will not be compatible with the RPG that I will likely be playing.
Ummm... from the drift of things, it doesn't sound like Pathfinder would even be able to be published under this GSL.
It would have to be a D&D product, would it not? D20 isn't for mythic fantasy settings it doesn't sound like. If they did allow it, it would have a D&D logo on the front of it minus the Paizo logo...perhaps that would be in fineprint in the back of the book. Also, it sounds like if that's what you wanted to do, then you need to be in accordance.
Accordance may mean that they get to look at your stuff and change what they don't like, control release dates, pull the namesake, farm your stuff out to other companies..etc, etc.
The second seems to be for books that don't deal with mythic fantasy...like D20modern and whatnot.
Ummm... from the drift of things, it doesn't sound like Pathfinder would even be able to be published under this GSL.
It would have to be a D&D product, would it not? D20 isn't for mythic fantasy settings it doesn't sound like....
I'm guessing you're talking about the d20 GSL. No, a hypothetical 4e Pathfinder Adventure Path would not be under the d20 GSL. It would be under the D&D GSL.
If they did allow it, it would have a D&D logo on the front of it minus the Paizo logo...perhaps that would be in fineprint in the back of the book. Also, it sounds like if that's what you wanted to do, then you need to be in accordance.
Accordance may mean that they get to look at your stuff and change what they don't like, control release dates, pull the namesake, farm your stuff out to other companies..etc, etc.
This, I believe, is not correct. From ENWorld, D&D Sr. Brand Manager Scott Rouse
The allowed products will look a lot like those allowed under the d20 STL.
The d20 STL products were the ones with the d20 logo on them, and which could do most anything except include rules for experience and leveling up, and needed to include the d20 logo, and that phrase on the cover about "requires the D&D 3e PHB to play."
As I understand it, the main things WOTC wants to avoid creating in the future are: 1) standalone RPG's (like True 20 and the Pathfinder RPG), and 2) works like the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
To summarize,
Something like a 4e Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Modules, and Pathfinder Chronicles should be fine under the 4e GSL. However, something like the Pathfinder RPG would not be allowed.
Yea, but the wording seems strange, and I'm not sure how it relates. Basically you can make your own system based off the rules but not if it's mythic fantasy...in that case it must be 4th Ed rules, and if you want to note it as compatible (like with the D20 label, which is a fairly powerful marketing tool) then you have to follow conditions, and without that accordance you probably cannot use anything that is under the licence... like names, descriptions, similar fluff, etc.
I don't have a copy, but it sounds to me like they are trying to make it so that if something does get published it has the D&D descriptor on it and has to play by the rules they lay out. If not, then it cannot share anything in common other than the basic rules skeleton (which is not protected by law anyway...so big deal!)
Since true20 and Pathfinder aren't under the system (and that's currently what I plan on playing for the next few years) then I'm not really worried about it, but this is what it sounds like to me.
I may be overly suspicious given the wait.
Fourth paragraph of the announcement:
"Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available."
This statement worries me for the future of D&D as a global hobby. If a company cannot use the d20 GSL to produce fantasy settings, unless they are willing to pay what I imagine to be high royalty costs to wizards to use the D&D 4E GSL most fantasy based settings will not make the crossover to 4E.
It sounds to me like wizards are trying to indirectly squeeze any income from publishers while maintaining global superiority over fantasy based RPGs.
Doubt that.
Midnight is exactly the kind of product WotC wants 3rd party publishers to make. If midnight strikes your fancy you need to get a group together to play - well if some of those players were Shadow Run players now they've been converted 'back' to D&D and need to pick up a 4th Ed. Players Handbook. Better yet you might decide to enhance your new fighter character with stuff out of the Ultimate Fighters Source Book or whatever the 4th ed. fighter splat book is called. This is WotCs optimum 3rd party product. Stuff that some one else does that makes people buy WotCs products.
What is not good for WotC is Mutants and Masterminds. That actually takes perfectly good D&D players and makes them super hero players. So long as their super hero players they have no need to pick up the Great Guide to Gnomes/Gnolls Hybrids or other D&D splat books sine they have no place in a super heros game. Mutants and Masterminds directly hurts WotCs bottom line.
Yea, but the wording seems strange, and I'm not sure how it relates. Basically you can make your own system based off the rules but not if it's mythic fantasy...in that case it must be 4th Ed rules, and if you want to note it as compatible (like with the D20 label, which is a fairly powerful marketing tool) then you have to follow conditions, and without that accordance you probably cannot use anything that is under the licence... like names, descriptions, similar fluff, etc.
I don't have a copy, but it sounds to me like they are trying to make it so that if something does get published it has the D&D descriptor on it and has to play by the rules they lay out. If not, then it cannot share anything in common other than the basic rules skeleton (which is not protected by law anyway...so big deal!)
They might be trying to avoid a fantasy game that is to far from their basic IP. If your fantasy rules are so far removd from Dungeons and Dragons that you simply can't use any suppliments that WotC makes well thats not very good for WotC. Your using wizard IP to take money out of wizards pocket from their perspective.
|
|
Yea, but the wording seems strange, and I'm not sure how it relates. Basically you can make your own system based off the rules but not if it's mythic fantasy...in that case it must be 4th Ed rules, and if you want to note it as compatible (like with the D20 label, which is a fairly powerful marketing tool) then you have to follow conditions, and without that accordance you probably cannot use anything that is under the licence... like names, descriptions, similar fluff, etc.
It's simple, if you want to make your own game based on the rules, you have to use a non-fantasy setting like Star Trek. In which case they'll give you the core mechanics, but there's going to be stuff you have to create from scratch because they probably won't give them the monsters and spells.
I don't have a copy, but it sounds to me like they are trying to make it so that if something does get published it has the D&D descriptor on it and has to play by the rules they lay out. If not, then it cannot share anything in common other than the basic rules skeleton (which is not protected by law anyway...so big deal!)
Right, companies like White Wolf that published all those Sword & Sorcery books would be fine. The Quintessential books would be fine too.
But Conan RPG and World of Warcraft RPG won't be using independent 4E rules.
Yea, but those S&S books will have to comply... like lets say if WotC says, " Don't release book X for 4 months because it's conflicting with our book Y and it's release date", because that's one of their restrictions they set forth.
That or redesign everything with new powers, names,fluff,classes,etc, etc...which could be done anyway without WotC having the ability to stop it because the rules aren't protected.
I'm not saying it's a bad business decision for them(just the opposite in fact), just saying it might not be ideal for 3rd party publishers depending on the restrictions.
It looks like we have Mr Rouse answering some questions on THIS THREAD about what allowed with the new GSL.
I would LOVE to see Paizo re-release the Pathfinder series, both runelords and throne, with a 4E conversion in PDF for subscribers. This would give us certainty that our continuing subscription will pay out long-term dividends whatever WotC does to the D&D game. This for me would guarantee my Pathfinder sub past crimson throne.Not possible. Wizards actually said on ENWorld that they are not allowing the same produt with a 4E conversion. Sorry but I don't have the time dig up the link. Its on the OGL section. author: lurkinglidda.You cannot publish a product under BOTH the OGL and the GSL. However, it may be possible to update an old OGL product to 4e under the GSL.
Publishers can update titles done under the OGL to the GSL as long as they are compliant with the new license.We'll have to see what that all entails. But yes, dual-statting the same product appears to be precluded.
Sooo....does that mean that you can do a "widescreen" (4e) and "standard" (3.x) edition of the same product, as long as the "standard" is published a week before? That seems kind of silly. I wonder how the license will be worded.
Sooo....does that mean that you can do a "widescreen" (4e) and "standard" (3.x) edition of the same product, as long as the "standard" is published a week before? That seems kind of silly. I wonder how the license will be worded.
Me too. I'd guess it might include some kind of "cease publication of the OGL product" phrasing, which would preclude concurrent 3.xe and 4e versions of Pathfinder.
It looks like we have Mr Rouse answering some questions on THIS THREAD about what allowed with the new GSL.
Very good stuff there (in the sense of answering what is/is not GSL-compatible). Looks like the D&D GSL will be equivalent to the d20 STL. The Rouse's various comments include:
The GSL will not allow for products that have character creation (applying ability scores) or character advancement (applying XP).
Yes, under the GSL they get the right to use our compatibility statement that includes a D&D logo. The license will dictate size and placement on the 3PP book.
Yes, when it comes to the licenses we want them to support our core RPG business.
There is a ton of product space here. Settings, Adventure paths, modules, alt classes, paragon paths, magic items, monsters, treasures,.... Look what was done under the d20 STL.
We want to encourage creativity and I think that is the best part of the license. New races, classes, monsters, worlds is much better than just adding a tweak here and there to an existing class or doing some derivative campaign setting.
And Trailfoot asked "can WotC, under GSL, end the circulation of a book in print that's already been approved for the 4e GSL branding?"
I suppose we would have that option but in the spirit of the license that would be very bad form.
We will likely have a clause for allowance of similar designs that protects everyone in case a 3PP and WOTC release similar ideas at different times. EG someone does "Tome of Riding Dogs" and a month later we release "Complete Riding Dog"
I think the impact on Paizo just went up a notch...
|
I think the impact on Paizo just went up a notch...
Wow. I guess Paizo will not be doing any 4e stuff after all. Not that it really matters to me as I made up my mind a few weeks back to go all pathfinder and skip 4e. But if anything, this makes me even less likely to ever buy 4e. :/
Ah, so if Clark is reading this right (and I don't doubt that he is), this is a bit more of a line in the sand. And it kind of reminds me of what Erik had mentioned he was concerned about (i.e. cut off the ability to produce 3.5 if you want to produce for 4th, and then if 5th has NO OGL/GSL or whatever, kind of hard to go way back to OGL and make viable product, especially if the rights to produce for 4e go away as well).
I think the impact on Paizo just went up a notch...
So it looks like, for the future, if OGL/3.x, it'll be under the Paizo LLC.
If it's gonna be GSL/4e, it'll have to be released through their partner Necromancer Games.A bit more dramatic than I expected, but I guess it makes sense from WOTC's point of view: they want companies using the GSL to be creating supporting products for the D&D brand.
Conversely, it makes sense for Paizo to stick with the OGL, because it frees Paizo from fearing the possible/eventual revocation of the GSL.
I just hope Necromancer Games can bring their products up to par with Paizo's. Maybe they should hire a lot of Paizo's authors. And editors.
I think the impact on Paizo just went up a notch...
And I'm not sure I like what I read there... The "It's our way (4th Edition) or the Highway" stance the GSL seems to be taking has left a bit of a rock in my gut.
I'm gonna have to digest this some. At first I was at least willing to give 4th Edition a look over despite my reservations, but a company that would take such a strong arm stance, with a game I dearly love, just sqeezed out the last of the "D&D feel" I felt may have been left.
I think the impact on Paizo just went up a notch...
I'll be the first to stand up and say it:
Sebastian was correct. (If not the first one to make this prediction, he was the first one I read make it.)
And my fears are coming to fruition.
If any pro-4th edition + pro-Paizo people are reading this, let me extend my apologies. It appears you will never be able to get your cake and eat it too. You will have to accept the fan reproductions of the cake. (Assuming those are even legal...)
|
This just makes me even more happy about my decision to turn my back on WotC. "Sure you can play with my shiny new motorizes truck, but I'm gonna need my Stomper back. You can't play with both!"
Several people saw it coming but it was discredited as too extreme and too much of an over-the-top possibility but now it's here. These are the people in control of the license to our hobby. We need to make them sell it back to a company that will take care of it right.
... whatever...
lol!
edit: didn't see that.
Yea...WOW, I didn't realize this was a line in the sand. WoW.
Damn...PLEASE don't change your minds.
I like this place.
For all of you who may not have been following lets catch up on this now that I think there is some clarification.
1) The first part of the GSL is really nonsense. It allows a publisher to produce the "skeleton" system without reprisal as long as the descriptors or fluff isn't used. This is already possible because game rules and mechanics aren't protected by law.
2) If you do sign up, WotC will put it's logo on your product and decides the size and placement of the logo. You also have to be "in accordance". This could be as simple as not allowing something like the book of erotic fantasy or as complex (and implied on the WotC website earlier today) as something like not allowing a similar product to come out if WotC is producing one similar like complete arcane Vs ultimate wizard options or something. It could also include something like non-competing release dates or dictation of number of products per year so the market doesn't get saturated.
3) Two things I'm guessing will be in the GSL for sure...the right to change it if need be and the right to pull the licence at any time.
4) If you adopt the GSL for 4th you must stop selling and producing 3.X material.
5) This adoption is permanent so lets say you get your GSL pulled...you gave away your right to publish under the OGL and cannot go back to producing material. You basically signed away that right by going with the GSL.
I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate, but from the info I have gathered this seems correct.
If so...well I think that SUCKS.
Creative Director
|
5) This adoption is permanent so lets say you get your GSL pulled...you gave away your right to publish under the OGL and cannot go back to producing material. You basically signed away that right by going with the GSL.
The OGL is forever. If you switch to the GSL, you aren't allowed to use OGL stuff as long as you're doing GSL stuff. If you DO switch back to the OGL stuff, that ends your license to continue using the GSL, and I suspect that WotC won't be very receptive to letting you back in to use the GSL in the future as a result.
But you can always go back to OGL stuff.
In any event, Pathfinder products will remain 3.5 OGL until August of 2009, at which point we'll be switching to the Pathfinder RPG, which will be compatible with the 3.5 OGL so those folk who wish to continue playing with those rules can do so with ease using Pathfinder stuff.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't know enough about licence law to know if a clause could be written basically agreeing not to produce OGL material as a permanent legally binding situation.
Is such a thing possible?
Also, does being in some kind of partnership with Necromancer games give you any ability to put out both kinds of material?
As I understand it, the main things WOTC wants to avoid creating in the future are: 1) standalone RPG's (like True 20 and the Pathfinder RPG), and 2) works like the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
I think you're probably right, Riley. WotC got burned with the OGL, because it opened the doors for:
True20
BSG
Conan
Castles and Crusades and many other d20-derived games which just made up their own rules to replace the ones that WotC made proprietary
As well as:
OSRIC and Labyrinth Lords, which use the OGL to emulate AD&D and BD&D respectively.
And now, Pathfinder is carrying on the 3.X banner that Wizards is abandoning.
I don't think that the BoEF loomed as large in their minds, as that seemed to be a isolated, more-or-less easily-tamped-down situation. What really probably galled them was the freedom, the spirit of "let a hundred D&Ds bloom" that they inadvertently fostered with the OGL. Instead of being a convinient method of outsourcing the gruntwork of adventure/module writing to let WotC focus on more profitable splatbooks, it became the back door to letting creative designers rip the battings out of the system and make totally new ones, all while WotC's lawyers, in the main, couldn't say "boo."
Paizo, I think, should stick with Pathfinder/3.P, because I'm pretty sure that this new GSL will be tailored to make it clear that what Wizards wants is a gaggle of pliant module-writing farms.
You mind moving a scooch? you're in my light... :D
In any event, Pathfinder products will remain 3.5 OGL until August of 2009, at which point we'll be switching to the Pathfinder RPG, which will be compatible with the 3.5 OGL so those folk who wish to continue playing with those rules can do so with ease using Pathfinder stuff.
Im in and thanks once again.
If you switch to the GSL, you aren't allowed to use OGL stuff as long as you're doing GSL stuff. If you DO switch back to the OGL stuff, that ends your license to continue using the GSL, and I suspect that WotC won't be very receptive to letting you back in to use the GSL in the future as a result.
This is quite unfortunate for those who were wanting 4E stuff from Paizo (and other OGL companies too). It is much too restrictive and probably has little effect on the success of 4E as a game. Why would WotC make such a move?
I hope they reconsider it.
WotC got burned with the OGL, because it opened the doors for:
True20
BSG
Conan
Castles and Crusades and many other d20-derived games which just made up their own rules to replace the ones that WotC made proprietary
As well as:
OSRIC and Labyrinth Lords, which use the OGL to emulate AD&D and BD&D respectively.And now, Pathfinder is carrying on the 3.X banner that Wizards is abandoning.
I don't think that the BoEF loomed as large in their minds, as that seemed to be a isolated, more-or-less easily-tamped-down situation. What really probably galled them was the freedom, the spirit of "let a hundred D&Ds bloom" that they inadvertently fostered with the OGL. Instead of being a convinient method of outsourcing the gruntwork of adventure/module writing to let WotC focus on more profitable splatbooks, it became the back door to letting creative designers rip the battings out of the system and make totally new ones, all while WotC's lawyers, in the main, couldn't say "boo."
I'm sure you've hit the nail right on the head, there. The D&D GSL, which is pretty brutal in its "my way or the highway" dichotomy, should be a very effective tool in cutting down on the number of D&D-like spinoff games on the market.
Yes, all those game options are great for all of us who love to have lots of gaming choices, but they are not great for WOTC. And WOTC's whole plan with the d20 STL was to support their own game's success.
Paizo, I think, should stick with Pathfinder/3.P, because I'm pretty sure that this new GSL will be tailored to make it clear that what Wizards wants is a gaggle of pliant module-writing farms.
I think you're right about Paizo now being best-off charting its own path with the OGL, but I don't think it is for the reason you have cited. WOTC would love to have the Pathfinder Adventure Path and Pathfinder Chronicles published under the GSL. However, migrating Pathfinder to the 4e GSL would leave Paizo in a more perilous position, being utterly dependent on WOTC's beneficence long-term.
So even though I am still expecting to convert to 4e, I am glad for Paizo's sake that they are going their own way.
I just hope that the employees of Paizo will be very active in freelancing, especially in conjunction with Necromancer.
On ENWorld, D&D Senior Brand Manager Scott RouseWhy would WotC make such a move?
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?
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.
Which makes perfect sense from WOTC's point of view.
WOTC's doing what's good for WOTC. Paizo's doing what's good for Paizo. It's all business, and there are no bad guys in this.
WOTC is again being generous in offering free access to use of their new 4e IP. The thing is, they are attaching a few strings to that agreement, which apply only to companies that want to accept the new, free GSL license.
Which makes perfect sense from WOTC's point of view.
Meh... I just see it as unecessary and contributing to a difinative devide between OGL fans and GSL fans. Great... more edition warz :-(
|
...this is the first I've heard of the 'mutually exclusive' bit, and the idea of being forced to choose sounds very much like a 5th grader wrote the GSL. But then again, that's what I think of Wizards and their horrible treatment of the gaming community and third party publishers.
I'm solidly behind Erik Mona, and appreciate his leadership as the true steward of our game. If the new GSL prohibits 3rd party publishers from supporting the new Pathfinder RPG, or writing for 3.5, then the role-playing community should ralley against this action, and see those ring-twisting WOTC greed-mongers for who they really are! (It would be a powerful message, and an important move, to see Necromancer Games switch to join in partnership with PAIZO! What a wonderful world that would be!)
For me, this GSL is a huge deal-breaker, perhaps the "boom" Erik was suggesting in his post, 4E PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED. I no longer support wizards, they have lost my business forever.
But this is not enough! Anyone interested in a class-action lawsuit against WOTC? IMHO, this is a monopolistic move that should be stopped in court!
But this is not enough! Anyone interested in a class-action lawsuit against WOTC? IMHO, this is a monopolistic move that should be stopped in court!
Hardly!
If I'm reading this right, this move is potentially great for Pathfinder. Third party publishers can now support Pathfinder if they want to make D&D stuff past 2008 and still keep their own existing OGL games.
This could be a big, BIG win for Pathfinder long term.
WotC may have cut off their nose to spite their face with this decision. Time will tell.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is likely going to be correct in the long run.
This could be a big, BIG win for Pathfinder long term.WotC may have cut off their nose to spite their face with this decision. Time will tell.
I think you're dead on with this. In fact, the win might not just be long term, but short term as well.
Assuming Clark's take on the GSL is correct regarding mutual exclusion being at the company (not product level), then companies that want to continue producing 3x products, for whatever reason, may find that throwing in the the Pathfinder RPG is the best way to continue to produce 3x material for an ongoing, supported system. (I know to many a "supported system" doesn't mean much, but to others its of huge importance.)
Think of the bigger companies that have OGL products that are big pieces of their business: Green Ronin, Mongoose, Troll Lords and Monte Cook - and doesn't even Goodman Games have OGL products like DragonMech, XCrawl, Etherscope and Broncosaurus Rex? (I don't know how many of those are current or OGL.) Then think of the smaller publishers that might not be able to afford shutting down their current 3x revenue streams to produce 4x material.
|
|
But this is not enough! Anyone interested in a class-action lawsuit against WOTC? IMHO, this is a monopolistic move that should be stopped in court!
Eh. I disagree.
I believe that WotC has the right to do what they feel is in the best interests of THEM. Open Gaming is a good thing, but I don't think it really turned out to be what I think it was intended all along. Businesses like Paizo and Necromancer who made D&D support materials I think fit the mold better than all the others who made alternative games and such off the exact same rules. Good for the industry, but not so good for D&D.
Its really a Catch-22 situation for WotC. They HAVE to make money. They do HUGE things for the gaming industry as a whole, and they need the finances to allow them to support and do projects - and there was much rejoicing! However! If they do what they need to do to make that money, by clamping down on the OGL and such to stop the constant bleeding of funds, we lambast them as money-grubbing imperialists out to socialize the universe! Rawr!!
I wish them luck.
|
So, what about already published stuff? Can a company that has warehouses full of 3.5 products (like Necromancer f.e.) still sell these and make new stuff for 4E? Or do they have to clear out everything before they're allowed to publish 4E? I'm sure they aren't allowed to do 3.5 reprints, but what about existing stuff?