PDA

View Full Version : Wizards to Revise 4E GSL/SRD



Glawackus
2008-08-11, 04:46 PM
Clickity click! (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811)



“We recognize the important role third party publishing support plays in the success of the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. We have listened to the community and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart. Our commitment to the health of the industry and hobby gaming lifestyle is reflected in the revisions to the Game System License.”


So I guess something's coming down the pipeline...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-08-11, 04:48 PM
Interesting to see how accommodating they will be.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-11, 04:49 PM
Well, this is unexpected.

Lochar
2008-08-11, 04:50 PM
Yes, instead of referencing page numbers, we will now let you reference specific paragraphs on those pages.

Please note, we still do not want you to quote specific items from said paragraphs.

Blackdrop
2008-08-11, 05:34 PM
I seriously hope your joking Lochar.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-11, 05:51 PM
What about the "we can force you to burn all your books for no reason" clause?

Lord Herman
2008-08-11, 05:54 PM
I seriously hope your joking Lochar.

He is. Wizards hasn't released any information about the new licence yet.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-11, 07:11 PM
What about the "we can force you to burn all your books for no reason" clause?

I would be surprised if that stays in there. It's the biggest problem from a business point of view.

cybosage
2008-08-11, 08:47 PM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't see it though...

EDIT*

BAH! I need to learn to read, mods, please delete.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-11, 09:02 PM
Interesting link with the promise of more to come. I will infer that 4E sales has fallen short of expectations despite the official PR to the contrary.

holywhippet
2008-08-11, 11:08 PM
Interesting link with the promise of more to come. I will infer that 4E sales has fallen short of expectations despite the official PR to the contrary.

I can't see how that could be possible. They were looking at doing a second printing just after the initial release came out.

Colmarr
2008-08-11, 11:21 PM
I think this is interesting, but it's certainly impossible at the moment to use the announcement as some form of Chicken Little about 4e failing.

As a friend of mine pointed out, a lot of the third party material for 3e was rubbish. It will be interesting to see whether 4e follows that road or whether WotC can exercise some form of quality control/censorship.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-11, 11:24 PM
I think this is interesting, but it's certainly impossible at the moment to use the announcement as some form of Chicken Little about 4e failing.

As a friend of mine pointed out, a lot of the third party material for 3e was rubbish. It will be interesting to see whether 4e follows that road or whether WotC can exercise some form of quality control/censorship.

A lot of the first party material for 3E was rubbish, too. And second party (that being homebrew, I guess).

Colmarr
2008-08-11, 11:29 PM
A lot of the first party material for 3E was rubbish, too.

Actually, my take on it would be that there was a steady decline in the quality of material released by WotC as the 3e product cycle continued and they ran out of ideas to publish (with some exceptions).

EDIT: For example, the 'Complete' books strike me as more useful and higher "quality" than the 'Races of' books.

Conversely, right from the very beginning, third party publishing was a very hit-and-miss affair.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-11, 11:47 PM
Actually, my take on it would be that there was a steady decline in the quality of material released by WotC as the 3e product cycle continued and they ran out of ideas to publish (with some exceptions).

EDIT: For example, the 'Complete' books strike me as more useful and higher "quality" than the 'Races of' books.

Conversely, right from the very beginning, third party publishing was a very hit-and-miss affair.Compare Complete Champion to Races of the Wild. And how much good came out of Complete Warrior? Heck, PHB. WotC has been poor ever since the start of 3.0, and hasn't improved since. It's always been hit-or-miss.

Reinboom
2008-08-11, 11:53 PM
Compare Complete Champion to Races of the Wild. And how much good came out of Complete Warrior? Heck, PHB. WotC has been poor ever since the start of 3.0, and hasn't improved since. It's always been hit-or-miss.

Tome of Battle? Hit.
Complete Champion? I consider complete jargon. Either overpowered or useless.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-11, 11:57 PM
Actually, my take on it would be that there was a steady decline in the quality of material released by WotC as the 3e product cycle continued and they ran out of ideas to publish (with some exceptions).

EDIT: For example, the 'Complete' books strike me as more useful and higher "quality" than the 'Races of' books.

Conversely, right from the very beginning, third party publishing was a very hit-and-miss affair.

This isn't really true. Complete Divine is pretty bad and it was early-ish. Meanwhile, there are a lot of late greats like the PHB II, Tome of Battle, and Magic Item Compendium.

AstralFire
2008-08-12, 12:21 AM
I actually think for the most part 3E got its best books right at the end of its life. XPH is the earliest book out of the -entire- 3E set that I enjoyed and up until it came out, I was playing D&D because my friends played D&D and if any of them had played White Wolf or GURPS or something I might have jumped ship.

XPH, CW (kinda obsoleted, but good when it came out), CAdv, PHB II, ToB, C Scoundrel, C Arcane, Races of Stone, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, Tome of Magic, Unearthed Arcana. Those are probably my pick of the 3E books, and I think the tilt of them is to late 3E.

Colmarr
2008-08-12, 12:39 AM
This isn't really true. Complete Divine is pretty bad and it was early-ish. Meanwhile, there are a lot of late greats like the PHB II, Tome of Battle, and Magic Item Compendium.

The three "good" books you mention are close to 4e "prequels" and as such sit a little uncomfortably in a 3e spectrum. I should have been clearer that I did not mean to include those books in my statement.

But yes, I admitted that there were exceptions to my generalisation.

Colmarr
2008-08-12, 12:44 AM
Races of Stone... Those are probably my pick of the 3E books, and I think the tilt of them is to late 3E.

I was extremely disappointed by Races of Stone. The PrCs seemed too niche to me and the new races (especially the whisper gnome and the goliath) seemed to yell "oh crap, we need to find something cool!".

Just goes to show that "quality" is a subjective measure, I guess.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 12:52 AM
Man, as far as I am concerned, Whisper Gnomes are the ONLY gnomes.

skywalker
2008-08-12, 01:12 AM
The three "good" books you mention are close to 4e "prequels" and as such sit a little uncomfortably in a 3e spectrum. I should have been clearer that I did not mean to include those books in my statement.

But yes, I admitted that there were exceptions to my generalisation.

I'm of the opinion that MIC and PHB 2 were both firmly 3.5 product. Of course ToB was a 4e test, but I'm curious what you meant about the first two. Are you talking about MIC items having charges?

3.5 ran from July 2003, until (IMO) the release of MMV, which was July 2007(all the stuff that came after was crap or cheap ca$h-in. Correct me if you think otherwise. This makes 2006-2007 the "late period" of 3.5, again IMO.

Three great 3.5 inventions: Skill Tricks, Luck Feats, and Reserve Feats all came out of later product.

Something I just realized, looking at the chronological release list, does anyone else think Tome of Magic might have been a tester for new magic systems, just like Tome of Battle?

The New Bruceski
2008-08-12, 01:29 AM
Something I just realized, looking at the chronological release list, does anyone else think Tome of Magic might have been a tester for new magic systems, just like Tome of Battle?

I've actually still got my 2nd ed ToM and PO:Spells and Magic, though I'm missing the other books. What I don't have is recollection of how magic changed between AD&D and 3rd Edition. Can you give me hints what to look for?

EDIT: Oh wait, there was a 3e Tome of Magic too...

Colmarr
2008-08-12, 01:31 AM
I'm of the opinion that MIC and PHB 2 were both firmly 3.5 product. Of course ToB was a 4e test, but I'm curious what you meant about the first two. Are you talking about MIC items having charges?

Officially they are both 3.5 books, but they are both pretty revolutionary in some respects and are clear precursors to the new direction 4e would take the game (specifically the re-costing of items according to usefulness and the preponderancy of items with "uses" but not "finite charges" in MIC and the reserve feats and character "builds" and a defender class in PHB 2). As such, when discussing quality of "3e" products, they sit a little uncertainly in the debate.


Three great 3.5 inventions: Skill Tricks, Luck Feats, and Reserve Feats all came out of later product.

I've addressed reserve feats above, but in relation to the others I only note that I was referring to "books in general" rather than "specific ideas in books". In other words "Complete Warrior" vs "Races of Stone" rather than "Relics vs Skill tricks". There's no doubt that there were some great ideas in some of the later books and some stinkers in earlier ones, but by and large in my (likely ignorant and ill-informed) opinion most of those ideas only surfaced once WotC started to experiment with ways to dump 3e. As such, they're not really 3e products.


Something I just realized, looking at the chronological release list, does anyone else think Tome of Magic might have been a tester for new magic systems, just like Tome of Battle?

Short answer? Yes.

tyckspoon
2008-08-12, 01:32 AM
Something I just realized, looking at the chronological release list, does anyone else think Tome of Magic might have been a tester for new magic systems, just like Tome of Battle?

I've no doubt about it. I'm pretty sure that between the two books the Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle were meant to present a kind of alternate set of core base classes that responded to the identified problems in the system. Martial classes are mechanically weak and somewhat dull to play: Tome of Battle gives them a more varied and powerful set of options to choose from. Magical classes have too much power and variety in their spells, but at the same time don't actually feel magical (thanks to too easy casting or whatever your favored complaint may be): Tome of Magic introduces more limited casters who also have some of the better default fluff I've seen in 3.5. They just significantly overshot the mark while trying to rebalance Magic, so while Battle has a pretty good adoption rate the other half of the project is largely ignored by the gaming public.

Crow
2008-08-12, 01:37 AM
Short answer? Yes.

Unfortunately, most everyone who received Tome of Magic did so under the shadow of the already-exising magic system. It really would have stood a better chance had they been released in more of a "vacuum". Then there was the lack of support (other than what was in that book) which really did it in (Bear in mind the massive amount of material available for the standard magic system at this point). I thought some of the material in that book was pretty good conceptually...though some of it needed some tuning.

I think one of the reasons ToB did so well was that there really wasn't much "competition" within the system. ToB's biggest competitor was "I close in and full-attack".

celestialkin
2008-08-12, 01:51 AM
Dammit. I feel like crying right now.

Now those companies who were going to continue 3.5 won't have a reason too anymore.

Colmarr
2008-08-12, 01:52 AM
Stuff

Not sure why you quoted me, but I agree entirely with what you said.

When a gamer can already be Batman, why would they be interested in checking out Green Lantern?

Conversely, when ToB released, melee players were forced to be either Robin (Rogues and rangers) or Chewbacca (fighter, paladin and barbarian).

celestialkin
2008-08-12, 02:16 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811

I was hoping WotC's greed would allow for something similar to what happened with the PS3 vs the PS2 to happen with 3.5, but sadly they killed it off before it could happen.

Now that 3rd-party publishers don't need to keep publishing 3.5 material, I doubt any will.



p.s. Can anyone please tell me what the story behind the "fan site" mention is? Is it something akin to the 2.0 owner woman sending halt-and-decease letters and such for the slightest homemade thing created by fans? If so, is history repeating itself?

DrowVampyre
2008-08-12, 02:46 AM
Don't count 3.5/OGL out yet. They may be coming up with a revised GSL, but we don't have any details on it yet, and I have every faith that WotC will manage to screw it up almost as badly as the original.

If you want to keep 3.5/OGL products in development though. I urge you to buy Pathfinder...it's just my opinion, but I believe that other publishers will be looking to Paizo to see how the market will stand for it. If Pathfinder really takes off, more OGL stuff will be developed. If no one wants to buy it (which I doubt, but more's always better), then they'll decide there's no market left and go somewhere else, be it 4e or an/other system/s entirely.

only1doug
2008-08-12, 03:44 AM
I would be surprised if that stays in there. It's the biggest problem from a business point of view.

And yet I know why they put it in, in fact the entire License issue was due to the SRD making the Players handbook an unnecessary purchase.

for Wizards this has to be a bad proposition: we write the game and other people profit from publishing it. (one of my group has a 3rd party published version of the 3.5 Players handbook)

So yes Wizards will be much more careful about the wording of the License this time.

bosssmiley
2008-08-12, 03:46 AM
So it turns out that 3rd party manufacturers saw the GSL Kool Aid for what it was, rejected it, and WOTC have had to remove the more egregious clauses. No major surprise there. :smallamused:

To be honest though, even a revised GSL won't knell [portentous voice] the death of 3E [/portentous voice]. A section of the third party manufacturers seem to have realised that there's actually money to be made catering to the long tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail) of gamers who won't make the jump to 4E in the foreseeable future. They might - like Paizo - decide to wedge themselves into the 1,000 True Fans (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) niche; rather than go for broad mass appeal.

May FSM bless the distributed marketing potential of the Internet.

celestialkin
2008-08-12, 04:03 AM
Don't count 3.5/OGL out yet. They may be coming up with a revised GSL, but we don't have any details on it yet, and I have every faith that WotC will manage to screw it up almost as badly as the original.

If you want to keep 3.5/OGL products in development though. I urge you to buy Pathfinder...it's just my opinion, but I believe that other publishers will be looking to Paizo to see how the market will stand for it. If Pathfinder really takes off, more OGL stuff will be developed. If no one wants to buy it (which I doubt, but more's always better), then they'll decide there's no market left and go somewhere else, be it 4e or an/other system/s entirely.

Will do!



So it turns out that 3rd party manufacturers saw the GSL Kool Aid for what it was, rejected it, and WOTC have had to remove the more egregious clauses. No major surprise there. :smallamused:

To be honest though, even a revised GSL won't knell [portentous voice] the death of 3E [/portentous voice]. A section of the third party manufacturers seem to have realised that there's actually money to be made catering to the long tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail) of gamers who won't make the jump to 4E in the foreseeable future. They might - like Paizo - decide to wedge themselves into the 1,000 True Fans (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) niche; rather than go for broad mass appeal.

May FSM bless the distributed marketing potential of the Internet.

That is some pretty interesting information.

However, as a non-economics/business major I did not completely understand it. Does that mean that all "long-tail" markets/niches are destined to be short-lived?

Riffington
2008-08-12, 05:18 AM
However, as a non-economics/business major I did not completely understand it. Does that mean that all "long-tail" markets/niches are destined to be short-lived?

All markets are in some sense short-lived. However, long-tail markets are in some ways less vulnerable than others due to their diversity.

Duke of URL
2008-08-12, 08:07 AM
It's not like they didn't have warning beforehand that the 3rd party developers weren't going to put up with some of the overbearing restrictions they wound up putting in the GSL. Maybe they thought they could simply get away with it, I guess, but a move to loosen the restrictions was inevitable from the original license.

What I expect to see changed: a detailing of standards that must be complied with, rather than the "WotC can shut you down without reason or advance notice" clause. What I don't expect to see changed, though would really like to see: the prohibition of dual-publication in 3.5 and 4e.

As far as the SRD is concerned, as a publisher/designer, I understand completely why they published what they did, the way that that they did, and I don't expect major changes to it. (As a cheap b*stard, of course, I want more open info.)

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-12, 08:35 AM
Oh, I don't expect the dual publication clause to be changed. But that isn't a real complaint. What is a real complaint are the "destroy your stock and go bankrupt whenever we decide we want you to" clauses.

Zeta Kai
2008-08-12, 08:47 AM
As horridly one-sided as that clause is, my most prominent hope is that the GSL will contain more information. Perhaps not as much detailed rules & mechanics as the 3.X SRD, but something more useful than the current 4E SRD, which is essentially a Table of Contents masquerading as a valid reference source. The 4E SRD as currently written has virtually no use to anyone, player or publisher, who doesn't already own the books AND have a working knowledge of their contents on par with the average WotC employee. Which may have been the point, but that makes it no less onerous.

I'd also like to see the removal of the dual-edition publishing prohibition. Considering that WotC isn't really supporting 3E anymore, I fail to see why they'd care. You'd almost think that they were concerned about customers not switching to the new edition for some reason...

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-12, 08:58 AM
As horridly one-sided as that clause is, my most prominent hope is that the GSL will contain more information. Perhaps not as much detailed rules & mechanics as the 3.X SRD, but something more useful than the current GSL, which is essentially a Table of Contents masquerading as a valid reference book. The GSL as currently written has virtually no use to anyone, player or publisher, who doesn't already own the books AND have a working knowledge of their contents on par with the average WotC employee. Which may have been the point, but that makes it no less onerous.

I'd also like to see the removal of the dual-edition publishing prohibition. Considering that WotC isn't really supporting 3E anymore, I fail to see why they'd care. You'd almost think that they were concerned about customers not switching to the new edition for some reason...

Me thinks you meant to replace GSL with SRD. The GSL is just the general system license.

Lochar
2008-08-12, 09:01 AM
I seriously hope your joking Lochar.

Oh, I'm joking. But I won't be surprised if it ends up being something like that.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 09:03 AM
I would be surprised if that stays in there. It's the biggest problem from a business point of view.

I would be surprised if it comes out, for the very same reasons. Part of me, the evil marketing suspicion part, is expecting minimal legal changes to what can be reproduced (allowing quoting of text for example) but nothing to the legal rights that WotC gains from the liscence so that WotC can tell its fan base that is concerned "look, we tried. These people just aren't being reasonable!"


As horridly one-sided as that clause is, my most prominent hope is that the GSL will contain more information. Perhaps not as much detailed rules & mechanics as the 3.X SRD, but something more useful than the current GSL, which is essentially a Table of Contents masquerading as a valid reference book. The GSL as currently written has virtually no use to anyone, player or publisher, who doesn't already own the books AND have a working knowledge of their contents on par with the average WotC employee. Which may have been the point, but that makes it no less onerous.


This is exactly what I expect to see.


I'd also like to see the removal of the dual-edition publishing prohibition. Considering that WotC isn't really supporting 3E anymore, I fail to see why they'd care. You'd almost think that they were concerned about customers not switching to the new edition for some reason...

Gee ya think? They also don't want people to have a direct comparison between editions I think. It would have been pretty easy for them to reissue under 4e rules some of the old classic adventures, but then folks could directly compare them to 3.x.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-12, 09:13 AM
I would be surprised if it comes out, for the very same reasons. Part of me, the evil marketing suspicion part, is expecting minimal legal changes to what can be reproduced (allowing quoting of text for example) but nothing to the legal rights that WotC gains from the liscence so that WotC can tell its fan base that is concerned "look, we tried. These people just aren't being reasonable!"
Yeah, but that clause is the real sticking point. If they really do want to increase 3rd party products then they have to remove that clause (or at least significantly alter it). As it is you have to be a fool to publish anything that will require you accept the GSL. The risk is just to high. About the only time it would be worth it is if all your sales were PDF's.


Gee ya think? They also don't want people to have a direct comparison between editions I think. It would have been pretty easy for them to reissue under 4e rules some of the old classic adventures, but then folks could directly compare them to 3.x.

Yeah, the dual publishing clause isn't going anywhere. And it's not one I have a real problem with (it makes sense).

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 09:18 AM
Yeah, but that clause is the real sticking point. If they really do want to increase 3rd party products then they have to remove that clause (or at least significantly alter it). As it is you have to be a fool to publish anything that will require you accept the GSL. The risk is just to high. About the only time it would be worth it is if all your sales were PDF's.


Well, I guess it's that I don't think that they really do want to increase third party products. They had to know that the clause would keep 3rd party publishers from signing on the GSL right from the moment they drafted the original language. I hardly think they were surprised by the reaction (except maybe from their most devoted like Necromancer Games). I think what they want to do is look reasonable, not actually open the market more.

Duke of URL
2008-08-12, 09:21 AM
Yeah, but that clause is the real sticking point. If they really do want to increase 3rd party products then they have to remove that clause (or at least significantly alter it).

The d20 trademark license had a similar, but less restrictive version of that clause. In that case, what made it less restrictive was that WotC couldn't just pull the license for any reason at all; they specifically spelled out standards that had to be complied with -- failure to comply gave them the right to shut you down, force destruction of inventory with the d20 logo, etc.

Personally, I think it was originally added as a reaction to things like BoEF, protecting WotC from being associated with content that could get them into hot water in certain jurisdictions. I also think it's reasonable. Basically, it boils down to: "If you do X, Y, and Z and agree not to do P, D, and Q, then we agree to let you use our trademarks. If you break those rules, however, we can demand that you stop using our trademarks."

If they can modify the 4e GSL to basically that same level, then I think the reluctance of the 3rd party vendors goes away. Removing the dual-publishing prohibition would probably turn them enthusiastic.

Jack Mann
2008-08-12, 09:28 AM
Interesting link with the promise of more to come. I will infer that 4E sales has fallen short of expectations despite the official PR to the contrary.

Or, more likely, they noticed no one was making any third party support. Since this model worked relatively well for them in 3rd, they want to get some other publishers involved. They've realized that their initial model was unworkable, since it made impossible demands of 3rd party publishers, and now they want to make it feasible.

This likely has nothing to do with sales of their own books, but the lack of other books on the market.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-12, 09:28 AM
The thing is that with that clause in there the 3rd party vendors can demonize WotC without any real effort with the 3rd parties main market (the more hardcore gamers who hang out on forums and such).

Assuming WotC actually is telling the truth and wants to increase 3rd party publication then they need to change that clause significantly. If they are lieing then its anyones guess what they will end up doing.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-12, 09:32 AM
I can't see how that could be possible. They were looking at doing a second printing just after the initial release came out.

Low first printing creates an artificial demand allows PR statements like "Sold Out".

If things are as good as you believe why do you think they are amending the GSL/SRD?


Or, more likely, they noticed no one was making any third party support. Since this model worked relatively well for them in 3rd, they want to get some other publishers involved. They've realized that their initial model was unworkable, since it made impossible demands of 3rd party publishers, and now they want to make it feasible.

This likely has nothing to do with sales of their own books, but the lack of other books on the market.

I disagree Jack WOTC already had all that feed back from most 3rd party publishers.

Why does WOTC Need that 3rd party support which is basically more competetion for their products if 4E is doing so well?

Kurald Galain
2008-08-12, 09:41 AM
Why does WOTC Need that 3rd party support which is basically more competetion for their products if 4E is doing so well?

Because the overwhelming majority of their profits from roleplaying comes from the player's handbook (followed by, of course, the DMG and MM). Anything that gets more people to buy those three books is a Good Thing. They can afford to lose money on any module if they make up for it by added PHB sales.

Hence, 3rd party support is great for sales. 3rd party products that are inferior are mostly irrelevant (they're annoying to fans, but since few people buy them they don't damage the brand name) and 3rd party products that are good, encourage people to buy the PHB. So, it is in WOTC's best interest to get as many 3rd party publishers as possible (especially if doing so lures them away from their direct competitor, Third Edition).

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-12, 09:52 AM
Because the overwhelming majority of their profits from roleplaying comes from the player's handbook (followed by, of course, the DMG and MM). Anything that gets more people to buy those three books is a Good Thing. They can afford to lose money on any module if they make up for it by added PHB sales.

Hence, 3rd party support is great for sales. 3rd party products that are inferior are mostly irrelevant (they're annoying to fans, but since few people buy them they don't damage the brand name) and 3rd party products that are good, encourage people to buy the PHB. So, it is in WOTC's best interest to get as many 3rd party publishers as possible (especially if doing so lures them away from their direct competitor, Third Edition).

So basically 4E isn't doing as well as originally projected if they need to revise the GSL/SRD.

Jayabalard
2008-08-12, 10:00 AM
This likely has nothing to do with sales of their own books, but the lack of other books on the market.That seems likely.

Really, it doesn't matter whether they have met their sales goals or not; they think they can make more money with better 3rd party support.


When a gamer can already be Batman, why would they be interested in checking out Green Lantern?Other than that they prefer green lantern to batman?


Conversely, when ToB released, melee players were forced to be either Robin (Rogues and rangers) or Chewbacca (fighter, paladin and barbarian).There were other options (including "don't use ToB")

Kurald Galain
2008-08-12, 10:09 AM
So basically 4E isn't doing as well as originally projected if they need to revise the GSL/SRD.

That may well be the case. If last week's poll on this forum was representative of the larger world (and I'm not saying it is, but it's worth considering) then people on average rank 3E higher than 4E. This, obviously, is not the result WOTC wants.

Essentially it's the Windows Vista problem: if the market isn't expanding rapidly, your biggest competitor is your own previous product, and if that is still widely in use and considered useful, you'll have a hard time supplanting it.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-12, 10:32 AM
Sounds like Problems in WOTC 4E Brand land. They have identified a problem but not a solution. WOTC needs to make serious accomadations regarding 3rd party publisher issues and concerns and then finalize them before 3rd party publishers can make an informed decision.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 10:40 AM
That may well be the case. If last week's poll on this forum was representative of the larger world (and I'm not saying it is, but it's worth considering) then people on average rank 3E higher than 4E. This, obviously, is not the result WOTC wants.

Yeah, although this board may well be non-representitive. I know that a fair number of folks came over here from the Wizards boards when Gleemax was 'reogranized' in anticipation of the 4e release.


Essentially it's the Windows Vista problem: if the market isn't expanding rapidly, your biggest competitor is your own previous product, and if that is still widely in use and considered useful, you'll have a hard time supplanting it.

This is pretty much true. I'm not sure what the sales figures really look like but 3.5 is really an issue for 4e. I would have thought that WotC would have been wise enough to give a longer 'nothing coming out' delay between the two editions to build some new material desparation into the gaming populace but no such luck.

Duke of URL
2008-08-12, 10:43 AM
We at Victorious Press have no intention of abandoning 3.5. We currently have far more in the development pipeline for 3.5 than we do for 4e, and I don't see that changing too abruptly, even with favorable changes to the GSL.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 10:44 AM
Yall might want to check out these other two threads on this topic.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87505

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87479

I've PMed Roland asking him to merge them. Maybe this one should be too.

Crow
2008-08-12, 10:48 AM
There were other options (including "don't use ToB")

That's the one I used...

PnP Fan
2008-08-12, 11:11 AM
My understanding is that the originally published version of the GSL puts the signee in a very precarious legal position when using GSL related material. I'm not up on all of the details, but apparently WotC could potentially sue a GSL signee (something I guess they couldn't do before under OGL). Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the signee would be responsible for all legal fees for both WotC and the signee. You'd have to be a fool to sign up for something like that. Don't take my word for it though, I pulled my info from the Green Ronin site, in an article about why they aren't supporting 4E materials right now. Sorry no link.

My guess is that no one is signing up for this, so WotC is revising the relevant sections of the GSL to promote businesses that want to publish using the GSL.

celestialkin
2008-08-12, 11:21 AM
We at Victorious Press have no intention of abandoning 3.5. We currently have far more in the development pipeline for 3.5 than we do for 4e, and I don't see that changing too abruptly, even with favorable changes to the GSL.

Sincerely: Thank you so much! :smallbiggrin:


I know that this is a VERY unlikely long-shot, but does your company have/need testers? I believe some companies send alpha/beta test versions of works-in-progress in PDF form to DMs/groups to try and report back on.

I'm happy to work just to get a chance of seeing some test material, and for the honor of helping support 3.5! Plus new stuff to add to my games is always fun.




Yall might want to check out these other two threads on this topic.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87505

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87479

I've PMed Roland asking him to merge them. Maybe this one should be too.

Well, this thread is meant to be about how this will affect 3rd-party publishers in concern to 3.5.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-12, 11:25 AM
We at Victorious Press have no intention of abandoning 3.5. We currently have far more in the development pipeline for 3.5 than we do for 4e

Really? Because you seem to not be returning private messages... :smalltongue:

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 11:37 AM
Really? Because you seem to not be returning private messages... :smalltongue:

Well some of us just moved and haven't had all that much time on their hands in the past few weeks...

Jack Zander
2008-08-12, 11:47 AM
I see this as very good news for 3.5. It means that the GSL was so horrible, hardly anyone agreed to it so most everyone stuck with 3.5. Even though I'm sure some companies will agree to it once it is revised, the damage has been done, and I think most everyone has already made a decision on whether they are "upgrading" or not.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-12, 11:58 AM
My understanding is that the originally published version of the GSL puts the signee in a very precarious legal position when using GSL related material. I'm not up on all of the details, but apparently WotC could potentially sue a GSL signee (something I guess they couldn't do before under OGL). Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the signee would be responsible for all legal fees for both WotC and the signee. You'd have to be a fool to sign up for something like that. Don't take my word for it though, I pulled my info from the Green Ronin site, in an article about why they aren't supporting 4E materials right now. Sorry no link.

My guess is that no one is signing up for this, so WotC is revising the relevant sections of the GSL to promote businesses that want to publish using the GSL.

WotC could put the signee out of business at any time without giving the signee any recourse, essentially.

DizzyD
2008-08-12, 12:15 PM
I believe paizo is working on some material for 3.5. They have a few demo pdf's on thier website(paizo.com). Most of it seems to be there version of the PHB, but the artwork is pretty cool and from what i've read they will be supporting 3.5 for a while.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-08-12, 12:28 PM
I don't suppose anyone can spoiler tag a copy/paste job of the related article? I can't access the WotC site from my current connection.

Zeta Kai
2008-08-12, 12:30 PM
Essentially it's the Windows Vista problem: if the market isn't expanding rapidly, your biggest competitor is your own previous product, and if that is still widely in use and considered useful, you'll have a hard time supplanting it.

That's exactly how I see it. 4E's biggest competition for the hearts & dice of players isn't the World of Darkness, GURPS, or any other game system; it's 3E & all the 3rd party material that spawned from it (Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, etc). If they can find a way to destroy the beast they created (that monster we loved for so long) without looking like the bad guys, they will do it without remorse of hesitation. Their main problem right now is that they AREN'T killing 3E very well, & they DO look like the bad guys while they try.

PnP Fan
2008-08-12, 12:46 PM
ET: I concur with your assessment of the situation.


I don't suppose anyone can spoiler tag a copy/paste job of the related article? I can't access the WotC site from my current connection.


Spike: I tried and got blocked where I am, but a google of Green Ronin will give you, among other things, a direct link to the article. Our firewall is peculiar. I can come to this site easily enough, but not GR's. I would think that GR's site probably has better security, since they sell product via their site.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-08-12, 12:57 PM
Spike: I tried and got blocked where I am, but a google of Green Ronin will give you, among other things, a direct link to the article. Our firewall is peculiar. I can come to this site easily enough, but not GR's. I would think that GR's site probably has better security, since they sell product via their site.

Unfortunately, GR's also blocked... Our firewall's quite peculiar too.

Duke of URL
2008-08-12, 01:10 PM
I know that this is a VERY unlikely long-shot, but does your company have/need testers? I believe some companies send alpha/beta test versions of works-in-progress in PDF form to DMs/groups to try and report back on.

We still can use playtesters and outside evaluators. Just follow the relevant link in my signature.



Really? Because you seem to not be returning private messages... :smalltongue:

Yeah, see that "development pipeline" comment. I'm currently involved in four active projects, have a "day job", and three kids under 3-and-a-half. PMs have gotten a bit behind at the moment, sorry. :smallwink:

Occasional Sage
2008-08-12, 01:56 PM
Green Ronin (http://greenronin.com/2008/07/green_ronin_and_4e.php)'s article about this issue:


Green Ronin and Fourth Edition D&D

I know a lot of fans have been waiting to find out if Green Ronin is going to support 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons and it's a fair question. Green Ronin's second product ever was Death in Freeport, an adventure for 3rd Edition that debuted the same day as the Player's Handbook almost eight years ago. We went on to do quite a lot of 3E support, ending only a couple of months back with the d20 Freeport Companion. Now Wizards of the Coast is terminating the d20 license and offering a different way to support the new edition of D&D. It's called the Game System License and we waited from August of last year until June of this year to see it. We've spent the last few weeks reviewing the license and discussing it internally and we have come to a consensus.

Green Ronin will not be signing the Game System License (GSL) at this time.

We plan to do one product in support of 4E: the Green Ronin Character Record Folio. This will be an update of the d20 System Character Record Folio and we'll be publishing it under the Open Game License (OGL).

Other than that we'll be giving our full attention to our own game lines: Mutants & Masterminds, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, True20 Adventure Roleplaying, and Freeport: The City of Adventure.

We had hoped to include 4E support in our plans, but the terms of the GSL are too one-sided as they stand. We certainly do not blame Wizards of the Coast for wanting to defend their intellectual property and take more control over the type of support products D&D receives. We do not, however, feel that this license treats third party publishers as valued partners. Under its terms WotC could frivolously sue a signatory for supposed violations of the GSL, lose the actual court case, and still ruin the winning company because the license specifies that the signatory has to pay WotC's legal fees. Also, the GSL can be changed at any time and WotC is not legally required to so much as inform its licensees.

Let me be clear in stating that I don't think that the people in charge of WotC currently are just waiting to attack companies with frivolous lawsuits. Once you sign the GSL though, you open yourself up to that at any point in the future. Who knows when new people will take over the D&D brand and who can say what their vision will be? Who knows when the political winds at WotC will change again and things will get even more restrictive? We do not want to operate under such a cloud moving ahead so that's why we won't be signing the GSL.

This means the Green Ronin Character Record Folio is the only 4E compatible product you'll be seeing from us this year and likely for 2009 as well. Perhaps WotC will revise the GSL in the positive way, but we cannot build our business on maybes. We know this will disappoint those of our fans who have embraced 4E and we're sorry about that. We have to make the best business decision for Green Ronin's future and right now this is it.

Thank you for your continued support.

Chris Pramas
President
Green Ronin Publishing

Thinker
2008-08-12, 01:58 PM
We still can use playtesters and outside evaluators. Just follow the relevant link in my signature.




Yeah, see that "development pipeline" comment. I'm currently involved in four active projects, have a "day job", and three kids under 3-and-a-half. PMs have gotten a bit behind at the moment, sorry. :smallwink:

I think VP needs to be better accessible via Google, Yahoo, and Cuil. On Google I only found it by the search string "Victorious Press dnd" and then clicked the link through SweetRein's site, ditto with Yahoo, and with Cuil it appeared not at all. On MSN its the first hit with just "Victorious Press" search string.

I complement you on your hard work and productivity to date. I myself have tried my hand at game design off and on for some time now, I just never finish my own projects unless I intend to use it in the immediate future.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-08-12, 02:06 PM
Green Ronin (http://greenronin.com/2008/07/green_ronin_and_4e.php)'s article about this issue:


Green Ronin and Fourth Edition D&D

I know a lot of fans have been waiting to find out if Green Ronin is going to support 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons and it's a fair question. Green Ronin's second product ever was Death in Freeport, an adventure for 3rd Edition that debuted the same day as the Player's Handbook almost eight years ago. We went on to do quite a lot of 3E support, ending only a couple of months back with the d20 Freeport Companion. Now Wizards of the Coast is terminating the d20 license and offering a different way to support the new edition of D&D. It's called the Game System License and we waited from August of last year until June of this year to see it. We've spent the last few weeks reviewing the license and discussing it internally and we have come to a consensus.

Green Ronin will not be signing the Game System License (GSL) at this time.

We plan to do one product in support of 4E: the Green Ronin Character Record Folio. This will be an update of the d20 System Character Record Folio and we'll be publishing it under the Open Game License (OGL).

Other than that we'll be giving our full attention to our own game lines: Mutants & Masterminds, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, True20 Adventure Roleplaying, and Freeport: The City of Adventure.

We had hoped to include 4E support in our plans, but the terms of the GSL are too one-sided as they stand. We certainly do not blame Wizards of the Coast for wanting to defend their intellectual property and take more control over the type of support products D&D receives. We do not, however, feel that this license treats third party publishers as valued partners. Under its terms WotC could frivolously sue a signatory for supposed violations of the GSL, lose the actual court case, and still ruin the winning company because the license specifies that the signatory has to pay WotC's legal fees. Also, the GSL can be changed at any time and WotC is not legally required to so much as inform its licensees.

Let me be clear in stating that I don't think that the people in charge of WotC currently are just waiting to attack companies with frivolous lawsuits. Once you sign the GSL though, you open yourself up to that at any point in the future. Who knows when new people will take over the D&D brand and who can say what their vision will be? Who knows when the political winds at WotC will change again and things will get even more restrictive? We do not want to operate under such a cloud moving ahead so that's why we won't be signing the GSL.

This means the Green Ronin Character Record Folio is the only 4E compatible product you'll be seeing from us this year and likely for 2009 as well. Perhaps WotC will revise the GSL in the positive way, but we cannot build our business on maybes. We know this will disappoint those of our fans who have embraced 4E and we're sorry about that. We have to make the best business decision for Green Ronin's future and right now this is it.

Thank you for your continued support.

Chris Pramas
President
Green Ronin Publishing


Many thanks!

Sounds like a very odd move from WotC...

Reinforcements
2008-08-12, 02:16 PM
All these people who want 3e to succeed at the expense of 4e blow my mind.

Eldariel
2008-08-12, 02:19 PM
All these people who want 3e to succeed at the expense of 4e blow my mind.

Why? Many of us prefer 3.Xe to 4e and with the course Wizards is taking, only either 4e or 3.Xe is going to get relevant amounts of support. That leaves us just hoping the system we enjoy more gets the support, or that Wizards comes to their senses and allows supporting both systems.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-12, 02:20 PM
All these people who want 3e to succeed at the expense of 4e blow my mind.

3E was successful. IMO 4E was poorly designed and even more poorly implemented. Just means 4.5E will arrive a year or two sooner. $$$$$ :smallsmile:

JaxGaret
2008-08-12, 02:35 PM
Man, as far as I am concerned, Whisper Gnomes are the ONLY gnomes.

The 4e MM agrees with your assessment.

JaxGaret
2008-08-12, 02:46 PM
All these people who want 3e to succeed at the expense of 4e blow my mind.

I happen to prefer 4e, but I don't find it at all mindblowing that other people prefer 3e. Whatever floats your collective boat.

PnP Fan
2008-08-12, 02:49 PM
Many thanks!

Sounds like a very odd move from WotC...

I agree. I know there are folks who would like to think that WotC is some sort of gaming conspiracy incarnate, or whatever. I'm inclined to think that some of this is more likely the result of a poorly written contract. (I can't imagine a toy company getting the cream of the lawyer crop. . . just not enough glory in toy contracts.) After all, given what GR states, you'd have to be a moron to sign up for something like that. Which does neither the signatory nor the parent company any good whatsoever. And only makes WotC look like an ogre.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 02:56 PM
I agree. I know there are folks who would like to think that WotC is some sort of gaming conspiracy incarnate, or whatever. I'm inclined to think that some of this is more likely the result of a poorly written contract. (I can't imagine a toy company getting the cream of the lawyer crop. . . just not enough glory in toy contracts.) After all, given what GR states, you'd have to be a moron to sign up for something like that. Which does neither the signatory nor the parent company any good whatsoever. And only makes WotC look like an ogre.

That really doesn't have anything to do with the lawyers though. The GSL, in terms of it's technical legal writing, is pretty darn solid. A lot more solid than the OGL was frankly. The fact that the langauge made WotC look like an ogre and the terms were not agreeable to 3rd Party Publishers, is beside the point there. For what the GSL was obviously written to do, it did, well. That there is a change coming either means:

a) WotC has opted to change its policy toward 3rd party publishers.
b) WotC has decided to change some stuff in the GSL for PR reasons but the really important legal clauses will stay exactly, or mostly, the same.

PnP Fan
2008-08-12, 03:18 PM
AKA: Hmm. . .perhaps it was an error in marketing then. I've not read the GSL personally, I'm not a developer, or a lawyer. But it just seems counter productive to go to the trouble to offer up the opportunity for other developers to build product that is reliant upon your own product, and then not make it economically and legally advantageous to do so. So disadvantageous that folks are concerned about their companies being ruined.

Having seen engineering requirements documents and other legally binding documents, I assumed it was the result of two or three lawyers not really communicating with each other as they wrote their individual sections of the document.
But I can also see that some marketing or administrative goob saying "share our intellectual property, but make sure we can protect it" while some random policy document has a standard blurb about "make the other guy pay for our legal fees so we don't have to counter sue".

edit: I guess I'm just more likely to see incompetence as an explanation, over someone intentionally shooting themselves in the foot, publicly.

Roland St. Jude
2008-08-12, 03:32 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Warning! Three threads on the GSL/SRD issue have been mercilessly merged above.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-12, 03:37 PM
All these people who want 3e to succeed at the expense of 4e blow my mind.
That's because they don't. They don't care either way about 4E, they just want 3E to continue. The only ones that want X to succeed at the expense of Y is Wizards of the Coast, because (as has been pointed out earlier) the biggest competition for 4E is in fact 3E, and it would significantly boost WOTC sales if 3E was to disappear.


Yeah, see that "development pipeline" comment. I'm currently involved in four active projects, have a "day job", and three kids under 3-and-a-half. PMs have gotten a bit behind at the moment, sorry. :smallwink:
No problem, I'll go and be patient some more :smallsmile:

Jack Zander
2008-08-12, 11:12 PM
That's because they don't. They don't care either way about 4E, they just want 3E to continue. The only ones that want X to succeed at the expense of Y is Wizards of the Coast, because (as has been pointed out earlier) the biggest competition for 4E is in fact 3E, and it would significantly boost WOTC sales if 3E was to disappear.

Seconded. I don't think anyone wants to go on an anti-4e book burning campaign or anything. Those of you who like 4e can go play 4e and those of us who prefer 3e will continue to play that (and things will probably be much better this way).

I am glad that many companies are not moving over because this means 3e will continue to get support, and eventually may evolve into an actual upgrade rather than a complete scrap and redo. I couldn't care less what happens with 4e, for good or ill. The best scenario would be for WotC to support both systems, but we all know that's not going to happen.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-13, 07:03 AM
I couldn't care less what happens with 4e, for good or ill. The best scenario would be for WotC to support both systems, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Best we can probably hope for is the occassional annual old edition Dragon article retooling 3.5 for 4E after the transitioning period.

Reinforcements
2008-08-13, 07:37 AM
That's because they don't. They don't care either way about 4E, they just want 3E to continue. The only ones that want X to succeed at the expense of Y is Wizards of the Coast, because (as has been pointed out earlier) the biggest competition for 4E is in fact 3E, and it would significantly boost WOTC sales if 3E was to disappear.

Um, the point of the OP of the thread that my post was originally in was disappointment that a revised GSL might make 3rd-party companies support 4e after all. Plenty of people have made posts expressing that they hope 4e fails. Which is ****. I understand preferring 3e - sure, whatever, you like what you like. What I don't understand is being mean-spirited about it, especially since 3e already has years of content. Heck I don't even use 3rd-party material and 3e has way more stuff than I could ever want.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-13, 08:16 AM
What I don't understand is being mean-spirited about it, especially since 3e already has years of content.

Heh. You should have seen the flame wars the first weeks when 4E came out (and they were pretty mild here as compared to certain other forums I could mention).

The New Bruceski
2008-08-13, 08:37 AM
Heh. You should have seen the flame wars the first weeks when 4E came out (and they were pretty mild here as compared to certain other forums I could mention).

I'm not sure some of them have stopped. I think there are some interesting discussions over at Gleemax, but it's a pain to find them.

TwystidMynd
2008-08-13, 09:24 AM
AKA: Hmm. . .perhaps it was an error in marketing then. I've not read the GSL personally, I'm not a developer, or a lawyer. But it just seems counter productive to go to the trouble to offer up the opportunity for other developers to build product that is reliant upon your own product, and then not make it economically and legally advantageous to do so. So disadvantageous that folks are concerned about their companies being ruined.

As an ironic/humorous aside, this seems to be a common complaint about the Rituals in 4e, as well. Some posters have noted that Rituals are designed to be "things you can do" but that the restrictions designed by WotC make them wonder "... but why would you ever want to?"