Finally released - the 4E GSL ... and its impact on Paizo

[Pathos]

Disenchanter wrote:

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.

Especially after Rouse back pedaled and came forward with...

Ladies and Gents, I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands.
(empasis by me)

That alone says, to me, that despite their claims of working their "butts off", they still didn't know what their own GSL stated, or that it is even finished.

[SirUrza]

And all the upset will matter little because the same people upset will still run out and buy it on day 1 thus continuing to support the mangling of the game.

[Pathos]

SirUrza wrote:

And all the upset will matter little because the same people upset will still run out and buy it on day 1 thus continuing to support the mangling of the game.

Sadly that is how it will most likely go.

[DaveMage]

3pps also help to sustain the game.

I agree that the licensing will have minimal effect on initial 4E sales. But in years 2, 3, and beyond, it's the 3pps which may best help support the game.

I don't see the online Dungeon magazine + Wizard's own adventures supporting the game enough unless WotC changes it's adventure strategy and releases more.

3PPs can help them pick up the slack. (Not to mention add a significant creative element.)

A whole lot of my love for 3E comes from outside WotC products. If there were no Paizo, Bastion Press, Necromancer, Malhavoc, AEG, Green Ronin, and Goodman that supported it, then 3E would be a lot less appealing, IMO.

[Andrew Turner]

DaveMage wrote:

...A whole lot of my love for 3E comes from outside WotC products. If there were no Paizo, Bastion Press, Necromancer, Malhavoc, AEG, Green Ronin, and Goodman that supported it, then 3E would be a lot less appealing, IMO.

Same here. A couple years ago I was not really very interested in 3E, and I played with an older group who enjoyed my mix of 1st and 2nd Editions. It was actually d20 Cthulhu that pointed me toward 3E.

[Kamelion]

DaveMage wrote:

A whole lot of my love for 3E comes from outside WotC products. If there were no Paizo, Bastion Press, Necromancer, Malhavoc, AEG, Green Ronin, and Goodman that supported it, then 3E would be a lot less appealing, IMO.

No doubt about it. For my part, the best stuff from the 3e era came from third-parties and not from WotC. Paizo is an obvious example of top-of-the-tree excellence, as are things like Ptolus, Complete Book of Eldritch Might, Arcana Evolved and the like from Malhavoc, Book of the Righteous and Book of Fiends from Green Ronin, Toolbox from AEG, Rappan Athuk, Wilderlands, Tomes of Horrors, Book of Artifacts and umpteen awesome adventures from Necro. WotC has struggled to equal those products in quality or imagination. And where it has managed to do so, more often than not, it has been through freelancers from those companies. There have been exceptions, for sure (Unearthed Arcana springs immediately to mind) but I have been struck by the sheer brilliance and innovation coming from the third parties.

I can understand the business argument for why WotC have taken this approach with the GSL, but there is more to life than that, and certainly more to the gaming community than that. WotC's decision, simply put, lacks soul. Sure, it's hard to quantify things like "soul" but you sure as hell know when they're missing. Some folks may say that "soul" has no place in business. But then, I'm not in business. I'm a gamer, and it very much has a place in my decision making process. Maybe the folks in business don't need to take that into account. But then again, maybe they do.

It's easy to say "well, without WotC there would be no open gaming." (It's not strictly true, but I can understand the sentiment.) However, what we need to remember is that the WotC that instituted the OGL is not the same company that we have today, nor does it have the same folks at the helm. Those fine fellows who gave us the OGL had soul. But they are gone now, and we are dealing with a different crew who have different motivations.

Despite claims to the contrary, TSR did espouse a certain degree of open gaming back in the day. Judges Guild had a license to print D&D materials, as even Mayfair games were allowed to release compatible material for a while. Over time, though, TSR shut down opportunities like that and became increasingly litigous - an attitude that notoriously backfired on them.

I dunno. There's just something about the exclusivity terms of the GSL that feels crappy to me. Yeah, that's an emotive term and not based in anything firm. I can't quite put my finger on it. It just seems churlish to restrict what your fellow publishers can produce if they want to use your license. Surely market forces would be enough to decide whether competing products can stand on their own merits or not? The approach of the GSL? Crappy. No soul.

Just my two unfocused, emotive, non-business pennies...

[Robert Hawkshaw]

An article about the gsl made the front page of slashdot.

[Archade]

Kamelion wrote:

I can understand the business argument for why WotC have taken this approach with the GSL, but there is more to life than that, and certainly more to the gaming community than that. WotC's decision, simply put, lacks soul. Sure, it's hard to quantify things like "soul" but you sure as hell know when they're missing. Some folks may say that "soul" has no place in business. But then, I'm not in business. I'm a gamer, and it very much has a place in my decision making process. Maybe the folks in business don't need to take that into account. But then again, maybe they do.

Okay, instead of the term 'soul', how about the original OGL was 'inclusive of the community'. From our community, many people were discovered as game designers, authors, and contributors. The results of being inclusive of the community have been phenomenal, from the small PDF companies that put out interesting supplements to Keith Baker's Eberron setting. And it made the customer base happy.

Let's face it, how many of us are thrilled to be playtesting Pathfinder? A lot of us. We're not getting paid in anything other than the right to voice our opinion, and if we're lucky, some small credit in the inside dust page. In exchange, we're offering hundreds of hours of our collective time, a great deal of emotion and energy, and we feel good about the project, because we are working on this as a community.

I'm saddened that we don't have that community feeling with WOTC any more. I remember when I first started playing, I could jump over to Andy Collins or Sean Reynold's boards and complain what my PCs did with their darn Quaal's Tree Tokens, or ask how a rule could be interpreted, and get almost instantaneous feedback from the designers who worked at WOTC. Those were good times.

[chopswil]

If 4E is so good and cool, why do they have to force people to stop using/writing/supporting 3.5?

[DudeMonkey]

chopswil wrote:

If 4E is so good and cool, why do they have to force people to stop using/writing/supporting 3.5?

They're not. At the end of the day, it's their property and their license. They've said that they're willing to "fire their customers" and they're backing that statement up. WotC is a business and they are responsible to Hasbro and Hasbro's shareholders ... not us. They believe this to be the way that's going to maximize their profits, which is the reason the company exists at this point.

Getting upset over this is like getting upset at the tree that fell on your car during a lightning storm (RIP, my black 87 Mustang). It's just the way it is and sometimes you have no control over the way things happen. Yeah, it sucks but what are you going to do? The success of 4th edition is likely. The success of PRPG is likely.

WotC is going after the largest audience possible, as well they should. We don't all have to go along and we can enjoy PRPG for many, many years to come. Paizo is showing responsible business sense and they're moving into a position as the market leader in OGL content.

[Kamelion]

Archade wrote:

Kamelion wrote:

I can understand the business argument for why WotC have taken this approach with the GSL, but there is more to life than that, and certainly more to the gaming community than that. WotC's decision, simply put, lacks soul. Sure, it's hard to quantify things like "soul" but you sure as hell know when they're missing. Some folks may say that "soul" has no place in business. But then, I'm not in business. I'm a gamer, and it very much has a place in my decision making process. Maybe the folks in business don't need to take that into account. But then again, maybe they do.

Okay, instead of the term 'soul', how about the original OGL was 'inclusive of the community'. From our community, many people were discovered as game designers, authors, and contributors. The results of being inclusive of the community have been phenomenal, from the small PDF companies that put out interesting supplements to Keith Baker's Eberron setting. And it made the customer base happy.

Let's face it, how many of us are thrilled to be playtesting Pathfinder? A lot of us. We're not getting paid in anything other than the right to voice our opinion, and if we're lucky, some small credit in the inside dust page. In exchange, we're offering hundreds of hours of our collective time, a great deal of emotion and energy, and we feel good about the project, because we are working on this as a community.

I'm saddened that we don't have that community feeling with WOTC any more. I remember when I first started playing, I could jump over to Andy Collins or Sean Reynold's boards and complain what my PCs did with their darn Quaal's Tree Tokens, or ask how a rule could be interpreted, and get almost instantaneous feedback from the designers who worked at WOTC. Those were good times.

Well said. I get that it's something of a trope on the internet at the moment to take the "it's their business and their license" approach. But community - from my perspective at least - is far more important. Sure, you have to pay attention to your bottom line, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. The ogl seemed to me to get that balance right for the most part. I have the feeling that the community will be poorer for the appearance of the gsl. Time will tell though, and I'll happily eat my words if proven wrong. They're such tasty words, after all... ;-)

[Kamelion]

DudeMonkey wrote:

Kamelion wrote:

Well said. I get that it's something of a trope on the internet at the moment to take the "it's their business and their license" approach. But community - from my perspective at least - is far...

The GSL is WotC's business and WotC's license. That's the reality of the situation. To call it a trope is not correct. Because it's the reality of the situation, accepting it is really the only option.

I'm not happy about it, either, but to imply that it's only figurative is hiding from the truth.

Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I'm not suggesting that it's merely figurative. I'm suggesting that it's an argument that has gained popularity in recent times and propagated across gaming boards. My point is that there is more to the issue than the fact of who owns the license. As pointed out above, the feelings of and impact upon the community are also a factor in the way the gsl is perceived and received. You are correct that we have to accept the reality of the situation, but that is not the only option, as Paizo have shown :)

(Edit: Did you just delete your post or did goblins eat it? Not seeing it now...)

[DudeMonkey]

Kamelion wrote:

DudeMonkey wrote:

Kamelion wrote:

Well said. I get that it's something of a trope on the internet at the moment to take the "it's their business and their license" approach. But community - from my perspective at least - is far...

The GSL is WotC's business and WotC's license. That's the reality of the situation. To call it a trope is not correct. Because it's the reality of the situation, accepting it is really the only option.

I'm not happy about it, either, but to imply that it's only figurative is hiding from the truth.

Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I'm not suggesting that it's merely figurative. I'm suggesting that it's an argument that has gained popularity in recent times and propagated across gaming boards. My point is that there is more to the issue than the fact of who owns the license. As pointed out above, the feelings of and impact upon the community are also a factor in the way the gsl is perceived and received. You are correct that we have to accept the reality of the situation, but that is not the only option, as Paizo have shown :)

(Edit: Did you just delete your post or did goblins eat it? Not seeing it now...)

haha. I deleted it because I was afraid it came off sounding too confrontational and there's been too much of that lately. You busted me, though.

I think there IS a sense going around that "this is WotC's business" and I think that's a good sense to have. Paizo is definitely giving people an alternative, but it's time to accept the reality that WotC is likely to partition the community. Sad day for the hobby.

[Kamelion]

DudeMonkey wrote:

haha. I deleted it because I was afraid it came off sounding too confrontational and there's been too much of that lately. You busted me, though.

I was hovering at the keyboard like a hawk, just waiting to pounce on any rebuttal you might make, so I replied before you deleted it ;-)

(Just kidding - your tone was clear and sensible - no confrontation perceived here :-)...)

DudeMonkey wrote:

I think there IS a sense going around that "this is WotC's business" and I think that's a good sense to have. Paizo is definitely giving people an alternative, but it's time to accept the reality that WotC is likely to partition the community. Sad day for the hobby.

Agreed on all points. I just feel that - purely from the side of the customer - there is more to it than the demands of business. I guess that's the luxury of being a customer: we get to make our decisions based on other criteria than WotC's bottom line.

[DeadDMWalking]

The article from 4/17 on the WOTC website doesn't say anything about the choice between OGL (3.5) and GSL (4.0). Where is the actual GSL available to review?

Where does the confirmation about an either/or situation come from?

[DMFTodd]

DeadDMWalking wrote:

The article from 4/17 on the WOTC website doesn't say anything about the choice between OGL (3.5) and GSL (4.0). Where is the actual GSL available to review?

Where does the confirmation about an either/or situation come from?

The actual GSL has not been released. The either/or comment comes from Clark Peterson (Necromancer) and his conversations with WotC. Scott/Linae (WotC) comments also sound that way. All of those threads are over on ENWorld. Check the 4E GSL thread in the 4E forum for a link to those threads.

[Charles Evans 25]

DeadDMWalking wrote:

The article from 4/17 on the WOTC website doesn't say anything about the choice between OGL (3.5) and GSL (4.0). Where is the actual GSL available to review?

Where does the confirmation about an either/or situation come from?

There is a thread on ENWorld, where the owner of Necromancer Games, posting as 'Orcus' vents some of his frustration over private telephone conversations he has been having with WotC/Hasbro employees about the forthcoming GSL. Will link the thread shortly....

Edit:
Scooped by DMFTodd!
Link here: Anyway: *LINK*
Be warned, it extends to 27 or so pages as of the time of my posting this. Scrolling through the thread, Orcus' comments are easy to pick out by his readily identifiable avatar.

[Kamelion]

DeadDMWalking wrote:

The article from 4/17 on the WOTC website doesn't say anything about the choice between OGL (3.5) and GSL (4.0). Where is the actual GSL available to review?

Where does the confirmation about an either/or situation come from?

There's an enormous thread on Enworld about it, with various parties from WotC and elsewhere weighing in. This page has some of the meat:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224085&page=4&pp=30
Post #99 from Scott Rouse covers the heart of the matter.

I'd love it if the community is overblowing this. It occured to me that maybe the license actually says that you can't make gsl and ogl versions of the same product from the same company (ie. no ogl version of "Book of Dire Monkeys" and also a gsl version of "Book of Dire Monkeys" from the same company) but differing products are ok. But I don't think that is what is going on. Oh well.

[SSquirrel]

The person who is quoted in that slashdot article had posted to the slashdot gaming area and apparently got moved to the front page. His claims " WotC has said" are all basically false as no direct confirmation of pretty much any of that exists at this time. I have a post on that thread (#263 I think, I'm SSquirrel there too) that has the various turning points in commentary between when Orcus made his initial statement of his current understanding, Rouse post #99 and Linae posting another clarification as well.

ENWorld has drafted a long list of 18 questions (mostly w/subquestions) and dropped them to Scott to get answered. This set of answers should cover all the ins and outs of things as they have been discussed in that monster thread.

I really think it's terrible that the article made it to slashdot w/o being labeled as rumor. I should also mentioned that the poster who did that has the same name on ENWorld and was booted out the thread this morning for excessive continual rudeness. Definitely appears to be some sour grapes involved here. Also his analogy is terrible. A more accurate analogy would be saying that if you produce software for Vista you cannot produce software for XP anymore. Hasbro's control fo WotC is also labeled "(a recent development likely not unrelated to this change of heart)". Of course, Hasbro owned WotC prior to 3E even being released, so not that recent.

[Cranus]

I don't think Hasbro owned WOTC before 3rd edition came out cause I remember reading the news on ENWorld after it switched to that name. Honestly, I seriously doubt Hasbro would ever have allowed the OGL.

[Ernest Mueller]

Ah ah, no wandering about slandering me squirrel. Don't like my analogies, go post your own. (Hi all, I am mxyzplk on various other boards.)

Anyway, people are welcome to read the ENWorld thread linked from my post and judge from themselves. My post links to original documentation including the ENWorld thread with all the relevant posts from Orcus (Clark Peterson, head of Necromancer Games and a lawyer), Scott_Rouse (Scott Rouse, D&D Brand Manager) and Lurkinglidda (Linae Foster, D&D Licensing Manager).

Scott and Lidda specifically said that the GSL had OGL limitations, without details on what those were exactly. Then Clark had a very specific phone conversation with WotC asking about the GSL and its restrictions, to which he was told that at a company level, not just at a product or product line level - you do OGL, you don't get the GSL. Later in the same thread, Scott and Linae do not explicitly say "What Clark was told is the case" - but they don't contradict it, and make a couple "well, that's a hard business decision for you all then" comments.

No, Wizards hasn't publicly confirmed that yet. In fact, Wizards has been promising the GSL for a long time now and hasn't shown it or spoken in any detail about its contents. I think they'd be very comfortable waiting until well after 4e's out and people have bought the books to finally reveal it.

And sure, Clark could have had a miscommunication error with WotC. But, as he's both a lawyer and using the info to make decisions about his company's future, I'd think the discussion would have been fairly explicit, and any "that's not finalized yet" would have caused him to hold off. He's going 4e pure-play so its not like he has anything to gain by misleading us; in fact he's gone out of his way to defend Wizards and Scott/Linae. Clark Petersen: "But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried." His solution was to do 4e through Necro and OGL through Paizo, which WotC OK'ed.

As a result, I believe this information to be reliable, and I reported it with attribution in compliance with usual journalistic ethics on sources. A rumor lacks attribution to a primary source, so in this case it's not a rumor.

http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/wizards-of-the-coast-declares-war-o n-open-gaming/

Clark's statement: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51

Scott Rouse's reply once the fur started to fly: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99

Another bonus Rouse quote: "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(...)" The implication here of OGL vs GSL on a company-wide basis seems pretty clear.

And Linae's response:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173195&postcount=127

Scott and Linae posted a bunch of times after this, studiously avoiding the big question.

So, I think everyone can read and judge for themselves; I'm not going to get into point by point sniping with you. ENWorld sent in their questions to WotC and we're supposed to be hearing something in 2-4 business days. We'll see.

[TigerDave]

SSquirrel wrote:

The person who is quoted in that slashdot article had posted to the slashdot gaming area and apparently got moved to the front page.

<snippage>
I really think it's terrible that the article made it to slashdot w/o being labeled as rumor.

Yeah - I'm still trying to clean the coffee off of my monitor that I spewed when I read that. I was stunned to say the least that someone upgraded mere speculation to factual news. I just hope various voices of reason were able to slap that one back down into the sewer - I had to go to work and couldn't do so myself.

One thing that struck me odd: "Paizo declared their intent ..." Paizo declared their intent a month ago, before the GSL in its current suppositional state was revealed. What is also interesting is that it paints Paizo in a confrontational position AGAINST WotC and 4E, which for the life of me I cannot begin to balance with this snippet from Eric Mona's post on 18 March:

We know that many of our readers are looking forward to 4th Edition. We still plan to release an entire line of 4th Edition products through our partnership with Necromancer Games, including a brand new Tome of Horrors hardcover monster anthology, adventures, and other exciting products. (Much of this support will depend, of course, upon the terms of the still-in-development Game System License from Wizards of the Coast, but we remain hopeful that Paizo will be a major player in the 4th Edition arena as well.) But we believe that the 3.5 rules provide the best core system for our Pathfinder products, best allowing us to tell the kinds of stories you've come to expect from us.

No "in your face" slandering intended at all here, but the slashdot left so much out of context as to paint a really skewed picture of what is actually happening.

Cranus wrote:

I don't think Hasbro owned WOTC before 3rd edition came out cause I remember reading the news on ENWorld after it switched to that name. Honestly, I seriously doubt Hasbro would ever have allowed the OGL.

I believe it was September 1999 that WotC and Hasbro completed the sale. And, it was in 2000 when 3d Edition released (at work and can't find the exact date information right now). Chances are high that the wheels in motion concerning the OGL were already rolling too fast for Hasbro to halt at that point.

[Ernest Mueller]

A rough timeline.

April 10, 1997
Wizards declares its intent to buy TSR
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/1997/04/07/daily13.html

Sept. 11, 1999
Hasbro declares intent to buy Wizards
http://boardgames.about.com/library/news/bl990911.htm

March 9, 2000
Dancey does interviews about the planned OGL
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e

August 10, 2000
D&D Third Edition premiers at Gen Con (Death in Freeport, too!)
OGL/SRD published

Dec 16, 2000
Layoffs at Wizards, Peter Adkison leaves WotC
http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Topic/1078455581100_Wizards_of_the_Coast_Reorganiz ation_.html

Sep 5, 2002
Wizards layoffs - http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=5248

2003 sometime
3.5e released

And the more recent dates for 4e etc.

[TigerDave]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

August 10, 2000

D&D Third Edition premiers at Gen Con (Death in Freeport, too!)
OGL/SRD published

Dec 16, 2000
Layoffs at Wizards, Peter Adkison leaves WotC
http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Topic/1078455581100_Wizards_of_the_Coast_Reorganiz ation_.html

Man - that is shocking. 4 months and then ... "Let the firings begin!" Still, I guess it really is in line with a new company having taken the reins, evaluating the business, and then realigning that business in accordance with the larger company plan, but wow - that had to be harsh ... I remember some of it, but truth be told I was working larger issues at that point and wasn't really in tune with what was happening with gaming overall.

[Disenchanter]

For those keeping up on this:

Here is Scott Rouse's latest post on the subject.

Scott Rouse wrote:

Hey,

Just want to let you know I have not forgotten about this. It's almost midnight here at GAMA and I just got back from eating diner.

Today was a little nuts. Got up at 6am, drove to SeaTac airport for a 9am flight to Vegas. Talked to a couple people at the office about the GSL before the flight, worked on my 4e presentation on the plane. Landed at 11:30, cabs line at the airport and check-in lines at the hotel (no your room is not ready yet) and it is now 12:30. Grab lunch and then head up to the Skyview room to set up the WotC meet and greet. Meet and greet with retailers from 3-5:30. Talk with Linae around 5:30 about the GSL then break down the room. 6pm down to the lobby, got my room! Up to my room, track down Jesse Decker to get my bag from his room. 6:30 have my bags and my room, call the family and say goodnight to the kids. Change into jeans and a clean shirt, in the lobby at 7:30 o go to dinner. 12 am back at the room holy crap where did my day go?

Needless to say my day was busy, I don't have anything new to add. Aside from being here (and 8 hours of meetings tomorrow) this is my number 1 priority. As soon as I have something I'll let you know.

Hang in there!

[SirUrza]

Slashdot isn't exactly unbiased in the way they present information on there site.

[Prime Evil]

SirUrza wrote:

Slashdot isn't exactly unbiased in the way they present information on there site.

I love this piece of understatement.

Just for fun, try posting a comment on Slashdot to the effect that "Windows must be a good operating system because so many people use it in the real world."

It's guaranteed to provoke an instant flame war every time.

(Disclaimer: I work as a Linux sysadmin. So there.)

[Ernest Mueller]

TigerDave wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

August 10, 2000

D&D Third Edition premiers at Gen Con (Death in Freeport, too!)
OGL/SRD published

Dec 16, 2000
Layoffs at Wizards, Peter Adkison leaves WotC
http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Topic/1078455581100_Wizards_of_the_Coast_Reorganiz ation_.html

Man - that is shocking. 4 months and then ... "Let the firings begin!" Still, I guess it really is in line with a new company having taken the reins, evaluating the business, and then realigning that business in accordance with the larger company plan, but wow - that had to be harsh ... I remember some of it, but truth be told I was working larger issues at that point and wasn't really in tune with what was happening with gaming overall.

Well, especially in light of their huge success with 3e. "We launched 3e! It's doing gangbusters! You're outa here!" "Whatchou talking about Willis!?!"

Hmmm. You know - maybe bringing all the other stuff "back in house" - Dragon, Dungeon, all the licenses - is actually a WotC staff play to avoid Hasbro-mandated layoffs this time - you ramp up for 4e, you lay off half right after; exactly what Dell and other companies do unashamedly. But now they can say "But look at all this stuff we need someone to deal with! Dragon! Dungeon! DDI! Dragonlance! Et cetera!"

Corporate politics often produce results that seem... confusing from a normal profit motive point of view, and when you have sub-companies within a company it gets way worse. You get faced with "What am I really, personally on the hook for?" as a decision point for internal managers. Is it really "make a great 4e?" Raising profits generally? Showing reduced costs to my Hasbro "handler?" Meeting some goals on my performance review? Not annoying the company lawyers?

[SSquirrel]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Ah ah, no wandering about slandering me squirrel. Don't like my analogies, go post your own. (Hi all, I am mxyzplk on various other boards.)

Actually slander is spoken, libel is print. Conveniently, that's both the truth and a quote of the first Spider Man movie ;) It isn't libel either, someone in the other thread linked to where you submitted that article on slashdot. Oops!

[Andre Caceres]

On the issue of PDF's, do you guys think that if say FFG for example says no to 4th and wants to still sell pdf's of L&L, Dragonstar or even Midnight, which I think is still in production as of this writing, can they with the loss of D20 logo? If so could they just slap a ogl logo on the PDF files as a "new edtion" of classic stuff. The reason I'm asking is one of the really big selling points for Pathfinder, which is hopefully going to be the rallying point for OGL 3.x, is that older stuff, printed or otherwise is out there for me. If I don't want Midnight 4th, but don't have all old Midnight, well that hurts Pathfinder. Maybe not greatly, but it hurts one of the stated goals.

P.S. instead of OGL 3.5 logo maybe it should be F4th, kinda like G4tv but differnt.