HalWhitewyrm wrote:
Sucks to be Pathfinder.
Correction: Sucks to be a Paizo fan who wants to play 4E. I'm not really sure it sucks for Paizo.
If 4th edition is indeed the second coming of Christ for the P'n'P RPG world, why the need from WoTC to so actively trash the support for 3.5th edition? Shouldn't a superior product just shIne through?
I also cannot believe we haven't seen any official communication from WoTC on those boards regarding the GSL/OGL issue.
Brilliant, we are being shoved 4th edition by wotc whether we like it or not. What if I do not like the MMORPG feel of 4th edition? What if I prefer traditional fantasy to manga?
This attitude of being forced is humorous. You can still play 3/3.5E just as you have been, and you can continue doing so for the rest of your natural life. I have friends who play only 1E, and they don't complain about being forced to switch to new editions - they never switched. If you don't like 4E, don't switch.
From the sound of that, it seems like they might still allow a lot of OGL type games, at least ones that currently exist. It seems their issues are with 3.5E and wanting to end support for 3.5E rather than ending the OGL. What they want to end is the use of the OGL to produce material compatible with 3.5E D&D. Games that don't involve 3.5E D&D and move far enough away from it to be their own games aren't what the exclusivity clause is aimed at, and could be allowed or spared. Sucks to be Pathfinder.
This would be harder to enforce than a blanket ban, but I don't see any reason that a blanket ban combined with a waiver clause(WotC can grant a waiver to grant for example Green Ronin permission to produce Mutants and Masterminds and new material for that game while using the GSL to make 4E compatible material) on a case by case basis.
Of course they cannot stop the use of the OGL to support 3.5 since the OGL is not revocable.
If this is the plan it would not suck to be Pathfinder at all. WotC is clearing out the competition for them. I would be quite pleased to have someone else eliminating my competition if I were in business, especially since it would not involve the least amount of collusion on my part.
I found this post on ENWorld, and I thought it was interesting enough to get its own thread:
From the sound of that, it seems like they might still allow a lot of OGL type games, at least ones that currently exist. It seems their issues are with 3.5E and wanting to end support for 3.5E rather than ending the OGL. What they want to end is the use of the OGL to produce material compatible with 3.5E D&D. Games that don't involve 3.5E D&D and move far enough away from it to be their own games aren't what the exclusivity clause is aimed at, and could be allowed or spared. Sucks to be Pathfinder.
This would be harder to enforce than a blanket ban, but I don't see any reason that a blanket ban combined with a waiver clause(WotC can grant a waiver to grant for example Green Ronin permission to produce Mutants and Masterminds and new material for that game while using the GSL to make 4E compatible material) on a case by case basis.
And once again the hysteric fear-mongers will have to eat there words. "OMG IT'LL KILL MM/T20/ect!!!!11!!1!!1!eleven!!". So funny. I love how we've spent HOURS and dozens of pages arguing over this topic, and as predicted, the final GSL may not even contain the "poison pill" clause everyone was hysteric about to begin with.
Brilliant, we are being shoved 4th edition by wotc whether we like it or not. What if I do not like the MMORPG feel of 4th edition? What if I prefer traditional fantasy to manga?
If 4th edition is indeed the second coming of Christ for the P'n'P RPG world, why the need from WoTC to so actively trash the support for 3.5th edition? Shouldn't a superior product just shIne through?
I also cannot believe we haven't seen any official communication from WoTC on those boards regarding the GSL/OGL issue.
If you don't like 4th edition, DON'T PLAY IT! Play 3.x as long as you want. There will even be companies who will publish material for you! Just not any that choose to do 4e material instead.
Yes I saw that on EN World, and frankly it's about the only good news I've seen on this issue lately. However, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
1. You are hearing a second hand account of what someone else overheard about a general discussion of a policy by a wotc rep not speaking in his official capacity (or her...using the generic he). OTOH, when Clark Peterson laid out what he was told as a blanket ban on OGL products under the GSL, not only did Scott and Linnae (the licensing manager who should know) not deny it, but did everything but confirm it and did so in their official capacity of Wotc reps.
2. If the GSL wasn't finalized then what on earth is the licensing manager doing answering highly technical product questions about it in her official capacity? The idea she didn't and doesn't know (or that the GSL isn't in fact done) doesn't strike me as credible.
3. In that infamous thread, Linnae out and out said that after 5 months of disagreements within Wotc, they weren't about to alter the GSL now. That is virtually a direct quote, and she said this speaking as Wotc's licensing manager.
Sorry to throw ice-water on this, but until Wotc says something officially (preferably with the GSL in hand), we can't believe anything we hear from them "off the record". Not anymore.
-Polaris
Casual Oblivion,
Yes I saw that on EN World, and frankly it's about the only good news I've seen on this issue lately. However, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
1. You are hearing a second hand account of what someone else overheard about a general discussion of a policy by a wotc rep not speaking in his official capacity (or her...using the generic he). OTOH, when Clark Peterson laid out what he was told as a blanket ban on OGL products under the GSL, not only did Scott and Linnae (the licensing manager who should know) not deny it, but did everything but confirm it and did so in their official capacity of Wotc reps.
2. If the GSL wasn't finalized then what on earth is the licensing manager doing answering highly technical product questions about it in her official capacity? The idea she didn't and doesn't know (or that the GSL isn't in fact done) doesn't strike me as credible.
3. In that infamous thread, Linnae out and out said that after 5 months of disagreements within Wotc, they weren't about to alter the GSL now. That is virtually a direct quote, and she said this speaking as Wotc's licensing manager.
Sorry to throw ice-water on this, but until Wotc says something officially (preferably with the GSL in hand), we can't believe anything we hear from them "off the record". Not anymore.
-Polaris
I agree completely. We can't believe anything we hear from "off the record". We should wait till the actually GSL is out. Even if someone tells us they were told about some exclusivety clause on a company by company basis.
FWIW though, I'm pretty sure you're gonna be wrong about your so-called "poison pill" clause. And I can't wait to read that. It's gonna make my week of defending the "we haven't seen the GSL yet" view on this forum feel very justified.
I agree completely. We can't believe anything we hear from "off the record". We should wait till the actually GSL is out. Even if someone tells us they were told about some exclusivety clause on a company by company basis.
Cute, but there is little equivalance between this and what Clark said. Clark dropped his little bombshell in the presence (at least electronically) of Linnae and Scott, both acting as official Wotc reps, and they never denied it and indeed posted in such a way to virtually confirm it. The 'poison pill' did not arise from thin air. Let's not have any revisionist history please.
Ergo, what Clark said is more than just a third party rumor. However, this is a third party rumor of an off-record conversation. Much less convincing on the whole.
FWIW though, I'm pretty sure you're gonna be wrong about your so-called "poison pill" clause. And I can't wait to read that. It's gonna make my week of defending the "we haven't seen the GSL yet" view on this forum feel very justified.
In case you hadn't notice, what was being talked about was still a "per company" exclusion clause structored in some way to allow non-3.5 OGL but forbid 3.5 OGL. I do not see how that's possible given that even Spycraft (about as non-DnD as you get) was still originally d20 STL. The only way Wotc can be sure is to exclude the OGL completely and that's assuming the above post is accurate.
Furthermore[ in spite of the bad PR this is generating, Wotc has still not made a formal annoucement. They could even announce they have no animus towards non-3.5 games and still commit to nothing that's legally binding and staunch most of the bleeding. They haven't done it.
My guess is that Wotc will make no GSL annoucement of any kind until 5 June 2008...the date where it is least likely most of us will be paying attention.
-Polaris
And once again the hysteric fear-mongers will have to eat there words. "OMG IT'LL KILL MM/T20/ect!!!!11!!1!!1!eleven!!". So funny. I love how we've spent HOURS and dozens of pages arguing over this topic, and as predicted, the final GSL may not even contain the "poison pill" clause everyone was hysteric about to begin with.
So if fans of 3.5 were silently accepting WotC GSL commandments then we would now be seeing such reasonable admissions?
No. Nay. Never!
Besides the fact that PRO-4.0 fans were saying that it made NO SENSE FOR WotC TO ALLOW other companies to allow 3.5 to continue. The whole profit-motive thing.
If you don't like 4th edition, DON'T PLAY IT! Play 3.x as long as you want. There will even be companies who will publish material for you! Just not any that choose to do 4e material instead.
No d'h!FWIW
what does "FWIW" mean?
And once again the hysteric fear-mongers will have to eat there words. "OMG IT'LL KILL MM/T20/ect!!!!11!!1!!1!eleven!!". So funny. I love how we've spent HOURS and dozens of pages arguing over this topic, and as predicted, the final GSL may not even contain the "poison pill" clause everyone was hysteric about to begin with.
To be honest, backslash might have caused the pro-open gaming group within Wizards to gain arguments to modify the GSL. In that case, something good might have come out of this argument.
Other than that, I've seen the threads here, and many things come to my mind to describe the arguing, but "funny" is not one of them.
To be honest, backslash might have caused the pro-open gaming group within Wizards to gain arguments to modify the GSL. In that case, something good might have come out of this argument.
I wouldn't call that a realistic expectation. They spent months hammering out the GSL. Do you really think that, after spending all that time working on it, that they're suddenly going to open it up again and change it in one or two weeks time? Either that provision was never there, or it was always there. But I very much doubt that it'll be changed because people on the internet did the completely expected and proceeded to ***** and moan.
I wouldn't call that a realistic expectation. They spent months hammering out the GSL. Do you really think that, after spending all that time working on it, that they're suddenly going to open it up again and change it in one or two weeks time? Either that provision was never there, or it was always there. But I very much doubt that it'll be changed because people on the internet did the completely expected and proceeded to ***** and moan.
From the variety of rumors heard about this, it seems as if the final text of the license is not done yet, and from their (inability) unwillingness to come out with further details might point that they're still working on the goal of the license itself.
There's a vast difference between "same company cannot make both OGL and GSL products" and "same product cannot be released under both OGL and GSL". Quite impossible to mix the two up.
Yeah, from the position of someone who doesn't know how things at WotC work, and just as a casual observer, I'd say that change of license in some way (for example, taking an article from an earlier draft) based on a negative feedback is a possibility.
Casual Oblivion,
Yes I saw that on EN World, and frankly it's about the only good news I've seen on this issue lately.
That is why I posted it here in its own thread.
However, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
1. You are hearing a second hand account of what someone else overheard about a general discussion of a policy by a wotc rep not speaking in his official capacity (or her...using the generic he). OTOH, when Clark Peterson...
-Polaris
So is Joe Goodman of Goodman Games less of a source on this than Clark? I think you could interpret what Clark said as what Joe said. You can't produce under the GSL while simultaneously producing 3.5E material with the OGL. It may still be possible to use the OGL to produce non-3.5E material and not invalidate the GSL. I don't remember Clark saying anything that would invalidate what Joe said.
Whetehr the GSL applies on a product by product basis or to the firm as a whole is not a simple detail. It is such a fundamental difference that any half-decent lawyer would put it in black & white somewhere in the license agreement.
Now, the interesting question is why WoTC has not commented on this issue since they announced the GSL? I would rule out WoTC not being aware of the controversy this announcement has had with a portion of its fan base. I mean just look at these boards and count the number of views on the open letter to Scott Rouse (who has yet to respond to it by the way).
Two possibilities come to my mind:
A) WoTC is indeed aware of the bad blood their decision has created with some of their established customers and third-party publishers and is indeed fighting Hasbro to get the GSL amended. Hence, no news as the GSL is indeed being revised.
B) WoTC is going ahead with its plan to sc**w 3.5 support and is just waiting for a busy day to burry the bad news.
Seriously,
Whetehr the GSL applies on a product by product basis or to the firm as a whole is not a simple detail. It is such a fundamental difference that any half-decent lawyer would put it in black & white somewhere in the license agreement.
Now, the interesting question is why WoTC has not commented on this issue since they announced the GSL? I would rule out WoTC not being aware of the controversy this announcement has had with a portion of its fan base. I mean just look at these boards and count the number of views on the open letter to Scott Rouse (who has yet to respond to it by the way).
Two possibilities come to my mind:
A) WoTC is indeed aware of the bad blood their decision has created with some of their established customers and third-party publishers and is indeed fighting Hasbro to get the GSL amended. Hence, no news as the GSL is indeed being revised.
B) WoTC is going ahead with its plan to sc**w 3.5 support and is just waiting for a busy day to burry the bad news.
A) If anything, I think they would would be checking with legal to see if they can add exceptions/waivers without altering the GSL as they have it written and without weakening it. A revision of the actual license would delay it again a lot more than granting exceptions through waivers.
B) Most of what we've seen has indeed shown that it is WotC's plan to eliminate as much 3.5 support as they can manage. There is already a s*** storm over that. Releasing the GSL and putting that fact into the light of truth would indeed increase that s*** storm, but that will happen in any case. Whether they release it on a busy day or not won't stop people from being angry for weeks on end, which is what will happen.
A) If anything, I think they would would be checking with legal to see if they can add exceptions/waivers without altering the GSL as they have it written and without weakening it. A revision of the actual license would delay it again a lot more than granting exceptions through waivers.
Which is exactly why I don't think this is what they are doing. In the first place WOTC has run out of time. In the second place even by Linnae's own admission, there is already far, far too much blood spilt on the boardroom floor at Wotc for them to realistically be able to change the GSL at this point. Granting waivers would be the way to go, and if so, Wotc should announce it. In a PR meltdown (which this is), information, even if it confirms the worst news is the only way to stop it. Otherwise your company and policy (or candidate if in politics) gets to be framed by your critics and opponents, generally in the worst possible way.
B) Most of what we've seen has indeed shown that it is WotC's plan to eliminate as much 3.5 support as they can manage. There is already a s*** storm over that. Releasing the GSL and putting that fact into the light of truth would indeed increase that s*** storm, but that will happen in any case. Whether they release it on a busy day or not won't stop people from being angry for weeks on end, which is what will happen.
We've only seen one very badly substantiated source that this is only the case. We've seen plenty of evidence that they indeed to "poison pill" the OGL. Besides, I don't think it's possible to exclude one without the other in the way WOTC [edit] supposedly [/edit] wants (remember that even Spycraft was originally STL d20 and T20 still is which shows how tricky the seperation would be). As for releasing it on a busy day, yes it would reduct the fecal-matter storm. People only have the time and energy to concentrate on a few things at a time (often only one). Thus if everyone is celebrating the fact that 4E is finally out, it becomes the idea time (or least poor time anyway) to release the 'poison pilled' GSL and IMHO that's exactly what Wotc intends to do.
-Polaris
While RPGs are primarily considered a geek activity, there are mainstream RPG players and geek RPG players(geeks among geeks). I think the OGL and GSL are topics of interest for the geeks among geeks, and matter little to the mainstream of RPG gaming. People who get angry on message boards are louder than they are important.
I also don't see how Joe's words are any less substantiated than Clark's. Nothing Joe said was refuted by what Clark said, and vice versa. The only additional significance to Clark's words is that Linae and Scott were present at the time and said nothing.
I also don't see how Joe's words are any less substantiated than Clark's. Nothing Joe said was refuted by what Clark said, and vice versa. The only additional significance to Clark's words is that Linae and Scott were present at the time and said nothing.
Hah! You don't?! I'll explain it to you. Joe's words were already delivered to us explicitly second hand. Clark's information was delivered to us first hand from Wotc. That's a big difference right there. In addition Clark delivered his bombshell in the presence of official Wotc reps acting in that capacity and they did comment (read post 99 of that thread again!) and did so in such a way as to all but confirm what Clark said (and certainly in a fashion inconsist with what Joe is claiming).
Given this, and the lack of official Wotc comment for over a week, I'd say that Clark is a lot more credible than Joe.
As for gamers not caring, I think you're whistling in the dark. Sure gamers will probably buy 4E to try it out (I intend to), but most of what earned TSR the monniker T$R did not affect gamers directly...but it still earned them a reputation they were never able to live down. Same, same.
-Polaris
Hah! You don't?! I'll explain it to you. Joe's words were already delivered to us explicitly second hand. Clark's information was delivered to us first hand from Wotc. That's a big difference right there.
I'm sure Goodman Games was involved in the same Q&A that ENWorld and Necromancer games was, and he's getting his information from the same place Clark got his from. Also, read in my original quote was that Joe and Aldo were given permission to talk about that Q&A, probably to put a little quiet on the s*** storm.
For reference, here is what Morrus of ENWorld posted when he announced the GSL, and what I believe is the "source" both Clark and Joe are quoting from:
[D]hg[/D]WotC, earlier today, sent out an email to various people under the GSL NDA (Gaming System Licence's Non-Disclosure Agreement). Being under the NDA myself, I was itching to post this news, but couldn't until WotC announced it themselves. Which they have just done.
[bq]Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.
The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.
The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contacted by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.
Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.[/bq]
There's a "Q&A" attched to the original email, but I'm not sure whether I can disclose the contents of it; we've asked, and will post it if so. In addition, publishers are asking questions via email and getting answers - again, I need to check what is publishable and what is not.
But the important news is - there's no longer a $5000 fee attached to the GSL, and it will be available as soon as 4E launches (although some publishers get it early).
[Edit - Sorry, folks, we can't post the Q&A. But WotC will be covering it in other ways, including a podcast tomorrow and posts on the boards].
In addition Clark delivered his bombshell in the presence of official Wotc reps acting in that capacity and they did comment (read post 99 of that thread again!) and did so in such a way as to all but confirm what Clark said (and certainly in a fashion inconsist with what Joe is claiming).
I still think you could interpret that post in a way that is consistent to what Joe is claiming. What Scott did say was that they wanted them to stop supporting 3.x. You could read it where what he said meant that if non d&d OGL games could support the company so that it wouldn't need the 4E GSL, they could freely use the OGL to support 3E if they wanted to. There is nothing in what Scott said that specifically states that non-D&D OGL games will be excluded, though it seems pretty certain they want to kill OGL support for 3E.
Given this, and the lack of official Wotc comment for over a week, I'd say that Clark is a lot more credible than Joe.
As for gamers not caring, I think you're whistling in the dark. Sure gamers will probably buy 4E to try it out (I intend to), but most of what earned TSR the monniker T$R did not affect gamers directly...but it still earned them a reputation they were never able to live down. Same, same.
-Polaris
To be perfectly honest, I was a casual D&D player for years and never knew of TSR's reputation as T$R until after they were bought by WotC. I was a loyal TSR robot for years with no knowedge of the nerd rage they were causing. Despite the mess TSR made of things, they remained #1. I think your own prejudices are clouding your judgement of things, you're treating message boards as an accurate reflection of public opinion, and have shown quite a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to this whole affair.
I think you are desperately grasping at straws in a desperate and vain attempt to convince yourself that what Clark said wasn't true. Your source isn't worth very much quite honestly.
Consider this: If Wotc really wanted to end this PR storm, they could do so in five minutes. Simply release the GSL. For that matter, all they'd have to say is in an official press release that they do not have any problems with any game other than their own prior edition.
They haven't done that. So much for your hypothesis. I think we are done here.
-Polaris
Casual Oblivion,
I think you are desperately grasping at straws in a desperate and vain attempt to convince yourself that what Clark said wasn't true. Your source isn't worth very much quite honestly.
Consider this: If Wotc really wanted to end this PR storm, they could do so in five minutes. Simply release the GSL. For that matter, all they'd have to say is in an official press release that they do not have any problems with any game other than their own prior edition.
They haven't done that. So much for your hypothesis. I think we are done here.
-Polaris
I'm not grasping at anything because unlike you frankly I don't care one way or another. I play D&D and only D&D, and if the OGL was to explode and never again exist and the GSL were to be cancelled I would barely notice. I find the argument on it interesting from an theoretical and academic standpoint, but that is about it.
On the other hand, I find you have a lot invested in this topic and I think you're having a difficult time looking at it objectively.
Casual Oblivion,
I think you are desperately grasping at straws in a desperate and vain attempt to convince yourself that what Clark said wasn't true. Your source isn't worth very much quite honestly.
Consider this: If Wotc really wanted to end this PR storm, they could do so in five minutes. Simply release the GSL. For that matter, all they'd have to say is in an official press release that they do not have any problems with any game other than their own prior edition.
They haven't done that. So much for your hypothesis. I think we are done here.
-Polaris
His source is just as credible as yours. Does that mean your source isn't worth very much?
As for WOTC not making a statement about this, I have seen similar arguments made about similar situations repeatedly in the past. Usually, the reason no statement is made is because the company wants to iron out all the details with everyone first, to make sure employees don't add to the misinformation.
I wonder, after you are proven wrong about this, what will be your next argument against 4E?
I'm not grasping at anything because unlike you frankly I don't care one way or another. I play D&D and only D&D, and if the OGL was to explode and never again exist and the GSL were to be cancelled I would barely notice. I find the argument on it interesting from an theoretical and academic standpoint, but that is about it.
On the other hand, I find you have a lot invested in this topic and I think you're having a difficult time looking at it objectively.
Actually, right back at you. All I have to do is point to the EN world thread, invite people to read it and judge for themselves. I don't have to paint Wotc in either a mendacious or incompetant picture. Wotc does that spendidly all by themselves.
His source is just as credible as yours. Does that mean your source isn't worth very much?
False. His source is explicitly second hand from when HE hears it and thus third hand when we get it. Not only that, but in no way is it vetted by Wotc employees. Clark's statement on the other hand was a direct statement of what was to him first hand knowledge told to him in an official manner, and the Wotc reps there not only failed to deny it, but their own posts all but confirmed it.
Yeah, my evidence is much stronger. Read the thread.
As for WOTC not making a statement about this, I have seen similar arguments made about similar situations repeatedly in the past. Usually, the reason no statement is made is because the company wants to iron out all the details with everyone first, to make sure employees don't add to the misinformation.
I wonder, after you are proven wrong about this, what will be your next argument against 4E?
I won't be proven wrong about this. If what I was saying was untrue, Wotc would already have denied it. They are taking too big a PR hit not to if there was nothing to it. As for making sure employees don't add to misinformation? Too late if what is being suggested is true. If that is in fact what Linnae and Scott did, then they would have been fired.
They haven't been.
Look guys, there is no way we are going to agree on this. I believe this source is nothing but vapour-ware. You two obviously don't agree. We will not change anyone's mind at this late date, so there is no point in continuing hte conversation. Therefore, believe what you like. You'll be proven wrong soon enough.
-Polaris
why the need from WoTC to so actively trash the support for 3.5th edition? Shouldn't a superior product just shIne through?
I have been thinking this very same thing for some time now. If 4h editin is so much better, then what harm could allowing older editions to co-exist? As time moves on people will move to the better ediiton right?
The problem is the marketing makes it the "better" edition by making it the only one for sale. Their is no real chance for a side-by-side quality assessment by a gamer to be able to choose between them when their is only one thing you can buy.
It looks as though they are so afraid of 4th edition failing while being so much better that someone has to prevent players from having a choice.
For those who decide to continue with 3rd edition they are really screwed when no one can get the core rules for it, unless the SRD is packaged with new products, as there will be no chance of buying official books.
"This version is so much better we made the choice for you to stop playing the older version and play this one."
Not thanks, I decide for myself.
I severely doubt they're going to change a non-competition clause because of whiners on the internet.
Incidentally, why trash 3.5? Because 3.5 sucks. That's why. They don't want people confusing old, inferior product for new, superior product. There's nothing illogical about that.
They are simply doing everything in their power to transition the game as fast and as uneventfully as possible.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502
Looks like me and my quote up there turned out to be more accurate than the doomsayers.
Go me!
That is very significant, on many levels.
Actually it looks more like the doomsayers, the industry ones anyway, prompted WotC to change their minds about a particular condition of the GSL, changing it from publishers must choose wholesale which version to support to publishers must choose which version a particular product line will support.
That is very significant, on many levels.
Apart from, y'know, how unlikely that is, given the fight Scott and Linnae had to get a GSL in the first place. If they'd had to fight that much to get one, it's likely that any efforts by them to make it more open than the one they initially got would have ended in no GSL at all.
So... yeah. The naysayers were just wrong.
Apart from, y'know, how unlikely that is, given the fight Scott and Linnae had to get a GSL in the first place. If they'd had to fight that much to get one, it's likely that any efforts by them to make it more open than the one they initially got would have ended in no GSL at all.
So... yeah. The naysayers were just wrong.
Apart from, y'know, how unlikely it would be, given their positions, that Scott and Linae would be so wrong about the provisions of the GSL in the first place.
A bunch of the people WotC counted on to support 4E were freaking, and others were indicating that making a choice meant them choosing 3.5. You may find it unlikely that could cause a change, I do not.
Apart from, y'know, how unlikely it would be, given their positions, that Scott and Linae would be so wrong about the provisions of the GSL in the first place.
A bunch of the people WotC counted on to support 4E were freaking, and others were indicating that making a choice meant them choosing 3.5. You may find it unlikely that could cause a change, I do not.
No, I don't find it unlikely that could cause a change. I find it unlikely that could cause THIS change.
I don't think WotC's "relying on" ANYONE to support 4e except them and the massive majority of the RPG community that's going to buy it.
No, I don't find it unlikely that could cause a change. I find it unlikely that could cause THIS change.
I don't think WotC's "relying on" ANYONE to support 4e except them and the massive majority of the RPG community that's going to buy it.
Counted on, not relying on.
And many people at WotC know how much third party support has brought them, even if you do not want to acknowledge it.
Counted on, not relying on.
And many people at WotC know how much third party support has brought them, even if you do not want to acknowledge it.
No, honestly, they don't know. They think that it has helped - and apparently some at Hasbro don't think it's helped - but they don't know.
There's no real study of the effect of open gaming on WotC's bottom line. It's all just guesswork.
I agree. It looks very much like the "doomsayers" were right; Wotc realized they had a PR nightmare and decided that the original GSL on those terms was not acceptable. If the GSL were written the way they were implying now all along, this could have been put to bed painlessly two weeks ago in five minutes.
Everyone,
I wouldn't go celebrating yet. I'd read the GSL carefully (very carefully) first. The devil will be in the details such as:
1. The exact definition of 'product line'. A broad definition may as well be a per company exclusion.
2. The exact definition of 'fantasy game'. Same applies.
I don't trust Wotc/Hasbro (esp their legal depts) not to try to play games and even outright cheat on these little issues....and neither should you.
-Polaris
Samwise,
I agree. It looks very much like the "doomsayers" were right; Wotc realized they had a PR nightmare and decided that the original GSL on those terms was not acceptable. If the GSL were written the way they were implying now all along, this could have been put to bed painlessly two weeks ago in five minutes.
Yeah, I didn't think you would admit that you were wrong. No matter what WOTC does, you are determined to paint them as some kind of villainous corporation.
Yeah, I didn't think you would admit that you were wrong. No matter what WOTC does, you are determined to paint them as some kind of villainous corporation.
The only problem with that is the evidence indicates that I wasn't wrong. If I was, then we wouldn't have been talking about it for two weeks with dead silence from Wotc....and missed opportunity after missed opportunity to clarify.
The evidence indicates that Samwise has it right. The outcry over the initial GSL prompted Wotc and/or Hasbro legal to change their mind or appear to do so. I warned everyone two weeks ago not to celebrate when the GSL was announced, and I was right. I believe I am right now. Don't let Wotc off the hook until you can read the GSL with your own two eyes. There are too many ways that the FAQ can be technically true and Wotc can cheat on this like a bandit. The two that come to mind immediately are an overly broad definition of "product line" and "fantasy game".
-Polaris
No, honestly, they don't know. They think that it has helped - and apparently some at Hasbro don't think it's helped - but they don't know.
There's no real study of the effect of open gaming on WotC's bottom line. It's all just guesswork.
And yet all the people from WotC say it as if it were absolutely proven.
For myself, having spoken directly with both Scott Rouse and Linae Foster, I do not believe either was lying to me when they said they believed the OGL had helped, that they believe the GSL will help, or that they in any way had to convince themselves that was true, whether they had studies that would satisfy you or not.
I will trust them on this issue until actively proven otherwise.
The only problem with that is the evidence indicates that I wasn't wrong.
-Polaris
Speculation isn't evidence.
And yet all the people from WotC say it as if it were absolutely proven.
Um, I would say it's probably more accurate to say that the people from Wotc that are most involved in the actual industry accept the benefits of the OGL as an abolutely proven thing. If what Scott and Linnae have indicated is true (and I think it is), then it seems as though there has been a long and rather vicious turf war within Wotc (and possibly Hasbro) over this very question.
For myself, having spoken directly with both Scott Rouse and Linae Foster, I do not believe either was lying to me when they said they believed the OGL had helped, that they believe the GSL will help, or that they in any way had to convince themselves that was true, whether they had studies that would satisfy you or not.
I will trust them on this issue until actively proven otherwise.
I believe them as well. I happen to think (and while it's a guess on my part, I think it's a well founded one based on what we've heard from within Wotc) that there is a turf war between those that actually understand RPGs and gaming in general (and I include Scott and Linnae both here), and those that don't and while work for Wotc/Hasbro may well have never played an RPG in their lives. I think that the public outcry forced the non-gaming side of the house to take a step back. If you think their influence is finished in Wotc, however, I'd say you were being overly optimistic.
-Polaris
Speculation isn't evidence.
I was talking about evidence. The evidence was clear that Scott and Linnae's initial Q&A sessions did not exclude a per-company interpretation of the GSL. What Clark said he was told is also irrefutable as were Scott and Linnae's direct responses to it! Both their immediate responses were not consistant with the FAQ as it is laid out now, but was consistant with what Clark was told.
Add to that that Wotc took a tremendous hit to it's PR and reputation these past two weeks and had Clark been wrong in the first place it would have been completely unnecessary. It took two weeks for Wotc to finally come up with answers for relatively simple questions.
All this is evidence that supports the notion that the "doomsayers" had it right and that Wotc changed it's mind or wishes it to appear so. I still want to see Wotc's definition of product line and fantasy game (to name two). The devil is still in those details.
-Polaris
P.S. I don't have to protray Wotc as an "evil" corporation (and I object to that sort of intellectual laziness anyway). I will say this: They (wotc) with regard to the GSL to this point have done a superb job in painting themselves in that very light, however.
I believe them as well. I happen to think (and while it's a guess on my part, I think it's a well founded one based on what we've heard from within Wotc) that there is a turf war between those that actually understand RPGs and gaming in general (and I include Scott and Linnae both here), and those that don't and while work for Wotc/Hasbro may well have never played an RPG in their lives. I think that the public outcry forced the non-gaming side of the house to take a step back. If you think their influence is finished in Wotc, however, I'd say you were being overly optimistic.
-Polaris
Yes, yes, yes, and no.
(I know there was a turf war, I know those were the sides, I am certain it was the public outcry, I know the influence of the non-gamers is not finished.)
Yes, yes, yes, and no.
(I know there was a turf war, I know those were the sides, I am certain it was the public outcry, I know the influence of the non-gamers is not finished.)
A very succint summation! :D
-Polaris
All this is evidence that supports the notion that the "doomsayers" had it right and that Wotc changed it's mind or wishes it to appear so.
No, it is speculation, and as such, is not evidence.
No, it is speculation, and as such, is not evidence.
On the contrary, evidence is exactly what it is. There is no dispute about exactly what Scott and Linnae said before Clark's little bombshell. That can be looked up in the archive. Likewise there is no question about what Clark reported to us and there is no question about the posts that both Scott and Linnae made immediately afterwords (all again available in the archives here and in EN world). Also there is no question about what order and what timestamps those questions had. Likewise there is no question about the negative impact it had on Wotc's reputation (sourced many times including slashdot and other outside sources) and there is no question about how long it took (two weeks!) for Wotc to respond and there is no question that Wotc passed multiple opportunities to clarify sooner.
All this is evidence. The logical conclusion from this evidence is that the GSL was just as Clark reported it to be and that Wotc changed it's mind because of the public outcry or wants us to believe they have. This last point is important. There are still all sorts of ways Wotc legal can cheat on this, and we won't know they haven't until we see the final GSL.
-Polaris
No, it is speculation, and as such, is not evidence.
A notion is a speculation.
The evidence is:
1. The initial GSL announcement suggested a limitation.
2. Industry people had the limitation confirmed.
3. There was a major outcry, both from industy people and fans about that limitation.
4. The new GSL FAQ says the limitation does not exist.
The speculation, or notion as some might put it, is that the outcry led to a change.
Now if you want to say "correlation is not causation", that would be a relevant counter.
Indeed, there is no definitive statement of causation in addition to the obivous correlation between the screaming fits here and on ENWorld and the differences in WotC statements about the GSL from then to now.
The reply to that of course is, while there may not be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", all that is being asserted is a "preponderance of evidence".
All this is evidence. The logical conclusion from this evidence is that the GSL was just as Clark reported it to be and that Wotc changed it's mind because of the public outcry or wants us to believe they have. This last point is important. There are still all sorts of ways Wotc legal can cheat on this, and we won't know they haven't until we see the final GSL.
-Polaris
The first paragraph is what actually happened, aside from your personal slant on it. Your 'logical conclusion' is speculation.
The first paragraph is what actually happened, aside from your personal slant on it. Your 'logical conclusion' is speculation.
Here is my original quote that you referred to:
All this is evidence that supports the notion that the "doomsayers" had it right and that Wotc changed it's mind or wishes it to appear so.
I added the appropriate emphasis. The evidence you admit to does support the notion that I am correct. Thus you don't have a gripe coming. All I am claiming is that the perponderance of the evidence supports the notion that the GSL was the way the "doomsayers" claimed and that Wotc changed their minds in the face of public outcry (or wanted it to appear so).
-Polaris
Here is my original quote that you referred to:
I added the appropriate emphasis. The evidence you admit to does support the notion that I am correct. Thus you don't have a gripe coming. All I am claiming is that the perponderance of the evidence supports the notion that the GSL was the way the "doomsayers" claimed and that Wotc changed their minds in the face of public outcry (or wanted it to appear so).
-Polaris
No, you are just speculating on what these earlier things meant.
No, you are just speculating on what these earlier things meant.
Um, I am drawing a conclusion (yes an opinion...on a message board, imagine), based on the evidence. The evidence supports the conclusion I've drawn. The evidence does not support the notion that the GSL was 'per product' all along.
Don't make this smaller than it is; IMHO this is major egg on Wotc's face, but it had to be done.
-Polaris
It's really funny to see this speculation about how the outcry by a few dozen people on a bunch of ****ing message boards made them rewrite the GSL the last few weeks. Let me break it down for you:
You weren't at WotC headquarters.
You didn't go to the meetings.
You weren't part of the conference calls.
You're just talking **** if you say that you know what happened. Total ****. You weren't in the building. You're wrong. Lying is bad. Stop.
God, i knew he'd declare victory no matter what.
I'm not. However, you shouldn't either (and that goes for everyone). Edit: The real winners here are the customers and 3PP publishers if the actual GSL is written as advertised. That's a somewhat dodgy assumption I think.
It's really funny to see this speculation about how the outcry by a few dozen people on a bunch of ****ing message boards made them rewrite the GSL the last few weeks. Let me break it down for you:
You weren't at WotC headquarters.
You didn't go to the meetings.
You weren't part of the conference calls.
Neither were you. However, I do have evidence that supports the notion that Wotc/Hasbro did change their mind about the GSL or appear to do so. That evidence is compelling, and certainly counts towards a preponderance of the evidence.
You're just talking **** if you say that you know what happened. Total ****. You weren't in the building. You're wrong. Lying is bad. Stop.
Last time I checked, saying one has a 'notion' of what happened wasn't at all saying that one knew for an absolute fact what happened. However, I'd say my notion is on pretty firm ground.
I'd also add that accusing someone of lying when they are really stating an opinion is exceptionally poor form.
-Polaris
Edit PS: I just thought of another way that Wotc could potentially 'cheat' on this. Once you have the 3PP publishers signed up and committed to their 4E compatible products, yank the GSL (yes, the GSL is explicitly revokable at Wotc's whim...it's in the FAQ) and then force those with ongoing products to either dump their costs or accept a more restrictive GSL (or individual licensing). This is why a 'revokable' GSL is bad news for a lot of people out there.
God, i knew he'd declare victory no matter what.
It's really funny to see this speculation about how the outcry by a few dozen people on a bunch of ****ing message boards made them rewrite the GSL the last few weeks. Let me break it down for you:
Indeed. I pray for the day when people realize that companies like WotC plan these announcements and release information on their own time, and that message board whining is not actually that earth-shaking.
Indeed. I pray for the day when people realize that companies like WotC plan these announcements and release information on their own time, and that message board whining is not actually that earth-shaking.
In this case you'd be wrong. What happened with the GSL wasn't just a few cranks on a messageboard whining. It rapidly became news all over the internet (including slashdot and even some computer sites) and this was well document. What was also well documented was that many 3PPs that had been on board with supporting 4E such as Green Ronin, said "if this is the case, then thanks but no thanks". No the evidence is compelling in support of the notion that Wotc changed their minds or wants to appear to have done so. What Wotc was facing was a PR meltdown. It's shocking they waited as long as they did because by now many attitudes have hardened.
-Polaris
I'm not. However, you shouldn't either (and that goes for everyone). Edit: The real winners here are the customers and 3PP publishers if the actual GSL is written as advertised. That's a somewhat dodgy assumption I think.
Yes, indeed, the real winners are the gaming public. Unless WotC lied outright. Apparently the latter is a dodgy assumption, since you feel like they lied to you a lot. Oh Kay.
Neither were you. However, I do have evidence that supports the notion that Wotc/Hasbro did change their mind about the GSL or appear to do so. That evidence is compelling, and certainly counts towards a preponderance of the evidence.
For once, you're right. I wasn't there, and that's why I'm NOT saying I know what happened. I'm only saying that we heard a few vague, unofficial comments from Linae and El Rouso on the ENWorld forums that didn't confirm anything and now we have an actual FAQ on the WotC site that says the opposite of what you claimed. Neither of us have any absolute knowledge of what happened in the last few weeks, but you are claiming that something changed. I am making no such claims because I don't like to make **** up.
You don't have evidence. Your posts are filled with not-evidence. If you had evidence, we could all see it, but we don't, because it isn't there.
Last time I checked, saying one has a 'notion' of what happened wasn't at all saying that one knew for an absolute fact what happened. However, I'd say my notion is on pretty firm ground.
I'd also add that accusing someone of lying when they are really stating an opinion is exceptionally poor form.
-Polaris
Then provide the ground your 'notion' stands on. Don't just say you can do it, DO IT.
Here's a hint: Correlation does not imply causation.
In other words, the following timeline proves two things, and one of them is jack:
1) WotC announces GSL with exclusivity clause.
2) People speculate that it is "per company."
3) Internet chaos ensues.
4) WotC announces that said clause is "per product line."
Does the internet pants-peeing in (3) lead to the announcement in (4)? We have no i****ingdea. Don't bother guessing- it's not worth it.
Edit PS: I just thought of another way that Wotc could potentially 'cheat' on this. Once you have the 3PP publishers signed up and committed to their 4E compatible products, yank the GSL (yes, the GSL is explicitly revokable at Wotc's whim...it's in the FAQ) and then force those with ongoing products to either dump their costs or accept a more restrictive GSL (or individual licensing). This is why a 'revokable' GSL is bad news for a lot of people out there.
They could also send ninja hamsters with eye laz000000rz to the homes of their rivals. Hamsters can fit through holes as small as their heads. With ninja stealth skills and eye laz0000000rz, no one could stand against them. That would be BAD news for a LOT of people out there.
Of course, you won't. Because it's not there.
In other words, the following timeline proves two things, and one of them is jack:
1) WotC announces GSL with exclusivity clause.
2) People speculate that it is "per company."
3) Internet chaos ensues.
4) WotC announces that said clause is "per product line."
Does the internet pants-peeing in (3) lead to the announcement in (4)? We have no i****ingdea. Don't bother guessing- it's not worth it.
While I don't want to sound like I'm on Polaris's side, I think it would be more accurate to say that (2) was more "A 3PP posts on the forums that he was told the GSL is 'per company.'"
Edit: It still doesn't mean that the GSL definitely changed between (2) and (4).
Yes, indeed, the real winners are the gaming public. Unless WotC lied outright. Apparently the latter is a dodgy assumption, since you feel like they lied to you a lot. Oh Kay.
Wotc did lie in August 2007 when they said that 4E would be released under an open gaming license. There's more, but for this thread that's a start. I also said that there were lots of ways that Wotc could cheat on this and still keep all the answers to the FAQ technically true. Last time I checked this was not considered lying. Finally, I am pointing out that all celebrations of this are premature until we actualy can read and analyze the actual GSL. That should be common sense.
For once, you're right. I wasn't there, and that's why I'm NOT saying I know what happened. I'm only saying that we heard a few vague, unofficial comments from Linae and El Rouso on the ENWorld forums that didn't confirm anything and now we have an actual FAQ on the WotC site that says the opposite of what you claimed. Neither of us have any absolute knowledge of what happened in the last few weeks, but you are claiming that something changed. I am making no such claims because I don't like to make **** up.
I am claiming that the evidence leads me to believe something changed. That's what the word 'notion' means. You might want to look it up. However, I'd say my notion is based on pretty strong evidence albeit circumstantial. Namely Linnae and Scott's initial answers were did not exclude a per company exclusion bases (check them yourself, you will find I am correct) AND when Clark dropped his bombshell, their immediate posts did all but officially confirm that the exclusion was on a per company basis. Certainly their responses were not consistant with the FAQ the way it is written now.
Moreover, in spite of many opportunities and please to do so, and in spite of the fact that either Scott or Linnae could have stopped this in five minutes, Wotc remained silent for two weeks. They even dodged request after request from EN world to answer the submitted questions after wotc of it's own initiative asked EN world to submit these questions!
You don't have evidence. Your posts are filled with not-evidence. If you had evidence, we could all see it, but we don't, because it isn't there.
Everything above is evidence including the time stamps and what Wotc didn't say in face of an increasing PR problem. Negative evidence (what a person or company fails to do) is still evidence.
Then provide the ground your 'notion' stands on. Don't just say you can do it, DO IT.
I have, repeatedly
Here's a hint: Correlation does not imply causation.
Ah, you are finally reading some of Samwise's posts. You should have read the rest of it. Correlation can be taken as evidence of causation and it is in juries around the world. Show me that the causation doesn't exist. The correlation is consistant with causation by a preponderance of the evidence (a weaker standard than reasonable doubt).
In other words, the following timeline proves two things, and one of them is jack:
1) WotC announces GSL with exclusivity clause.
2) People speculate that it is "per company."
3) Internet chaos ensues.
4) WotC announces that said clause is "per product line."
Does the internet pants-peeing in (3) lead to the announcement in (4)? We have no i****ingdea. Don't bother guessing- it's not worth it.
You had major 3PP companies who Wotc was depending on for support either backing out because of this clause or threatening to do so. It's a fact that Green Ronin was one of those companies. It's entirely believable that Wotc decided that they needed to change their mind. It is not believable that Wotc would let their company image be tarnished for two weeks (and it was beyond just these boards) if the 'per company' exclusion clause were false. They would have (and should have) debunked it immediately. The fact they didn't is evidnece that it wasn't false.
They could also send ninja hamsters with eye laz000000rz to the homes of their rivals. Hamsters can fit through holes as small as their heads. With ninja stealth skills and eye laz0000000rz, no one could stand against them. That would be BAD news for a LOT of people out there.
Expansive, hard to do, and messy. However, yanking licensing agreements for competative advantage (or perceived advantage) is done all the time. If you run a company, you never enter a licensing agreement with a revokable clause unless you plan on that other company yanking the license tomorrow. The revokable part of the GSL is going to be a major sticking point.
-Polaris
While I don't want to sound like I'm on Polaris's side, I think it would be more accurate to say that (2) was more "A 3PP posts on the forums that he was told the GSL is 'per company.'"
I respect and acknowledge your wishes.
I read those posts too. It certainly seemed like Clark Peterson and others thought it might be that way. Linae and Le Rouse did not say otherwise. Why didn't they? I don't know. Maybe they had no more info than Peterson did and were trying to avoid saying something they'd regret. Or maybe Polaris's hypothesis is correct. But there are no facts that support either conclusion.
Some speculation is healthy- the testable kind. Other speculation is useless- the untestable kind. When the latter is presented in a certain manner, I put on my mean hat.
FYI, Polaris, if there was such a public outcry, prove it. Show me the list with the appropriate links of the 3rd party developers that complained long and loud.
Of course, you won't. Because it's not there.
Yes it is. It made slashdot news. It made at least one computer software board. In addition (and these were linked at the time), Clark Peterson of Necromancer games complained about it as did Green Ronin games. Many of hte participants of the EN world thread are fairly major (as such things go) 3PP publishers or reps, or didn't you know that?
-Polaris
Edit PS: That's just off the top of my head. The fact it made fairly major news (at least in RPG circles) is a given.
I read those posts too. It certainly seemed like Clark Peterson and others thought it might be that way. Linae and Le Rouse did not say otherwise. Why didn't they? I don't know. Maybe they had no more info than Peterson did and were trying to avoid saying something they'd regret. Or maybe Polaris's hypothesis is correct. But there are no facts that support either conclusion.
Um, how about the fact that not only did Linnae and Clark not say otherwise, but they directly responded (at least once in highly insulting manner) that was only consistent if what Clark said was true. Specifically read post #99 of the now infamous EN world thread, and it was not the only one. That is evidence that supports the conclusion that at the time the GSL did have a 'per company' exclusion clause.
Some speculation is healthy- the testable kind. Other speculation is useless- the untestable kind. When the latter is presented in a certain manner, I put on my mean hat.
Pfeh. In that case you, and, and everyone else here may as well stop posting and the entire forum should be shut down. Puhlleeze.
You know better than that. I have shown evidence that backs my notion and you know it. Thus I'd stop while you weren't so far behind.
-Polaris
Yes it is. It made slashdot news. It made at least one computer software board. In addition (and these were linked at the time), Clark Peterson of Necromancer games complained about it as did Green Ronin games. Many of hte participants of the EN world thread are fairly major (as such things go) 3PP publishers or reps, or didn't you know that?
-Polaris
Edit PS: That's just off the top of my head. The fact it made fairly major news (at least in RPG circles) is a given.
Links? I didn;t think so. I call you a liar Polaris - you can make up whatever you want, but until you provide proof, all it is is a falsification.
It made slashdot news.
Yeah, because someone posted a hideous story rampant with speculation and largely lacking in facts. I guess slashdot is starting to approach the quality of mainstream media.
Clark Peterson of Necromancer games complained about it
That's odd...I seem to recall reading the "infamous" thread, and Clark seemed to be defending the GSL as it was speculated to be at the time. Yes, he admitted that it wasn't exactly what he wanted, but he spent most of the thread trying to talk people down.
Yes it is. It made slashdot news. It made at least one computer software board. In addition (and these were linked at the time), Clark Peterson of Necromancer games complained about it as did Green Ronin games. Many of hte participants of the EN world thread are fairly major (as such things go) 3PP publishers or reps, or didn't you know that?
-Polaris
Edit PS: That's just off the top of my head. The fact it made fairly major news (at least in RPG circles) is a given.
Clark Peterson was staunchly defending WotC and the new GSL as he understood it. But I'm sure you're going to say he didn't mean to/was mistaken/took LSD/only said it because they used dominate person etc.
Also, "participants of that thread" =/= "people who support your claims." For example, I'm a participant of this thread and I think you are violently wrong.
Also, why don't you tell us a little more about that slashdot article? Did it perhaps come from an angry anti-4e denizen of these boards who has no more knowledge of these things than any of us?
Seriously, quote something from a reputable source that supports what you are saying.
Um, how about the fact that not only did Linnae and Clark not say otherwise, but they directly responded (at least once in highly insulting manner) that was only consistent if what Clark said was true. Specifically read post #99 of the now infamous EN world thread, and it was not the only one. That is evidence that supports the conclusion that at the time the GSL did have a 'per company' exclusion clause.
Why don't you repost that here, since it supports what you are saying?
Pfeh. In that case you, and, and everyone else here may as well stop posting and the entire forum should be shut down. Puhlleeze.
Yes, because "Gishes: Will They Work in 4e?" and "Babies: Does Scott Rouse Sacrifice Them?" are equally testable claims.
You know better than that. I have shown evidence that backs my notion and you know it. Thus I'd stop while you weren't so far behind.
-Polaris
God, I love it when you say you won.
You've shown evidence that you don't show evidence. Nada mas.
Links? I didn;t think so. I call you a liar Polaris - you can make up whatever you want, but until you provide proof, all it is is a falsification.
You'd better check your own facts before you call other posters 'liars'. Consider that a piece of friendly advice. Read this from Chris Pramas' personal blog (dated 18 Apr) and weep. He makes it pretty clear what Green Ronin will do with the GSL as it was presented then.
http://freeport-pirate.livejournal.com/94035.html
As for Clark Peterson, he was definately opposed to the GSL as it was written but franly has always been something of a Wotc apologist (you know this to be true) and was desperately hoping that he was wrong. However (and this to you too ewasick), he (like you) were in the minority. It was pretty much a given that Clark's initial fear was correct.
Apply Occam's Razor. The model that best fits the available data (i.e. the simplist one) is that Wotc given the negative pub simply changed their mind por wish it to appear so.
-Polaris
Why don't you repost that here, since it supports what you are saying?
Because there happens to be an entire thread in this very area of the Forums put together by Mudbunny that has all of the relavent Linnae and Scott quotes? That has something to do with it. You can read them yourself. They aren't hard to find.
Yes, because "Gishes: Will They Work in 4e?" and "Babies: Does Scott Rouse Sacrifice Them?" are equally testable claims.
At this point they are equally testable claims: They aren't. Therefore what are you doing posting about it (assuming you wish to be intellectually consistant).
God, I love it when you say you won.
I haven't. As of right now the big winners are the customers and 3PPs. If it stays that way is still very much an open question.
You've shown evidence that you don't show evidence. Nada mas.
By any reasonable standard of evidence, including legal, I have shown evidence that supports my position.
-Polaris
I respect and acknowledge your wishes.
I read those posts too. It certainly seemed like Clark Peterson and others thought it might be that way. Linae and Le Rouse did not say otherwise. Why didn't they? I don't know. Maybe they had no more info than Peterson did and were trying to avoid saying something they'd regret. Or maybe Polaris's hypothesis is correct. But there are no facts that support either conclusion.
Some speculation is healthy- the testable kind. Other speculation is useless- the untestable kind. When the latter is presented in a certain manner, I put on my mean hat.
Yeah, there are several things that could have happened back there ranging from there was someone in WotC giving out bad information, Peterson didn't ask the right questions, and so on. I really don't care how it got to this point since nearly* every way I can think of make me think better of WotC. I don't care if WotC changed it in responce because that would mean they actually listen and respond to concerns. If they didn't change it then they chose not to do the thing I didn't like. Either way is good with me. That is why this speculation doesn't bother me as much.
*I can think of at least one bad way that this all went down, but actually mentioning it would be an insane "WotC has ninja spies everywhere" type of conspiracy theory that would (and should I feel) be shot down quickly.
Think about all the time it took for them to actually produce the thing. You think if they had to change it in response to a bunch of message board cranks it would even exist right now? It would go back to lawyer limbo and be there for the next two months at minimum.
Now the thread that started all of this on ENWorld had two specific things that can be stated as fact. Clark said that there was an exclusivity clause to the GSL that might involve a company wide ban on producing OGL material but that the details weren't specifically clear, and the most specific thing said by Linae or Scott was that producing the same product for both systems would not be allowed. That is one fact and one speculation.
Now, Joe Goodman, who got his information from the same Q&A Clark was drawing from, had different things to say at a seminar at GAMA. The statement is just somebody who attended the seminar Joe spoke at repeating what he heard at the seminar, but in the light of what we've seen seems a lot more accurate than Clark's speculation. For discussions sake, I will repeat the quote from my OP:
Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.
I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.
There is an argument that this was the GSL all along. I still say that with the legal issues involved, there was no way it could be changed at this point in time for it to be announced in any detail at this date or available by the 4E launch.
As for Clark Peterson, he was definately opposed to the GSL as it was written but franly has always been something of a Wotc apologist (you know this to be true) and was desperately hoping that he was wrong.
Really? I don't know that he's a WotC apologist. Care to back that accusation up?
Besides, it didn't sound like he was desperately hoping he was wrong. It looked like he was somewhat disappointed, but intended to go forward and had a good plan on how to handle the situation.
However (and this to you too ewasick), he (like you) were in the minority. It was pretty much a given that Clark's initial fear was correct.
A given? Really?
Apply Occam's Razor. The model that best fits the available data (i.e. the simplist one) is that Wotc given the negative pub simply changed their mind por wish it to appear so.
-Polaris
Hmm...okay, so Scott Rouse didn't even have the GSL until a week ago, at the earliest, and it took him a week to go through it, answer the questions, get those answers approved by the legal team, then send them off to Enworld and get them posted here. That sounds like remarkably quick turnaround for legal matters involving a large company to me.
Because there happens to be an entire thread in this very area of the Forums put together by Mudbunny that has all of the relavent Linnae and Scott quotes? That has something to do with it. You can read them yourself. They aren't hard to find.
Ah, so we should hunt down evidence of your claims. Thank you for clarifying.
What's the weather like on your planet?
At this point they are equally testable claims: They aren't. Therefore what are you doing posting about it (assuming you wish to be intellectually consistant).
"At this point" is the key. In June we can see how right we were about 4e rules speculation. Until then, evidence one way or another will accumulate. Your claims that the GSL changed because of message board drama are not going to be answered. Evar.
I haven't. As of right now the big winners are the customers and 3PPs. If it stays that way is still very much an open question.
See above re: hamsters.
By any reasonable standard of evidence, including legal, I have shown evidence that supports my position.
-Polaris
That's awesome. You should become a trial lawyer. Your notion of evidence is awesome.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you can see from post #78 on this message board I told you about but refuse to quote, my client is not a murderer. You don't have to believe me- believe MeGaDuDe11978. When you go back to discuss your verdict, check his post."
Since the GSL is a legal document, and lawyers are involved, I don't think the GSL could have been changed in the few weeks since it was announced as definitely existing in response to the ****storm it unleashed.
I disagree. It depends on just how much a priority was put on it, and how much actually had to be changed (and how much actually was changed).
Think about all the time it took for them to actually produce the thing. You think if they had to change it in response to a bunch of message board cranks it would even exist right now? It would go back to lawyer limbo and be there for the next two months at minimum.
Not necessarily. I've seen very complex changes to major legal documents done in days if it absolutely had to be done.
Now the thread that started all of this on ENWorld had two specific things that can be stated as fact. Clark said that there was an exclusivity clause to the GSL that might involve a company wide ban on producing OGL material but that the details weren't specifically clear, and the most specific thing said by Linae or Scott was that producing the same product for both systems would not be allowed. That is one fact and one speculation.
Now, Joe Goodman, who got his information from the same Q&A Clark was drawing from, had different things to say at a seminar at GAMA. The statement is just somebody who attended the seminar Joe spoke at repeating what he heard at the seminar, but in the light of what we've seen seems a lot more accurate than Clark's speculation. For discussions sake, I will repeat the quote from my OP:
There is an argument that this was the GSL all along. I still say that with the legal issues involved, there was no way it could be changed at this point in time for it to be announced in any detail at this date or available by the 4E launch.
I've already covered this. I think the evidence that leads me to believe that Wotc changed their mind is compelling....and two weeks would be about the minimum needed to rewrite the appropriate sections.
-Polaris
You'd better check your own facts before you call other posters 'liars'. Consider that a piece of friendly advice. Read this from Chris Pramas' personal blog (dated 18 Apr) and weep. He makes it pretty clear what Green Ronin will do with the GSL as it was presented then.
http://freeport-pirate.livejournal.com/94035.html
As for Clark Peterson, he was definately opposed to the GSL as it was written but franly has always been something of a Wotc apologist (you know this to be true) and was desperately hoping that he was wrong. However (and this to you too ewasick), he (like you) were in the minority. It was pretty much a given that Clark's initial fear was correct.
Apply Occam's Razor. The model that best fits the available data (i.e. the simplist one) is that Wotc given the negative pub simply changed their mind por wish it to appear so.
-Polaris
Chris Pramas makes it clear that the GSL as he understood it then was not good for his company. Guess what? That doesn't meant his understanding *was right.* Yes, it's what you want to hear, but no, it's not based on solid facts. He was blogging about his reaction to what he thought the GSL might be. He was not providing evidence that his interpretation had particular merit.
Yeah, there are several things that could have happened back there ranging from there was someone in WotC giving out bad information, Peterson didn't ask the right questions, and so on. I really don't care how it got to this point since nearly* every way I can think of make me think better of WotC. I don't care if WotC changed it in responce because that would mean they actually listen and respond to concerns. If they didn't change it then they chose not to do the thing I didn't like. Either way is good with me. That is why this speculation doesn't bother me as much.
*I can think of at least one bad way that this all went down, but actually mentioning it would be an insane "WotC has ninja spies everywhere" type of conspiracy theory that would (and should I feel) be shot down quickly.
True, it is kind of a win-win.
Either they were not that evil from the start OR they were but later decided to give the 3PPs a break. When you put it that way, it's not as bad. I guess I just object to the "It was a PR holocaust that threatened to tear WotC asunder unless it loosened its death-grip on open gaming" hypothesis.
Really? I don't know that he's a WotC apologist. Care to back that accusation up?
It's not an accusation. It's an observation from reading his posts since 4e was announced. Clark Peterson ne' Orcus always insists on trying to look at things in the most 'pro-Wotc' way possible. That's been his pattern for nearly a year now, and it's why his bombshell was so shocking.
Besides, it didn't sound like he was desperately hoping he was wrong. It looked like he was somewhat disappointed, but intended to go forward and had a good plan on how to handle the situation.
That's because he had a pre-existing partnership with Paizo. That doesn't mean he wasn't desperately hoping he was wrong. Read his posts circa the 20th of April. They OOZE with depression.
A given? Really?
Yes, a given. Read the thread. That was the overwhelming concensus by the end of that first weekend and opinion barely budged (in fact it hardened). There was some shred of hope (apparently realized) that the complaints would convince Wotc to change their mind.
Hmm...okay, so Scott Rouse didn't even have the GSL until a week ago, at the earliest, and it took him a week to go through it, answer the questions, get those answers approved by the legal team, then send them off to Enworld and get them posted here. That sounds like remarkably quick turnaround for legal matters involving a large company to me.
No. That's not what Scott said. He said he didn't have the GSL on him. He didn't say he didn't have it nor did he ever say he didn't know what was in it. In fact given his position and especially given Linnae's position as licensing manager it is inconceivable that they didn't know exactly what was in the GSL, especially not if they were going out in public representing the company and answering technical questions about it.
-Polaris
Since the GSL is a legal document, and lawyers are involved, I don't think the GSL could have been changed in the few weeks since it was announced as definitely existing in response to the ****storm it unleashed.
Actually, contrary to popular opinion, it does not take that much time to write a legal document (depending on the size of course, but GSL would probably be the size of OGL). Most of the time spent is deciding what the document should do and how it should be done. After that, it is purely technical issue of writing it and checking it for any mistakes.
In addition, it is not unreasonable that for this particular problem there were multiple solutions proposed, maybe even written out, so it would not be overly difficult to simply take the provision out of one of those.
All in all, you may feel that they haven't changed their decision due to some sort of pressure (keep in mind, feedback wasn't just a messageboard thing - personal contacts would also count), but the possibility is quite realistic and can't be easily dismissed.
Chris Pramas makes it clear that the GSL as he understood it then was not good for his company. Guess what? That doesn't meant his understanding *was right.* Yes, it's what you want to hear, but no, it's not based on solid facts. He was blogging about his reaction to what he thought the GSL might be. He was not providing evidence that his interpretation had particular merit.
Read the post I was responding to. I said that at least a couple of 3PPs that I knew of off the top of my head would pull from 4E (who had supported it before) if the per company provision were accurate. I was called a 'liar'. I wasn't. Green Ronin did make that clear to wotc. In addition, it's pretty clear that Pramas had the same idea that Clark did (and they both had inside info). It's more evidence that backs my notion that Wotc changed their mind (or apparently did).
-Polaris
You claimed the GSL was dead and you were wrong. You claimed there was going to be what you called a "poison pill" and you were wrong. You now are claiming that people like you being angry on the internet made WotC change the GSL and that to me sounds just silly.
I never argued with you about the possibility of a company-wide exclusivity clause for the GSL. Most of the information we had at the time seemed to point in that direction, at least until the report of the seminar at GAMA I keep posting. I took issue with your assertion that the exclusivity clause as we were speculating it to be was fact and not mere speculation. I also took issue with your assertion of the assumed exclusivity clause as a "poison pill" as the term was and still is inappropriate for what it was.
The more you talk about this, the more shrill and ridiculous you sound. You seem to need desperately to find some negativity in this, and will stop at nothing to rationalize things to fit your pre-defined reality.
In closing, some words from an avowed anti-4E fan in regards to the Paizo finger thread and some crow pictures directed at you:
People,
Please don't bring him back on this thread.
Thank you.
Its not just the "Avengers" who think you're going a little too far here.
Yes, because "Gishes: Will They Work in 4e?" and "Babies: Does Scott Rouse Sacrifice Them?" are equally testable claims.
Place the baby in the same room as Rouse. We shall have our answer soon enough.
In closing, some words from an avowed anti-4E fan in regards to the Paizo finger thread and some crow pictures directed at you:
I am hardly "avowed" anything, and don't consider myself "anti-4e fan". Please leave me out of your petty feuds and warlike view of these boards, thank you.
Actually, contrary to popular opinion, it does not take that much time to write a legal document (depending on the size of course, but GSL would probably be the size of OGL). Most of the time spent is deciding what the document should do and how it should be done. After that, it is purely technical issue of writing it and checking it for any mistakes.
In addition, it is not unreasonable that for this particular problem there were multiple solutions proposed, maybe even written out, so it would not be overly difficult to simply take the provision out of one of those.
All in all, you may feel that they haven't changed their decision due to some sort of pressure (keep in mind, feedback wasn't just a messageboard thing - personal contacts would also count), but the possibility is quite realistic and can't be easily dismissed.
I'm just basing my assertion on the amount of time to make this particular revision on the countless delays and trouble actually getting the GSL to this point. If they have had so much trouble getting the thing resolved and meeting deadlines before, why would it be easier to revise it now?
I'm just basing my assertion on the amount of time to make this particular revision on the countless delays and trouble actually getting the GSL to this point. If they have had so much trouble getting the thing resolved and meeting deadlines before, why would it be easier to revise it now?
Because at first they had conflicting opinions as to what GSL will actually do?
I am hardly "avowed" anything, and don't consider myself "anti-4e fan". Please leave me out of your petty feuds and warlike view of these boards, thank you.
I apologize. Its 430am here and I really should be sleeping right now. I've seen you post in the anti direction before, and I might have been a little loose with words. It wasn't anything personal, as I was mostly concentrating on the aformentioned petty feuds with people who are not you.
Because at first they had conflicting opinions as to what GSL will actually do?
For all we know they still do.
I just think it is a more reasonable assumption that this is what the GSL was all along than to think the non-event of a bit of internet crankiness changed things. I think the most likely scenario was that Clark got the wrong idea, posted his wrong idea, for whatever reason Scott didn't clarify things, and people had a big stink about nothing.
Any interpretation of things is speculation. The whole "Much Ado About Nothing" deal just seems more realistic.
1. Quoting another poster out of context here, isn't nice.
2. Nothing I've posted here is either "shrill" or unsensible. You might disagree with my take, but it seems to be a reasonable take.
3. Do I view Wotc's actions through the worst possible prism? In some respects I do, but that's because I believe that their actions in the past five years (including 3.5) merit such treatment. Even if you don't agree with me on this, I think it's good that at least someone is watching this like a hawk.
4. Finally, I note that it's probably in poor taste to keep posting crow pictures.
-Polaris
It's not an accusation. It's an observation from reading his posts since 4e was announced. Clark Peterson ne' Orcus always insists on trying to look at things in the most 'pro-Wotc' way possible. That's been his pattern for nearly a year now, and it's why his bombshell was so shocking.
It sounded like an accusation to me.
That's because he had a pre-existing partnership with Paizo. That doesn't mean he wasn't desperately hoping he was wrong. Read his posts circa the 20th of April. They OOZE with depression.
I realize he had a partnership with Paizo. And the despression that oozes out of his posts are at people's reactions to what he said, not to the idea itself. He made it clear that the way people were foaming at the mouth and vilifying WotC was what had him upset.
Yes, a given. Read the thread. That was the overwhelming concensus by the end of that first weekend and opinion barely budged (in fact it hardened). There was some shred of hope (apparently realized) that the complaints would convince Wotc to change their mind.
So wait...because a bunch of reactionary, ill-informed people all accept something as fact that makes it given that it's true? Huh...I guess all those conspiracy theorists are right. Give me a second while I go make a tin-foil hat.
No. That's not what Scott said. He said he didn't have the GSL on him. He didn't say he didn't have it nor did he ever say he didn't know what was in it. In fact given his position and especially given Linnae's position as licensing manager it is inconceivable that they didn't know exactly what was in the GSL, especially not if they were going out in public representing the company and answering technical questions about it.
-Polaris
Right...except Scott said that he was at the GAMA trade show, and wouldn't have the GSL in his hands until he got back on Friday (which would have been the 26th.) Presumably, he had the weekend off, which I imagine he would spend with his family (since he hadn't seen them in a week.) That would leave him dealing with it starting on Monday, so 4/5 days to answer questions, get legal approval, send out and post. Sounds reasonable.
Besides, anyone who takes something an employee (even the licensing manager and community coordinator or whatever Scott's official title is) says on their time, in a non-official capacity, on a non-official source as gospel truth...well...seems kind of silly to me.
Either way, I don't care. You don't seem to care about anything except trying to tell people they were wrong and vilifying WotC...so I'm taking my ball (or in this case my eyes) and going home.
Any interpretation of things is speculation. The whole "Much Ado About Nothing" deal just seems more realistic.
No no no, that's all cool. I mean, despite what some here say, we are all speculating based on same facts. The thing is, I'm merely saying that the possibility for other thing exists, and should not be discredited easily as "impossible".
From what I see, and without any evidence, I would say that there are two likely cases here: either they changed it, or they were incompetent in handling this.
To be completely honest (and giving my own opinion on this, rather than WotC's), unless you are developers and publishers a lot of this won't affect you one bit, and if it hadn't had such a stink around it most would never have even noticed any changes at all. A lot of people are looking for problems where there are none.
At no point did anyone from Wizards of the Coast confirm the rumor that the GSL would be on a company-by-company basis. At that time (and even now) the GSL was not technically complete. Scott and Linae and everyone else at WotC are all under NDA, which limits what they can say and when. Even the much (mis)quoted Scott Rouse Post doesn't confirm that they would limit a companies ability to post through the OGL, simply that they would be actively encouraging the use of the GSL amongst third party publishers and that 3pp would be free to choose between OGL and GSL, but that there would be a choice involved. At no point did any major 3PP complain about the actual GSL. Chris Pramas said that he was contacting for clarification, but if the allegations were true than Green Ronin would stick with the OGL so that it could continue to support M&M. Clark Peterson actively supported it even when he thought that it might be on a company basis (though he didn't claim to believe that particular fact).
As it is, this is about what everyone expected. I can't imagine that anyone was really planning on releasing the same exact product lines for both 4e and 3.5 anyways. Quite simply put, it wouldn't have made economic sense to split development time for a product with such a narrow audience. I can, however, see the desire for publishers to maintain at least one of their current lines in 3.5 while transitioning the others to 4e, and the GSL apparently allows this.
Nuke plus a more tactful opinion based in reality
Particularly the part about people looking for problems where there are none. Something that needed to be said stated in a much less agressive(and effective) tone than the way I was trying to say it half asleep at 4:30 AM.
I go to bed and this thread gets nuked?
Particularly the part about people looking for problems where there are none. Something that needed to be said stated in a much less agressive(and effective) tone than the way I was trying to say it half asleep at 4:30 AM.
I wasn't trying to nuke the thread... and I definitely don't want to stop the conversation. Just wanted to give my take on the situation in the hopes that it would help calmer heads prevail. This really is an important topic for the entire gaming industry, and its something that everyone should weigh in on. However, if we have too many Chicken Littles, the actual substance behind the issue can sometimes be lost. Sometimes its best to wait for some facts to surface before we speculate too much. Now, if you're upset that there weren't enough facts out there... well that's a different matter entirely, and I think we all wish there was more that could be said without tipping WotC's hand too much. :D
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1026679
Thanks,
-Mike