So how would this effect publishers of Alternative Corebooks, like Green Ronin?
It would be a crying shame if they were forced to lose True20.
|
So how would this effect publishers of Alternative Corebooks, like Green Ronin?
It would be a crying shame if they were forced to lose True20.
It appears only a little uncertain at the moment but the good money seems to be on them having to decide to dump their old series and take up 4e or else stay away from 4e.
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?
If it has the old d20 logo on it, and a company chooses to use the GSL, they must stop producing it and have all units in their position sold by the end of 2008.
It also appears (but this has not been confirmed) that if you use the GSL (and make 4E products), you must cease to sell all OGL-related materials. Therefore, all existing stock and .pdf sales of OGL-based content must be eliminated.
Either you play completely in WotC's sandbox, or you stay out of their playground.
I can't find the the post now, but I had thought that Scott Rouse had said that the d20 logo is going away (since they can do that), but that they are going to "grandfather" in any use of the logo on products already created (but, for example, the next printing of that product has to have removed that logo).
I wish I could find to post to see if I was reading it right (on EN World).
What I really see this doing is having less of an impact on Paizo, per se, other than that they won't be able to do any 4e support, even outside of Pathfinder, but that a lot of smaller publishers will get mangled in the meantime. If you are a smaller publisher, you are really, really going to have to know that your customer base is onboard for one or the other before you make any plans.
The other thing that is interesting about this is that it seems like there will be "alternate" branding that even allows the D&D logo will be allowed to the 3rd party guys. But this could be a massive problem for them as well.
Lets assume that the 3rd party stuff all has the same "alternate" D&D logo on it, which is clearly not the "standard" D&D logo. If the 3rd party books all look line one another, i.e. they have similar "alternate" D&D logos on them, this look could easily override any proprietary look or logo for a given company, i.e. Crapweasel Games GSL release looks like its from the same line as Necromancer Games, so if Crapweasel lives up to its name, the entire "sub brand" of alternately branded D&D 3rd party books gets a black eye.
It will be interesting to see just how prominent and uniform the alternate D&D logo will have to be.
It still is from his "personal perspective" which sounds like speculation on his part.
The only way this will really be cleared up is when the actual GSL is available for public view. And concidering the GSL was supposed to be available for 3P developers back in Janurary, I'm not really seeing it come out any time soon.
I'm guessing it will probably end up shaking out that you can continue to sell your old OGL product (but not the old d20 product, which must stop - or have the logo removed - by the end of 2008), but any new products must be GSL if you are going to use the GSL.
Wizards seems to truly believe that they have created a vastly superior game with 4E. And maybe they have. But I really don't see how the heavy-handed nature of this GSL process will help them in the long run.
It had already started, but the community divide may be even stronger if this interpretation is correct.
Of course, as these debates continue, my appreciation and relief that Pathfinder (and Paizo) exists pleases me no end.
|
I can't find the the post now, but I had thought that Scott Rouse had said that the d20 logo is going away (since they can do that), but that they are going to "grandfather" in any use of the logo on products already created (but, for example, the next printing of that product has to have removed that logo.)
Yeap, they're already "remade" the d20 logo, you can find the new logo on the Dungeons of Dread minis box.
Publishers have until June to clear out their warehouses of 3e d20 STL product because after that it can't be sold anymore.
|
Here's the latest from Scott Rouse.
The answer is....
...we'll know more next Friday, maybe.
Yeah. I think it really is time to just not worry about it, let them PUBLISH the GSL, and then let the legals worry about it. You and me - we'll pop an aneurism fussing over woulda-coulda-shoulda.
What I think has me a tad sad is I think Scott and Linae are trying their hardest to please the populace by releasing what they know, but we're (generic we, please) grabbing those morsels, twisting them all about, and confusing the issue. Its almost as if it would have been better for them not to say ANYTHING, and just wait for the full release of the info.
Oh well. <shrug>
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.They are not allowed to.
The terms of the GSL are such that it and the OGL are mutually exclusive. Over at ENWorld Linae confirmed for me that this means you can't produce the sme rproduct in two different versions if one of those versions is under the GSL.
Of course, things could still change ....
I guess she forgot to add "We did this so we could be market leader in everything, including arrogance." White Wolf are a tough competition, but wizards manages to pull ahead again.
|
|
I guess she forgot to add "We did this so we could be market leader in everything, including arrogance." White Wolf are a tough competition, but wizards manages to pull ahead again.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.They are not allowed to.
The terms of the GSL are such that it and the OGL are mutually exclusive. Over at ENWorld Linae confirmed for me that this means you can't produce the sme rproduct in two different versions if one of those versions is under the GSL.
Of course, things could still change ....
Wrong. Palladium games will never even be approached for arrogance.
|
|
Hey Kruel, go ahead and hit my Stomper link....fond memories for me. That'll help ease the mind.
*wipes a tear
What were the other ones called? Road riders? They were just a tad more monster truck...
Hee-hee. I love touching on nostalgia....
Rough Riders, this is an A-team one on E-bay.
I hope that Pathfinder RPG release in 2009 would involve the new 4E or D20 GSL.
It would give the community enough time to adjust to the new rules and would definately see the maturity of the alpha & beta playtest.
I just think it's the ultimate FTW :)
So how would this effect publishers of Alternative Corebooks, like Green Ronin?
It would be a crying shame if they were forced to lose True20.It appears only a little uncertain at the moment but the good money seems to be on them having to decide to dump their old series and take up 4e or else stay away from 4e.
To clarify firbolg's post; True20 is published under OGL, with certain parts of the rules being closed content (being property of Green Ronin and/or Steve Kenson). Given that OGL is not going away, True20 will not go away as long as Steve Kenson continues to support it using the OGL.
So:
OGL books (no D20 logo) are not affected (ie: Pathfinder, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Midnight Campaign Setting, etc).
D20 books(with D20 logo) are affected (ie: Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc, etc)
So:
OGL books (no D20 logo) are not affected (ie: Pathfinder, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Midnight Campaign Setting, etc).D20 books(with D20 logo) are affected (ie: Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc, etc)
Not exactly.
Books with the D20 logo are affected, but only to the extent that they can no longer be sold with the logo. Which is probably a minor issue for PDFs and a major blow to print products.Pure OGL products are completely unaffected. UNLESS the publisher decides to use the GSL, in which case these products must end (whether they ever bore the D20 logo or not). And I think that is what Wicht was referring to.
There does seem to be a faint hope that the GSL will come out and not be this draconian. But it is quite faint.
|
|
So:
OGL books (no D20 logo) are not affected (ie: Pathfinder, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Midnight Campaign Setting, etc).D20 books(with D20 logo) are affected (ie: Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc, etc)
Not exactly.
Books with the D20 logo are affected, but only to the extent that they can no longer be sold with the logo. Which is probably a minor issue for PDFs and a major blow to print products.Pure OGL products are completely unaffected. UNLESS the publisher decides to use the GSL, in which case these products must end (whether they ever bore the D20 logo or not). And I think that is what Wicht was referring to.
There does seem to be a faint hope that the GSL will come out and not be this draconian. But it is quite faint.
Just wait til you hear about the whole 'first born' thingy....Scary stuff!
;P
I hope that Pathfinder RPG release in 2009 would involve the new 4E or D20 GSL.
It would give the community enough time to adjust to the new rules and would definately see the maturity of the alpha & beta playtest.
I just think it's the ultimate FTW :)
We don't want to adjust to that crap. Pathfinder will be 3.5e based, and that's set in adamantine. And good thing, too, since I don't want no stinking CGL in my RPG.
Wrong. Palladium games will never even be approached for arrogance.
From what I've heard and read, you might be true.
But wizard's not giving up.
The news of the GSL seems very very bad. I'm sticking with 3.X because of the money I spent, and even if 4th is a better system, and it might be, I'm happy with 3rd. Before Pathfinder I had decided that my D&D/d20 days were over, get everything you want (and I have almost every setting, and spalt books) from almost everyone. I mix and take rules from everything I see.
Anyway this year I've been buying everything I can before it goes out of pirnt Wizards and otherwise. Pathfinder was great news, but GSL is scary because my default had always been if I can't get the physical book someday I'll buy it as a PDF, maybe print it myself at Kikos. But now if Necro- goes 4th no more downloading that adv. I wanted. And what does this mean for stores or ebay/amazon who have sellers getting rid of old stock.
My sticking with 3rd had nothing to do with a hate of 4th or corporate attitude. But damn I statting to actually hate Wizards for this one. Of couse this might only affect Necro. and Goodman games (the latters fourms seem to be down) GR, Mal., S&S. and WoWCrpg or mongoose. They have too much at stake with there own lines and title to completly give it up. Moreover what whould this men for say goodman who wanted dragonmech to stay 3.X but J.G. went 4th?
I suspsect this move is more to kill new companies. After all before 3rd. Wizards, White Wolf, and maybe Palladium/ShadowRun was really it. Now we have options.
I do wonder however if say Necro or Goodman goes to GSL and 4th. and I liked the Amazon race/class from Necro's Winderlands, or monster from shades of greay, I couldn't crate my own X company, not go gsl, but support pathfinder, and re-present all that with new fluff and slight change to Pathfinder rule set I could litterly pirate stuff form companies that went GSL and not get sued for it. Befor GSL I could do this but it wouldn't make much money because the orgional company/sorce was avaialbele at lest as a PDF. But anyone who has a big libary of older stuff could in theory craate a OGL company and produce older stuff from Necro or Goodman change some fluff and make a decent living.
Sorry, above I ment to say affect Nero and Goodmen, all other companies I think are safe because they have to much invested in there own systems, coman true20, arcana evolveed.
|
|
I hope that Pathfinder RPG release in 2009 would involve the new 4E or D20 GSL.
It would give the community enough time to adjust to the new rules and would definately see the maturity of the alpha & beta playtest.
I just think it's the ultimate FTW :)We don't want to adjust to that crap. Pathfinder will be 3.5e based, and that's set in adamantine. And good thing, too, since I don't want no stinking CGL in my RPG.
Wrong. Palladium games will never even be approached for arrogance.From what I've heard and read, you might be true.
But wizard's not giving up.
They would have to adopt a stance that brought in into question whether you were actually allowed to PLAY their games without risking a lawsuit first. Mind you, it could happen...
|
|
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN...
There's talk, particularly from the Necromancer guys that the GSL may specifically prevent companies from continuing to use the OGL.
So you either publish under the GSL or the OGL, but not both COMPANY-WIDE.
Meaning if you do Book of Magical Swords in GSL,then next month you can NOT do Pathfinder: A Goblins Guide to Dogslaying as an open OGL product.
Once you go GSL, you can not go back to using the OGL.
Once you go GSL, you can not go back to using the OGL.
(Pending final release of the GSL), it appears that the rule is actually this:
Once you go GSL, you can always go back to the OGL (since it is forever and irrevocable), but if you do, you will thereafter be forbidden from using the GSL ever again.
Once you go GSL, you can not go back to using the OGL.(Pending final release of the GSL), it appears that the rule is actually this:
Once you go GSL, you can always go back to the OGL (since it is forever and irrevocable), but if you do, you will thereafter be forbidden from using the GSL ever again.
That's how I'm reading it so far.
Creative Director
|
After all before 3rd. Wizards, White Wolf, and maybe Palladium/ShadowRun was really it. Now we have options.
Actually... before 3rd edition, there were a LOT more options than there really was DURING 3rd edition if you wanted to play a non D&D RPG. Just off the top of my head there was also Call of Cthulhu, Battletech, Warhammer RPG, Traveller, Alternity, various incarnations of Gamma World, Gurps, TORG, Champions, Chill, and lots more. I know that I certainly played several different games back in High School and College, and only ONE of them was D&D.
I suspect (hope?) that we'll be moving back into a new era of lots of different innovative games going forward, especially since the OGL remains open forever. I choose to see this all as a time of excitement and change rather than doom and gloom.
|
|
Actually... before 3rd edition, there were a LOT more options than there really was DURING 3rd edition if you wanted to play a non D&D RPG. Just off the top of my head there was also Call of Cthulhu, Battletech, Warhammer RPG, Traveller, Alternity, various incarnations of Gamma World, Gurps, TORG, Champions, Chill, and lots more.
Just looking around my home office here I can add Powers and Perils, Toon, Top Secret, Tales From the Crypt, Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness, Boot Hill, Ghostbusters, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Shadowrun, Paranoia, and Tunnels and Trolls.
All pre 3e.
I choose to see this all as a time of excitement and change rather than doom and gloom.
Heh. Can't we have both?
Excitement and gloom, doom and change? ;-P
Exciting, indeed. Between Paizo and Sinister alone, there is some really stupendous stuff here and on the way.
But I have to admit, the one idea I am really treasuring is the possibility that Kobold Quarterly will grow up to fill the empty space left by *snif* Dragon.
If that happened, I would be so happy, I... I... I don't know what I'd do. When I think of... of... of... oh, I promised myself I wouldn't...
|
|
Actually... before 3rd edition, there were a LOT more options than there really was DURING 3rd edition if you wanted to play a non D&D RPG.
How I miss all of West End Games' great licensed d6 games. :)
A good portion of Star Wars "canon" has come from the effort of West End and Lucas Film to make the Empire and Rebellion seem realistic in the game. Most of the facts and other important stuff about the ships in Star Wars came from West End books.
After all before 3rd. Wizards, White Wolf, and maybe Palladium/ShadowRun was really it. Now we have options.Actually... before 3rd edition, there were a LOT more options than there really was DURING 3rd edition if you wanted to play a non D&D RPG. Just off the top of my head there was also Call of Cthulhu, Battletech, Warhammer RPG, Traveller, Alternity, various incarnations of Gamma World, Gurps, TORG, Champions, Chill, and lots more. I know that I certainly played several different games back in High School and College, and only ONE of them was D&D.
I suspect (hope?) that we'll be moving back into a new era of lots of different innovative games going forward, especially since the OGL remains open forever. I choose to see this all as a time of excitement and change rather than doom and gloom.
God, I forgot about all of those games and seeing their adds in Dragon Magazine... Those were the days... *wanders off into the land of nostalgia*
|
How I miss all of West End Games' great licensed d6 games. :)
A good portion of Star Wars "canon" has come from the effort of West End and Lucas Film to make the Empire and Rebellion seem realistic in the game. Most of the facts and other important stuff about the ships in Star Wars came from West End books.
The interesting thing is that West End Games have recently announced that they will be releasing a generic version of the d6 system under the OGL. They are currently working on a d6 System Reference Document in an attempt to revive their fortunes.
Actually... before 3rd edition, there were a LOT more options than there really was DURING 3rd edition if you wanted to play a non D&D RPG. Just off the top of my head there was also Call of Cthulhu, Battletech, Warhammer RPG, Traveller, Alternity, various incarnations of Gamma World, Gurps, TORG, Champions, Chill, and lots more.Just looking around my home office here I can add Powers and Perils, Toon, Top Secret, Tales From the Crypt, Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness, Boot Hill, Ghostbusters, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Shadowrun, Paranoia, and Tunnels and Trolls.
All pre 3e. [/QUOTE
You guys are right about that, I ment in terms of taking on D&D, none of those games were big enough, I think. Lord knows I wish Rifts had taken out TSR in my youth. As for Doom and Gloom I only see it as such because I see the terms of GSL as activly agressive to a system that they pushed for 8+ years.
I don't see any reason why any company would want to go 4E under these rules. Even if 4th is a really great system ( and it might though I'll never buy any of it) Anyone not on these boards or inside the industry who sees a D&D book will say that this is just another d20 custom system job.
I've told my group about some changes, they don't care. Only one guy has any core books. And the only question they asked me is what game do you want to play. I said 3.X they said fine. Which made me think, no kid, at age say 10-13 wakes up one day and decides I want to be a neard and play D&D then goes out and buys the core books and trys to put a group of players together. They get into it because a friend, or fireds older brother is palying a game. He doesn't see them as neards, most of them are not the neardy sterotype, and they get into it.
That's what happaned with me and Robotech, then I lead a Rifts game for 5 years. Its up to us to support 3.x and companies that use OGL. Not to kill 4th, it'll never happen, but to make sure 4th doesen't kill OGL and the freedom it repersents.
So:
OGL books (no D20 logo) are not affected (ie: Pathfinder, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Midnight Campaign Setting, etc).D20 books(with D20 logo) are affected (ie: Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc, etc)
Not exactly.
Books with the D20 logo are affected, but only to the extent that they can no longer be sold with the logo. Which is probably a minor issue for PDFs and a major blow to print products.Pure OGL products are completely unaffected. UNLESS the publisher decides to use the GSL, in which case these products must end (whether they ever bore the D20 logo or not). And I think that is what Wicht was referring to.
There does seem to be a faint hope that the GSL will come out and not be this draconian. But it is quite faint.
Sorry, I thought that was what I said. I read Firbolg's post as 'We may lose True20 and other game systems because D20 STL is changing.' I was clarifying the difference between D20 STL and OGL and that games like True20 use the OGL.
Provided publishers support the OGL, these game will not fall by the wayside.
Provided publishers support the OGL, these game will not fall by the wayside.
Correct, though as long as they support OGL, they will not bw able to produce anything under the GSL (without forfeiting their OGL license/products).
EDIT:
One question then comes to mind, should a company decide to follow the GSL and then go back to supporting OGL... Can they still resurrect their old OLG products that they gave up their previous OGL rights too?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Provided publishers support the OGL, these game will not fall by the wayside.Correct, though as long as they support OGL, they will not bw able to produce anything under the GSL (without forfeiting their OGL license/products).
EDIT:
One question then comes to mind, should a company decide to follow the GSL and then go back to supporting OGL... Can they still resurrect their old OLG products that they gave up their previous OGL rights too?
Interesting question, I don't think they can close the content (frex, if NG puts out ToH 4.x and I use the Aurmvourax from Toh 3.5) my auromvorax using adventure doesn't go poof.
If they di set it up that way, then they've figured out how to retroactively frak over everyone.
Here's the latest from Scott Rouse.
The answer is....
...we'll know more next Friday, maybe.
After all the uproar (and I personally feel that much of it *IS* justified), I'm not surprised that Scott is taking 2 weeks off from commenting on all this. I'm fairly certain that he is not responsible for this, that it is the orders from Hasbro's legal dept., but as WotC's D&D manager, he is going to be receiving the veritable s**t-storm that will be coming from the community. I feel sorry for him, especially since he's been incredibly helpful on the Star Wars board and other boards at their site.
Does it suck? Absolutely.
Is there anything Scott could do to change it? From the sounds of his posts on ENWorld, doubtful.
I, personally, am incredibly disappointed by the terms of the GSL, both in WotC and Hasbro.
Am I going to drop 4E for Pathfinder in its entirety because of this? Um, no, I've already stated both here and on WotC's boards that I intend to play both games. In fact, since I pre-paid for my 4E PHB-1, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I didn't play a game I've already spent money on.
But still, I cannot help but shake my head at Hasbro's short-sightedness over this.
The most recent post from Scott on that thread has him making clarifying posts tomorrow. Much sooner than the Friday after this Friday.
But can we expect those posts to really reveal anything?
I have tried to remain out of these discussions as much as possible, because my opinion is harsher than most want to read.
But if Scott Rouse is half of the professional as I think he should be to be brand manager, he should have been full aware of the scrutiny the news of the restrictiveness of the GSL would create.
By the time the announcement came last Thursday, he should have all the details he could share ready to go.
The fact that the details weren't ready, that Scott and Linea Foster were - essentially - caught off guard by the concern (backlash, if you will) over what their posts suggest, tells me not to expect too much from Monday's posts.
For the more sensitive readers, I am not bashing Scott Rouse or Linea Foster. I am not calling them names, or questioning their heritage. I am merely pointing out that the past performance does not instill confidence in me.
The fact that the details weren't ready, that Scott and Linea Foster were - essentially - caught off guard by the concern (backlash, if you will) over what their posts suggest, tells me not to expect too much from Monday's posts.
For the more sensitive readers, I am not bashing Scott Rouse or Linea Foster. I am not calling them names, or questioning their heritage. I am merely pointing out that the past performance does not instill confidence in me.
What I found confusing is that he mentions the time that he and Linea spent working on the GSL, but then mentions that he can't give specifics to some questions until he has it in front of him next week.
I guess it makes sense that others would have some work to do on it, but I guess I would assume that the non-lawyers working on it would get an idea of what they want to document to do, and then the lawyers' job would be to add any language needed to make it work the way the marketing/management types want it to.
In other words, why would it not work the way they wanted it to, and if that's the case, then why is it so hard to comment on exactly what the GSL was intended to do?
I guess to get back to your point, I agree, it doesn't make much sense to say anything if there is this degree of uncertainty about what the GSL actually does, unless they know exactly what it does, and were taken aback by people's reaction to it.
And if its this tricky to navigate the thing for the people that worked on it, is that a good endorsement for the third party folks that they want to adopt it?
The fact that the details weren't ready, that Scott and Linea Foster were - essentially - caught off guard by the concern (backlash, if you will) over what their posts suggest, tells me not to expect too much from Monday's posts.
For the more sensitive readers, I am not bashing Scott Rouse or Linea Foster. I am not calling them names, or questioning their heritage. I am merely pointing out that the past performance does not instill confidence in me.
What I found confusing is that he mentions the time that he and Linea spent working on the GSL, but then mentions that he can't give specifics to some questions until he has it in front of him next week.
I guess it makes sense that others would have some work to do on it, but I guess I would assume that the non-lawyers working on it would get an idea of what they want to document to do, and then the lawyers' job would be to add any language needed to make it work the way the marketing/management types want it to.
In other words, why would it not work the way they wanted it to, and if that's the case, then why is it so hard to comment on exactly what the GSL was intended to do?
I guess to get back to your point, I agree, it doesn't make much sense to say anything if there is this degree of uncertainty about what the GSL actually does, unless they know exactly what it does, and were taken aback by people's reaction to it.
And if its this tricky to navigate the thing for the people that worked on it, is that a good endorsement for the third party folks that they want to adopt it?
Because when they handed it over to the lawyers to turn into legalese, the phrasing the lawyers gave it *may* end up doing something that they themselves (Scott &/or Linea) may not have intended, perhaps? It does happen, especially if one or more "legal counsels" have orders from higher authorities than Scott to slip something in that they don't want...
Because when they handed it over to the lawyers to turn into legalese, the phrasing the lawyers gave it *may* end up doing something that they themselves (Scott &/or Linea) may not have intended, perhaps? It does happen, especially if one or more "legal counsels" have orders from higher authorities than Scott to slip something in that they don't want...
Well, that scenario is certainly possible - I would even say likely, it still doesn't help my opinion. And yes, you didn't ask for my opinion.
Here is the thing. WotC in general, and Scott Rouse in particular, should have known the scrutiny the GSL was going to receive. After all, the very question of what, exactly, the impact on third party publishers was asked. (Number 3 in the first post.)
That was even from the public at large. It doesn't take into account publisher inquiries.
That would tell me, if I was the brand manager, that nothing should be said until I was willing to withstand the scrutiny.
Well, they've been flatfooted when it comes to preparing for blowback for every major announcement: the magazine cancellations, the 4e announcement, and the licensing agreement. Not enough staff in general there, I suspect, and certainly not enough PR staff of the caliber needed for dealing with this level of upset. I suspect a lot of the time lately, the jobs of a lot of the people there are not much fun. My sympathy on that mark was helping me try to be patient with the things that bugged me for a while, but everybody's got limits.