# You reap what you sow - GSL.



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

There are many things in the GSL that I'm not exactly happy about, the primarily one being how you cannot reprint statblocks from the Monster Manual, which will have horrible implications on the presentation of adventures.

However, when it comes to the lack of "reuse" clauses for 3rd party publishers, I think they've got it right. This is pretty much how a lot of publishers - including some well-regarded ones - regarded the "Open" part of the OGL: Not for their products. Let's release "Crippled" OGC.

There have been exceptions, with Clark Peterson and his _Tome of Horrors_ being the most shining star in that constellation.

For the purposes of this license, however, it seems to be the case that a large part of the OGL "community" has reaped what it has sown.

Cheers!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There are many things in the GSL that I'm not exactly happy about, the primarily one being how you cannot reprint statblocks from the Monster Manual, which will have horrible implications on the presentation of adventures.
> 
> However, when it comes to the lack of "reuse" clauses for 3rd party publishers, I think they've got it right. This is pretty much how a lot of publishers - including some well-regarded ones - regarded the "Open" part of the OGL: Not for their products. Let's release "Crippled" OGC.
> 
> ...



I don't agree with this. When I was writing, most authors of works had no problems with me reprinting things from their products. The main ones being RPGObjects, Green Ronin, The Game Mechanics, but many fantasy ones, like ENPublishing, and others, were very free with their content.

"Crippled Content" always seemed more "Ask me first, it's polite" than forbidding anyone from using their content. I've NEVER been turned down.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jun 18, 2008)

I think the biggest issue with the GSL is that if WotC publish something on a topic 3 months after a 3rd party publisher has released a similar, they can force them to stop selling that book.  At least that is how I read it.  If that is correct then it sucks.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Khuxan (Jun 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> For the purposes of this license, however, it seems to be the case that the majority of the OGL "community" has reaped what it has sown.




I think that's very astute. I wouldn't say "the majority" of publishers did this, but I know of several high-profile companies that did.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I think the biggest issue with the GSL is that if WotC publish something on a topic 3 months after a 3rd party publisher has released a similar, they can force them to stop selling that book.  At least that is how I read it.  If that is correct then it sucks.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




I agree. From the point of view of what I want (adventures), I really hate that stat blocks have problems being reprinted. 

From the point of view of actually *using* the GSL, I'm very worried about what happens in the case you mention. 

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I think that's very astute. I wouldn't say "the majority" of publishers did this, but I know of several high-profile companies that did.




I've changed the wording. I was trying to avoid "majority" and terms like that, too! 

Cheers!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I've changed the wording. I was trying to avoid "majority" and terms like that, too!
> 
> Cheers!



So what publishers kept who from using what?

Seriously, I'd like to hear this. I've spent quite a bit of time offline and away from the gaming scene and from writing, so I'd really like to hear about who asked which company for what and was denied.

Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2008)

Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.

When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea.  If there are people who are more irritated at WotC for the GSL than at Mongoose for the PPH, then.... hmm.... I'm afraid the site rules prohibit the completion of my sentence.  How about: I think they have their perspective out of whack.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2008)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I think the biggest issue with the GSL is that if WotC publish something on a topic 3 months after a 3rd party publisher has released a similar, they can force them to stop selling that book.  At least that is how I read it.  If that is correct then it sucks.



Pretty sure that's not how it's going to work.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I think the biggest issue with the GSL is that if WotC publish something on a topic 3 months after a 3rd party publisher has released a similar, they can force them to stop selling that book.  At least that is how I read it.  If that is correct then it sucks.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




While there's a potential risk of this happening, I don't think it's very likely, to be honest. WotC usually looks at big picture kind of problems, and unless something changes in the near future, 3rd party publishing isn't really a big picture kind of problem for them.

Now, let's say hypothetically, that one of the larger 3rd party publishers decides to go all out by guessing what WotC has coming down the pike for the next year or so, creates full color books intentionally designed to precede those books, hires on some big name talent (like myself  ) and markets the heck out of those products, like say, placing an ad in GQ or Popular Mechanics, then I can see where they might get a little concerned.

In other words, if niche publishers remain niche, then I think they're safe. If someone comes along with the intention of knocking WotC off their pedestal, then they may have reason to fear.

That said, I'm pretty happy that Pathfinder will be keeping 3.x around for some time to come. Its nice having someone supporting a version of the game that cannot be summarily revoked.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.
> 
> I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.
> 
> When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea.  If there are people who are more irritated at WotC for the GSL than at Mongoose for the PPH, then.... hmm.... I'm afraid the site rules prohibit the completion of my sentence.  How about: I think they have their perspective out of whack.




I'm the complete opposite. I remember when Ryan Dancey basically dared companies to try and produce a PHB that was as well done as WotC's for the same price. No one came close.

I think the pocket PHB was genius and earned Mongoose a lot of money, which was well deserved in my opinion.

Hyrum.


----------



## Arkenos (Jun 18, 2008)

> 5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, *no Licensed Product will* (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f)* be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation)*.




If i read correctly the bold text (emphasis mine), does it mean that no press RPG magazine can ever publish a D&D4 adventure as part of many other articles (for different RPG), for instance ?


----------



## HyrumOWC (Jun 18, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that's not how it's going to work.




Unfortunately, pretty sure isn't enough to base a business on. 

Hyrum.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> While there's a potential risk of this happening, I don't think it's very likely, to be honest. WotC usually looks at big picture kind of problems, and unless something changes in the near future, 3rd party publishing isn't really a big picture kind of problem for them.
> 
> Now, let's say hypothetically, that one of the larger 3rd party publishers decides to go all out by guessing what WotC has coming down the pike for the next year or so, creates full color books intentionally designed to precede those books, hires on some big name talent (like myself  ) and markets the heck out of those products, like say, placing an ad in GQ or Popular Mechanics, then I can see where they might get a little concerned.
> 
> ...




Hi Darrin!


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 18, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So what publishers kept who from using what?
> 
> Seriously, I'd like to hear this. I've spent quite a bit of time offline and away from the gaming scene and from writing, so I'd really like to hear about who asked which company for what and was denied.
> 
> Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?



On general prinicple, the OP is exactly right. While I never had any publisher turn down my request to re-use their stuff, the fact remains that "Open" does not mean "ask me for permission first" - it means "permission is granted by default."

It's why pretty much the only stuff (besides art, which wasn't mine in the first place) I ever declared as closed content were my own name, email address, and products/product line names.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, pretty sure isn't enough to base a business on.



Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.

Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 18, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.



Meh.  I strongly believe in the "Open Source" and "Open Game" movements.  It's one of the reasons I jumped full bore into the 3E experience.  

The GSL steps away from this and requires me to give up the OGL.  Philosophically, I'm not prepared to do that.  I don't need a lawyer to review it to tell me what I need to worry about it if I'm not considering using it because I'm philosophically opposed to the idea to begin with. 

IANAL, but it seems to me that the GSL essentially grants me the ability to use the D&D logo - but in return, it restricts me even more than Fair Use does.  Sorry, the logo ain't worth it to me.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.
> 
> Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.



I'll admit it, I'm irritated AFTER talking to a lawyer, and with good reason.

If the Modern GSL (when it comes out) that will pertain to the Modern system supposedly coming down the pipe has the same language in Section 7, then it pretty much I won't bother to convert to the new Modern, and that's not even covering how the rest of the SRD might look.

But then, I'm known for being drunken, violent, and prone to unreasonable fits of rage.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.
> 
> I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.




This strikes me as a particularly 20th century way of looking at open systems. I can certainly understand the impulse that might inspire WotC to feel like they were being cheated out of something by a company that simply reprinted their core system, but the fact of the matter is that Mongoose sold, at best, 10,000 copies of that book. Vs. the "Real" Player's Handbook, which probably moved something like 350,000 units. Sure, that easily seen as cutting into WotC's pie, but it's really not that significant a chunk of their expected profits for the book, and surely most of Mongoose's audience owned the real Player's Handbook anyway. 

In fact, for a customer to have such an exotic D&D fetish as to A) know about and B) purchase the Pocket Player's Handbook the chances are very high that the buyer owns not just the Player's Handbook, but probably the entire core rules and a brace of expensive hardcover support volumes direct from Wizards of the Coast.

The Pocket Player's Handbook amounts to a vanity press effort before the mighty juggernaut of WotC's publishing operation, especially on the scale of the core rulebooks.

Several years later, the entire text of the SRD is available for free online in a searchable format. How silly it seems in this environment to scapegoat the Pocket Player's Handbook as some sort of affront to the concept of the OGL or threat to Dungeons & Dragons.

The OGL is about preserving the system and opening the "lingua franca" of 30 years of gaming history to independent development. It can survive existing for free on the internet, and it can survive a cheap and dirty reprint of the SRD.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Jun 18, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Neither are hysterical message board threads. Someone versed in contract law needs to be consulted by anyone considering signing on with the GSL, probably after someone else has already had their lawyer send a "are you KIDDING ME with this stuff" letter to WotC to help sand some of the rough edges off.
> 
> Right now, there are freelancers and third party folks openly freaking out about the GSL despite having no JD nor having actually consulted with someone who has one, or even having picked up the phone and calling WotC and asking about the most problematic language. (If someone has done any of this, or isn't publicly freaking out, I'm not talking about you.) That's a pretty terrible way to do business as well. Even worse, really, since that's the kind of "snap judgment in public" behavior that will just lead to repeated trouble throughout a career.




Some of those people freaking out have JD's or incredibly easy access to them. Some have also dealt with contracts for a very long time and know how to read them.

To each their own though. Right now the GSL isn't a license I'm willing to sign on to and it'll take a lot of revisions to make me comfortable. I'm sure others will fall on either side.

Hyrum.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Hi Darrin!




What kind of off-topic post is that?   



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> This strikes me as a particularly 20th century way of looking at open systems. I can certainly understand the impulse that might inspire WotC to feel like they were being cheated out of something by a company that simply reprinted their core system, but the fact of the matter is that Mongoose sold, at best, 10,000 copies of that book. Vs. the "Real" Player's Handbook, which probably moved something like 350,000 units. Sure, that easily seen as cutting into WotC's pie, but it's really not that significant a chunk of their expected profits for the book, and surely most of Mongoose's audience owned the real Player's Handbook anyway.
> 
> In fact, for a customer to have such an exotic D&D fetish as to A) know about and B) purchase the Pocket Player's Handbook the chances are very high that the buyer owns not just the Player's Handbook, but probably the entire core rules and a brace of expensive hardcover support volumes direct from Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> ...




As usual, I find much wisdom here. When D20 was at it's peak (pre 3.5), the larger publishers that I was familiar with at the time were trying to build up to 5,000 copies of their titles sold.... then came the crash. I don't know everybody's sales numbers, nor would I divulge them if I did know, but I would be very surprised if there were very many products at all that broke the 5,000 mark after the release of 3.5. I could see maybe Ptolus, the Pathfinder adventure paths, Iron Heroes, and maybe some of the Freeport titles doing this, but I'm certain that the majority of the OGL games and D20 accessories didn't come close to that mark.


----------



## Sonny (Jun 18, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Several years later, the entire text of the SRD is available for free online in a searchable format. How silly it seems in this environment to scapegoat the Pocket Player's Handbook as some sort of affront to the concept of the OGL or threat to Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> The OGL is about preserving the system and opening the "lingua franca" of 30 years of gaming history to independent development. It can survive existing for free on the internet, and it can survive a cheap and dirty reprint of the SRD.



I think it's more a way of convincing the higher ups that alternate player's handbooks were good for the company. Look at World of Warcraft, it's first edition required Player's Handbook, the second edition ditched it entirely. 

A hot property that required WOTC products is a win, a hot product that uses the 3e system without the core rulebooks, isn't really appealing. And tough to show how it benifits Hasbro.

I'm sure you already looked at that angle though. Still, it seems products like that were going to cause Hasbro to be a bit more careful when developing the next iteration of the SRD. It's not a blame game. A third party company did what it was allowed to do to maximize their profits, and now WOTC is doing what it can do maximize it's own.

That being said, I'm worried that we won't see as many steller third party products as in days gone by due to the restrictiveness of the new license. 




PS: You're one of my favorite game designers, and I just wanted to say thank you for all your hard work and great products throughout the years.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 18, 2008)

Wow. Thanks!


----------



## neceros (Jun 18, 2008)

Let's be fair: The people being punished here are the DMs and Players of the system, not the publishers. They will continue to write for whoever they can, but the end user is the one who loses out on content.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?




Do some Google searches for "OGC Wiki" and you'll gain some insight on which publishers were firmly _for_ using the OGL to their own advantage but firmly _against_ letting anybody re-use their content (even material that had been designated as OGC). 

Basically, Mike Mearls proposed an OGC wiki as a fan/publisher resource, and a bunch of movers and shakers in the hobby industry blew a gasket, going so far as to state that they did not want any content they had previously declared as OGC reused for such a project. 

This is the kind of disingenuous OGC declaration and OGL manipulation that I think Merric alludes to. There was some hardcore wankery involved.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Let's be fair: The people being punished here are the DMs and Players of the system, not the publishers. They will continue to write for whoever they can. . .




Publishers don't write games unless they're of the 'one man operation' variety. Designers and authors typically write games, while publishers merely. . . er. . . publish them. That said, yeah, this won't hurt many _designers_ or _authors_. I think that there is a good chance that it will hurt more than a few _publishers_ in the long run.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Basically, Mike Mearls proposed an OGC wiki as a fan/publisher resource, and a bunch of movers and shakers in the hobby industry blew a gasket, going so far as to state that they did not want any content they had previously declared as OGC reused for such a project.



Link to Mearls' post... - for the context.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

Oh man, now I remember that. I got in some serious flame wars over that. I think at one point I called some pretty "big shots" a bunch of cowards if I remember right, and even got banned on another board for calling some people a bunch of RIAA wannabes.

I'd forgotten the epic whining and tantrums around the Wiki discussion.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Link to Mearls' post... - for the context.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Wow I just read that, and  thats from 2005. So who did back out? What companies/publishers did not want to cooperate with OGC wiki?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> Wow I just read that, and  thats from 2005. So who did back out? What companies/publishers did not want to cooperate with OGC wiki?




Use more Google. Search for the terms that I suggest above.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Publishers don't write games unless they're of the 'one man operation' variety. Designers and authors typically write games, while publishers merely. . . er. . . publish them. That said, yeah, this won't hurt many _designers_ or _authors_. I think that there is a good chance that it will hurt more than a few _publishers_ in the long run.



Who is hiring the designers and authors if the publishers are not publishing?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Who is hiring the designers and authors if the publishers are not publishing?




D'oh! See what three hours of sleep coupled with too much caffeine and five hours of heresy and mutation get me?


----------



## Maggan (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> five hours of heresy and mutation get me?




WH40kRP?

/M


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> WH40kRP?
> 
> /M




Heh, good catch


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.
> 
> I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.
> 
> When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea.  If there are people who are more irritated at WotC for the GSL than at Mongoose for the PPH, then.... hmm.... I'm afraid the site rules prohibit the completion of my sentence.  How about: I think they have their perspective out of whack.




I am sorry, but I could not disagree more.  WotC stated, on their web site, that a publisher could, in effect, reprint the PHB and, if they could find a profitable way of doing so, more power to them (in effect).

We found a way.

On a wider front, I would be _amazed_ if our pocket book had any effect on WotC at all.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> "Crippled Content" always seemed more "Ask me first, it's polite" than forbidding anyone from using their content.




That's called coming to a licensing agreement. It's the default with the new GSL. 

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> On a wider front, I would be _amazed_ if our pocket book had any effect on WotC at all.




I agree.

I'm more interested in examples such as, say, _Castles & Crusades_. 

Correct me if I'm wrong - I've been out of the C&C loop for some time - but this is an OGL game that has, at its heart, the SIEGE engine... which isn't open. So, you can't actually design stuff for C&C without a license.

Cheers!


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> This is pretty much how a lot of publishers - including some well-regarded ones - regarded the "Open" part of the OGL: Not for their products. Let's release "Crippled" OGC.
> 
> There have been exceptions, with Clark Peterson and his _Tome of Horrors_ being the most shining star in that constellation.
> 
> Cheers!




Yep. And I know a couple of the ones you are referring to that released "crippled OGC". As for the Tome, yeah- we released everything 100% OGC (except the artwork, a couple of words, like Lucifer's new plane, etc)...hell, we even released the old 1e conversions as OGC (monster name, text, etc.)


----------



## kensanata (Jun 18, 2008)

*The default is important*



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?




When Bard's Gate by Necromancer Games came out, I created an empty wiki for it and sent a few mails, but got no reply. So I closed it again.

Getting no reply is not an answer. That's where the default is important: A permissive irrevocable license makes the default open. That's the really important part. Things will stay open even if the copyright holders do not answer, drop of the net, change jobs, etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, pretty sure isn't enough to base a business on.
> 
> Hyrum.




Especially when we were all "pretty sure" that (1) 4e wasn't coming any time soon, and, when that bubble burst, (2) 4e would be OGL.

There are a few "This opens the door for WotC to...." predictions that haven't surfaced yet, but the majority of them, from the time Dungeon & Dragon were cancelled, have come to pass.  Despite the fact that some claimed that doing things like tiered licensing and making 4e a non-OGL game would be "corporate suicide", many of these same folks are still claiming that they are "pretty sure" that WotC won't do X or Y.

I, personally, think it's time to take what WotC _has done_ lately into account when determining what it is _likely to do_ in the future.  

Please note also that, from my reading of the GSL, WotC could shut down EN World (at considerable cost to the owners) for containing both 4e and OGL materials.  And, if WotC decides that EN World hits their Gleemax bottom line where it hurts, please tell me that you think that WotC will not so.......despite the fact that Hasbro's shareholders can demand that WotC not act in a way that hurts their profits.

Meh.

The only whiff of interest in all of 4e came from Necromancer Games' announcement of planned suppliments, and I have no idea what will actually be produced under the new GSL.  IMHO, WotC's policies are turning the D&D brand name into a sinking ship.  Luckily, the OGL allows for D&D to survive...albeit without the brand name.


RC


----------



## Lizard (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.






			
				D20 System FAQ by Wizards Of The Coast said:
			
		

> Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?
> 
> A: Sure.
> 
> ...



_

Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.

I eagerly -- and that's an understatement -- await your reply._


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Especially when we were all "pretty sure" that (1) 4e wasn't coming any time soon, and, when that bubble burst, (2) 4e would be OGL.
> 
> There are a few "This opens the door for WotC to...." predictions that haven't surfaced yet, but the majority of them, from the time Dungeon & Dragon were cancelled, have come to pass.  Despite the fact that some claimed that doing things like tiered licensing and making 4e a non-OGL game would be "corporate suicide", many of these same folks are still claiming that they are "pretty sure" that WotC won't do X or Y.
> 
> ...



If EnWorld was under the OGL or GSL, yes. But they are not, thus what the GSL or the OGL say on the matter is immaterial. Copyright Law, Fair Use and similar stuff are the only law relevant for EnWorld. 

The Fan Site policy they have been speaking of looks like it might tell site owners what they have to expect from WotC, and how they can avoid any legal pitfalls. 


Spoiler



Of course, they could say something like "We will not take legal actions against message boards that only discuss one edition of D&D... But everyone else is fair game for our legal department. We advice you to study your old cease-and-desist letters from TSR, because you're getting similar ones soon". But I will only believe this if I see it.





> The only whiff of interest in all of 4e came from Necromancer Games' announcement of planned suppliments, and I have no idea what will actually be produced under the new GSL.  IMHO, WotC's policies are turning the D&D brand name into a sinking ship.  Luckily, the OGL allows for D&D to survive...albeit without the brand name.



And without good rules! [/cheap shot] 


Spoiler



Okay, if you found that too cheap, replace it with: "And without rules that I, Mustrum  Ridcully, prefer.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> IANAL, but it seems to me that the GSL essentially grants me the ability to use the D&D logo - but in return, it restricts me even more than Fair Use does.  Sorry, the logo ain't worth it to me.




It should be.  It's hard to quantify brand value in dollar figures but I would happily argue that the three words "Dungeons and Dragons" hold more value than every other word ever published for every other TTRPG combined.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> It should be.  It's hard to quantify brand value in dollar figures but I would happily argue that the three words "Dungeons and Dragons" hold more value than every other word ever published for every other TTRPG combined.




Then you would never have seen most of the market switch to OGL-only games, largely abandoning the D20 logo and the ability to use the "Dungeons&Dragons" brand. You would not have seen Kingdoms of Kalamar, which was not D20 but actually was a "Dungeons&Dragons" licensed product, with logo use, fail to really blast away from the other, not branded, settings.

The fact that people swtiched to using just the OGL when WOTC decided to add extra conditions to the STL should tell you just how much the market valued the right to use those three words versus how much the market valued editorial freedom and the lack of arbitrary smackdown.


----------



## Farland (Jun 18, 2008)

I can't say as I'm very happy with the new GSL and SRD.  It seems like the lawyers at WOTC have gone into overdrive.  It doesn't give me a good feeling toward the company.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.




Thank you, Lizard.

It was that quoted line that kicked us off on the project - the kind of thing that makes you sit down and wrack your brains thinking 'right, just _how_ can we do this?' 

I was amazed that no one else had done it up to that point. Still, as they say, the simplest ideas are often the best.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then you would never have seen most of the market switch to OGL-only games, largely abandoning the D20 logo and the ability to use the "Dungeons&Dragons" brand. You would not have seen Kingdoms of Kalamar, which was not D20 but actually was a "Dungeons&Dragons" licensed product, with logo use, fail to really blast away from the other, not branded, settings.
> 
> The fact that people swtiched to using just the OGL when WOTC decided to add extra conditions to the STL should tell you just how much the market valued the right to use those three words versus how much the market valued editorial freedom and the lack of arbitrary smackdown.



But I wonder if it still works so well now. Basically, in the beginning, few customers knew what the OGL meant. The d20 System License was easy to understand, so they tried that.

But then, the customer learned that d20 STL products weren't automatically good, but OGL products were, and they were often still usable with D&D.

Until the point came where OGL products stopped to be compatible with D&D, and they were just a niffty publishing feature that gave you a chance to get a good game. 

It's hard to say - maybe if the D20 STL would have guaranteed high quality products, the OGL might actually not be that strong? Or are Open licenses always an advantage, since they never restrict creativity for sake of license conformance?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Personally, I was amazed WotC didn't do it themselves. 

I might be wrong (of course) but it seems to have worked well enough in the cases of Conan: the Roleplaying Game and also True20 - publishing a pocket 'player's handbook', I mean.

Please, publishers or others in the know, correct me if I _am_ wrong there. Do/did they sell well enough?


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Please, publishers or others in the know, correct me if I _am_ wrong there. Do/did they sell well enough?




Yeah, they did - at least, well enough for publishers of our sizes.  And well enough for us to do the same with Traveller at some point (but then, there is the whole Little Black Book thing going on anyway).


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Do some Google searches for "OGC Wiki" and you'll gain some insight on which publishers were firmly _for_ using the OGL to their own advantage but firmly _against_ letting anybody re-use their content (even material that had been designated as OGC).
> 
> Basically, Mike Mearls proposed an OGC wiki as a fan/publisher resource, and a bunch of movers and shakers in the hobby industry blew a gasket, going so far as to state that they did not want any content they had previously declared as OGC reused for such a project.




Yep, I remember that.

Some have called Mearls a mensch for other things. For me, that was Mearls' mensch moment. Some publishers--including some I greatly respect (enough so to respect their wishes on this)--have submitted material under the OGC, then turned around and asked people not to use it. In some cases, I think it's failure to fully understand what they were getting into. In other cases which I have less sympathy for, those concerned have implied some sort of ethical breach. In these cases, that strikes me as saying one thing and meaning another.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yep, I remember that.
> 
> Some have called Mearls a mensch for other things. For me, that was Mearls' mensch moment.



"mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".) 
[/off-topic]


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> "mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
> [/off-topic]




He's a _Real Man_. That's how I interpret it, anyway.

My Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as a person of integrity or rectitude; a just, honest, or honourable person. It comes from the Yiddish.

Cheers!


----------



## Mr Jack (Jun 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> "mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
> [/off-topic]




Yeah it got distorted from 'ubermensch'.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Jun 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> "mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
> [/off-topic]




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mensch

Basically, a stand-up, good guy - decent and honorable. Mearls basically was standing up for "the little guys", in a manner of speaking.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> In some cases, I think it's failure to fully understand what they were getting into. In other cases which I have less sympathy for, those concerned have implied some sort of ethical breach. In these cases, that strikes me as saying one thing and meaning another.




Being candidly honest (!) for a moment, when we first heard this idea, we weren't wild about it - but you have to understand the position of the publishers at the time.

The D20 market was very competitive back then, and there were companies literally fighting for their lives. By way of example, when Mongoose first started, we listed over 100 companies with product or who had announced product - looking at the state of play today, there are only a handful of those companies left, and I am struggling to think of more than two (us and Green Ronin) who emply full-time staff - apologies if I missed anyone, it is not a slight 

So, you have to remember that it wasn't a game to many people - this was how they made their living, paid their mortgage, and so on.

Now, very few publishers had any problem with material being reprinted (they existed, sure, but were few in number), and most seemed to be very liberal with their material, allowing the republication of far more than just the designated OGC. They knew what they were getting into with the OGL, and respected this sharing.

But for a non-profit group to come along and just hoover absolutely everything up, then put it on a web site for free?  That made a lot of publishers. . . uncomfortable.  Remember, this was their living.

With hindsight, it was the wrong position to take. The effect on sales would likely have been minimal (yes, you could argue that it might have increased sales through greater visability - but no one wanted to take that risk by being the first), and there is some question as to whether a great deal would have been achieved without direct co-operation from the publishers concerned.  After all, we alone were generating huge quantities of OGC, and there were plenty of others out there creating a huge mass of information.  Of course, that just made it worse, as we could all see a situation where one publisher had all their material posted, while another (direct competitor maybe) had none.

So, wrong position but, really, understandable. 

It is therefore without hypocracy (!) that we have made the offer to provide exactly this information to anyone who fancies resurrecting this project - see the Publisher's forum for details


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.
> 
> I eagerly -- and that's an understatement -- await your reply.




It *is* a stupid assertion, a canard whose death is long, looooooong overdue.

I also like watching the same folks claim that 4e is a juggernaut before which all 3rd party publishers and the Internet are insignificant worms, in the next breath bemoan the irreparable damage they're doing to WotCs bottom line.

That sad thing is, some of the folks who believe this are no doubt sitting behind desks at WotC. 

If the GSL is any indication, WotC considers systemreferencedocuments.org to be an existential threat.

Good. Lord.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 18, 2008)

I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down.  I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down.  I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.



Who knows, maybe they are all "dead" by now? 

Which might be telling. Or totally meaningless.


----------



## redcard (Jun 18, 2008)

I can't either.  It seems like a ton of publishers loved the OGL for their own means, but were unwilling to really sign on for what it means.  WOTC gave away their core product, basically, to help other companies.  It would have been nice if the other companies acted in kind, but now it seems kinda silly that people are blaming WOTC for changing their minds on the OGL.  It's pretty obvious to me that the OGL works in small, non profit situations, but isn't really much of a "good business move" for market leaders to participate in.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down.  I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.




I dunno about you, I was too lazy/didn't care enough to find out. You seem to be joining in the "psychology" of not telling us, though. Why are you trying to disconcert me, Cadfan? WHY?!?!?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I dunno about you, I was too lazy/didn't care enough to find out. You seem to be joining in the "psychology" of not telling us, though. Why are you trying to disconcert me, Cadfan? WHY?!?!?



That should be easy to explain - Cadfan is just evil and out to get anyone - starting with you.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> This strikes me as a particularly 20th century way of looking at open systems. I can certainly understand the impulse that might inspire WotC to feel like they were being cheated out of something by a company that simply reprinted their core system, but the fact of the matter is that Mongoose sold, at best, 10,000 copies of that book. Vs. the "Real" Player's Handbook, which probably moved something like 350,000 units. Sure, that easily seen as cutting into WotC's pie, but it's really not that significant a chunk of their expected profits for the book, and surely most of Mongoose's audience owned the real Player's Handbook anyway.




You're right, of course.  Mongoose was never a threat to WotC.  That doesn't mean the PPH wasn't still in bad taste.  But it wasn't a business threat enough to shut down the OGL.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I'm not fond of the draconian IP laws that exist, currently.  I really, really like the OGL in principle and think it was the right thing to do.  On the other hand, the IP laws are what they are and I think WotC has been getting an inordinate amount of BS hurled at them for tightening things up, but still playing looser than most companies in the industry.

So, yeah, I'd like to see the OGL applied to 4e.  But, I'd also like to see the people with their hair on fire about the GSL shoved in a lake (no cement blocks).  

I can appreciate the 3rd parties who have staked their livelihood on D&D's open content feeling threatened.  The thing is, you've all been pretty professional about it and I haven't seen any professionals go beyond justifiably frustrated.



> In fact, for a customer to have such an exotic D&D fetish as to A) know about and B) purchase the Pocket Player's Handbook the chances are very high that the buyer owns not just the Player's Handbook, but probably the entire core rules and a brace of expensive hardcover support volumes direct from Wizards of the Coast.



Again, quite true.  But...   My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means.  I've also seen several people on these boards and others trumpet the fact that they only use the HTML SRD and intended on doing the same with 4e.

A business threat to WotC?  I doubt it.  But both are pretty rude.

A certain amount of my irritation in my prior post was due to sleep deprivation (I don't know why I surf the boards when I'm tired and cranky), but my experience says there are some people being twits about the whole OGL issue.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down.  I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.




Like I said, I respect some of the folks who fall into this category enough that I'm not going to threaten my relationship with them over this. I'm not looking to drag anyone's name into the mud. That doesn't mean I won't decry the behavior and hope people come to a better understanding.

In short, I hate the sin, not the sinner.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Jun 18, 2008)

I like the pocket books, my hope is that if you dump everything else that you will keep these in print.


----------



## Delta (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.




I quote from the Wizards website (SRD: Frequently Asked Questions). It can't possibly be disrespectful to do something Wizards literally told them to do, in public, and in writing. ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c )



> *Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?*
> A: Sure.
> 
> *Q: Could I publish the whole thing?*
> A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> WOTC gave away their core product, basically, to help other companies.




No, IIRC WotC gave away their product because they believed that doing so would ultimately lead to more sales of the D&D Player's Handbook.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means.



What the hell did they do for magic items, monsters and all the rest?


----------



## Lizard (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> You're right, of course.  Mongoose was never a threat to WotC.  That doesn't mean the PPH wasn't still in bad taste.  But it wasn't a business threat enough to shut down the OGL.




Again I ask, how was doing what WOTC explicitly said you could do in "bad taste"? Whence comes this meme that they were somehow shocked someone would reprint the SRD, when the fact they could do so was addressed years before the PPH came out?

I am much more offended by people bragging about their downloaded PDFs of the core books than by people using the PPH. Perhaps you need to refocus your rage on the proper target.


----------



## redcard (Jun 18, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> No, IIRC WotC gave away their product because they believed that doing so would ultimately lead to more sales of the D&D Player's Handbook.




That wasn't what the intent of Ryan D was, in his repeated instances that this was a new frontier.

The long and short of it is this.  WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else.  Not a lot of that was returned.   The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back.  People stopped giving stuff back.  The OGL has failed.  WOTC moved on.

I know lots of companies relied on the OGL and it's looseness to create products and publish their works, and if the new GSL is that much of an impact to your business, I'm really, really sorry and hope you can manage.  But by the same accounts, perhaps if there was more give and less take in the last deal, the OGL would have been seen as a viable success to WOTC, and you won't be seeing this now.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> The long and short of it is this.  WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else.  Not a lot of that was returned.   The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back.  People stopped giving stuff back.  The OGL has failed.  WOTC moved on.



What the?!

No. WotC did not 'give a lot of OGC as compared to everyone else' - _hardly_. Some entire lines, and many, many books from 3PPs are all OGC or damn close to it.

How much of the D&D line or the d20 Modern line is OGC? Exactly.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Again, quite true.  But...   My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means.  I've also seen several people on these boards and others trumpet the fact that they only use the HTML SRD and intended on doing the same with 4e.
> 
> A business threat to WotC?  I doubt it.  But both are pretty rude.




But you can't have it both ways 

On the one hand, you have raised an opinion that the PPH was rude and disrespectful.

On the other, we have been talking about 3rd parties hoarding their own Open Content.

So, which is it?   If 3rd parties should give up their Open Content (and , yes, they should), then surely the same applies to WotC? Or should Open Content be relatively closed, and so both WotC and 3rd parties can relax about other people using their material?

Eh, eh?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> The long and short of it is this.  WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else.  Not a lot of that was returned. Perhaps if there was more give and less take in the last deal, the OGL would have been seen as a viable success to WOTC, and you won't be seeing this now.




Who wasn't "returning" OGC? To whom was it meant to be "returned?"

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> The long and short of it is this.  WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else.  Not a lot of that was returned.   The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back.  People stopped giving stuff back.  The OGL has failed.  WOTC moved on.




I am going to call you up on that one 

The sheer amount of OGC material released by third parties could sink WotC's Open Content boat.  The OGC material of some publishers alone (say, us ) could have a serious go at that.

I'll go one step further.

Some publishers are _still_ producing Open Content.  Green Ronin are doing it.  We are doing it with Conan, and have expanded the OGL to include RuneQuest and Traveller, both of which we have ten year plans for.  We are even looking at it for the Battlefield Evolution miniatures game.

The OGL is now a permanent fixture of the Roleplaying hobby and, ten years from now, there will still be brand new books being published under it.

You can't say that 3rd parties did not give it a decent swing of the bat


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What the hell did they do for magic items, monsters and all the rest?




My guess would be the pocket DMG and MM. The SRD had most of the core magic items and monsters.

There are also no shortage of original third party monster books and even plenty of 3rd party magic item books that created tons of new monsters and magic items.


----------



## redcard (Jun 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Who wasn't "returning" OGC? To whom was it meant to be "returned?"
> 
> I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.




I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about.   But I'm not going to argue the point any more.  WOTC has obviously stepped away from the OGL.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> You can't say that 3rd parties did not give it a decent swing of the bat




He said it. 



> The sheer amount of OGC material released by third parties could sink WotC's Open Content boat.  The OGC material of some publishers alone (say, us ) could have a serious go at that.




I go so far as to say that the _overwhelming majority_ of 3rd party content was either 100% Open or clearly designated. "Closed" and "crippled" content was the exception, not the rule.

More to the point, WotC never cared to use any Open Content one way or the other. To suggest that they shut down the whole experiment because the 3PP weren't playing nice with _each other_? 

Take a look at the S.15 designations for True20 sometime and try to tell me that the 3rd party publishers weren't playing ball. 

The sheer idiocy of the accusation offends me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

> The OGL is now a permanent fixture of the Roleplaying hobby and, ten years from now, there will still be brand new books being published under it.




Frickin' word.

It'll be pretty interesting to see if 5e does anything about this in 10 years (such as going back to a more open system).

It's kind of exciting, this notion that collectively, the 3rd parties are still doing some amazing things with game design and business models.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about.   But I'm not going to argue the point any more.  WOTC has obviously stepped away from the OGL.




Yes, but it was hardly due to 3PP's not "Returning" OGL. When I look at books like Spycraft, Everquest, Conan, Grim Tales, the Green Ronin "Advanced..." series, and so many more, all of which are either totally or mostly OGL...it's hard to see where anyone could have asked 3PPs to do more. That WOTC chose, of their own volition, not to take full advantage of the work of third party publishers and incorporate it into their own products is their fault.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Frickin' word.
> 
> It'll be pretty interesting to see if 5e does anything about this in 10 years (such as going back to a more open system).



I suppose that depends on who's in charge then. 

And maybe also on how corporate culture in general has changed by then. If "Open Source" is more accepted, even outside of software companies...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about.



Not regarding OGC, WotC and OGL publishers, you don't. Not as demonstrated so far, anyway. By all means, disprove that though.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> More to the point, WotC never cared to use any Open Content one way or the other.




True true. And the one time they did use OGC (back of MM2; the two monsters from the Creature Collection), they got the Section 15 stuff wrong. Go figure.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> My guess would be the pocket DMG and MM.



Didn't know there were such things. Fair enough.

Otherwise, sure, they could print out most of the stuff, and bind it horribly (or not at all) - oh yay, and more power to them, I guess. . .


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't think the OGL was as successful (for either WotC or 3pp) as it could/should have been.  Some of that can be attributed to malice, greed, or selfishness.  But I think most of it can be attributed to confusion, uncertainty, inexperience, and not-invented-here syndrome.

It was a great experiment, to take something that wasn't (and still isn't) fully developed in the software world and adapt it to a publishing model.  The proponents of the OGL deserve extraordinary credit for vision and determination, and everyone who published OGL material gets a pat on the back for being a part of it.  It's unfortunate that we likely won't see a second generation of it, because such radical departures from the norm are rarely perfect from the get go.  Another generation of refinement, and a generation of designers and publishers who grew up in a post-OGL world, would have made things even better, I think.

Even if you never bought anything but WotC books, you benefitted from the OGL, just like you benefitted from any other game that's been published that you may never even have heard of.  None of the work done for 3e or 4e was done in a vacuum.  

The GSL is a result of corporate need, nothing else.  WotC wants the whole pie, and they want to decide who gets the crumbs and under what circumstances.  Perfectly within their rights, of course.  As a capitalist, I can appreciate that. 

But I hope people understand how anti-customer this is.  More than most any other product, RPGs require great effort by the customer to be useful, and the reward is as much, if not more so, a result of that effort than it is of the product itself.  The more material that's out there -- good, bad, mediocre -- the better off the hobbyist is, because you never know where the diamond in the rough is, or where you'll *yoink* that next cool idea for your campaign.  The magic of role-playing games comes from the DMs and the players first and foremost, but none of us operate in a vacuum either, and the more we're limited to a single publishers vision of what gaming should be, the worse off we are.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.





			
				HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> I'm the complete opposite. I remember when Ryan Dancey basically dared companies to try and produce a PHB that was as well done as WotC's for the same price. No one came close.




Nothing was wrong with the Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook. 

It was perfectly within the bounds of the OGL.  As Hyrum said, Ryan Dancey knew quite well it was possible someone would try to make such a book and yes, he practically dared somebody to reprint the SRD wholesale as a commercial product.  However, with the brand name of D&D and the marketing engine of WotC behind it any replica would be much smaller potatoes to the PHB.

I actually bought a Mongoose PPH once, as a gift.  A good friend of mine is an AD&D grognard who refuses adamantly to buy/own any D&D books of any edition after 2e AD&D.  He will, very begrudgingly, play 3e/3.5 by using other people's books (a very cumbersome process). However, the Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook didn't have the name "Dungeons and Dragons" anywhere on the cover or title and was specifically not a D&D book in legal terms.  Thus, I bought it for him for Christmas one year so he could own a Mongoose PPH and play in the same games without owning a D&D PHB from an edition he didn't like.  

Thanks to the GSL, we can't do that for 4e, which makes him playing 4e far less likely than 3.5.  That he's one of my best friends and gaming buddies is just another plank on the platform of my gaming group staying permanently with 3.5e


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> True true. And the one time they did use OGC (back of MM2; the two monsters from the Creature Collection), they got the Section 15 stuff wrong. Go figure.



The one _other_ time I can recall is in Unearthed Arcana (Swords of our Fathers, and Mutants & Masterminds in its section 15.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about.   But I'm not going to argue the point any more.




Since you _can't_ argue the point, you've chosen a convenient time to retreat.  



> WOTC has obviously stepped away from the OGL.




And thrown an irrefutable point in the way to cover your retreat. You're _good._


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> That wasn't what the intent of Ryan D was, in his repeated instances that this was a new frontier.




The whole "Skaff effect" that Ryan talked about was ultimately supposed to lead to greater sales of Player's Handbooks.

(Now whether or not it worked is open to debate, but that was the intent.  Am I misremembering?)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2008)

People, stop getting personal.  Address the argument, not the person.  

You may refute points with support to your heart's content.  Do not make blanket assertions about what another person knows or does not know.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 18, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The whole "Skaff effect" that Ryan talked about was ultimately supposed to lead to greater sales of Player's Handbooks.
> 
> (Now whether or not it worked is open to debate, but that was the intent.  Am I misremembering?)




They aren't mutually exclusive.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the 'Skaff effect' was the business case for doing it, but the concept of open gaming was his motivation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 18, 2008)

Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> They aren't mutually exclusive.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the 'Skaff effect' was the business case for doing it, but the concept of open gaming was his motivation.




Yeah, I was thinking that as I posted.

Ryan (and Peter) must have known that their WotC lives may have had an end (for different reasons perhaps), but this would assure that they could always make D&D stuff without worrying about who was the copyright holder.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I dunno about you, I was too lazy/didn't care enough to find out. You seem to be joining in the "psychology" of not telling us, though. Why are you trying to disconcert me, Cadfan? WHY?!?!?



Because I don't know either.      I tried googling, but it became apparent that it would take more time than I can afford to invest in between tasks at work.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers?



I've seen a lot of that going on. Whether those are just many, many isolated cases, so to speak - I'm not sure. IOW, no idea what the figures are.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The sheer idiocy of the accusation offends me.




/looks up from his 25+ 100% open OGC products.

I concur.

joe b.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers?




Yes. There have been several long section 15s. Now this has a way of amplifying quickly, but that alone should suggest evidence it is happening.



> For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters?




Can't think of ToH examples off the top of my head, though I think a few DCCs have been using them. I recall some Fiery Dragon adventures using Creature Collection material. And many Pathfinder adventures have been getting a lot of use out of Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary. (Which makes me smile - awesome + awesome.)


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?




Paizo makes use of them in its Pathfinder modules and APs and also GR's Book of Fiends, IIRC.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers?




Yes.  

Find a 3rd party product and read the Section 15 sometime. Complete rulebooks will tend to use more OGC than supplements, supplements will use more than settings, settings will use more than adventures.



> For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters?




Is that a specific litmus test? I don't know the answer to that specific question.

I can answer from personal experience.

I developed my Vehicle Chase rules in Grim Tales from concepts in Spycraft. Barsoomcore (Corey Reid) took those rules from Grim Tales, worked them over, made them his bitch, and then republished the whole thing as _Hot Pursuit_ through Adamant Entertainment.

IIRC Hot Pursuit appears in the S.15 of True20, so that particular concept got refined through four different publishers and four different published works.

This is but one example of MANY.



> And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?




No offense intended, and I am not singling you out by any means, but ignorance about the amount of 3PP OGC is not an indication that it doesn't exist. 

(It's certainly a good indication of just how rarely folks flip to the S.15 designations, though for me it's Step 1 of any purchase.)


----------



## Zil (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?



For one, I know that the Paizo adventure paths (post Dungeon era) use 3rd party OGC, and in particular, the Tome of Horrors.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?




We have - the Ultimates contained a great deal.  The 1st Edition B5 RPG had its space combat system based on FFG's Dragonstar. . .


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 18, 2008)

Ahh, 3rd party OGC, like the stuff I have in my website (in sig), I think there is even a "S15" on there somewhere....

As far as "crippled" OGC goes, there was one very high profile publisher who did release some complicated and restrictive designations. 

But GR, Necro, XPR...all 100% open.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

I know Bastion Press' Legacies uses a ToH monster in one of its adventures. I know one of the Warlords of Arena (in Bastion's Oathbound Arena) uses an OGC race and prestige class. I believe Goodman games has used ToH monsters in some of their DCC adventure modules as well.

The EnPublishing/Ambient Necromancy book Gar Udock has OGC stuff.

I know Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook adapted the OGC ritual system from Relics and Rituals, and Maladin's Gate added some new rituals in St. John's College of Abjuration.

WotC used OGC stuff in MM2 and significantly in Unearthed Arcana.

I believe a bunch of the "built from the ground up to meet a specific style" worldbook/alt PHs use some OGC stuff.

There are the compilation books that use tons of OGC, see various ones by XRP (monster geographica for the win!), Green Ronin (pocket grimoire, etc.), FFE (various), and Mongoose (various).


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 18, 2008)

Back to the OP, for a moment.

Not being able to repring monster stat blocks is ridiculous. Will people who make adventures tweak a word or two, but pretty much have the same monsters? How does this work, if you are a publisher?

I doubt anyone will, but do any publishers have opinions yet on how this does, does not, effect what they planned to do?

And, dangit, I want my necromancer games products soon!


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 18, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Back to the OP, for a moment.
> 
> Not being able to repring monster stat blocks is ridiculous. Will people who make adventures tweak a word or two, but pretty much have the same monsters? How does this work, if you are a publisher?
> 
> ...




This is actually very much like what we did with our Dragonlance product, which wasn't OGL or d20 License, it was Official Wizards of the Coast Licensed Product, so we could use anything WotC published if it was appropriate to Dragonlance. Essentially, if we used a monster directly from the Monster Manual, i.e. didn't add class levels or change it in any way, we'd just say "see Monster Manual" after the name and its hit points. Any variant creature, NPC, new monster, etc got its own stat block.

So, nothing really new or limiting there, at least from my own experience writing sourcebooks and adventures for d20.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If EnWorld was under the OGL or GSL, yes. But they are not, thus what the GSL or the OGL say on the matter is immaterial. Copyright Law, Fair Use and similar stuff are the only law relevant for EnWorld.




EN World doesn't link to the OGL?  I thought that it did.  Certainly, WotC could demand that it did under the OGL.

Likewise, WotC could demand that either EN World have 4e content, or OGL content, but not both, under the GSL.

If 4e content isn't as well received as 3e content (and, from what I can tell, it is not thus far), and if places like EN World cut into the money WotC is hoping to make from Gleemax (and I have little doubt that, so long as a viable alternative to Gleemax exists, it will cut into Gleemax "subscription sales", esp. with the draconian board rules there), WotC will be forced into a position where it considers whether or not customer goodwill lost will damage the bottom line more than new Gleemax subscriptions will add to it.  And, in the case of Dungeon, Dragon, the OGL, cloud-watching, etc., etc., etc., WotC has shown consistently that its current emphasis is not customer goodwill.


RC


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> And, dangit, I want my necromancer games products soon!




Going with Pathfinder are you? Otherwise good luck with that if WotC does not revise the license or make special arrangements with them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Farland said:
			
		

> I can't say as I'm very happy with the new GSL and SRD.  It seems like the lawyers at WOTC have gone into overdrive.  It doesn't give me a good feeling toward the company.





Heh.  You think those are draconian?  Take a look at the Gleemax TOU!

(shudder)

RC


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 18, 2008)

> Going with Pathfinder are you? Otherwise good luck with that if WotC does not revise the license or make special arrangements with them.




I hope you are wrong, but I fear you are right.

No, we've moved onto 4E. However, if this license reads like I think it does, I don't understand how anyone publishes under it.  It looks highly, highly restrictive on first read, and I fear that others will come to the same conclusion as me and not publish.

this does not mean I buy more WotC stuff, it means I don't buy more 3rd party stuff. WotC will NOT get more of my money by restricting others' ability to publish, I'll just drink more wine or play more golf, and my FLGS will suffer.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jun 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> This is actually very much like what we did with our Dragonlance product, which wasn't OGL or d20 License, it was Official Wizards of the Coast Licensed Product, so we could use anything WotC published if it was appropriate to Dragonlance. Essentially, if we used a monster directly from the Monster Manual, i.e. didn't add class levels or change it in any way, we'd just say "see Monster Manual" after the name and its hit points. Any variant creature, NPC, new monster, etc got its own stat block.
> 
> So, nothing really new or limiting there, at least from my own experience writing sourcebooks and adventures for d20.



I don't buy much in the way of third party material (or supplemental material in general, I guess) but I got the impression that this was pretty much par for the course already.  WotC adventures seem to have always done this judging from the free adventure downloads on the website, and Paizo's free D0-Hollow's Last Hope module -- which I assume was intended to be a sort of "This is how Paizo works, see how nice it is and buy our stuff that's like it!" product -- does it as well.

Even putting aside my very limited experience, I get the impression that space is always at a premium in these publications, and reprinting stat blocks from the MM seems like a fantastic way to waste it.  Not having page numbers will be a bit of an annoyance, but it's certainly not something about to raise a fist over.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2008)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> But you can't have it both ways
> 
> On the one hand, you have raised an opinion that the PPH was rude and disrespectful.
> 
> ...



I haven't said anything about 3rd parties not releasing open content.  By "more open than most" I was referring to non-d20 games like Storyteller or Hero.  Some d20 3rd parties have been pretty good about open content, some not so much.  I wouldn't dream of trying to guess the percentage, especially by market share or units sold.

I was unaware of Dancy's double-dog-dare-you-to about a PPH-type product.  I still think actually doing it was questionable, but no more so than the arrogance of the quote in the FAQ.  The attitude of the gamers I mentioned before, though, is definitely offensive.  

And, even though I singled out the PPH (fairly or not), my issue really is primarily with the sense of entitlement I've seen in a lot of gamers regarding the OGL.  As I said in response to Erik Mona, above, most of the publishers have conducted themselves professionally WRT the issue.

I'm looking for some barbecue sauce for the crow I think I'm going to be eating, though.  I'm still just as irritated about the sense of entitlement and the crappy behavior by a vocal number of gamers, and that's bleeding through to a lot of my commentary on this because it's been irritating me for quite some time.  On the other hand, the more time I spend reading the GSL and pondering the implications, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that, while it isn't a clean break with the open content model, it's not a feasible implementation of content sharing, either.

If the OGL was gold -- and I really do think it was a great move for the industry and the game, and my guess is that it was at worst a break-even for WotC -- then the GSL is pyrite.

Does that help to explain my somewhat conflicting feelings on the matter?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

RC, I think you're being a little too keen to beat on WotC, here.

There's _no frickin' way_ WotC will do anything to shut down ENWorld at this point.

Regardless of what the legalese says or what they're capable of doing, WotC knows the value of ENWorld, and I'm sure anything here would fall under the purview of "fan site" material, which, I'd be astonished if it didn't let you do whatever the heck you wanted aside from, say, post PDF's of every new WotC book and re-post every article on the website (e.g.: pretty much copyright infringement). 

Now, that's not to say the legalese might not make it possible or whatever. That's between Morrus and WotC's sharks. But ENWorld ain't going nowhere (though I confess that I'm not sure what ENPublishing is planning on doing...).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Does that help to explain my somewhat conflicting feelings on the matter?




Here's what I'm getting out of it.

*Mercule*: WotC is just using this to stop jerk moves by 3rd parties who want to play with their toys and give nothing back.
*A Lot Of Posters*: That specific example wasn't a jerk move!
*Mercule*: Sorry, I'm irked because a lot of folks are supporting some of the real jerk moves out there. 

I slightly disagree that this is to stop "jerk moves" by 3rd parties. I don't think anything any 3rd party did throughout the history of 3e really put much of a dent in WotC's core sales, in the slightest, and I think they culled a lot of great work from it (*cough*mearls*cough*). I don't think they're particularly concerned with stopping up loopholes.

What I *do* think is a concern is actually kind of a bigger issue. I think the suits, the lawyers, and the investors are much more concerned about the idea of IP this time around than they were last time. I think this is because the publishing industry is going through a little of what the music industry has gone through for the past 10 years: The Internet is for Free Stuff is coming to haunt them, and they're freaked out about it. The *last* thing they want to do is give anything away for free online. They are also very concerned, in 4e, with cementing a brand image. That's part of the reason for the breaks with old editions, why D&D is kind of evolving as a genre into its own form of fantasy (more so than it was before), and also why they don't want to give stuff away for free online. In this kind of hyper-paranoid atmosphere, they need to be concerned with two primary things with the GSL: #1: Making sure the D&D brand stays "D&D." #2: Making sure to protect that brand identity with IP that only they can use. Thus, people who make new "D&D" things can't change what "D&D" is, and they can't mess with certain IP, and they're disbarred from a host of options.

I don't think, in otherwords, that is has the slightest thing to do with some jerk moves by a limited number of 3rd party publishers. I don't think the juggernaut really cares when a few mosquitos sting it. It slaps them with its tail and moves on with life.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?




There are tons of products that use monsters from the Tome of Horrors. Heck, we put instructions in the back of the book to help people reuse the content to encourage its reuse. Paizo used them. Goodman used them. Lots of people used them. 

I dont know of any product that had more open content reused then Tome of Horrors. And we are proud of that.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 18, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Going with Pathfinder are you? Otherwise good luck with that if WotC does not revise the license or make special arrangements with them.




Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products. 

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though. 

Clark


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EN World doesn't link to the OGL?  I thought that it did.  Certainly, WotC could demand that it did under the OGL.



Maybe I am too long on this board, but I never saw an OGL Logo "slapped" onto this site.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark




Best news I've read today. Good to hear. I'm buying. Please put in more fluff than WotC put in the MM, thanks.

Any news on the APG?
Any timelines?


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark



So, there will be a 4e monster book but it won't be called _Tome of Horrors_?

That's acceptable. Sucks to lose the name recognition though.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.




Really? Because they posted a FAQ on their website stating it was okay.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark




Well, be careful - you haven't been approved by WotC yet to use the GSL, right?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark




Woohoo.

I hope the "player's guide" is still in the works.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> RC, I think you're being a little too keen to beat on WotC, here.
> 
> There's _no frickin' way_ WotC will do anything to shut down ENWorld at this point.
> 
> Regardless of what the legalese says or what they're capable of doing, WotC knows the value of ENWorld,




OK, let me ask a serious question.

What IS the value of ENWorld to WOTC when Gleemax/DDI is intended to be a commercial cash cow? ENWorld is direct competition. Why go to Wizard's buggy, slow, and over-moderated chat boards when there's a thriving community here? ENworld is making money -- not much money, I'm sure, barely enough to stay afloat, but money nonetheless -- by providing community support for D&D. 

I am very interested in seeing what the terms of the "fan site policy" are, and if things like the "homebrew" forums in ENWorld technically violate them. The fact they even feel a new "fan site policy" is necessary is, I think, rather worrisome.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark



Good to hear. I am still hoping for the Advanced Players Guide. I am actually looking forward on that. I don't want to wait a full year to get WotC interpretation of some classic classes. (THough I'll still buy the PHB 2, unless 4E for some bizarre reason turns into a disappointment...  My group is very thrilled to run through the Keep on the Shadowfell this Friday as their first official 4E game - instead of a mere playtest...)


----------



## Farland (Jun 18, 2008)

> take a look at the Gleemax TOU!




I will do that... but not today.  Between the GSL and the inability to unselect Firefox 3's new "awesomebar" I don't know if I can take more corporate top-down "we don't give a damn what the users want" information today.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> Woohoo.
> 
> I hope the "player's guide" is still in the works.




It is more than in the works.  It will need a bit of tweaking. And, very likely, I wont be calling the classes "druids" and "bards" and will use alternate names (that has yet to be decided). 

Here is the text of a post I just put up on our boards:



> There seems to be a lot of speculation that I am "shaken" by the GSL and that maybe Necro will be going Pathfinder.
> 
> I am not shaken by the GSL. It is pretty much what I expected. It has a couple twists (such as the convert and cant go back provision). It has a few things I want clarified (does the "cant go back to OGL" also apply to new 4E products that werent conversions? why are the specific demons and devils in the SRD? what exactly does "redefine terms" mean?).
> 
> ...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 18, 2008)

Farland said:
			
		

> (. . .) the inability to unselect Firefox 3's new "awesomebar" (. . .)



Muh?

I'm using FF3 right now, and I have no idea what you mean, sorry. Um, what is it?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

It's worth noting that over in this thread Linae has answered a few questions.

First, section headings in the SRD are also 4E references that cannot be defined, redefined, or altered.

Secondly, the exclusion of various monsters, including the specific types of demons and devils, was deliberate.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't think, in otherwords, that is has the slightest thing to do with some jerk moves by a limited number of 3rd party publishers. I don't think the juggernaut really cares when a few mosquitos sting it. It slaps them with its tail and moves on with life.



This is where I'm slowly heading towards.

My pre-GSL release opinion was that WotC was trying to shore up some jerk moves and that's where a lot of my initial reaction came from.  I still maintain that there have been (and continue to be) a lot of jerk moves.

As the GSL sinks in, though, I'm changing my mind about why it was released.  So, I've been trying to reflect that without recanting my opinion that there have been jerks.  I don't know that there is any connection between the two.

I suspect that you're right that they want to see support for D&D, but no full-fledged 3rd party games.  I think they also want to shut down things like HeroForge and PC Gen.  On the latter, it probably really is for competitive reasons.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.
> 
> I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.




Mongoose has also paid money for the rights to classic game systems such as Runequest and Traveler -- then turned around and released those rules under the OGL for anyone to use for free -- including offering free downloadable SRDs for both rulesets.

Whatever one thinks about the quality of their material, they're definitely one of the good guys in the open content community.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I don't know everybody's sales numbers, nor would I divulge them if I did know, but I would be very surprised if there were very many products at all that broke the 5,000 mark after the release of 3.5.




We sold 800 copies of Denizens of Avadnu through distribution and we were the first 3rd party monster book released for 3.5. The sad thing is the presale numbers through distribution prior to 3.5 were 1800. We were the #1 company with Impressions for 2 months, and I was told that our sales were incredible considering the state of the market at that time.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> We sold 800 copies of Denizens of Avadnu through distribution and we were the first 3rd party monster book released for 3.5. The sad thing is the presale numbers through distribution prior to 3.5 were 1800. We were the #1 company with Impressions for 2 months, and I was told that our sales were incredible considering the state of the market at that time.




Yeah, that sounds about right. That's a very good book by the way. I liked the print copy so much I bought the expanded PDF after it was released.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I suspect that you're right that they want to see support for D&D, but no full-fledged 3rd party games. I think they also want to shut down things like HeroForge and PC Gen. On the latter, it probably really is for competitive reasons.




I doubt that they want to shut down anything specifically. It's competitive, sure, in that they basically want their monopoly on D&D e-products, since that is a major new focus of 4e. But I bet free stuff mostly falls under the "fan usage," and you will still have generators for 4e characters if the WotC offerings aren't robust enough for some folks. I don't think WotC is so insecure about their offerings that they NEED them to be the ONLY ONES in existence, but I do think they don't want folks muddying the waters and competing with what they see to be one of their big cash cows in 4e.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> What IS the value of ENWorld to WOTC when Gleemax/DDI is intended to be a commercial cash cow? ENWorld is direct competition. Why go to Wizard's buggy, slow, and over-moderated chat boards when there's a thriving community here? ENworld is making money -- not much money, I'm sure, barely enough to stay afloat, but money nonetheless -- by providing community support for D&D.




There's a LOT of answers to that question, but let's stick with some of the most obvious.

#1: ENWorld won't be the DDI. Even if ENWorld tried to put out its own online magazines to directly compete with the DDI, I doubt Russ would be interested in character generators and interactive maps and rules databases, and the content of any theoretical "EN World Insider" would be different than DDI's content.

#2: Gleemax isn't supposed to be a massive cash cow. The DDI is, that's why there's a monthly fee. Gleemax is there to serve as a user base. It'll be free, it will might have ads (probably mostly for WotC stuff), but it isn't meant to be much of a revenue stream. Instead, it is meant to cross-polinate WotC games, to get people who play Magic to perhaps get into D&D via an online acquaintence, and vice-versa, all along the product line. It's nothing more than a centralized message board system that reaches beyond the WotC core base. 

To put it more pointedly, D&D doesn't exist without a community. Gleemax is there to keep the community alive. The more alive, rich, vibrant, and appealing the community is, the better D&D (and other Wizards games) fare.

#3: Competition is good for you. I believe WotC is smart enough to know that there is a portion of their potential audience that won't touch the Wizard's boards for various reasons. EN World can serve that audience, and it still gives WotC news releases a bigger slice of the attention pie than non-WotC stuff, just because the news that happens at WotC is usually bigger news (due to its juggernaut status) than most other news.

#4: Why create bad blood? If Gleemax isn't itself supposed to turn a profit, and if ENWorld members still buy the DDI subscriptions, and if the competition will still help serve the audience, why the heck would they knowingly and with deliberate intent irk a very large audience of potential fans? The quickest way to make sure Gleemax sinks is to send ENWorld into the darkweb where the people who know about it can still find it, and Wizards can't touch it except at insane costs to itself. If you go after ENWorld, you turn it, and, to a certain extent, a large portion of the entire 3rd party industry, into instant martyrs at the hands of the Big Evil Corporation. It's a bigger PR nightmare than criticising 3e ever was.



> I am very interested in seeing what the terms of the "fan site policy" are, and if things like the "homebrew" forums in ENWorld technically violate them. The fact they even feel a new "fan site policy" is necessary is, I think, rather worrisome.




I'm sure it'll be more about clarification than about nullification. Stopping excited DMs from posting their cool new stuff would be a boneheaded move reminiscent of TSR's less glorious moments because it would chill the community, create bad blood, and ultimately stop something that wasn't hurting you in the first place.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.
> 
> I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.
> 
> Clark




Sorry to put extra words in your mouth. I extrapolated too far from your statement in the OGF thread that Tome will no way be 4e under the current GSL but to expect a possible announcement about a full color PF one soon. My mistake.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe I am too long on this board, but I never saw an OGL Logo "slapped" onto this site.




The terms of the OGL don't require that a logo be slapped on the site; they do require that the site link to the OGL.

RC


----------



## philreed (Jun 18, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> There are tons of products that use monsters from the Tome of Horrors. Heck, we put instructions in the back of the book to help people reuse the content to encourage its reuse. Paizo used them. Goodman used them. Lots of people used them.




Personally, I have about two dozen products that use OGC from Tome of Horrors.

Easily one of the best books on any OGL-based author's shelf.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The terms of the OGL don't require that a logo be slapped on the site; they do require that the site link to the OGL.
> 
> RC




If it uses the OGL.

I don't believe ENWorld uses the OGL.

EN Publishing products do, but not ENWorld.

For instance PCs created for pbp games here are not a mix of PI and OGC, they are just D&D stats put up on a website.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 18, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> If it uses the OGL.
> 
> I don't believe ENWorld uses the OGL.
> 
> ...




Yah, I'm pretty sure ENWorld always has and always will fall under WotC's fan-site policies.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But I bet free stuff mostly falls under the "fan usage," and you will still have generators for 4e characters if the WotC offerings aren't robust enough for some folks. I don't think WotC is so insecure about their offerings that they NEED them to be the ONLY ONES in existence, but I do think they don't want folks muddying the waters and competing with what they see to be one of their big cash cows in 4e.




And yet, oddly enough, this is one of the things specified in the GSL, isn't it?  No outside character creation software.  I suggest an experiment:  set up a site with free 4e character generation software and see what WotC does.

I suspect that you will receive a cease-and-desist notice as soon as they become aware of your site.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

> And yet, oddly enough, this is one of the things specified in the GSL, isn't it? No outside character creation software. I suggest an experiment: set up a site with free 4e character generation software and see what WotC does.
> 
> I suspect that you will receive a cease-and-desist notice as soon as they become aware of your site.




If I had the ability and capacity to do that, I'd take you up on your little wager.  

The GSL is meant to be something for professional publishers to adhere to, not, I believe, something to stop fan activity. If I'm wrong, let a WotC person let the world know, and I'll cop to it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

philreed said:
			
		

> Personally, I have about two dozen products that use OGC from Tome of Horrors.
> 
> Easily one of the best books on any OGL-based author's shelf.




Whenever I designed a 3rd party adventure, the three Tome of Horror books were always the first place I looked for monsters after the SRD. Why reinvent the wheel if a suitable monster already existed and was completely open?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 18, 2008)

Let's see what I used...

Some feats from Green Ronin, and some weapon stats reprinted with permission.
Insanity rules from Bad-Axe Games, modified to fit the setting, with permission.
All kinds of stuff from RPGObjects, some of it modified to fit the setting. With permission.
Some stuff Darrin Drader gave me, used with permission.
Modified stuff from a few other people, all credited in the Sec 15.

But then d20 Modern is a smaller group, so maybe we're just more prone to say: "Hey, you made that, I could use it, can I use it?" than the D&D group, which is a lot bigger.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> But then d20 Modern is a smaller group, so maybe we're just more prone to say: "Hey, you made that, I could use it, can I use it?" than the D&D group, which is a lot bigger.




Yeah, I notice that D20 Modern had a lot more of the open community vibe going, and noticed a lot more of the "share and share alike" vibe.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, I notice that D20 Modern had a lot more of the open community vibe going, and noticed a lot more of the "share and share alike" vibe.




Maybe less flavor variation than in fantasy, too, which makes it easier to reuse stuff.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The GSL is meant to be something for professional publishers to adhere to, not, I believe, something to stop fan activity. If I'm wrong, let a WotC person let the world know, and I'll cop to it.




I am certain that the purpose of the GSL is to prevent activity where (1) it costs WotC/Hasbro money (or they deem it to do so), and/or (2) ignoring said activity prevents WotC/Hasbro from enforcing (1).

The GSL is far more restrictive than the OGL, and a serious case can be made that if (in whole or in part) restrictions are not enforced for some, they cannot be enforced for any.....just as one can cede trademark or copyright by not defending it when violated.  Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond.  TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.

Moreover, "fan site policy" gives no rights to said sites.  If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be?  If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make (in terms of advertising revenue, stream feeding to the DDI, usable ideas in the forums (remember that WotC can use, free of charge, anything you post there in any way they like, without crediting you and without recourse, forever, and that they can claim it as intellectual property, preventing you from using the same material without their permission, again without recourse, and again forever), or simply in terms of show-of-support for their products, they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.

Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document.  The fan site policy is....what?  Goodwill?  Can you point to it?  Can you refer to it?  Does it have any validity in a court of law?  And, over the last two years, how has WotC shown that it cares about your opinion or mine?  Am I alone in remembering that we were told 4e would be published under an OGL?

But, no.  We don't blame WotC/Hasbro for these things.  We blame the other publishers.  They dug their own grave by taking WotC at their word.  We blame each other.  We dug our own grave by not buying enough WotC books, or by preferring the superior material put out by some of those other publishers.  We are digging our own grave by not being willing to take WotC at their word (although this begs the question of what those publishers did wrong).  We do everything but let the buck stop where it should.

WotC/Hasbro are responsible for WotC's actions.

It is WotC/Hasbro who implied that 4e wouldn't be coming any time soon.

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that 4e would be published under an OGL.

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that there would be no tiered licensing (and, if you examine the GSL, it strongly implies tiered licensing beyond the initial tier of "those who paid in advance, and those who didn't" through the "send in your card and we'll okay you or not" policy).

It is WotC/Hasbro who set up the draconian Gleemax policies, and the draconian GSL.

It is WotC/Hasbro who gave us the delightful new Dungeon & Dragon magazines in place of their poor Paizo namesakes.  (And, yes, I kid.)

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that it's fun to watch the clouds, but nothing you do or say is going to affect the final product.

Could somebody please explain to me why they are still defending WotC/Hasbro, and instead blaming everyone else for the mess surrounding the 4e launch and the attempt to gut the OGL?  And, please note, I am not talking about whether or not you like 4e -- under the OGL, I'm sure that there are people here who could whip 4e into a shape that would make even buy the books and want to play.  I am talking only of all the crap that has surrounded the release, up to and including the GSL.

I for one will never, ever, spend dollar one again on any RPG that is not OGL compliant.  For one thing, a community always designs a better game than a single workshop, especially when you can pick and choose what to incorporate in your own campaign.  

Also, if you are wrong, we both know that no WotC rep will ever come here and say so.  Doing so would be a public relations disaster.  However, if I am wrong, consider the public relations coup WotC could gain by just showing up and saying "The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites" clearly, without equivocation, and on behalf of the company.

And, know what?  If they do, I'll switch to 4e.


RC


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> WH40kRP?
> 
> /M




Yes!


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Use more Google. Search for the terms that I suggest above.




Bah you gonna have me work it?

nvm here they are:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=214244

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2196


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 18, 2008)

Some publishers had their own game license for their product based on the OGL, The Arcana Unearthed/Evolved license from Malhavoc Press being first and foremost.  I have yet to see any bad products really released in that fashion tho, so it seems like that was a good idea on Monte's part, even if it wasn't fully OGC.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> He's a _Real Man_. That's how I interpret it, anyway.




Appropriate for the creator of Iron Heroes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

RC said:
			
		

> Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond. TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.




Sure, but as the very existence of a GSL shows, WotC isn't quite as maniac about their IP as Coke is. They're definately more concerned than they were in 3e, but I'm pretty sure that's part of a brand strategy, not an attempt to put any genies back in any bottles, or even an admission that the OGL model was somehow flawed.

I'm fairly confident that they're savvy enough to realize that the TSR days of suing fans was boneheaded and they have no desire to repeat it. Again, the GSL's existence itself is expressive of this -- they want to have their product used by other companies (albeit in a more limited way than 3e did).



> If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be?




Watching from afar and stealing the good ideas we come up with.

They couldn't (legally) prevent much of that if they wanted, anyway. In fact, I think we'll see fantasy OGL games using 4e design principles, in whole or in part, in the coming years. Heck, Pathfinder might very well be one of the first. 



> If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make ... or simply in terms of show-of-support for their products, they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.




Only if ENWorld sends them a letter saying they're using the GSL. Which I don't really expect ENWorld to do. ENWorld will be as it has always been, a site for the fans to mess around on.



> The fan site policy is....what? Goodwill? Can you point to it? Can you refer to it? Does it have any validity in a court of law? And, over the last two years, how has WotC shown that it cares about your opinion or mine? Am I alone in remembering that we were told 4e would be published under an OGL?




Yeah, it's goodwill combined with "fair use" (which I know some companies have a habit of ignoring, but WotC hasn't been one of those companies...plenty of "infringing" stuff showed up on ENWorld over the last 10 years). WotC has shown that it cares about maintaining a healthy fan community and also that they do care about having 3rd party people publish for their game. 

I've outlined a few reasons above why it would be colossally dumb for WotC to try and put an end to ENWorld, and I'm pretty sure they know that, regardless of the legality of it all.

With regards to 4e OGL, I don't doubt that they started off with a much more open plan for 4e, but that it got reigned in by higher-up concerns about brand identity and piracy. I fully expect to see a much more open Modern system, when they get to it. 



> We don't blame WotC/Hasbro for these things. We blame the other publishers.




Dude, I'm not sure I've ever seen you rant before! You've got a good head of steam going there.  



> Could somebody please explain to me why they are still defending WotC/Hasbro, and instead blaming everyone else for the mess surrounding the 4e launch and the attempt to gut the OGL?




I don't really think I'm defending them. I'm just pointing out that they're probably not evil and dumb. They don't want to crush little publishers and fans like the bugs they are for daring to think they could possibly cut off a slice of WotC's pie. I'm pretty sure they just don't really care if 4e D&D doesn't get the kind of 3rd party support that 3e D&D had, because other concerns (brand identity, IP, piracy paranoia) took the front line in their heads. This is regardless of my own feelings on the issue. Whether I think 4e eats babies or 4e will give me free cake doesn't really enter into it (or even if I think 4e will give me free cake that happens to have frosting that is made of babies). 

It doesn't make business sense for them to trounce the fans. So they won't. Unless I'm missing some very vital reason why, say, the druid on the 4e house rules board threatens their model.



> for one will never, ever, spend dollar one again on any RPG that is not OGL compliant. For one thing, a community always designs a better game than a single workshop, especially when you can pick and choose what to incorporate in your own campaign.




My feeling is that this principle may still leave a few WotC books that you might be able to pick up. But, really, I like that you're doing that. I respect it, like I respect a monk who takes a vow of celibacy. I could never do it, but I'm glad that someone has enough faith to do it.  

Skip 4e, you don't need it, and it probably doesn't need you. You're better off breaking up and seeing other people. It's midsummer, it's time for all those spring romances to end tragically anyway. 



> Also, if you are wrong, we both know that no WotC rep will ever come here and say so. Doing so would be a public relations disaster. However, if I am wrong, consider the public relations coup WotC could gain by just showing up and saying "The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites" clearly, without equivocation, and on behalf of the company.
> 
> And, know what? If they do, I'll switch to 4e.




It's kind of unfortunate that your decision hinges on that.  

WotC is a big unwieldy beurocracy, I'm sure anybody coming to any thread and making a post is risking losing their jobs over it, and any even semi-official notes probably need to go through about seven different levels of review first. They'd want to give us the RIGHT policy, not the policy RIGHT NOW.

But there's no reason to assume, IMO, that WotC is going to be dumb and evil about it. Generally speaking, they aren't really either.


----------



## Jindy (Jun 18, 2008)

I joined this community fairly recently, mostly because I was trying to download some fan made thing for an rpg.  Anyway, in reading this thread, I've been following a sub-discussion about the possibility of Wizards going after Enworld based upon the new GSL.

Not that I want to go about giving legal advice, but in my educated opinion, there's no basis for the GSL to apply to a fan-based forum to discuss D&D gaming and RPGs in general, whether that discussion includes 4e, 3e or both.

Let's start at the top.  



			
				GSL said:
			
		

> The License applies to the use in third party publications of certain proprietary elements of Wizards’ Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition roleplaying game products... the person or entity named on the Statement of Acceptance (“Licensee”) expressly agrees to be bound by the terms of this License.




I don't know, but I'm going to guess that Enworld hasn't filed the referenced form, and thus does not "agree to be bound by the terms of this License."

What does the License granted by the GSL give you?



			
				GSL said:
			
		

> The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published...




"and sale".  I admit, I'm new here, but I didn't see much in the forums for "sale".  Unless Enworld is selling 4e adventures, supplements, monsters, whatever... there's no need for the license.  Maybe there is a part of this website that does sell 4e and 3e stuff - in which case, the license is required.  But from what I've seen thus far, I don't see a lot to buy.  Note - I'm not addressing any enworld publishing that apparently is a separate operation.

It seems that GSL par. 5.5 is a fairly popular one to quote around here... let me quote the first line:



			
				GSL said:
			
		

> This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3




So, even if Enworld was to sign up, the License wouldn't apply to the forums and news articles and free downloads of fan-made stuff anyway!

What about conversion?



			
				GSL said:
			
		

> If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL...




Not sure, but going out on a limb here, I'm going to say that Enworld wasn't a licensee previously, and likely neither were the fans contributing here.  To the extent they weren't selling anything, they wouldn't need to be.  So the conversion paragraph doesn't apply.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The GSL is far more restrictive than the OGL, and a serious case can be made that if (in whole or in part) restrictions are not enforced for some, they cannot be enforced for any.....just as one can cede trademark or copyright by not defending it when violated.  Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond.  TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.




That a name can become "generic" and thus lose its trademark status applies in trademark cases.  We're talking copyright and contract law, where that issue really isn't as important.  But, even if it were, paragraph 17 of the GSL covers it - failure to enforce is not a waiver against future violations.  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, "fan site policy" gives no rights to said sites.




WotC, as big and powerful as they may be, don't own the Internet, and they aren't the government - they are one of the governed.  No one need ask their permission to operate a fan site.  The ability to do so, I submit, is contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Wizard's does have a copyright on its material, and the limits of that copyright are set out in Copyright law.  Which means, doctrines like Fair Use apply.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make... they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.




Strangely, no.  The GSL applies only to those who are voluntarily bound by it, per its terms.  So, per the GSL, Wizards can't send Enworld a cease-and-desist letter without Enworld first signing up.  Then, per the GSL, Wizards could send a cease-and-desist regarding violations of the GSL (such as, for instance, all those sexually graphic 4e documents that  Enworld sells - if they exist, I'm unaware of them).  

The other basis is for violation of Wizard's copyright, under copyright law.  If forums and fan sites like this did not violate Wizard's copyright under 3e, I doubt it will under 4e.  Wizard's statement of how it views fan sites will certainly be instructive as to how they understand the limits of copyright protection.  Of course, violating someone's copyright does mean if you lose in court you owe attorney fees, costs, and a statutory damage award (or actual damages if greater) (btw, it's been a while since I've read up on this stuff, so please, verify this with a local attorney before crossing any lines Wizards sets out).  




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document.  The fan site policy is....what?  Goodwill?  Can you point to it?  Can you refer to it?  Does it have any validity in a court of law?




The GSL is a contract, not the Constitution, not a Statute, just a contract.  Contracts are meaningless unless both parties agree to its terms.  Thus, the portion of the GSL that requires the Licensee to show agreement by submitting a form to Wizards prior to publishing.

The fan site policy is their view of copyright law.  Also, not law, but it does give fan sites a good idea of what Wizards will go after in terms of Copyright violations (at least, that's what I'd expect from it).  Ultimately, the scope of Wizard's copyright and whether a fan site has violated that copyright is up to a Judge and/or Jury to decide... but it's a heck of a lot cheaper to avoid litigation at the outset and either go with their version of Copyright law; or if you disagree with it have a really good argument ready before you post.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is WotC/Hasbro who set up the draconian Gleemax policies, and the draconian GSL.




Of course, they could have not had a GSL at all.  It is their copyright (lasts about 100 years + lifetime of the author, if I remember right... not sure how that works with corporations).

Hope that clarifies some of the legal issues being thrown about.  Please keep in mind, the above isn't to be taken as legal advice.  If someone is going to operate a fan site, or publish under the GSL, I highly recommend discussing copyright law and contract law with a lawyer (particularly one familiar with Washington contract law).


----------



## Mark (Jun 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites"
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> And, know what?  If they do, I'll switch to 4e.





The OGL didn't actually apply to fansites, though they certainly could utilize it.  With 3.xe, WotC had a seperate agreement for publishers than it did with fan sites and appears to be planning the same with 4e.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm fairly confident that they're savvy enough to realize that the TSR days of suing fans was boneheaded and they have no desire to repeat it.




Do me a favor and let Prince know this please?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 18, 2008)

Mark said:
			
		

> The OGL didn't actually apply to fansites, though they certainly could utilize it.  With 3.xe, WotC had a seperate agreement for publishers than it did with fan sites and appears to be planning the same with 4e.





(Shrug)

My reading of the OGL is "You may use this material if you abide by these terms; if you use this material without abiding by these terms, you may be liable."  Not sure how that fails to apply to fansites.

Let WotC say the same, and I'll be happy to make a 4e fan site with rules that work for less wahoo, more traditional D&D games.  Happy to.

(Happy to have contribution from lots of folks here as well......!)


RC


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 18, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Do some Google searches for "OGC Wiki" and you'll gain some insight on which publishers were firmly _for_ using the OGL to their own advantage but firmly _against_ letting anybody re-use their content (even material that had been designated as OGC).
> 
> Basically, Mike Mearls proposed an OGC wiki as a fan/publisher resource, and a bunch of movers and shakers in the hobby industry blew a gasket, going so far as to state that they did not want any content they had previously declared as OGC reused for such a project.
> 
> This is the kind of disingenuous OGC declaration and OGL manipulation that I think Merric alludes to. There was some hardcore wankery involved.




Mike's a great guy, but given Iron Heroes' OGC declaration, he has no moral high ground at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2008)

> Do me a favor and let Prince know this please?




He is the Prince....OF FOOLS!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! ZING!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 18, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Mike's a great guy, but given Iron Heroes' OGC declaration, he has no moral high ground at all.



Mr. Mearls _wrote_ Iron Heroes. Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press _published_ it. I think Mr. Cook is more likely to blame for any perceived problems with the OGC declaration. I doubt any publisher would allow the author of a work the final say in determining what is OGC and what is not.


----------



## useridunavailable (Jun 18, 2008)

Never mind - misread something.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Mr. Mearls _wrote_ Iron Heroes. Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press _published_ it. I think Mr. Cook is more likely to blame for any perceived problems with the OGC declaration. I doubt any publisher would allow the author of a work the final say in determining what is OGC and what is not.




Smells like fanboi nonsense to me, Fifth. I seriously doubt that if Mike had said "But I want it to be all OGC!" than Monte would have stopped him. He's not exactly known for his obsessively grasping ways, now, is he?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 18, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Mike's a great guy, but given Iron Heroes' OGC declaration, he has no moral high ground at all.




I never said that Mike had moral high ground, only that he proposed the OGC wiki and lots of publishers strenuously objected on the grounds that they didn't actually want people to _use_ their OGC. 

Since you mention it, though, did he (i.e., Mearls) have any control over content distribution in Iron Heroes? I know that he did the design and most of the writing, though it was actually published by Malhavoc Press.

I assume the publisher would be the party designating OGC and PI, as they're the entity that _held_ the Copyright on the work in question (it appears to have since been transferred to Adam Windsor).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Smells like fanboi nonsense to me, Fifth.




That's exactly what your post sounds like, except directed towards Monte instead of Mike.



> I seriously doubt that if Mike had said "But I want it to be all OGC!" than Monte would have stopped him. He's not exactly known for his obsessively grasping ways, now, is he?




As Mearls is the guy that proposed the OGC Wiki, which wasn't a popular idea among a number of key publishers, I find it far more likely that Monte Cook (or people working for him) were the ones that wrote the OGC Declaration for Iron Heroes. Unless you actually have some proof that Mearls did, that is.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Mr. Mearls _wrote_ Iron Heroes. Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press _published_ it. I think Mr. Cook is more likely to blame for any perceived problems with the OGC declaration. I doubt any publisher would allow the author of a work the final say in determining what is OGC and what is not.




We're talking about a company that probably had less than 5 employees, not a vast corporation ruled by unchangeable draconian policy. I would call the idea that Mike had no way to influence this . . . unlikely.

Anyway, there's always been a divide between people who believe open source is a medium for exchange through informal, though still socially-mediated means and those who believe it means an active encouragement to use. This isn't just in gaming. I mean, you have people howling about the freedom to redistribute being a plank on which it's based, but if you follow open source software, people complain about distribution without community contribution all the time.

The OGL was, I think, largely predicated on Ryan Dancey's astute observation that many game companies are not driven by a rational economic motive -- but the mistake was assuming that given the opportunity to form better business models, nobody would *graduate* from that motive. But they did -- and that meant establishing independent, competitive branding and autonomy from the things the OGL was supposed to do for WotC. Companies like Green Ronin worked very hard to locate and dominate noncompetitive niches instead of settling for a commensal relationship.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> We're talking about a company that probably had less than 5 employees, not a vast corporation ruled by unchangeable draconian policy. I would call the idea that Mike had no way to influence this . . . unlikely.



Yes, if you read my post I said that Mr. Cook is _more likely_ to be to blame, and that it is _unlikely_ he would have given _final say_ to Mr. Mearls. Not sure why these perfectly reasonable comments are drawing ire.

I in no way said that Mr. Mearls had no influence at all. I don't see how you could read my comments that way. I was responding to someone who implied that Mr. Mearls had the final determination as to the OGC declaration of Iron Heroes. We have no way of knowing that, and it's a bold assertion given the circumstances.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 19, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> As Mearls is the guy that proposed the OGC Wiki, which wasn't a popular idea among a number of key publishers, I find it far more likely that Monte Cook (or people working for him) were the ones that wrote the OGC Declaration for Iron Heroes. Unless you actually have some proof that Mearls did, that is.




ROFL.

Oh yes because I'm such a big fan of Monte's. Please... This is pompous nonsense on your part. The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product which uses terms precisely like those he claimed to be against, and indeed, it's his most prominent product.

At the very least the "It was someone else's fault!" argument can be used to defend damn near all of the people guilty of this, if you want to try, which rather invalidates it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yes, if you read my post I said that Mr. Cook is _more likely_ to be to blame, and that it is _unlikely_ he would have given _final say_ to Mr. Mearls. Not sure why these perfectly reasonable comments are drawing ire.
> 
> I in no way said that Mr. Mearls had no influence at all. I don't see how you could read my comments that way. I was responding to someone who implied that Mr. Mearls had the final determination as to the OGC declaration of Iron Heroes. We have no way of knowing that, and it's a bold assertion given the circumstances.




At least this is some hilarious stuff, all the overwrought language and elaborate "but you could be wrongs" over one human being's apparent hypocrisy. I love this idea of Mike going "But Monte, that's against everything I said the OGC stood for!" and Monte's all "Mike, you're a loose cannon! I'm gonna publish this the way I want to publish it and ta hell with the OGC!" <chomps on cigar>

Mike reads these boards. If we're very lucky, he may clear this up and thus we may be spared the further pathetic shameful hilarity of this "debate".


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> At least this is some hilarious stuff, all the overwrought language and elaborate "but you could be wrongs" over one human being's apparent hypocrisy. I love this idea of Mike going "But Monte, that's against everything I said the OGC stood for!" and Monte's all "Mike, you're a loose cannon! I'm gonna publish this the way I want to publish it and ta hell with the OGC!"



You read my posts however you want to, I guess, but the only thing I'm asserting is that generally a publisher is more likely to have final say on OGC declarations than an author.

You have some imagination there, by the way, if you read the above in my posts.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Oh yes because I'm such a big fan of Monte's. Please... This is pompous nonsense on your part.




Pot: Kettle, you're black, dude.

Calling someone a fanboi for presenting a logical explanation of the author-publisher relationship is pretty f-cking pompous. Publishers have final control over products. Editors and publishers often make changes to products after the author hands over his work.



> The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product which uses terms precisely like those he claimed to be against, and indeed, it's his most prominent product.




Y'know what's funny? The fact that you ignore the big MONTE COOK PRESENTS on the cover. This does, indeed, mean that Monte's name is on the product, especially since he's the publisher.

The publisher is the one ultimately responsible for the content of the products he publishes.



> At the very least the "It was someone else's fault!" argument can be used to defend damn near all of the people guilty of this, if you want to try, which rather invalidates it.




Maybe you should learn a little more about how freelancing in the industry works, and what the publisher is allowed to do with your work (hint: anything they want). A number of companies are notorious for changing authors' work after it has been submitted (Palladium and White Wolf, for example).


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> We're talking about a company that probably had less than 5 employees, not a vast corporation ruled by unchangeable draconian policy. I would call the idea that Mike had no way to influence this . . . unlikely.




That's a more reasonable assertion, I think. I don't doubt that he may have had some _influence_ in this regard. That said, I still think that since Mike didn't publish Iron Heroes, the final decision regarding such things was _likely_ not his to make. I mean, that seems pretty reasonable, right? Were you ever allowed to dictate to White Wolf how to distribute/market/publish books that you wrote for in a 'work for hire' capacity?


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product



Which product are you talking about? Is it "Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes"? Is that the product? The Iron Heroes OGC declaration is identical in format to every other Malhavoc OGC declaration. And said declarations are often furnished by OGC zealots as prime examples of crippled OGC. I'd say Mike had little to do with the OGC declaration for that book.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Smells like fanboi nonsense to me,






			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> That's exactly what your post sounds like, except directed towards Monte instead of Mike.




Hey, tweedledee, tweedledum, get a room, okay? 



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I assume the publisher would be the party designating OGC and PI, as they're the entity that held the Copyright on the work in question (it appears to have since been transferred to Adam Windsor).




Usually, it's the publisher. Malhavoc specifically is known for having a few more exceptions in their Section 15 than some other companies (reserving all creature and spell names in some situations, IIRC). It's not exactly crippling, necessarily, but if anyone were to do it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Malhavoc.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Usually, it's the publisher.




I know


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 19, 2008)

Also, wasn't Mearls writing Iron Heroes in a very narrow window before taking a job at Wotc?  I doubt he would have had much time to decide OGC policy on Iron Heroes, by the time it was published, he was gone, man.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's a more reasonable assertion, I think. I don't doubt that he may have had some _influence_ in this regard. That said, I still think that since Mike didn't publish Iron Heroes, the final decision regarding such things was _likely_ not his to make. I mean, that seems pretty reasonable, right? Were you ever allowed to dictate to White Wolf how to distribute/market/publish books that you wrote for in a 'work for hire' capacity?




I never meant to imply he had the final word. Do I think he probably could have had a bunch of it opened up? Pretty much. But I doubt the idea was even on his mind at the time. Design is on Design Time. Internet is on Internet Time.

What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd telling guys who released 100% open content they're Not Doing it Right for not being enthusiastic about having their stuff wiki'd is not arguing from a empathetic position. If he'd come at it from the perspective of someone who'd opened up and posted content and had data and evidence of his convictions, then I think publishers would have been more receptive -- and that telling people who at least believe that equates to a serious business risk pretty much demands this.

As for how WFH creators influence other tasks at WW, that's an interesting subject. Marketing takes cues from creative output, and the degree to which it moves from brain to printed product isn't easy to describe, but it's not the "writing to order" many people imagine it is.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd telling guys who released 100% open content they're Not Doing it Right for not being enthusiastic about having their stuff wiki'd is not arguing from a empathetic position. If he'd come at it from the perspective of someone who'd opened up and posted content and had data and evidence of his convictions, then I think publishers would have been more receptive -- and that telling people who at least believe that equates to a serious business risk pretty much demands this.



But we don't know the details of how any of it occurred. It is possible (though it seems rather unlikely) that he did say "Monte, we should open this up more" to which Monte responded "Keep typing, monkey!". We just don't know, and therefore to judge him based solely on your perceptions of what _might have happened_ is wholly unfair.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> But we don't know the details of how any of it occurred. It is possible (though it seems rather unlikely) that he did say "Monte, we should open this up more" to which Monte responded "Keep typing, monkey!". We just don't know, and therefore to judge him based solely on your perceptions of what _might have happened_ is wholly unfair.




When you believe in something, you're supposed to *do* something besides talk. Inaction does matter, and it's fair to point it out.

Even so, that doesn't mean Mike did anything wrong. A lack of high ground =/= being lower than everyone else.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd. . .




I think what other folks are saying is that one can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for. For me, being fair means holding the people who made the decisions (or most likely made the decisions) accountable for those decisions, rather than excusing them completely and laying blame at the feet of the designer (who most likely did _not_ make the decisions in question). I think that blaming Mearls for the lack of OGC in products published by Malhavoc Press or WotC is like blaming you, personally, for the foibles of all WoD products. 

Incidentally, Mike Mearls was pretty heavily involved with promotion of the OGL and OGC material as a fan and consumer circa 2000. He (along with Clinton Nixon and others) published a free online OGC fanzine, and did quite a bit of championing here and on other forums (notably Gamign Outpost). Those old fanzines and forum discussions serve as a pretty good window into his personal stance on OGC. 



> Marketing takes cues from creative output, and the degree to which it moves from brain to printed product isn't easy to describe, but it's not the "writing to order" many people imagine it is.




Oh, I know. I've heard stories.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I think what other folks are saying is that one can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for.




Hear, hear. Back when I did a bit of freelancing for FFG's Legends & Lairs, Dragonstar, and Dawnforge, never once did anyone at FFG ever ask me, "Hey, Mark. Out of the stuff you wrote for us, which parts do you want to be OGC?"


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I think what other folks are saying is that you can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for.




Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions. See, it makes sense linguistically!



> For me, being fair means holding the people who made the decisions (or most likely made the decisions) accountable for those decisions, rather than excusing them completely and laying blame at the feet of the designer (who most likely did _not_ make the decisions in question).




Nah, if your name's on something you should reconcile it with your public statements. It is incumbent on you to do so, especially when you make the kind of proposal he did.



> I think that blaming Mearls for the lack of OGC in products published by Malhavoc Press or WotC is like blaming you, personally, for the foibles of all WoD products.




If I didn't say that Pimp and Gypsies sucked, you could certainly take me to task for my political statements while I worked for the company.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Hear, hear. Back when I did a bit of freelancing for FFG's Legends & Lairs, Dragonstar, and Dawnforge, never once did anyone at FFG ever ask me, "Hey, Mark. Out of the stuff you wrote for us, which parts do you want to be OGC?"




And if you had no effectively open content and told me I should let my stuff be wiki'd, I wouldn't think you had a leg to stand on, either.


----------



## Psion (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Smells like fanboi nonsense to me, Fifth. I seriously doubt that if Mike had said "But I want it to be all OGC!" than Monte would have stopped him. He's not exactly known for his obsessively grasping ways, now, is he?




AFAIAC, that doesn't really matter. Submitting material as OGC, or not, is entirely up to the contributor. No slight there.

Contributing OGC, which is _de facto_ telling the public at large "you can use this stuff", and then calling people out for taking them up on their offer, is what is objectionable.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> And if you had no effectively open content and told me I should let me stuff be wiki'd, I wouldn't think you had a leg to stand on, either.




I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. Perhaps a longer time between typing a message and hitting "Submit Reply" is in order?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions. See, it makes sense linguistically!




What response to those decisions? AFAICT, the only "response" that Mike Mearls ever had to those decisions was continuing to work for companies that pay the bills despite their practice of not opening up much (or any) content for re-use. That seems like a pretty reasonable way to respond to those decisions to me. He's a game designer, not Che Guevara. Were you expecting him to take up arms or something?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Contributing OGC, which is _de facto_ telling the public at large "you can use this stuff", and then calling people out for taking them up on their offer, is what is objectionable.




Also, this


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> AFAIAC, that doesn't really matter. Submitting material as OGC, or not, is entirely up to the contributor. No slight there.
> 
> Contributing OGC, which is _de facto_ telling the public at large "you can use this stuff", and then calling people out for taking them up on their offer, is what is objectionable.




No, not really. There's a big difference between legal license and being considerate. It's takes an empty or ill-defined ethical compass to equate them exactly.

I'll give to an example. I box. I've signed an injury waiver. If I get hit hard, I'm not allowed to take legal action. I have agreed that I'm okay with being punched in the face.

If someone who was obviously a better boxer at the gym (and there are a lot of them) beat the living crap out of me, it would have to be pretty severe for it to be actionable. But the guy would still be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Don't be a jerk.




I like that example. It's easy to apply.

Even when they signed the injury waiver (declared content OGC), but still don't want to get badly beaten (don't want all their OGC reprinted wholesale, either for profit or free), someone is a jerk for badly beating them.


----------



## FraserRonald (Jun 19, 2008)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Yeah, they did - at least, well enough for publishers of our sizes.



Not exactly the place for it, but thank you, thank you, thank you for the Pocket Conan.

Thank you.

Oh, and in case I forgot, thank you.


----------



## portermj (Jun 19, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> This strikes me as a particularly 20th century way of looking at open systems. I can certainly understand the impulse that might inspire WotC to feel like they were being cheated out of something by a company that simply reprinted their core system, but the fact of the matter is that Mongoose sold, at best, 10,000 copies of that book. Vs. the "Real" Player's Handbook, which probably moved something like 350,000 units. Sure, that easily seen as cutting into WotC's pie, but it's really not that significant a chunk of their expected profits for the book, and surely most of Mongoose's audience owned the real Player's Handbook anyway.
> 
> In fact, for a customer to have such an exotic D&D fetish as to A) know about and B) purchase the Pocket Player's Handbook the chances are very high that the buyer owns not just the Player's Handbook, but probably the entire core rules and a brace of expensive hardcover support volumes direct from Wizards of the Coast.




I'm not sure that a lack of sales is a good justification for reprinting and selling the core system.  It seems like your argument is that it is acceptable as long as the sales of the book is under a specific thresehold.

It think it would also create a problematic system for the RPG market if every publisher felt free to do their own Player's Handbook that isn't significantly different from the PHB.  I think that wholesale reprinting is against the spirit of the OGL.

I'd contrast the Mongoose book with books like Arcana Unearthed and Mutants & Masterminds.  The latter are effectively players handbooks that bring unique creations to the D20 realm.

I guess my hang up is that if all users of the OGL made their products free then I wouldn't care if one product was a replication of another product, but that isn't the case.  A lot, if not most, D20 material is linked to a purchase of some sort.  It would be unfair to publishers to have a product they create be duplicated wholesale in a product made by a competing publisher who didn't have to pay the development costs of the product.

Basically, I think the nature of the RPG market is such that products should be unique in content, not just in packaging.  Overall, I don't think this hurts the community to put this type of restriction on creators.  The cost of making a profit off of a system that is already established should be that you bring something new to the system.

I do think it would be harsh if the OGL restricted republication of stat blocks to a limited degree, but could 3rd party publishers as a whole be trusted to not try to weasel around any type of reprinting policy that is anything short of "don't reprint anything"?  

I think the 4E Monster Manual stat blocks represent such a small faction of what any given monster's stat block could be, that it would be a great opportunity if every 3rd party publishers made their own stat blocks rather than reprinting them.

This is an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/06/heres-product-we-wont-be-doing.html

Definately a potentially cool product: A deck of cards with the different powers on them.  

But is it really Green Ronin's place to make that product?  Unlike some other game aids, this would be pretty specific to 4E PHB.

If GR put this product out it would limit WOTC's ability to make and sell a product like it.  It would also raise the question of why GR should be able to do it but not other 3rd party publishers.

Assuming that the use of "cards" isn't disallowed under the GSL, I think it would add more to the community if GR put out a deck with powers they created along with some generic cards that could be filled out with the stats to PHB powers.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 19, 2008)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Not exactly the place for it, but thank you, thank you, thank you for the Pocket Conan.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Oh, and in case I forgot, thank you.




Which brings up an interesting point -- if WOTC *really* hated the pocket PHB, they could -- using the economies of scale and the fact they could print material Mongoose could not -- have blown it out of the water with their own 'streamlined' handbook at a lower price and with higher production values. They knew, thanks to Mongoose, there was a market for such things, but did nothing to take advantage of it themselves. However, many other publishers did -- look at the 'Stingy Gamer' products from GOO, or Hero Sidekick. "Cheap rules" is a good idea, and the fact WOTC never jumped on that market segment is no one's fault but theirs.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions.



Please favour us: what exactly _was_ his response to those decisions? What did he say to those who made the decisions? I don't think you know any more than I do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Which brings up an interesting point -- if WOTC *really* hated the pocket PHB, they could -- using the economies of scale and the fact they could print material Mongoose could not -- have blown it out of the water with their own 'streamlined' handbook at a lower price and with higher production values. They knew, thanks to Mongoose, there was a market for such things, but did nothing to take advantage of it themselves. However, many other publishers did -- look at the 'Stingy Gamer' products from GOO, or Hero Sidekick. "Cheap rules" is a good idea, and the fact WOTC never jumped on that market segment is no one's fault but theirs.



Eh, they would have had a very hard time getting that through the decision-makers I think. Sure, they could use it as a club against another publisher, but there would be some product cannibalization there.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Please favour us: what exactly _was_ his response to those decisions? What did he say to those who made the decisions? I don't think you know any more than I do.




I'm referring to how he approached this vis a vis telling other people they shouldn't complain about their stuff being wiki'd, which is something he would have to discuss publicly, given that it relates to a public position. He didn't. If you really don't get that somebody who just rode off of producing untransferable open content should explain how that jibes with a demand that others quietly part with transferable open content, then there's no productive discussion to be had.

I will say that people rising up to defend Mearls from some sort of assumed libel are totally missing the mark, since observing that he wasn't bringing unvarnished brilliance to the argument is not the same as saying he sucks or something.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm referring to how he approached this vis a vis telling other people they shouldn't complain about their stuff being wiki'd



My point is, he may very well have said the very same thing to the Malhavoc decision makers. _We simply don't know_. We don't know what he did. We seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Let's stick to what we know.

Mr. Mearls stated publicly that he thought all OGC should be freely available. We have _no evidence whatsoever_ that he ever did anything in his capacity as a game designer to contradict that.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you really don't get that somebody who just rode off of producing untransferable open content should explain how that jibes with a demand that others quietly part with transferable open content, then there's no productive discussion to be had.



You continue to miss the point. We don't know if he had any influence in the decision-making for the OGC declaration. We can assume things, but we need to realize they're only assumptions.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I will say that people rising up to defend Mearls from some sort of assumed libel are totally missing the mark, since observing that he wasn't bringing unvarnished brilliance to the argument is not the same as saying he sucks or something.



No, you're missing the point. I am arguing against the assertion that his words should be taken at less than face value because of something about which we have no real knowledge.

Mr. Mearls is an ENWorld member and he posts here. We do not ascribe motives to other posters. We should not assume things about him and then judge him based on those assumptions.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 19, 2008)

That's right.  We should PM him this thread and tell him to come answer us if he has time.  Monte too 

Easiest way to get a straight answer on things.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> That's right.  We should PM him this thread and tell him to come answer us if he has time.  Monte too




_Or_ we could stay on topic. 

Regardless of who designated what content OGC in Iron Heroes and any WotC books that Mr. Mearls has worked on, the facts remain that Mr. Mearls proposed an OGC wiki and that many publishers rejected the proposal based, not on anything that Mr. Mearls said or did, nor based on who Mr. Mearls worked for, but specifically because they did not want their OGC to be re-used or made available in a form that made re-use easy for other publishers and fans. 

Arguing about whether or not it was rude of Mr. Mearls to propose the project is a completely unrelated issue that sidesteps the written record of events and diverts attention away from the _real_ issue, which was that many publishers were playing dirty poker by trying to place demands of non-use on content already desiganted as OGC. 

There is a long-running public record of the OGC wiki debate in several message board threads and blog posts. I don't recall (nor can I locate) a single instance of a publisher rejecting the OGC wiki because Mr. Mearls wrote for WotC or other companies that didn't release a great deal of OGC, or because they felt Mr. Mearls to be self-righteous. No, without exception, AFAICT, the publishers who rejected the wiki did so because they wanted to retroactively restrict already open content.


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I have agreed that I'm okay with being punched in the face.






_Given your posting history, you might not want to let that get around._


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2008)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Also, wasn't Mearls writing Iron Heroes in a very narrow window before taking a job at Wotc?





_You think Monte would have given him a well lit work environment._


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> _Or_ we could stay on topic.




Well I figured I may as well propose an answer to get people over the off topicness.  It will probly fail tho


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 19, 2008)

Mark said:
			
		

> _You think Monte would have given him a well lit work environment._



What, I thought he was forced to work from Montes basement!


----------



## mearls (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Mike's a great guy, but given Iron Heroes' OGC declaration, he has no moral high ground at all.




This statement makes the false assumption that I had any hand whatsoever in that declaration.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Well I figured I may as well propose an answer to get people over the off topicness.  It will probly fail tho




I want you to blow on my dice if we ever meet in real life! I need luck like yours. . . 



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> This statement makes the false assumption that I had any hand whatsoever in that declaration.




We now have written confirmation that Occam's razor still works


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 19, 2008)

I sincerely hope that ain't a euphemism.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that ain't a euphemism.




D'oh! No! Noooooooooo! Noooooooooooooooooo! Edited for content!


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 19, 2008)

Yeah I know, I was just being silly.

It was pretty bizarre, and not what I was expecting to see happen. Mr. Mearls turning up, I mean.

What was the whole point again? Oh yeah, moral high ground. Just for something different, eh.  (not you btw, I mean the thread in general.)

Maybe I'm delirious. THink I'll stumble off and take something for this bloody flu.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What was the whole point again? Oh yeah, moral high ground. Just for something different, eh.  (not you btw, I mean the thread in general.)




Actually, I'm pretty certain that the whole point was simply to dispel the incorrect assertion being offered up as fact that he was directing his employer's business with regard to the Iron Heroes OGC declaration or was otherwise responsible for the lack of OGC released by companies who have hired him to write.*

[Edit: Oh. The thread in general? I think the point made by Merric was that the numerous publishers who used the OGL and then screamed loudly whenever people dared to _discuss_ the reuse of OGC, were likely part of the reason for the GSL restrictions.]

*Which in and of itself seems to have been offered up in order to shift discussion away from the actual, documented, reason that dozens of publishers cited for not wanting to contribute to the OGC Wiki project).


----------



## Maggan (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> AFAICT, the publishers who rejected the wiki did so because they wanted to retroactively restrict already open content.




It would have been very interesting to have seen if an OGC wiki could have created a stronger bastion against 4e for third party publishers, than what Pathfinder maybe is going to become.

A collection of the 3.5 rules in a wiki could have been a tremendous pillar of support for the smaller publishers who are now relegated to chosing 4e GSL or ... not much at all. There are some licenses out there, but non have the reach that the 3.5 OGL has/had.

It would have been very interesting. But then, things are pretty interesting now as well.   

/M


----------



## Yair (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> *Which in and of itself seems to have been offered up in order to shift discussion away from the actual, documented, reason that dozens of publishers cited for not wanting to contribute to the OGC Wiki project).



On which point I'd like to mention the startling new development, for those who don't frequent the Publishers subforum, that Mongoose Publishing is now essentially pushing forward such a wiki. Which I consider pretty amazing - I thought the OGC Wiki dead, dead, dead.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> It would have been very interesting to have seen if an OGC wiki could have created a stronger bastion against 4e for third party publishers, than what Pathfinder maybe is going to become.




Well, it looks like, as of yesterday, Mongoose has agreed to sponsor such a wiki for their own OGL and d20 games going out of print (apparently they're pulling all PDF copies of those products from the market, as well). Whcih is neat -- but, I suspect too little to make any kind of a noticeable difference in the current market. 



> It would have been very interesting.




For certain. And probably a lot less scary for many publishers


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 19, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> On which point I'd like to mention the startling new development, for those who don't frequent the Publishers subforum, that Mongoose Publishing is now essentially pushing forward such a wiki. Which I consider pretty amazing - I thought the OGC Wiki dead, dead, dead.




Beat me to it! While it's a noble effort and I applaud it, I think it's too late for such a project to have any kind of substantial impact on the current direction of design trends or market evolution. 

That said, I think it will serve as a point of historical preservation which, for me, is just as important (if not moreso). Where are the hundreds of games fromt he 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s? Most of them are rotting in some former publisher's basement. 

This is a great opportunity to publically preserve much gaming material that would otherwise be lost, I think.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> This statement makes the false assumption that I had any hand whatsoever in that declaration.




I'm sure you didn't. But you sure didn't raise the same kind of stink about your own stuff as you did about, say, everyone else's.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> On which point I'd like to mention the startling new development, for those who don't frequent the Publishers subforum, that Mongoose Publishing is now essentially pushing forward such a wiki. Which I consider pretty amazing - I thought the OGC Wiki dead, dead, dead.




You can unlock a restraurant dumpster and find willing takers, too.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> We now have written confirmation that Occam's razor still works




But strawmen are still strawmen, apparently.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Whcih is neat -- but, I suspect too little to make any kind of a noticeable difference in the current market.



Well... it can collect OGL material that goes out of print/PDF due to conversion to GSL, no?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You can unlock a restraurant dumpster and find willing takers, too.



Dude, what?

That does it. I _must_ be delirious.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Dude, what?




He probably means that he thinks Mongoose OGC is crap.

/M


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> My point is, he may very well have said the very same thing to the Malhavoc decision makers. _We simply don't know_. We don't know what he did. We seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Let's stick to what we know.




And my point is that your point isn't relevant. It is about what he said in an accessible public forum.



> Mr. Mearls stated publicly that he thought all OGC should be freely available. We have _no evidence whatsoever_ that he ever did anything in his capacity as a game designer to contradict that.




Yes we do. He failed to express even mild regret that his own material wouldn't qualify and in fact, didn't extract anything from any commercial work he had ever done to demonstrate that he'd practice what he preached. 



> You continue to miss the point. We don't know if he had any influence in the decision-making for the OGC declaration. We can assume things, but we need to realize they're only assumptions.
> 
> 
> No, you're missing the point. I am arguing against the assertion that his words should be taken at less than face value because of something about which we have no real knowledge.
> ...




You keep saying I'm saying these things I am not saying. You keep assuming I an assuming things that are convenient for your argument, but which are inconsistent with my statements. Basically, you're not really honestly responding to me at this point.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> _Or_ we could stay on topic.
> 
> Regardless of who designated what content OGC in Iron Heroes and any WotC books that Mr. Mearls has worked on, the facts remain that Mr. Mearls proposed an OGC wiki and that many publishers rejected the proposal based, not on anything that Mr. Mearls said or did, nor based on who Mr. Mearls worked for, but specifically because they did not want their OGC to be re-used or made available in a form that made re-use easy for other publishers and fans.
> 
> ...




Because of course, there's no way evidence of sincerity and shared risk would have influenced anyone. Nosiree. 'Cause everyone thinks like a 'bot.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 19, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> He probably means that he thinks Mongoose OGC is crap.
> 
> /M




I should clarify that there are differences that make the metaphor less than fully applicable. Full time busboys and line cooks in my country make more than 18K a year to start, for instance.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I should clarify that there are differences that make the metaphor less than fully applicable. Full time busboys and line cooks in my country make more than 18K a year to start, for instance.




Ah, that old chestnut.

To explain, Eyebeams is thoroughly ignorant of the fact that Mongoose staff are among the best paid in the industry.  He is completely unaware that, being based in the UK, they _have_ to be.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 19, 2008)

It's getting vicious in here.

It's confirmed, GSL brings out the worst in people. Bad WotC....


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 19, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> It's confirmed, GSL brings out the worst in people. Bad WotC....



GSL *is* people!

Sorry. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 19, 2008)

Well I can say with Mongoose going forward with this OGC wiki ( again you show your true merits ) , we just need to stand and wait . To see what other publishers  are honestly pro OGC. 

Its time to Put their OGC where their mouth is.


----------



## Rel (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams, your snarky, confrontational posts are not doing this thread any good.  Don't post in here again.


----------



## Maggan (Jun 19, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> To see what other publishers  are honestly pro OGC.
> 
> Its time to Put their OGC where their mouth is.




Without knowing Mr Sprange at all, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't one of his motivations behind this move. Not out of the kindness of his heart, mind you.

Probably out of the mischievousness of his heart, more like it.  

I suspect that some companies, mostly smaller ones, will want to add content. I suspect that the larger ones won't even acknowledge the existence of this undertaking, and will become very agitated if it is brought up as a shining example.

Namely ... no, let's not go there. I have a few likely suspects that I would love to have contribute to such a wiki, but who would rather ... not contribute, to put it mildly.

 

/M


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2008)

> He failed to express even mild regret that his own material wouldn't qualify and in fact, didn't extract anything from any commercial work he had ever done to demonstrate that he'd practice what he preached.




Let's see if I can't simplify the counter-argument.

No one cares that he failed to express regret because it wasn't his decision, it was the decision of the people he worked for. It would be _their_ place to express regret, not his. So there's no real hypocrisy here.

I would not express regret if my employer burned down someone's house. It's not my place. I don't always agree with the actions of those who sign my paychecks. Fortunately, I don't have to, because I'm not responsible for their actions, just my own. If I say burning down buildings is bad, working for a company who burnt down a building doesn't mean that I support them in that (though I may support them in other ways or think that they're useful or whatnot).


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I would not express regret if my employer burned down someone's house. It's not my place.





But you could.


----------



## mearls (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm sure you didn't. But you sure didn't raise the same kind of stink about your own stuff as you did about, say, everyone else's.




The idea of the OGC wiki was the direct result of my experiences with IH. Go back and read the original post. If that's not enough, then, whatever.

Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in living up to whatever standards of purity you've decided to erect for me.


----------



## Psion (Jun 19, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, not really. There's a big difference between legal license and being considerate. It's takes an empty or ill-defined ethical compass to equate them exactly.
> 
> I'll give to an example. I box. I've signed an injury waiver. If I get hit hard, I'm not allowed to take legal action. I have agreed that I'm okay with being punched in the face.
> 
> ...




Cute analogy. Where we obviously differ is in the amount of "jerkiness" is happening here. And differences is perception of ethics between people is why we have legal agreements.

But it comes down to this: The OGL gives you tools to selectively disclose material as OGC or protect it as PI. If you fail to use that, I don't have too much sympathy for you.

Getting back at your boxing example from another angle, if I give you pads and a mouthguard and you are hurting and lose a few teeth after a bout because you failed to use them, I'm not going to have too much sympathy for you.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> This statement makes the false assumption that I had any hand whatsoever in that declaration.



Thank you, Mike, for coming here and clarifying what many of us thought was fairly obvious, but was being overlooked by some.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

Eyebeams has been booted from the thread. I think we can stop responding to his "arguments" now.


----------



## Mark (Jun 19, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You reap what you sow - GSL.






The GSL is not a harvest, but rather a salting of the fields.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 19, 2008)

Mark said:
			
		

> The GSL is not a harvest, but rather a salting of the fields.





Indeed.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 19, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> The idea of the OGC wiki was the direct result of my experiences with IH. Go back and read the original post. If that's not enough, then, whatever.
> 
> Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in living up to whatever standards of purity you've decided to erect for me.




By the way Mike, I just wanted to personally thank you for Iron Heroes.

And Holgar of the Lakeshore Mountains, Master of the Maul, thanks you too!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My reading of the OGL is "You may use this material if you abide by these terms; if you use this material without abiding by these terms, you may be liable."  Not sure how that fails to apply to fansites.



The OGL is a contractual licence. It confers neither rights nor obligations on those who are not a party to it. Likewise for the GSL.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EN World doesn't link to the OGL?  I thought that it did.  Certainly, WotC could demand that it did under the OGL.
> 
> Likewise, WotC could demand that either EN World have 4e content, or OGL content, but not both, under the GSL.



WoTC cannot demand anything of ENworld under either licence if ENworld is not a party to either licence.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document.  The fan site policy is....what?  Goodwill?  Can you point to it?  Can you refer to it?  Does it have any validity in a court of law?



I'm not sure what you mean by "validity in a court of law" here - the policy is not a contract (unlike the GSL or OGL). However, depending on the details of the policy, and the details of anyone's conduct in response to the policy, WoTC might be estopped from denying that certain behaviours were licensed.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be?



I imagine that WoTC would attempt to enforce its rights under copyright and trademark law. How far, exactly, those rights extend (particularly in relation to those who are not using the trademarks in pursuit of trade themselves, and who are not publishing any copyrighted text for their own prfoit) is a tricky matter.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 20, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I suspect that some companies, mostly smaller ones, will want to add content. I suspect that the larger ones won't even acknowledge the existence of this undertaking, and will become very agitated if it is brought up as a shining example.




I think it sounds like a great idea and wish them the best of luck. Every rule that Paizo has ever published under the OGL is 100% open and is thus fair game for something like this.

I am not kidding when I say that Paizo is committed to Open Gaming.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC


----------



## Maggan (Jun 20, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I think it sounds like a great idea and wish them the best of luck. Every rule that Paizo has ever published under the OGL is 100% open and is thus fair game for something like this.
> 
> I am not kidding when I say that Paizo is committed to Open Gaming.
> 
> ...




Holy cow. Cool statement Erik. But then again, Paizo has always been a class act.   

/M


----------



## Man-thing (Jun 20, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I think it sounds like a great idea and wish them the best of luck.




Thanks. The grand wiki has no intention of posting OGC content from publishers without their express permission (even though that is not required under the license). Matt offered content and so we are using the content offered, if Paizo or anyone else wants to offer content then we will definitely include it but it is not our intention to "take content" or "put pressure" on anyone to contribute or even acknowledge our existence.

Like all grand works, I'm sure this is going to take a monumentous effort to get anything tangible, but I'm excited by the support so far.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 20, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The OGL is a contractual licence. It confers neither rights nor obligations on those who are not a party to it. Likewise for the GSL.





Both the OGL and the GSL imply a strong statement of ownership.  Any statement that says, Only if A, then B, implies that you cannot B without A, regardless of whether or not you wish to participate in A.

If you are not a party to the GSL, certainly WotC will not sue you on the basis of the GSL, but you can be certain that this doesn't mean that not agreeing to the GSL gives you the right to publish 4e materials -- on a fan website or anywhere else.

Under the OGL, a fan website could fairly easily comply with the terms of the license, and thus never have to (reasonably) worry about whether or not WotC would take action against it.  OTOH, if WotC wants to "close off" older editions of the game (and both the GSL and the changes to 4e, some of which are simple changes to terminology from 3e -- apparently to imply that they are different from material under the OGL) suggests that it is more than reasonable to believe this is so, then the GSL (unlike the OGL) cannot be used to protect EN World.

This is a significant change, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.  And simply because WotC isn't seeking to do so _*at this time*_ doesn't mean it won't seek to do so a week from now, or a month from now, or a year.  And because, at that time, the potential for claiming damages will be even higher than it is now, WotC will certainly have an upper hand in making sure that we never hear the full story of why EN World disappeared.  It's called "nondisclosure".

I might also remind you that, earlier in the 4e launch cycle, I actually got a response from a WotC rep on this very issue, and the response was not that EN World was protected.

If I get some time next week, I'll try to find the post in my subscriptions, though if anyone wants to Search for it, that would make my life easier.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 20, 2008)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Thanks. The grand wiki has no intention of posting OGC content from publishers without their express permission (even though that is not required under the license). Matt offered content and so we are using the content offered, if Paizo or anyone else wants to offer content then we will definitely include it but it is not our intention to "take content" or "put pressure" on anyone to contribute or even acknowledge our existence.
> 
> Like all grand works, I'm sure this is going to take a monumentous effort to get anything tangible, but I'm excited by the support so far.





I made sure that there was some OGC in Dragon Roots #1.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2008)

I was pondering this thread I realized I probably owe the folks at Mongoose an apology.  It would seem the motivations I ascribed to them were incorrect, and that I was inflicting guilt by association based on the behavior of some of their customers.  And, since I know at least Matt was reading this thread, this seems the place to do it.

So, I apologize.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jun 20, 2008)

I'll freely admit to being fairly clueless on the OGL, but something struck me as I waded through this thread and a few of the OGL Wiki threads. It seems as though most (<-- notice the word most, not "all") of the reservations about an OGL Wiki come from the idea of _consumers_ having free access to Open Content, thus hurting the sales of the creators of said content, not _publishers_ having the right to modify, expand or simply re-use Open Content in their own works.

Again, please suffer my ignorance, but my impression of the OGL has always been that it was a tool for enriching game content by letting ideas from different designers and publishers intermix somewhat freely, to provide continuity and commonality to products (see: Tome of Horrors) and to generally enhance gaming interoperability. I have never seen it as a tool for granting consumers free access to gaming product. 


As a consumer, while free content is interesting, it seems rather short-sighted.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2008)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> As a consumer, while free content is interesting, it seems rather short-sighted.



Which is pretty much exactly why I've been a bit... irritable about all the wailing and moaning from consumers.  The on-line SRD sites are nice if I'm posting to a pbem from work or we do a pick-up game while visiting friends.  But the real benefit to consumers is in things like Iron Heroes and M&M or Rappan Athuk and Dungeon Crawl Classics, not in having a no-charge gaming fix.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 20, 2008)

I wonder if anyone could use the OGL to print something almost, but not quite, like 4e, without getting at all involved in GSL.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2008)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone could "pull an OSRIC" and use the OGL to print something almost, but not quite, like 4e, without getting at all involved in GSL.




IANAL, but I doubt it. OSRIC works because 1e is about 20 years out of date and WotC has no intention of garnering money from it. 4e is new-hawtness and they want to get their investment back. Any attempt to OSRIC 4e would most likely face CnD letters if not outright lawsuits...


----------



## Lizard (Jun 20, 2008)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone could "pull an OSRIC" and use the OGL to print something almost, but not quite, like 4e, without getting at all involved in GSL.




The OGL would have nothing to do with it; if you try that, you'd just be using normal copyright law. If anything, the OGL would put you at greater risk.

I honestly don't see the point. Such a system would have no commercial use -- no one would risk money making supplements for such a risky venture. And if it's not commercial, then, what's the point? Having "Free" rules for 4e that are almost-sorta-kinda like the actual rules? Who gains? Who'd want them? Anyone who likes 4e will buy 4e. 

OSRIC was written with the intent of allowing people to make 1e compatible commercial products to attract that tiny niche. A "4e OSRIC" would serve no commercial purpose. Only after 4e is dead would it have any reason to exist.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 20, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I was pondering this thread I realized I probably owe the folks at Mongoose an apology.  It would seem the motivations I ascribed to them were incorrect, and that I was inflicting guilt by association based on the behavior of some of their customers.  And, since I know at least Matt was reading this thread, this seems the place to do it.
> 
> So, I apologize.




Spoken like a true gentleman.  Now, let's move on.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jun 20, 2008)

Say Matt... do you already have someone lined up to help out on Lone Wolf stuff? That is, assuming you're willing to put it up that is.

I gotta say, I'm a _big_ fan of Lone Wolf d20. It really is the _first_ d20 game I looked at and thought, "You know... I could run this, and it'd be totally cool."

I also happen to have the print copies of the game, Darklands, and Magic of Magnamund.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Jun 21, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Say Matt... do you already have someone lined up to help out on Lone Wolf stuff? That is, assuming you're willing to put it up that is.




Give Mark Gedak a shout - you'll find him in the thread of the publisher's forum. . .


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The OGL would have nothing to do with it; if you try that, you'd just be using normal copyright law. If anything, the OGL would put you at greater risk.
> 
> I honestly don't see the point. Such a system would have no commercial use -- no one would risk money making supplements for such a risky venture. And if it's not commercial, then, what's the point? Having "Free" rules for 4e that are almost-sorta-kinda like the actual rules? Who gains? Who'd want them? Anyone who likes 4e will buy 4e.
> 
> OSRIC was written with the intent of allowing people to make 1e compatible commercial products to attract that tiny niche. A "4e OSRIC" would serve no commercial purpose. Only after 4e is dead would it have any reason to exist.




Were you around in the 80's? A 4E OSRIC would definitely be of use to people who would rather stay out of the GSL. I am willing to bet there would be more Judges Guild and other companies today then there were in the 80's. Some would be garbage, but then others would be like Judges Guild, absolute diamonds in the rough. Just like stuff under the 3E OGL and under OSRIC has been. Pretty darn good, for the most part.

Then again, people said Paizo were being foolish to stay with the 3E OGL. I think history is shaping up to show they were very smart to do so. 

So doing a 4E OSRIC ASAP will also be a good move. If it stands up to legal scrutiny. Then again people claim OSRIC doesn't, but they haven't gotten so much as a "Cease and Desist" letter from WOTC after all these years.

Something competing directly with their current 4E product line would definitely get a very close look, and probably some legal bullying. IE "Cease and Desist" letters, even if the document is actually legal.

Researching copyright law is pretty easy these days, especially with so many colleges with law departments putting so many interesting articles up on their websites. Plus many of the Professors are very responsive to e-mail inquiries.


----------



## Orcus (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> So doing a 4E OSRIC ASAP will also be a good move. If it stands up to legal scrutiny. Then again people claim OSRIC doesn't, but they haven't gotten so much as a "Cease and Desist" letter from WOTC after all these years.




Tree, would you quite it please.

OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal. 

Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Tree, would you quite it please.
> 
> OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal.
> 
> Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.





That isn't the only evidence. The people behind OSRIC have had communications with WOTC, and they went forward with it. If WOTC wants to have a legal problem with OSRIC they better hurry up.

Even if OSRIC is illegal, which there is no legal proof that it is (meaning that no legal challenge has been made, not even a cease and desist letter), that doesn't mean a legal 4E OSRIC can't be created.

Besides, OSRIC is done in England, and only has to comply with English and international laws. Laws the US are obligated to accept and operate under due to various agreements. So maybe under US law it would be illegal if created and published in the US. Have you looked into it from that perspective?

I know that the US has had points of contention with international copyright in the past. Due to it being a bit "loose" in comparison to US law. So there are key differences that wouldn't hold up under US laws that would be just fine under English and international law.

So you are probably right about it not being legal under US law, but OSRIC falls under International laws. Which probably makes it legal in the US due to those trade and various other agreements I have mentioned.

So don't let fear control you! Look into it and do it if you think you can!

Like I have said elsewhere, copyright law is pretty easy to research now a days. Plus I have found numerous law professors open to answering e-mails. It isn't a mysterious issue that you need to go to the Oracles to find answers too.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore, I don't think you're helping anything by giving conjecture about doing something that may be entirely illegal. Actions like that are more likely to have WotC determine that this GSL isn't worth the havoc and revoke it right away, hanging a lot of 3rd parties who hoped to put something out under the SGL by their petard. You're just feeding a fire that can only get the gaming community burned. Not to mention that there's kind of a thread for what you're talking about already.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The OGL would have nothing to do with it; if you try that, you'd just be using normal copyright law. If anything, the OGL would put you at greater risk.



I don't think that this is entirely true, because the OGL permits one to use with permission the d20 SRD. OSRIC draws on that SRD, and so (presumably) would the hypothetical 4e OSRIC.

While not wanting to do too much of a dogpile on Treebore, I think that some people in these threads are a little careless about making assertions about what is or is not permissible under IP law without having much foundation (either legal expertise or legal advice) for those assertions.

Unlike Orcus, I'm not confident to express a definitive opinion about OSRIC. But I at least wonder whether it is making tortious use of WoTC's trademarks and/or goodwill (in Australia and the UK this would normally fall under the tort of passing off), and also whether it constitutes a derivative work or an adaptation of text in which WoTC enjoys the copyright.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Treebore, I don't think you're helping anything by giving conjecture about doing something that may be entirely illegal. Actions like that are more likely to have WotC determine that this GSL isn't worth the havoc and revoke it right away, hanging a lot of 3rd parties who hoped to put something out under the SGL by their petard. You're just feeding a fire that can only get the gaming community burned. Not to mention that there's kind of a thread for what you're talking about already.




I am not giving conjecture. As I have insinuated I have researched copyright law and conversed via e-mail with several law professors, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. I am just not a lawyer.

So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Both the OGL and the GSL imply a strong statement of ownership.  Any statement that says, Only if A, then B, implies that you cannot B without A, regardless of whether or not you wish to participate in A.



Except that this is not necessarily true if the law confers on you a right to B regardless of A.

WoTC's ownership rights do not arise from, nor do they depend upon, any claims of ownership made in either licence. They arise from the operation of intellectual property law.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are not a party to the GSL, certainly WotC will not sue you on the basis of the GSL



Which was my point - the GSL confers no obligations on non-parties.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> but you can be certain that this doesn't mean that not agreeing to the GSL gives you the right to publish 4e materials -- on a fan website or anywhere else.



Of course not. As I noted, any such rights would arise, and their content depend upon, the general operation of the law of copyrights and trademarks.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Under the OGL, a fan website could fairly easily comply with the terms of the license, and thus never have to (reasonably) worry about whether or not WotC would take action against it.



Although most didn't, for example because they made a great deal of use of product identity of material published under the OGL, and made a great deal of use of WoTC's IP that was not licensed under the OGL (eg names of gods, monsters and wizards).

Nevertheless WoTC did not take action against those websites as far as I know.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, if WotC wants to "close off" older editions of the game (and both the GSL and the changes to 4e, some of which are simple changes to terminology from 3e -- apparently to imply that they are different from material under the OGL) suggests that it is more than reasonable to believe this is so, then the GSL (unlike the OGL) cannot be used to protect EN World.
> 
> This is a significant change, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.  And simply because WotC isn't seeking to do so _*at this time*_ doesn't mean it won't seek to do so a week from now, or a month from now, or a year.



This was as true in the past - every time ENworld hosted a thread discussing beholders or Bigby - as it is now.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And because, at that time, the potential for claiming damages will be even higher than it is now, WotC will certainly have an upper hand in making sure that we never hear the full story of why EN World disappeared.  It's called "nondisclosure".



This is all, I assume, baseless speculation. But in any event the law generally frowns upon those who rest upon their rights in order to try to increase the size of any eventual award in their favour.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I might also remind you that, earlier in the 4e launch cycle, I actually got a response from a WotC rep on this very issue, and the response was not that EN World was protected.
> 
> If I get some time next week, I'll try to find the post in my subscriptions, though if anyone wants to Search for it, that would make my life easier.



I've never asserted that ENworld enjoys any rights under either the OGL or the GSL. Only that it's legal exposure in respect of 4e is no different than in respect of 3E - and in either case, it is depending upon the forbearance of WoTC in enforcing its rights. Such a policy of forbearance is what one might also call a "fan site policy". Apparently one of those is on the way, although we don't know yet whether and to what degree it will continue to involve forbearance.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am not giving conjecture. As I have insinuated I have researched copyright law and conversed via e-mail with several law professors, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. I am just not a lawyer.
> 
> So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.



Treebore, with all due respect, your posts to date do not disclose any particularly sound reasoning in respect of the legal issues involved.

But I'd be happy for you to elaborate. In particular, (i) what is the argument that OSRIC does not tortiously trade upon WoTC's good will in the D&D and AD&D brands, and (ii) what is the argument that OSRIC is not an adaptation (the relevant concept in Australian and, I suspect, UK copyright law) or derivative work (the relevant concept in US copyright law, I believe) of the 1st ed PHB and DMG?


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Treebore, with all due respect, your posts to date do not disclose any particularly sound reasoning in respect of the legal issues involved.
> 
> But I'd be happy for you to elaborate. In particular, (i) what is the argument that OSRIC does not tortiously trade upon WoTC's good will in the D&D and AD&D brands, and (ii) what is the argument that OSRIC is not an adaptation (the relevant concept in Australian and, I suspect, UK copyright law) or derivative work (the relevant concept in US copyright law, I believe) of the 1st ed PHB and DMG?





As I said, I am not a lawyer. So even if I were to take the time to write up a detailed response it would still be meaningless. You want solid info? Look it up. I started with websites of Texas Universities and went from there.

Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.



I'm sorry, I thought Clark was a lawyer.

And despite your claims that copyright law is easy to research, I doubt that it is easy to find information useful to this specific purpose. I spend all of my working hours working with a single piece of legislation (the _Income Tax Act Canada_), have for years, and there are still many bits of it I haven't the first clue about. (By this I mean to point out that I am an expert in the Canadian tax act, and yet there are many things within it I would have to research before providing comment on. And no, googling the tax act and the CTF website would not be good enough.)

To claim that something as nebulous and sticky as IP law is "easy" to research is quite the overstatement I think. Considering there are lawyers who do nothing but IP law, there is no way a layman can spend a few hours with google and arrive at a solid conclusion.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.



Such as Australian law perhaps?

Australia isn't part of the UK.


----------



## Gilwen (Jun 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Such as Australian law perhaps?
> 
> Australia isn't part of the UK.




What!? When did that happen?  



Please don't flog me.....


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I thought Clark was a lawyer.




I do believe that he is, yes, as well as being a successful d20/OGL publisher. Treebore, OTOH, is neither.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> As I said, I am not a lawyer. So even if I were to take the time to write up a detailed response it would still be meaningless. You want solid info? Look it up. I started with websites of Texas Universities and went from there.
> 
> Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.



As Fifth Element noted, I am Australian, not British (although Australian law, like much of that in the US although to a greater and more ongoing extent, has its origins in Britain).

But you may have missed my real point - which was also made my Fifth Element. My real point was that, if you cannot give answers to my questions, than your opinion is worth little. Clark's, on the other hand, is worth a bit, given that he is a practising lawyer. I also trust my own legal intuitions more than yours, given that I am a lawyer (though an academic one who is not in practice).


----------



## Hairfoot (Jun 21, 2008)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> Please don't flog me.....



Deal.  Just as long as you don't burn any of us at the stake for lack of puritanism or shoot us with one of those guns that are mandatory for everyone over 8 years of age!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> (although Australian law, like much of that in the US although to a greater and more ongoing extent, has its origins in Britain).



Oh yes, Canadian law is based on British common law as well. Except in Quebec, where the system is based on the French civil code.

_Edit: typo. Merde!_


----------



## Gilwen (Jun 21, 2008)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> Deal.  Just as long as you don't burn any of us at the stake for lack of puritanism or shoot us with one of those guns that are mandatory for everyone over 8 years of age!



LMAO! we lowered the age to 6, first grade is getting rough! But we did take away the matches because there were just to many charred remains lying around.

Gil


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> What!? When did that happen?



The date of Australian independence is a little hard to pin down, but it happened sometime between 1919 (when Australia became a distinct party to the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, although (a bit like Rain of Blows) with a somewhat ambiguous indent under Great Britain's signature) and 1942 (when Australia adopted the Statute of Westminster in order to validate certain wartime shipping legislation).

Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and there is a personal union of the thrones of Australia and the United Kingdom (and, given that the two nations have common laws of succession, this personal union is likely to endure for a while at least). The transition from constitutional union of the thrones to a personal union is again hard to pin down - but it was clearly a constitutional union in 1924 (after the Imperial conference at which it was agreed that no change in the laws of succession could be made without the agreement of the UK and the Dominions, which included Australia) and was undoubtedly rendered a purely personal union by the Australia Acts of 1986.

For reasons that I don't personally understand, Australia tends to adopt the British forms and titles (eg we refer to the Queen as Elizabeth II even though she is the first Elizabeth to be Queen of Australia).


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Australia is a constitutional monarchy



As is Canada. The British monarch is technically the head of state. We've been meaning to mention something about that for the past 100 years or so, but the right time hasn't come up.


----------



## Gilwen (Jun 21, 2008)

I was just kidding with my earlier comment. I had a smiley and everything.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> I was just kidding with my earlier comment. I had a smiley and everything.



I know. I just wanted an excuse to complain about the Australian use of British forms and titles, which is a pet peeve of mine!


----------



## Gilwen (Jun 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I know. I just wanted an excuse to complain about the Australian use of British forms and titles, which is a pet peeve of mine!




I did enjoy reading about it!

Gil


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I do believe that he is, yes, as well as being a successful d20/OGL publisher. Treebore, OTOH, is neither.




Yep. I am neither. Clark isn't a Copyright lawyer either. At least I did my own research. Maybe you guys should too? That way you might be as aware of certain points of copyright law as I am. Not to mention international law. 

So I am an intelligent guy who researched copyright law on his own and e-mailed a few legal law professors for some specific answers, who isn't a lawyer, and isn't a game publisher.

So if you really want to know research it. Clark is a criminal law lawyer, and he has never said he researched copyright law to find out the specifics. So he is far from giving any legal advice. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

So if you really want to know research it yourself. Ask lawyers who claim to know copyright law. e-mail professors who have written up articles and taught courses on copyright law. They are surprisingly willing to converse.

Trying to belittle and discredit me changes nothing. You want to know? Find out for yourself.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 21, 2008)

Without getting into a whole lot of stuff that's gone on in this thread, I fail to see what the GSL really offers. Say I write an adventure. I can give the names of the monsters in the MM, and even then, not the cool ones (drow, beholders, mind flayers, warforged, shadar-kai).

IF I wanted to say "This room has 4 orcs and 2 zombies in it" a bunch of times, do I need the GSL?

I can't say I blame Hasbro for wanting to be closed with everything, although I don't see what value they get out of it, either. I mean, if I'm going to put out a product with Hasbro's trade dress that says "Dungeons and Dragons" right on it, and it would be better if it had things like monster statistics and abilities printed in it, well, who really looks bad? If the goal of 4E is to attract the non-gaming, manga, anne rice, and ultimate marvel crowd... won't disappointing 3pp reflect poorly on Hasbro and their IP? Under the OGL, if Mongoose or Malhavoc put out a bad product (and I'm just picking on them because they popped into my head after reading all this, I don't mean any slight), then it reflects poorly on them. If said bad product has "dungeons & dragons" on the cover and is internally visually identical to Hasbro 1st party products... that reflects poorly on the brand as a whole.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore, I am not an IP lawyer. I teach Equity and Trusts, and am an expert in certain aspects of Australia federal criminal law and criminal procedure.

Nevertheless, I trust my own intutions, and Clark's, more than yours, mostly because (i) your assertion that it is not hard is wrong (it is hard) and (ii) you haven't really said much to substanitate your claims.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 21, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Treebore, I am not an IP lawyer. I teach Equity and Trusts, and am an expert in certain aspects of Australia federal criminal law and criminal procedure.
> 
> Nevertheless, I trust my own intutions, and Clark's, more than yours, mostly because (i) your assertion that it is not hard is wrong (it is hard) and (ii) you haven't really said much to substanitate your claims.





Thats fine. But it isn't hard. I know, because I searched. Try it some time. Start with colleges and universities.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 21, 2008)

CountPopeula said:
			
		

> Without getting into a whole lot of stuff that's gone on in this thread, I fail to see what the GSL really offers.




It allows you to claim compatability with D&D and not have to worry about being sued for doing so, if I'm not mistaken. Without the GSL, you can't claim compatability with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and avoid the possibility of being sued into bankruptcy.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 21, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Thats fine. But it isn't hard. I know, because I searched. Try it some time. Start with colleges and universities.




Dude, he's _already at a university_ -- he teaches law there.


----------



## woodelf (Jun 22, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So what publishers kept who from using what?
> 
> Seriously, I'd like to hear this. I've spent quite a bit of time offline and away from the gaming scene and from writing, so I'd really like to hear about who asked which company for what and was denied.
> 
> Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?




Denied? Dunno. But there shouldn't be any need to ask--that sorta defeats the whole point of open content. I can ask even under standard IP laws. The biggest problem, IMHO, is "crippled" OGC--the most annoying of which is OGC widgets with PI labels. And, given the vagueness of both the WotC OGL and many OGC and [especially] PI declarations, it's often very hard to tell. Frex, Malhavoc usually declares some variation of "all original [widget] names" as PI. Who knows what constitutes an "original feat name", as per the WotC OGL? And, for that matter, how enforceable such a restriction is?



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO.  The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face.  It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.
> 
> I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway.  But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.
> 
> When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea.




Wait, so WotC produces a poorly-organized, ugly, hard-to-read book, releases the textual content under an open-content licens, and you're blaming *Mongoose* for creating a competitor? AFAIC, it's WotC's fault for (1) producing a book that was sufficiently deficient that something else could easily compete against it, and (2) not producing a stripped-down cheap version when there obviously was demand. And i'd be amazed if the Pocket Player's Handbook stole any real sales: the three reasons i can see to buy it are (1) you already have a PH but want something smaller/more portable, (2) the PH is overpriced for your needs (whether because you're broke, cheap, or have access to multiple copies in the game group already), or (3) you find the PH unreadable and/or unreferenceable. 

[Though, personally, i don't consider the Pocket Player's Handbook much of an improvement in case 3--but then, i appear to be in a significant minority in my highly negative opinions of the graphic design and organization/writing of the D&D3[.5]E PHs.

WotC was never gonna get the category 2 sales--those people would go without, or use a digital version of the SRD, if given no alternative. Category 1 & 3 sales, likewise, were never gonna happen, either, with the existing books.

And don't forget that Dancey, at least, expected right from the start that things like the Pocket Player's Handbook would occur--he said outright [i paraphrase]: "go ahead, it won't matter to the bottom line"--implicitly because nobody else could compete directly, so they'd have to be going for a different market (as i suggest above).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 22, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep. I am neither. Clark isn't a Copyright lawyer either. At least I did my own research. Maybe you guys should too? That way you might be as aware of certain points of copyright law as I am. Not to mention international law.
> 
> So I am an intelligent guy who researched copyright law on his own and e-mailed a few legal law professors for some specific answers, who isn't a lawyer, and isn't a game publisher.
> 
> ...




What gives Clark's opinions weight is not the fact that he is a lawyer, but the fact that he runs Necromancer games, one of the more successful 3rd party publishers.


----------



## woodelf (Jun 22, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> It allows you to claim compatability with D&D and not have to worry about being sued for doing so, if I'm not mistaken. Without the GSL, you can't claim compatability with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and avoid the possibility of being sued into bankruptcy.




Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings. Surely, all you'd have to do is show that you were using the D&D trademark in a non-confusing, non-ownership-claiming, factual manner, and bring a Ford and non-Ford air filter as your example (or cite any other category of product where this has been long since decided in no uncertain terms), and the case would be dismissed. I mean, i know our court system is driven entirely too much by who's got the most money, but a lawsuit has to pass a *certain* level of plausibility before it even gets to the stage of it mattering how well you can afford to defend yourself. 

Not that anyone wants to find out the hard way that this is not true, but, frankly, if i had any legitimate interest in doing this, i'd *gladly* put my finances on the line. Problem is, i don't, and never have--the only reason i'd create such a product would be to deliberately provoke WotC in the hopes of creating a test case. And that's not likely to sit well with a judge, even if it doesn't in and of itself call into question the legitimacy of my case.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2008)

> I am not giving conjecture. As I have insinuated I have researched copyright law and conversed via e-mail with several law professors, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. I am just not a lawyer.
> 
> So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.




Yes, you have researched and sent e-mails, but that doesn't make what you are saying any better than an opinion, and one that may be pretty harmful to the gaming community if someone goes forward with it. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just saying that on this issue, unless you can get an actual lawyer to give you actual paid-for legal advice on the issue that you can then re-post here, the theory is making things more difficult to talk about, and not less so. 

I have looked into it myself, but I am not a lawyer, nor have I legally consulted one, so I am choosing to keep my lack of information to myself, which is probably wiser than fueling the fires with anything less concrete than that, in my eyes.

Plus, y'know, already another thread for it.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2008)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings. Surely, all you'd have to do is show that you were using the D&D trademark in a non-confusing, non-ownership-claiming, factual manner, and bring a Ford and non-Ford air filter as your example (or cite any other category of product where this has been long since decided in no uncertain terms), and the case would be dismissed.



I don't know enough IP law to say that you are outright wrong in the above, but I think (like a number of other posts on this thread) you are ignoring certain complexities.

Unlike the case of auto parts, RPG publishing involves the interaction of both trademark and copyright law. Any non-licensed D&D supplement therefore faces two possible sorts of legal problem: the tortious use of WoTC's trademarks and/or the tortious attempt to use WoTC's goodwill for the 3PP's benefit; and the infringement of WoTC's copyrights. The latter issue depends in part upon the applicable law of derivative works (I think that this is the relevant term in US copyright law) or adaptations (I think that this is the relevant term in Australian copyright law).

I am by no means saying that it would be impossible to produce an unlicensed 4e supplement (or 3E supplement, for that matter) which did not infringe WoTC's rights in either of the above fashions. But working out the parameters of what would or would not be an infringement is (IMO) not a trivial matter.

An example to try to make the issue more concrete: anyone who published an unlicensed adventure module would be intending that anyone who read it would understand that the Kobolds that it refers to are the very same Kobolds referred to in the Monster Manual. Does this mean that the adventure's text about those Kobolds is in some sort of complicated derivative relationship to WoTC's text about Kobolds in the Monster Manual? And if so, does this mean that the adventure publisher is infringing on WoTC's copyright? And/or trading on the goodwill that WoTC has established in respect of the "Monster Manual" trademark?

Until those who are saying how easy it is to OSRIC 4e start to address these sorts of concrete concerns, and explain how the rulebooks and adventures that they are envisaging are _not_ in violation of any of WoTC's rights, it's a little hard for me to believe that their claims are well thought out.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> What gives Clark's opinions weight is not the fact that he is a lawyer, but the fact that he runs Necromancer games, one of the more successful 3rd party publishers.






 

OK, if you say so.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 23, 2008)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings.




Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using  somebody else's trademark to _promote_ your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 23, 2008)

Seems all the best threads are on ENWorld these days...

As a freelancer working for a company that tried getting in on the ground floor (Thunderhead Games) I agree with Matt that the general consensus regarding OGC has changed over the years. Early on, most companies felt like they had to follow the letter of the license.  So, the license stipulated that things derived from the SRD had to be open, and everything else could be closed. Or open, it was our choice, basically.  

So, if you track these kinds of things (I don't), I bet you'd find that the earliest d20 products followed this exact model - rules and crunch were open, and everything else was closed.  Freeport trilogy was the rare exception.

Later on, people figured out that - hey, no one is using my stuff anyway, so I'll just open it all up and see what happens.  And by and large, no one still used any of it. 

Fact is, a lot more companies nowadays just open up everything because it doesn't really matter.  There's always been kind of a gentleman's agreement regarding using another companies OGC anyway.

But I'm pretty sure if you look up "Crippled OGC" in a dictionary, it says "See Malhavoc Press".


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges



Agreed, for the reasons I gave in my post above.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using  somebody else's trademark to _promote_ your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.



My understanding is that it actually happened like this: TSR and Mayfair reached a licence agreement, and then TSR sued Mayfair for breaches of that agreement.


----------



## woodelf (Jun 23, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using  somebody else's trademark to _promote_ your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.




OK, i'm going on memory here, because i don't have good resources handy, but i know it's not that simple. For starters, there were two lawsuits. IIRC, one was settled, one was decided in court. And, again, IIRC, the one that Mayfair lost was a contract infringement--which, admittedly, was the result of the settlement of the first case. But, nonetheless, there wasn't a clear-cut "Mayfair is using TSR's trademark unfairly" court decision. Rather, that was the accusation that TSR leveled; TSR and Mayfair settled out of court, allowing Mayfair to keep using the trademark; TSR alleged that Mayfair violated the terms of that agreement and sued; the court agreed and found against Mayfair. [going on memory here, admittedly]

And, back to your fundamental point: i'm not sure the relationship was ever so clear-cut. Was Mayfair using the D&D trademark to promote it's products, or using it's products to promote the D&D trademark? Personally, i think it was both--they were giving as much as they were getting, roughly. 

----
And, to answer a couple other people: yeah, there are some very complicated issues of derivative content, that have only become more complicated with court decisions in the last decade or two. But that's a rather distinct issue from the use of trademarks to indicate compatibility. [And that's before we even get to ideological concerns about the growing imbalance between large media companies and the public, where IP laws are concerned.]


----------



## Greg K (Jun 23, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using  somebody else's trademark to _promote_ your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.




Wrong. Ray Winninger  just recently stated  on this site (or was it RPG.net) that  there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support.  Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's  backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.

He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2008)

woodelf said:
			
		

> And, to answer a couple other people: yeah, there are some very complicated issues of derivative content, that have only become more complicated with court decisions in the last decade or two. But that's a rather distinct issue from the use of trademarks to indicate compatibility.



My intuition is that the two are not entirely distinct, because the relationship between your text and WoTC's copyrighted text might be relevant to determining what a reasonable person would take you to be intending by your use of WoTC's trademark on your product.

Now, I am not an IP lawyer so my intuition here may be wrong.



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> And that's before we even get to ideological concerns about the growing imbalance between large media companies and the public, where IP laws are concerned.



My response to this is constrained by the board rules, but one thing I will say is this: I'm not sure that I see many of the 3PPs as free spirits trying to liberate IP from huge media companies.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 23, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> My intuition is that the two are not entirely distinct, because the relationship between your text and WoTC's copyrighted text might be relevant to determining what a reasonable person would take you to be intending by your use of WoTC's trademark on your product.



Which is why you don't market your book as "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons(tm)". You market it as "Compatible with the fourth edition of the most popular fantasy RPG." Then you only have to overcome the copyright issue.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Wrong. Ray Winninger  just recently stated  on this site (or was it RPG.net) that  there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support.  Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's  backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.
> 
> He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.




Can you post a link to this thread, this seems like a good info thread.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 20, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Tree, would you quite it please.
> 
> OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal.
> 
> Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.




Can you provide a specific example of what is illegal and infringing? It sounds like you are completely certain in your view, so I'm interested in what specific text examples you find illegal and infringing that leads to such certainty.

joe b.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 21, 2009)

EDIT: Never mind.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 21, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Wrong. Ray Winninger  just recently stated  on this site (or was it RPG.net) that  there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support.  Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's  backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.
> 
> He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.




Not only their backstock, but future products. Unless I'm misremembering mucho, Chronomancer and Shaman were originally Mayfair products (perhaps not the final form mind you but...) It's a shame because Mayfair was pumping out stuff like Demons, and other greats and had plans for Assassins (with contracts and other handouts) as well as Undead II (the first Undead sourcebook fantastic!) and more Demons support.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 21, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Wrong. Ray Winninger  just recently stated  on this site (or was it RPG.net) that  there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support.  Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's  backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.
> 
> He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.




Thank you!  I remembered reading that great explanation, but forgot who exactly wrote it.  I wish more people in this business (especially the retroclone folks) had seen this too.  I just shake my head at how many hoops people jump through when flat-out stating compatibility is completely legal to begin with.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 21, 2009)

Lol. It's funny this thread should get resurrected. Earlier today, I stumbled upon the post that I referred to while doing a completely unrelated  search.  And, now that I search for it, I can't find it.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 21, 2009)

Here is one post by Ray Winninger from rpg.net. In the post, he mentions how TSR granted a special license to Mayfair when it looked like TSR would lose their suit.

RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - FASERIP -- An OSRIC for Marvel . . .


----------



## Greg K (Jun 21, 2009)

So, it turns out the posts that I saw were on both RPG.net and at ENWorld. Here is a liink to the  ENWorld post from Ray Winninger regarding the suit from TSR

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4178892-post831.html

Below is a link to a followup to the above where he Ray explains that the second suit was  over a claim of Mayfair violating their license with TSR and not for trademark infringement.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4179046-post841.html


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

The original poster has asked that this thread be closed. Any new posts on the topic should go in a new thread, please.

Klunk.


----------

