PDA

View Full Version : The GSL is live and I am stunned



gdmcbride
06-18-2008, 03:28 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome

I ... I just can't believe it. I am flabbergasted by this license. Why?



11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.

11.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Licensed Materials and will destroy all inventory and marketing materials in Licensee’s possession bearing the Compatibility Logo. Licensee will remove the Compatibility Logo from all advertising, web sites, and other materials. Licensee will solely bear all costs related to carrying out this provision (in addition to any other provision) of the License. Wizards may, in its sole discretion and upon written agreement between Wizards and Licensee, extend this License for those Licensed Products that otherwise comply with the terms of this License.


To summarize -- we can cancel this license at any time. When we cancel it, you must immediately destroy every book (and even flyers!) published under this license. No, we don't have to explain why.

This is unbelievable. I am literally stunned. Why publish this license at all? Who would possibly agree to this? Hobbyist publishers who really don't care about the money at all, I suppose, or PDF and print-on-demand publishers with no actual stock. But base a serious business plan around an instantly and "at-will" revocable license? Who would do that?

I was expecting a termination clause in the GSL but surely with a 6 month or maybe even a year 'sell off' period.

This is madness. And it will give new fuel to the OGL movement.

Gary

starfalconkd
06-18-2008, 08:33 AM
They are completely insane.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 08:58 AM
Stupid. Utterly...stupid. :rolleyes:

Farcaster
06-18-2008, 09:39 AM
I would have to agree. I can't imagine them getting many takers with those provisions.

Dimthar
06-18-2008, 10:42 AM
I would have to agree. I can't imagine them getting many takers with those provisions.

One would need to think if they really want takers. I guess they found they were loosing market against their own "Licensees".

.

fmitchell
06-18-2008, 11:11 AM
The most charitable interpretation is that it was a condition of the Pointy-Haired Bosses at Hasbro, who couldn't understand why a game company would "give away" their "intellectual property".

One would hope they would exercise that clause only with blatant violators of other provisions ... but after the past few years in other arenas, nobody with half a brain would believe the excuse "we'd only use this against bad people".

tesral
06-18-2008, 11:30 AM
One would hope they would exercise that clause only with blatant violators of other provisions ... but after the past few years in other arenas, nobody with half a brain would believe the excuse "we'd only use this against bad people".

A clause once instituted will be used. If I were a gaming publisher I would hold that thing with tongs and incenierate.

I would have to think that pointly haired lawyer bosses are responsible for this. No one with a brain would demand, or expect, to get such rights. I wouldn't sign that with a ten foot pen.

Conclusion: We don't want you making product for 4e, ours, not yours, EVAR.

Back to the bad old days of the T$R bean counters. (sigh)

Farcaster
06-18-2008, 11:55 AM
Now, hold on a second before we start burning Wizards of the Coast in effagy. Just how many gaming companies have an open license for other publishers to build on their systems? I agree that WotC has made this OGL largely worthless with such a ludicrous provision, but there would have been nothing wrong with them not opening up the OGL for the 4th edition system either. It's amazing to me that they did so in the first place.

MooseAlmighty
06-18-2008, 12:07 PM
That's the shortest licensing agreement I've ever seen (and I've had the "joy" of going through many of them).

I think some language is missing or in another document. Generally there are two kinds of Termination.

1. Ya broke the rules. Destroy everything on hand. Usually because you failed a safety test, didn't get pre-production approval from the licensor, failed to pay on time, or some other violation of the contract.

2. Contract expiration. One or both parties decide not to renew the contract and continue making the licensed product. This usually allows 60-120 days sell-off period beyond the expiration date.

The second option seems to be missing. If you've done business together and are happy with the results, you wouldn't just slam your partner.

mrken
06-18-2008, 12:15 PM
Personally I really don't care about WotC. I stopped playing their RPG back when they told me that 3.0 was just a joke and they really wanted 3.5 as their game. I took it as a poke in the eye. Now they want to poke you in the eye. Ok, if you let them. I for one put my hand up to my forehead (three stooges style) anytime one of them is within my ten foot area of affect. I don't even look at their game supplements in the FLGS, instead I go looking at any other supplements.

Though I do have to admit I do buy their AAM every so often and have been thinking of buying some of the singles DnD minis I see for dirt cheap at my FLGS.

We all know Hasbro has no clue what makes gamers tick and that they really could give a rats patutie about what we think. I for one see them going out of business, much like the Titanic slipping under the waves. The whole gaming world will talk about the shame of it and that it was to be expected. But the next day RP will go on without even a ripple as the whole WotC thing begins to fade from memory one day at a time. Truely you can't believe we don't have enough companies to fill the void almost overnight.

InfoStorm
06-18-2008, 12:21 PM
Escape clauses are not uncommon. More and more, if you read all of the service contracts for every service you sign up for: Cells, Cable/Satalite, Internet, etc; You will find clauses close to "we can terminiate you service for any reason we want." This is all this is. Get used to it.

ryan973
06-18-2008, 12:33 PM
I kinda expected something like this. Wether for or against 4th ed, I think its safe to assume we all agree that it has split the market a bit. Having cut down there consumers they probably cant afford the compitition.

Valdar
06-18-2008, 12:33 PM
Anyone seen any 3rd party publisher's reaction to this? Necromancer Games (http://www.necromancergames.com) doesn't seem to have noticed yet...

GC13
06-18-2008, 01:23 PM
Escape clauses are not uncommon. More and more, if you read all of the service contracts for every service you sign up for: Cells, Cable/Satalite, Internet, etc; You will find clauses close to "we can terminiate you service for any reason we want." This is all this is. Get used to it.Yes, but a cable TV subscriber doesn't need to mulch inventory in the event of such a cancellation.

tesral
06-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Now, hold on a second before we start burning Wizards of the Coast in effagy. Just how many gaming companies have an open license for other publishers to build on their systems? I agree that WotC has made this OGL largely worthless with such a ludicrous provision, but there would have been nothing wrong with them not opening up the OGL for the 4th edition system either. It's amazing to me that they did so in the first place.

Who said anything about effigies? I would say none of them do, now. That is not an open license. That is a place your nards in the pliers, but we won't squeeze license.

I'm glad I'm not some little publisher depending on Lizards to not squash my bread and butter.

gdmcbride
06-18-2008, 03:52 PM
Now, hold on a second before we start burning Wizards of the Coast in effagy. Just how many gaming companies have an open license for other publishers to build on their systems? I agree that WotC has made this OGL largely worthless with such a ludicrous provision, but there would have been nothing wrong with them not opening up the OGL for the 4th edition system either. It's amazing to me that they did so in the first place.

I am not burning WotC in effigy. I actually still like D&D 4th edition the game, what I've played of it. But I would be lying if I didn't say that I'm very disappointed in this license.

I am grateful for the OGL. It allowed many great RPG products that likely wouldn't have existed without it. And I suspect that it did help sales for WotC, though I acknowledge such things can be difficult to quantify.

I also do not dispute WotC's right to release no license at all. D&D is their IP. What has stunned me is that they would release a third party license (going to the time and trouble to formulate one) this restrictive.

Gary


Escape clauses are not uncommon. More and more, if you read all of the service contracts for every service you sign up for: Cells, Cable/Satalite, Internet, etc; You will find clauses close to "we can terminiate you service for any reason we want." This is all this is. Get used to it.

With all due respect, you are simply incorrect.

Having a cell phone company stop honoring a service contract because you're being difficult, thus forcing you to go to the trouble of getting a new cell phone from a different company, is in no way comparable to forcing a publishing company to destroy every book immediately thanks to one letter that can be sent at any time with neither explanation nor recourse. One is an afternoon's annoyance. The other is potentially financially distrastrous.

Imagine trying to set up any other business using this model. Imagine if you open a pie shop and there was a rival pie company that, because you used their recipe, could force you to destroy all your pies immediately (and to never make those pies again) with a letter. Would you be willing to base you and your family's economic future upon this sort of business plan? There is a simply remedy, of course -- use another recipe. That other recipe, in this analogy, is the OGL.

Gary

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-18-2008, 04:29 PM
What did the original OGL say? Was it worded the same?

I take it that a clause like this is not normal?

It is usually in employer/employee handbooks or other materials so it isn't that surprising to me.

gdmcbride
06-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Anyone seen any 3rd party publisher's reaction to this?

"And at first glance, the GSL is absolutely terrible for Kobold Quarterly ... I was hoping for better. Bah." -- Wolfgang Baur, publisher of Open Design and Kobold Quarterly

"I'm feeling very pleased with our decision to stick with the OGL today..." -- Erik Mona, publisher of Paizo.

"The question you have to ask is: how much do you trust Wizards to keep the GSL around? Because once it is gone, that product you made likely cant ever be published again. Why? Because if you use the GSL you can NEVER (even after the GSL is terminated) make an OGL version of that product." -- Clark Peterson, Necromancer Games

"They can spin that this isnt a poison pill all they want. But my dad taught me to call a spade a spade. Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a 'Tome of Horrors' for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly. That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E." -- Clark Peterson, Necromancer Games

"...the way the GSL is worded it makes it hard to imagine how we could do a 4E Freeport Companion and keep our publishing model intact. It would be possible, I suppose, to do a generic pirate sourcebook and at least point back to Freeport, but something structured like our current companions might invite trouble." -- Chris Pramas, Green Ronin

Just a selection.

Gary


What did the original OGL say? Was it worded the same?

I take it that a clause like this is not normal?

It is usually in employer/employee handbooks or other materials so it isn't that surprising to me.

From the OGL 1.0a



13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

Note the key differences -- termination only occurs 'if You fail to comply'. And you have 30 days to respond to such a breach upon becoming aware of it.

Gary

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-18-2008, 05:17 PM
From the OGL 1.0a



Note the key differences -- termination only occurs 'if You fail to comply'. And you have 30 days to respond to such a breach upon becoming aware of it.

Gary

Interesting. Maybe they haven't been happy with some 3rd party publications and want to reserve the right to revoke it if necessary.

But I do see how much of a risk it is without any sort of guarantee from Wizards.

I wonder if a 3rd party's lawyer can amend it?

fmitchell
06-18-2008, 05:20 PM
It is usually in employer/employee handbooks or other materials so it isn't that surprising to me.

Again, comparing the GSL to "at will termination" is a poor analogy. Imagine losing not only your job, but having to pay a fine *and* being stuck with a "non-compete" clause for some period.

Similarly, a publisher isn't only losing his future income; under provisions of that license he has to destroy his entire inventory of "out of compliance" GSL-based products (which could be all of them) -- probably paying someone to shred his products, I might add. He also has to survive on his savings and any remaining products he might have until somebody writes new books free of GSL content.

As Gary suggests, a wise businessman would put most or all of his resources in non-GSL, non-4th Edition content that he can sell as long as the books make money, and then sell as PDFs to milk as much revenue as possible. At best, a publisher might put out a GSL book if he thinks they'd actually turn a quick profit with a relatively light investment ... and guess how well-written and playtested those books will likely be?

So, in effect, WotC is setting up two 4e markets: one for themselves, and one for fools and fly-by-night hacks, probably sold exclusively as PDF or POD. (Plus poor sods who write free web content.) I mean, you find some gems among PDFs, but you'll only find them among the PDF vendors ... not your local game store, Amazon.com, Troll and Toad, etc.

Somewhere I hear a Hasbro exec screeching: WE ARE THE SU-PREME FOURTH E-DI-TION PUB-LI-SHERS IN THE U-NI-VERSE! ALL LES-SER PUB-LI-SHERS WILL BE EX-TER-MI-NA-TED! And the board of directors chants EX-TER-MI-NATE! EX-TER-MI-NATE! EX-TER-MI-NATE!

Or possibly not.

Maelstrom
06-18-2008, 05:22 PM
"They can spin that this isnt a poison pill all they want. But my dad taught me to call a spade a spade. Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a 'Tome of Horrors' for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly. That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E." -- Clark Peterson, Necromancer Games


Ugh... WoTC has a good thing going here! Why do they keep offending the people that make their gears keep spinning!

You treat these 3rd party suppliers with so much suspicion and unease, and you hurt yourself with all of their many fans as well... Lawyers. Who says Lawful Evil is gone?

cplmac
06-18-2008, 07:20 PM
... Lawyers. Who says Lawful Evil is gone?


lol! :lol:

Dimthar
06-18-2008, 09:51 PM
Lawyers. Who says Lawful Evil is gone?

Man! LoL. We could end this thread with these famous last words!.

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-18-2008, 09:57 PM
Why the change though?

Why would they change their GSL?

Obviously all we can muster is speculation but i would like to hear it.

Maybe, secretly they don't want any OGL material for 4e.

Valdar
06-19-2008, 12:21 AM
I believe they wanted more quality control of 3rd party products. I don't have a link though.

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 12:44 AM
I believe they wanted more quality control of 3rd party products. I don't have a link though.

bob bledsaw. this might be the historical precident for what WotC is thinking. he started a company called "judge's guild" which had a license to produce "official" d&d content in the early days of the hobby. after TSR went from little publisher that could to established king of the hill, and started publishing slicker, more professional product, they felt having the dungeons and dragons name emblazoned on bledsaw's amateurish products was making them look bad, and pulled his plug, in 81 iirc. TSR wasnt entirely against third party product, per se, chaosium and mayfair still published d&d compatable product, for instance, they just didnt want someone who wouldnt improve his editing and presentation riding on their coattails.

having said that, i still dont get what WotC is thinking. a lot of the third party stuff released under OGL wasn't bad, and some of it was downright inspired (the monte cook stuff was awesome, imo). these are different times, independent publishers are more professional and current gamers are a bit more discriminating with their dollars, it isnt the early days when you bought whatever came out because only a handful of companies were even putting out stuff for the gamer.

oh, well, i'm mad at them for the new ed anyway. i hope they have fun being as despised as TSR was when they started to get too big for their britches...

gdmcbride
06-19-2008, 04:11 AM
I have long given up on the art of mind reading. So, I am unable to say exactly why the GSL is the way it is.

I could speculate that they are trying to prevent certain products often cited as being troublesome to WotC from reemerging. For example:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy (for its racy content)
d20srd.org (for allowing you to play 3.5 without buying core)
Mongoose's Conan (for using the OGL combined with a high-end license to create a game that has a large draw and absolutely does not require the core rulebooks)
The Pocket Player's Handbook (Mongoose again; basically the entire PHB 3.0 via the SRD made into a soft-bound handy pocket size with virtually no art)

Gary

fmitchell
06-19-2008, 04:29 AM
I could speculate that they are trying to prevent certain products often cited as being troublesome to WotC from reemerging. For example:

The Book of Erotic Fantasy (for its racy content)
d20srd.org (for allowing you to play 3.5 without buying core)
Mongoose's Conan (for using the OGL combined with a high-end license to create a game that has a large draw and absolutely does not require the core rulebooks)
The Pocket Player's Handbook (Mongoose again; basically the entire PHB 3.0 via the SRD made into a soft-bound handy pocket size with virtually no art)


Doesn't the new SRD allow you only to reference rules in the Core Books without reprinting them? If so, it already blocks all the above examples except The Book of Erotic Fantasy ... and Part 7 of the GSL blocks that.

I still prefer the Pointy-Haired Dalek theory.

tesral
06-19-2008, 07:45 AM
Maybe, secretly they don't want any OGL material for 4e.

By Jove, a clue!

I think you nailed it in one. Being as 4e has no OGL.

Frankly the OGL and SRD where shocks that had most of us old timers poking it with ten foot poles for the traps that had to be buried in it. No one did that kind of thing. T$R was like mine, mine, mine! Towards the end of days they hemorrhaged cease and desist letters to websites that published original material aimed at D&D players. One of the reasons that got them the ogre reputation. Once it was proven it was for real we wallowed in same. This new "license to screw third party types" is a return to business as usual with a particularly mean streak. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise really. It has Hasbro written all over it.


PS, The editing of Judges Guild was not wonderful, but certainly no worse than some of the blunders we have seen out of Lizards. They never could afford slick artist or slick covers. But the material within was generally decent and of a quality equal to anything else of the day. The break came with the switch to AD&D.

Shadow Dweller
06-19-2008, 08:05 AM
Yup, because all those restricetions are going to stop people from getting the books via torrent, thus bypassing WOTC entirely. Sure, couldn't do this if your playing at a convention or major RPGA event, but for the casual gamer, it's easy to just click a button or two and viola, Insta Book!

Goldshadow
06-19-2008, 10:34 AM
Lawyers. Who says Lawful Evil is gone?

Maelstrom -

You need to get that printed on as many CafePress items as you can and sell them in bulk.

:laugh:


Goldshadow

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 12:40 PM
PS, The editing of Judges Guild was not wonderful, but certainly no worse than some of the blunders we have seen out of Lizards. They never could afford slick artist or slick covers. But the material within was generally decent and of a quality equal to anything else of the day. The break came with the switch to AD&D.

oh, dont get me wrong, i LOVED judges guild stuff when i was a kid (still do, in a nostalgic, warm fuzzies sort of way). heck, Modron was my favorite fantasy city for a long time (and is still in the homebrew campaign, with a bit of spit and polish), but, Tesral, seriously. bledsaw was just trying to do everything on the cheap. judges guild moved product, and i dont think bob really noticed that the game moved from fan driven amateur fun to a serious business, and never changed his business model to reflect that. he was stuck in the 70's, so to speak.

its a shame, too, judges guild definitely was "outside the box" thinking and came up with some really nice ideas...

cplmac
06-19-2008, 09:11 PM
Yup, because all those restricetions are going to stop people from getting the books via torrent, thus bypassing WOTC entirely. Sure, couldn't do this if your playing at a convention or major RPGA event, but for the casual gamer, it's easy to just click a button or two and viola, Insta Book!


Could be that they may be trying to keep people from being able to just click the button or two in order to obtain the books.

If the book is obtained by downloading it, do those people then just print it out on their own printer?

tesral
06-19-2008, 09:29 PM
its a shame, too, judges guild definitely was "outside the box" thinking and came up with some really nice ideas...

The longer they went the more it was plain they were "marking time" churning out product. Later products were not as good as the early ones. I still have old Judges' Guild maps I use. Not six feet from this desk in fact in my old portfoilo.





Could be that they may be trying to keep people from being able to just click the button or two in order to obtain the books.

If the book is obtained by downloading it, do those people then just print it out on their own printer?

For any book I planned to use. Now I have looked over bootlegs of D&D books to decide which to buy. I don't use those bootlegs as my primary source however. I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect. A book good enough to use is good enough to own and I want that dead tree edition. Besides it's only right to give the authors their due. I have a few 3.5 books to buy. Prices should come down as the rush to 4e causes people to ditch perfectly good books.

So yes, if I buy a PDF it has printing in it's future.

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 11:00 PM
The longer they went the more it was plain they were "marking time" churning out product. Later products were not as good as the early ones. I still have old Judges' Guild maps I use. Not six feet from this desk in fact in my old portfoilo.




For any book I planned to use. Now I have looked over bootlegs of D&D books to decide which to buy. I don't use those bootlegs as my primary source however. I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect. A book good enough to use is good enough to own and I want that dead tree edition. Besides it's only right to give the authors their due. I have a few 3.5 books to buy. Prices should come down as the rush to 4e causes people to ditch perfectly good books.

So yes, if I buy a PDF it has printing in it's future.

part one: hey thats what i said int he first place! ;)

part two: yep, im looking forward to seeing what pops up at half price books in the next few months. my local FLGS isnt coming down on price, however, they're going with the "heh, now they're out of print books" line...

Grimwell
06-20-2008, 12:40 AM
This does sound crappy, but I expected it. 3E made lots of money for people who weren't Hasbro. It's easy to see why they would want to make that money themselves this time. You can scream and holler all ya want, but D&D did just fine before 3.0 and the OGL, and it will do just fine in 4.0.

Plus, if a larger publisher wants to do 4.0 material and does not like the new license, they can negotiate a different one -- with lawyers. The key would be to remember that this license does not force anyone to give Hasbro any money when they make their product. You can print a book and keep all the profit... but they can pull the plug.

I'm sure, if you are willing to license something different, you can print for your projected run and then you aren't stuck with deleting it later. You can give them a touch of the profits, and protect your long term sales.

Will everyone be able to do it, nope. Not at all. Someone will though.

gdmcbride
06-20-2008, 01:17 AM
Plus, if a larger publisher wants to do 4.0 material and does not like the new license, they can negotiate a different one -- with lawyers. The key would be to remember that this license does not force anyone to give Hasbro any money when they make their product. You can print a book and keep all the profit... but they can pull the plug.

I'm sure, if you are willing to license something different, you can print for your projected run and then you aren't stuck with deleting it later. You can give them a touch of the profits, and protect your long term sales.

Will everyone be able to do it, nope. Not at all. Someone will though.

Ummm...no. WotC has been pulling all individual corporate licenses for the last year. Margaret Weiss Productions and Dragonlance. Paizo and Dragon and Dungeon magazines. Various computer software licenses were also pulled (e-tools and so forth).

If WotC is open to individual licenses, they have an odd way of showing it.

Gary

tesral
06-20-2008, 10:21 AM
If WotC is open to individual licenses, they have an odd way of showing it.

Mine, mine, mine!!!

Back to business as usual I suppose. Seriously, the OGL is the shining exception, this is far more typical.

frank634
06-21-2008, 06:37 PM
It is an interesting clause in the agreement but understand that it is not enforceable. I had a lawyer take a look at this.

It is understandable that WOC put this clause in. If a company produces material that is not suitable, WOC can stop a company from further publishing the material. As far as destroying the material, regardless on what the license says, no company can order its discruction, however, they can stop it from being sold.

Well, thats my 2 cents on the law for you.

ithil
06-21-2008, 09:06 PM
It is an interesting clause in the agreement but understand that it is not enforceable. I had a lawyer take a look at this.

It is understandable that WOC put this clause in. If a company produces material that is not suitable, WOC can stop a company from further publishing the material. As far as destroying the material, regardless on what the license says, no company can order its discruction, however, they can stop it from being sold.

One assumes that most companies produce goods in order to sell them, so that's not a very helpful distinction. ;)

Maelstrom
06-22-2008, 05:33 PM
It is an interesting clause in the agreement but understand that it is not enforceable. I had a lawyer take a look at this.

It is understandable that WOC put this clause in. If a company produces material that is not suitable, WOC can stop a company from further publishing the material. As far as destroying the material, regardless on what the license says, no company can order its discruction, however, they can stop it from being sold.


Thing is, the threat of a lawsuit from a big company with lawyers already on staff waiting for action is going to make a little company pause. Even if its not enforceable, lawsuits cost a whole lot to fight, and that might be enough to force the little company to settle before the coffers are gone.

Poor form.

tesral
06-22-2008, 05:40 PM
Poor form.

I said it has Hasbro written all over it. "We will put in a awful, unenforceable clause that you will have to bow to because we have more lawyers, guns, and money than you do." Yep big company muscle flexing. Like the Srinkwrap EULA you find on nearly every piece of software. It's junk, pure used cattle feed, but the companies are banking on you not having the above to fight it.

Lawyers: Who said Lawful Evil was gone.

fmitchell
06-22-2008, 06:26 PM
As far as destroying the material, regardless on what the license says, no company can order its discruction, however, they can stop it from being sold.

Wasn't there a company that had boxes of AD&D material that TSR forbade them to sell, but kept it around until the injunction expired? They finally unloaded the whole lot about a year ago, but at a significant discount ... and it was mainly of interest to collectors and nostalgic (ex-)AD&D players.

Despite the sort-of happy ending, that doesn't sound like a viable alternative.

gdmcbride
06-23-2008, 01:53 AM
Wasn't there a company that had boxes of AD&D material that TSR forbade them to sell, but kept it around until the injunction expired? They finally unloaded the whole lot about a year ago, but at a significant discount ... and it was mainly of interest to collectors and nostalgic (ex-)AD&D players.

Despite the sort-of happy ending, that doesn't sound like a viable alternative.

Indeed, Mayfair Games. I myself managed to score about two -- maybe three -- feet of AD&D supplements for about forty bucks.

They vary widely in quality of course, but some of the adventures are pretty darn good.

Gary

agoraderek
06-24-2008, 01:43 AM
Indeed, Mayfair Games. I myself managed to score about two -- maybe three -- feet of AD&D supplements for about forty bucks.

They vary widely in quality of course, but some of the adventures are pretty darn good.

Gary

man, i wish i hadn't missed that. mind you, i also wish they had named the one line something other than "role-aids"...

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-24-2008, 01:48 AM
I guess they only make sense to themselves. As for the rest of us, who knows what they were thinking.

Thoth-Amon