# New GSL Announcement



## Blacksway

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

Doesn't really say much I don't think - anyone else heard anything?


----------



## Bacris

Actually, that is big news, because it confirms the GSL is still coming, that's it's royalty-free, but that it will be restrictive like the d20 STL.

Considering that there was concern the 3rd party support was going to be scrapped entirely or severely toned-down to a invite-only list, that let's me know I can get back to work on ideas for 4E psionics material


----------



## 2WS-Steve

That's good news!

I hope that at least some of the better established publishers get the opportunity to release at Gencon, if only on a special license.  I think seeing third party support at Gencon will help make the launch of 4e more successful.


----------



## dmccoy1693

*Applause*


----------



## Orcus

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> That's good news!
> 
> I hope that at least some of the better established publishers get the opportunity to release at Gencon, if only on a special license.  I think seeing third party support at Gencon will help make the launch of 4e more successful.




" The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008."

If they push GenCon to Oct 1...


----------



## Morrus

Blacksway said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a
> 
> Doesn't really say much I don't think - anyone else heard anything?




WotC are relasing more info tomorrow.  There is something important in there.


----------



## xechnao

And I wonder if this fantasy and non-fantasy thing means that 3rd parties with this license for now can only create adventures.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Orcus said:
			
		

> " The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008."
> 
> If they push GenCon to Oct 1...




Actually, that's what I was responding to.  I was hoping that the 10/1 date was for the wide release, and they'd allow a few publishers from their early call list to get stuff out at Gencon.


----------



## Vigilance

Blacksway said:
			
		

> Doesn't really say much I don't think - anyone else heard anything?




Actually, it speaks volumes.

It tells us, at a minimum:

Wizards still has a commitment to open gaming.

The talk of a GSL was genuine, not an attempt to "embrace, extend and exterminate".

There are no cease and desist letters heading out to fan sites after 4e's launch.


----------



## lurkinglidda

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Actually, that's what I was responding to.  I was hoping that the 10/1 date was for the wide release, and they'd allow a few publishers from their early call list to get stuff out at Gencon.



The October 1st date applies to _all _ 3PPs publishing under the D&D 4E GSL, including those that are getting early access. 

The date is completely unrelated to GenCon.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Actually, it speaks volumes.
> 
> It tells us, at a minimum:
> 
> Wizards still has a commitment to open gaming.



yup!



> The talk of a GSL was genuine, not an attempt to "embrace, extend and exterminate".



yup!


----------



## Orcus

Linae, 

Let me say THANK YOU to you both personally and publically. 

I know this was hard work and I am so glad you and Scott and all the folks at Wizards were able to make this happen. Thank you so much. Nice work!

Clark


----------



## jaerdaph

It's amazing how many gamers around here were (once again) so WRONG about WotC/Hasbro's motivations and reasons for the delay.  :\


----------



## Mouseferatu

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> It's amazing how many gamers around here were (once again) so WRONG about WotC/Hasbro's motivations and reasons for the delay.  :\




And how few of them will step up and admit to it.


----------



## jaerdaph

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And how few of them will step up and admit to it.




I've often been accused of refreshing someone's memory quicker than I do their cocktail...


----------



## amethal

The GSL and the OGL are mutually exclusive.

I get that you can't use both in the same book.

However, does anyone know if that also means you can't produce the same product in different versions - one under the GSL and one under the OGL?


----------



## lurkinglidda

amethal said:
			
		

> The GSL and the OGL are mutually exclusive.
> 
> I get that you can't use both in the same book.
> 
> However, does anyone know if that also means you can't produce the same product in different versions - one under the GSL and one under the OGL?



It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions. 

I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.


----------



## Psion

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And how few of them will step up and admit to it.




Seriously, how many people were suggesting malice in the first place?

I imagine that anyone who has ever worked at a job in which there is legal wrangling or management shifts in direction understand how projects can get delayed.


----------



## charlesatan

Psion said:
			
		

> Seriously, how many people were suggesting malice in the first place?
> 
> I imagine that anyone who has ever worked at a job in which there is legal wrangling or management shifts in direction understand how projects can get delayed.




Those with the conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as understanding.


----------



## Psion

On the other hand, perhaps I expected too much WRT sunsetting of the d20 STL...


----------



## amethal

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions.
> 
> I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.



Thanks for the quick reply.

Aren't you a bit worried that only making 4th edition D&D might upset the fans of some of your other products, like Magic?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> It's amazing how many gamers around here were (once again) so WRONG about WotC/Hasbro's motivations and reasons for the delay.  :\




I'm not sure it's a matter of being wrong about the motivations and reasons for the delay, but it's a good day to be wrong about the ultimate resolution.

Clark put it well:



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not get too much into revisionist history here. Some of the doomsaying was well founded. What was not well founded was the evil conspiracy nonsense. But there were some dark days along this road, some times were I believe it was possible that open gaming wasnt going to happen for 4E. But luckily Scott and Linae pulled this out and got it done. Lets not pretend there was no resistance and no struggle and that this was how it was supposed to work all along, cause it wasnt.




There were days I had my doubts. Now I can lapse back into my knee-jerk defense of corporations and capitalism.


----------



## BryonD

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> It's amazing how many gamers around here were (once again) so WRONG about WotC/Hasbro's motivations and reasons for the delay.  :\



I was wrong because I thought we'd get a middle of the road result.  As I put it before, I expected WotC to take off their white hats, but I didn't at all expect them to become bad guys.  Turns out they kept the white hats after all. I was wrong.  Hurray!!!

But I also defended people whose opinions were more dire than mine.  I thought they were wrong, but I didn't think it was an outrage that they could reach their concerns.  It turns out their concerns were further misplaced than I thought.  But that doesn't change my opinion of the thoughts they had at the time based on the information they had at the time.


----------



## jaldaen

> Originally Posted by amethal
> The GSL and the OGL are mutually exclusive.
> 
> I get that you can't use both in the same book.
> 
> However, does anyone know if that also means you can't produce the same product in different versions - one under the GSL and one under the OGL?






			
				lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions.




So if I understand you, then if you produced the World of Whatever campaign setting or Catalog of Cool Monsters under the OGL, then you cannot convert these products to 4e under the GSL?

Or is there a grandfather clause allowing previous OGL content to be converted to GSL, but not the simultanious production of the same products (World of Whatever for 4e and World of Whatever for the FANTASY! system) under both OGL and GSL.

Thanks for your answers, they really are a great help


----------



## Alzrius

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions.
> 
> I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.




Hm, this seems a bit stringent, particularly since I know some companies want to produce OGL and 4E versions of books they're working on now, or have recently done.

What constitutes "the same product" under the GSL?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

I am not stepping up to admit I was wrong, because it hasn't been shown yet. I speculated the delay was because someone in upper management had a problem with the GSL. So far we know nothing about why the delay happened. I have also had minor speculations that there might be problems with the GSLin what they will allow or not. Again since they are keeping the GSL under NDA even though they don't have to there is no way of knowing if I was wrong or not. I will be happy to admit I am wrong when it is shown that I am wrong.


----------



## Delta

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions.




But Scott Rouse said yesterday:



> Publishers can update titles done under the OGL to the GSL as long as they are compliant with the new license.




Aren't these contradictory? Can a publisher publish a product first as OGL, and then immediately thereafter update it to GSL?


----------



## The Lost Muse

Delta said:
			
		

> Aren't these contradictory? Can a publisher publish a product first as OGL, and then immediately thereafter update it to GSL?




Assuming that the product they are updating is something that could have been published under the d20 licence that we all know and love, there will not likely be any problems issuing it under the GSL (unless there are more restrictions). Products like Iron Heroes or Mutants and Masterminds might have a bigger challenge, because they describe how to level up a character, generate ability scores, and other information that is noallowed unless the product is OGL. 

I would be interested to know if you could product a OGL product with a 4e appendix allowing you the best of both worlds.


----------



## Alzrius

Hm, could Linae possibly have meant that you can't produce the same book with both Licenses (the OGL and GSL) in it at the same time? Because that'd make a lot more sense.


----------



## Pramas

Timmundo said:
			
		

> Assuming that the product they are updating is something that could have been published under the d20 licence that we all know and love, there will not likely be any problems issuing it under the GSL (unless there are more restrictions). Products like Iron Heroes or Mutants and Masterminds might have a bigger challenge, because they describe how to level up a character, generate ability scores, and other information that is noallowed unless the product is OGL.




For the record 4E and the GSL will have no impact on Mutants & Masterminds. It's its own game and it will continue as such.


----------



## kenmarable

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It does mean that you can not produce the same product in different versions.
> 
> I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.



Sorry, just asking about this as well.  If the answer is "Wait until June 6" or "Wait until we post more info on the website", that's understandable.

So can I publish an adventure called "Lair of the Really Nasty Bad Guy" for 3.5 using only the 3.5 SRD and release it under the OGL, but also take the same adventure plot, etc. but write it only using 4e SRD-approved content and release it under the GSL? 

So it's not a 1-to-1 perfect match of course, but it can be approximate by using half-dragon NPCs in the 3.5 and dragonborn in the 4e, having succubi be demons or devils depending on 3.5 or 4, as well as even using entirely different monsters if there's no obvious match. I am NOT talking about taking a 4e unique monster and creating a 3.5 monster "inspired by" the 4e version or anything dodgy like that. Just using 3.5 material and license to make a 3.5 adventure, and 4e material and license to RE-make the same adventure for 4e. (Also assuming reasonable differences in branding, advertising, blah blah, so as to avoid consumer confusion.)

I'm just wondering if that's cool with the new license.

Thanks!


----------



## EATherrian

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And how few of them will step up and admit to it.




I think I was public with my worry that it could be a possibility.  I'm glad it isn't the road they took, it actually makes me more amiable to 4E.


----------



## Bacris

The fact that Necro still plans to release their 3.5 books in 4E leads me to believe it may just be that you can't release the same thing with both licenses.  Obviously, any release would have to conform to the terms of each license, which are different, so it couldn't be the exact same product, but I find it hard to believe that a port of a book couldn't be made.  Now, 4E mechanics being vastly different means a lot of 3.x material is going to be invalidated, but system-neutral material I would hope could be reused, to an extent.


----------



## carmachu

Its good that there is a GSL.

But what it says, and what the terms are remain to be seen.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And how few of them will step up and admit to it.




I'll admit I was wrong.  

I'm GLAD there will be a GSL. I'm not 100% sold on 4e yet but I do have the books on pre-order with Amazon. 

Hyrum.
OWC


----------



## lurkinglidda

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hm, could Linae possibly have meant that you can't produce the same book with both Licenses (the OGL and GSL) in it at the same time? Because that'd make a lot more sense.



Yes, that is what I was trying to convey. 

We totally recognize that this mutual exclusivity will keep some publishers from joining us in 4E. That's a business decision they need to make, and we respect that.


----------



## Delta

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Yes, that is what I was trying to convey.




Let me see if I understand this. You're saying that you CAN produce the same product in different versions. As long as there are two distinct versions, each released under one specific, distinct license. Correct?


----------



## Vigilance

Psion said:
			
		

> Seriously, how many people were suggesting malice in the first place?




More than a few.

There were plenty of people outright stating that Wizards was lying about the GSL, but delaying the announcement until after the books were released to minimize backlash.

There were also people stating that Cease and Desist letters would start going out to fan sites.

Lizard even stated that he expected Wizards' attitude toward fan sites to be HARSHER than TSR's was. 

So yeah, there was some crazy talk in these threads.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Delta said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand this. You're saying that you CAN produce the same product in different versions. As long as there are two distinct versions, each released under one specific, distinct license. Correct?



No. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL. 

3.x or 4E

Not both. 

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time. 

Hope I don't come off as being snarky - I'm not trying to be mean or sound like I'm talking down or anything - I just want to make sure I'm communicating the message clearly!


----------



## Alzrius

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> No. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:
> 
> Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.
> 
> 3.x or 4E
> 
> Not both.
> 
> One or t'other.
> 
> By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.
> 
> Hope I don't come off as being snarky - I'm not trying to be mean or sound like I'm talking down or anything - I just want to make sure I'm communicating the message clearly!




So in other words, if I print "The Book of New Rules" under the OGL, I can't also print "The Book of New Rules" under the GSL, correct?

This'd seem to imply that the GSL has specific language regarding its exclusivity from OGL works. It also means that there's going to have to be some definition of what it means to have a book that's the same but with different versions, as opposed to two very-slightly different books that use different licenses.

Honestly, I think it would have been easier - and more publisher-friendly - to just keep it to not having the GSL and OGL both be present at the same time in the same book.

Will there be some sort of clause to allow publishers to print 4E versions of OGL books printed before the GSL's release?


----------



## JohnRTroy

> By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.




So, basically, is this statement correct?

If you have a current 3e product released with the old license, and you wish to upgrade it to 4e, you can no longer sell the 3e version of the product, correct?


----------



## lurkinglidda

Alzrius said:
			
		

> So in other words, if I print "The Book of New Rules" under the OGL, I can't also print "The Book of New Rules" under the GSL, correct?



Correct. One or the Other.



> <snip>  I think it would have been easier - and more publisher-friendly - to just keep it to not having the GSL and OGL both be present at the same time in the same book.



 I think it's pretty publisher-friendly that we have a GSL period!   



> Will there be some sort of clause to allow publishers to print 4E versions of existing 3.5 books before the GSL is released?



No one can print 4E books before the GSL is released.


----------



## Alzrius

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> No one can print 4E books before the GSL is released.




I phrased that badly (and went back and edited it for that reason just as you responded. D'oh!).

I mean, if an OGL book is/was released before the GSL finally does come out, will it still be held to the same rule of not being allowed to have a GSL version?


----------



## lurkinglidda

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> So, basically, is this statement correct?
> 
> If you have a current 3e product released with the old license, and you wish to upgrade it to 4e, you can no longer sell the 3e version of the product, correct?



_In my best impression of Phil Hartman doing an impression of Ed McMahon:_

You, sir, are correct.


----------



## Bacris

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> You, sir, are correct.




Interesting...

But props for the Phil Hartman reference.

Good times, good times.


----------



## DaveMage

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> _In my best impression of Phil Hartman doing an impression of Ed McMahon:_
> 
> You, sir, are correct.




Does this apply to .pdfs?

In other words, if Green Ronin were to do a print product called "Death in Freeport" for 4E, could they no longer sell the 3.0 version in .pdf?


----------



## Lizard

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> _In my best impression of Phil Hartman doing an impression of Ed McMahon:_
> 
> You, sir, are correct.




Since the OGL and the GSL are separate, how does that work?

Is there language in the GSL which says, "If you create a new product based on an older work released under the OGL, you may no longer sell the older product as a condition of accepting the GSL"?

That's pretty...far reaching.

It's aking to a EULA which reads "If you use Microsoft Word 2007 to edit a document written in Open Office 2.0, you may no longer edit that document with Open Office."

It might be legal -- I believe you have the right to offer someone any terms you want, and they can accept or reject them as they see fit -- but it's a bit extreme. 

How does that work with products never released in older versions? Let's say I have a world I'd like to adapt for both Pathfinder and 4e. Are you saying, basically, "Pick one -- if you release a 3x product, you CANNOT release (as a seperate product) a 4e version"? Or am I minsunderstanding you.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I honest think it applies to PDFs, why wouldn't it?!  Both are products for sale.  I even suspect it will apply to freebies.  

In other words, no dual-stat systems--either commit to 4e or stick with 3e, no "on the fence".  Say for instance if Monte Cook wanted to go to 4e, all 3e stuff he converts must be taken off the market.


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I honest think it applies to PDFs, why wouldn't it?!  Both are products for sale.  I even suspect it will apply to freebies.
> 
> In other words, no dual-stat systems--either commit to 4e or stick with 3e, no "on the fence".  Say for instance if Monte Cook wanted to go to 4e, all 3e stuff he converts must be taken off the market.




Define "Converts".

"Arcana Even More Evolved"
"Ptolus: The Next Generation"

What is a "conversion" and what is a "setting update" or "new book"?

Lidda says they've found all the edge cases. I guess we'll know when we see the license text. I know the public debate on comment on the original OGL/STL helped make them a lot stronger and more comprehensive. I have a bad feeling the way the GSL will handle edge cases is "If, in the sole discretion of WOTC, a product is in violation, it is."


----------



## Alzrius

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Say for instance if Monte Cook wanted to go to 4e, all 3e stuff he converts must be taken off the market.




Bear in mind that, from what Linae has said so far, this is only true for direct conversions of books. Monte could write a product called _The Book of Expanded Might_ and have it contain large sections of 3.5 material converted to 4E. It just can't be any of his previous books with only a mechanical update.

At least, that's how it seems from the statements we've had thus far.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Lidda says they've found all the edge cases. I guess we'll know when we see the license text. I know the public debate on comment on the original OGL/STL helped make them a lot stronger and more comprehensive. I have a bad feeling the way the GSL will handle edge cases is "If, in the sole discretion of WOTC, a product is in violation, it is."




Now that's a scary thought!

At least that would only apply to GSL products, leaving the OGL a safe harbor. But yeah, if WotC has sole discretionary powers over what does and does not count as an "updated product" (or similar language) then things could get very ugly.


----------



## Orcus

I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products. 

In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride. 

It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice. It is not "well, this product will be 4E using the GSL but the next one will be for 3E under the OGL."

In other words, Necro cant do 3 books for 4E then decide to go back and do a 3E book.

Or, along the same lines, if Paizo wants to do Pathfinder 3E, it cant do 4E products. If it does, it can no longer do 3E ones.

I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.

Once you are in for 4E, you are in, and cant go back (well, you could but you would presumably lose the right to use the GSL from that point forward).

I have to clarify if I will be able to do 3E stats as seperate downloads for 4E books. My guess is that I will not be allowed to do that under the GSL. But I havent asked that direct question.

By the way, this info was from Wizards. Unless I am misunderstanding what they told me or they didnt understand my question, this is how it will be. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

You cannot create both OGL/3E products and GSL/4E products, even if they are seperate products. You have to choose what you are supporting--3E or 4E.

Paizo, for example, cannot create both 3E and 4E products, even if they are seperate products. Its one or the other. And that goes for every publisher. It appears you can go 3E as long as you want. The OGL and the SRD are not revocable. But once you go 4E, you cant go back and still do 4E products. 

And I shouldnt just single out Paizo. I do because I work with them. But lets say Monte wanted to do a 4E update of a book of his and uses the GSL. Once he does that, no more OGL and no more 3E for him (unless he wants to forsake any more use of the GSL, as it was explained to me; now maybe I misunderstood or they change their stance between today and the final version but I think the chances of that are slim).

This should be interesting...


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.




Is this by company or by person?

Lizard Enterprises publishes a 3x book under the OGL.

Lizard Publishing publishes the same IP under 4e rules using the GSL.

Separate entities, seperate bookkeeping, etc, just both owned and staffed by the same person.

Legal or not?


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Is this by company or by person?
> 
> Lizard Enterprises publishes a 3x book under the OGL.
> 
> Lizard Publishing publishes the same IP under 4e rules using the GSL.
> 
> Separate entities, seperate bookkeeping, etc, just both owned and staffed by the same person.
> 
> Legal or not?




That's a good question. I dont know the answer.


----------



## DaveMage

Orcus said:
			
		

> You cannot create both OGL/3E products and GSL/4E products, even if they are seperate products. You have to choose what you are supporting--3E or 4E.




Indeed.

Then to go 4E, you would indeed need to remove all 3.x pdf products from availablilty, correct?

Or is it that once you start using the 4E license, you would no longer be able to make new 3E products, but the ones already in existance could stay?


----------



## Alzrius

Wow...

I really don't know how to respond to that. That's more restrictive than I'd ever imagined the GSL would be. I'm amazed that's even legal, to put in a clause that your business must forsake the OGL entirely to use the GSL at all.

Remember that animosity towards WotC that people were saying they felt before? I wonder if they're feeling anything right now. 



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I have to clarify if I will be able to do 3E stats as seperate downloads for 4E books. My guess is that I will not be allowed to do that under the GSL. But I havent asked that direct question.




Clark, this is the first I've heard that you'd be interested in doing any sort of 3E stats for your 4E materials. It's a pleasant surprise, though it doesn't seem likely to happen now. Would it make a difference if they were free downloads, rather than pay-for-downloads? Likewise, would it be legal if Paizo released those materials, even if they were written by you?

Either way, I'm happy to hear that you've at least got new 3E stuff on your mind.


----------



## Orcus

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> Then to go 4E, you would indeed need to remove all 3.x pdf products from availablilty, correct?
> 
> Or is it that once you start using the 4E license, you would no longer be able to make new 3E products, but the ones already in existance could stay?




I dont know what the restriction is. One would imagine you get a reasonable sell off period.


----------



## Orcus

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Wow...
> 
> I really don't know how to respond to that. That's more restrictive than I'd ever imagined the GSL would be. I'm amazed that's even legal, to put in a clause that your business must forsake the OGL entirely to use the GSL at all.
> 
> Remember that animosity towards WotC that people were saying they felt before before? I wonder if they feel anything right now.
> 
> Clark, this is the first I've heard that you'd be interested in doing any sort of 3E stats for your 4E materials. It's a pleasant surprise, though it doesn't seem likely to happen now. Would it make a difference if they were free downloads, rather than pay-for-downloads? Likewise, would it be legal if Paizo released those materials, even if they were written by you?
> 
> Either way, I'm happy to hear that you've at least got new 3E stuff on your mind.




I'll admit, I didnt see this one coming. I figured no OGL and GSL content in the same product. That was kind of a no brainer. 

I have no resentment. I was planning on going 4E so it doesnt make any difference to me. And I can always go back to 3E if I want. They cant ever close that. 

As for 3E stats for 4E books, when books got pushed back and they turned into 4E books I told the fans that we would also release a pdf for free of the conversion stats so they could use the 4E books, to the extent possible. They were written as 3E books, so it would have been simple to do. I'm not sure where it leaves that plan. Maybe the solution for me is that Necro doesnt publish those 3E stats, I just let the authors post it as fan material or something. I'm going to do my best to live up to my promise. But if I cant, I cant. 

I dont think anyone should be that mad about this. It is an unforseen restriction. But we were dealing with the strong possibility that 4E wouldnt be open at all. So I see it as acceptable.


----------



## Orcus

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Either way, I'm happy to hear that you've at least got new 3E stuff on your mind.




I dont have new 3E stuff on my mind at all. I am firmly 4E. I was just going to provide that as an accomodation to fans. Thats all.


----------



## DaveMage

Orcus said:
			
		

> As for 3E stats for 4E books, when books got pushed back and they turned into 4E books I told the fans that we would also release a pdf for free of the conversion stats so they could use the 4E books, to the extent possible. They were written as 3E books, so it would have been simple to do. I'm not sure where it leaves that plan. Maybe the solution for me is that Necro doesnt publish those 3E stats, I just let the authors post it as fan material or something. I'm going to do my best to live up to my promise. But if I cant, I cant.
> 
> I dont think anyone should be that mad about this. It is an unforseen restriction. But we were dealing with the strong possibility that 4E wouldnt be open at all. So I see it as acceptable.




For what it's worth, I don't think anyone will be mad at _*you*_...


----------



## Orcus

DaveMage said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I don't think anyone will be mad at _*you*_...




I dont think anyone should be mad at Wizards either. 

Heck, the concept of letting us use their license is to help sell core books. In my view, this restriction--more than any of their other restrictions about content and sexuality and violence--actually aims right at the heart of that key purpose.

Now, dont get me wrong, I would _*strongly prefer * _ that this clause not exist. But I'm not really in a position to gripe about that. They want to crush out 3E support and drive people to 4E, that's their choice. And I cant say it is a bad one. Others may feel differently. But it makes perfect business sense to me. I didnt see that coming. And I like to be right. So it aggravates me on that level.  But it makes sense. The point of the GSL is to help sell 4E. One way to do that is to close off support for 3E. They cant revoke the OGL/3E SRD, so the only way to accomplish closing down 3E is to do exactly what they are doing. As their attorney, I probably would have advised them to do exactly that. 

Clark


----------



## Mouseferatu

I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?

I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.



Is that at least a partial loophole?
If I read it right, a Necro/Paizo partnership could simply result in both doing whatever they want and all the 4E stuff being published by the Necro side and all the 3E stuff being published by the Paizo side.  Am I wrong?
What if Necromancer goes pure 4E but Clark Peterson also forms Illusionist Games and Illusionist Games does 3E stuff (completely unrelated to Necromancer products).  Is that ok?
(I'm just using you as a 100% hypothetical example).


----------



## DaveMage

Orcus said:
			
		

> Heck, the concept of letting us use their license is to help sell core books. In my view, this restriction--more than any of their other restrictions about content and sexuality and violence--actually aims right at the heart of that key purpose.
> 
> Now, dont get me wrong, I would _*strongly prefer * _ that this clause not exist. But I'm not really in a position to gripe about that. They want to crush out 3E support and drive people to 4E, that's their choice. And I cant say it is a bad one. Others may feel differently. But it makes perfect business sense to me. I didnt see that coming. And I like to be right. So it aggravates me on that level.  But it makes sense. The point of the GSL is to help sell 4E. One way to do that is to close off support for 3E. They cant revoke the OGL/3E SRD, so the only way to accomplish closing down 3E is to do exactly what they are doing. As their attorney, I probably would have advised them to do exactly that.
> 
> Clark




Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> If I read it right, a Necro/Paizo partnership could simply result in both doing whatever they want and all the 4E stuff being published by the Necro side and all the 3E stuff being published by the Paizo side.  Am I wrong?




Nope you are not wrong. That is correct. And, frankly, that is the plan of what I intend to do.



> What if Necromancer goes pure 4E but Clark Peterson also forms Illusionist Games and Illusionist Games does 3E stuff (completely unrelated to Necromancer products).  Is that ok?
> (I'm just using you as a 100% hypothetical example).




I'd have to see the GSL to answer that. But it certainly seems possible. Hypothetically of course. I have no intent of doing that. We are 4E.


----------



## Orcus

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.




Yeah, funny, huh?

Believe me, I will do everything in my power to do something. What that will be I dont know.


----------



## Lizard

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?
> 
> I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.




Well, it means some publishers which are doing well with OGL product (Mongoose, Green Ronin, to name two) will not just drop their successful lines and make 4e products. So their goal of getting the best existing 3x publishers over is weakened by not letting them smoothly transition.


----------



## DaveMage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?




From a business perspective, I certainly agree.

From an RPG fan perspective, I don't.  "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?
> 
> I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.



By that thinking they never should have done the OGL in the first place because the OGL allowed spin-offs.  

I agree with you completely that they are a business and don't owe anything to anyone.  

But first, there is more than ample basis for being a lot less pleased because, as presented so far, they are moving sharply away from being the overall gaming community heroes.  The GSL is well better than most everyone else.  But it is well less than true Open gaming.  So they have moved backward.

But beyond that, this isn't just leaving 3E behind.  They can not take back the OGL.  But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community.  I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.


----------



## Wicht

DaveMage said:
			
		

> From an RPG fan perspective, I don't.  "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride.  YMMV, of course.




I gotta agree.  Turns me off as a consumer.  Moreover, what it says to me is that they don't feel their new product can compete with their old product and as a discerning consumer, I have to wonder why?


----------



## BryonD

DaveMage said:
			
		

> From an RPG fan perspective, I don't.  "My way or the highway" doesn't entice me (as a fan/consumer) to go along for the ride.  YMMV, of course.



Yep, its WotC's "You are either with us or against us" day.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> I have no intent of doing that. We are 4E.



Yeah I know.  Thanks for the reply.
I'm not part of your 4E market, but I will thank you for all the great stuff you made before.


----------



## Alzrius

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC.




Please don't "should" on me. 

I've thought this through, and I'm plenty mad at WotC. Is this a good strategic business decision on their part? Yes. But that's not an aspect that I'm particularly concerned with. WotC could still make money, promote their product, and be successful without deliberately attempting to hamstring other publishers.

This is, frankly, a step backwards from the spirit of Open Gaming. I tend to get upset whenever anything moves from a paradigm of more freedom to less freedom. Basically demanding that companies give up the OGL if they want to use the GSL at all (to say nothing of all of the other restrictions built in) just rubs me the wrong way on principle alone.

That's not even taking into account that, as a fan, I like 3.5 and want companies to stick with it. Now there will be less of that, because companies that would be inclined to do both 3.5 and 4E material won't have that option. That, in turn, gives me less options as a consumer. That also holds true for the 4E customers as well - companies that stick with the OGL won't be producing 4E materials (for example, I doubt Green Ronin, with their _Mutants & Masterminds_ and _True20_ lines, will dump the OGL), giving those fans less third-party works as well...which ultimately hurts WotC.

Declaring war on the OGL just makes battle-lines be drawn, and it's ultimately a loss, not a win, when that happens. Hence why I'm rather upset at WotC that they've stepped so far away from the "enlightened self-interest" that was Open Gaming, and have instead used their new GSL as a weapon against the OGL.

[/rant]


----------



## Wicht

I assume this rule only affects publishers and that freelancers are still able to work for a company that produces one and then work for a company that produces another at the same time?


----------



## TheLe

Orcus said:
			
		

> I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.
> 
> In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.




That sounds quite absurd. So, if I go with 4e, I am not allowed to do True20, Mutants and Masterminds, 3e, Spycraft, etc? My company is essentially locked into to 4e?

Is this right?

Are they also going to tell us that we can't publish our own Role Playing Games too?  So if I publish 4e games, it means I cannot release my own new self contained RPG (with OGL): "Unorthodox Insurance Salesman: The Role Playing Game"?

I was thinking about making a board game some day -- maybe WOTC can put a new clause in the 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.

`Le


----------



## Orcus

Guys, come on. This is hardly declaring war on the OGL. If there was no GSL things would be exactly as they are right now with the GSL. You choose to make 3E products all you want. It cant possibly be worse to give us more choice than we had without the GSL. 

Yes, I think the "with us or against us" mentality is not my first choice and it is a step back in open gaming. But I think everyone needs to understand that my belief is that there was a strong chance that 4E was not going to be open at all. This is a far cry better than that. 

As a practical matter, there are very few people this affects more than marginally. If you are carving out a 3E niche, then what the heck do you want to do 4E for? If you are going 4E, there is little sense in going back to 3E. I dont think there would have been many people "riding the fence," so to speak. Certainly not in the long term, anyway. Other than the company that maybe wants to do a quick 4E exploit book (which, frankly, doesnt benefit Wizards, it benefits the one-shot exploiter), there are probably very few people other than Paizo perhaps who could credibly and legitimately carried both a 4E and 3E product line, and they will get to do that with us anyway.

So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice. As a practical matter, all you lose is the company that might have dabbled with one or two books. And guess what, they can do those one or two books and then go back to 3E all they want.


----------



## Orcus

TheLe said:
			
		

> That sounds quite absurd. So, if I go with 4e, I am not allowed to do True20, Mutants and Masterminds, 3e, Spycraft, etc? My company is essentially locked into to 4e?
> 
> Is this right?
> 
> Are they also going to tell us that we can't publish our own Role Playing Games too?  So if I publish 4e games, it means I cannot release my own new self contained RPG (with OGL): "Unorthodox Insurance Salesman: The Role Playing Game"?
> 
> I was thinking about making a board game some day -- maybe WOTC can put a new clause in the 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.
> 
> `Le




I guess they could condition use of teh GSL on that, but I dont think that is even remotely being suggested. The word I got from Wizards is that there is no riding the fence. You are in as a company. But lets not make this something it isnt. They arent trying to limit all that stuff you mentioned.


----------



## lurkinglidda

BryonD said:
			
		

> But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community.  I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.




Edited out. My apologies to ByronD for gut-reaction posting. You're right in that it is OK for you to be mad. The part about our blatant attempt got under my skin. Now you know what buttons to hit with me!


----------



## JohnRTroy

> This is, frankly, a step backwards from the spirit of Open Gaming. I tend to get upset whenever anything moves from a paradigm of more freedom to less freedom. Basically demanding that companies give up the OGL if they want to use the GSL at all (to say nothing of all of the other restrictions built in) just rubs me the wrong way on principle alone.




This is personally why I am glad they are doing a GSL instead of an OGL.  The "Spirit of Open Gaming" crowd tends to annoy me a little.  They are the ones who would get mad at Monte Cook for creating "crippled OGL", think that a free online SRD is "good" when it creates a free alternative to the PHB, think the guy who did the True 20 SRD is in the right, think it was okay to put the entire Unearthed Arcana online, etc.  I don't like the religious zeal towards the OGL...it's a license that Wizards graciously gave, and I think this new license is designed to prevent some abuses.  

Having a morals clause and not letting it be "viral" is not a key element in letting publishers use D&D compatible rules.  I at least like Orcus' stance, he's a little annoyed with restrictions, but as a lawyer he sees it as good advice from the companies' standpoint.  




> That's not even taking into account that, as a fan, I like 3.5 and want companies to stick with it. Now there will be less of that, because companies that would be inclined to do both 3.5 and 4E material won't have that option.




Actually, it's much more likely some will stick full bore, creating competition on that front.  I think Green Ronin is thinking long and hard now about whether or not to do 4e adventures.

People want to keep the cake and eat it at the same time--if Wizards decides to change the rules completely and go 4e, I would rather the guys who don't like the terms stick with 3e.  Is 3e still viable?  Let them prove it!  WoTC was never obligated to release any content as OGL.


----------



## TheLe

Orcus said:
			
		

> So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice.




It is actually a very real choice. I have 3 books in the works for Mutations and Monsters, 2 books in the works for True20, 1 book for Earth AD, and a major release of my new ogl non-d20 book: Forgotten City.

3e has been my core focus, but to go with 4e I have to drop all those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the money I put into those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the loss of potential sales from those books which I may not be able to publish?

I was thinking about developing a Windows computer game someday based on chess. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in 4e that will prevent me from doing that too.

`Le


----------



## Orcus

TheLe said:
			
		

> It is actually a very real choice. I have 3 books in the works for Mutations and Monsters, 2 books in the works for True20, 1 book for Earth AD, and a major release of my new ogl non-d20 book: Forgotten City.
> 
> 3e has been my core focus, but to go with 4e I have to drop all those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the money I put into those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the loss of potential sales from those books which I may not be able to publish?
> 
> I was thinking about developing a Windows computer game someday based on chess. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in 4e that will prevent me from doing that too.
> 
> `Le




How abotu this--release those books, then go 4E. What is wrong with that?


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> Guys, come on. This is hardly declaring war on the OGL. If there was no GSL things would be exactly as they are right now with the GSL. You choose to make 3E products all you want. It cant possibly be worse to give us more choice than we had without the GSL.



I disagree.  
First just in attitude.  It is bluntly an us or them stance.  You even said so yourself above.  It is "an attempt to close off support for 3E."

It is worse than no GSL because in the case of no GSL Open Gaming would move on.  By this play, in order to maintain contact with the bulk of the market base, some publishers will be forced to abandon the Open Gaming field.  I agree that some big names will likely be vastly better off sticking with their established OGL lines.  But that is no credit to WotC's new stance.  That is purely in spite of WotC's move.  

It is a pure declaration of war on the OGL.

Yeah, WotC is a self-interested company.  That is all well and good.  Just imagine the howls if a self interested company such as an oil company or Halliburton made a somehow comparable move.


----------



## Orcus

TheLe said:
			
		

> It is actually a very real choice. I have 3 books in the works for Mutations and Monsters, 2 books in the works for True20, 1 book for Earth AD, and a major release of my new ogl non-d20 book: Forgotten City.
> 
> 3e has been my core focus, but to go with 4e I have to drop all those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the money I put into those other books? Whose going to reimburse me for the loss of potential sales from those books which I may not be able to publish?
> 
> I was thinking about developing a Windows computer game someday based on chess. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in 4e that will prevent me from doing that too.
> 
> `Le




Do you have a single book in the works for 4E? If not, then what are you worried about? Publish your books for 3E, just like you were planning all along. It not like you have to tell Wizards you are going to use 4E in 3 years and thus cant do anything in the meantime.


----------



## BryonD

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Troll much?



Nope. And accusations of trolling are frowned on here.


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, it's much more likely some will stick full bore, creating competition on that front.  I think Green Ronin is thinking long and hard now about whether or not to do 4e adventures.




If they do, wouldn't that mean they'd need to stop publishing True 20/M&M, as they are OGL-based games?

I doubt they'd do that. Perhaps the potential sales of 4e product outweigh the strength of the brand equity they've built in those two lines, but given the new True 20 license, I really doubt it.


----------



## Alzrius

Orcus said:
			
		

> Guys, come on. This is hardly declaring war on the OGL. If there was no GSL things would be exactly as they are right now with the GSL. You choose to make 3E products all you want. It cant possibly be worse to give us more choice than we had without the GSL.
> 
> Yes, I think the "with us or against us" mentality is not my first choice and it is a step back in open gaming. But I think everyone needs to understand that my belief is that there was a strong chance that 4E was not going to be open at all. This is a far cry better than that.




Clark, I agree that this could be worse (heck, things can always be worse), but it's somewhat hard to focus on that when things have, up until now, been better than what the GSL is offering in this regard. The OGL itself never had a restriction on what other kinds of products you could write, and even before now the GSL was never said to have this level of restriction. 

Yes, things could be worse, but up until now they've been a whole lot better also.



> _As a practical matter, there are very few people this affects more than marginally. If you are carving out a 3E niche, then what the heck do you want to do 4E for? If you are going 4E, there is little sense in going back to 3E. I dont think there would have been many people "riding the fence," so to speak. Certainly not in the long term, anyway. Other than the company that maybe wants to do a quick 4E exploit book (which, frankly, doesnt benefit Wizards, it benefits the one-shot exploiter), there are probably very few people other than Paizo perhaps who could credibly and legitimately carried both a 4E and 3E product line, and they will get to do that with us anyway.
> 
> So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice. As a practical matter, all you lose is the company that might have dabbled with one or two books. And guess what, they can do those one or two books and then go back to 3E all they want._




I disagree. I know you run a successful company, so maybe you have a more accurate view of this, but I don't agree with the above.

The choice isn't hypothetical. You yourself outlined a scenario wherein someone would be producing both 4E (in books) and 3E (in compatible downloads) material. I know of several smaller PDF companies that had planned on supporting 3E and 4E simultaneously in PDF releases of products, both with different versions of the same product, and with various differing products. Some companies would be carving out a 3E niche for the same reason Paizo (your new partner) is - because it still looks viable. That they'd also be able to appeal to the 4E crowd could only help. But they don't have that option now.

This choice that is being taken out of the publishers' hands is anything but hypothetical.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> First just in attitude.  It is bluntly an us or them stance.  You even said so yourself above.  It is "an attempt to close off support for 3E."
> 
> It is worse than no GSL because in the case of no GSL Open Gaming would move on.  By this play, in order to maintain contact with the bulk of the market base, some publishers will be forced to abandon the Open Gaming field.  I agree that some big names will likely be vastly better off sticking with their established OGL lines.  But that is no credit to WotC's new stance.  That is purely in spite of WotC's move.
> 
> It is a pure declaration of war on the OGL.
> 
> Yeah, WotC is a self-interested company.  That is all well and good.  Just imagine the howls if a self interested company such as an oil company or Halliburton made a somehow comparable move.




I think I am going to just give my defense a rest for a few days.

It has become abundantly clear to me that some people are just going to complain and look a gift horse in the mouth. No matter what they get, it wont be enough. 

I dont endorse that thinking at all.

This is not war on the OGL. Go, use the OGL all you want. Your ability to use the OGL today is no different than it was before this announcement and before you had a GSL. If you are happy using the OGL then you shouldnt care about not using the GSL.


----------



## TheLe

Orcus said:
			
		

> Do you have a single book in the works for 4E? If not, then what are you worried about? Publish your books for 3E, just like you were planning all along. It not like you have to tell Wizards you are going to use 4E in 3 years and thus cant do anything in the meantime.




No SRD man. I wasn't in a position to bribe anyone to get it early.

I was planning on publishing 4e books once I get my hand on usable rules, but there are none in actual production now.

I have plenty of books in production for the other systems.

You know, I was planning on selling fish online on my website. Maybe WOTC can put a clause in their 4e license to prevent me from doing that too.

`Le


----------



## JohnRTroy

Lidda, a question.

How does the GSL work with third party content.  (This is in reference to the "viral" question asked earlier).

Say publisher (a) rights creates some new rules in a product.

Can publisher (b) use the rules like they did in the old OGL?  (Can use but must reference it in the license).

Can publisher (a) control that right so publisher (b) has to get permission from publisher (a).  In other words, can publisher (a) reserve some rights so that their content won't be freely distributed on-line?


----------



## Pramas

Lizard said:
			
		

> If they do, wouldn't that mean they'd need to stop publishing True 20/M&M, as they are OGL-based games?




Well, that's the question, isn't it? I've asked Scott to clarify. If Linae wants to jump here though, I'd love to know. If we must choose to support the OGL or the GSL as a company, that will drastically affect our strategy.


----------



## Orcus

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Clark, I agree that this could be worse (heck, things can always be worse), but it's somewhat hard to focus on that when things have, up until now, been better than what the GSL is offering in this regard. The OGL itself never had a restriction on what other kinds of products you could write, and even before now the GSL was never said to have this level of restriction.
> 
> Yes, things could be worse, but up until now they've been a whole lot better also.




Alzrius, sorry if I am a little frustrated. I am not frustrated at you. I think you and I have always carried on reasoned debates even if we disagree. I respect your position. I dont not agree with it. I would be happy to discuss it. 

I dont see how things are worse today than yesterday. Yesterday, you had the OGL and no GSL. You couldnt make 4E products. All you had was the OGL. 

Today, you have the OGL just the same as you did then. And if you dont use the GSL (just like yesterday when it didnt exist) you still continue to use the OGL unabated forever, as was your plan without the GSL. 

Instead, today, you have an additional option--you can use the GSL if you forgoe the OGL. You can say no to that. And if you do, you get the OGL just like you had yesterday, unfettered and free and no access to 4E. Just like yesterday.

So today you have a new choice. And EXTRA choice you didnt have yesterday. Now, you may not like that choice. You may wish that use of teh GSL didnt require you to give up the OGL. In a perfect world, I do too. But you cant say you are worse off. Nor was yesterday better. It was the same--you use the OGL exclusively and you have no access to 4E content. Whether you use the OGL and dont have access to 4E content because there is no GSL (yesterday) or because you choose not to use the GSL (today) your right and power to use the OGL is the same.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think I am going to just give my defense a rest for a few days.
> 
> It has become abundantly clear to me that some people are just going to complain and look a gift horse in the mouth. No matter what they get, it wont be enough.
> 
> I dont endorse that thinking at all.
> 
> This is not war on the OGL. Go, use the OGL all you want. Your ability to use the OGL today is no different than it was before this announcement and before you had a GSL. If you are happy using the OGL then you shouldnt care about not using the GSL.



I respect you greatly Clark, but I think you are avoiding the point.
Yeah *I* can go either way.  But I'm not talking about ME.  I'm talking about the community.  Established publishers are being told they must either give away their freedom to publish under the OGL or lose a big portion of their market base that they had up until now.

If you want to say that they had no right to that market base anyway and it was just a gift, then fine.  Then look at it a different way.  They have the OGL, but WotC is using its name status to bribe/extort (and no, I don't mean those in any criminal sense) existing OGL publishers into giving up that freedom.  

This gift horse is of the Trojan variety.


----------



## mxyzplk

It's not necessarily "illegal" to use sweatshops in Singapore and test chemicals on poor folks in Africa, but the almighty power of capitalism doesn't make it right or indicate people should be happy about it.




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?
> 
> I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.


----------



## Orcus

TheLe said:
			
		

> No SRD man. I wasn't in a position to bribe anyone to get it early.




I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I have a funny feeling I wont like it. 

"bribe" is a pretty strong word. I'd appreciate it if you perhaps reconsidered your word choice. 

Lets stick to reasoned discourse and not those kind of insinuations, please, if you dont mind.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> Established publishers are being told they must either give away their freedom to publish under the OGL or lose a big portion of their market base that they had up until now.




Up till now, they did not have any access to the 4E market base. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Clark


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> I respect you greatly Clark, but I think you are avoiding the point.
> Yeah *I* can go either way.  But I'm not talking about ME.  I'm talking about the community.  Established publishers are being told they must either give away their freedom to publish under the OGL or lose a big portion of their market base that they had up until now.
> 
> If you want to say that they had no right to that market base anyway and it was just a gift, then fine.  Then look at it a different way.  They have the OGL, but WotC is using its name status to bribe/extort (and no, I don't mean those in any criminal sense) existing OGL publishers into giving up that freedom.
> 
> This gift horse is of the Trojan variety.




Dont get me wrong, I wish that term wasnt a part of the license. Its not my preference. If you ask me:

Clark, would you prefer:

1. A GSL that let you still use the OGL but just not in the same product, or
2. A GSL that made you forgo ever using the OGL again.

Clearly, I would pick (1).

I think this shows just how close this whole thing was to not being open at all. 

Clark


----------



## JohnRTroy

I don't think we should compare serious abuses of corporations that affect human rights and health in the world to that of a game publisher getting a little more control over their content, so can we stop the comparison to sweatshops, medical testing, war and oil companies please.  Let's not trivialize the serious.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> This gift horse is of the Trojan variety.




That may be. 

All the more reason not to look in its mouth... (the trap door in the belly, on the other hand, you might want to be ready for).

I wont deny this is a strong play by Wizards. But just in the time I have posted these thoughts, I could probably have come up with one or more workarounds.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

BryonD said:
			
		

> But beyond that, this isn't just leaving 3E behind.  They can not take back the OGL.  But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community.  I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.




We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from? 

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.  Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you? 

It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I don't think we should compare serious abuses of corporations that affect human rights and health in the world to that of a game publisher getting a little more control over their content, so can we stop the comparison to sweatshops, medical testing, war and oil companies please.




Agreed. Our nerd rage is up, for sure. But that is stretching it even for the internet


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont see how things are worse today than yesterday. Yesterday, you had the OGL and no GSL. You couldnt make 4E products. All you had was the OGL.




It's worse than yesterday, because the hope that there'd be a reasonably open option in the marketplace was still there.

I assume all the people saying "yay wotc, and you doubters eat crow" are lining up in the crow line themselves?  No?  Unsurprising.

Anyway, so are we sure this doesn't affect M&M?  If the same company can't use the GSL and OGL - M&M is OGL published.  It doesn't use the d20 SRD, but it is OGL.  So is it a choice for them between True20 and M&M vs. 4e Freeport stuff?

I think that the communications on this are unacceptably confusing the old OGL and the d20 STL.  Hopefully.   Or else Wizards is saying "don't touch the OGL at all."  Which is fine; frankly the "copyright WotC" at the start of it should have tipped all the smart 3p companies to go with Creative Commons licensing instead.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> Up till now, they did not have any access to the 4E market base. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Clark



I mean they have had access to the D&D fan base.

And yes, I agree that they don't have a RIGHT to that.  
But for the first time ever it is being used as a stick to coerce publishers into walking away from Open Gaming.

If one single publisher walks away from open gaming because they choose 4e over it, then that will be a lose for the Open Gaming community.

Totally wild hypothetical here:  
Do you think Green Ronin closing shop on all True20 and Mutants and Masterminds would make the gaming community better or worse?
If the alternative is Green Ronin chooses to provide zero 4E support then is the gaming community better or worse off than it was before 4E was announced?
I'd say either choice they make is at least slightly worse for Green Ronin AND solidly worse for gamers.


----------



## Orcus

The primary appeal of the third party publishers to Wizards has been "Help us help you support 4E." 

Now its time for us to put our money where our mouths have been. If we really want to support 4E, which is most likely the main argument that won the day in keeping 4E open, then we shouldnt have any problem with this restriction. 

Its a strong play, but it is a sound business one. 

I think the biggest problem is that it is a surprise and it came out real strong and we werent warmed up to receive it. I think when the dust settles and people calm down this will not look so bad in the morning.


----------



## Orcus

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> It's worse than yesterday, because the hope that there'd be a reasonably open option in the marketplace was still there.




I agree that the reality of today is worse than the hope we had yesterday. But certainly no worse than the reality we had yesterday. That feels like when a friend of mine got dumped because he never lived up to be the guy his girlfriend hoped he would be (but never was). I dont think you can judge success by failure to live up to a hope that isnt real.


----------



## Alzrius

Orcus said:
			
		

> Alzrius, sorry if I am a little frustrated. I am not frustrated at you. I think you and I have always carried on reasoned debates even if we disagree. I respect your position. I dont not agree with it. I would be happy to discuss it.




Thanks. I'm happy to keep the debate going, since I think a lively debate is always a good thing. Arguments are another matter entirely.



> _I dont see how things are worse today than yesterday. Yesterday, you had the OGL and no GSL. You couldnt make 4E products. All you had was the OGL.
> 
> Today, you have the OGL just the same as you did then. And if you dont use the GSL (just like yesterday when it didnt exist) you still continue to use the OGL unabated forever, as was your plan without the GSL.
> 
> Instead, today, you have an additional option--you can use the GSL if you forgoe the OGL. You can say no to that. And if you do, you get the OGL just like you had yesterday, unfettered and free and no access to 4E. Just like yesterday._




Except things aren't exactly the same as they were yesterday (or day-before-yesterday now).

Yesterday we were operating under the assumption that the OGL and GSL would not be mutually-exclusive at the business level. That level of restriction had never even been hinted at (so far as I was aware, anyway). Yesterday, supporting both the OGL and GSL was a viable publishing option.

Today, that option has been suddenly removed. Now, many publishers with a large established catalogue of OGL products - products which still have a market - will need to abandon those to use the GSL. You're correct in that they could just ignore the GSL altogether and stay OGL-centered. But that'd minimize their marketing ability, since 4E will now cover the majority of the RPG base. They could use the GSL, but that means giving up their existing, and viable, catalogue of OGL games and sacrificing that part of the market - a sacrifice that has no rationale except that WotC said so.



> _So today you have a new choice. And EXTRA choice you didnt have yesterday. Now, you may not like that choice. You may wish that use of teh GSL didnt require you to give up the OGL. In a perfect world, I do too. But you cant say you are worse off. Nor was yesterday better. It was the same--you use the OGL exclusively and you have no access to 4E content. Whether you use the OGL and dont have access to 4E content because there is no GSL (yesterday) or because you choose not to use the GSL (today) your right and power to use the OGL is the same._




That wasn't what we'd been led to believe was the case though (albeit by having no information beforehand that this would be the paradigm). Several companies had already declared that they'd support the OGL and GSL, and now have to alter their plans and compromise the maximum number of gamers they can reach because of this new restriction.

"Yesterday...all my troubles seemed so far away..."


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> Do you think Green Ronin closing shop on all True20 and Mutants and Masterminds would make the gaming community better or worse?
> If the alternative is Green Ronin chooses to provide zero 4E support then is the gaming community better or worse off than it was before 4E was announced?
> I'd say either choice they make is at least slightly worse for Green Ronin AND solidly worse for gamers.




Bryon, you've got me on that one. 

If GR closed T20 and MM, the community would be worse off. Similarly, if they dont support 4E then the community is worse off too. 

I do think there are some publishers who could reasonably, responsibly and appropriately have 4E support products and support products for their own open game lines. I have to concede that. 

Clark


----------



## BryonD

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e why so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?



 You absolutely 100% should not.  But there is a big difference between not supporting one thing and actively undermining other people's support for something else.  



> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.  Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?



 It surprises me that in the first sentence you say you are not trying make people stop growing things in a certain field and in the second sentence you state that you are.



> It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.



I agree.  But either choice is a step backwards and I personally think that is a very bad thing.  I'm not disputing your right to do it.  That doesn't make it any less negative.


----------



## Bacris

If the Paizo / Necro 3.x / 4E deal ends up being legal, I guess I'll need to separate Dreamscarred Press into two separate entities, with two separate legal documents, and two separate business accounts, because I have too much invested in a variety of 3.x / True20 / M&M products to drop the OGL and migrate to 4E.  

I guess I could take GSL and Andreas could take OGL, and figure out the logistics after the fact.

Mentalis Design was originally going to be a separate legal entity, I guess we'll go back to that, since this doesn't leave us any other option to support multiple systems and move forward with 4E.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Pramas said:
			
		

> Well, that's the question, isn't it? I've asked Scott to clarify. If Linae wants to jump here though, I'd love to know. If we must choose to support the OGL or the GSL as a company, that will drastically affect our strategy.




Well, yeah... This.

It's a big deal for Green Ronin to have to abandon their successful systems if they want to develop for 4e. Same for Paizo. Same for Monte. 

Frankly I don't see how GR can just walk away from Mutants and Masterminds, and to a lesser extent, True20.

This unexpected development seems that WotC doesn't much want GR along for the ride. 

They've flat out put Paizo in the position of having to disappoint a chunk of their fans no matter what they do. 

_The fans lose._

And any publisher that goes along for the 4e ride this time is going to have to look at this turn of events and wonder what happens _next time_. It's a Frog-and-Scorpion moment.

EDIT to include this:


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I do think there are some publishers who could reasonably, responsibly and appropriately have 4E support products and support products for their own open game lines. I have to concede that.




That's it exactly. WotC sees a player of OGL M&M as a loss of a 4e player. WotC sees the gamer pie as finite, and I _thought_ we had settled that that's just not true. The pie is not finite-- I have dollars I'd like to spend on lots of different kinds of games, and I'd _far_ prefer to spend them with those few companies that have a proven track record of creating and supporting successful (and divergent) product lines.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> You absolutely 100% should not.  But there is a big difference between not supporting one thing and actively undermining other people's support for something else.
> 
> It surprises me that in the first sentence you say you are not trying make people stop growing things in a certain field and in the second sentence you state that you are.
> 
> 
> I agree.  But either choice is a step backwards and I personally think that is a very bad thing.  I'm not disputing your right to do it.  That doesn't make it any less negative.




Bryon, please dont bash on Scott. He has done way too much for us. I dont know for sure, but my guess is that the GSL was a battle. Just look at the time it took. And he got it done. He and Linae got us the ability to support 4E. Is it exactly like we want it. No. But for goodness sake we need to respect the man that accomplished what a few weeks ago I thought was impossible--4E can be supported by third parties. That is a huge accomplishment.


----------



## Orcus

Bacris said:
			
		

> If the Paizo / Necro 3.x / 4E deal ends up being legal, I guess I'll need to separate Dreamscarred Press into two separate entities, with two separate legal documents, and two separate business accounts, because I have too much invested in a variety of 3.x / True20 / M&M products to drop the OGL and migrate to 4E.




Wizards has confirmed to me that my arrangement with Paizo is fine. Necro and Paizo are legitimate preexisting companies that have a distribution agreement. Neither is a subsidiary of the other. So long as I just do 4E and Paizo does either 3E or 4E, it will work fine. And, from my end anyway, that is the plan. 



> I guess I could take GSL and Andreas could take OGL, and figure out the logistics after the fact.
> 
> Mentalis Design was originally going to be a separate legal entity, I guess we'll go back to that, since this doesn't leave us any other option to support multiple systems and move forward with 4E.




That, clearly, was the immediate solution that suggested itself to me and I'm sure everyone else. Dont know if that will work or not, though. And talking about it here probably might affect whether or not a restriction on doing stuff like that gets into the final of the GSL


----------



## mxyzplk

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?
> 
> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.  Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?
> 
> It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.




You can not be serious.  This is indeed a "scorched earth" policy.

So any publisher cannot put out anything under the OGL - even completely "3e unrelated" items - if they want to utilize the GSL?  Mutants & Masterminds?  True20?  Spirit of the Century?  The Action! system?  The OGL wasn't tied to the d20 SRD, it was a generic open license to use.  There's a bunch of OGL games that don't in any way realistically compete wih 4e, except from the petty "we hate any other game than 4e and would like to see it stomped out of the marketplace" way.


----------



## Bacris

*shrug*

It would be entirely possible for us to sever entirely and not be a shady practice, but actually be two separate entities, thereby not trying to cheat the system.

It just disheartens me - because this decision essentially means that Dreamscarred Press will likely not move to support 4E for a significant amount of time.  And psionic support in D&D has always been modest, at best, which was the whole point we started the company.


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster

The new policy disgusts me as a WotC consumer. From what I understand of the hobby, not a single one of the third-party publishers poses (or has EVER posed) any threat to WotC's bottom line. So if a 3e edition of Freeport exists and a 4e edition of Freeport exists on the same store shelf, 4e will collapse? Are you serious?

As a DM who uses published adventures exclusively, the 3e adventures and settings provided by Green Ronin, Paizo and others drove my desire to purchase EVERY 3e WotC book published with only TWO exceptions. I fully intended to buy and run both 4e and Pathfinder--and not one of my purchases would have detracted one from the other as I would have collected both lines with equal fervor.

WotC's stance is a direct attack on my collection of their own 3e material. While my 3e material might have become naturally obsolete over the course of time, they want to render it immediately obsolete. So, yes, I am mad about this. 

So, if the policy from the top-down is that you either have to be 4e or 3e and can't possibly be both, then my stance as a consumer will have to be the same.


----------



## Orcus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And any publisher that goes along for the 4e ride this time is going to have to look at this turn of events and wonder what happens _next time_. It's a Frog-and-Scorpion moment.




That, my friend, is a very insightful comment. 

That is the sort of stuff actual publishers consider. 

The OGL is open and cant be revoked. Clearly the GSL is way less open than that and likely will be revocable (we'll have to see). At a core level, one concern is whether to base a product line on a license that Wizards can revoke at will or one they cant ever revoke. Clearly, from a pure self-preservation standpoint, it is better to do products under a license that can't ever be revoked. So there is a strong incentive to continue to use the OGL and never adopt the GSL. And Wizards' forced choice here may well force people to NOT support 4E who otherwise would have.


----------



## Psion

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC.




If, by "think it through" you me "put aside all your personal concerns and only consider what's good for WotCs as a buniness", perhaps. But if this is in fact as bad as it appears on the surface (and not seeing the GSL in its final form, I can't say if it is), I seriously think there could be fans out there who will be affected and have every reason to be irked.


----------



## Psion

Orcus said:
			
		

> So this hypothetical choice that people see as being taken away is just that, a hypothetical choice.




Consider if you will, three examples:
- A small company has a particular specialty area that has given it a small but dedicated buyer pool for its OGL fantasy products. Upon hearing there is no early buy-in fee and seeing that their area of specialty is not covered under 4e, immediately and publicly contemplates the creation of a 4e product in their niche. But now, to do so, either their existing fans or prospective new buyers interested in their niche will come away with their gaming tastes unfulfilled.
- Another company has a somewhat broader array of products, but has also developed a few niches, including niches that fit a particular non-d20 game well that just so happens to be an OGL product (not based on the D20 SRD). Though d20 fantasy sales have flagged, this company may well be enticed to dip into the refreshed 4e GSL market... but at the cost of no longer catering to the non-d20 game.
- Another company has strong non-d20 STL, but OGL/D20 SRD based lines. Company also had a strong reputation as a d20 fantasy publisher, but had retreated from the D20 fantasy market due to weak sales therein. Many old fans who have switched to 4e would love to see a new generation of D&D targeted fantasy products from them, but the company in question's other OGL based lines are too strong to simply scuttle.

As you probably could guess, not one of these is hypothetical (indeed, two of them have posted in this thread since I started composing this post.) Hopefully, these constitute the "corner cases" spoken of earlier, but I think at least 1 of these seems like the exact sort of thing this is designed to stop.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bryon, please dont bash on Scott.



I strongly disagree with what he said (directly to me).  



> He has done way too much for us. I dont know for sure, but my guess is that the GSL was a battle. Just look at the time it took. And he got it done. He and Linae got us the ability to support 4E. Is it exactly like we want it. No. But for goodness sake we need to respect the man that accomplished what a few weeks ago I thought was impossible--4E can be supported by third parties. That is a huge accomplishment.



I am praying that some huge misunderstanding is a work here.  I was glad to be wrong this morning.  I will be completely thrilled if sometime soon it turns out this is also wrong.
But if this is what he has done "for us".  Then I would prefer nothing.  
I see this accomplishment as a large net lose for gaming overall.  3P support for 4E is not the be-all end-all.  
I'd easily prefer no GSL than a GSL that specifically harms the OGL community.


----------



## Orcus

Gotham Gamemaster said:
			
		

> So, if the policy from the top-down is you either have to be 4e or 3e and can't possibly be both, then my stance as a consumer will have to be the same.




Sigh. (and I dont do that much).

I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.

Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> That, my friend, is a very insightful comment.
> 
> That is the sort of stuff actual publishers consider.




Since I haven't published jack in more than a year, I won't take offense at that.   

(I assume none was intended, but it made me laugh.)


----------



## Alzrius

Orcus said:
			
		

> I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.




Nothing ever ends edition wars. That's why a certain company tried to make products that had Third Edition rules, but First Edition feel.   



> _Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. _




The "point of light" therein is that maybe they'll just get rid of the provision that bans use of the OGL on a company-wide basis because of the uproar here.



> _Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle._




Because WotC would never, ever change something about the GSL after they made a public announcement about it.


----------



## Bacris

Orcus said:
			
		

> I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.




The only way to end that division is for one edition to not exist.  So, no way to do it.  

And, to be perfectly honest, I'm not upset, I'm not angry. 

I'm quite calm.

I'm also quite disappointed if this is as it appears - but I reserve final judgment until I see the GSL in its final form.


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> The primary appeal of the third party publishers to Wizards has been "Help us help you support 4E."
> 
> Now its time for us to put our money where our mouths have been. If we really want to support 4E, which is most likely the main argument that won the day in keeping 4E open, then we shouldnt have any problem with this restriction.




No, Clark, it's not anyone's goal except WotC's to "support 4e" for its own sake.  It's to support themselves, and ideally a smart licensing play that would allow people to support themselves with an additional benefit of being allowed to use 4e, with an exchange of benefit to WotC that they get more 4e support.  Not get screwed over and sign away your busienss plan to WotC.

First priority for all 3p OGL publishers is to rip and replace the OGL with another open license.  Reprint M&M with creative commons in the back and you're golden.  Then the people that were more D&D/d20 oriented have to figure out what it's worth to terminate all sales, current and future, of any d20 products thay had produced.  For most people it may be smarter to just go back to their own system or throw in behind Pathfinder.  

I have to say, this is awfully disappointing, and is a spiteful move to all the people who had throught they were partners with WotC over the years.


----------



## Orcus

Psion said:
			
		

> Consider if you will, three examples:
> - A small company has a particular specialty area that has given it a small but dedicated buyer pool for its OGL fantasy products. Upon hearing there is no early buy-in fee and seeing that their area of specialty is not covered under 4e, immediately and publicly contemplates the creation of a 4e product in their niche. But now, to do so, either their existing fans or prospective new buyers interested in their niche will come away with their gaming tastes unfulfilled.




Yeah, so? Welcome to publishing. You dont get to do the thing you are "contemplating." Happens all the time. I cant tell you how many times I have contemplated a product and not been able to do it. Dashed hopes arent moving me here. 



> - Another company has a somewhat broader array of products, but has also developed a few niches, including niches that fit a particular non-d20 game well that just so happens to be an OGL product (not based on the D20 SRD). Though d20 fantasy sales have flagged, this company may well be enticed to dip into the refreshed 4e GSL market... but at the cost of no longer catering to the non-d20 game.




Again, to me this is the "dabbler" that is more intersted in the license as a way for them to make money by dipping into the refreshed market and has nothing to do with truly supporting 4E. I'll admit, I am not crying that they wont be making 4E products. I think the worst of the worst of the 3E products were companies that did this--made 3E stuff to capitalize on the 3E wave. Great example, Elric d20. 

Now I dont know what real company you are alluding to here, but my guess is that they would actually be the next one. I havent seen anyone post here that I wouldnt love to see in 4E.



> - Another company has strong non-d20 STL, but OGL/D20 SRD based lines. Company also had a strong reputation as a d20 fantasy publisher, but had retreated from the D20 fantasy market due to weak sales therein. Many old fans who have switched to 4e would love to see a new generation of D&D targeted fantasy products from them, but the company in question's other OGL based lines are too strong to simply scuttle.




This, clearly, is the company that suffers. This is also the company that could credibly have supported their own lines and helped support 4E in a meaningful way beyond just making a quick buck on the trend. I wish the license allowed this. I have to agree. I see Paizo and GR as good examples of this.


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> Sigh. (and I dont do that much).
> 
> I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.
> 
> Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.




This scheme, as it's being portrayed, I'd rather it get yanked.  Take  your ball and go home, but don't make me beg to play with you.


----------



## Orcus

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> No, Clark, it's not anyone's goal except WotC's to "support 4e" for its own sake.




I think I used the word "appeal" without good explanation.

When I said "appeal" I mean that the primary plea and argument that we used (our "appeal" to Wizards) to Wizards to convince them to open 4E is that it would help support 4E's launch and contribute to its overall success. And by we I mean many of the publishers from the conference call. I dont presume to speak for them. But I know that many of us made our plea to Wizards in terms of "make it open so we can support it and make it successful."


----------



## lurkinglidda

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Because WotC would never, ever change something about the GSL after they made a public announcement about it.



Heh. You got us on that one.    We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach. 

We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters. 

We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.


----------



## Psion

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, so? Welcome to publishing.




Well, sure. My point was, it's not hypothetical. There are ripples in the pond.



> Now I dont know what real company you are alluding to here, but my guess is that they would actually be the next one.




To be clear, the three companies I spoke of were Dreamscarred, Adamant (who has talked of adapting their pulp and mars products to FATE/Spirit of the Century, an OGL game), and Green Ronin.


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster

Orcus said:
			
		

> Sigh. (and I dont do that much).
> 
> I really hoped that the GSL would put an end to the 3E/4E division.
> 
> Guys, please lighten up on this. The GSL is not finalized. All this complaining could get the whole thing yanked. That would be a catastrophe. Do I think they would go back after making an announcement, no, probably not. But lets please let the dust settle.




Clark, here's the thing--I didn't have a 3e/4e division before this policy. I didn't care whether I use 3e or 4e for any mechanical reasons. But I do like the games that current 3e third-party publishers produce (mainly Pathfinder and M&M) and I would like to see them (and others) be able to do both.

This feels like WotC consulted with Brian Bendis about what to do about the GSL--and now they are looking out from Renton and (and trying) to say "No More 3e."


----------



## BryonD

Would it be OK for Microsoft to try to enforce a rule that any company that wanted to make software that worked with the most recent version of Windows must agree to never use any Open content compatible with any prior version of Windows?  or any Open content at all?

Clearly that would be a completely rational self-interest thing for Microsoft to do.  It wouldn't be anything other than an attempt to 100% support their latest product which they have invested vast sums of money into.


----------



## mxyzplk

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.




No, not really, it says nothing relevant to this discussion.  Did anyone not expect that Wizards would discontinue 3e support and do only 4e?  No, of course not.  However, is that supposed to make us feel happy about every other game company being compelled to forgo open gaming entirely, 3.5e based or not?


----------



## Alzrius

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Heh. You got us on that one.    We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.




I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I have to wonder if maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it would lead to the tossing-out of the company wide either/or clause in the GSL. Seriously, if the GSL came out at the end of 2008 without that clause in there, I honestly think it'd be worth the wait.



> _We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters. _




I'm a cynic at heart; hearing that you understand the impact this has on them always makes me think, "you understand what this'd do to them, and then you did it anyway." I know it's meant to be a statement of sympathy, but like I said, I take it in a more cynical spirit.

As it stands right now, the various publishers, fans, etc. will make the decision that is best for them, but it's an instance of making the best of a (relatively) bad situation.

Mxyzplk said that he'd prefer the GSL not exist rather than have it exist in a way that it actively attacks the OGL. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment...but I'm not sure I disagree either.



> _We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something._




You've mentioned this level of enthusiasm before. I confess, I'm very confused by these statements.

First, I take it for granted that you guys believe in 4E; no matter what prompted you to create Fourth Edition, I don't doubt that you've thrown yourselves behind it totally. It seems weird that you're reminding people of this. It's like if I made sure to tell people, "I trust my wife. Seriously, I believe in our marriage 100%." It'd sound a little odd that I'm so emphatically stating what people assume to already be true.

Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the context of you saying you're not doing any edition but 4E. If you mean after the launch, well, yeah, that also goes without saying. I don't think anyone ever thought that WotC would support 3.5 and 4E simultaneously.

Now, if you're referring to how - during the "transition period" from when 4E was announced last Gen Con until 4E launches - you're only supporting 4E and not 3.5 at all, that makes a little more sense. It's not entirely true (since, even now, there is some 3.5 support to be found, such as the "Epic Binders" column in e-_Dragon_), but it's easier to understand since, in my experience, this period usually has some level of continuing support for the existing edition. That said, it's still a bit odd to state that, since we're roughly six weeks out from 4E anyway, so of course that's what you'd be supporting.

Anyway, sorry if I come across as being a downer!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> However, is that supposed to make us feel happy about every other game company being compelled to forgo open gaming entirely, 3.5e based or not?




No one is compelling every other game company to forgo open gaming entirely _unless they want to take advantage of 4e._

That being said, it does seem to be aimed rather directly at the heart of Paizo. Paizo simply can't go 4e at this point. This is a deadly serious judo throw to the Pathfinder announcement. Something's gonna die, now much sooner than later.


----------



## Tewligan

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I don't think we should compare serious abuses of corporations that affect human rights and health in the world to that of a game publisher getting a little more control over their content, so can we stop the comparison to sweatshops, medical testing, war and oil companies please.  Let's not trivialize the serious.



Totally agree. That was one of the stupider analogies I've seen in a pretty long time, actually.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hmm...

I'll admit that when I posted earlier, I was rushed, and didn't think things through. I was thinking purely in terms of 3.5-compatible material vs. 4E-compatible material. I hadn't considered other OGL games like T20 or SotC.

So yeah, I can indeed see some reason for being irritated at the provisions of the license. I still don't believe it's in any way "evil," "immoral," or "spiteful" on WotC's part--but I'll agree with Clark that it is, indeed, unfortunate, and may result in either the loss of some cool games, or the refusal of some companies to support 4E.


----------



## Psion

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Mxyzplk said that he'd prefer the GSL not exist rather than have it exist in a way that it actively attacks the OGL. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment...but I'm not sure I disagree either.




I certainly understand where you are coming from.

I can certainly understand that if I was working for wizards and getting a paycheck from them, that's what I'd recommend. (Maybe. I wonder if they are really recovering enough revenue to be worth it. I have to wonder if a "higher up" needed placated more than any actual dollars-and-cents issue.)

At the same time, this will affect my actual gaming in all likelihood. I sort of accepted that I wouldn't be seeing much 3e support anymore. But this could easily slash that by 1/2 or 1/3. It's about the same scope as hearing that a game line I was anticipating got canceled. But that's a pisser to me.


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I still don't believe it's in any way "evil," "immoral," or "spiteful" on WotC's part--but I'll agree with Clark that it is, indeed, unfortunate.



Evil - Nope.
Immoral - Nope.
Spiteful - I'd have to go with a big YES on that one.

But regardless of whether we agree or disagree on that, a list of bad things that it is not doesn't mean there isn't a list of bad things that it IS.  Companies now must choose and the gaming community as a whole will be harmed to some degree no matter which choice is made.

If a person's desire for 4E's success completely trumps any interest in gaming as a whole, then that person should be ok with this.  But if one is more interested in more than just that, it is a negative development.


----------



## Arrond Hess

So, what does this mean for 3rd Party companies who wish to continue 3.x and conventions? Are they not allowed to showcase and sell their 3.x material?


----------



## Alzrius

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> So, what does this mean for 3rd Party companies who wish to continue 3.x and conventions? Are they not allowed to showcase and sell their 3.x material?




They can continue to showcase and sell 3.x materials (save that they must remove the d20 logo from products they're still selling by the end of the year)..._unless they use the GSL_. If they use the GSL, then they won't be allowed to showcase/sell 3.x materials anymore (in theory, they could publish OGL materials after using the GSL, but that'd almost certainly carry some sort of penalty).


----------



## Lizard

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.




The problem is, as I see it, that you're asking everyone ELSE to give it 100% of their support.

To put it into perspective -- supposed the original OGL had this "all of nothing" stipulation. Would White Wolf have dumped their dice pool system to support the Sword&Sorcery line? Would Atlas Games have given up on Ars Magica?

(For that matter, I find it interesting that, in theory, White Wolf could make both 4e products under the GSL and their current World of Darkness products, but not 3x products (not that they're likely to...))

I would think this license would discourage companies from 'testing the waters' with 4e with a few products before committing resources, and thus encourage support by allowing a gradual transition. I think saying "All or nothing" will lead to a lot of companies to say "Fine, nothing, then. How's that Pathfinder Beta coming along?" But I also recognize and respect your job is to know this stuff, do the research, and draw the conclusions, so you might have access to data I don't. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

(I also see a niche for a general D20 publisher to become a 'clearinghouse' for 3x products produced by companies which want to do 4e. The products would be 'published' by this hypothetical company, which might have a strong core of OGL product and no concern for moving to 4e, taking only a modest fee in exchange for 'fronting' product. Offhand, I can think of two publishers whose business plans this might fit. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but if I can think of it, so can anyone else.)

Interesting times.

Of course, I'm going to guess the license will have a "No shenanigans" clause, and the right of WOTC to pull it from any publisher trying to do an 'end run' around the spirit of the rule via dual companies, third party fronts, other other means.


----------



## SSquirrel

Psion said:
			
		

> Consider if you will, three examples:



Dreamscarred Press, Mongoose, Malhavoc Press were my guesses for companies.  technically Monte had retreated from the whole industry instead of just fantasy, but it was pretty close 

I think I'm going to sit this thread out and wait for more clarifications of what is and isn't permissible.  No sense getting worked up about anything that turns out to not be precisely what it seems to be.  Not saying the GSL won't be restrictive, just there may be more ways around things than it looks.  If the answer would be for a publisher like Malhavoc (if Monte came out of semi-retirement) would be to form Ptolus Press and have it be his 3.x wing and then continue support for Arcana Evolved and such with Malhavoc.  

This would be 2 companies owned by the same companies, not just a sub-company, which from our current vague descriptions sounds like that could be workable.  A hassle to pick up the 2nd biz license and what not, but if the end result would be the ability to handle both markets, isn't that worth a smidge of hassle?  If one person owning both companies wouldn't be a workable situation, then you could see business situations like Clark having Necromancer and doing 4E and Bill having the license for a new corporation that produces the 3.x.  Or Monte having the license for Malhavoc and Sue having the Ptolus Press name from the prior example.

No idea what is legal as I don't have access to the final version, heck does anyone really?  I just post here


----------



## wickederror

Let me say I understand this is probably a good decision for you.

Let me also say as a lifelong fan of gaming I think this SUCKS!


----------



## Psion

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Dreamscarred Press, Mongoose, Malhavoc Press were my guesses for companies.




Well, part of my reason for being vague was seeing if any other companies fit the model.   

Thanks for confirming it.


----------



## SSquirrel

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, part of my reason for being vague was seeing if any other companies fit the model.
> 
> Thanks for confirming it.




Heh, that's just from a gamer looking at products on shelves at least.  Seemed like pretty reasonable analogies of some maybe similar situations.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

Having not seen the license, I'm curious how this is enforcable.

Lizard (I think (and others)) posted something about just splitting/creating a new company to make GSL stuff and the "original" company to do 3E stuff. To be able to enforce this seems to imply that someone is going to be reviewing created material to say Allowed/Not Allowed under the GSL. Is this the case?


----------



## Psion

Another issue:
What does this mean for PDF product catalogs of companies that intend to support 4e? Those are also OGL. Even if they are sanitized of the D20 branding, unless there is some "grandfathering" clause, it seems like those will be removed as well if your company intends to publish under the GSL.


----------



## Ourph

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Heh. You got us on that one.    We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.



Linae, is there a possibility that 3PPs like Green Ronin, who have their own OGL-based gaming lines to support, could produce specific 4e products with a separate, private license which didn't include the no-OGL publishing clause on a case-by-case basis?  I realize that anything is possible, but what I'm trying to get at is, would the decision-makers in WotC's licensing department even consider something like that?


----------



## Orcus

Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. Its one thing to say "take off the d20 logo" its another thing to say "no more selling OGL products." That one is up in the air. It will depend on how that restriction reads.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Psion said:
			
		

> Another issue:
> What does this mean for PDF product catalogs of companies that intend to support 4e? Those are also OGL. Even if they are sanitized of the D20 branding, unless there is some "grandfathering" clause, it seems like those will be removed as well.




Wholesale annihilation of the vast majority of the back catalog of quality 3e materials falls under "Feature," not "Bug."


----------



## Urizen

Psion said:
			
		

> Another issue:
> What does this mean for PDF product catalogs of companies that intend to support 4e? Those are also OGL. Even if they are sanitized of the D20 branding, unless there is some "grandfathering" clause, it seems like those will be removed as well if your company intends to publish under the GSL.




Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I'm pretty sure that (AND I HOPE I"M WRONG), if you accept the terms of the GSL, you'll have to dump all your OGL stock.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Urizen said:
			
		

> Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I'm pretty sure that (AND I HOPE I"M WRONG), if you accept the terms of the GSL, you'll have to dump all your OGL stock.




I don't think you're wrong.

Adopting the GSL = (self inflicted) Revocation of the OGL.


----------



## Psion

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wholesale annihilation of the vast majority of the back catalog of quality 3e materials falls under "Feature," not "Bug."




You're Wizards in this scenario, right?

Cause otherwise, I'm scratching my head.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Psion said:
			
		

> You're Wizards in this scenario, right?




Yes, of course.

This is HARD BALL!


----------



## Urizen

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't think you're wrong.
> 
> Adopting the GSL = (self inflicted) Revocation of the OGL.




Hey, maybe they'll give us all cyanide pills with the gsl too, because that kills off almost every low-to medium sized 3PP out there, hell, even the big guys take a massive hit on that.


----------



## Dragon Snack

This annoys me to no end, but I'm surprised that people didn't see this coming.

While nobody outright said it, some freelancers have hinted at it in the past few months.  Most recently, Nick Logue's new company left 4.0 off the list of systems they would be supporting, which I thought was odd since he was one of the playtesters allowed to break his NDA with a positive review.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm going to guess the license will have a "No shenanigans" clause, and the right of WOTC to pull it from any publisher trying to do an 'end run' around the spirit of the rule via dual companies, third party fronts, other other means.



I would think that this is exactly what Linae meant when she said they had considered all "corner cases"...


----------



## Psion

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yes, of course.
> 
> This is HARD BALL!




Yup. That's what I was thinking... consistent with the other factors of the GSL.


----------



## Psion

Dragon Snack said:
			
		

> This annoys me to no end, but I'm surprised that people didn't see this coming.




Just upthread, people were demanding the doomsayers to fess up...



> While nobody outright said it, some freelancers have hinted at it in the past few months.




There was a thread on this exact possibility over on the OGF-D20-L forum, save that it was about the branding issues. The poison pill aspect is new, but the effect is the same for companies that choose to support 4e.


----------



## Urizen

WOTC: The company that will "convert or kill" every 3PP in the galaxy.

"Until 4th edition-verse come!"


----------



## Arrond Hess

Urizen said:
			
		

> WOTC: The company that will "convert or kill" every 3PP in the galaxy.
> 
> "Until 4th edition-verse come!"



Does that include keeping what you kill?


----------



## S'mon

This is strongly discouraging me from buying into 4e.  I like the OGL and being able to buy a variety of third-party publishers' works (plus the occasional WoTC one).  I think this may push me into sticking with C&C as my game of choice.


----------



## Orcus

I'm going to bed. I can't take it anymore.

I hate (yes, that is a strong word) that this issue is overshadowing the fact that 4E will be open. I am so bummed. I'm not saying it shouldnt overshadow it. It is a legitimate thing to discuss. I was just hoping to bask in the accomplishment of 4E being open. I believe it was a fight for it to even be open at all. And for that I thank Scott and Linae. I think we were perilously close to 4E being closed. Given that, any openness is wonderful. 

Maybe when I wake up Scott will post that this is all a big misunderstanding.  

I understand Wizards' business motives behind driving support to 4E, but I have to admit that Byron is right. The community would have been enriched by some companies like Paizo and GR and others who could easily have continued to support their own systems (based on the OGL) and also credibly support 4E with a seperate line.

That said, I'm going to sleep on it and then wait for the final license to see the terms and decide. While we know that publishers have to choose one or the other, we dont know the mechanism of enforcement and that may make a difference. 

But I still want to end the day (and the week) feeling good that 4E is open and that we will be able to support it. That, in and of itself, is a huge accomplishment. And, though it may not be on the terms that everyone would prefer, I still think Scott and Linae deserve our thanks, not our rotten tomatoes. 

Nighty night.

Clark


----------



## Urizen

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> Does that include keeping what you kill?




Hush!

They might write in a clause for that..


----------



## SSquirrel

EDIT:Before I get going, the snarky "is wotc going to add a clause of blah blah and keep me from doing X" is very annoying and childish.  Also Linae (hope I spelled that right it's late), I think reminding people that WoTC believes in 4E so strongly they aren't supporting any other edition is kind of disingenious.  Of course you are, it's your new core product!  

You have support for older versions in computers b/c not everyone upgrades OSes all at once, but you also have MS saying things like DX10 in Vista ONLY!  That is what I would think is the more accurate description of the GSL or OGL situation instead of the (I think Lizard's) post about Office/Open Office, at least it would be if MS said "BTW, if you release this game as DX10 on Vista, you can't release it on any older versions of Windows.  There are a few games that I believe are only found on Vista and no XP versions w/DX9 is found.

Ok, back to my original post 



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I'm pretty sure that (AND I HOPE I"M WRONG), if you accept the terms of the GSL, you'll have to dump all your OGL stock.




See that's where I'm at too, and I just reread the entire thread, plus similar threads on the WotC and Paizo boards that both point heartily to this one.  Here is how the key points of the thread have progressed:

quote]
In post #39 lurkinglidda said:
No. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.

Hope I don't come off as being snarky - I'm not trying to be mean or sound like I'm talking down or anything - I just want to make sure I'm communicating the message clearly![/quote]

Showing us that you can't have 2 versions of the same product supporting both at the same time.  I believe there was another clarification that pointed out that one book w/dual stats would not be eligible either.



> Then in post #51 Orcus said:
> 
> I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.
> 
> In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.
> 
> It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice. It is not "well, this product will be 4E using the GSL but the next one will be for 3E under the OGL."
> 
> In other words, Necro cant do 3 books for 4E then decide to go back and do a 3E book.
> 
> Or, along the same lines, if Paizo wants to do Pathfinder 3E, it cant do 4E products. If it does, it can no longer do 3E ones.
> 
> I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.
> 
> Once you are in for 4E, you are in, and cant go back (well, you could but you would presumably lose the right to use the GSL from that point forward).
> 
> I have to clarify if I will be able to do 3E stats as seperate downloads for 4E books. My guess is that I will not be allowed to do that under the GSL. But I havent asked that direct question.
> 
> By the way, this info was from Wizards. Unless I am misunderstanding what they told me or they didnt understand my question, this is how it will be.




This post lead to lots of howling and gnashing of teeth and Orcs storming the Fellowship...er, many angry posts 



> Scott_Rouse followed this up eventually in post #99 and said:
> 
> We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?
> 
> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?
> 
> It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.




This does not DIRECTLY (ie saying "Yes Clark was right in that post") confirm Clark's stance interpretation of the situation, but it certainly sounds like it could be correct.  We DO still have the chance that someone read something wrong or the phrasing was slightly wrong and we don't have the GSL (Red Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) or OGL (Blue Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) only.  Yes, I'm an eternal optimist.  

I would also say that allowing companies to either actively produce for a)3.x or b)4E, but still be allowed to sell any OGL material released prior to the GSL could be a good middle ground.
I would also suggest that in that scenario, a non-fantasy OGL product would be free of the OGL or GSL only clause, since games like Mutants & Masterminds are competing with HERO, GURPS Champions and Silver Age Sentinels (plus more) and something like Spycraft would be against more modern era games rather than D&D.

I just want to see more posts of bullet points saying what IS and IS NOT permissible if someone publishes games using the GSL.  Specifically the 4E D&D GSL.  It's possible that if someone produces non-fantasy games w/the also mentioned d20 GSL, they might not have the same restriction about supporting the OGL as well.  Who knows.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Psion said:
			
		

> Just upthread, people were demanding the doomsayers to fess up...



I took that as them chastizing the doomsayers for saying there would be no GSL.  It does seem like people have been caught off guard by this (and Orcus said as much).



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> There was a thread on this exact possibility over on the OGF-D20-L forum, save that it was about the branding issues. The poison pill aspect is new, but the effect is the same for companies that choose to support 4e.



That doesn't surprise me.  With all the different forums, something that may be old hat on one forum may come as a huge surprise elsewhere.


----------



## Urizen

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm going to bed. I can't take it anymore.
> 
> I hate (yes, that is a strong word) that this issue is overshadowing the fact that 4E will be open. I am so bummed. I'm not saying it shouldnt overshadow it. It is a legitimate thing to discuss. I was just hoping to bask in the accomplishment of 4E being open. I believe it was a fight for it to even be open at all. And for that I thank Scott and Linae. I think we were perilously close to 4E being closed. Given that, any openness is wonderful.
> 
> Maybe when I wake up Scott will post that this is all a big misunderstanding.
> 
> I understand Wizards' business motives behind driving support to 4E, but I have to admit that Byron is right. The community would have been enriched by some companies like Paizo and GR and others who could easily have continued to support their own systems (based on the OGL) and also credibly support 4E with a seperate line.
> 
> That said, I'm going to sleep on it and then wait for the final license to see the terms and decide. While we know that publishers have to choose one or the other, we dont know the mechanism of enforcement and that may make a difference.
> 
> But I still want to end the day (and the week) feeling good that 4E is open and that we will be able to support it. That, in and of itself, is a huge accomplishment. And, though it may not be on the terms that everyone would prefer, I still think Scott and Linae deserve our thanks, not our rotten tomatoes.
> 
> Nighty night.
> 
> Clark




You know, I'm quite sure they worked their combines asses off to keep 4th edition open. 

But, in my mind, it's not really all that "open"  to me if I have to throw away my entire stock and start fresh.

It's not a choice I can make and stay in this industry, so it's not really a choice at all. I've worked hard to build up a customer base, and commited to publishing solid, quality true20 products. I'm not just going to throw away all of that hard work to get involved with a new system, no matter how shiny it might be.

I was excited to hear that 4th edition would be "open," but now, it's like they're asking every publisher who has worked their tails off since the birth of the OGL to just drop it all and start over again.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe there WILL be a grandfather clause, who knows.

It's frustrating.


----------



## Nlogue

I know I'm just a new kid on the block, and don't count for much just yet, but this provision definitely saddens me as a publisher.

I developed Sinister Adventures to put all the BS of edition in the back seat and offer quality adventures for ALL systems (3.5, True 20, C&C, Pathfinder RPG, and yes...4E).  Now I find that if I want to support one of these, I can't support the others.  It definitely means I won't be supporting 4E in the near future as a lot of my customers have expressed how happy they are about the multi-system approach I'm using.  Bummer...I dig on a lot of what 4E offers, and I won't be able to bring it to my adventures under the All or Nothing Ultimatum GSL.  

Nick

P.S.  It should be expressed:  I'm not pissed at Wizards, just bummed about this.  Hopefully I'll get to freelance for them again sometime soon now that the GSL is figured out.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Those smilies are quite funny. Though 'more' leads to <fatal error (etc.)> in the popup , which goes when you  it of course (ouch.) Er, not so funny, perhaps.

Oh yeah, the GSL situation. Well, it's worse than I suspected it was going to be. Quite the feat, there.

WotC has certainly changed a lot in recent times, just going by the outward showings of their policies, AFAICS so far.

And not for the better, more's the pity.


----------



## Delta

I'll make an admission: I was hoping that WOTC would _not_ come up with third-party licensing for 4E. 

It was pretty clear from the way they were talking around the first of the year that they were trying to create some kind of "poison pill" to whack the prior OGL off the table. And that's exactly what they've done here. Since I personally don't like what I see in the radically different 4E game, I was very much hoping that wouldn't happen. 

But it has: here's WOTC bullying the market into giving up OGL products. Here's WOTC spokespersons on a Friday night calling critical posters "trolls", and rather snarkily asking "does that surprise you?" when people realize that they're intentionally trying to kill off all 3E-based product lines. Here's WOTC perfectly serene about wiping out some number of distinct OGL games as collateral damage.

4E may have a third-party license, but it certainly is not an "open game", according to the previously established definition: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html

Open Gaming is what brought me back to D&D with the 3rd Edition (after a decade away from the game). The "poison pill" attack on Open Gaming definitely marks the end of my last 8-year stint playing current D&D. So for me it's a bit sad.


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Wow...
> 
> I really don't know how to respond to that. That's more restrictive than I'd ever imagined the GSL would be. I'm amazed that's even legal, to put in a clause that your business must forsake the OGL entirely to use the GSL at all.




I suspect this term would be non enforceable within the EU; EU competition law is full of stuff about "the requirement of good faith in business dealings".  And the national courts of most EU nations are happy to strike down lopsided contract terms.  But it's probably enforceable within the USA.


----------



## Orcus

OK, I havent gone to bed yet. I have to step up and defend my girl Lidda. I dont think that trolls post was meant the way it came across. 

Clark


----------



## S'mon

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont have new 3E stuff on my mind at all. I am firmly 4E. I was just going to provide that as an accomodation to fans. Thats all.




Well, if you ever get around to releasing Tegel Manor I guess I'll run it with C&C, so 3e stats won't make much difference (I suspect).  I'm running 3e Caverns of Thracia with C&C right now.


----------



## Orcus

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> This does not DIRECTLY (ie saying "Yes Clark was right in that post") confirm Clark's stance interpretation of the situation, but it certainly sounds like it could be correct.  We DO still have the chance that someone read something wrong or the phrasing was slightly wrong and we don't have the GSL (Red Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) or OGL (Blue Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot) only.  Yes, I'm an eternal optimist.
> 
> I would also say that allowing companies to either actively produce for a)3.x or b)4E, but still be allowed to sell any OGL material released prior to the GSL could be a good middle ground.
> I would also suggest that in that scenario, a non-fantasy OGL product would be free of the OGL or GSL only clause, since games like Mutants & Masterminds are competing with HERO, GURPS Champions and Silver Age Sentinels (plus more) and something like Spycraft would be against more modern era games rather than D&D.
> 
> I just want to see more posts of bullet points saying what IS and IS NOT permissible if someone publishes games using the GSL.  Specifically the 4E D&D GSL.  It's possible that if someone produces non-fantasy games w/the also mentioned d20 GSL, they might not have the same restriction about supporting the OGL as well.  Who knows.




You are right. I, too, want this clarified. 

Perhaps I misunderstood Wizards when my question was answered earlier today. Or maybe they misunderstood my question.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Urg.

The more I think about this, the more I don't like it--or at least aspects of it.

Now, I still have no problem with WotC wording the license so that companies cannot support 3.5 and 4E at the same time. I know that fact would disappoint some people, but I stand by my assessment that it would be foolish of them to allow it. They want to drive people to the current version of the game, not to older ones, and I fully support them in that. In both cases, they're dealing with their game specifically.

_But..._

The notion that games such as M&M, C&C, or T20 have to be ditched along with it just doesn't make any sense. I cannot see any way in which such games viably compete with, or have any real impact on, 4E. And I agree with those who have said that the industry is richer for having them.

Does it really make any sense to keep Green Ronin out of 4E, just because of M&M? Does it make sense to keep Paizo out of 4E because of Pathfinder (assuming PF winds up being more than just 3.5 under a different name)? I can't see how it does.

Surely there must be some way to word the license to disallow 3.5-compatible material (which would, I imagine, be the primary intent anyway) but to still allow totally unrelated games that also happen to be published under the OGL.

Isn't there?


----------



## Nlogue

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that games such as M&M, C&C, or T20 have to be ditched along with it just doesn't make any sense. I cannot see any way in which such games viably compete with, or have any real impact on, 4E. And I agree with those who have said that the industry is richer for having them.
> 
> Does it really make any sense to keep Green Ronin out of 4E, just because of M&M? Does it make sense to keep Paizo out of 4E because of Pathfinder? I can't see how it does.
> 
> Surely there must be some way to word the license to disallow 3.5-compatible material (which would, I imagine, be the primary intent anyway) but to still allow totally unrelated games that also happen to be published under the OGL.
> 
> Isn't there?




Word.  

As a publisher focusing primarily on kickass, drop-em-in-anywhere adventures, I want to be able to offer my customers wicked (or in this case, sinsiter) adventures for ALL the good systems out there (including 4E).  This is a bummer.


----------



## Jack99

Edited: Was a stupid unnecessary post, after thinking about it.

Sorry.


----------



## Nlogue

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Lots of people here who want their cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes in English.
> 
> I don't understand how people can complain about this. WoTC is a business, and they have more money invested in 4e, than all the 3rd party publishers put together make in a year. (yeah, thats a guess, I am sure you get the point).
> 
> Do you really expect them to say, hey, come mooch off this awesome system we have made, use our (extremely recognizable) brand name, all while you still produce products that competes with us, not to mention, products based on something we made and allowed you to earn money off? Doesn't make any sense to me, if they allowed that.
> 
> Also, by saying it is either the OGL or the GSL, they will hopefully assure that those who go 4e, go there whole-heartedly and use all their resources on making great 4e products, for us, the consumers.
> 
> Anyway, just my 2cp
> 
> Cheers





Well...yeah.    

They did it a few years back...    

Okay...I just included that ranged smiley cause it looks pretty cool...it didn't mean anything.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Sadly this was what I was expecting and really hoping I was wrong about. Not the exact thing but something along the lines of this.

WotC is certainly in their right to do this and it might even be the best business choice for them. Short term it certainly will be i think, long term i have my doubts.

I am annoying and highly disappointed with WotC decision if this all turns out to be true and it seems to be at least.

While I agree it is WotC right to force companies to be with them or against them aka use the GSL and do 4e or stay with the OGL. It is attitudes like that, that I personal find annoying and refuse to support. So while it is their right, it is mine to let my feeling be known. 

Which is simply, if WotC does this, they will never see another penny from me as a customer. 4e could be the greatest game ever, but I will personally never know now.

Sleep well Clark, I hope you can still feel joy inspite of things anyways.


----------



## Delta

You know, one last thought before _I_ go to bed:

The publishers here may want to consider -- ever so briefly -- if it's a good idea to publicly discuss how they might end-run around the no-OGL restriction (i.e., via multiple business entities). It's possible that WOTC can pick up on that and again re-write the GSL to prevent those options. (Which is more or less exactly what's happened since January.)


----------



## Henry

Linae, do you remember the thanks I gave you for sticking with the fans, thick and thin? Keep remembering that thanks. We're an ungrateful lot. 


I don't think people are looking at the silver lining in this cloud: 

IF, and I stress IF, Orcus, Lidda, and The Rouse are in agreement with what the actual contract terms will be, then the people who want to keep playing 3E should be on Cloud Nine. The GSL ensures that Green Ronin WILL be a content creator of OGL-based products for a long time to come (at least as long as M&M and True20 keep being "staples" for the company); it almost ensures that Paizo will be joining them, assuming they continue to support Pathfinder through 2009 and further.

Therefore, two of the ten biggest OGL game companies on the block are STILL going to be using the OGL, and in a position to produce 3E-based content.

Heck, make that FOUR: If Monte continues to dabble occasionally in the RPG waters, he's darned sure not going to be jettisoning his entire back product line just to do a couple of books a year for fun. Then, there's Mongoose, who's doing unbelievably well by licensing everything under the sun; they MIGHT jettison their 3E stock, but that's a more iffy call than the first three. So, FOUR of the Big Boys of OGL are still going to be catering to your needs, near as I can tell.

There will still be a good many companies following 4E because it's a better game in town for them than the OGL has been; the increased compatibility from the new logo etc. will help them get noticed in the 4E community better by general D&D fans, and without Green Ronin or Paizo in the mix, they'll only have Necromancer and a few others to compete against, a much narrower field. Heck, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, et. al. had to start the same way, and build recognition through quality, it means there's a chance for others to rise in the same way.

So IF that's the correct way to interpret the GSL license, then I'd say it ensures that some of the topmost publishers will stay with 3E, not the other way around, and give it the support that its fans will need.


----------



## wickederror

In reference to Jack (and Nick's comment) this isn't a dumb question but you have to see how it's looked at.

The OGL is basically a contract that cannot be revoked...it's permanent and will be forever.  This may now be considered a mistake by the company, but it was done, and what's done is done.  In my opinion it made the gaming community flourish.

Now other companies made material based off of this OGL (which just to reiterate is a permanent contract and cannot be revoked).  The material made by these publishers is their property and it's property they have a right to sell, just like a house or a car.  WotC is basically telling them to be in business they must give up the right to sell their hard work and property and also expand on that property.

Given that analogy, I hope you can understand why it puts many of the publishers in a sticky situation.


----------



## Arrond Hess

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> Sadly this was what I was expecting and really hoping I was wrong about. Not the exact thing but something along the lines of this.
> 
> WotC is certainly in their right to do this and it might even be the best business choice for them. Short term it certainly will be i think, long term i have my doubts.
> 
> I am annoying and highly disappointed with WotC decision if this all turns out to be true and it seems to be at least.
> 
> While I agree it is WotC right to force companies to be with them or against them aka use the GSL and do 4e or stay with the OGL. It is attitudes like that, that I personal find annoying and refuse to support. So while it is their right, it is mine to let my feeling be known.
> 
> Which is simply, if WotC does this, they will never see another penny from me as a customer. 4e could be the greatest game ever, but I will personally never know now.
> 
> Sleep well Clark, I hope you can still feel joy inspite of things anyways.



Well said, and I agree completely.


----------



## SSquirrel

As Linae has mentioned previously, that would mean another 6 months of arguing heh.  I don't publish, I just play.  Speculation is the name of the game around here lately, esp when information is given out in incomplete and maybe poorly worded fashion.  These situations will remain until the bullet point Q&A post I requested above materializes from WotC


----------



## James Jacobs

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That being said, it does seem to be aimed rather directly at the heart of Paizo. Paizo simply can't go 4e at this point. This is a deadly serious judo throw to the Pathfinder announcement. Something's gonna die, now much sooner than later.




I'm not sure how this is a "judo throw" to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG. We weren't planning on supporting 4th edition with Pathfinder anyway... the whole POINT of Pathfinder RPG is to give us something of our own to build on. It looks like that means we won't be able to support 4th Edition at all, which is very disappointing, but it's certainly not anything like a death blow to Paizo. We're doing quite well as it is right now without any 4th edition support.

I also disagree about the "somethign's gonna die" part of this statement. I'll be the first to point out that the tabletop RPG industry is really really small... but it's not THAT small. It's been going for decades, and there's been plenty of games that have survived for those decades. I strongly suspect that there's room in the industry for OGL products like Pathfinder and M&M and Spycraft and the rest AND for D&D. Will D&D make the most money? Sure, but it HAS to make more money. Wizards of the Coast is larger than the next largest RPG company by ten times at least; their overhead requires a huge success, and I think that they've got a great R&D team over there and that 4th edition will absolutely give them that success.

A smaller company like Paizo doesn't need to be #1 in the industry to survive. Pathfinder's doing VERY well for us right now, and I'm really excited to see what we've got coming up for the next few years. I'm pretty sure that Paizo will make it through with Pathfinder into the next decade, as long as we can keep up with the frantic pace we've set for ourselves.

I wish WotC the best of luck with 4th edition. I'll certainly be buying the game when it comes out to try it out. I'm also confident that Paizo'll be okay as well. The only part of this whole thing that really depresses and disappoints me is that a lot of our customers who were looking forward to Paizo 4th edition support are probably going to have to make some pretty tough decisions. I wish they didn't have to be put into that position.


----------



## kalanijasmine

Im with you on this one Clark... While I am unhappy with the decision, I understand the reasons behind it and support those reasons. 

Wizards has made the best possible decision for their company, while still catering to third party publishers. As you yourself has said exhaustively on this thread - Wizards had no obligation to give us a 4th edition GSL at all, and given the time it has taken to draft up the revision, I believe you are 100% right that we came close to having the GSL pulled completely. 

With that being said, I have been an amature game designer for going on a decade, and have reverse engineered many gaming products from a variety of companies (Palladium, White Wolf, FASA, Wizards, TSR, etc) in order to determine what made their products successful; the hidden design philosophy/mechanics used in their products; and to determine the detracting factors to each game in the hope of avoiding them in my own product.

Within the last 4 months, I have made the decision to transition from amature designer, to professional game developer, and, while I felt supporting 3.X was an untennable option (due to my product line having too much competition from the sheer volume of third party material), with 4th edition I will have a more even footing with which to launch my company.

While I am in full support of the 4e engine, and believe it to be a very intuitive and graceful engine (based on pre-release information), I am concerned that if I publish 4th edition products under the GSL, the exclusive nature of the GSL will prevent me from publishing products under my own game system (which has been in development for 10 years) at a later date.

Failing that, I am concerned that, when I eventually launch my own game system (in 2 to 3 years time, in order to wait for 4th editions hype to stabilize) that publishing my own game engine will prohibit me from continuing my 4th edition product line, or from publishing new 4th edition content. 

Do you have any information in this regard, as I have made the decision to stop procastinating, and take my chances as a professional full-time author, but the restrictive nature of the GSL is making me cautious and uncertain as to what my options are.


----------



## Goobermunch

I'm sorry Delta, but half the time when I see BryonD posting about 4e, I wonder whether he's trolling.

BryonD has a provocative way of conveying his feelings via the written word that triggers a combative response from others.  And the prose he used was certainly . . . purple.



> this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community.




This kind of overwrought language can suggest that the author isn't interested in engaging in a discussion so much as he is interested in stirring up a fight.

That said, I know BryonD is sharing his true feelings about passionately-held beliefs.  Ergo, he's not a troll.

But I'd be inclined to cut Linnae some slack at the same time.  I suspect she and Scott fought hard over the past several months to convince corporate to even permit any kind of open gaming.  They've just fought an uphill battle and made a big announcement, and the beneficiaries of all that hard work are throwing it back in their faces.  I'd be a little punchy too.

--G


----------



## Cergorach

I've not read the entire discussion, but I have a question:

What would happen if company X has an IP, for which it makes things like novels, comics, setting encyclopedia, miniatures, etc. But it doesn't make an RPG, it is open to licensing it out for RPG companies to make RPGs of the IP. What would happen if for example Paizo made a 3E version and Necromancer made a 4E version under license?


----------



## Goobermunch

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> While I agree it is WotC right to force companies to be with them or against them aka use the GSL and do 4e or stay with the OGL. It is attitudes like that, that I personal find annoying and refuse to support. So while it is their right, it is mine to let my feeling be known.




I don't think it's a "yer either with us, er agin' us" deal.  I don't think that WotC views folks who choose to continue on under the OGL as against them.

But, I do think that they're looking to make sure they get the full support of those who wish to follow them into 4e.  Given the glut of crap that came out with 3e, I'm not surprised they're taking this route.  If you want to play in the new sandbox, you need to commit to it.

On an entirely unrelated note, did anyone else see that Le Rouse indicated that under the GSL, 3pps would be able to use both WotC's IP and their PI?

Does that mean we'll see mind-flayers and aboleths in 3rd party 4e books?

--G


----------



## Goobermunch

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> Im with you on this one Clark... While I am unhappy with the decision, I understand the reasons behind it and support those reasons.
> 
> Wizards has made the best possible decision for their company, while still catering to third party publishers. As you yourself has said exhaustively on this thread - Wizards had no obligation to give us a 4th edition GSL at all, and given the time it has taken to draft up the revision, I believe you are 100% right that we came close to having the GSL pulled completely.
> 
> With that being said, I have been an amature game designer for going on a decade, and have reverse engineered many gaming products from a variety of companies (Palladium, White Wolf, FASA, Wizards, TSR, etc) in order to determine what made their products successful; the hidden design philosophy/mechanics used in their products; and to determine the detracting factors to each game in the hope of avoiding them in my own product.
> 
> Within the last 4 months, I have made the decision to transition from amature designer, to professional game developer, and, while I felt supporting 3.X was an untennable option (due to my product line having too much competition from the sheer volume of third party material), with 4th edition I will have a more even footing with which to launch my company.
> 
> While I am in full support of the 4e engine, and believe it to be a very intuitive and graceful engine (based on pre-release information), I am concerned that if I publish 4th edition products under the GSL, the exclusive nature of the GSL will prevent me from publishing products under my own game system (which has been in development for 10 years) at a later date.
> 
> Failing that, I am concerned that, when I eventually launch my own game system (in 2 to 3 years time, in order to wait for 4th editions hype to stabilize) that publishing my own game engine will prohibit me from continuing my 4th edition product line, or from publishing new 4th edition content.
> 
> Do you have any information in this regard, as I have made the decision to stop procastinating, and take my chances as a professional full-time author, but the restrictive nature of the GSL is making me cautious and uncertain as to what my options are.




I don't have the new GSL yet, but I don't think you need to worry about your own system.  As long as the system you've designed is not based on the OGL, the "poison pill" provision of the GSL won't trigger.  From what we've read, the kill switch is publication under the OGL.

--G


----------



## wickederror

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> If you want to play in the new sandbox, you need to commit to it.
> 
> 
> --G




LOL

For some reason when you said this, I pictured an overly-enthusiastic father commanding his child during playtime....

Sorry for that

/threadjack


----------



## brianm

Henry said:
			
		

> The GSL ensures that Green Ronin WILL be a content creator of OGL-based products for a long time to come (at least as long as M&M and True20 keep being "staples" for the company); it almost ensures that Paizo will be joining them, assuming they continue to support Pathfinder through 2009 and further.
> 
> Therefore, two of the ten biggest OGL game companies on the block are STILL going to be using the OGL, and in a position to produce 3E-based content.




Which is why this doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

The big problems everyone grinched about with the OGL were that it created direct competition for D&D's core books and flooded the market with poor product.

By basically forcing Paizo, Green Ronin, Sinister Adventures, Adamant, etc. to focus on their OGL product, WotC appears to have created _more_, not less, competition for 4e.

In addition, outside of Necromancer Games and anyone else willing to jettison their OGL products, the publishers of third-party support materials for 4e are going to be neophytes, unused to the rigors of the printing process.  Without the experience to juggle editing, layout, art direction, and dealing with print runs, it's guaranteed that, once again, the majority of third-party support will be sub-par.  

That's certainly better than no GSL at all, but I really have to wonder at this apparent disconnect between strategy and goals.

- Brian


----------



## Dark Mistress

I meant the you are with us or against us in a none hostile way. Just saying they are requiring you either support 4e and nothing else or you can't support 4e.


----------



## Goobermunch

brianm said:
			
		

> Which is why this doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
> 
> The big problems everyone grinched about with the OGL were that it created direct competition for D&D's core books and flooded the market with poor product.
> 
> By basically forcing Paizo, Green Ronin, Sinister Adventures, Adamant, etc. to focus on their OGL product, WotC appears to have created _more_, not less, competition for 4e.
> 
> In addition, outside of Necromancer Games and anyone else willing to jettison their OGL products, the publishers of third-party support materials for 4e are going to be neophytes, unused to the rigors of the printing process.  Without the experience to juggle editing, layout, art direction, and dealing with print runs, it's guaranteed that, once again, the majority of third-party support will be sub-par.
> 
> That's certainly better than no GSL at all, but I really have to wonder at this apparent disconnect between strategy and goals.
> 
> - Brian



 But the difference here is that WotC isn't helping them cannibalize its business.  Unlike the OGL (and especially the SRD), the GSL is apparently designed to force players to purchase a copy of the PHB at the very least.

Admittedly, I think WotC's made a poor choice.  They've taken some of the most skilled players and kicked them out of the sandbox.  I wish there was a provision that would allow companies with separate game lines to continue to act as 3pps.  The Green Ronins and Paizos of the gaming world add value to 4e.

But maybe it's time for them to strike out on their own.

Another random thought.  Maybe I should start a studio to hire freelance designers.  We won't publish anything.  We'll just provide the skilled workers (operating under independent contractor agreements with the publishers) the 3pps need to create great product for whatever edition they're working on.

Just a thought.

--G


----------



## kalanijasmine

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I don't have the new GSL yet, but I don't think you need to worry about your own system.  As long as the system you've designed is not based on the OGL, the "poison pill" provision of the GSL won't trigger.  From what we've read, the kill switch is publication under the OGL.
> --G



Its not... For one thing, its a d12-based engine, and for another, its 80% skill driven. I went with a d12 system because of all the polyhedrons in my dice bag, its the one that is sorely under-utilized.

Your comment is somewhat comforting, but I would prefer to hear something from Clark or Linea on the issue, as my only intrepidation over supporting 4e is the possible damage it might do to my own game system, and I have spent too much effort and time on its development (10 years) to allow it to be compromised.  

Otherwise, I am 100% onboard, since over the last several years, I have published a variety of 3.5 material over on the wizards forums, having spent an average of 3-8 hours on a single class/race posting in most cases, in order to make certain it was to my exacting standards - even for a simple web-based post which I made purely for fun. 

Given the amount of effort I put into writing a simple forum post (even this post I have spent the better part of an hour editing and re-editing), I am very confident in my ability to put together a high quality product for 4e.

In fact, the biggest road-block I will be facing will be acquiring high quality artwork for my products. While I myself am a capable artist, I do not consider my art to be of the standard I would expect in a third party product. 

Even finding a publisher is a non-issue, as I already have a print-to-order publishing company lined up.....


----------



## olshanski

I frequent (and sometimes moderate) a forum that has a monthly D20 fantasy contest, often with prizes. http://www.dndarchive.com/phpbb/index.php

The other moderators at the forum tell me that the goal is to put together downloads of past winning entries and give them away for free. Presumably they'll have to be OGL compliant since they are all based on the 3.x SRD.

If that forum starts having contests with the 4.0 ruleset, it sounds like they might not be able to offer PDFs of the 4.0 winning entries? Does that sound correct?


----------



## Vigilance

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bryon, please dont bash on Scott. He has done way too much for us. I dont know for sure, but my guess is that the GSL was a battle. Just look at the time it took. And he got it done. He and Linae got us the ability to support 4E. Is it exactly like we want it. No. But for goodness sake we need to respect the man that accomplished what a few weeks ago I thought was impossible--4E can be supported by third parties. That is a huge accomplishment.




I agree that it's nice that it got done, but if it really is a company choice, this totally sucks for me.

I write for RPGObjects, and we have TONS of d20 Modern books that still sell, every day, to the tune of thousands of dollars a month.

I can't walk away from that, and it sucks that I have to even think about.

I'm not saying Wizards should necessarily care, but supporting 4e was a no brainer to me until about 5 minutes ago.


----------



## Tim Gray

I find it interesting that several pages have gone by without anyone from WotC explicitly confirming the whole-company idea. Perhaps they would like to do so?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

deleted


----------



## Zaister

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that several pages have gone by without anyone from WotC explicitly confirming the whole-company idea. Perhaps they would like to do so?



Maybe because it's a) the middle of the night and b) week-end where they live...


----------



## brianm

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> But the difference here is that WotC isn't helping them cannibalize its business.  Unlike the OGL (and especially the SRD), the GSL is apparently designed to force players to purchase a copy of the PHB at the very least.




Eh, I'm not convinced.  They could have not published a comprehensive SRD that could almost double for a PHB, require new 4e-compatible material work only if you have an official 4e PHB, and still let people straddle the 3e/4e fence.  



> Another random thought.  Maybe I should start a studio to hire freelance designers.  We won't publish anything.  We'll just provide the skilled workers (operating under independent contractor agreements with the publishers) the 3pps need to create great product for whatever edition they're working on.




That doesn't sound like a bad thought at all.  The challenge would be keeping your services affordable for the small-time publisher, but if enough of them signed on, it could be a nice little business for someone.

- Brian


----------



## brianm

olshanski said:
			
		

> If that forum starts having contests with the 4.0 ruleset, it sounds like they might not be able to offer PDFs of the 4.0 winning entries? Does that sound correct?




I think the answer is, wait for the SRD.  However, at the very least, you may have to stop offering 3.5 PDFs if you want to publish 4.0 PDFs.

Assuming we understand what's being said here.

Which, as has been pointed out many times, we might not.

And WotC doesn't change things again.

- Brian


----------



## evileeyore

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that several pages have gone by without anyone from WotC explicitly confirming the whole-company idea. Perhaps they would like to do so?



The whole company idea came out and Linae posted afterwards... granted she might have missed whole swathes of the conversation or just wanted to sleep on it to make a very clear post.




Personally, I hope this "3e or 4e company wide thing" is what they are doing.  Further I hope WotC crashes and burns for it.  (I dislike D&D)

TSR burned a lot of gamer trust and lost a lot of good will towards the end.  WotC regained it all and then some with the OGL (as much as I hate D&D, the OGL was a very spiffy thing).  Burning the bridge in this fashion and demanding the companies that are "supporting" them do so as well... it really stinks.

A more moderate approach, allowing dual support (just not dual support in the same product, ie no "RttToEE 4e" is fine, a bit of a head scratcher as "reworking old classics" is sort of a staple to the gaming biz) would mean those 3e companies and products that are done well would continue and those same companies that produce _quality_ goods would be able to support 4e.  Eventually either 3e would thrive in own market share and those good companies would make more and more 4e materials, or 3e woudl shrivel away and die as everyone found the new edition superior.

Forcing some of your stiffest D&D competition to _not_ support your shiny new wonder toy and thus _continue only supporting_ the old is really just stupid.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> No, not really, it says nothing relevant to this discussion.  Did anyone not expect that Wizards would discontinue 3e support and do only 4e?  No, of course not.  However, is that supposed to make us feel happy about every other game company being compelled to forgo open gaming entirely, 3.5e based or not?



Considering that the GSL only appears to forbid simultaneous use of the OGL, this idea is kinda crazy. I mean, sure, the OGL is the most commonly used open gaming license, but it's not the only open license out there that is applicable to gaming, nor is it the only open license under which RPGs have been published. There is also, for example, the Creative Commons license, which is much more open and not tied to any single corporate parent. It doesn't sound - correct me if I'm wrong - as if the GSL forbids the use of ANY open license for gaming, just the specific, Wizards of the Coast created OGL.

CC works just fine for most artistic endeavors. People do quite decent business publishing books, art, poetry, recordings under a CC license (I ought to know, I publish artwork under a Creative Commons license), so it's not like CC and OGL are mutually exclusive, or like CC is a kiss of death while OGL means that the game will succeed. And the GSL doesn't seem mention CC (it shouldn't, CC is not a license that WotC has legal control over, unlike the OGL), so you can publish all your non-D20 games under Creative Commons and your 4E stuff under D&D GSL. All it means is that the companies that want to do D&D 4E have to finish up their 3E lines and switch, which is the point of an edition change anyway. None of this halfass one-toe-in-the-water crap. The only companies that could conceivably be harmed are the ones with a heavy investment in 3E game mechanics who don't want to stop publishing 3E-compatible game materials.

One of my bugaboos with the OGL is the fact that a number of game publishers just slapped it and the d20 System onto their games without thinking, "Is this REALLY the best expression possible for my ideas?" This ended up producing a lot of games that are not very good - the d20 System is designed for adventure fantasy, not Generic Roleplaying. Yes, there are some great d20 based games out there - Spycraft for one - but there's also a LOT of dross in the market.


----------



## Piratecat

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that several pages have gone by without anyone from WotC explicitly confirming the whole-company idea. Perhaps they would like to do so?



Take a look at the time stamps. Also, I'd like to take a sec and thank everyone for keeping their tempers during this conversation. With a brief exception earlier in the thread, it's been thoughtful and reasoned. Sheesh - and people ask me why I love our members...

Legally, my suspicion is that if Green Ronin wants to publish 4e material, Pramas can create a second company that does so. It may have the same employees as GR, so long as its a second business entity. There are a lot of reasons that this might be a bad idea -- name recognition, establishing new distribution networks, duplicate costs, etc. -- but I'm not sure that anything in the GSL will prevent this. It does seem like a lot of expensive busywork, though.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Legally, my suspicion is that if Green Ronin wants to publish 4e material, Pramas can create a second company that does so. It may have the same employees as GR, so long as its a second business entity. There are a lot of reasons that this might be a bad idea -- name recognition, establishing new distribution networks, duplicate costs, etc. -- but I'm not sure that anything in the GSL will prevent this. It does seem like a lot of expensive busywork, though.



"Verdant Samurai" anyone?


----------



## Oldtimer

At least, now we seem to know what the mysterious "vetting our open gaming policy" quote meant.

It simply meant "how do we use our market muscle to kill open gaming as effectively as possible?" 

I really hope that more information from WotC will show that is not that bad. Please?


----------



## Rauol_Duke

Wow... I didn't expect this.  Certainly, this is a restriction that is not needed by WotC for 4E to be successful.  Please reconsider this part of the GSL.


----------



## DaveMage

Henry said:
			
		

> I don't think people are looking at the silver lining in this cloud:
> 
> IF, and I stress IF, Orcus, Lidda, and The Rouse are in agreement with what the actual contract terms will be, then the people who want to keep playing 3E should be on Cloud Nine. The GSL ensures that Green Ronin WILL be a content creator of OGL-based products for a long time to come (at least as long as M&M and True20 keep being "staples" for the company); it almost ensures that Paizo will be joining them, assuming they continue to support Pathfinder through 2009 and further.





Well said, Henry.

Pathfinder FTW!    

(New emoticons are fun!)


----------



## lurkinglidda

BryonD said:
			
		

> Nope. And accusations of trolling are frowned on here.



I publically apologize, BryonD. I posted before thinking. That wasn't cool of me.


----------



## Morrus

Hmmm... am I missing something?  I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from.  I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?


----------



## JohnRTroy

It wasn't posted by WoTC reps, but they answered.  Orcus posted what he knew based on talks to and from WoTC...I think, anyway...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Morrus said:
			
		

> Hmmm... am I missing something?  I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from.  I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?




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

And here:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172946&postcount=52

And while there have been multiple requests for clarification and multiple posts downthread from both Scott and Linae since Clark broke the news, no direct confirmation, but also no attempt to disabuse anyone of the new news. We have this (fairly good confirmation) from The Rouse:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99


----------



## Oldtimer

Morrus said:
			
		

> Hmmm... am I missing something?  I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from.  I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?



The debate was based on this post by Clark which Clark said was based on info from WotC.

Both Linae and Scott have posted after that, but not contradicted it nor confirmed it, I think.

I wish they soon will - one way or the other.

EDIT: Arrg, ninjaed by Wulf.


----------



## Morrus

Gotcha - thanks, guys.  I was just searching the thread for WotC's posts, so didn't see Clark's.


----------



## Lizard

Based on some of the other comments, I am going to take the unusually hopeful stance of saying this means:

a)A company can publish both OGL and GSL products.
b)A company cannot have OGL and GSL versions of *the same product*.

So I can publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 3.5. I can publish another book called "Monsters Beginning With B" for 4.0. What I *cannot* do is publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 4.0 *unless* I cease selling the 3.5 version. If I don't make a 4e version of "Monsters Beginning With 'A'", though, I can sell both books for as long as I wish.

At least, that's my current interpretation.

It meets WOTCs goals by using quality product to drive 4e sales -- if someone really wants the content of "Monsters Beginning With A" and is system-neutral, it serves WOTC's interests to force me to release it 4e only, instead of allowing people to stick with 3.5 longer by having the same product available for both systems. It also means I can't "downgrade" a high-selling 4e product to 3x to pick up on "retro" or "grognard" sales. ("Wanted 'Monsters Beginning With B' but hate 4e? You can now get it for 3x! Don't switch!")

A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

Linnae said this:



> No. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:
> 
> Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.
> 
> 3.x or 4E
> 
> Not both.
> 
> One or t'other.
> 
> By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, *different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.*



(emphasis mine)


----------



## Nellisir

Lizard said:
			
		

> Based on some of the other comments, I am going to take the unusually hopeful stance of saying this means:
> 
> a)A company can publish both OGL and GSL products.
> b)A company cannot have OGL and GSL versions of *the same product*.
> 
> So I can publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 3.5. I can publish another book called "Monsters Beginning With B" for 4.0. What I *cannot* do is publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 4.0 *unless* I cease selling the 3.5 version. If I don't make a 4e version of "Monsters Beginning With 'A'", though, I can sell both books for as long as I wish.
> 
> At least, that's my current interpretation.
> 
> It meets WOTCs goals by using quality product to drive 4e sales -- if someone really wants the content of "Monsters Beginning With A" and is system-neutral, it serves WOTC's interests to force me to release it 4e only, instead of allowing people to stick with 3.5 longer by having the same product available for both systems. It also means I can't "downgrade" a high-selling 4e product to 3x to pick up on "retro" or "grognard" sales. ("Wanted 'Monsters Beginning With B' but hate 4e? You can now get it for 3x! Don't switch!")
> 
> A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.



I'm hoping that's what they mean - I can understand wanting products upgraded to 4e.  It might even allow people to translate OGC content (not their own) to the GSL.  The nuclear option that Clark mentioned would indeed be stunningly stupid.


----------



## Lizard

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Linnae said this:
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine)




Assuming the correction is not corrected, this seems as fair and reasonable as one could hope, given the circumstances.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Lizard said:
			
		

> A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.




I know, Lizard, I have to agree with you here.

But based on Scott's foray into the thread, I don't think that interpretation is correct. I think getting the major players to abandon the OGL voluntarily is as close as they are going to get to revoking it.

There was never any language in the OGL itself to "drive the sales of the core books" (that job fell to the d20STL) but there was always an understanding, a larger philosophy if you will, that having everyone playing _the same basic d20 system_ was a net gain for WotC.

If Scott's opinion is indicative of WotC at large, and they believe that 4e is divergent enough from 3e that it's no longer even "the same system," then the OGL doesn't even meet that criteria-- and that's even in a best case scenario that assumes there was even any adherents of the OGL Philosophy (as distinct from the STL philosophy) left in the building.

I understand WotC's position on this. The OGL doesn't serve their 4e interests. That's not necessarily malicious, but neither is the lion particularly malicious when he eats the gazelle. 

When I watch nature shows, I usually root for the predator.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

Lizard said:
			
		

> Assuming the correction is not corrected, this seems as fair and reasonable as one could hope, given the circumstances.



Scott's been about as clear as mud (sorry dude). Linnae's statement, on the other hand, is as clear and unequivocal as you can possibly hope to get.


----------



## Nellisir

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Scott's been about as clear as mud (sorry dude). Linnae's statement, on the other hand, is as clear and unequivocal as you can possibly hope to get.




I dunno, I think this is, if not transparent, clearly not a "product-by-product" stance either:


			
				Rouse said:
			
		

> It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license



linky


----------



## Psion

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Linnae said this:
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine)




You understand, that statement would be perfectly true if Clark's take is correct as well, right?

Although I'm certain there is a lot we don't know, I don't think Linnae would have said _"We totally recognize that this mutual exclusivity will keep some publishers from joining us in 4E. That's a business decision they need to make, and we respect that."_ if it was merely on a product by product basis. Your reading wouldn't keep anyone from supporting 4e albeit with entirely different products. Scott's post after Clark's take didn't do anything to refute the notion.

I'd love to be wrong, though.


----------



## Tim Gray

All of which is why I asked if someone from WotC was able to confirm the whole company thing.


(And posters who replied "look at the timestamps" etc might wish to note that I didn't say "right now".)


----------



## SavageRobby

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who actually thinks it through should be mad at WotC. This is, frankly, a smart move. They're already letting other companies use their IP and property; why should they do that _and_ still have those companies driving sales/customers to a system that no longer supports WotC itself?
> 
> I'm not at all surprised by this restriction.





Funny, I think anyone who actually critically thinks it through _should_ be upset with WotC. It might be smart, but I see it as unethical and heavy handed. (It'd be like Microsoft telling people they could either publish software for Vista or for XP, but not both.) 

That said, I'm not at all surprised by the restriction either. Nor by the shillsfolks defending it.


----------



## Firevalkyrie

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I dunno, I think this is, if not transparent, clearly not a "product-by-product" stance either:
> 
> linky



That statement does not logically exclude producing both 3.x and 4E product.

It says, "If you can sustain yourself totally on 3.x product, great, more power to you. Otherwise the 4E license is over here."


----------



## Pinotage

I've posted this question in the news item regarding the GSL, but I think it might actually be answered here.

Can you update existing OGL to the GSL? It seems that if you can't have a OGL and GSL product under the same license, then you can't do this without withdrawing the OGL product. But, since it's an OGL product, other product may have used the OGC. So you can't fully withdraw the OGL product, and hence you'll awlays violate the 'can't have 3e and 4e' part of the GSL. By the looks of it, fantastic OGL can't be re-released as GSL. I really hope I'm wrong.

Pinotage


----------



## Charwoman Gene

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> (It'd be like Microsoft telling people they could either publish software for Vista or for XP, but not both.)




It'd be like MS requiring you to not be part of their "MS Vista Approved" program if you kept pushing your old XP software.  Perfectly valid.  I could publish a supplement for 4e without using the GSL.  It'd just be tricky.  You want to use the free easy way out they give you, gotta play by the rules.


----------



## defendi

They say that you can update to the GSL in the initial announcement.  I suspect that other people using your OGC doesn't effect it.  I can give someone permission to quote a novel or short story I've written, then pull that product out of print and the third party quoting me doesn't effect matters one way or another.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Can you update existing OGL to the GSL?




The license isn't released so this is all speculative.

I'd say ceasing distribution and not opening the IP up more than it already has been would be sufficient.


----------



## Umbran

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> That said, I'm not at all surprised by the restriction either. Nor by the shillsfolks defending it.





*SavageRobby*, if you want to engage in namecalling childishness, do it on some other messageboard.  Don't post in this thread again.

Folks, I understand that policy changes may leave many people upset.  But let me be clear - _it is not acceptable for you to take your frustration out on people here_.  No matter what WotC does, we expect you to be civil and respectful to other posters on EN World.  

If you don't feel you can live up to that expectation, you should hold off posting until you can.  Go take a walk in the spring sunshine, or something, and come back when your head is cool.


----------



## Flynn

I would like to ask a point of clarification from WOTC:

In these discussions, is the limitation regarding the cessation of OGL publications apply to all OGL products (including those that are not based on the WOTC SRD such as Runequest or Traveller), or does this only apply to OGL products that are based on the WOTC SRD or MSRD?

While I hope it is restricted to only D20 SRD-derived products, as identified within a properly completed Section 15, I fear that this limitation may apply to non-SRD-derived gaming systems as well.

It is important to me as a small-time publisher to clarify that limitation, as I was intent on supporting Traveller OGL as well as the GSL, and now I feel that I may not be able to do so, simply because Traveller, with its non-D20 gaming system, will be released under the same license as the D20 SRD.

Scott and Lidda, I look forward to your response with anticipation.

With Regards,
Jason "Flynn" Kemp


----------



## Stilvan

Seems like this couldn't be better news for _new_ publishers without any existing interest in 3e/OGL.  With the major 3pps left to choose between being gelded    by the GSL and opting out of 4e entirely, it looks like the playing field will be leveled dramatically.

As to how this benefits the consumer in any way...


----------



## Delta

Here's a question, based on the Microsoft analogy. 

In 1994 Microsoft was charged by the US with violations of the Sherman Act. A key part of that charge was anticompetitive licensing terms forced onto third-party computer manufacturers. Such as this part of the official complaint ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm ).



> 20. Because of Microsoft's monopoly position in the marketplace, OEMs believe that they must offer MS-DOS and Windows to their customers. Profit margins in the computer hardware industry are very thin and OEMs want to obtain MS-DOS and Windows at the lowest possible cost. *Microsoft has induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" contracts for MS-DOS and Windows, even though many would prefer to preserve their freedom to offer PCs with non-Microsoft operating systems*.




With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?


----------



## Alzrius

The part that makes me sad about this is that ultimately it's the customers who lose, along with the companies. 

Prior to this announcement, I was lukewarm towards 4E. However, with the news that Necromancer Games was going to release a 3.5 PDF adaptation to their 4E _Advanced Player's Guide_, I counted myself likely to purchase a copy of the APG so I could use that 3.5 version with it (assuming said PDF would require a copy of the book to be useful).

If that can't happen now, however, then I won't be purchasing the APG because Necromancer won't be allowed to have a 3.5 version out there. Necromancer has lost a sale, and I've lost out on a product I wanted. How, exactly, is this a win for WotC then?


----------



## Cergorach

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I understand WotC's position on this. The OGL doesn't serve their 4e interests. That's not necessarily malicious, but neither is the lion particularly malicious when he eats the gazelle.
> 
> When I watch nature shows, I usually root for the predator.



The Lion needs to eat, or it will starve and die. It's not as if WotC was starving when it released the SRD under the OGL. WotC won't starve now if it released 4E under a GSL (or better yet under the OGL) that doesn't enforce draconian limitations.

When the Lions kills the Gazelle just because it can, it is malicious. WotC might have a 'reason' to _possibly_ sell those few extra 4E PHBs, so it might not technically be malice, but we can call it extremely self-absorbed, and with very little regard to others.

WotC is effectively saying (if what Lidda hinted at is true) that if your a Publisher. "Your either with us or against us." For a game company that is so dependant on a strong player community, that is a very... Unique... Stance to take. While I can understand that when WotC moves to 4E, they don't make a cent from the folks that will forever continue to play 3E. There are still a lot of folks that are still undecided on what they want, forcing them to make a choice (by forcing thehand of the publishers they buy from) is going to get ugly. Imagine how fans of GR will react when there's no 4E version of Freeport and GR responds with "Sorry can't make no 4E material without abandoning our T20 or Mutants and Masterminds fans.". The same goes for other companies, Paizo can't test the 4E waters in a year or two, they'll have to jump in all the way. A lot of companies are not going to blindly jump after Orcus into the fiery pit called 4E ;-)

I'm also very curious if this part of the license will hold up in court either in the US or in Europe (where WotC also has offices). Around here something like that would be labled as "unfair competition". While limiting a license within a 'product', limiting a license within a whole company would be impossible to enforce and probably be declared invalid. Imagine MS putting in their license that if your company accepts the license of Windows Vista, then they would never be allowed to use Windows XP within their company, and then stop selling/supporting WinXP (as every new PC would come with Windows Vista). That would probably make a lot of business sense, but I'm pretty sure that would not hold up in court.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Delta said:
			
		

> With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act?




Not remotely.



> Can someone explain how it would be different?




Honestly, is that really necessary? 

Well, for starters, WotC doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a monopoly position. For goodness sakes.

Easy on the hyperbole, please.

EDIT: Ooooh. Or did you mean that Hasbro owns _Monopoly_?


----------



## defendi

WotC isn't a Monopoly.  The Microsoft complaint was based on the fact that they were a monopoly, and so the other companies had no other choice.  Wizards isn't a monopoly.  You can walk away and do your own game at any time, and be very successful at it.  In fact, I THINK the reason Microsoft won that case is that they declared Microsoft wasn't a monopoly (the case went up so many times I'm not positive on that one).  Since WotC isn't a monopoly, you aren't forced.


----------



## S'mon

Delta said:
			
		

> With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?




If WoTC said "You can't publish any games except our stuff" (eg, no OGL Traveller if you publish D&D material) in the GSL, that would raise anti-trust issues.  If the GSL only says "You can't use our IP under the OGL" - ie no 3e material - I think that'd be ok under US law, though the term would likely be unenforcable in some jurisdictions, eg Germany.


----------



## Scipio202

Delta said:
			
		

> With the GSL, is WOTC opening themselves to the possibility of a similar charge under the Sherman Act? Can someone explain how it would be different?




Well, WOTC itself, and the RPG market as a whole are much smaller.  WOTC doesn't have the monopoly power that Microsoft has.  Plus, RPG systems are much more stand-alone, and complementary products like campaign worlds and adventures can be made system-neutral in a way that doesn't analogize to computers.

Plus the closest analogy to the big 3PPs is more like Apple or a Linux distributer, rather than an OEM, since they are producing potentially competing base systems.  Companies who compete on some products but want to establish a joint venture in other areas often set parameters for the scope of their activities.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

I am reminded of an ancient proverb. 

If one wishes to keep sand, you don't hold it with a fist, you cup with your palm.

ps: 4e has been a wild roller coaster ride... and i think I'm going to be sick...


----------



## kalanijasmine

That is an interesting question, although I am fairly certain that Hasbro legal is fully aware of their rights under the Sherman Act (I could be wrong however).

In respect to the Microsoft Case, Microsoft was in violation of the Sharman Act because OEMs were forced to purchase new licences for DOS/Windows for each hardware product they released, and for the fact that said hardware is not a derivitive product of either DOS or Windows.

In order to show clearly why Microsoft was in breach of the Sherman Act, I will use the following analogue.

Lets say I create a product, we will call it Peanut Butter, and (for purposes of this example), lets say I hold the legal copyright for all peanut butter products. For the purposes of this analogy, peanut butter is a direct analogue to Windows.

Another company makes bread for a living. Again, bread is a direct analogue to the personal computer for the purposes of this analogy.

Now, Bread just isnt the same dry as it is with Peanut butter, and many of bread-makers consumers prefer to eat their bread with peanut butter over another similar product (eg: Strawberry Jam, which could be analogue to Apple or Linux). 

If I decided to create a limited licence for peanut butter, which forced bread-making companies to purchase a new peanut butter licence for each version of "Bread" that they produce (flax-seed, whole wheat, white, multi-grain, etc), I would be in clear violation of the Sherman act in the same way that Microsoft was, because the creation of Flax-Seed or Multi-Grain Bread is in no way a byproduct of peanut butter.

The key distinction here is the fact that all products using the OGL are considered _derivitive works_,  simply by virtue of having used the licence. They are not considered stand-alone products in the same way that a PC is a stand-alone product from an OS.

PCs can just as easily run Linux/Unix as they can run Windows or DOS. Therefore, how can a PC be considered a derivitive of Windows or DOS? More to the point, Windows, DOS and all other Operating Systems are derivative of Machine Language, and Binary.

If Microsoft had designed Machine Language or Binary, then they would have had the legal right to place limitations on every product which was a derivitive of machine language/binary, but not on hardware itself. Microsoft was in breach because they were placing sanctions on hardware, and as a result, were placing sanctions on products which had no direct relationship to Windows/DOS other than by virtue of those two OSs being the most popular, and therefore wide-spread.




Im no lawyer, but thats how I interpret the Sharman Act in this situation.


----------



## S'mon

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, for starters, WotC doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a monopoly position. For goodness sakes.




WoTC certainly have market dominance within the RPG industry; enough that in various EU jurisdictions (and before the European Commission) they'd be vulnerable to Unfair Competition investigation.  Most EU nations don't have the strong freedom of contract presumptions of US law; a German lawyer pointed out to me that in German law schools they don't teach 'Contract Law', they teach 'Contract Regulation'.


----------



## mxyzplk

Oh, I agree.  The sad thing is people that decided to pick up the OGL "in good faith" as a true industry standard effort and produce open games without any relation to d20 at all, just using the OGL as a CC-like open license (Spirit of the Century, Action!, etc.)  Of course their quick fix is to "rip and replace" OGL with CC to avoid the poison pill, but then there's no guarantee that WotC won't say "Oh yeah?  Well NO other license then!"



			
				Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Considering that the GSL only appears to forbid simultaneous use of the OGL, this idea is kinda crazy. I mean, sure, the OGL is the most commonly used open gaming license, but it's not the only open license out there that is applicable to gaming, nor is it the only open license under which RPGs have been published. There is also, for example, the Creative Commons license, which is much more open and not tied to any single corporate parent. It doesn't sound - correct me if I'm wrong - as if the GSL forbids the use of ANY open license for gaming, just the specific, Wizards of the Coast created OGL.
> 
> CC works just fine for most artistic endeavors. People do quite decent business publishing books, art, poetry, recordings under a CC license (I ought to know, I publish artwork under a Creative Commons license), so it's not like CC and OGL are mutually exclusive, or like CC is a kiss of death while OGL means that the game will succeed. And the GSL doesn't seem mention CC (it shouldn't, CC is not a license that WotC has legal control over, unlike the OGL), so you can publish all your non-D20 games under Creative Commons and your 4E stuff under D&D GSL. All it means is that the companies that want to do D&D 4E have to finish up their 3E lines and switch, which is the point of an edition change anyway. None of this halfass one-toe-in-the-water crap. The only companies that could conceivably be harmed are the ones with a heavy investment in 3E game mechanics who don't want to stop publishing 3E-compatible game materials.
> 
> One of my bugaboos with the OGL is the fact that a number of game publishers just slapped it and the d20 System onto their games without thinking, "Is this REALLY the best expression possible for my ideas?" This ended up producing a lot of games that are not very good - the d20 System is designed for adventure fantasy, not Generic Roleplaying. Yes, there are some great d20 based games out there - Spycraft for one - but there's also a LOT of dross in the market.


----------



## S'mon

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> The key distinction here is the fact that all products using the OGL are considered _derivitive works_,  simply by virtue of having used the licence. They are not considered stand-alone products in the same way that a PC is a stand-alone product from an OS.




They may be derivative, but they are rarely just that (except maybe for 'Pocket Players' Handbook' type stuff that just repackages the SRD).  Most OGL products are original creations in their own right, combining both WoTC licensed IP and original IP.  A court isn't likely to hold that the creators of eg Mutants & Masterminds have no rights in their work just because they legally used some WoTC licensed IP in its creation.  

That said, I think under US law (not EU laws) anti-trust issues won't arise unless WoTC were to try to prevent 4e GSL licensees from publishing non-OGL games (eg BRP Call of Cthulu, Savage Worlds etc), which does not appear to be WotC's intent.  It could get very nasty in the EU though.


----------



## mxyzplk

S'mon said:
			
		

> WoTC certainly have market dominance within the RPG industry; enough that in various EU jurisdictions (and before the European Commission) they'd be vulnerable to Unfair Competition investigation.  Most EU nations don't have the strong freedom of contract presumptions of US law; a German lawyer pointed out to me that in German law schools they don't teach 'Contract Law', they teach 'Contract Regulation'.




That's a good point, the EU laws are a lot more severe about stuff like this and WotC/Hasbro operates there.  Maybe a European with more money than sense will take them to task there


----------



## mxyzplk

defendi said:
			
		

> WotC isn't a Monopoly.  The Microsoft complaint was based on the fact that they were a monopoly, and so the other companies had no other choice.  Wizards isn't a monopoly.  You can walk away and do your own game at any time, and be very successful at it.  In fact, I THINK the reason Microsoft won that case is that they declared Microsoft wasn't a monopoly (the case went up so many times I'm not positive on that one).  Since WotC isn't a monopoly, you aren't forced.




WotC has a stronger monopoly position in the RPG industry than Microsoft has in the desktop software position, in terms of pretty much any metric (number of competing companies, installation base percentages, revenue percentage of overall pie."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> That's a good point, the EU laws are a lot more severe about stuff like this and WotC/Hasbro operates there.  Maybe a European with more money than sense will take them to task there




Yeah.

We're talking a 99/1 split, at least. Maybe 100/0.


----------



## mxyzplk

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how this is a "judo throw" to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG. We weren't planning on supporting 4th edition with Pathfinder anyway... the whole POINT of Pathfinder RPG is to give us something of our own to build on. It looks like that means we won't be able to support 4th Edition at all, which is very disappointing, but it's certainly not anything like a death blow to Paizo. We're doing quite well as it is right now without any 4th edition support.




Sure, it's not harmful to Pathfinder per se, it's less of a judo throw more of a "spiteful slap in the face" saying "Oh yeah, then you can't support 4e too."


----------



## SSquirrel

Morrus said:
			
		

> Gotcha - thanks, guys.  I was just searching the thread for WotC's posts, so didn't see Clark's.




I had summed the shifts in the thread nicely in #163


----------



## Psion

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I had summed the shifts in the thread nicely in #163




Yeah, but you have a malformed quote tag. Can't have that.


----------



## BadMojo

Cergorach said:
			
		

> The Lion needs to eat, or it will starve and die. It's not as if WotC was starving when it released the SRD under the OGL. WotC won't starve now if it released 4E under a GSL (or better yet under the OGL) that doesn't enforce draconian limitations.




If WotC is the lion and the third party companies are the gazelle, does that mean the consumers are the mice that get stepped on while the lion eats?

As someone who loves D&D and RPG's in general, I can't recall the last time I've been this disappointed (with the GSL, 4E itself, communication between Wizards and its fans).  I'm sure most people will just buy 4E no matter what happens and won't even notice any of the GSL related stuff, so my opinion is probably so much in the minority that it's entirely worthless.


----------



## Grogtard

First excuse me because  I'm still waking up so I may ramble a bit.
I think that this is good business decision by WOTC but it doesn't mean I have to like it and has kept me on the 4E fence.  I can understand their decision to entice publishers away from 3.x material. 
I'm sure that there was no malice intended by Scott and crew but hasn't everyone at some time in their life has done or said something that upset someone without intending to do so.  So I hope they can understand some of the disgruntlement amongst the community.
It's just my opinion but I'm sure the "vetting" and debates at WOTC weren't centered on non-d20 OGL systems.  I'm no lawyer by any means but I think that the WOTC's d20 OGL and the other non-d20 OGL's would be considered separate licenses.  I don't think that there has been any clarification if publishers can product the products with GSL content and non-OGL content (such as with licensed systems or non-d20 OGC).  I have no idea what the exact terms of the GSL if it does contain conditions that say you can only publish products under this license and no other then it does strike me as something very bad for the RPG community as  a whole. It's not only an attempt to push aside 3.x material but also non-d20 material as well.  Yeah, it's a good business decision in a traditional sense but let's face it the RPG industry isn't like most other industries.  
We RPG consumers are much more community based, strongly opinionated, quick to anger and vocal about about what the producers of content do than most other industries.  We take the content that publishers offer us and make it our own by adding our own unique twists  and then offer it up to our friends to enjoy.  We become emotionally attached to the worlds, characters and games.  While publishers invest a lot of time and money into producing a product.  We too feel that we invest a lot of time and money as well by buying their products then molding them into our own unique creations.  So I hope we can all understand why so many folks get so emotional over each and every announcement.
The only silver lining I can find in this, is that it might encourage some of the many talented game designers out there to design new and refreshing game systems.   While D&D is the big dog of the RPG industry, it literally doesn't have to be the only game in town. 
Lastly, we're not even sure what kind of products will be allowed under the GSL.  Will it just be adventures or campaign worlds?  Will it allow for additional classes, races, monsters or crunchy bits?  
Have to go now,  the coffee is calling.  So please forgive the rambling


----------



## mxyzplk

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> Its not... For one thing, its a d12-based engine, and for another, its 80% skill driven. I went with a d12 system because of all the polyhedrons in my dice bag, its the one that is sorely under-utilized.




Here's the conceptual problem with the GSL that means you do have to worry.  As the current policy is being explained by Scott/Linae, the only thing prohibited for 4e licensees (GSL) is producing OGL games.  But the GSL isn't an open license and they may change the terms at will.  So with this licensing scheme, you have to understand you are taking a business risk.  Wizards, at any time, can decide, for example "In fact, we don't want people producing 4e material to be producing *anything* else!  We have confidence in 4e and are only supporting it ourselves you know!"  At that point they could insist that you stop selling/developing your 4e product or stop selling/developing your other game.  And I don't think anyone can say with a straight face this isn't a real risk, since they're already using this approach as a tactic.

Personally, I'm not sure the GSL is a tenable position for anyone who wants to do anything other than be a pure-play 4e support machine.


----------



## kalanijasmine

True, however I do not feel that they are in violation of the Sharman Act. Microsoft was in violation for the reasons I pointed out in my Peanut Butter / bread analogy... 

About the best parallel I can draw between the OGL/GSL and my peanut butter analogy would be to say that - 

Wizards of the coast holds the copyrights for all peanut butter products. 

The OGL allows producers to use *smooth* peanut butter in their own products, regardless of whether that product is a different brand of smooth peanut butter (Pathfinder), peanut butter chocolate (campaign settings, adventure paths, etc), or Asian Cooking (M&M, Spycraft, etc).

The GSL allows producers a limited licence to use *crunchy* peanut butter in their own products, on the provision that they a) use their brand of crunchy peanut butter (core product) exclusively, they b) stop using "smooth" peanut butter products, and c) they make no attempt to create new products which use crunchy peanut butter in such a way that it is almost indistinguishable as having used the product.

IOWs, the GSL prevents companies from making Asian meals using crunchy peanut butter, because it is almost indistinguishable as being a peanut butter product.

I guess that is the best analog I can come up with... As you can see, unlike in my former analogy, where the Peanutbutter company was putting sanctions on the bread maker, in this case the peanutbutter company (eg: Wizards) is putting sanctions on peanut-butter products.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Urizen said:
			
		

> Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I'm pretty sure that (AND I HOPE I"M WRONG), if you accept the terms of the GSL, you'll have to dump all your OGL stock.




That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.


----------



## SSquirrel

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you have a malformed quote tag. Can't have that.




heh I was just putting it all together in notepad and dint' bother w/exact quote tags.  I had originally just listed Rouse #99, then cut n pasted his post underneath.  Function over form


----------



## BryonD

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.



So you can sell stuff you have already made, you just must stop making new stuff (including new copies of stuff you already made) and anything with the D20 STL must be scrapped by Jan 1, 2009, though new unmarked copies could be produced (assuming you are not in the GSL).

Is that correct?


----------



## Ghostwind

Scott-

Looking for clarification if you can, are you saying that the new license will allow you to continue to sell previous OGL products if you utilize the GSL for 4e but not let you produce _new_ OGL products?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> Scott-
> 
> Looking for clarification if you can, are you saying that the new license will allow you to continue to sell previous OGL products if you utilize the GSL for 4e but not let you produce _new_ OGL products?




It's sounds like he's saying that's how it would work if he was the one making the decision-- but he's admitting he's not. It's just his "personal perspective." 

(A much appreciated personal perspective, I might add.)


----------



## tomBitonti

Let me know if I am understanding this correctly:

As a company, I could produce and sell OGC products, and provided that I satisfied the terms of the OGC, I would be safe from a lawsuit.

As a company, I can produce and sell a 4E GSL product, and provided that I satisfy the terms of the GSL, I would be safe from a lawsuit.

Here "being granted a license" is equated to "have a near absolute defense from a lawsuit".

One of the terms of the GSL license is that "no OGL version of that product may be sold".  If I sell both OGC and GSL products, I am violating the terms of the GSL license.  That is to say, since 4E uses the GSL and 35E uses the OGC, my sale of the 4E product violates the license.

---


----------



## Scipio202

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.




Hi Scott.  Perhaps an answer to this example would help clarify things.  I know you can't talk in too much detail, but this seems general enough, and non-corner enough that you might be able to say.

Would this be allowed by the new GSL?

XYZ Inc. is an RPG publisher, and during 2007 had a d20 OGL based system called "MyD20 Fantasy RPG".

During December 2008, they publish "Random D&D 4E adventure" under the 4E GSL.

During the 2009 calendar year, they publish "MyD20 RPG Monster Sourcebook #27" under the OGL, as well as "Random 4E Adventure: the Sequel" under the GSL.

Is XYZ Inc. in violation of either license?


----------



## Urizen

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.




Ok, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## GMSkarka

The fact that we haven't had a WotC confirmation of the "company-wide" ultimatum --and, given continued posts on other subjects, it seems a rather _purposeful_ lack of confirmation -- isn't helping things.

If it is a company-wide, all-or-nothing choice -- then it further demonstrates that WotC doesn't really understand the OGL -- _because there are *NON-d20-based* games that are released under the OGL._

So, under an ill-considered policy such as the one that has been rumored, a company would be prevented from producing material for FATE, Fudge, or any of the other non-d20 systems that have been released under the terms of the original license-- Games which have no bearing at all upon D&D.

Scott said: 







> Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x.



But the problem is that OGL _does not equal 3.x_ in all cases.

Choosing to support 4th Edition should not prevent us from supporting (for example) Spirit of the Century, just because SotC was released under the OGL.

So again -- give us a confirmation, please.   Surely WotC isn't making such an unnecessarily draconian move....


----------



## tomBitonti

> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?




Well, yes, and no.

Yes, because as a purchaser of 35E products, I have an expectation that WOTC will continue to support that product for a reasonable period following my purchase.  My engagement with WOTC persists following the particular sale.  WOTC made no provision that they would continue to support the 35E product, but that is my expectation, and what I see as necessary for WOTC to maintain me as a customer in good faith.

No, because I understand the desire to promote 4E.  I can view this as a good thing, because it concentrates the market -- which may be unsustainable if it fragments.  On the other hand, it may be a bad thing, if it only serves to prop up a substandard, or not sufficiently competitive product.  (Put another way, if 4E is the bees knees, why are any restrictions necessary?)

Thx!


----------



## Lizard

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That has not been said. From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.




Just to be sure we're all on the same page:

A company CAN produce both OGL and GSL products, at the same time.
A company CAN NOT produce both OGL and GSL versions of THE SAME PRODUCT at the same time.

If I may borrow Chris Pramas' good name and fine company for just a moment, let us speculate that, looking at the market, they decide Freeport is a good fit for 4e. They cease making any 3x version of Freeport and release "Freeport:The Next Generation" as a 4e supplement.

At the same time, they decide Mutants&Masterminds is doing just fine on its own and upgrading it to the 4e engine wouldn't add play value or meaningful sales. They continue to produce and sell new M&M products under the OGL.

There is no case (in this hypothetical) where the same product is sold as both an OGL and a GSL product concurrently. The 4e Freeport lines and the OGL M&M line share no "code", if you will, though both are (obviously) published by the same company.

Is this allowable under the GSL? Your comments, and Lidda's comments, indicate it *is*, but there seems to be some confusion and a great big official "Yes, this IS how it works" would cut out a lot of rampant speculation.

(I have, of course, no knowledge of any plans on the part of Green Ronin; I'm using their products solely because it's often easier to use real-world examples than made-up names.)


----------



## BryonD

Lizard said:
			
		

> Just to be sure we're all on the same page:
> 
> A company CAN produce both OGL and GSL products, at the same time.
> A company CAN NOT produce both OGL and GSL versions of THE SAME PRODUCT at the same time.



Have there been ANY clarifications that actually say this?  I'd love for you to be right.  But I've seen statements that directly contradict this and nothing beyond wishful optimism to support it.  Can you point me to what I missed?


----------



## Belen

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Heh. You got us on that one.    We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.
> 
> We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters.
> 
> We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.




I find this statement funny.  Of course you were not going to support 3e anymore.  When has WOTC ever supported an old edition of their game once the new edition is out?  I am sorry, but I do not see how your statement is good for anyone but WOTC.


----------



## Dragonblade

Some of you people apparently spend so much time playing D&D that you can't get your head out of fantasy land.

I have seen posts in this thread comparing the GSL policy to exploitation of 3rd world workers, all the way to saying that the GSL is an anti-trust violation. Give me a #$%^ing break!

I've seen WotC compared to spoiled children, even. But really, they are more like the kid who offered to share their toys only to see the other kids snatch them up and walk off with them. So they brought some new toys and said we'll share these but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time.

The only "spoiled" children I see are the ones who feel they are entitled to toys that don't belong to them.

WotC doesn't have to have any GSL at all. Period. The fact that they have one is a generous gesture. If you don't like the terms, then don't use it. But lets cut all the childish whining and bitching, and this ridiculous sense of entitlement.


----------



## Dragonblade

Belen said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but I do not see how your statement is good for anyone but WOTC.




So what? Why shouldn't it be?


----------



## BryonD

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> WotC doesn't have to have any GSL at all. Period. The fact that they have one is a generous gesture.



If Orcus' statements are correct then they are using the GSL as a tool to do as much damage to the OGL as possible.  Your assessment completely fails to account for that.
This is about as generous as the Trojan Horse.


----------



## Goobermunch

BryonD said:
			
		

> Have there been ANY clarifications that actually say this?  I'd love for you to be right.  But I've seen statements that directly contradict this and nothing beyond wishful optimism to support it.  Can you point me to what I missed?



 I think that's Lizard's point.  We're eating around the edges of the issue.  Lizard has distilled the essence of the question and is now requesting the confirmation you desire.

Lizard is relying on Le' Rouse's most recent comment, but I think he may be reading beyond the words on the page.

I think the more accurate way to read Scott's comment is as follows:

A) You can continue to publish your existing back catalogue of OGL product.
B) You can also produce new GSL content.
C) You cannot also produce new OGL content.

What I think Lizard would like is a statement to the effect that:
A) You can continue to support your existing OGL lines.
B) You can also produce new GSL content.
C) You cannot produce new "3.5" derived content.

Is that a fair recapitulation of where you're at Lizard?

--G


----------



## Morrus

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Some of you people apparently spend so much time playing D&D that you can't get your head out of fantasy land.
> 
> I have seen posts in this thread comparing the GSL policy to exploitation of 3rd world workers, all the way to saying that the GSL is an anti-trust violation. Give me a #$%^ing break!
> 
> I've seen WotC compared to spoiled children, even. But really, they are more like the kid who offered to share their toys only to see the other kids snatch them up and walk off with them. So they brought some new toys and said we'll share these but you have to play with us and return the ones you took last time.
> 
> The only "spoiled" children I see are the ones who feel they are entitled to toys that don't belong to them.
> 
> WotC doesn't have to have any GSL at all. Period. The fact that they have one is a generous gesture. If you don't like the terms, then don't use it. But lets cut all the childish whining and bitching, and this ridiculous sense of entitlement.




Drop the personal insults.  Now.  Patience gettng very short.


----------



## SSquirrel

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> The fact that we haven't had a WotC confirmation of the "company-wide" ultimatum --and, given continued posts on other subjects, it seems a rather _purposeful_ lack of confirmation -- isn't helping things.




Purposeful lack of response?  Careful speaking to motivations of posters.  Also, this IS the weekend people.  They're not on the clock right now, if they post here it's b/c they want to.
Entirely possible they also need to wait till Monday for more clarity to bounce a few things off people first.  Who knows.


----------



## Lizard

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Is that a fair recapitulation of where you're at Lizard?
> 
> --G




I'm going more on a quote someone posted from Lidda on a different forum (WOTC?) where she seemed to say the restriction was based on PRODUCT, not COMPANY -- which is pretty reasonable, given the other options, though certainly not my preference. I've posted questions which ought to eliminate all ambiguity in several of the ongoing threads, but there's been no "official" answer as of yet.


----------



## Belen

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that games such as M&M, C&C, or T20 have to be ditched along with it just doesn't make any sense. I cannot see any way in which such games viably compete with, or have any real impact on, 4E. And I agree with those who have said that the industry is richer for having them.




Correct.  They do not compete with the D&D GSL; however, you are forgetting about the upcoming d20 GSL.  I am willing to bet that d20 Modern 2e player's handbook will be a requirement for all d20 GSL games.  True20 and M&M directly compete with WOTC here.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm going more on a quote someone posted from Lidda on a different forum (WOTC?) where she seemed to say the restriction was based on PRODUCT, not COMPANY -- which is pretty reasonable, given the other options, though certainly not my preference. I've posted questions which ought to eliminate all ambiguity in several of the ongoing threads, but there's been no "official" answer as of yet.




There shouldn't be any reason to have to pose unambiguous questions. There's no question how folks are interpreting this at the moment and why they're up in arms about it.

Clarification shouldn't require careful parsing of either the questions or the answers.


----------



## BryonD

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm going more on a quote someone posted from Lidda on a different forum (WOTC?) where she seemed to say the restriction was based on PRODUCT, not COMPANY -- which is pretty reasonable, given the other options, though certainly not my preference. I've posted questions which ought to eliminate all ambiguity in several of the ongoing threads, but there's been no "official" answer as of yet.





I am with you completely.  But, I gotta say, a single quote that "seemed" to say something in a post that you don't recall where it was, seems a really tiny straw to be grasping.

But, it is a hope.


----------



## Goobermunch

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Here's the conceptual problem with the GSL that means you do have to worry.  As the current policy is being explained by Scott/Linae, the only thing prohibited for 4e licensees (GSL) is producing OGL games.  But the GSL isn't an open license and they may change the terms at will.  So with this licensing scheme, you have to understand you are taking a business risk.  Wizards, at any time, can decide, for example "In fact, we don't want people producing 4e material to be producing *anything* else!  We have confidence in 4e and are only supporting it ourselves you know!"  At that point they could insist that you stop selling/developing your 4e product or stop selling/developing your other game.  And I don't think anyone can say with a straight face this isn't a real risk, since they're already using this approach as a tactic.
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure the GSL is a tenable position for anyone who wants to do anything other than be a pure-play 4e support machine.




And at that point, you can pull the ripcord and bail out of 4e.  It's not like you're signing a contract to work for WotC that requires you to promise to never work for anyone else ever again.  The license permits you to do some things pursuant to some conditions.  If you want to quit being bound by those conditions, you just have to give up on doing the things the license permits you to do.

--G


----------



## Dragonblade

BryonD said:
			
		

> If Orcus' statements are correct then they are using the GSL as a tool to do as much damage to the OGL as possible.  Your assessment completely fails to account for that.
> This is about as generous as the Trojan Horse.




Here is the thing though. WotC owns the OGL and they own d20. Its theirs to do with what they will.

But more importantly, any publisher can still use the OGL. Its out there forever. They can keep publishing under it or under the GSL. There is no trojan horse because the terms are right here and up front. If you are a publisher, you pick which one you want to use. Or they can use neither and make their own game.

Which brings up another interesting point. I don't see an OGL for any other company. Out of ALL RPGs companies, none have been as generous with their engine as WotC. NONE. Name one.

Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

Is White Wolf going to allow me to make a Storyteller website, so I can play the Storyteller system without having to buy the books? Is Green Ronin, going to allow me to make a M&M website that posts their entire game engine? Not likely, even though their entire system is a d20 derivative that wouldn't even exist without the OGL.

This whole thread infuriates me because I see WotC held to an impossible standard that no other company is held to. And this is despite the fact they have been the more supportive of open gaming than any other company.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Ladies and Gents,

I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands. 

I am reading the thread, absorbing all the opinions, rants, speculations, thoughts, and musings. I have chimed in on a couple posts but beyond that, sitting here on Saturday morning, with out the license in front of me, I am quickly skating into the realm of speculation and I don't not want to unnecessarily add gas to the fire that may or may not be there. Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y. 

I will say this Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done. 

First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products. We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us. We'll have two licenses, one that supports fantasy genre gaming and one that acts as a bit of a catch all to support everything else (modern, sci-fi, super-hero etc). In the end this license may not be for everyone but we are designing it to be good enough for most. Regardless of what we do with the license and system, on the spectrum of fully closed to fully open, there will be alternative viewpoints and opinions and they all have a level of validity.

Wizards clearly derived benefit from the OGL but I think the jury will be out for eternity on exactly what the benefits were and weren't. It's the stuff message boards were made for.  Was the OGL perfect? No, but it certainly got a lot of people playing and making RPGs and the industry is stronger for it. I am a big proponent of open gaming, I get the network effect. The OGL and D20 SRD created benefits for D&D 3.x but I also recognize there are some bugaboos in the openness as well.

We had simple goals in mind with the license. 1) Support WotC's core RPG business. 2) Continue the notion set with the OGL that if publishers want to make books that work with D&D (and other WOTC brands) there will be an option for them. 3) Have a license that works for WoTC but keeps our involvement in the license to as minimal as possible 4) Keep the barriers to entry as low as possible. Simple goals but not always simple solutions.

I am at GAMA next week. On Thursday I am back in the office and on Friday I hope to have the license in my hand. Many of us will spend a week or so combing over it, again and again, making sure we are totally happy with it, only then will we send it out to folks like Clark, Chris, Erik, Russ, and the other publishers we are talking with.

I will keep you posted on the final results as I am sure folks like Clark will do as well.


----------



## Doc_Klueless

Noooooo!!! You can't have the weekend off! You must reply _NOW_!!  

Have a good weekend. Enjoy family and friends. Nothing you say, at this point, without the actual license in your hand to back up what you say, is in anyway going to defuse the speculation (for or against) in this thread.

So, do what I do when my employees are driving me insane. 

Go home. Relax. And leave all the crap behind you!


----------



## Jack99

Thanks for letting us know, Scott. It's going to be a long 2 weeks wait on these boards...


----------



## Nyarlathotep

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?
> 
> Yeah, thats what I thought.




I'm not sure that is correct. From what I've read over on the Paizo site, it's all supposed to be open content. I could be wrong on this, but that was the gist of it.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Which brings up another interesting point. I don't see an OGL for any other company. Out of ALL RPGs companies, none have been as generous with their engine as WotC. NONE. Name one.




Mongoose RuneQuest, Mongoose Traveller, ACTION! System, FATE/Spirit of the Century.

There's 4, and 3 companies. 



> Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?




Yes, it will be, because it's built on the OGL foundation and parts of it (the rules bits) will be open. You won't be able to use Golarion, but then again you can't use Greyhawk or FR or Eberron or Spelljammer either.

Look, I'm in this industry because of d20 and the OGL. Almost everything I've done in the OGL pool is close to 100% Open because I LOVE the concept of Open Gaming. 

That being said, I'm nervous about the idea that if I jump into the 4e pool I can't have anything to do with 3.x, or even worse, stop selling my catalog of 3.x products. If, and I'll stress again, if, that's the case, then right now I'm not going to do anything for 4e. That may change in the future, based on a whole lot of other factors, but my publishing plans for 2008 now have nothing to do with 4e. I'll concentrate on the few remaining 3.x ideas I've got, plus our new Call of Cthulhu license, plus Chill. 

Hyrum.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

hopefully our fears are unfounded and we can laugh at this thread in a few weeks from now.


----------



## am181d

Huh. I was about to post to say, "There's no way that WotC could/would draft a GSL that prevents a company from maintaining separate OGL and GSL lines," but Rouse's decision to stop commenting suggests things are much murkier than one might otherwise think.

Weird.


----------



## GMSkarka

_Never mind -- Hyrum beat me to it, by pointing out to Mr. "Name One.  Yeah, I thought so." just how mind-boggling wrong he is._


----------



## Urizen

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?




Green Ronin is about to Open up their True20 license in May so that ANY Publisher can use their logo for free and create authorized products. They've BEEN doing this with Mutants and Masterminds for years.

 If that's not reciprocating, then I don't know what is.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

am181d said:
			
		

> Huh. I was about to post to say, "There's no way that WotC could/would draft a GSL that prevents a company from maintaining separate OGL and GSL lines," but Rouse's decision to stop commenting suggests things are much murkier than one might otherwise think.
> 
> Weird.




I think it's a wise move on his part though. There is another thread somewhere here about "Get D20 while you can" where he flat-out says that the d20 License isn't going away and then about 10 - 20 posts later says that he was wrong and the license is going away. Without having the GSL in front of him, I'd prefer not to hear speculation from company representatives because it may be wrong and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would follow would be ... impressive to say the least.


----------



## GMSkarka

am181d said:
			
		

> Huh. I was about to post to say, "There's no way that WotC could/would draft a GSL that prevents a company from maintaining separate OGL and GSL lines," but Rouse's decision to stop commenting suggests things are much murkier than one might otherwise think.




Yeah, call me cynical, but if one of the self-professed architects of the license (_"Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done."_) can't clearly say that the restriction is on a per-product rather than a company-wide basis....

Well, I'd say that's fairly ominous.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

am181d said:
			
		

> Huh. I was about to post to say, "There's no way that WotC could/would draft a GSL that prevents a company from maintaining separate OGL and GSL lines," but Rouse's decision to stop commenting suggests things are much murkier than one might otherwise think.
> 
> Weird.




Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky? We could argue about the word "any" for hours.

There are a lot of semantical arguments being batted around and with out the words in front of me I am just another batter at the plate.


----------



## WhatGravitas

am181d said:
			
		

> Huh. I was about to post to say, "There's no way that WotC could/would draft a GSL that prevents a company from maintaining separate OGL and GSL lines," but Rouse's decision to stop commenting suggests things are much murkier than one might otherwise think.
> 
> Weird.



Well, I guess that's also due to the fact that he's "Senior Brand Manager", not a lawyer. Sure, he talks here, but without the exact license in his hands it's hard to say something - and perhaps even stupid, if he gets something wrong.

Since he's interpreted as spokesman for his company right now, it would be stupid to say anything too clear and precise, without consulting the full license (and perhaps his head honchos) right now.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## BryonD

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Here is the thing though. WotC owns the OGL and they own d20. Its theirs to do with what they will.



Wrong.  They own D20.  The OGL is Open.  They absolutely may not do what they will with the OGL.  



> But more importantly, any publisher can still use the OGL. Its out there forever. They can keep publishing under it or under the GSL. There is no trojan horse because the terms are right here and up front. If you are a publisher, you pick which one you want to use. Or they can use neither and make their own game.



You are not getting the point.
If Green Ronin abandons True20 to support 4E, that is BAD.
If Green Ronin decides they can not support 4E because they need to support True20, that is BAD.



> Which brings up another interesting point. I don't see an OGL for any other company. Out of ALL RPGs companies, none have been as generous with their engine as WotC. NONE. Name one.



I have praised them greatly from what they did, long ago with a very different cast of characters.  None of that buys a license to be harmful now.



> Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?
> 
> Yeah, thats what I thought.



Actually, in quite a few case YES.  Again, you are simply very ill informed.



> This whole thread infuriates me because I see WotC held to an impossible standard that no other company is held to. And this is despite the fact they have been the more supportive of open gaming than any other company.



Keys words: "have been".  Name one other company that has tried to pressure other companies into abandoning the OGL?  Can you?  No?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

The idea of an impossible standard is a farce.  The standard of "don't try to squash what we already have" is far far far from impossible.  To the contrary, it shouldn't even be a consideration.


----------



## Belen

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Yeah, call me cynical, but if one of the self-professed architects of the license (_"Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done."_) can't clearly say that the restriction is on a per-product rather than a company-wide basis....
> 
> Well, I'd say that's fairly ominous.




Agreed.  Most likely, they are hoping things will die down before they start giving out concrete info.  I am glad that they decided to allow 4e to be played with by others, but the poison pill is a huge negative, and it outweighs the positive for me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Which brings up another interesting point. I don't see an OGL for any other company. Out of ALL RPGs companies, none have been as generous with their engine as WotC. NONE. Name one.




Every company who published OGL derivative works has published a completely open engine.

ALL OF THEM.

You want a good list? Read the latest Section 15 declarations for True20. Starting with the d20 SRD, True20 borrows from nearly every other d20 game published in the history of the OGL. Every "engine" they borrow from is Open, all the way down to True20 at the end of the line, which is also Open.

You could hardly find a better living declaration of the OGL's success than that S15.

This post is staggeringly ignorant of what the OGL is. I'm sorry. I don't mean that to sound impolite.

EDIT:



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> Green Ronin is about to Open up their True20 license in May so that ANY Publisher can use their logo for free and create authorized products. They've BEEN doing this with Mutants and Masterminds for years.
> 
> If that's not reciprocating, then I don't know what is.




NO. NO. Even this is imprecise. It diminishes what Green Ronin is doing.

True20 has ALWAYS been Open. What Green Ronin is doing now is above and beyond even that:

They are allowing other companies to use their Trademark.

They are following in the example set by WotC.


----------



## Lizard

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Which brings up another interesting point. I don't see an OGL for any other company. Out of ALL RPGs companies, none have been as generous with their engine as WotC. NONE. Name one.




The following systems have been released under the Open Games License:
ACTION
FUDGE
Spirit Of The Century
Runequest
Traveller
Tri-Stat DX
BESM D20
True 20

And this doesn't count things like Spycraft, Sidewinder, and many other complete SRd-based games with MOUNTAINS of original material they didn't have to declare as OGC -- but they did. 

And remember, all material released under the open game license is equal. There's no system walls. Any material for any system released under the OGL can be used with any other OGL material, freely and without limit or restriction, except, of course, the terms of the OGL itself.

To say you're off-base in your accusation is a bit light. You're out of stadium, past the parking lot, and riding the F-Train home to Brooklyn.



> Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?




Yes. Because it's based on the SRD, it can't NOT be. That's the beauty of the OGL -- it's viral. 

I'm aware I am coming close to skirting board rules here, but I have to ask: Do you have ANY idea what the OGL says, what it means, or how much material is covered by it and what you can legally do with that material? Because I think you're mixing up "open gaming content" and "easy online ASCII files", and they're not the same thing at all.



> Is White Wolf going to allow me to make a Storyteller website, so I can play the Storyteller system without having to buy the books? Is Green Ronin, going to allow me to make a M&M website that posts their entire game engine? Not likely, even though their entire system is a d20 derivative that wouldn't even exist without the OGL.




All the rules material in M&M, with the exception of the term "Power Points", is OGC. Knock yourself out typing it up and replacing that one mechanic.



> This whole thread infuriates me because I see WotC held to an impossible standard that no other company is held to. And this is despite the fact they have been the more supportive of open gaming than any other company.




And you'd be right to be furious, if you were supported by the facts. You're not.


----------



## Goobermunch

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Yeah, call me cynical, but if one of the self-professed architects of the license (_"Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done."_) can't clearly say that the restriction is on a per-product rather than a company-wide basis....
> 
> Well, I'd say that's fairly ominous.




Actually, I'd say that's the result of two non-lawyers working out the basic principles of the new license and then needing legal to draft the actual license.  Perhaps with a dash of I've read the new license, but don't have it in front of me to refer back to, and a side of needing to make sure my understanding and the lawyers' understandings are the same.

I've done enough contract drafting to know that you often have to check back in with the client about things that seemed clear when you wrote them but now have become murky.

--G


----------



## mxyzplk

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> And at that point, you can pull the ripcord and bail out of 4e.  It's not like you're signing a contract to work for WotC that requires you to promise to never work for anyone else ever again.  The license permits you to do some things pursuant to some conditions.  If you want to quit being bound by those conditions, you just have to give up on doing the things the license permits you to do.




Yeah, that's real simple for a non-businessperson to say.  However, if this were to happen to you, you'd be in a bad position.  Let's say you have 50% of your sales in 4e products and 50% in your own game line and then WotC makes this decision.  You have backstock, bills,  returns, and other financial obligations.  It's not even as simple as "oh sure, just decide which 50% of your revenue you want."  It's called 'go out of business time.'  It's all fun and games to you, but a lot of these companies are, you know, the way many people put food on the table.  

Yes everyone - it's true.  There is no law that says "as a company, you may not act like a bunghole to your business partners."  It's "within their rights" to do whatever.  It's "just business decisions" everyone should make.  People's careers and livelihoods are not relevant, nor is the state of the overall RPG industry.  Oh, I'm happier about this all already.


----------



## Belen

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky? We could argue about the word "any" for hours.
> 
> There are a lot of semantical arguments being batted around and with out the words in front of me I am just another batter at the plate.




Scott, I appreciate your willingness to post on the weekend, but WOTC seems to have a bad sense of timing here. Why release the info on a Friday?  In this past, this tactic has been used to kill bad news.

From a customer standpoint, if a company cannot choose to support 4e and OGL games as the same time, then customers lose.  In the past, I have always purchased every book released by WOTC and the third party books were the icing on the cake.  The OGL actively encouraged me to try other genres while still staying close to D&D and it meant that I was much more open to games like d20 modern.

I get that you want people to switch to 4e and that this will be the first time in history that D&D will have to compete against itself with active products from an other system, but I think that you guys could have accomplished your goals without forcing so much polarization within the fan community.

In the end, if forced to choose, then I will choose OGL.  It offers me a range of games and I still have all my D&D books from 1e, 2e, and 3e.  You seem to be making it harder to stick with WOTC from my perspective.


----------



## Lizard

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky? We could argue about the word "any" for hours.
> 
> There are a lot of semantical arguments being batted around and with out the words in front of me I am just another batter at the plate.




And this is why the public process of developing and refining the OGL and SRD did so much to *build* faith and confidence in WOTC and encourage people to take what was, at the time, a huge legal and financial risk...and why the behind-closed-doors process of developing the GSL has bred rumormongering, mistrust, and distortion. 

I fully and completely understand why WOTC would want to keep the mechanics, rules, IP, and so forth of 4e under wraps until release and why you want total control over how 4e is presented, marketed, and hyped. That's a no-brainer. I do not understand, and still do not understand, why a free license -- one without special terms for one company or another, one which isn't independently negotiated -- needed to be developed in secret. I will assume you (WOTC/Hasbro) had a good reason, but it's a mystery to me.


----------



## Urizen

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Every company who published OGL derivative works has published a completely open engine.
> 
> ALL OF THEM.
> 
> You want a good list? Read the latest Section 15 declarations for True20. Starting with the d20 SRD, True20 borrows from nearly every other d20 game published in the history of the OGL. Every "engine" they borrow from is Open, all the way down to True20 at the end of the line, which is also Open.
> 
> You could hardly find a better living declaration of the OGL's success than that S15.
> 
> This post is staggeringly ignorant of what the OGL is. I'm sorry. I don't mean that to sound impolite.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. NO. Even this is imprecise. It diminishes what Green Ronin is doing.
> 
> True20 has ALWAYS been Open. What Green Ronin is doing now is above and beyond even that:
> 
> They are allowing other companies to use their Trademark.
> 
> They are following in the example set by WotC.




I stand corrected.


----------



## Shroomy

Belen said:
			
		

> Scott, I appreciate your willingness to post on the weekend, but WOTC seems to have a bad sense of timing here. Why release the info on a Friday?  In this past, this tactic has been used to kill bad news.




The GSL was announced on a Thursday.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Lizard said:
			
		

> And this is why the public process of developing and refining the OGL and SRD did so much to *build* faith and confidence in WOTC and encourage people to take what was, at the time, a huge legal and financial risk...and why the behind-closed-doors process of developing the GSL has bred rumormongering, mistrust, and distortion.
> 
> I fully and completely understand why WOTC would want to keep the mechanics, rules, IP, and so forth of 4e under wraps until release and why you want total control over how 4e is presented, marketed, and hyped. That's a no-brainer. I do not understand, and still do not understand, why a free license -- one without special terms for one company or another, one which isn't independently negotiated -- needed to be developed in secret. I will assume you (WOTC/Hasbro) had a good reason, but it's a mystery to me.




That's a fair and valid point and maybe something we'll revisit in the coming weeks.


----------



## Oldtimer

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That's a fair and valid point and maybe something we'll revisit in the coming weeks.



We surely live in interesting times.


----------



## Jack99

Maybe Dragonblade should have asked: How many other companies has invested millions of dollars into (one of) the most successful RPG's of all times and then allowed anyone with a pdf-program and some imagination to use said system and earn money off it?

Of course all the OGL-games are open, but did the company who made it chose that, or were they "forced" because the game was made under the OGL-rules. I don't know, it's not a rhetorical question.


----------



## Belen

Lizard said:
			
		

> And this is why the public process of developing and refining the OGL and SRD did so much to *build* faith and confidence in WOTC and encourage people to take what was, at the time, a huge legal and financial risk...and why the behind-closed-doors process of developing the GSL has bred rumormongering, mistrust, and distortion.
> 
> I fully and completely understand why WOTC would want to keep the mechanics, rules, IP, and so forth of 4e under wraps until release and why you want total control over how 4e is presented, marketed, and hyped. That's a no-brainer. I do not understand, and still do not understand, why a free license -- one without special terms for one company or another, one which isn't independently negotiated -- needed to be developed in secret. I will assume you (WOTC/Hasbro) had a good reason, but it's a mystery to me.




I wish we had posrep here.  This is it exactly.  The secrecy lends itself to a believe in bad faith on the part of WOTC.


----------



## BryonD

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Here is the thing though. WotC owns the OGL and they own d20. Its theirs to do with what they will.



Actually, this is another reason this is a bad deal.
WotC has no control over the OGL.
WotC WILL own the GSL completely.  
So 3Ps could produce product and if WotC decided that it was not working for them, they could pull the GSL.  Hopefully the GSL provides some grace period, but regardless, the ability to generate income from your work would be completely at WotC's whim.

And, as has been defended multiple times, WotC is only doing what is best for WotC.  There is no basis right now to think that any different standard would apply when future considerations of whether or not to yank the GSL came up.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Of course all the OGL-games are open, but did the company who made it chose that, or were they "forced" because the game was made under the OGL-rules. I don't know, it's not a rhetorical question.




If you use Open Gaming Content (such as, but not limited to, the SRD) then your product must be Open and use the OGL.

But there are game systems out there that use the OGL that did not have to do so. I believe Action! and FATE fall under this criteria.

I can't speak for either of them, but I imagine such companies released their games under an Open License for reasons that run the spectrum from "They wanted other folks to develop for their system and drive business to their door," (the business approach) to "A fundamental commitment to the concept of Open Gaming" (the altruistic approach).


----------



## mxyzplk

Lizard said:
			
		

> The following systems have been released under the Open Games License:
> ACTION
> FUDGE
> Spirit Of The Century
> Runequest
> Traveller
> Tri-Stat DX
> BESM D20
> True 20
> ...
> To say you're off-base in your accusation is a bit light. You're out of stadium, past the parking lot, and riding the F-Train home to Brooklyn..




100% correct.  Ignorance of the RPG marketplace is fine, but if you're ignorant of it  you should'nt be saying things like "no one else does open!" in public.

I'll point out there are a number of other game companies that also publish open games under licenses other than the OGL.  Take "The Shadow of Yesterday, which got the 2004 "Free Game of the Year" Indie RPG award; it's under Creative Commons.  

Frankly, even most "for pay" licenses are better than this.  The Savage Worlds license isn't free, you have to pay $500 to publish a 128-page book for example, but at least it doesn't screw up your overall company revenue streams.


----------



## Oldtimer

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Maybe Dragonblade should have asked: How many other companies has invested millions of dollars into (one of) the most successful RPG's of all times and then allowed anyone with a pdf-program and some imagination to use said system and earn money off it?



Surely this must be a rhetorical question, though. Obviously there's only one company (well two, if you count TSR) that has invested millions of dollars in any single RPG.


----------



## Jack99

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you use Open Gaming Content (such as, but not limited to, the SRD) then your product must be Open and use the OGL.
> 
> But there are game systems out there that use the OGL that did not have to do so. I believe Action! and FATE fall under this criteria.
> 
> I can't speak for either of them, but I imagine such companies released their games under an Open License for reasons that run the spectrum from "They wanted other folks to develop for their system and drive business to their door," (the business approach) to "A fundamental commitment to the concept of Open Gaming" (the altruistic approach).




So, would you say that most games (besides Action! and FATE) made under the OGL system had to be open, by virtue of being made based on the OGL, and that the publishers had no part in that decision?


----------



## JohnRTroy

To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL.  Not the OGL as a license itself.  People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.


----------



## mxyzplk

Jack99 said:
			
		

> So, would you say that most games (besides Action! and FATE) made under the OGL system had to be open, by virtue of being made based on the OGL, and that the publishers had no part in that decision?




Uh - yes, that's the way the OGL works.  Your decision is whether or not to publish a game under the OGL.  Once you do make that decision, the game is open, and there's not further decisions to be made regarding that fact.  So yes, the publishers had a choice in the first place, but once it's OGL it's OGL.  Best you can do is make the next version not open.  Your question is worded very confusingly, but that should cover it.


----------



## Urizen

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Maybe Dragonblade should have asked: How many other companies has invested millions of dollars into (one of) the most successful RPG's of all times and then allowed anyone with a pdf-program and some imagination to use said system and earn money off it?




I find this insulting.

Apparently you've never created a PDF and tried to sell it. It takes alot more than a "pdf-program and some imagination." 

Just because the majority of us don't have millions of dollars to invest in a game doesn't mean that we don't care for our products and the people kind enough to purchase them.

You seem to think that we're all just a pack of dogs fighting over table scraps. We work hard on these products, invest alot of time and energy into creating new systems, new rules and new content for people such as yourself (ok maybe not YOU) to enjoy.

We're every bit as vital to the gaming industry as WOTC is. All most of us want is to be able to continue supporting game systems, and also to be able to support 4th edition at the same time.

How is that bad for the industry?


----------



## phloog

I only read the first 8 pages or so, and I think it's possible I missed some backpedaling or clarification, but I did want to just tell you how dismayed I was by this, and how if it truly is a company-wide All-or-nothing decision, it is absolutely worse than having 4e be completely closed.

Two possibilities:

4E operates under this GSL with the horrible 'ditch your old' requirements - - in this case, Wizards and any publishers that don't want to lose out publish 4E material.  But anyone who still enjoys 3E loses out, because many publishers do the 100% switch, and 4E folks lose out, because some companies continue with OGL.  Then 5E comes along, and all publishers must participate in GSLv2 (which is MORE restrictive) to do 5E, and if they agree they must abandon all 4E work.

4E is closed to 3rd parties: Wizards still puts out a ton of material for 4E...4e users lose out a bit from 3rd party work, but have 100% of the attention of the biggest publisher.  3.x users win big time, because publishers have no choice but to publish under the OGL.  

And I'm not sure if anyone realized or posted about this, but with this action, WOTC also officially REQUIRES that anyone who wants to move 4E must compete with all other companies who make the switch, and they can have no alternate source of D&D revenue in the form of catering to those who stay with old additions.  All the big guys move to 4E, and all compete for the same pie.

I guess I'm interested in protecting companies that have done right by me for years.  Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and many others...let me just say right now that I have cancelled my bn.com preorder for the three-book set.  Because with this new rule I can DEFINITELY foresee WOTC doing a new version in a year or two, revoking the last GSL, and demanding that everyone follow along.

If this restriction is in fact real, I would now state that it may be the WISER move for publishers of any size to stay with the old OGL, where there is a player base (some of which admittedly will move to 4E, true), and where you can remain sure that what you publish now won't be rendered invalid by WOTC's need to drive players to the next version.


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL.  Not the OGL as a license itself.  People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.




I would think that the Wizards of the Coast Brand Manager and Licensing Manager, when putting thoughts on D&D licensing down in writing, are not, or at least really, really should not, be "using these terms loosely."


----------



## GMSkarka

Jack99 said:
			
		

> So, would you say that most games (besides Action! and FATE) made under the OGL system had to be open, by virtue of being made based on the OGL, and that the publishers had no part in that decision?




Not all all.   The publishers could have issued restrictive declarations of Open Content, sticking only to the minimum amount spelled out in the terms of the license.   Some publishers did just that, in fact.

The publishers in question (and others) instead chose to fully open their work, allowing for its unrestricted use via the OGL.


----------



## Delta

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky?




Yes, definitely. 

As one example, I thought that the OGL was short, concise, and eminently readable. Other examples would be a few contracts I've written or signed for an indie game company, indie band, etc.

There's a really bad smell about trying to get promotional hype out of an "open" license that the company is unwilling to openly exhibit. Trying to community-manage the PR around this, when the questions are specific legal inquiries (as opposed to fan opinions), is really doing you guys a lot of damage.


----------



## Morrus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL.  Not the OGL as a license itself.  People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.




I doubt that _very_ much. _ Nobody _ in the industry uses terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely, let alone the property owners.  The terms are so intrinsic to their business models that it's almost imposisble for anyone actually in the industry to use them "loosely" any more than you'd find it natural to call a table a "chair".


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Shroomy said:
			
		

> The GSL was announced on a Thursday.




And there was much rejoicing, congratulations and thanks to Scott and Linae, and some eating of crow where applicable.

The "bad news" was released-- if you want to call it a "release"-- at 10:33 PM yesterday, by Clark.



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> So, would you say that most games (besides Action! and FATE) made under the OGL system had to be open, by virtue of being made based on the OGL, and that the publishers had no part in that decision?




Other than to say "open by virtue of being made based on the SRD, which was Open Content released under the OGL" you are correct.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL. Not the OGL as a license itself. People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.




To be as charitable as possible to both you and WotC, suffice to say WotC employees shouldn't be using the terms "a little loosely."


----------



## Gryffyn

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky? We could argue about the word "any" for hours.
> 
> There are a lot of semantical arguments being batted around and with out the words in front of me I am just another batter at the plate.




Surely, someone at WotC knows what the _intent_ behind that part of the license is.


----------



## Jack99

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Uh - yes, that's the way the OGL works.  Your decision is whether or not to publish a game under the OGL.  Once you do make that decision, the game is open, and there's not further decisions to be made regarding that fact.  So yes, the publishers had a choice in the first place, but once it's OGL it's OGL.  Best you can do is make the next version not open.  Your question is worded very confusingly, but that should cover it.




Sorry if my English confuses you. Both my Danish and French is significantly better, but I suspect that you will find it even more confusing, if I posted in those languages...   

I am just trying to figure out how to compare what WoTC did when they made the OGL, with what the 3PP who have kept the games, they have made under the OGL (or were made possible due to the OGL), open. 

Speaking as someone who never was interested in this (prior to now), it seems that WoTC gave up so much more than the others, and yet, some people equate that now, that WoTC wants to make a more closed system.

We all talk back and forth on how much the OGL has helped WOTC, but don't you think WoTC knows this best, or at least has the most information to make an educated guess? What if those numbers showed that they most likely lost money due to the OGL. Is it really unfair of them, when they try not to make the same mistake again?

Again, I have to admit that I know very little of the industry, other than what I read on these boards, and no-one seems to agree on these points. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I find it very hard to understand why people in general are getting so worked up over this GSL contra OGL thing. It's WoTC's game, if they ask people to focus only on 4e if they wish to get a piece of the pretty big pie, it seems totally reasonable to me. It seems there is a little bit too much of feeling entitled, despite all the work is being done by WoTC.

Anyway, I am rambling now,

Cheers


----------



## SSquirrel

phloog said:
			
		

> I guess I'm interested in protecting companies that have done right by me for years.  Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and many others...let me just say right now that I have cancelled my bn.com preorder for the three-book set.  Because with this new rule I can DEFINITELY foresee WOTC doing a new version in a year or two, revoking the last GSL, and demanding that everyone follow along.




A new version of the GSL or of D&D?  If you are saying a new version of D&D in 1 or 2 years then I'm just going to laugh at you.  If you mean the GSL, WotC has updated the OGL license along the way, but people could use older versions of the OGL b/c it already exists and there is no way to revoke it.  I'll be very interested to see if WoTC is able to close up the license so that once a new license version is issued the old one can no longer be utilized.

We won't know for at least 2 weeks if that situation is even a concern.  I suggest everyone spend the next couple of weeks enjoying your games and just hold on and let Scott get back to us with the most accurate information he can give us.  Personally, I would rather see exact and specific information instead of "Now I could be wrong since this license has changed several times and the most recent version isn't in my hands, but I believe you can do X or Y"  Think and maybe are not what I want to hear.  Yes, no, definitely, affirmative are the words in question.


----------



## mxyzplk

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> Surely, someone at WotC knows what the _intent_ behind that part of the license is.




Heh - knows, yes, gonna tell us, no.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> Heh - knows, yes, gonna tell us, no.




It's not really our business to know their motivations.  Being consumers doesn't mean we have the right to know the whys of every decision made by a company.


----------



## SSquirrel

Urizen said:
			
		

> I find this insulting.
> 
> Apparently you've never created a PDF and tried to sell it. It takes alot more than a "pdf-program and some imagination."




Personally I read this and saw someone describing the situation in simplest terms.  That truly IS the core of the issue.  It's like electronic musicians who are now able to have a laptop computer, some tracking software, a keyboard and produce quality music.  It happens all the time.  

Before you were publishing, you were just playing and/or running games and maybe writing up ideas you had and saving them off.  Now, w/the ability to publish quickly and cheaply online, you can just type things up, pretty it up with some illustrations and put it up for download or sale.  How is that not accurate?  I'm sorry if you found what he said insulting, but I just don't see it.


----------



## Settembrini

Scott said:



> First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products. We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us.




Mmm. So 4e isn´t good enough to make people switch? Because using a license to ensure everyone comes along definitely gives the impression of lack of faith in the product.

In other words: WotC seems to be more optimistic about Pathfinder than even Paizo is.

YMMV of course.


----------



## Wicht

Jack99 said:
			
		

> We all talk back and forth on how much the OGL has helped WOTC, but don't you think WoTC knows this best, or at least has the most information to make an educated guess?




I wonder about this, especially as Rouse (and I paraphrase) just recently admitted that WotC did benefit from the OGL but he wasn't too sure the benefit could be quantified.


----------



## GMSkarka

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's not really our business to know their motivations.  Being consumers doesn't mean we have the right to know the whys of every decision made by a company.




Some of us AREN'T consumers.   Some of us are businesses that have had a major part of our operational plans in a constant holding pattern since January, and would just like to know if this all-or-nothing rumor is true or not, so we can get on with our livelihoods.

Not asking for legal opinion, not asking for exact language -- just asking whether or not that's the intention of the license -- which they obviously know.


----------



## mxyzplk

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> A new version of the GSL or of D&D?  If you are saying a new version of D&D in 1 or 2 years then I'm just going to laugh at you.  If you mean the GSL, WotC has updated the OGL license along the way, but people could use older versions of the OGL b/c it already exists and there is no way to revoke it.  I'll be very interested to see if WoTC is able to close up the license so that once a new license version is issued the old one can no longer be utilized.
> 
> We won't know for at least 2 weeks if that situation is even a concern.  I suggest everyone spend the next couple of weeks enjoying your games and just hold on and let Scott get back to us with the most accurate information he can give us.  Personally, I would rather see exact and specific information instead of "Now I could be wrong since this license has changed several times and the most recent version isn't in my hands, but I believe you can do X or Y"  Think and maybe are not what I want to hear.  Yes, no, definitely, affirmative are the words in question.




1.  The OGL can't be revoked or changed "out from under" someone because that's specified in the license.  It's the "secret sauce" that makes a license open, like in software open source licenses.  The GSL, like the old d20 STL, is a proprietary license which may be changed at any time for any reason by the license owner

2.  I don't intend on "simmering down" because this is the window of opportunity to make a difference.  I'm sure what the WotC lawyers would like to have happen is
a.  We announce new GSL!
b.  Everyone is happy because they think we're "still open."
c.  People will buy 4e and 3p companies will make their support plans.
d.  When the truth comes out, it'll be too late and will only get minor "retraction" style press.
e.  Profit.


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's not really our business to know their motivations.  Being consumers doesn't mean we have the right to know the whys of every decision made by a company.




But we do have the right to assk, to demand an answer, to take our business elsewhere, to complain about the company's practices, to organize boycotts, or whatnot.  Yes, again, everyone knows companies *can* do whatever the heck they want, especially in the US.  But that doesn't mean no consequences for it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> Some of us AREN'T consumers. Some of us are businesses that have had a major part of our operational plans in a constant holding pattern since January, and would just like to know if this all-or-nothing rumor is true or not, so we can get on with our livelihoods.




I wasn't addressing those with legitimate concerns, but for people wanting to know the secret reasons, like those who ask pointed questions like "was the license changed to get around section 9 of the OGL", or similar questions.


----------



## Gryffyn

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Heh - knows, yes, gonna tell us, no.




I don't see why they wouldn't.  We'll find out anyway when the license is released.  The only reason not to tell us is that the intent is not clear, even to them.  That would make this week's announcement premature once again.

Anyway, here's why adding an anti-OGL clause to the GSL is a bad idea.  If WotC were so confident that 4e was hugely superior to 3.x, then they would have no reason to fear the old OGL.  The nice folks at WotC would just say "pfft, go ahead.  We're not worried about the old OGL leeching our sales.  We know that 4e is just that awesome."  Barring GSL-using companies from doing anything for 3.x just tells me they're afraid that 4e will fail.  Stamp out the competition with quality, not legalese!


----------



## Grogtard

Thanks to Scott for at least addressing the forum on a Saturday.  

Now that I have at least first few cups of coffee, I can turn down my inner censor down a notch or two.
I'm all for capitalism and protection of IP.  But in my bright eyed world, I'd prefer it to be: Buy our product because it's the best.  Not: Buy our product while we make competition more difficult.

And that's what I feel is behind the decisions with the GSL.


----------



## Orcus

Morrus said:
			
		

> Hmmm... am I missing something?  I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from.  I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?




I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose."


----------



## mxyzplk

Grogtard said:
			
		

> Thanks to Scott for at least addressing the forum on a Saturday.
> 
> Now that I have at least first few cups of coffee, I can turn down my inner censor down a notch or two.
> I'm all for capitalism and protection of IP.  But in my bright eyed world, I'd prefer it to be: Buy our product because it's the best.  Not: Buy our product while we make competition more difficult.
> 
> And that's what I feel is behind the decisions with the GSL.




Yeah, it seems too reminiscient of all of Microsoft's anti-Linux shenanigans.  D&D 4e is going to be WotC's Windows Vista.  If you REALLY stood behind your product, would you really do this?  No.


----------



## Gryffyn

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's not really our business to know their motivations.  Being consumers doesn't mean we have the right to know the whys of every decision made by a company.




By "intent," I didn't mean motivation.  I know the motivation is to make money.  I meant that WotC should know what the language is whatever section of the GSL we're talking about was supposed to accomplish -- barring use of the OGL on a product by product basis, company by company basis, or something else.  Seriously, someone knows that.  If that's still up in the air, then there's really no license yet, and the whole thing could easily end up back in debate for months....


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose."




Heh, this brings back flashbacks of SNL skits about the Republican resonse to John Kerry.  "Flip-floppers!  No flip-floppers!  Flip-floppers.  I just like saying that word."  Ah, a touch of humor in an otherwise crappy situation.


----------



## Orcus

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that's what they mean - I can understand wanting products upgraded to 4e.  It might even allow people to translate OGC content (not their own) to the GSL.  The nuclear option that Clark mentioned would indeed be stunningly stupid.




I didnt "mention" it.

I related it to all of you as it was told to me. 

I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.

But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.


----------



## Urizen

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Personally I read this and saw someone describing the situation in simplest terms.  That truly IS the core of the issue.  It's like electronic musicians who are now able to have a laptop computer, some tracking software, a keyboard and produce quality music.  It happens all the time.
> 
> Before you were publishing, you were just playing and/or running games and maybe writing up ideas you had and saving them off.  Now, w/the ability to publish quickly and cheaply online, you can just type things up, pretty it up with some illustrations and put it up for download or sale.  How is that not accurate?  I'm sorry if you found what he said insulting, but I just don't see it.




I understand and respect your opinions. Maybe I'm a bit to close to this issue to read his post objectively, though I still contend that it's not as simple as "typing things up, prettying up the pdf with illustrations and putting it up for download or sale."

That may be  the most_basic_ interpretation of what creating a pdf (or book, for that matter, as a final print ready version is just taking a pdf one step further) is, but more is involved; editing, proofing, marketing, spending money (sometimes thousands of dollars depending on the writers and artists you use), etc.

The poster implied that anyone can do it. To a certain extent it's true, but if you want solid quality products, it's much more labor intensive than he (and you, no offense intended) makes it out to be.


----------



## Scipio202

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> 2.  I don't intend on "simmering down" because this is the window of opportunity to make a difference.  I'm sure what the WotC lawyers would like to have happen is
> a.  We announce new GSL!
> b.  Everyone is happy because they think we're "still open."
> c.  People will buy 4e and 3p companies will make their support plans.
> d.  When the truth comes out, it'll be too late and will only get minor "retraction" style press.
> e.  Profit.




Well, if you want to "make a difference", probably the best way to get Scott/Linae to listen  and have something fruitful to take to the internal WotC meetings is to say "It's really important that the GSL allows X, Y and Z for the following reasons.

Implying that the people you want to influence are manipulative, scheming jerks may not be the most productive way to go about it.

If you're not actually implying that, then I withdraw my comment.  But at the moment it looks like you are.


----------



## pawsplay

Man, and when I was just getting ready to sing songs about love and peace, too. It's as if WotC were deliberately trying to stir up hostility.


----------



## Orcus

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The part that makes me sad about this is that ultimately it's the customers who lose, along with the companies.
> 
> Prior to this announcement, I was lukewarm towards 4E. However, with the news that Necromancer Games was going to release a 3.5 PDF adaptation to their 4E _Advanced Player's Guide_, I counted myself likely to purchase a copy of the APG so I could use that 3.5 version with it (assuming said PDF would require a copy of the book to be useful).
> 
> If that can't happen now, however, then I won't be purchasing the APG because Necromancer won't be allowed to have a 3.5 version out there. Necromancer has lost a sale, and I've lost out on a product I wanted. How, exactly, is this a win for WotC then?




I'm not sure where you got that. There never was and never has been a plan to do a 3E version of the APG. Why would we need 3E versions of druids, bards, monks, barbarians and illusionists and gnomes and half-orcs? The game already has them

Our plan for 3E pdf supplements was for books that were planned as 3E books (like Tegel and Slumbering Tsar, etc) that got pushed back and now will be 4E books. The fans who were finishing 3E campaigns didnt like that so I said, "hey, they were written to be 3E, so when we put the 4E versions out, I will do a free download of the stats for you guys."

Clark


----------



## Jack99

Urizen said:
			
		

> I find this insulting.
> 
> I find this insulting.




It wasn't meant as an insult.



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> Apparently you've never created a PDF and tried to sell it.



You are quite correct. 



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> Just because the majority of us don't have millions of dollars to invest in a game doesn't mean that we don't care for our products and the people kind enough to purchase them.
> 
> You seem to think that we're all just a pack of dogs fighting over table scraps. We work hard on these products, invest alot of time and energy into creating new systems, new rules and new content for people such as yourself (ok maybe not YOU) to enjoy.



I am pretty sure I never said that you didn't care nor that you didn't work hard. Without some hard data on how much is sold, I can't really speculate on the table scraps part, but...



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> We're every bit as vital to the gaming industry as WOTC is.



We will have to differ on that one. I am pretty sure that WoTC going belly-up would have a significantly bigger impact on the gaming industry, than if your company did so. 



			
				Urizen said:
			
		

> How is that bad for the industry?




Well, as a consumer, I ask myself. What do I want? Do I want 4e published by WoTC and supported by a few companies that focus solely on making 4e, or do I want a gazillion companies whose primary focus is something else, and then they make some 4e on the side, because that is where the money is? Do I want the 3PP writers to focus on one system and thus hopefully being better at writing crunch and adventures for it, or do I want them to  write for one system one day, another the next, etc. 

Thats how it looks to me as an outsider to the industry, please, don't take it for more than that.


----------



## Guillaume

On my part, two things.

First, thanks to Linae and Scott and all the others for what, for all intents and purposes, seem to have been an epic inside battle to maintain some form of openess with 4E. That battle seem to have been won as we are getting the GSL. I also thank them for taking the time to read this and other threads and respond, within their admited limited capacity without the actual text of the GSL. It is always appreciated to be able to read something straight out of WotC.

However, the fact that the actual text is still in the ether brings us to my second point: Welcome the glorious day where this much touted, much announced, much discussed licence finaly makes an appearance. I am sincerely hoping and whishing for that day to come, so we can finally sit down and read/analyse/discuss it based on solid facts instead of off hand comments, unclear answers to questions or even idle speculation.

So I raise a glass to the corporate warriors who fought for us and hope that, while the battle was one, the war can still be also. In French, we have a saying: "Là où il y a de la vie, il y a de l'espoir." (Where there is life, there is hope.) I'm hanging onto that now.


----------



## mxyzplk

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to "make a difference", probably the best way to get Scott/Linae to listen  and have something fruitful to take to the internal WotC meetings is to say "It's really important that the GSL allows X, Y and Z for the following reasons.
> 
> Implying that the people you want to influence are manipulative, scheming jerks may not be the most productive way to go about it.
> 
> If you're not actually implying that, then I withdraw my comment.  But at the moment it looks like you are.




Eh, I already tried that.  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4135665

And really, I think my checklist above only "implies" that they might be underpants gnomes.  Don't you go stirring up mod troubles, now.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes


----------



## Urizen

Jack99 said:
			
		

> It wasn't meant as an insult.
> 
> 
> You are quite correct.
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure I never said that you didn't care nor that you didn't work hard. Without some hard data on how much is sold, I can't really speculate on the table scraps part, but...
> 
> 
> We will have to differ on that one. I am pretty sure that WoTC going belly-up would have a significantly bigger impact on the gaming industry, than if your company did so.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a consumer, I ask myself. What do I want? Do I want 4e published by WoTC and supported by a few companies that focus solely on making 4e, or do I want a gazillion companies whose primary focus is something else, and then they make some 4e on the side, because that is where the money is? Do I want the 3PP writers to focus on one system and thus hopefully being better at writing crunch and adventures for it, or do I want them to  write for one system one day, another the next, etc.
> 
> Thats how it looks to me as an outsider to the industry, please, don't take it for more than that.




Fair enough. My response was a bit personal due to my concerns about this issue and was not intended to be offensive to you. If I have done so. I apologize.


----------



## Orcus

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Purposeful lack of response?  Careful speaking to motivations of posters.  Also, this IS the weekend people.  They're not on the clock right now, if they post here it's b/c they want to.
> Entirely possible they also need to wait till Monday for more clarity to bounce a few things off people first.  Who knows.




SS, if you think they arent watching and reading THIS thread as much as we are, think again.


----------



## Jack99

Urizen said:
			
		

> Fair enough. My response was a bit personal due to my concerns about this issue and was not intended to be offensive to you. If I have done so. I apologize.




No worries. I can only imagine the frustration that some of the 3PP must feel. 

Cheers


----------



## JohnRTroy

To be honest, the OGL reminds me of a situation in the book "In Search of Stupidity", which covered a lot of the tech industry.  It shows a lot of fascinating subjects, including how Borland, Ashton-Tate, IBM (twice), etc, made really dumb mistakes that hurt their businesses, sometimes permanently.  The author brings up good points like the myths of Microsoft having shoddy products, for instance.  (Microsoft gets some criticism in the book, but the key fact is they got so big because they had really good products and the other guys made several mistakes).

The situation is reminds me of, is the IBM PC example.  I'm using the IBM PC example because I feel it fits the OGL/GSL situation best, and it's probably why they are changing the OGL.

The long story short--IBM created the PC.  What ended up happening is it had a profound effect on the industry.  The problem was IBM didn't defend their property as much.  Because the IBM PC was easily cloned, it became a commodity.  The "silicon beast" (as the book mentions) gobbled up everything else.  It then turned on IBM and thus ate up its line.

IBM tried to stop this by creating the PS/2, with enough patents and legal protections.  However, the clones became too powerful and prevented them from re-obtaining dominance.  It then ate their mainframe business as well.  (Macintosh learned from this--Steve Jobs said "NO" and reversed course when they were gonna allow Mac clones).

What I see similar is that Wizards released their D&D rules under an OGL, but not seeing the damage it could do.  They probably didn't expect such blantant "freeware" versions of their games such as the online SRD, the repurposing of Unearthed Arcana, etc.  Despite people claims of "It's Viral" being consider a benefit, no profitable company wants to commoditize their product unless the price of the product is smaller than any supplementary service they can do, or they are in a bitter "price war".  It's simple economics.

They also saw their brand weakening.  So, one possible reason for the GSL replacing the OGL for 4e, is that they are trying to release a new version of D&D before their brand gets weaker.  I see the GSL as a way of strengthening their brand.

Now let's keep in mind something--was the PC revolution good?  Yes, for the industry, but not for it's creator.  So, I see this as WoTC trying to prevent themselves from weakening their D&D brand.  I see nothing wrong with this.  While the OGL was good I think it was a little too good and suspected it wouldn't last forever.  I can see this, just like Orcus can prefer the OGL personally but be accepting of the GSL being better from WoTCs standpoint.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> SS, if you think they arent watching and reading THIS thread as much as we are, think again.




HEY! 

Where did the "Who's Logged In" section of the site go?


----------



## Scipio202

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Well, as a consumer, I ask myself. What do I want? Do I want 4e published by WoTC and supported by a few companies that focus solely on making 4e, or do I want a gazillion companies whose primary focus is something else, and then they make some 4e on the side, because that is where the money is? Do I want the 3PP writers to focus on one system and thus hopefully being better at writing crunch and adventures for it, or do I want them to  write for one system one day, another the next, etc.
> 
> Thats how it looks to me as an outsider to the industry, please, don't take it for more than that.




This seems the most important aspect of this debate.  Each game system is enriched by the ongoing investment of finite design/development resources.  I think its quite reasonable to think that there is a synergy in quality and usability between products.  For example, campaign worlds are appealing because there is so much more depth and detail.  Each new product makes all the associated products more valuable/usable.

Having 50% of the companies focus on 4E/GSL products, and 50% of the companies focus on OGL products may mean better quality products for *both* 4E consumers and OGL consumers than most companies spending part of their resources on each sub-market.

WotC wants buy in from at least a chunk of publishers, and is offering a deeper brand affiliation than ultimately came about under the STL in exchange.  If other publishers want to stick with what they are doing, more power to them.  This seems like a perfectly reasonable business strategy.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> They probably didn't expect such blantant "freeware" versions of their games such as the online SRD, the repurposing of Unearthed Arcana, etc.




John, this is just getting tiresome. 

WotC posted the SRD online, FOR FREE, themselves. Theirs was the first blatant freeware.

IT IS STILL THERE, TODAY, ON THEIR WEBSITE.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35


----------



## Orcus

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Some of us AREN'T consumers.   Some of us are businesses that have had a major part of our operational plans in a constant holding pattern since January, and would just like to know if this all-or-nothing rumor is true or not, so we can get on with our livelihoods.
> 
> Not asking for legal opinion, not asking for exact language -- just asking whether or not that's the intention of the license -- which they obviously know.




GM,

It is.

I dont know the full paramaters. But we will have to choose on a company by company basis, not a product by product basis, or so I have been specifically told by Wizards. 

Here is what I know:

*company by company, not product by product
*support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
*This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license. 

Here is what I dont know:

*if you go 4E, what is the mechanism to prevent use of 3E?
*if you go 4E, can you return to 3E and simply never use 4E again?
*if you go 4E, that clearly means you cant support more 3E products, and you have to sell off backstock of d20 products in 6 months (because they are revoking the license), but what does that mean for PDFs or backstock of old products? Can we continue to sell them? In other words--can I continue to sell old OGL products so long as I am not creating new ones? This to me is the biggie--this is the "backstock" question.

Clark


----------



## JohnRTroy

Just because they expected it Wulf, doesn't mean (a) everybody in the company agreed or (b) they didn't change their minds once they saw it.  Not everybody is Ryan and how many companies follow the ideas of one man.

I'm really sick of people saying "WoTC knew what they were doing" when they made it viral.  Yeah, maybe, but perhaps they now see negative effects and want to change their minds.  When Andy Collins expressed disappointment about what happened to Unearthed Arcana, they probably didn't think the "egalitarian nature" of the license would bite them on the ass.


----------



## mxyzplk

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Man, and when I was just getting ready to sing songs about love and peace, too. It's as if WotC were deliberately trying to stir up hostility.




Eh, I don't think it's trying to stir it up as much as not really caring if they do.  It's the Microsoft/RIAA/GM/American Airlines theory of business.  Customers are sheep and they'll buy what you tell them to.

If you keep up with the news on Hasbro, this isn't unusual.  The Scrabulous lawsuit, the clue.com lawsuit, the Constructible Strategy Game patent war vs. WizKids, the Magic "tapping" lawsuit.  They are aggressive about maintaining exclusive holds on everything related to any of their game lines, by patent, trademark, lawsuit, license, or any other means. 

Half a million Facebook users play Scrabulous every day - Hasbro obviously doesn't care about angering them, so they're definitely not going to care about the couple thousand D&D players who are sufficiently plugged in to see and understand the GSL.

Read n Learn:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/11/hasbro-tries-to-shut-down-scrabulous/
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/1226253
http://www.patentarcade.com/labels/Lawsuits.html

And let's get it out of the way cause I know the yes-men are chomping at the bit - yes, it's their God-given corporate right under US law to do all this.  But it still sucks.


----------



## Nellisir

Orcus said:
			
		

> I didnt "mention" it.
> I related it to all of you as it was told to me.
> I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.
> But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.




Sorry.  Related.  Reported.  Paraphrased.  I was trying to hedge for my own comfort, not to imply a lack of truthiness or assertion on your part.

I think I'm gonna take a break for a few weeks (hey, the smilies are different!).  Go read War & Peace or something.  

Thank you Scott and Linnae for your patience and participation in this and a myriad other threads.  It is appreciated!    

Nell.


----------



## Orcus

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to "make a difference", probably the best way to get Scott/Linae to listen  and have something fruitful to take to the internal WotC meetings is to say "It's really important that the GSL allows X, Y and Z for the following reasons.




I've tried that, since the news. My feeling, at least as to this issue of "choose 4e or 3e" is not changing. I've given up on trying to change that. The inclusion of that term was a complete surprise to me, and I have a funny feeling Wizards knew it would be 

My hope is there will be some clarification on the related issues, like backstock and ability to keep selling pdfs of old products so long as we dont make new 3E products, for instance. 

Heck, I hope they come in and say "Clark is on crack, he totally misunderstood what we told him, even though we said that it was 'company by company and that you had to choose one or the other and you cant make 3E products ever again once you make a 4E product.' Yes, we used those words, but we were overstating and we actually meant it is product by product."  In fact, I've begged them to come in and say that. 

Clark


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> The situation is reminds me of, is the IBM PC example.  I'm using the IBM PC example because I feel it fits the OGL/GSL situation best, and it's probably why they are changing the OGL.
> 
> The long story short--IBM created the PC.  What ended up happening is it had a profound effect on the industry.  The problem was IBM didn't defend their property as much.  Because the IBM PC was easily cloned, it became a commodity.  The "silicon beast" (as the book mentions) gobbled up everything else.  It then turned on IBM and thus ate up its line.
> 
> Now let's keep in mind something--was the PC revolution good?  Yes, for the industry, but not for it's creator.




Here's the problem though - good for the industry but not the company is a fallacy.  I won't rehash my big spiel on this, but here it is. http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/the-economics-of-open-gaming-an-open-letter-to-wotc/.

Let's take your example.  No, IBM didn't get "all PC revenue."  But because the entire computer sector boomed as a result of that openness, they boomed with it!  Check out Dell vs IBM.   $37B market cap vs $172B.  If one company controlled ALL PC sales, they wouldn't be $172B; Dell accounts for 31.4% of US PC sales.  And that would be with the assumption that the competition and its effect on price and quality hasn't had a huge positive effect and that, if it was "All IBM" today, we'd be using the equivalent of crappy 486es.

Also relevant - Apple has 6.6% of the US PC market share.  Yay for being closed.  ?


----------



## amethal

Orcus said:
			
		

> Our plan for 3E pdf supplements was for books that were planned as 3E books (like Tegel and *Slumbering Tsar*, etc) that got pushed back and now *will be* 4E *books*.



That's good news!


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> To be honest, the OGL reminds me of a situation in the book "In Search of Stupidity", which covered a lot of the tech industry.  It shows a lot of fascinating subjects, including how Borland, Ashton-Tate, IBM (twice), etc, made really dumb mistakes that hurt their businesses, sometimes permanently.  The author brings up good points like the myths of Microsoft having shoddy products, for instance.  (Microsoft gets some criticism in the book, but the key fact is they got so big because they had really good products and the other guys made several mistakes).
> 
> The situation is reminds me of, is the IBM PC example.  I'm using the IBM PC example because I feel it fits the OGL/GSL situation best, and it's probably why they are changing the OGL.
> 
> The long story short--IBM created the PC.  What ended up happening is it had a profound effect on the industry.  The problem was IBM didn't defend their property as much.  Because the IBM PC was easily cloned, it became a commodity.  The "silicon beast" (as the book mentions) gobbled up everything else.  It then turned on IBM and thus ate up its line.
> 
> IBM tried to stop this by creating the PS/2, with enough patents and legal protections.  However, the clones became too powerful and prevented them from re-obtaining dominance.  It then ate their mainframe business as well.  (Macintosh learned from this--Steve Jobs said "NO" and reversed course when they were gonna allow Mac clones).
> 
> What I see similar is that Wizards released their D&D rules under an OGL, but not seeing the damage it could do.  They probably didn't expect such blantant "freeware" versions of their games such as the online SRD, the repurposing of Unearthed Arcana, etc.  Despite people claims of "It's Viral" being consider a benefit, no profitable company wants to commoditize their product unless the price of the product is smaller than any supplementary service they can do, or they are in a bitter "price war".  It's simple economics.
> 
> They also saw their brand weakening.  So, one possible reason for the GSL replacing the OGL for 4e, is that they are trying to release a new version of D&D before their brand gets weaker.  I see the GSL as a way of strengthening their brand.
> 
> Now let's keep in mind something--was the PC revolution good?  Yes, for the industry, but not for it's creator.  So, I see this as WoTC trying to prevent themselves from weakening their D&D brand.  I see nothing wrong with this.  While the OGL was good I think it was a little too good and suspected it wouldn't last forever.  I can see this, just like Orcus can prefer the OGL personally but be accepting of the GSL being better from WoTCs standpoint.



You really start to sound like a broken record.

I was there during the PC revolution. It was my day job. And you've got the story backwards. IBM was the leader of the PC revolution up until the moment they decided to close the design with PS/2. It wasn't the open design that killed them - that is what made the PC win over all the other designs - it was their decision to close it. Many companies were designing personal computers in those days. If IBM hadn't done the IBM PC an open design, it wouldn't have caused a revolution. The mistake was to panic and try to "put the genie back in the bottle".

If you want to give history lessions, I suggest you do them correctly.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm really sick of people saying "WoTC knew what they were doing" when they made it viral.  Yeah, maybe, but perhaps they now see negative effects and want to change their minds.  When Andy Collins expressed disappointment about what happened to Unearthed Arcana, they probably didn't think the "egalitarian nature" of the license would bite them on the ass.




John, that's a valid point that can be made without repeating the canard that "all these blatant online SRDs caught WotC by surprise!"

The SRD has _always_ been online. First at WotC, and still going strong there.

You would also do well to read the  FAQ  before you do any speculating on what WotC did and did not anticipate. It's still a great read today.

I don't know how much of what's provided in that FAQ is still "common wisdom" at WotC. But I would pay $24.99 to see that FAQ dissected, discussed, and updated by WotC insiders in a softcover volume I could read on the crapper. I'd value it more than Worlds and Monsters or Races and Classes.


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> I didnt "mention" it.
> 
> I related it to all of you as it was told to me.
> 
> I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.
> 
> But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.




Yet, we have Lidda saying the following:


			
				lidda said:
			
		

> Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.
> 
> 3.x or 4E
> 
> Not both.
> 
> One or t'other.
> 
> By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.



From: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224217

Which is what I based my (optimistic, for once) interpretation on.

At this point, the best I can say is that it looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and given that there have been several months of intensive work to get the license "just right", it's a bit worrisome that it can't be pinned down well enough for people whose livlihoods depend on it to decide what to do. It's very easy to spin conspiracy theories here...the delays and confusion have probably kept companies from committing resources to producing product which might have stolen some of the 4e launch thunder. I have no reason to believe this is the case, but conspiracy theories thrive on reading malice into simple human error. 

The question of "Is the restriction per-product or per-company" really isn't vague, obscure, borderline, or edge. It's not like the "What is 'clearly defined'" debate WRT to PI/OGC which was the biggie with the original OGL. Either a company can produce some products under the OGL and some under the GSL, so long as they're different products -- or they can't. I honestly don't see why this is hard to state authoritively. (But I still have a page of replies to read, maybe it's recolsved by the end of this thread. Tally ho!)


----------



## JohnRTroy

You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too.  The PC business doesn't help IBM.  Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN.  And Oldtimer, you can't refute that simple fact.  I'm not saying the Microcomputer revolution wasn't beneficial to the industry, but IBM didn't get much out of it.  I suggest both of you read that book, it is very enlightening and against the current popular memes.

WoTC is in no obligation to make the same mistakes.  While this may sound cold, they are not responsible for the GGP (Gross Gamer Product).  Competition existed without the OGL, it will continue if the OGL dies on the vine (if enough people decide to abandon it).

This may not be the best thing for the consumer--but I can't blame them for doing this either.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gents,
> 
> I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands.
> 
> I am reading the thread, absorbing all the opinions, rants, speculations, thoughts, and musings. I have chimed in on a couple posts but beyond that, sitting here on Saturday morning, with out the license in front of me, I am quickly skating into the realm of speculation and I don't not want to unnecessarily add gas to the fire that may or may not be there. Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y.
> 
> I will say this Linae and I (and a lot of other people at WOTC) worked our butts off to get the GSLs done.
> 
> First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products. We want third party publishers to support 4e. We want them to move forward with us. We'll have two licenses, one that supports fantasy genre gaming and one that acts as a bit of a catch all to support everything else (modern, sci-fi, super-hero etc). In the end this license may not be for everyone but we are designing it to be good enough for most. Regardless of what we do with the license and system, on the spectrum of fully closed to fully open, there will be alternative viewpoints and opinions and they all have a level of validity.
> 
> Wizards clearly derived benefit from the OGL but I think the jury will be out for eternity on exactly what the benefits were and weren't. It's the stuff message boards were made for.  Was the OGL perfect? No, but it certainly got a lot of people playing and making RPGs and the industry is stronger for it. I am a big proponent of open gaming, I get the network effect. The OGL and D20 SRD created benefits for D&D 3.x but I also recognize there are some bugaboos in the openness as well.
> 
> We had simple goals in mind with the license. 1) Support WotC's core RPG business. 2) Continue the notion set with the OGL that if publishers want to make books that work with D&D (and other WOTC brands) there will be an option for them. 3) Have a license that works for WoTC but keeps our involvement in the license to as minimal as possible 4) Keep the barriers to entry as low as possible. Simple goals but not always simple solutions.
> 
> I am at GAMA next week. On Thursday I am back in the office and on Friday I hope to have the license in my hand. Many of us will spend a week or so combing over it, again and again, making sure we are totally happy with it, only then will we send it out to folks like Clark, Chris, Erik, Russ, and the other publishers we are talking with.
> 
> I will keep you posted on the final results as I am sure folks like Clark will do as well.




First scout I would like to say thanks for your work, any feels i have expressed has not been towards you or any other person. Just the company. I am really really hoping what has been said is not what it really means. I really hope you get the GSL and find the way it is written it will allow 3rd party publishers to still make OGL and get on board with the GSL. Especially if they are different products, I wouldn't be happy if companies couldn't make 3.5 free downloads for their books. But it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

Anyways, here's to hoping I and many others are wrong. Have a nice weekend.


----------



## crow81

Based what is now known about the GSL and 4th edition. One thing is crystal clear WotC intent was geared toward  getting away from the OGL regardless if D&D need an upgrade.

Their actions with  DDI,  Dragon and Dungeon magazines show this was a rushed process. Quality is secondary.

 I suspect the secrecy regarding the GSL and SRD have more to do with there fear that 4e will pale in comparison to 3.5.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hrm,



> First and foremost, we are trying to design the license to best support our business, the business of selling 4e products.




I am struck by the narrowness of this definition, that is,to sell 4e products.  I would consider "selling 4e products" to be a business _strategy_, and the _business_ was selling games and game related material.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Lizard said:
			
		

> (But I still have a page of replies to read, maybe it's recolsved by the end of this thread. Tally ho!)




Is this the end of the thread? Are you here yet?

Welcome!

How's it looking from where you're sitting now?


----------



## JohnRTroy

> You would also do well to read the FAQ before you do any speculating on what WotC did and did not anticipate. It's still a great read today.




I did.  But I'm sure some people were surprised and disappointed.  The FAQ says they can do it.  But I'm sure people at WoTC thought people would be nicer and not exploitive.  I would call republishing UA exploitive.  It's not as egalitaran as some think.  And I would say that behavior of people is one of the reasons why we are now getting a GSL.  Maybe they expected better of people.  I dunno.



> I don't know how much of what's provided in that FAQ is still "common wisdom" at WotC. But I would pay $24.99 to see that FAQ dissected, discussed, and updated by WotC insiders in a softcover volume I could read on the crapper. I'd value it more than Worlds and Monsters or Races and Classes.




I assume that FAQ will be going away soon once the GSL replaces the OGL.  I doubt Wizards will keep their own SRD up once 4e hits.


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster

Orcus said:
			
		

> I didnt "mention" it.
> 
> I related it to all of you as it was told to me.
> 
> I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.
> 
> But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.




I appreciate that you tried to do so and I appreciate your forthright manner during the whole affair. Although the WotC fan in me (and make no mistake, I am/was one) is unsettled, I wish Necromancer the best of luck with 4e!


----------



## tomBitonti

In fairness, I am wondering if the restrictions have much to do with the practical difficulty in combinding the OGL with the GSL.  That is, in relation to individual products.

On the other hand, if there is a company based restriction as opposed to a product by product restriction, I don't think that practical difficulty is an issue.

Thx!


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too.  The PC business doesn't help IBM.  Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN.  And Oldtimer, you can't refute that simple fact.  I'm not saying the Microcomputer revolution wasn't beneficial to the industry, but IBM didn't get much out of it.  I suggest both of you read that book, it is very enlightening and against the current popular memes.



I wasn't only alive then, I was working in the personal computer business. (Yes, I really am that old.)

I don't refute the fact that IBM was entirely unprepared for the revolution (they expected to sell 30 000 units of IBM PC when they planned the product). That was their first mistake. Their second, and more serious mistake, was to panic and try to close it. That made them irrelevant.

I'm sure it's a good book. But I still rely more on my first-hand knowledge of what went down.



> WoTC is in no obligation to make the same mistakes.



Since the actual mistake was to try to close down an open design, it would seem they are doing the same mistake.


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too.  The PC business doesn't help IBM.  Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN.




That's the bad assumption.  It went down initially.  But I bet that today they're making more on PCs than they were then.  Openness caused demand to spike.  100% of the market share of a closed product- say the Mac - is worse than a small share of a big market.  IBM/Lenovo gets 20% of the overall worldwide PC market currently.   Apple, which has gone with the historically closed model and was around back when IBM started with the PC, is at 6%.  

In the same way, it's better not just for the consumer and the industry but for the individual company to get a smaller percentage of a bigger pie.  The math is pretty simple really.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I did.  But I'm sure some people were surprised and disappointed.  The FAQ says they can do it.  But I'm sure people at WoTC thought people would be nicer and not exploitive.  I would call republishing UA exploitive.  It's not as egalitaran as some think.  And I would say that behavior of people is one of the reasons why we are now getting a GSL.  Maybe they expected better of people.  I dunno.



"Exploitive"? "expected better"? Man, are you for real?

For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!


----------



## JohnRTroy

I was in the industry too--yes, I am that old too    .

The difference is, WoTC still has their 4e fans.  That poll here says 65% don't care if the game is totally closed and less than 10% want something equivalent to the OGL.  I suspect they are closing up something they now consider a bit too liberal.



> In fairness, I am wondering if the restrictions have much to do with the practical difficulty in combining the OGL with the GSL. That is, in relation to individual products.




The OGL itself says it can't be mixed, and I think the best case scenario for Wizards is for them to get publishers to abandon the OGL for the GSL, otherwise the mixing of two could lead to some trying to reverse-engineer 4e under the OGL, as many people have threatened to do.  But we'll have to see the specifics.


----------



## GMSkarka

Orcus said:
			
		

> *company by company, not product by product
> *support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
> *This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license.




No, it appears that the unforseen accidental consequence was in the misunderstanding that the OGL = 3E-derivatives.    Any system released under the OGL is being blanketed by this.   So it's:

"Support 4E OR support 3E, Traveller, Runequest, FATE, Fudge, Action!, etc. etc."

Which is the problem I'm having.     I have to admit, the reek of Hasbro Corporate is all over this.

WOTC:    Have us support 4th Edition exclusively because it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, and we'd be fools not to --- not because we're *forced* into exclusivity.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Orcus said:
			
		

> GM,
> 
> It is.
> 
> I dont know the full paramaters. But we will have to choose on a company by company basis, not a product by product basis, or so I have been specifically told by Wizards.
> 
> Here is what I know:
> 
> *company by company, not product by product
> *support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
> *This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license.
> 
> Clark




Yeah I know and I believe you, i just really really hope you misunderstood or they misunderstood you. I don't think that is the case but I am still hoping that is the case. kinda like in the morning hoping the sun don't come up so you don't have to go to work.


----------



## Lizard

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> "Exploitive"? "expected better"? Man, are you for real?
> 
> For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!




Yeah, you might as well give it up. This argument has no future.

"Hey there, would you like a doughnut from this box? You can have any one you want!"
"Cool, I want the chocolate."
"Hey, no fair, I wanted that one!"
"But you said I could have any one I wanted!"
"Yeah, but I didn't think you'd pick THAT one!"


----------



## JohnRTroy

> For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!




Oh c'mon.  I basically would treat the company like I would want to be treated.  If you guys can't understand that taking somebody's hard work and releasing it for free isn't exploitive, regardless of the license used--at the most charitable its rude.  You and I will have to agree to disagree, but don't expect me to never mention it again.

At the very minimum--I expect the abandonment of the OGL by Wizards was partly based on that behavior.  

What I am hoping now is that the GSL will be a little like the creative commons, where the author decides if their additional rules can be used by others, or not, leaving the choice up to the creator.  Maybe that will prevent the exploitive leeching that might occur.


----------



## mxyzplk

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> First scout I would like to say thanks for your work, any feels i have expressed has not been towards you or any other person. Just the company. I am really really hoping what has been said is not what it really means. I really hope you get the GSL and find the way it is written it will allow 3rd party publishers to still make OGL and get on board with the GSL. Especially if they are different products, I wouldn't be happy if companies couldn't make 3.5 free downloads for their books. But it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.
> 
> Anyways, here's to hoping I and many others are wrong. Have a nice weekend.




Hey DM, where's that Rouse post from; I can't find it? 

Thanks...


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I was in the industry too--yes, I am that old too    .
> 
> The difference is, WoTC still has their 4e fans.  That poll here says 65% don't care if the game is totally closed and less than 10% want something equivalent to the OGL.



Oh, I do agree there are huge differences between WotC now and IBM then. For one thing WotC wasn't taken by surprise by the success of 3E. 

So, it might not be such a serious mistake as what IBM made in their PS/2 panic, but I still think it's a mistake.



> The OGL itself says it can't be mixed, and I think the best case scenario for Wizards is for them to get publishers to abandon the OGL for the GSL, otherwise the mixing of two could lead to some trying to reverse-engineer 4e under the OGL, as many people have threatened to do.



I don't really the scenario where the "mixing of the two" could lead to that. You can't have another license in a product covered by the OGL, so how would that scenario play out?

That said, I firmly belive that 4e reverse-engineering under OGL will be a reality soon. "The genie" and all that.


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Oh c'mon.  I basically would treat the company like I would want to be treated.  If you guys can't understand that taking somebody's hard work and releasing it for free isn't exploitive, regardless of the license used--at the most charitable its rude.  You and I will have to agree to disagree, but don't expect me to never mention it again.




Dude, you're not making a bit of sense.

Someone releases some software under the GPL. I reuse it in my software and release mine for free too.  As is required by the GPL.  That's releasing someone else's hard work for free.  And it's what's supposed to happen.  The point of an open license is to say "use my hard work for free!  No, really!  Please!"  That's why open licenses exist.  

Saying "regardless of license" is just about the most... nice word nice word... irrelevant thing to say about a discussion that is specifically about license.


----------



## nothing to see here

*An yet to be noticed point*

I'm not an IP lawyer.  I'm not an open-source systems theorist.  I am not a game designer.

What I do know however, is marketing.

And amid all of the doom-and-glooming I have read about WOTC from some on this Board, one comment from Scott Rouse remains telling and, strangely, uncommented on.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...

...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!  

This was NOT a feature of the d20STL.  It was not a feature of the OGL.  You might rememer the controversy when the Valar Project tried abuse the wiggle room that was there when they put out the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Dungeons and Dragons remains the ONLY Pen and Paper RPG brand that has wide market name recognition.  WOTC are LETTING THEIR COMPETITORS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BRAND!

This is outrageously generous.

Rules are important.  Open communities are important.  But allowing a non WOTC company to use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover of a product is staggering.

It might be genius.  It might be madness.  But it certainly is generous.

If I start a shoe business, I don't get to stick a Nike Swoosh on my product.  Closed Brand.

If I am writing a sci-fi I don't get to set it in the Star Wars universe.  Closed IP.

If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?  

People should look beyond open gaming for a moment.  In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Oh c'mon.  I basically would treat the company like I would want to be treated.  If you guys can't understand that taking somebody's hard work and releasing it for free isn't exploitive, regardless of the license used--at the most charitable its rude.  You and I will have to agree to disagree, but don't expect me to never mention it again.



And don't expect me not to yell at you every time.

There's nothing sacred about "somebody's hard work" that need special treatment when that somebody issued a license to use it. Your stand on this is, at he most charitable, ignorant. I have done exactly that, many times, and I don't consider myself rude because of it.


----------



## Dark Mistress

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Hey DM, where's that Rouse post from; I can't find it?
> 
> Thanks...




Like a page or two back from when I quoted it.

Ok went and looked it is post 279 in this thread on the 10th page.


----------



## Jack99

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> That said, I firmly belive that 4e reverse-engineering under OGL will be a reality soon. "The genie" and all that.




How is that possible? Isn't the OGL based on the d20 model from 3.x? Or am I completely at a loss with how this works? If so, fair enough, but do kindly explain. It seems more than ridiculous if it is possible.

Cheers


----------



## breschau

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?
> 
> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.  Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?
> 
> It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.




So wait, if M&M continues to publish their game as is, that prevents them from publishing 4E material?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> If you guys can't understand that taking somebody's hard work and releasing it for free isn't exploitive, regardless of the license used--at the most charitable its rude.  At the very minimum--I expect the abandonment of the OGL by Wizards was partly based on that behavior.




John, when did that ever happen? 

Seriously.

The OGL was used exactly as it was intended. Third-party publishers made d20 system games, they made OGL-only games. Some of them were highly innovative and that design found its way back into the core of WotC's own design.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?
> 
> Yeah, thats what I thought.




Hey there all,

Since I have nothing to add to the main topic but idle speculation, I think I am going to stay out of this one. I do, however, have one thing to add. With the exception of a few IP sections (such as deities) the _Pathfinder RPG_ will be a completely open system. 

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


----------



## Nyarlathotep

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?
> 
> People should look beyond open gaming for a moment.  In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.




I'm not sure I agree with that. Have the logo is great for publishers but what if wizards says to a publisher "We've reviewed your product and have a competing product that will be out in two months, so you can't publish that". Without knowing how the process is going to work for approval of your product and what WotC has in the pipeline how can any small publisher hope to put out product?

I originally thought that this was going to only really hurt the 2nd-tier publishers, then revised my opinion that it will hurt 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. Now I think it hurts all publishers who wanted to support 4E.

Is it wizards right to do so? Absolutely. Can I fault them for it? No, they've got to protect their business. Do I like it? From what i've read so far, absolutely not.


----------



## Orcus

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I'm not an IP lawyer.  I'm not an open-source systems theorist.  I am not a game designer.
> 
> What I do know however, is marketing.
> 
> And amid all of the doom-and-glooming I have read about WOTC from some on this Board, one comment from Scott Rouse remains telling and, strangely, uncommented on.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...
> 
> ...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!
> 
> This was NOT a feature of the d20STL.  It was not a feature of the OGL.  You might rememer the controversy when the Valar Project tried abuse the wiggle room that was there when they put out the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
> 
> Dungeons and Dragons remains the ONLY Pen and Paper RPG brand that has wide market name recognition.  WOTC are LETTING THEIR COMPETITORS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BRAND!
> 
> This is outrageously generous.
> 
> Rules are important.  Open communities are important.  But allowing a non WOTC company to use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover of a product is staggering.
> 
> It might be genius.  It might be madness.  But it certainly is generous.
> 
> If I start a shoe business, I don't get to stick a Nike Swoosh on my product.  Closed Brand.
> 
> If I am writing a sci-fi I don't get to set it in the Star Wars universe.  Closed IP.
> 
> If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?
> 
> People should look beyond open gaming for a moment.  In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.




Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages. 

Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt). 

That isnt the issue. 

We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.

Clark


----------



## Orcus

breschau said:
			
		

> So wait, if M&M continues to publish their game as is, that prevents them from publishing 4E material?




Yes.

And if they go 4E, they cannot support 3E products or OGL produts with further products. 

Its one or the other. Publishers have to choose--go 4E and abandon your old lines, or stay 3E and give up the chance to support 4e.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages.
> 
> Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt).
> 
> That isnt the issue.
> 
> We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.
> 
> Clark




wow this is the most negative I have heard from you in awhile. Maybe you should have that third cup of coffee this morning.


----------



## Goobermunch

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Eh, I don't think it's trying to stir it up as much as not really caring if they do.  It's the Microsoft/RIAA/GM/American Airlines theory of business.  Customers are sheep and they'll buy what you tell them to.
> 
> If you keep up with the news on Hasbro, this isn't unusual.  The Scrabulous lawsuit, the clue.com lawsuit, the Constructible Strategy Game patent war vs. WizKids, the Magic "tapping" lawsuit.  They are aggressive about maintaining exclusive holds on everything related to any of their game lines, by patent, trademark, lawsuit, license, or any other means.
> 
> Half a million Facebook users play Scrabulous every day - Hasbro obviously doesn't care about angering them, so they're definitely not going to care about the couple thousand D&D players who are sufficiently plugged in to see and understand the GSL.
> 
> Read n Learn:
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/11/hasbro-tries-to-shut-down-scrabulous/
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/1226253
> http://www.patentarcade.com/labels/Lawsuits.html
> 
> And let's get it out of the way cause I know the yes-men are chomping at the bit - yes, it's their God-given corporate right under US law to do all this.  But it still sucks.




It's not only their god-given right, in many cases, it's their statutory duty.  If you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them.  Trademark goes beyond names and words, and includes things like packaging and, arguably, a board game's layout and distinct board coloring.  Hasbro owns trademarks on Clue and Scrabble.  If they wish to maintain those trademarks, they need to sue to protect them.

Should Hasbro commit fiscal suicide by letting random people copy their IP and ideas?  There's a reason why our legal system protects creative works and provides creators with protection.  You may think that the system is corrupt or broken, but how else is Hasbro supposed to stop me from copying Scrabble and releasing my new board game "Spell-o-grid?"  Sure, their version may be made with a higher quality board, and maybe they only use the standard 26 "english letters," but mine is substantially cheaper, and if you flip over the qy and qj tiles, you can use them like Hasbro's "blank" tiles.

Or is it your position that it's okay for people to copy Hasbro's products, but not a small company or individual designer's work?

Hasbro does what it can because Hasbro must protect those rights.

--G


----------



## Grogtard

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, it appears that the unforseen accidental consequence was in the misunderstanding that the OGL = 3E-derivatives.    Any system released under the OGL is being blanketed by this.   So it's:
> 
> "Support 4E OR support 3E, Traveller, Runequest, FATE, Fudge, Action!, etc. etc."
> 
> Which is the problem I'm having.     I have to admit, the reek of Hasbro Corporate is all over this.
> 
> WOTC:    Have us support 4th Edition exclusively because it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, and we'd be fools not to --- not because we're *forced* into exclusivity.




And this is my fear and hope after all the initial dust settles that it isn't the case.


----------



## Oldtimer

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...
> 
> ...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!
> 
> This was NOT a feature of the d20STL.  It was not a feature of the OGL.



Not only was it not a feature of OGL - OGL was designed to remove the possibility of another Mayfair Games tactics ("Suitable for use with Dungeons & Dragons").

But it is a new aspect of their licensing, that's true.

Now we just need to see the actual license...


----------



## Scipio202

Orcus said:
			
		

> We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.
> 
> Clark




Well, in a way it is relevant.  There are multiple ways of making the open gaming proposition.

The OGL/STL offered use of a system in exchange for very few restrictions, and access to a new brand (that turned out not to have much value) for some more restrictions.

The GSL (we believe) offers use of a system and use of an already very valuable brand in exchange for several more restrictions, including some kind of exclusivity to a particular flavor of openness.

We don't know yet if GSL-flavor openness is net better or net worse than OGL/STL style opennes (or more accurately, for whom is GSL openness better and worse - since there will probably be some of both).  But it seems true that the GSL offers some new benefits not present in the OGL/STL along with new restrictions.  That means that GSL vs. OGL is not necessarily zero-sum between WotC and everyone else.


----------



## nothing to see here

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages.
> 
> Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt).
> 
> That isnt the issue.
> 
> We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.
> 
> Clark




I apologize if my comment offended you Clark.  It certainly was not my intention.  A little surprising actually since you were doing yeoman's work early on as one of the few people sticking up for WOTC's intentions.

However I stand by my point, which as far as I can tell, was not addressed in any detail earlier.  Letting 3rd parties use the 'Dungeons and Dragons' brand on their on their products is groundbreaking -- even when compared to the d20STL and OGL.  

This does not dispell the talk of the GSL being a "step back".  But it should temper that criticism. 

I did not see that particular point raised in this thread (except from one early post from Scott Rouse), so I raised it.  Sorry if it rubbed the wrong way.


----------



## JohnRTroy

And keep in mind that some people will continue to use the 3e rules available under the OGL.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing if the 3e line will have a significant market segment.  I think companies like Paizo and Green Ronin will do well under that.  To me, it's probably better that some are committed to 4e and some not at all.  No "fence-sitting".

I would actually like to see a company using a ruleset based off the OGL 3e SRD do well.  Overall, while I think this is heavy-handed of WoTC, I truly think only good can come out of it.


----------



## nothing to see here

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> Well, in a way it is relevant.  There are multiple ways of making the open gaming proposition.
> 
> The OGL/STL offered use of a system in exchange for very few restrictions, and access to a new brand (that turned out not to have much value) for some more restrictions.
> 
> The GSL (we believe) offers use of a system and use of an already very valuable brand in exchange for several more restrictions, including some kind of exclusivity to a particular flavor of openness.
> 
> We don't know yet if GSL-flavor openness is net better or net worse than OGL/STL style opennes (or more accurately, for whom is GSL openness better and worse - since there will probably be some of both).  But it seems true that the GSL offers some new benefits not present in the OGL/STL along with new restrictions.  That means that GSL vs. OGL is not necessarily zero-sum between WotC and everyone else.




Agreed.

In hindsight, assuming that the "d20 system" brand would have any independent cache or staying power was one of the more naive assumptions of the whole 3.X/OGL phase of D&D's development.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Umbran said:
			
		

> *SavageRobby*, if you want to engage in namecalling childishness, do it on some other messageboard.  Don't post in this thread again.
> 
> Folks, I understand that policy changes may leave many people upset.  But let me be clear - _it is not acceptable for you to take your frustration out on people here_.  No matter what WotC does, we expect you to be civil and respectful to other posters on EN World.
> 
> If you don't feel you can live up to that expectation, you should hold off posting until you can.  Go take a walk in the spring sunshine, or something, and come back when your head is cool.




Particularly ironic, since if he'd actually read further before leaping to call me names, he'd have seen my other posts where I not only explained, but rather dramatically modified, my initial stance.


----------



## The Little Raven

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> I am struck by the narrowness of this definition, that is,to sell 4e products.  I would consider "selling 4e products" to be a business _strategy_, and the _business_ was selling games and game related material.




Narrowness? The guy is the *D&D Senior Brand Manager*. It's his job to sell D&D, which means 4th Edition. It isn't his department's business to sell Magic. Or Star Wars. Or anything but D&D. And since D&D is going to 4th Edition, that means his job is to sell 4th Edition products. D&D has a wide range of products from core books to Forgotten Realms to Eberron to Dungeon Tiles to D&D Miniatures. It's his business to sell 4e products.


----------



## defendi

I think Clark has been beaten on a little much in this thread.  Nothing to see here, I'm sure he didn't mean it personally.  He's been in the center of a couple firestorms in the last two weeks.  Give him a moment to calm down.  I think you stepped in his way when he hit his breaking point and needed to unload.

I'm with Clark (at least where he was at the beginning of the thread).  Sad (the either or decision flies in direct defiance of my business model), but I see why they'd do it and I don't hold it against them.  Now there are a couple things they could do that would REALLY devastate me, but we won't mention them.  I don't want to jinx it.


----------



## breschau

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?
> 
> Yeah, thats what I thought.




If you knew what you were talking about you'd be dangerous. Thankfully you haven't a clue.

Any and all games that use the OGL are, by definition, open games. Take the time to read. Every bit of the M&M rules are open content that can be used (except the Product Identity material, which only includes the character names, place names, artwork, and the term "power points"). Considering that the system is so different from standard d20 (character creation, toughness saves, damage bonus, etc) and that all of those are open game content, they are contributing quite a bit.

Asking someone to give out their entire book for free so you don't have to buy it is ridiculous. No one asked WotC to create the OGL. They did it on their own. Asking small companies to give away their only source of income—for free—is the height of ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## phloog

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> A new version of the GSL or of D&D?  If you are saying a new version of D&D in 1 or 2 years then I'm just going to laugh at you.  If you mean the GSL, WotC has updated the OGL license along the way, but people could use older versions of the OGL b/c it already exists and there is no way to revoke it.  I'll be very interested to see if WoTC is able to close up the license  -- SNIP.




Actually I meant GSL, but it could apply to the D&D game too - don't laugh at me - I'm not saying that it would be vastly different, but different enough (4.01) for them to make a sales pitch to the 3rd parties that it's worth doing...and if they DID come up with 4.01, you'd basically be in the same boat - - go ahead and stay with v4, or switch to 4.01 and never be able to publish for any older versions.

But the GSL is the more serious one, because I sincerely believe that it will have terms that say essentially that they can alter or revoke at any time, and that you're basically required to follow them along.

It's just basically a dangerous path, because if you DO buy in to this agreement as a publisher, you can have no reasonable assurance that they won't come up with a new version of the base game, and force you to abandon all old products. 

I just hope that MORE publishers stick with the OGL, because that's now the way my group is going...I was going to give the new version a play or two, but I'm not going to get caught in a situation where all the 3rd parties I trust are forced to abandon things I like whenever WOTC decides to do a revamp.


----------



## nothing to see here

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree with that. Have the logo is great for publishers but what if wizards says to a publisher "We've reviewed your product and have a competing product that will be out in two months, so you can't publish that". Without knowing how the process is going to work for approval of your product and what WotC has in the pipeline how can any small publisher hope to put out product?
> 
> I originally thought that this was going to only really hurt the 2nd-tier publishers, then revised my opinion that it will hurt 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. Now I think it hurts all publishers who wanted to support 4E.
> 
> Is it wizards right to do so? Absolutely. Can I fault them for it? No, they've got to protect their business. Do I like it? From what i've read so far, absolutely not.




Well that would be a concern.  But, from what I have seen, there has been zero indication that, within the 4e ruleset, this sort of new "non-compete clause" will be a feature of the GSL.  

If it did, it would change the calculous.  Not very many working business models provide such discretionary authoirty to your competitors.  That's why I seriously doubt  it will be a feature of the GSL.


----------



## S'mon

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> It's not only their god-given right, in many cases, it's their statutory duty.  If you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them.  Trademark goes beyond names and words, and includes things like packaging and, arguably, a board game's layout and distinct board coloring.  Hasbro owns trademarks on Clue and Scrabble.  If they wish to maintain those trademarks, they need to sue to protect them.
> 
> Should Hasbro commit fiscal suicide by letting random people copy their IP and ideas?  There's a reason why our legal system protects creative works and provides creators with protection.  You may think that the system is corrupt or broken, but how else is Hasbro supposed to stop me from copying Scrabble and releasing my new board game "Spell-o-grid?"  Sure, their version may be made with a higher quality board, and maybe they only use the standard 26 "english letters," but mine is substantially cheaper, and if you flip over the qy and qj tiles, you can use them like Hasbro's "blank" tiles.
> 
> Or is it your position that it's okay for people to copy Hasbro's products, but not a small company or individual designer's work?
> 
> Hasbro does what it can because Hasbro must protect those rights.
> 
> --G




This is misleading.  Neither ideas nor game mechanics are protectable IP - per the _Monopoly_ case.  Elements of distinctive trade dress may amount to trade marks in US law (here in UK it falls under 'passing off' law), but in fact it would potentially be legally possible to make and market spell-o-grid.


----------



## Henry

Clark, I can understand the stress involved, but you might want to dial it back a bit. I'm not saying "out of the thread," I'm just saying that was a bit uncalled for.

Mxyzptlk, that's enough on the insults, the "acting like people are sheep" comments, and so forth. Dial it back, or you will leave the thread.

I appreciate the majority of civil discussion in here. I know it ain't easy when we're not just "talking about games," but people's livelihoods, here.

-----------------


That said, I keep getting reminded of this quote from the d20 FAQ:



> ...Changes to the core require a general consensus from large numbers of people to be successful, otherwise they'll just be ignored or "fixed" to maximize compatibility.
> 
> In fact, one of the biggest groups affected by this force will be the Wizards of the Coast tabletop RPG Research & Development team. When the time comes to make a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, they'll have to make a very persuasive case to the market to adopt any changes to the core rules they want to make! The R&D team has already made some variations close to the core. The Star Wars rules include a different system for tracking character health, the Vitality Point/Wound Point system. Only time will tell if two variations that close to the core will both be supported by the market.




If there was ever a case of proving this point, this will be it. I think the new math paradigm they've introduced (the "sweet spot" stuff) will be the selling point for this edition - this will be the part that is their biggest draw. If it doesn't work, though, we could well see the D&D market fractured to a degree like it's never been before. 4e will be a success, but so could whatever succeeds 3E as an open standard.

It also means that as Oldtimer noted, it's almost assured a competing system will be made whose core mechanics will follow many of 4e's conventions, even if it doesn't follow it to the letter; think about it -- the core mathematic (the progression of +1 per 2 levels for all classes in attack bonus and saves) is already in the SRD. For that matter, it strikes me that so much of the basic design work is in the Epic Material, in Unearthed Arcana, and in iron might / iron heroes. A system incorporating many of the sweet spot precepts, while looking and acting very different from the 4th edition, could be created right now -- and not violate a single trademark, patent, or copyright.

Or, for all we know, Pathfinder might morph into the killer app that keeps D&D gamers adding to the OGL, along with Runequest, Traveller, et. al.

But guys and gals? Let's PLEASE make sure to eliminate the personal insults and the Nazis and Sweatshops. It goes nowhere but down.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Well that would be a concern.  But, from what I have seen, there has been zero indication that, within the 4e ruleset, this sort of new "non-compete clause" will be a feature of the GSL.
> 
> If it did, it would change the calculous.  Not very many working business models provide such discretionary authoirty to your competitors.  That's why I seriously doubt  it will be a feature of the GSL.





http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15651565&postcount=58



			
				Scott Rouse said:
			
		

> We will likely have a clause for allowance of similar designs that protects everyone in case a 3PP and WOTC release similar ideas at different times. EG someone does "Tome of Riding Dogs" and a month later we release "Complete Riding Dog"




EDIT: I haven't caught up on that thread since last night, so it may be clarified a little later on.


----------



## nothing to see here

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15651565&postcount=58
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I haven't caught up on that thread since last night, so it may be clarified a little later on.




I think that quote confirms my point, actually.  

Read the quote again, the GSL would contain language to protect WOTC from charges of ripping off third parties.  That's a far cry from a provision allowing them to ban potential tird party competition.   The human resources cost alone of such a discretionary approvals process would make such an possibility a long shot at best.

But of course we haven't seen the text of the GSL yet...etc...etc


----------



## Greg K

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.




I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if WOTC is so confident in 4e, the company should be allowing third party companies to produce versions of a product for both 3e and 4e.


----------



## GMSkarka

Greg K said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if WOTC is so confident in 4e, the company should be allowing third party companies to produce versions of a product for both 3e and 4e.




No, I can understand why they wouldn't want competing versions of the same product, available for either system.  They're worried about crossing the two licenses, which would make reverse-engineering 4E under the original OGL pretty much guaranteed.

Seriously -- I can understand that.

What I absolutely DO NOT understand is a restriction that says if a company has a line of 4E support products, then they are also barred from having lines of unrelated product, supporting Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, Runequest, Action!, FATE or any of the other OGL-released systems.    

I am sincerely hoping that this is NOT the case -- but I trust Clark.  If he says that is what he's been told, then I believe him.   The absolute refusal by Scott to simply say whether or not that is case pretty much confirms it.


----------



## Yavathol

Wow, long thread!

I can understand that WotC want 3pps to support 4e, but the "no fence-sitters" approach seems pretty hard-ball to me.  Much as WotC would like 7th June to arrive and everyone instantly switches over to 4e like *clicks fingers*, isn't that a little unrealistic?

All the previous edition changes my gaming groups have gone through have involved using old adventures with the new rule-set, simply because it takes time for sufficient high-quality adventures to be published for the new edition.

IMHO the best thing the new licence could legally say would be "If you are going to publish 4e material then any 3.5e material you are still publishing *must* also be 4e compatible."  In that way, they would be leading the horse to water but stopping short of holding a gun to its' head and screaming "DRINK!!   NOW!"

Which, let's face it, is really only going to make the horse freak out...


----------



## Orcus

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I apologize if my comment offended you Clark.  It certainly was not my intention.  A little surprising actually since you were doing yeoman's work early on as one of the few people sticking up for WOTC's intentions.
> 
> However I stand by my point, which as far as I can tell, was not addressed in any detail earlier.  Letting 3rd parties use the 'Dungeons and Dragons' brand on their on their products is groundbreaking -- even when compared to the d20STL and OGL.
> 
> This does not dispell the talk of the GSL being a "step back".  But it should temper that criticism.
> 
> I did not see that particular point raised in this thread (except from one early post from Scott Rouse), so I raised it.  Sorry if it rubbed the wrong way.




Sorry if I was grouchy. 

I was doing the initial work defending Wizards. I remain stedafastly supportive of Scott and Linae. I believe this was a term that had to happen for 4E to be open, or so it appears, as part of the corporate decision making process. I dont agree with it. But bottom line, it is better than 4E not being open in my view. That said, while I agree with the concept and I love that 4E is open, I am not now and never will be a fan of that heavy handed approach. I think it was poorly concieved, poorly delivered and a bad idea.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

Yavathol said:
			
		

> IMHO the best thing the new licence could legally say would be "If you are going to publish 4e material then any 3.5e material you are still publishing *must* also be 4e compatible."  In that way, they would be leading the horse to water but stopping short of holding a gun to its' head and screaming "DRINK!!   NOW!"
> 
> Which, let's face it, is really only going to make the horse freak out...




That's an interesting idea. This late in the game I wonder if it would be possible and what 3PP would think of it. Down-side is it would up page count but it seems like a better incentive to get those who would otherwise stick with 3.x to upgrade to 4E. (Particularly if it can highlight the superiority of 4E in a side-by-side comparison).

Edit: I suppose with system incompatibility this would be major work for publishers. I further suppose it doesn't address OGL games like SC/M&M/IH et al).


----------



## The Little Raven

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> WotC has a stronger monopoly position in the RPG industry than Microsoft has in the desktop software position, in terms of pretty much any metric (number of competing companies, installation base percentages, revenue percentage of overall pie.




This is false.

Microsoft, when they were hit with anti-trust, had something approaching 90% of the market cornered. They have since lost market share because of Apple's "rebirth" and the mainstream rise of open source software.

TSR may have had that monopoly back when they were pretty much the only kid on the block, but since White Wolf has been holding down roughly 25% of the market share since the late 1990s, there's no way WotC could have more of a monopoly than Microsoft held, as basic math can tell you.


----------



## GMSkarka

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> That's an interesting idea. This late in the game I wonder if it would be possible and what 3PP would think of it. Down-side is it would up page count but it seems like a better incentive to get those who would otherwise stick with 3.x to upgrade to 4E. (Particularly if it can highlight the superiority of 4E in a side-by-side comparison).




Folks, this is NEVER going to happen.  The entire point behind this heavy-handed BS is to avoid cross-pollinating the two licenses -- which having 3E and 4E rules together would absolutely result in.   Once the two licenses are mixed like that, a reverse-engineered 4E, released under the original OGL, is guaranteed.

THAT is what they're trying to prevent.

Hell, the fact that they didn't initially understand that the reverse-engineering was possible under the original, unrevokable OGL, and therefore had to re-design a new license is most likely the reason for the months of delay, and half-dozen reversals of stated policies.


----------



## Orcus

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> What I absolutely DO NOT understand is a restriction that says if a company has a line of 4E support products, then they are also barred from having lines of unrelated product, supporting Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, Runequest, Action!, FATE or any of the other OGL-released systems.
> 
> I am sincerely hoping that this is NOT the case -- but I trust Clark.  If he says that is what he's been told, then I believe him.   The absolute refusal by Scott to simply say whether or not that is case pretty much confirms it.




GMS,

That SPECIFIC question has not been answered. I didnt ask about MM/Traveller/RQ style products because I dont have any of those. I asked the more generic question of 3E vs. 4E. Of course, because MM/RQ etc support 3E in that they use the OGL and 3E SRD, but perhaps there will be a clause that differentiates those product lines. But I think the reasoning is the same and I dont see a way for the answer to be different. And I think we both know the one thing Wizards was targeting as wanting to do away with were the standalone spin offs based on 3E taht didnt help sell 3E. So I cant imagine a more favorable exception for the very games taht I know they didnt like.

That said, my hope is that though we have to sell of d20 stuff, that we can continue to sell old OGL stuff made prior to our decision to support 4E without restriction. That is the question I want answered. However, I'm sure that is far from optimal, as even if you could sell the products you made prior to going 4E, you cant make new ones, as the interpretation of the clause is now.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Folks, this is NEVER going to happen.  The entire point behind this heavy-handed BS is to avoid cross-pollinating the two licenses -- which having 3E and 4E rules together would absolutely result in.   Once the two licenses are mixed like that, a reverse-engineered 4E, released under the original OGL, is guaranteed.
> 
> THAT is what they're trying to prevent.
> 
> Hell, the fact that they didn't initially understand that this was possible under the original, unrevokable OGL is most likely the reason for the months of delay, and half-dozen reversals of stated policies.




Sorry, I was thinking more along the adventures line than sourcebook and rule expansion line. Ah well.


----------



## GMSkarka

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was thinking more along the adventures line than sourcebook and rule expansion line. Ah well.




You misunderstand how the license works, if you think that adventures are somehow handled differently than sourcebooks or rules expansions.

It doesn't matter -- no matter the product type:  No cross-licensed products would be allowed, for the reasons stated.   Even if the product in question had only a minimum of open content, that would be the gateway through which the entire content of one license could be used with the other.


----------



## Orcus

Henry said:
			
		

> Clark, I can understand the stress involved, but you might want to dial it back a bit. I'm not saying "out of the thread," I'm just saying that was a bit uncalled for.




My bad. Understood.


----------



## SteveC

Sigh. Well it was a nice couple of days, wasn't it? In looking at the decisions that seem to be coming from WotC and the "you are either with us or against us," attitude, I think a lot of the parties involved should do some research into the Law of Unintended Consequences. Take a look at the book Freakonomics for a little better idea of what I'm talking about.

What has happened here, to my mind, is that WotC has managed to create a strong possibility for competition for their new game in the method they've chosen to use to shut competition down. What do I mean? Well, by saying, "you're either with us or against us," and then defining that in extremely stark terms, they're making a lot of the OGL market become their competition because they'll have nowhere else to go. Will Green Ronin publish 4E? Almost certainly not at this point. Will Paizo? Will Mongoose? Will any number of excellent smaller publishers who do business in the different OGL systems? Nope.

Would all of these companies have made 4E products if the new GSL was merely a tweaked version of the OGL? I can't speak for them, but I'll speculate that they almost certainly would. Why? Because D&D is going to be successful! It's going to sell and people are going to play it, and you're going to have a market for your games!

If you have a company that produces, say, some True20 and M&M products, and they're selling for you, in addition to your D20 lines are you going to abandon them? Almost certainly not.

At this point, it is entirely in interest for one of the largest tier third party companies to make a competing product for 4E (such as Pathfinder) and to aggressively market this game to all of those third party companies to give them a niche. Would a game like this exist or really matter in the larger scheme of things if WotC hadn't made publishing an either/or decision? Almost certainly not. Will it now? I don't know, but it is in the interest of every current OGL publisher to make it matter, because it's their livelihood.

That's the unintended consequence: by trying to stifle "competition" (and I'm putting that in quotes because how much real competition is this to WotC?) they've given the key players every reason to compete with them. Or to try at least.

--Steve


----------



## pawsplay

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> IHowever I stand by my point, which as far as I can tell, was not addressed in any detail earlier.  Letting 3rd parties use the 'Dungeons and Dragons' brand on their on their products is groundbreaking -- even when compared to the d20STL and OGL.




Not in the vacuum-cleaner bag industry. Not in the RPG-focused magazine business. But I'll allow this: in the 21st century hardcopy-published RPG segment, that ground had not been recently disturbed to a great extent until this came along.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You misunderstand how the license works, if you think that adventures are somehow handled differently than sourcebooks or rules expansions.
> 
> It doesn't matter -- no matter the product type:  No cross-licensed products would be allowed, for the reasons stated.   Even if the product in question had only a minimum of open content, that would be the gateway through which the entire content of one license could be used with the other.




Fair enough. Although to clarify, I didn't think the license applied seperately, I just didn't think about how what might have worked when "dual-statting" adventures would have applied to rulebooks.

As an aside though, if (and I realize it's an impossible if) they were to allow dual-stating (with say a 4E header), couldn't the OGL specificy that anything under the 4E header was specifically disallowed from being open/OGL content?

Again I know it's not going to happen but it makes an interesting thought exercise (such as the scope of my thoughts are )


----------



## GMSkarka

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> As an aside though, if (and I realize it's an impossible if) they were to allow dual-stating (with say a 4E header), couldn't the OGL specificy that anything under the 4E header was specifically disallowed from being open/OGL content?




If you mean could a publisher declare the 4E-headed material as closed, then yes -- they could.  However:

1) All it would take is one publisher to screw this up for the cat to be out of the bag -- and given the number of publishers who, to this day, screw up their implementation of the *existing* OGL, I certainly would have ZERO confidence in the security of this method.

2) Someone could still make the argument that the 4E material should be open under the "derivative content" clauses of the OGL.  



			
				Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> Again I know it's not going to happen but it makes an interesting thought exercise (such as the scope of my thoughts are )




Somewhat less interesting for me as a "thought exercise", since I do this for a living.  This *is* my "day job", and I've got a kid starting college in the Fall.    This is a bit more stressful for me, as you might imagine.


----------



## Orcus

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont think anyone should be mad at Wizards either.
> 
> Heck, the concept of letting us use their license is to help sell core books. In my view, this restriction--more than any of their other restrictions about content and sexuality and violence--actually aims right at the heart of that key purpose.
> 
> Now, dont get me wrong, I would _*strongly prefer * _ that this clause not exist. But I'm not really in a position to gripe about that. They want to crush out 3E support and drive people to 4E, that's their choice. And I cant say it is a bad one. Others may feel differently. But it makes perfect business sense to me. I didnt see that coming. And I like to be right. So it aggravates me on that level.  But it makes sense. The point of the GSL is to help sell 4E. One way to do that is to close off support for 3E. They cant revoke the OGL/3E SRD, so the only way to accomplish closing down 3E is to do exactly what they are doing. As their attorney, I probably would have advised them to do exactly that.
> 
> Clark




I know it is bad form to quote yourself, so sorry for that. But I keep coming back to this same premise.

Yes, I am mad about the "poison pill" and I think it is shortsighted and I think it was poorly handled and implemented. But I have to put that aside. That's my problem, not theirs. 

The bottom line is they are still doing something amazing--they are opening 4E. I continue to feel that is an amazing accomplishment. 

Here is where it starts to become their problem and where I am calling for calm till we see the final terms and for Wizards to consider addressing a specific concern that was likely an unanticipated consequence: backstock.

If they go through all the trouble of making a GSL it has to be because they know there is value to 4E support by third parties. And I strongly feel there is. YOu dont make a license like this so that no one uses it. You make it so it is used. So that 4E is supported. I'm not sure Wizards realizes the pdf/backstock issue. Many companies who would love to support 4E and who do not publish 3E standalone lines and who are happy to jump right in on 4E and not make another 3E product might still not use the GSL -IF- it requires that company to also turn of pdf sales of its old products. Many, many companies have a pretty substantial back catalog that creates a surprisingly nice stream for the companies. Having to forgo that would likely mean that nearly every company that has a backstock that wants to support 4E wont do so beacuse they cant give up the backlist pdf sales.

So here is my open plea to Wizards:

I know why you did what you did. I understand it. Whether or not *I* like it isnt really material. I know why you did it and it makes sense. But please consider something that you may not have considered: prior backlist pdfs. Let us continue to sell those. The fans love them. Collectors want them. We cant reprint the books. But people want that stuff. It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting 4E. Please grandfather that stuff in.

That is all I ask. I'm not even asking you to remove the poison pill (though if you did, that would be great; I think the minimal detriment of allowing, say, GR to keep doing MM is outweighed 100 to 1 by the fact that they will be awesome supporters of 4E. Same with Paizo and others.). Please consider the backstock issue. Because a good number of publishers, myself included, might not go to 4E if we have to give that up. And I cant imagine those things were the intended target of the "noncompete poison pill". 

I'm defending Wizards on this, in the big picture. I dont like the way it was done at all and I disagree with the choice, but that isnt my call. Being able to support D&D is amazing. 

And I'm not faulting Scott or Linae. I know they fought hard to get this done. I know they are behing 4E 100%. And I know many of us want to support 4E 100%. Now lets try to work on removing the uninteded issues that might slow down that 100% support.

Clark


----------



## kalanijasmine

Clark, I am 100% in agreement that the GSL was almost axed, and, like you, I am fully in support of the effort that went into getting us _any_ GSL by people like Scott and Linae

I would appreciate some feedback from yourself, Linae, or Scott regarding a concern I have about signing onto the GSL and publishing 4th edition materials (see below)

In 2004, I seriously considered publishing third party material for 3.5, as I believe in my ability to publish high quality material - for the fact that I was almost published as a child author at the age of 7, was published in a short story anthology in 1997, and later in 2003 in the Sedona Journal (a major spiritual publication). In addition, I have been working on my own game system since 1997 (The Lethal Game System), and have spent considerable time over the last decade reverse engineering the game systems of numerous companies in order to determine what made their products successful, and what mistakes were made in said products which detracted from its overall enjoyment.

However, I decided not to enter the third-party market at that time due to the incredible difficulty I would have had making my products visible in the sea of third party material already on the market. 

Disappointed as I was, I could not justify the commitment to producing third party material, and so continued working on fine-tuning the LGS in my spare time. While I have put the LGS on hold for the next 2 to 5 years in order to allow the hype surrounding 4e to stabilize, I have made the commitment to myself to make the transition from amature developer to professional FT developer - and would like to commit my creative resources to producing 4th edition material as I believe that my products will have greater visibility should I enter the third party market at this time.

My only hesitation about supporting 4e, is the remote possibility that by doing so, the GSL will somehow prevent me from publishing the "Lethal Game System" (LGS) and "Lethal Fantasy" products I have spent the last 10 years developing, or that by publishing the LGS, I will be unable to continue supporting fourth edition and/or publish new 4th edition material.

I would love it if I was able to support both game systems - Dungeons & Dragons and Lethal Fantasy (a gritty d12 system).

As to whether Lethal Fantasy and the LGS are OGL material or not - At this time, they are closed material, however, I have been giving serious thought to adopting some form of third-party licence for my own products also, as I too, believe in the concept of open gaming.

Given the fact that the OGL is not compatible with the GSL, I will definately not be publishing my material under that licence. I may however, choose to adopt some other existing licence (eg. The CC) or find some way of drafting up my own version of an open game licence for use with my product.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Somewhat less interesting for me as a "thought exercise", since I do this for a living.  This *is* my "day job", and I've got a kid starting college in the Fall.    This is a bit more stressful for me, as you might imagine.




My apologies if I've annoyed you.


----------



## Scipio202

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> Clark, I am 100% in agreement that the GSL was almost axed, and, like you, I am fully in support of the effort that went into getting us _any_ GSL by people like Scott and Linae
> 
> Some time after you went to bed last night, I posted the following question as I am concerned over my ability to publish my own independent product should I decide to publish 4th edition products.
> 
> While I am under the understanding that the GSL cannot prohibit me from publishing my own independent game system (as it would be some violation of the Sharman Act), I would still appreciate some feedback from you, Linae, or Scott as I would love to support fourth edition if at all possible.



 It may matter if you want to publish your own system under the OGL, or if you just want to publish it in a closed manner (or under a non-OGL open license).  If the latter was okay with you, then I'd have to imagine the GSL would allow it.  To do otherwise would be equivalent to saying "once you use GSL, you can't publish any product that isn't GSL", which I think would be impossible.


----------



## Urizen

I could speculate on how many of the larger publishers aren't going to go the 4th edition route at this point, but what really interests me right now is, who IS?

I know Necromancer will, but who else?

Will Goodman games choose to drop lines like C&C and Xcrawl in favor of newer versions (if possible)?

Would Crafty games drop Spycraft, or more likely revise it for a Modern GSL license?

What about Kobold Quarterly and the Open Design projects?

This decision by WOTC impacts so many publishers. It boggles the mind to think they would go so far as to risk alienating nearly every other 3rd party publisher, just to keep people from publishing OGL-based gaming materials.

Yeah yeah, business is business, and people can sit here and say "But it's AWESOME they kept it open," and all that... But at what cost?

From a consumer standpoint, If I no longer get to buy cool Spycraft products, or true20 products, or C&C products all because Publishers had to make a decision, and chose to go the way they felt was best for their company, I'd be pretty pissed off.


----------



## Scipio202

I have a question for publishing company owners.  Suppose the "one open license per company" clause of the GSL were such that if you created a wholly owned subsidiary company to technically be the licensee for the GSL you and your staff could still produce and sell (different) OGL and GSL products at the same time.  Do any of you know how much of a business/legal difficulty such a procedure would be?


----------



## jmucchiello

Orcus said:
			
		

> The bottom line is they are still doing something amazing--they are opening 4E. I continue to feel that is an amazing accomplishment.



No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.


----------



## Urizen

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> With the release of 4th edition, product visibility will be that much easier, and I believe that my product will have a reasonable chance of success, depending upon whether the gaming community appreciates the quality of my work.




No offense here, but the "visibility" of your product is very much in question when you consider that over 300 publishers are currently on OBS. Anyone putting anything out on or near october 1st  (at least in PDF format) is going to find themselves swimming in a sea of 4e pdfs.


----------



## jmucchiello

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...
> 
> ...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!
> 
> This was NOT a feature of the d20STL.



Yes it was.



			
				d20 system guide v5 said:
			
		

> Mandatory Trademark Use:
> 
> You must include, on the cover or back cover (or title page of works without covers) of the Covered Product, one or more of the following text blocks:
> 
> "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”



Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.


----------



## Nikosandros

Orcus said:
			
		

> I didnt ask about MM/Traveller/RQ style products because I dont have any of those. I asked the more generic question of 3E vs. 4E. Of course, because MM/RQ etc support 3E in that they use the OGL and 3E SRD, but perhaps there will be a clause that differentiates those product lines. But I think the reasoning is the same and I dont see a way for the answer to be different. And I think we both know the one thing Wizards was targeting as wanting to do away with were the standalone spin offs based on 3E taht didnt help sell 3E. So I cant imagine a more favorable exception for the very games taht I know they didnt like.



I understand your point, but MRQ is not a D&D spin-off. It uses the OGL, but doesn't derive material from the SRD.


----------



## Kesh

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.



 The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?


----------



## Kesh

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Yes it was.
> 
> Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.




No, you're mixing up two different things here. The STL required the words Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. The GSL allows the use of the full-blown D&D logo, which is going to be _much_ more recognizable on the shelf.


----------



## mxyzplk

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> It's not only their god-given right, in many cases, it's their statutory duty.  If you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them.  Trademark goes beyond names and words, and includes things like packaging and, arguably, a board game's layout and distinct board coloring.  Hasbro owns trademarks on Clue and Scrabble.  If they wish to maintain those trademarks, they need to sue to protect them.
> 
> Should Hasbro commit fiscal suicide by letting random people copy their IP and ideas?  There's a reason why our legal system protects creative works and provides creators with protection.  You may think that the system is corrupt or broken, but how else is Hasbro supposed to stop me from copying Scrabble and releasing my new board game "Spell-o-grid?"  Sure, their version may be made with a higher quality board, and maybe they only use the standard 26 "english letters," but mine is substantially cheaper, and if you flip over the qy and qj tiles, you can use them like Hasbro's "blank" tiles.
> 
> Or is it your position that it's okay for people to copy Hasbro's products, but not a small company or individual designer's work?
> 
> Hasbro does what it can because Hasbro must protect those rights.
> 
> --G




Oh, wow, you're right, I never thought about that before.  Must be that any company trying to "protect" anything they ever thought of is right and holy. Thanks for clearing that up for me.  I guess all those people who don't like what Hasbro, the RIAA, etc. do just never thought about it with as much clarity as you.


----------



## mxyzplk

Kesh said:
			
		

> The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?




OK, this is an important point.  "Open" isn't a meaningless marketing term, it's a very specific attribute of a license.  Here's the Wikipedia definition of open content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_license.

For those who fear knowledge, I'll sum up here.  Open content is:
- royalty free (you don't have to pay anyone to use it)
- share alike 
- may or may not allow commercial redistribution (your choice).

The important part here that's probably unclear is "share alike."  This means that the license has "copyleft" provisions, also described as viral openness.  The Creative Commons wording is "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one."  Basically you can use the open licensed stuff and your derivative work needs to be open too, and that openness can't be removed (except by self-breach).

Google any of the keywords in that spiel for more information (copyleft, Creative Commons, etc.)

The OGL was an open license.  Wizards of the Coast can't revoke the OGL - everything that was declared open shall be open until the end of days.  They can do things like "poison pill" the GSL to try to disincent people from using it, like computer companies try to do (Intel to Dell: don't use AMD).  But they can't make it un-open.  This is what makes it different from a "normal"license like the GSL, that they can revoke or change at any time.


----------



## mxyzplk

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> It may matter if you want to publish your own system under the OGL, or if you just want to publish it in a closed manner (or under a non-OGL open license).  If the latter was okay with you, then I'd have to imagine the GSL would allow it.  To do otherwise would be equivalent to saying "once you use GSL, you can't publish any product that isn't GSL", which I think would be impossible.




It's entirely possible.  The current restrictions on the GSL don't say this, but it is changeable at any time unilaterally by Wizards.  If they decide people doing 4e products can't do any other products, they can change the license to that and as of that moment, you have to either turn your back on 4e or turn your back on your game.  There's nothing about them making people "choose between OGL and 4e" that's magic about the OGL - they could try to say that the license means that you have to wear a skirt all day if you want to publish for 4e.  You don't have to but then no 4e.


----------



## jmucchiello

Kesh said:
			
		

> The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?



An open license has no owner. There is no one entity who is party to all instances of the license. There is no one who can revoke an open license except as defined within the license. Parties to the license stand on equal ground within the license.

The GSL is certainly owned by WotC. WotC is certainly always party to the GSL and always in the position of granting trademark usage. There is nothing "open" about such a license. Additionally, I am positive the GSL will contain language allowing WotC to rewrite, re-purpose and revoke the license at will. (Or maybe it will be once per encounter ability.) 

I will grant to you the 99.99% of the target audience doesn't care about openness. But I do and others like me do. There are business arguments for using both kinds of licenses. All I'm asking it that we stop calling this license open when clearly it is anything but.


----------



## jmucchiello

Kesh said:
			
		

> No, you're mixing up two different things here. The STL required the words Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. The GSL allows the use of the full-blown D&D logo, which is going to be _much_ more recognizable on the shelf.



I did not catch that difference. Link?

Edit: Okay, it says "a version of the logo". Somehow I don't think it will be the same logo they use.


----------



## Nellisir

Jack99 said:
			
		

> How is that possible? Isn't the OGL based on the d20 model from 3.x? Or am I completely at a loss with how this works? If so, fair enough, but do kindly explain. It seems more than ridiculous if it is possible.



Urm, no.  The OGL is just a license that governs distribution.  It doesn't have anything to do with game systems.  Now, the d20 system is based on the 3.x ruleset, but that set has been hacked and tweaked and modified so many times, at least 75% of 4e's "innovations" are already out there in OGC.  3.x is where d20 started, but it doesn't have to stay there.  Mutants & Masterminds is "based" on the d20 system, and it's far less similar to 3.x than 4e will be.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Personally, I'm hoping the GSL gives the content creator the control over whether or not their content is "viral".  In other words, let the creator decide if he wants his work used by other third parties or not--leave it up to the writer or publisher.  Don't make the "share alike" clause a mandatory requirement for using the GSL.  

I think that will be satisfying to a lot more publishers--not having "share alike" doesn't affect the ability of gamers to use it privately, it just more or less affects publishers, so it's not really serving a role akin to the ideas of free software for instance.

I don't think most developers care about the viral part, they more or less care about the ability to use the D&D game.

Liddia, Scott, if you're listening can you clarify this part yet?


----------



## Nellisir

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> I have a question for publishing company owners.  Suppose the "one open license per company" clause of the GSL were such that if you created a wholly owned subsidiary company to technically be the licensee for the GSL you and your staff could still produce and sell (different) OGL and GSL products at the same time.  Do any of you know how much of a business/legal difficulty such a procedure would be?




It might depend on how WotC defines "business" or "company" in their license, but I know it's no big deal in New Hampshire to run down to the state house and get a new business license.  I could do PC support under one business name and Mac support under another, so long as I hand out the right cards at the right time.  So far as I know.


----------



## Nellisir

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I did not catch that difference. Link?



i can't give a link, but I recall seeing something that the GSL would allow use of -some kind- of D&D logo.  My impression was that is was a) rather vague; b) probably not a "d20" logo; and c) probably not the "official" D&D logo.


----------



## jmucchiello

Nellisir said:
			
		

> i can't give a link, but I recall seeing something that the GSL would allow use of -some kind- of D&D logo.  My impression was that is was a) rather vague; b) probably not a "d20" logo; and c) probably not the "official" D&D logo.



Yeah, I found the link. And I agree with all of your points.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a


----------



## SSquirrel

Urizen said:
			
		

> That may be  the most_basic_ interpretation of what creating a pdf (or book, for that matter, as a final print ready version is just taking a pdf one step further) is, but more is involved; editing, proofing, marketing, spending money (sometimes thousands of dollars depending on the writers and artists you use), etc.




I don't know any of your work specifically, but there are indeed some pdfs available that do fit the model of "slap something together, make it a pdf, put on rpgnow".  Hopefully those have abyssmal sales.  I fully understand there is more involved with the job, but for some people out there, the absolute bare bones is an accurate description.  I don't think those people are making a very serious go at things either.  It didn't seem to me that he was trying to say that was all any pdfs sold are, but that is the basic mechanic involved   I definitely agree more work is involved to make a better product.  But that is the basics.  Kind of like saying baseball is trying to hit the ball, run around the 4 bases and keep the other team from doing the same.  There are lots of positions, strategies, etc that don't get described in that short bullet of info, but the basic concept gets across.


----------



## SSquirrel

Orcus said:
			
		

> SS, if you think they arent watching and reading THIS thread as much as we are, think again.




Oh I don't doubt in the least they're reading along Clark, but they have lives outside of work.  Maybe they were going to a baseball game or out of town for the weekend and leaving the insanity of near-launch behind on the laptop.  They are by no means required to read and post for us over the weekend, heck probly not even during the week.  I am, however, grateful for their posts and hope to see some in the near future with lots of quality information for us.  That has already been said that it would be in about 2 weeks, so I don't hope for much between now and then


----------



## BryonD

Kesh said:
			
		

> The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?



Others have said this, but there is nothing remotely arbitrary about the difference.  The OGL is not owned by WotC.  WotC doesn't control it.  The OGL is forever.

The GSL is WotC owned and WotC revokable.   It ends the day WotC says so.


----------



## Psion

Kesh said:
			
		

> The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?




See the wiki article on open content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Open content, a neologism coined by analogy with "open source", describes any kind of creative work published in a format that explicitly allows copying and modifying of its information by anyone, not exclusively by a closed organization, firm or individual.




The GSL is a free license, but WotC still retains exclusive control. It's not an open content license.


----------



## SSquirrel

Orcus said:
			
		

> Here is what I dont know:
> 
> *if you go 4E, that clearly means you cant support more 3E products, and you have to sell off backstock of *d20 products in 6 months (because they are revoking the license)*, but what does that mean for PDFs or backstock of old products? Can we continue to sell them? In other words--can I continue to sell old OGL products so long as I am not creating new ones? This to me is the biggie--this is the "backstock" question.
> 
> Clark




*emphasis mine*

Now the license that is being revoked is the d20 STL not the d20 OGL correct?  That was my understanding anyway.  Even if the d20 OGL was revoked existing versions of it could still be used.  The d20 STL is the one that allows a d20 logo on products.  How many companies are actually even utilizing that at this stage?  Most companies seem to just use the d20 OGL.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I've been out all afternoon and several pages got added while I was out


----------



## Shroomy

You know, I wonder if the split of the GSL into two licenses, one for D&D-type fantasy and one for non-D&D fantasy, kind of covers the situation of a system like _Mutants & Masterminds_, which doesn't directly compete in-genre like IH, Conan, or Pathfinder would.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

BryonD said:
			
		

> Others have said this, but there is nothing remotely arbitrary about the difference.  The OGL is not owned by WotC.  WotC doesn't control it.  The OGL is forever.
> 
> The GSL is WotC owned and WotC revokable.   It ends the day WotC says so.




Let's be precise, because this has been repeated several times now, and it's incorrect and it's getting under my skin.

WotC DOES in fact own the OGL. They wrote it, they copyrighted it, it's theirs. The DO control it. They and only they can make changes to the OGL.

They _don't_ own Open Content released under that license.


----------



## Thulcondar

Lizard said:
			
		

> It meets WOTCs goals by using quality product to drive 4e sales -- if someone really wants the content of "Monsters Beginning With A" and is system-neutral, it serves WOTC's interests to force me to release it 4e only, instead of allowing people to stick with 3.5 longer by having the same product available for both systems. It also means I can't "downgrade" a high-selling 4e product to 3x to pick up on "retro" or "grognard" sales. ("Wanted 'Monsters Beginning With B' but hate 4e? You can now get it for 3x! Don't switch!"




If the term "grognard" ends up being applied to folks who prefer 3E over 4E, then the terrorists will have already won. 

I would like to know if the new license restrictions would keep me from implementing an idea I had in the back of my head to do versions of the same products for both "generic 1E" and 4E. 

Joe


----------



## xechnao

Psion said:
			
		

> - Another company has a somewhat broader array of products, but has also developed a few niches, including niches that fit a particular non-d20 game well that just so happens to be an OGL product (not based on the D20 SRD). Though d20 fantasy sales have flagged, this company may well be enticed to dip into the refreshed 4e GSL market... but at the cost of no longer catering to the non-d20 game.




Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?


----------



## Scipio202

xechnao said:
			
		

> Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?



 Unknown - we don't know if the "you must choose" clause is specific to the OGL, or is written to apply to any open license.  However, since most people think WotC's concerns relate to 3.X and all the content that is related to it through the OGL, my guess is they probably wouldn't try to rule out other open licenses.  But again, we won't know for sure until WotC tells us more.


----------



## jmucchiello

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Let's be precise, because this has been repeated several times now, and it's incorrect and it's getting under my skin.
> 
> WotC DOES in fact own the OGL. They wrote it, they copyrighted it, it's theirs. The DO control it. They and only they can make changes to the OGL.



If you want to be precise, they don't control it, because if they did update it, you could reuse any OGC created with any version of the license using any version of the license you wish. If they truly controlled it, they wouldn't need to start over with a new license. Yes, they wrote it, copyrighted it, and technically own it. But while they can revise it, they do not control old versions of it and they cannot revoke old versions of it. To me, that is a serious sign they lack control.

If you want to correct BryonD, at best you could ask him to say "OGL 1.0 is forever. OGL 1.0 is not controlled by WotC." But the distinction is meaningless since WotC is not planning to release an OGL 2.0 in foreseeable future.


----------



## jmucchiello

xechnao said:
			
		

> Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?



The OGL has nothing to do with the SRD. It's the other way around. The SRD is a document licensed using OGL. You can create another license, we'll call MyOGL. But you can't use the material in the SRD under MyOGL unless the owner (WotC) releases it using MyOGL. This is not likely to happen.


----------



## Psion

xechnao said:
			
		

> Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?




Assuming they owned all the material, AND assuming the GSL doesn't also address this, they could.

But if you are licensing anyone else's material, you would have to arrange a new license with them.

In the case of Adamant printing SotC stuff:
- Adamant would have to arrange for Evil Hat to release SotC under this new license.
- SotC/FUDGE is based on FATE, so Evil Hat would in turn have to arrange a new license for the FUDGE material.

Administrative burden of arranging a new license or other concerns/motives at any step would keep this from happening.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> If you want to be precise, they don't control it, because if they did update it, you could reuse any OGC created with any version of the license using any version of the license you wish.




No ? Gosh, I did not know that. I really ought to _read_ this OGL thingamybob.

Where would I find that? Section 9 or thereabouts?



> Yes, they wrote it, copyrighted it, and technically own it.




Glad we got that out of the way.



> But while they can revise it, they do not control old versions of it and they cannot revoke old versions of it. To me, that is a serious sign they lack control.




So the only reasonable way to measure your control over something is your ability to kill it?

Interesting life lesson.

Nobody in this thread is served by intermixing colloquial uses of words like "own" and "control" with their legal definitions. 

George Lucas has no meaningful way to "revoke" my VHS versions of Star Wars (wherein Han Shot First). And if I was just grousing with buddies, it might be accurate to say that George Lucas no longer controls the original Star Wars.

In the context of a thread like this? It would not be helpful to say that Lucas no longer owns or controls Star Wars.


----------



## kenmarable

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So the only reasonable way to measure your control over something is your ability to kill it?
> 
> Interesting life lesson.



For a license, sure. I'd say that if I have an irrevocable license with someone that they have little control over it. Interpreting that as being a life lesson by swapping out "license" with a generic word like "something", well, let's leave the poor straw men out of this, k? They suffer enough on messageboard debates. 

Although it does get bandied around that "WotC doesn't own the OGL", you are right that they do own it and only they can update it. But the real point is that the OGL isn't a revocable license (which you obviously know, but I'm just laying out the argument). If you follow the terms, you can follow it forever. Plus you can even follow the terms of any version of the OGL, so even their ability to alter it is pretty moot unless they can somehow make it even less restrictive. So, for all intents and purposes, the OGL (in it's current state) is out of WotC's hands, there's not much they can do to influence it. 

Now people could say that since it's an irrevocable license that you can use any version of, so updates with more restrictions are pointless - therefore, there is little in the practical sense that WotC can do to influence OGL usage even through their ownership of the license.

Or people could just gloss over the details and say "WotC doesn't own the OGL." It's certainly no accurate in the legal nitty gritty, but it's accurate enough in actual practical application that it's just using less words and probably not worth getting worked up over. At least in my opinion.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Or people could just gloss over the details and say "WotC doesn't own the OGL." It's certainly no accurate in the legal nitty gritty, but it's accurate enough in actual practical application that it's just using less words and probably not worth getting worked up over. At least in my opinion.




Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.

Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Inadvertently (um, I think) this is WotC's best possible attempt at putting the djinni back in the bottle, of a sort -- and, in the process, killing old OGL 1.0a.

The two biggest publishers of non-pure-SRD open content are Mongoose and Green Ronin.  Currently both of them are releasing SRDs or designating parts of their books as open content using the OGL 1.0a.

Mongoose, however, has no requirement at all to do so for their Runequest and Traveller lines.  In fact, using the OGL 1.0a for those lines is now a liability to them since it limits their ability to publish material under the 4e GSL.

So, it'd be in Mongoose's interests to simply kill their support of OGL 1.0a Runequest* (nerds, see note at end) and not release Traveler under OGL 1.0a -- and instead re-release the Runequest SRD and the impending Traveler SRD under some new open license, maybe a simple Creative Commons license.

Green Ronin's in a slightly more complicated situation, but with similar incentives.  It'd be in their long-term interest to do major overhauls of M&M and True20 that no longer rely on the SRD and also release under a non-OGL license (if using an open license at all).  Since they're no longer likely to draw compatibility converts from D&D, there's probably not much downside to doing a big re-vamp of their games.  

This would then give them the same ability that companies like White Wolf and Steve Jackson have to test the 4e GSL waters without threatening their more stable lines of income.  

Fudge, FATE 3.0, Shadows of the Century, would also benefit from switching to a different OGL since, even if they haven't done d20 stuff in the past, it's always wise to leave options open, and since they've got no open content from WotC, other open licenses would work fine.

The result then being that some alternate open license becomes the standard used by third party publishers and little indie guys -- and since the 3.5 SRD wasn't released under this alternate it'd effectively be islanded off.

Even RPGObjects would have to be weighing the benefits now of switching to a house system.



* Note for OGL nerds:
Yes, there will always be some version of the Mongoose Runequest SRD available as open content under OGL 1.0a.

But, under this scenario, I figure they'd just delete their copy from their website and not release any new content under it.  Runequest fans would then be better off using whatever new open license Mongoose supplies since it's also what would be supported going forward.


----------



## jmucchiello

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.



In my experience, there really are very few things worth getting worked up over in a message board. YMMV.


----------



## SSquirrel

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> First scout I would like to say thanks for your work




The Rouse's new nickname is now Scout 




			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> John, when did that ever happen?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> The OGL was used exactly as it was intended. Third-party publishers made d20 system games, they made OGL-only games. Some of them were highly innovative and that design found its way back into the core of WotC's own design.




If programmers or OGL game offers really dont' want their work to be open source, they need to not use an open license.  Utilizing an open license says you don't care if others make use of your hard work.

I do think that repackaging the entire SRD for pocket PHBs and nothing new was taking advantage of the license tho.  It's perfectly valid by the license, but IMO pretty lame.  Then again, I never bought any of those for just that reason.



			
				phloog said:
			
		

> Actually I meant GSL, but it could apply to the D&D game too - don't laugh at me - I'm not saying that it would be vastly different, but different enough (4.01) for them to make a sales pitch to the 3rd parties that it's worth doing...and if they DID come up with 4.01, you'd basically be in the same boat - - go ahead and stay with v4, or switch to 4.01 and never be able to publish for any older versions.
> 
> But the GSL is the more serious one, because I sincerely believe that it will have terms that say essentially that they can alter or revoke at any time, and that you're basically required to follow them along.




Releasing a new version of D&D (ie go buy new core books) after 1-2 years would be appallingly awful and see D&D lose MASSIVE amounts of customers.  Look hwo much griping there was at 3.5 coming out.  Again with 4E.  Both times people felt it was too soon.  I felt 3.5 was too soon and never bought a single 3.5 book.  Since I haven't bought a new PHB since 3E first came out, I don't mind a new edition right now.  If the GSL is wrapepd up more tightly saying that old versions of the GSL cannot be utilized, then yes they can force people along.


----------



## BryonD

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> George Lucas has no meaningful way to "revoke" my VHS versions of Star Wars (wherein Han Shot First). And if I was just grousing with buddies, it might be accurate to say that George Lucas no longer controls the original Star Wars.
> 
> In the context of a thread like this? It would not be helpful to say that Lucas no longer owns or controls Star Wars.



George Lucas can control how you use your VHS Star Wars.  For example, you may not show it for profit.  WotC can do whatever they want and the rest of the world is free to shrug their shoulders, ignore them and go on as if WotC didn't exist.  Big difference.


----------



## mxyzplk

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> If the term "grognard" ends up being applied to folks who prefer 3E over 4E, then the terrorists will have already won.




You grognards!  You don't prefer a game system that isn't even out yet!  *And* you don't love the new license that, though not released, will dick over every third party OGL publisher out there!  You're so old and crusty!


----------



## Morrus

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> *emphasis mine*
> 
> Now the license that is being revoked is the d20 STL not the d20 OGL correct?




Yes.



> Even if the d20 OGL was revoked existing versions of it could still be used.




No. The d20 STL is revocable.



> The d20 STL is the one that allows a d20 logo on products.




Yes.



> How many companies are actually even utilizing that at this stage?




Many.



> Most companies seem to just use the d20 OGL.




By that I assume you mean the OGL not the d20 STL.  There's no such thing as a d20 OGL.  But yes, the trend has been towards OGL only.


----------



## BryonD

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.



WotC can't revoke the OGL.  WotC can revoke the GSL.


----------



## Morrus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm hoping the GSL gives the content creator the control over whether or not their content is "viral".  In other words, let the creator decide if he wants his work used by other third parties or not--leave it up to the writer or publisher.  Don't make the "share alike" clause a mandatory requirement for using the GSL.




Eh?  You think WotC should give away their rules, but if others use the rules WotC has given away, they shouldn't have to give anything back?  Would you like Scott Rouse's car, too?  I mean - WotC isn't a charity!

No chance that will happen.  Even the most benevolent busines in a world wouldn't just give everything away unconditionally.  What would be the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing it in the first place?


----------



## Bacris

Morrus said:
			
		

> Eh?  You think WotC should give away their rules, but if others use the rules WotC has given away, they shouldn't have to give anything back?  Would you like Scott Rouse's car, too?  I mean - WotC isn't a charity!
> 
> No chance that will happen.  Even the most benevolent busines in a world wouldn't just give everything away unconditionally.  What would be the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing it in the first place?




It's also worth pointing out that the d20 STL specifically requires that a portion of the published material be Open Content.  I wouldn't be surprised if that made it into the GSL in some fashion.


----------



## mxyzplk

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Let's be precise, because this has been repeated several times now, and it's incorrect and it's getting under my skin.
> 
> WotC DOES in fact own the OGL. They wrote it, they copyrighted it, it's theirs. The DO control it. They and only they can make changes to the OGL.




Only in the least important sense.  They can make new versions of the OGL - but they can't change or invalidate previous versions.


----------



## Morrus

Bacris said:
			
		

> It's also worth pointing out that the d20 STL specifically requires that a portion of the published material be Open Content.  I wouldn't be surprised if that made it into the GSL in some fashion.




No it didn't.  Here's the d20 STL.  Which clause says that?


----------



## SSquirrel

I dunno, from what I've seen of the system I prefer 4E to 3.x.  Then again, I also prefer Arcana Evolved to 3.x, so if I have to play something 3.x I'll play AE set in Ptolus


----------



## Scipio202

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Only in the least important sense.  They can make new versions of the OGL - but they can't change or invalidate previous versions.



Also, since WotC has copyrighted the wording of the OGL, if anyone wants to create a new OGL-like open license for games they'll need to write a new one thats sufficiently different from the OGL.


----------



## Bacris

Morrus said:
			
		

> No it didn't.  Here's the d20 STL.  Which clause says that?




d20 System Trademark Guide v5



> Mandatory Requirements:
> 
> All Covered Products must comply with Quality Standards as described above and in the d20 System License.
> 
> *A minimum of 5% of the text (word count or letter count) of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Game License version 1.0a.*
> 
> All Covered Products must display the d20 System Logo, or in the specific case of an ASCII text file, include the words “A d20 System Licensed Product.”
> 
> All Covered Products must include the following text block:
> 
> 'd20 System' and the 'd20 System' logo are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and are used according to the terms of the d20 System License version 6.0.  A copy of this License can be found at www.wizards.com/d20.
> 
> Permission is granted to translate this text into a non-English language, provided that the English text is also included, and that the translated text is identified as non-official.


----------



## SSquirrel

Morrus said:
			
		

> No. The d20 STL is revocable.




I had said 
_Quote SSquirrel:
Even if the d20 OGL was revoked existing versions of it could still be used._

Er, Morrus I was speaking of the OGL allowing old evrsions to work.  You answered taht the d20 STL was revokable.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> By that I assume you mean the OGL not the d20 STL.  There's no such thing as a d20 OGL.  But yes, the trend has been towards OGL only.




Yes sorry, the new stuff all has d20 in front of it and the SRD is the d20 SRD so I was just going for completeness   Besides, there are other newer OGLs coming out like the T20 OGL, so I felt clarity was best.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

BryonD said:
			
		

> WotC can't revoke the OGL.  WotC can revoke the GSL.




Well, presumably so-- we haven't seen the GSL yet. I expect so. I expect so mainly because the GSL such as it has been described so far feels a lot more like the d20 STL than the OGL.

If the GSL has the same kind of safety net features as the OGL... well then...


----------



## mxyzplk

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes sorry, the new stuff all has d20 in front of it and the SRD is the d20 SRD so I was just going for completeness   Besides, there are other newer OGLs coming out like the T20 OGL, so I felt clarity was best.




Not correct - there are no new "OGLs."  There is one OGL (well, there's a couple versions).  There are several SRDs for different games released in compliance with the OGL.

Can I suggest that folks brush up a lil' before they wax too eloquent?

OGL:
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf

d20 STL:
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20stlv6.rtf

SRD is not a term contained in the OGL.  It's a "made up" term people use to indicate a conveeenient summary of open content for a game system.

The official d20 OGL SRD:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

An example of another OGL SRD, Spirit of the Century:
http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html

A list of the various extant SRDs:
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/


----------



## Alzrius

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you got that. There never was and never has been a plan to do a 3E version of the APG. Why would we need 3E versions of druids, bards, monks, barbarians and illusionists and gnomes and half-orcs? The game already has them
> 
> Our plan for 3E pdf supplements was for books that were planned as 3E books (like Tegel and Slumbering Tsar, etc) that got pushed back and now will be 4E books. The fans who were finishing 3E campaigns didnt like that so I said, "hey, they were written to be 3E, so when we put the 4E versions out, I will do a free download of the stats for you guys."
> 
> Clark




Whoops, okay, I erred in assumption there. 

But the underlying point still stands. I'm much more likely to buy a 4E Necromancer Games product that has a 3E PDF supplement than one without one. That's a little bit of extra work from you guys - that you were going to do anyway - that directly translates into an extra sale. A sale that won't happen now for no reason except because the GSL says that you can't do that. You lose out, and I lose out. And somehow, WotC seems to think that this is a win for them. :\


----------



## Thulcondar

I realize this might seem completely naive, coming from someone with only a small bit of experience in the gaming industry, but I must ask why the companies dedicated to 3E and the OGL feel they have to follow the herd and support 4E and the GSL as well?

Yes, you get to use the D20 logo, come July, and yes, you get to profit from the "Dungeons and Dragons" brand name (which is no mean thing), but other than that...?

Speaking completely hypothetically, if a consortium of folks got together and came up with a truly open-source system for role-playing games, which wasn't tied to either the OGL or GSL, and was marketed by individual content producers as a competitor for D&D 4E, how might that fare?

Bear in mind I'm coming from the mindset of the early days of RPGs, when anybody with access to a typewriter, a photocopier and a saddle-stitch stapler could come out with their own game (and woe betide the loss of that spirit of inventiveness and entrepreneurship in our hobby!). 

But it seems to me that if the terms of the GSL are really so onerous as to tear down some folks businesses, it might be prudent to at least consider dumping 4E for some yet-to-be-conceived open source RPG, to draw in a subset of people who want "The New Thing", but might be built structurally along the same lines. It wouldn't have the name recognition of D&D, of course, but it would afford supporting companies the luxury of maintaining 3E products while simultaneously supporting the newcomer challenger to 4E, without the restrictions of the GSL.

Just musing. Hopefully the final version of the GSL would make such a thing completely unnecessary. 

Joe


----------



## nothing to see here

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Yes it was.
> 
> Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.




This was the clause that Valar did the end-run around with the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  That ruffled a few feathers at WOTC.  If all that the GSL permits is a small-font compatibility statement similar to the crackdown they imposed after that debacle, I'll stand corrected.

However, Scott Rouse's statement implied they are comfortable with products displaying a far more prominent brand compatibiltiy than that.


----------



## BryonD

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, presumably so-- we haven't seen the GSL yet. I expect so. I expect so mainly because the GSL such as it has been described so far feels a lot more like the d20 STL than the OGL.
> 
> If the GSL has the same kind of safety net features as the OGL... well then...



Yes, you are 100% correct.  I am presuming.
I'm open to wagers from you.  E-mail me.


----------



## Nellisir

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Green Ronin's in a slightly more complicated situation, but with similar incentives.  It'd be in their long-term interest to do major overhauls of M&M and True20 that no longer rely on the SRD and also release under a non-OGL license (if using an open license at all).  Since they're no longer likely to draw compatibility converts from D&D, there's probably not much downside to doing a big re-vamp of their games.[/SIZE]




I'm not sure I follow, at least in regards to True20.  The point of True20 is a stripped down d20 game.  The reason I, at least, like True20 is because it is functionally compatible with most of my d20 material.  That's one of its selling points.  How does taking the 20 out of True20 not count as a downside?  I mean, if I were just going to follow a game around through "major overhauls" and not care about the actual game, I'd keep my life simple and stick with D&D.

It'd be like substituting a Monopoly board for Mr Potatohead.  It's just weird.


----------



## Orcus

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.




See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector. 

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.


----------



## Urizen

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.




Provided you ditch every other system deemed  not healthy to WOTC's growth as a company, which, depending on the company, means you need to drop support for products fans know and love.

Not very "open" in my opinion...


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.



Can WotC change their mind and announce that no product released under GSL can be sold after whatever date they choose?

It seems to me that you are saying that renting a home is just as good as owning as long as you have a place to sleep.  I don't see it that way.


----------



## Fifth Element

Bacris said:
			
		

> d20 System Trademark Guide v5



And the Guide is specifically referred to in paragraph 4 of the license, as part of the quality standards. Any d20 publisher ought to know that.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I follow, at least in regards to True20.  The point of True20 is a stripped down d20 game.  The reason I, at least, like True20 is because it is functionally compatible with most of my d20 material.  That's one of its selling points.  How does taking the 20 out of True20 not count as a downside?  I mean, if I were just going to follow a game around through "major overhauls" and not care about the actual game, I'd keep my life simple and stick with D&D.
> 
> It'd be like substituting a Monopoly board for Mr Potatohead.  It's just weird.




Yah, you're probably right for True20.  M&M though I think could make a transfer to a pure house system okay.


----------



## BSF

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.





Well, almost no cost.  By my understanding, Necormancer will no longer be able to sell versions of Tome of Horrors, Bard's Gate, etc for 3.x once you begin to release GSL material.  You won't even have the choice to convert it from d20 to OGL, you won't be able to sell both.  

Hopefully, you have most of your stock sold and clear of the warehouse.  If you don't, then it might make sense to hold off on GSL products until you are clear.  

But it also kills the PDF channel.  The presumptively evergreen products that would allow people to still pick up old material for old games in perpetuity.  That goes away now.  

This impacts me as a customer.  There are a lot of game settings that I have that I like using OGL material in.   I have always liked the idea that I would always be able to get this material.  

But it looks like WotC doesn't want that to be available to me.  So if a couple of years from now I want to break out my Dragonstar books to run a game for my kids, and I wanted to grab a couple of old PDFs that might complement the game from Necromancer Games, I might not be able to pick up any of those from Fantasy Flight Games or from Necromancer because you guys will have had to pull those PDFs if you wanted to publish under the GSL.  

So I wouldn't say the GSL is available at no cost.  One of the definitons of _cost_ is a sacrifice, loss or penalty.  I see the loss of support for products I enjoy today.  A loss that is being enforced by WotC through exclusivity.


----------



## Arrond Hess

BSF said:
			
		

> Well, almost no cost.  By my understanding, Necormancer will no longer be able to sell versions of Tome of Horrors, Bard's Gate, etc for 3.x once you begin to release GSL material.  You won't even have the choice to convert it from d20 to OGL, you won't be able to sell both.
> 
> Hopefully, you have most of your stock sold and clear of the warehouse.  If you don't, then it might make sense to hold off on GSL products until you are clear.
> 
> But it also kills the PDF channel.  The presumptively evergreen products that would allow people to still pick up old material for old games in perpetuity.  That goes away now.
> 
> This impacts me as a customer.  There are a lot of game settings that I have that I like using OGL material in.   I have always liked the idea that I would always be able to get this material.
> 
> But it looks like WotC doesn't want that to be available to me.  So if a couple of years from now I want to break out my Dragonstar books to run a game for my kids, and I wanted to grab a couple of old PDFs that might complement the game from Necromancer Games, I might not be able to pick up any of those from Fantasy Flight Games or from Necromancer because you guys will have had to pull those PDFs if you wanted to publish under the GSL.
> 
> So I wouldn't say the GSL is available at no cost.  One of the definitons of _cost_ is a sacrifice, loss or penalty.  I see the loss of support for products I enjoy today.  A loss that is being enforced by WotC through exclusivity.



Likewise, I don't see it without having cost if a company needs to start a secondary & seperate venue if they want to produce products for both 3.x and 4th Ed..


----------



## SSquirrel

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Not correct - there are no new "OGLs."  There is one OGL (well, there's a couple versions).  There are several SRDs for different games released in compliance with the OGL.
> 
> Can I suggest that folks brush up a lil' before they wax too eloquent?




No need to jump on me too much here man, I was thinking of the new licensing deal coming out soon from them that is free and allows their logo to be used.  Double checking teh true20 site shows me this: 

"If you want to publish your own True20 material, you can take advantage of the True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License. This is a free license that must be used in conjunction with the Open Game License."

So they have their own STL now not their own OGL.  My bad.


----------



## SSquirrel

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Yah, you're probably right for True20.  M&M though I think could make a transfer to a pure house system okay.




How much would M&M have to change to no longer fall under the OGL but still have the game be basically the same?  Change to a percentile roll instead of a d20 (neatly have it all still be 5% increments of success tho), reword abilities like Dodge that appear in the SRD, what else?



			
				BSF said:
			
		

> Well, almost no cost.  By my understanding, Necormancer will no longer be able to sell versions of Tome of Horrors, Bard's Gate, etc for 3.x once you begin to release GSL material.  You won't even have the choice to convert it from d20 to OGL, you won't be able to sell both.
> 
> Hopefully, you have most of your stock sold and clear of the warehouse.  If you don't, then it might make sense to hold off on GSL products until you are clear.
> 
> But it also kills the PDF channel.  The presumptively evergreen products that would allow people to still pick up old material for old games in perpetuity.  That goes away now.




Neatly tho it still keeps WotC in the money as they can still continue to sell pdfs of games that never relied on the OGL.  Like OD&D-2E. 

Also, since WoTC is going to be producing 4E material, does that mean they will also have to stop selling all 3E material?  Altho since they had the d20 logo they would fall under the d20 STL, which is going away...so yeah maybe they do heh.  

*saves space in next post for someone to correct me by saying WotC was never bound by these rules in some manner.*


----------



## Kristian Serrano

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Also, since WoTC is going to be producing 4E material, does that mean they will also have to stop selling all 3E material?  Altho since they had the d20 logo they would fall under the d20 STL, which is going away...so yeah maybe they do heh.



I was just thinking about this, but specifically with respect to their own PDFs at RPGNow.com. It seems WotC's effort to push 3e out of the way to make room for 4e is an aggressive one. Will WotC cease to offer these PDFs after 4e is released? Will they be forced (or will they choose to) no longer offer those PDFs? I was hoping they'd discount the price of those after 4e is released, but this sounds like they might stop selling them altogether, which is unfortunate as I wanted to build an entire OEF library of PDF versions of my 3.5 books, especially Eberron books.


----------



## Mystaros

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> What I absolutely DO NOT understand is a restriction that says if a company has a line of 4E support products, then they are also barred from having lines of unrelated product, supporting Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, Runequest, Action!, FATE or any of the other OGL-released systems.
> 
> I am sincerely hoping that this is NOT the case -- but I trust Clark.  If he says that is what he's been told, then I believe him.   The absolute refusal by Scott to simply say whether or not that is case pretty much confirms it.




Well, as they are obviously reading this thread, perhaps we could all chime in and say "Please, let the clause refer not to OGL products as a whole, but specifically to OGL products utilizing the d20 SRD."

Still not the best solution, but a solution. So as long as you keep your Runequest or Traveller or Action! Section 15's clear of any d20 SRD references, you should be fine.

Unfortunately, I think to keep things simple, they may well go with a blanket no-OGL policy. That way they don't have to worry about having someone check the Section 15s on a bunch of new products... and they knock out minor competition at the same time.


----------



## Orcus

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> I understand your point, but MRQ is not a D&D spin-off. It uses the OGL, but doesn't derive material from the SRD.




Thats fair and thats my mistake. I probably should have just used, say, Mutants and Masterminds. But I was starting to feel like I was picking on Pramas


----------



## Orcus

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> OK, this is an important point.  "Open" isn't a meaningless marketing term, it's a very specific attribute of a license.  Here's the Wikipedia definition of open content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_license.
> 
> For those who fear knowledge, I'll sum up here.  Open content is:
> - royalty free (you don't have to pay anyone to use it)
> - share alike
> - may or may not allow commercial redistribution (your choice).
> 
> The important part here that's probably unclear is "share alike."  This means that the license has "copyleft" provisions, also described as viral openness.  The Creative Commons wording is "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one."  Basically you can use the open licensed stuff and your derivative work needs to be open too, and that openness can't be removed (except by self-breach).
> 
> Google any of the keywords in that spiel for more information (copyleft, Creative Commons, etc.)
> 
> The OGL was an open license.  Wizards of the Coast can't revoke the OGL - everything that was declared open shall be open until the end of days.  They can do things like "poison pill" the GSL to try to disincent people from using it, like computer companies try to do (Intel to Dell: don't use AMD).  But they can't make it un-open.  This is what makes it different from a "normal"license like the GSL, that they can revoke or change at any time.




I didnt know there actually was a common definitin. And I LOVE Wikipedia, so I'll go with that. I guess until we see the final version, the jury is still out on whether or not I can still say the 4E license is open under that definition. Looks like it fits so far. And I'm not sure the poison pill provision means its not "open" but that is open to discussion I guess. I mean, lets not forget that the STL contained something that, to the legally minded among the early adopters, was a big issue--we agreed not to challenge WotC;s ownership of certain things that in my view they clearly didnt "own."


----------



## Alzrius

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Also, since WoTC is going to be producing 4E material, does that mean they will also have to stop selling all 3E material?  Altho since they had the d20 logo they would fall under the d20 STL, which is going away...so yeah maybe they do heh.
> 
> *saves space in next post for someone to correct me by saying WotC was never bound by these rules in some manner.*




WotC was never bound by those rules.

WotC's books - with the exceptions of the MMII and _Unearthed Arcana_ - were never released under the OGL. WotC reserved the right to publish materials based on the d20 rules set without having to publish under the OGL, since they created the OGL. Hence, their books aren't subject to that.

Similarly, they wouldn't be using the GSL to publish 4E materials either. They own the intellectual property, so they wouldn't need to make a licensing agreement with themselves.

That said, Amaril's probably right; if WotC's support of 4E is this aggressive, they'll probably yank their 3.X materials from PDF publication relatively soon (though older edition works would likely be left alone). That's pretty sad, since I wanted to pick up several of those, and the window for doing so is quite likely closing rapidly. Still, bear in mind that this is just speculation - they might defy expectations and leave their 3.X PDFs up for sale.


----------



## Orcus

Morrus said:
			
		

> No it didn't.  Here's the d20 STL.  Which clause says that?




Morrus, how did you goof that one up?  That was a "d'oh!" moment for you. Get in here with an "oops, spaced it" and all will be forgiven. I know you know the licenses better than that 

Dont worry. I just goofed on something I posted. We all do it. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one. 

Clark


----------



## pawsplay

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.




Heck, Orcus, companies sometimes pay to have other people market products with their IP. There's nothing about "royalty free" that makes it Open. What I hear Open, I want to know that it's litigation-free. And rug-pulling-free.


----------



## Nlogue

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> I have a question for publishing company owners.  Suppose the "one open license per company" clause of the GSL were such that if you created a wholly owned subsidiary company to technically be the licensee for the GSL you and your staff could still produce and sell (different) OGL and GSL products at the same time.  Do any of you know how much of a business/legal difficulty such a procedure would be?





Opening Sinister Adventures was enough headache for me honestly.  It might crush my soul to open a separate subsidiary JUST to put out 4E projects.  

But then again, I am much more a creative guy than a bizness guy...not that people can't be both, I just ain't wired to deal with heaps of paperwork all the time.  I'd rather spend my time writing and sheparding awesome products instead.

Edit:  Not to mention the branding and marketing headaches of using two different entities and getting your customers excited about them.  You might as well DOUBLE your advertising/marketing budget, and for a small but feisty studio like Sinister, this just isn't in the cards.  We browncoats keep just enough fuel in our fireflies to hop round the verse, not take her over...we ain't Alliance afterall.


----------



## Orcus

Urizen said:
			
		

> Provided you ditch every other system deemed  not healthy to WOTC's growth as a company, which, depending on the company, means you need to drop support for products fans know and love.
> 
> Not very "open" in my opinion...




In my view, the fact there are other terms doesnt have anything really to do with openness.

That isnt openness or non-openness. That is just LEVERAGE. Pure and simple. Frankly, I am a bit envious. Nice strong play. I dont like it cause I am on the receiving end of it, but lets call it what it is. Leverage. And well played leverage at that. 

It might be my fault. I pointed the whole thing out to Rouse and he told me a light went on for him when he read what I said. I said the reason why people abandoned the d20 STL and its restrictions wasnt really because of the restrictions. It was because the d20 logo got watered down and lost its value. I said you let us have the D&D logo and you can put it just about any restriction and people will take it. 

Oops. My bad.


----------



## Orcus

BSF said:
			
		

> Well, almost no cost.  By my understanding, Necormancer will no longer be able to sell versions of Tome of Horrors, Bard's Gate, etc for 3.x once you begin to release GSL material.  You won't even have the choice to convert it from d20 to OGL, you won't be able to sell both.
> 
> Hopefully, you have most of your stock sold and clear of the warehouse.  If you don't, then it might make sense to hold off on GSL products until you are clear.
> 
> But it also kills the PDF channel.  The presumptively evergreen products that would allow people to still pick up old material for old games in perpetuity.  That goes away now.  .




BSF, this is an excellent observation and it is still an unanswered question in my mind. I dont know yet.

I know we cant make new OGL stuff. I also know we cant sell d20 logo stuff after 6 months. But you can just yank the logo off that stuff. That's not too hard. 

The real question is the one you raise. Can I continue to sell old OGL backstock? Can I continue to sell old pdfs (if not d20'd)? 

That is a HUGE question. I dotn have the answer to that. I have appealed to Wizards to answer those questions with a YES! (just make sure to take that d20 logo off). 

Clark


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Orcus said:
			
		

> Morrus, how did you goof that one up?  That was a "d'oh!" moment for you. Get in here with an "oops, spaced it" and all will be forgiven. I know you know the licenses better than that
> 
> Dont worry. I just goofed on something I posted. We all do it. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.
> 
> Clark





Clark,

Check your email


----------



## Scott_Rouse

I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point.

I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.


----------



## Jack99

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Clark,
> 
> Check your email




 what is this? 

On a side note, don't you guys ever sleep, must be pretty late over there, on the other side of the pond?


----------



## jmucchiello

Orcus said:
			
		

> That isnt openness or non-openness. That is just LEVERAGE. Pure and simple. Frankly, I am a bit envious. Nice strong play. I dont like it cause I am on the receiving end of it, but lets call it what it is. Leverage. And well played leverage at that.



No, Clark. Calling it what it is is to call it a royalty-free trademark license.

Open versus closed is entirely about the terms involved in altering, revoking and sublicensing the license. An open license cannot be unilaterally altered or revoked. I'm sure the GSL will have provisions for modification and revocation both unilaterally on WotC's part.

5 years and a couple upper management replacements from now if someone decides "no more 3PPs". The GSL goes poof and you have nothing. OGL publishers are immune to that. That is the essential difference between open and closed licenses.


----------



## Orcus

amaril said:
			
		

> I was just thinking about this, but specifically with respect to their own PDFs at RPGNow.com. It seems WotC's effort to push 3e out of the way to make room for 4e is an aggressive one. Will WotC cease to offer these PDFs after 4e is released? Will they be forced (or will they choose to) no longer offer those PDFs? I was hoping they'd discount the price of those after 4e is released, but this sounds like they might stop selling them altogether, which is unfortunate as I wanted to build an entire OEF library of PDF versions of my 3.5 books, especially Eberron books.




If I was them, I wouold still sell that stuff. And, frankly, that is a centerpiece of the petition I am composing to send to Scott and Linae. 

Here is some of my thinking in rough form:

Basically, Wizards is asking us to do what they have done. They have "abandoned" 3E. They have suffered through the same cycle, to some degree, that we all have that its hard to sell stuff with 4E pending. They are in 100% for 4E. They want us to have to make that same choice.

But, as I expect they will permit themselves to sell off their own backstock and they will continue to sell pdfs of their old products, they should let us do the same (with the removal of the d20 logo with is being revoked). 

When you really think about this poison pill, Wizards is asking us to do nothing more than they are doing themselves (yes, I know this isnt 100% true but it is a good model for thought)--dont support 3E anymore, with all the handwringing that comes with such a decison--and jump on 4E. Its faster, better, cooler, newer, and 200% improved! or whatever other market speak you use when you releaunch. 

'Casue think about waht they are doing. They are relaunching/reboting the biggest industry IP. *THEY* cant have, internally, competing products for old editions within their own company. Why would they want those products externally?

That was a hard choice. Sales for 3E were no doubt declining, as were everyone's sales (please dont chime in and say yours werent unless you are Monte or Paizo, cause those are the only ones who can credibly claim it). But 3E ws not a failure as a game. Its a good game. A fun game. It was an advance over 1 and 2E in my view. Does it have issues? Sure. But there was nothign so broken about 4E that *mandated* a new edition. This is a business decision. So if they are going to leave behind their own product line, why shouldnt they expect their licensees to do the same?

So while it is fair to expect your licensees to make the same business decision you have had to make, as I mentioned, since Wizards wont be abandoning pdf and backlist sales of old products, please dont require us, your licenseees, to do more than you will be doing. 

Our sales of old backlist and of pdf is no more competing with 4E than your own sale of backlist and pdfs of old products is hurting 4E. Heck, you sold tons of 1E and 2E pdfs during 3E. That didnt hurt 3E sales. And selling old 3E products from backlist wont hurt supporting 4E.

That is my thought and my plea to Wizards, anyway. Probably inartfully said. But I am still working on my open letter. So any feedback is welcome. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Clark,
> 
> Check your email




In a manly way, let me say--I love you. 

(of course I'd rather say that to Linae)

I have to point out, this has been a hallmark of this process. Scott, Linae and Wizards definately listen to us. That is a credit to them. 

Clark


----------



## Jack99

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point.
> 
> I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.




Nice. I will cross my fingers for a resolution that most can at least accept, for the sake of the peace in the community.


----------



## Orcus

I'm crossing my fingers too. I hope the answer is "We didnt understand the question Clark was asking/Clark didnt understand the answer we gave, we thought he meant something else. Product by product, you cant make a 3E version and a 4E version of the same product. Yes we did say companies have to choose to support 4E or 3E. But we didnt mean to say that you could never use the OGL again."

I am more than happy to have the answer be that I was confused. Please. 

Clark


----------



## jmucchiello

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.



I have a process question. You stated you didn't want to comment without the license in front of you. Can you explain why you can't state the intent of the license? Are you not responsible for the intent of the license? Who is?

Someone, at some level at WotC, must be the guy who says to legal "I want a license which does X, Y, and Z." This is the guy who intention for the GSL is what legal must accomplish. There would be back and forth as I'm sure legal will point out issues this guy didn't know or understand. But at some point isn't it that's guy's job to make the decision about what legal creates?

My point is people have asked what is the intent behind some of these questions and you are hiding behind the language of the license rather than stating the intent of the license. It seems odd to me that the brand manager doesn't know what this new license intends. If the intent of the license and the text of the license do not match are you going to just use it anyway? No, I would assume you would kick it back to legal and ask for another revision.

So, flat out, can a single company release product A using GSL and unrelated product B using OGL on the same day? What is the intent for this case?


----------



## BSF

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point.
> 
> I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.




Scott,
Just to pipe up here again, I do appreciate the work you are doing.  I'm not a publisher, but I am a picky consumer.  I also acknowledge that I am in the vast minority of market share that WotC is targeting. 

That being said, I don't like the fact that some of my favorite companies may have to discontinue sales and potential ongoing support for OGL products.  

Clark is right in saying that this is WotC exercising leverage.  I appreciate the business acumen involved.  From a strictly business perspective, it makes sense to flex that muscle.  But I don't like it.  

That is coming from a customer.  

I don't want you to think that any frustration that I have expressed is directed toward you specifically.  You have a tough job since you get to deal with all of this stuff.  I know you understand my concerns and probably appreciate where I am coming from.  Whether you can do anything to directly address them or not isn't, perhaps, the most important thing.  I know you have listened and if you can't address my specific area of concerns, then I know it wasn't because you simply ignored the things that have been expressed.  I don't envy the position you are in.  But I do respect you and Linea for the work you have put in.  For that matter, there is probably an entire team involved that I would like and respect if I knew more of who they are and what they are doing.

EDIT:  Danged spelling errors.  I hope I got them all...


----------



## Orcus

Guys, please please please take it easy on Scott and Linae. They are in a tough position.

I know for a fact that they helped make openness* for 4E a reality. My guess is that was an epic level battle. In fact, I hope they leveled and got some great lewt when they won that fight. 

They deserve our goodwill. I'm as frustrated as the next guy, but please dont accuse Scott of hiding behind anything. 

Clark


----------



## Dark Mistress

Nlogue said:
			
		

> We browncoats keep just enough fuel in our fireflies to hop round the verse, not take her over...we ain't Alliance afterall.




Shiny a firefly reference, if only we could have had a rebirth of the series.


----------



## BSF

Orcus said:
			
		

> When you really think about this poison pill, Wizards is asking us to do nothing more than they are doing themselves (yes, I know this isnt 100% true but it is a good model for thought)--dont support 3E anymore, with all the handwringing that comes with such a decison--and jump on 4E. Its faster, better, cooler, newer, and 200% improved! or whatever other market speak you use when you releaunch.




You are absolutely right, but I am still concerned with support for OGL games.  

Let me open up an example here and I will use Adamant Entertainment.  My apologies to Gareth-Michael in advance.

Skull & Bones was published and distributed by Green Ronin.  I don't know the sales figures, but I am guessing the game was somewhat successful without being a blockbuster game.  

Adamant Entertainment has provided support for Skull & Bones in the form of the Buccaneers & Bokor products.  Sure, a new Buccaneers & Bokor hasn't been released lately, but one could at some point in the future.  An old product (Skull & Bones) with potentially new support (Buccaneers & Bokor).

Northern Crown was published by Atlas Games.  Again, I doubt this was a blockbuster game.  

Adamant Entertainment has provided support for Northern Crown through the Franklyn's Almanack products.

Adamant Entertainment provides support for the D20 Modern ruleset through several product lines, but let's pick the Thrilling Tales products.  

Right now, if Adamant Entertainment chooses to support GSL, all of those products may have to be discountinued.  

Presumably WotC will eventually cover the bases of D20 Modern with some sort of flavor of 4.x.  But Green Ronin and Atlast games might never choose to rewrite Skull & Bones or Northern Crown as GSL products.  

But how does pulling Buccaneers and Bokor from availability benefit WotC?  How does preventing Adamant Entertainment from releasing another Franklyn's Almanac benefit WotC?  Are those market dollars so valuable that WotC needs to close off those avenues of support?  

I do know that closing those avenues of support doesn't benefit me at all.  Not as a customer.  If I have a group of friends that gets together twice a year and we all happen to like to play Skull & Bones, we might like to keep those options open.  

Instead, WotC is using market leverage to prevent more support for those niche products from being released.  It is one thing if that support doesn't come to fruition because it doesn't make sense for Adamant Entertainment to devote energy to developing the support.  It is an entirely different issue that if Mr. Skarka has an idea burning in his head one night for just one more issue of Buccaneers and Bokor, he can't publish it because he chose to support the GSL.  

I can find more examples all over the place.  I have two weekly groups that play D&D.  But we don't always play D&D, sometimes we play something else as a change of pace.  As well, that isn't the only gaming I do.  I liked the OGL because it allowed the creation of new games with the same basic mechanics.  It made the learning curve much shorter if I wanted to play a game that WotC didn't directly support.  What's more, as an educated consumer, I understood that the OGL was irrevocable.  And as a PDF consumer/advocate, I understood why OGL support could always exist.  Once a product has been created in a PDF format, it doesn't take up warehouse space.  It could sit in digital land forever.  These products could trickle in sales year after year, which might be convenient since I might not get around to playing a new game immediately.  In fact, it might be downright old by the time I get around to playing it again.  But if it was an OGL product and there was PDF support for it, I might even be able to find material that was new to me when I did get around to playing it.  

I just never anticipated that WotC would feel so threatened by those products that they would make new licenses contingent on the removal of that old product.  

Sure, it makes sense that WotC would want GSL adopters to commit to the new system.  But what I want as a customer is support for every system I own and want to play.  I still have my 1st Ed and 2nd Ed D&D stuff.  And because I left D&D in the 2nd Ed days (because I didn't like the way TSR was running their business), I don't have all the material that was published.  But I can get that material in PDF format if I want it.  But I won't be able to get support in PDF format for some of my OGL games if an excellent company wants to porduce GSL products.  The poison pill certainly doesn't benefit me in this case.


----------



## Cergorach

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not a lot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.



Not ANYONE can use the license, only those that meet the requirement of the license. WotC has already indicated that only those with a business license could apply for the initial release. I don't know if that will be in the final license, but it wouldn't surprise me. Also the inability to use the GSL if your using the OGL, limits those who can use it (if actually true). Additional restrictions wouldn't surprise me. It's currently unclear if it allows you to reuse material published under the GSL by third party publishers. WotC even dropped the 'Open' from the name of the license.

Yes it's nice that WotC is allowing the use of 4E under license, but it's a big step back from the 3E open license they had. While you might perceive it as more 'open' then no license, it is an inaccurate name for the 'beast' and will confuse the heck out of folks.

I'm currently wondering if no license wouldn't be a better option then the impressions I'm getting from the GSL. I'm sure folks like yourself are very happy they can even publish under the GSL. But I'm very afraid that folks are tying themselves in legal knots that will ultimately limit their creativity. WotC is also in the perfect position to tighten the knots every time they feel like it. Products require a long time to produce, in the past if WotC changed the D20STL, you could always drop the logo, now you might have the whole product or do a large rewrite. Those things cost a lot of money, something game companies don't have. They could even pull the license entirely and your out of business. I feel that the GSL is becoming something that allows you to print money for a limited time, but not something to build a business around...

I'm curious about a US legal aspect, can a company legally exclude you from business if you do business with another company or sell a certain product?


----------



## BSF

Just looking through the General forum and I see a topic on older adventure modules with good plot.  And that makes me think of the obvious area that would be impacted by exclusivity conditions:  3.x modules!  

There are obvious reasons why WotC would prefer to see new development of GSL modules, and I certainly don't blame them for that!  But why is there a need to have the OGL modules removed from the market?  People are still mining modules that are editions old for good ideas.  Heck, we can still buy those modules in PDF format.  So why do the 3.x modules have to go away?   Is it just to push customers forward toward 4.x and the GSL?

OK, maybe I am beating a dead horse at this point.  I've made my point and then some right?  I'll wrap this up and head to bed for the night.  Maybe I will be less emotional tomorrow.


----------



## jdrakeh

BSF said:
			
		

> Just looking through the General forum and I see a topic on older adventure modules with good plot.




That's me! 



> People are still mining modules that are editions old for good ideas.




Actually, truth be told, I'm mining them for Holmes D&D  And for Story Engine (a non-D&D game.) That said, your point is a valid one. A new edition never has rendered past editions obsolete but this possible clause in the new license seems to be a real step in that direction. 



> So why do the 3.x modules have to go away?   Is it just to push customers forward toward 4.x and the GSL?




I suspect so, yes, as that makes sense from a business standpoint. A lot of people may not like it (myself included), though I don't begrudge WotC their right to engineer the D&D market to their advantage (after all, at the end of the day, it is _their_ market.)


----------



## AZRogue

Okay, I just read this whole thread. It's taken me about 12 hours, since I walked away from the computer many, many times to do other things. 12. Hours. I think I'd rather be waterboarded than go through that again. 



On to the subject at hand. The limitation on previous material, as referenced by Clark, seems too drastic to me and actually seems as though it would hurt WotC more than help. Why? Because a lot of big, quality companies would be absolutely nuts to quit their successful lines under the OGL just to print some stuff using the more restrictive GSL for the unproven 4E system. So, in one stroke WotC may have guaranteed quality 3rd party publishers BECOME competition instead of enlisting their aid in promoting 4E and taking the system further. 

It's simple: some companies that may have wanted to come over to 4E will now find themselves unwilling to do so. As a matter of fact, the companies least likely to make the switch are the companies with the most successful OGL products (successful because they were largely GOOD). It would have been nice if those companies could have also made successful--good--4E products. Green Ronin, I'm looking at you, as I still own nearly all of your books even though I never bought a WotC book after 3.5 came out. I would have loved me some GR books for 4E. Now that seems unlikely to ever happen.

I'm not really upset over all this, just a bit surprised. I EXPECTED a clause to prohibit not releasing the same book under both licenses. That makes sense and wouldn't be a roadblock, IMO, except for certain specific books ... but no hurdle in general. But to make the COMPANY choose seems too much. It takes whatever value the GSL has and nullifies it. Too great a cost for too little return.

I think WotC may have just ensured, maybe even guaranteed, a fracture in the DnD fanbase that will never heal. I can easily see game companies stepping up to continue support of the OGL forever. Instead of withering and dying, a large pool of talent will remain with the OGL and 4E will continue on its way, poorer for the loss.

But nothing is written in stone yet. It may all turn out to be nothing. I certainly think that things can still change and CERTAINLY don't think that this is being done from malice. I just don't think the results are going to be what they are expecting. I trust in Scott, Linae, and the others working for open gaming at WotC. Hell, I'm grateful we'll have SOME 3rd party support. VERY grateful. I just wish that it wasn't set up in such a way as to exclude the best publishers from 4E.


----------



## SSquirrel

I'll keep up w/things as they develop over the next day or so, but I can wait 36 hours till I'm home from work Monday afternoon to get some solid answers.  Thanks for establishing a time for answers Scott, esp one that is a week and a half earlier than the Friday a week after GAMA ends


----------



## Delta

Regarding the "what is open?" question, I've always held to the OpenGamingFoundation.org definition. It's very short and they list several licenses that qualify ( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html ):



> 1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
> 2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.




If the license is revocable, then it's not Open.


----------



## S'mon

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Because a lot of big, quality companies would be absolutely nuts to quit their successful lines under the OGL just to print some stuff using the more restrictive GSL for the unproven 4E system. So, in one stroke WotC may have guaranteed quality 3rd party publishers BECOME competition instead of enlisting their aid in promoting 4E and taking the system further.




This is true, but would also be the case if 4e were completely non-open.  I think the debate within WoTC was probably between completely-closed and slightly-open, and slightly-open won, because slightly-open offers the possibility of gaining full control over certain 3pps like Necromancer who have bitten the lure.  If 4e were completely closed, Necromancer would have had to stick with 3e and the OGL.  With 4e slightly open, WoTC gets Necromancer to cease trading 3e, while WoTC gains the power to subsequently revoke the 4e license and put Necromancer out of business, putting WotC in a very strong position.

I think though that slightly-open may be the worst of all worlds for the general consumer, as it will minimise the actual variety of product on the market.  Fully closed would have guaranteed plenty of continuing OGL/3e content.  Fully open would have guaranteed plenty of 4e content.  Slightly-open will reduce the amount of 3e content greatly in return for a limited amount of 4e content.


----------



## jdrakeh

S'mon said:
			
		

> Slightly-open will reduce the amount of 3e content greatly in return for a limited amount of 4e content.




Probably, though that works to WotC's benefit as 3e content is competition while 4e content (even in limited quantities) will drive core book sales, as one will still need the core books to use it.


----------



## AZRogue

S'mon said:
			
		

> This is true, but would also be the case if 4e were completely non-open.  I think the debate within WoTC was probably between completely-closed and slightly-open, and slightly-open won, because slightly-open offers the possibility of gaining full control over certain 3pps like Necromancer who have bitten the lure.  If 4e were completely closed, Necromancer would have had to stick with 3e and the OGL.  With 4e slightly open, WoTC gets Necromancer to cease trading 3e, while WoTC gains the power to subsequently revoke the 4e license and put Necromancer out of business, putting WotC in a very strong position.
> 
> I think though that slightly-open may be the worst of all worlds for the general consumer, as it will minimise the actual variety of product on the market.  Fully closed would have guaranteed plenty of continuing OGL/3e content.  Fully open would have guaranteed plenty of 4e content.  Slightly-open will reduce the amount of 3e content greatly in return for a limited amount of 4e content.




I think you're probably right. For my own preference, I'll take some 4E material instead of none, but would have liked some products from publishers who are unlikely, now, to make the switch. So, that's a bummer. I'm still very interested in how this all plays out.

One thing you can't deny: this has been, and continues to be, a very interesting time. I don't think I've read this much DnD related material, or visited DnD message boards, so much in several years.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Morrus said:
			
		

> Eh?  You think WotC should give away their rules, but if others use the rules WotC has given away, they shouldn't have to give anything back?  Would you like Scott Rouse's car, too?  I mean - WotC isn't a charity!
> 
> No chance that will happen.  Even the most benevolent busines in a world wouldn't just give everything away unconditionally.  What would be the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing it in the first place?




You're missing my point.

Realistically Morrus, the viral thing doesn't do anything really for WoTC product strategy.  The only time they ever used OGL released content in official products is Monster Manual II (for just 2 monsters) and Unearthed Arcana.  And the GSL is not "giving away their rules", it is a license.

I'm not saying people can't do it as viral, but rather let Wizards allow the individual writers/publishers to declare whether or not they need to share it.  That will actually be an incentive to publishers to use it.  There might be a clause saying you can't legally challenge WoTC if they use your content, to legally protect themselves (in case of "parallel development").  That's all they need to protect themselves.  (And it would be a rare case if they did it, since businesses usually don't like the mess of using somebody else's work in that manner).

Most of the major products (from the major publishers) don't much other OGL content other than the SRD--from a practical perspective it is consumer unfriendly since assuming others have purchased another third party book is not practical.  Perhaps the key exception in the industry is Tomb of Horrors, but that product was designed to reprint old AD&D monsters for 3e, and had a special license to do so.  

I forget who said it, but one person noted that in the cases of using OGL content, he always asked permission, regardless of the license, simply because it was "the right thing to do".  What this would do is enforce that in the license itself.


----------



## Oldtimer

Orcus said:
			
		

> Guys, please please please take it easy on Scott and Linae. They are in a tough position.
> 
> I know for a fact that they helped make openness* for 4E a reality. My guess is that was an epic level battle. In fact, I hope they leveled and got some great lewt when they won that fight.
> 
> They deserve our goodwill. I'm as frustrated as the next guy, but please dont accuse Scott of hiding behind anything.
> 
> Clark



Clark, I assume you got your rose-tinted glasses on, because this not openness. It's a license offer with some rather heavy opportunity costs and no security. It has nothing at all to do with open gaming.

I know you've been hailing Scott and Linae as the saviours of open gaming, but if they really fought for open gaming and this was all they got, that's a near TPK in my book.

I wonder what their opponents were trying to achive and if that really would have been worse. A closed 4e would, IMO, not have been worse. This is at best a sort of "let's kill half of the kittens" type of compromise.

The way it seems to be going now, I'd rather see them throw away the GSL, close down 4e and go their own merry way. Then we wouldn't have this OGL poison pill to worry about.


----------



## Piratecat

Oldtimer, I disagree on almost every count. I'm unable to see how a license that is going to allow - heck, ensure - 3rd party support is better than one that doesn't. Don't get me wrong; I think it makes _much _more sense if we're misinterpreting a few comments, and it is just individual products that can't be both 3e/4e.

I think it will behoove us not to jump to conclusions until Scott gets back to us with the license in front of him. Clark's right in this regard; both Scott and Linae have been championing the GSL inside of Wizards, fighting to make sure it's as open and fair as possible. They're smart people. I'm not going to assume the license requires voluntary abandonment of the OGL until that's confirmed by them.

I'd also like to ask that we stay away from personal comments like the "rose tinted glasses" one. Clark's a lawyer. I suspect that makes him as cynical as the rest of us.


----------



## Oldtimer

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Oldtimer, I disagree on almost every count. I'm unable to see how a license that is going to allow - heck, ensure - 3rd party support is better than one that doesn't. Don't get me wrong; I think it makes _much _more sense if we're misinterpreting a few comments, and it is just individual products that can't be both 3e/4e.
> 
> I think it will behoove us not to jump to conclusions until Scott gets back to us with the license in front of him. Clark's right in this regard; both Scott and Linae have been championing the GSL inside of Wizards, fighting to make sure it's as open and fair as possible. They're smart people. I'm not going to assume the license requires voluntary abandonment of the OGL until that's confirmed by them.
> 
> I'd also like to ask that we stay away from personal comments like the "rose tinted glasses" one. Clark's a lawyer. I suspect that makes him as cynical as the rest of us.



I expected that some people would disagree. 

In my post I assume that the company-by-company decision of GSL vs OGL is true. If not, that would change things a bit. I might be jumping to conclusions, but this interpretation has been flying around for enough time now, that Scott or Linae could easily have refuted it if it wasn't true. Therefore I assume it's true. (And hoping I'm wrong.)

I know Clark's a lawyer and probably doesn't even own any "rose-tinted glasses". I wasn't implying anything sinister, but Clark seems to have a different perspective on the merits of the GSL, so I tried to use an english expression for that different perspective. I hope I didn't come across as offensive. Nuances of a foreign language can be tricky.

Regarding if any license is better than none at all, my opinion is that a license that poisons the extant OGC is far worse than no license at all.


----------



## S'mon

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Probably, though that works to WotC's benefit as 3e content is competition while 4e content (even in limited quantities) will drive core book sales, as one will still need the core books to use it.




Yes, it can benefit WoTC but still be bad for the gaming public as a whole.  Less 3pp 4e content might be good if less meant higher average quality, but slightly-open will likely dissuade many of the best 3pps from participating, driving down quality too.


----------



## S'mon

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Regarding if any license is better than none at all, my opinion is that a license that poisons the extant OGC is far worse than no license at all.




That's my gut feeling.  I teach commercial law, my gut-legally feeling is that a GSL with a no-OGL clause is bad news and most 3pps should stay away from it.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> And I'm not sure the poison pill provision means its not "open" but that is open to discussion I guess. I mean, lets not forget that the STL contained something that, to the legally minded among the early adopters, was a big issue--we agreed not to challenge WotC;s ownership of certain things that in my view they clearly didnt "own."



But the STL isn't the Open part.  The STL is an optional addition to the Open part.


----------



## robertsconley

Orcus said:
			
		

> See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.
> 
> It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.




The problem is that in many ways the gaming industry community parallels that of the software industry. Community attitudes are similar as well. 

In both industries there is a core API (application programming interface) the dominates the entire industry; Windows and D&D. It would be possible for Microsoft in their EULA to say "You cannot release any software you create under the GPL while using this API. Or you cannot release any software you create under another operating system including an older version of Microsoft Windows.

D&D is an open ended product which sets itself in a distinct category that only occupied by a few other type of products like computers. Even if the GSL turned to be the least restrictive form (product by product, backstock ok) it will still cause a substantial backlash among the community. This backlash would create a significant competitor to WoTC's D&D. 

This is contrast to the situation with 3rd edition which literally took over the entire RPG industry at it's height. Granted a truly open 4th edition would not have the same impact due to different circumstances. However the d20 SRD could have been relegated to the same bin as GURPS, Palladium, and all the other second tier RPG games if 4th edition had a truly open SRD. But now they will be faced with a seriously supported legal alternative to their own game. 

The threat won't be in the alternative company supplanting WoTC. But rather anytime WoTC shoots itself in the feet there will be somebody that just swoop down and pick up the fallen pieces to long term detriment of WoTC's market share.

In the computer world it isn't Linux being superior that is hurting Microsoft but rather Microsoft themselves gleefully blowing holes intheir body.

I am not a lawyer but a computer programmer doing his job for 20 years. I seen how MS defeated IBM, and now how Apple and Linux are knocking MS silly. From a technical standpoint the rumored 4th edition GSL seems eerily like the first missteps of IBM and MS.

Finally people are far more aware of these kinds of issues than prior decades thanks to what happened in the computer world. They don't take needless restriction lightly anymore.


----------



## Jack99

robertsconley said:
			
		

> (snip)
> Finally people are far more aware of these kinds of issues than prior decades thanks to what happened in the computer world. They don't take needless restriction lightly anymore.




You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.

The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.

So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash. 

Cheers


----------



## wickederror

I'm glad for all the info.

I would also like to point out a consumer reaction that WotC may not have thought about, and has only really been touched apon in any of the threads I've read on the topic.

Now, I've pretty much hopped on the Paizo bandwagon, not being really excited about some of the changes in 4th ed.  I figured at best I would play it at my local gamestore a few times due to peer pressure, but that's about it.  Since new WotC material won't be comming out for my prefered method of gaming, I also had some future plans to delve into some other games I haven't really focused on (most likely True20 and Iron Heros).

As a gamer for 20 years, I'm pretty much as much of a book collector as I am anything...lets face it, gamers love their library.  I also buy a fair amount of material that isn't directly related to 3.5 but still filters money back to WotC.  I have more than a few stacks of MtG cards, I probably buy about 5-8 novels a year with the D&D logo on the front of them, several fistfuls of mini's, and even some goofier products like three dragon ante.  Hell I bought the Star Wars books mainly for the art, and was pretty much planning on buying a few 4th ed books for the art and to steal a few neat ideas for my campaign.

All and all, WotC probably loves people like me, or did up until now...because at heart I'm a gamer and gamer first before a novel-fan, MtG player, mini-collector, or what have you.  If I plan on playing True20, and after the first session none of my players can get the books because they are now arbitrarily out of print because WotC wants to remove that competitive product from the market via their new GSL, well they become a company that I don't like.  If my buddy tells me about a Necro-game that he DM'ed that was fantastic but too bad it's out of print because Necromancer games signed the GSL from WotC to stay in business, well once again WotC becomes a company that I don't like very much.

You may find this strange, but I don't typically buy products of a company I don't like.  I am not only a rollplayer but a collector of mini's, novels, cards, and other silly products and have been for 2 decades...and I am hardly an anomaly, am I?    Even though I'm not a big fan of the 4th Ed change, that change never made me consider to stop purchasing products from WotC...hell probably more than a few of the 4th ed books, even though I don't plan to play it  just for the art and a few game ideas.  I think that changes now.

I don't really have to be empathetic to WotC's plans on this matter...well because I'm a consumer and justification of this act really isn't much of a necessity to me in comparison to having access to the games I want to play.

  WotC may want to give some consideration to people like me when they start signing up companies that then have to pull their products that I patronize off of the market.


----------



## Morrus

Bacris said:
			
		

> d20 System Trademark Guide v5




Yep, you're right.  Sorry!  I wasn't thinking!


----------



## kingpaul

Alzrius said:
			
		

> WotC's books - with the exceptions of the MMII and _Unearthed Arcana_ - were never released under the OGL.



d20 Weapons Locker was released as OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

kingpaul said:
			
		

> d20 Weapons Locker was released as OGL.




Ah yes, so were a couple of the _d20 Modern_ books IIRC. That's what I get for just thinking about D&D and not the other lines.


----------



## Alzrius

Having thought about it more, I find myself in agreement with S'mon and Oldtimer. The GSL with the "poison pill" clause is worse than no GSL at all.

Even if D&D were completely closed, I think Open Gaming would survive. In fact, without being able to support D&D, the third-party community would rally around 3.5 and keep it alive considerably, maintaining a vibrant industry even without being able to publish products compatible with the new rules. I also think that, eventually, WotC would have seen that, and would have adopted a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy for 5E (or late into 4E life-cycle) and published a licensing option for D&D that would be MUCH more open than the GSL is now.

As it stands now, the GSL is designed to try and shut down the OGL, essentially attempting to squeeze Open Gaming to a fraction of its former self - not in terms of the size of the publishing community, but in terms of how open Open Gaming is.

In short, I'd prefer that Open Gaming simply be allowed to make due with what is has now, rather than have the GSL be out there actively trying to destroy it.


----------



## Ashardalon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Ah yes, so were a couple of the _d20 Modern_ books IIRC. That's what I get for just thinking about D&D and not the other lines.



Actually, I'm pretty sure the Weapons Locker was the only Modern title released under the OGL. Most d20 Modern material that is open was released through the Modern SRD instead.


----------



## Alzrius

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm pretty sure the Weapons Locker was the only Modern title released under the OGL. Most d20 Modern material that is open was released through the Modern SRD instead.




I thought _d20 Past_ was also released under the OGL. I admit to not knowing, though, since I never cared much for the entire line and didn't buy any of it.


----------



## Ashardalon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I thought _d20 Past_ was also released under the OGL. I admit to not knowing, though, since I never cared much for the entire line and didn't buy any of it.



Nope, not released under the OGL, just checked.


----------



## mxyzplk

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> How much would M&M have to change to no longer fall under the OGL but still have the game be basically the same?  Change to a percentile roll instead of a d20 (neatly have it all still be 5% increments of success tho), reword abilities like Dodge that appear in the SRD, what else?




You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20.  All you have to do is:

1.  Not claim OGL licensing (to be able to GSL)
2.  Not be found to be infringing on the copyrighted material in the D&D Player's Handbook or other WotC products (to not get sued as a result).

Looking at the M&M 2e book, they'd definitely need to rework the first 10 pages heavily - not cut and paste the list of definitions from the SRD, for example, but reword them.

It's easy to be "scared of the lawyers" because of how litigious Hasbro is, but if you look at the relevant suits you'll see they've lost the ones where it matters - like, for example, the "Monopoly add-on" suit.  And even the Scrabulous suit is being analyzed by legal folks to revolve more around whther they took trade dress or not versus the rules, even down to a high level of specificity.
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/scrabulous/


----------



## La Bete

S'mon said:
			
		

> With 4e slightly open, WoTC gets Necromancer to cease trading 3e, while WoTC gains the power to subsequently revoke the 4e license and put Necromancer out of business, putting WotC in a very strong position.
> 
> I think though that slightly-open may be the worst of all worlds for the general consumer, as it will minimise the actual variety of product on the market.  Fully closed would have guaranteed plenty of continuing OGL/3e content.  Fully open would have guaranteed plenty of 4e content.  Slightly-open will reduce the amount of 3e content greatly in return for a limited amount of 4e content.





That seems to be a bit of a tinfoilhatish spin on things. Yes It would be possible for WotC to use the GSL to kill off 4e-supporting companies - but more likely they would use said power when they launch 5e to avoid the current kerfuffle.

And I have to disagree with your view with regards the general consumer - as a likely 4e adopter some time this year or next, 3pp support for 4e = good thing. 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = indifferent thing. 

As a consumer, I'm largely uncaring about the trials and tribulations of the companies involved (though on a personal level, I'm sympathetic to the people affected by this). All I'm interested in is the end product. And I'm confident the market will sort that out.




			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.
> 
> The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.
> 
> So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash.




This.

The poll "Will you buy 4e even if closed?".  had around 1000 votes - which isn't too bad - But on a board with 60K+ members? With 2000 users online right now? One of the busiest - and probably most 3pp-friendly boards out there?

Looking a the OGL/GSL threads - it's pretty much largely the same couple of dozen people.

To most gamers "openess" means "can someone write stuff for the system, not get sued, and make some money?". Sure, thats not the legal definition for open, but it's a common usage - and at the moment, the answer looks like "yes".

One last point - some 4e-positive people seem to knock third party support (and by extension the publishers). This situation certainly does suck for them, and you have my sympathy. 

And thanks Scott and Linae for your hard work.

Cheers


----------



## La Bete

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20.  All you have to do is:
> 
> 1.  Not claim OGL licensing (to be able to GSL)
> 2.  Not be found to be infringing on the copyrighted material in the D&D Player's Handbook or other WotC products (to not get sued as a result).
> 
> Looking at the M&M 2e book, they'd definitely need to rework the first 10 pages heavily - not cut and paste the list of definitions from the SRD, for example, but reword them.
> 
> It's easy to be "scared of the lawyers" because of how litigious Hasbro is, but if you look at the relevant suits you'll see they've lost the ones where it matters - like, for example, the "Monopoly add-on" suit.  And even the Scrabulous suit is being analyzed by legal folks to revolve more around whther they took trade dress or not versus the rules, even down to a high level of specificity.
> http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/scrabulous/





Willing to put your cash on the line?


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> And I have to disagree with your view with regards the general consumer - as a likely 4e adopter some time this year or next, 3pp support for 4e = good thing. 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = indifferent thing.



But you are not the "general consumer" any more than he is.

For me, as someone pretty much certain not to go to 4E, 3pp support for 4e = fine thing and 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = very big deal.  But, again, I'm just one guy and so my opinion doesn't mean much either.

However, there is a bigger issue here. 
GSL that allows free use by 3pps:  good
GSL that actively seeks to damage the existing open gaming community/network:  Very very bad


----------



## mxyzplk

La Bete said:
			
		

> Willing to put your cash on the line?




WotC is forcing a Prisoner's Dilemma with this new plan - the 3p's are putting cash on the line whichever way they jump.  Your options are limited - Bet on 4e and go GSL and cancel all your other games that have every  had any OGL "taint" with the knowledge that WotC's going to have no compunctions about making you dance like a trained monkey in other ways later on, bet on pure OGL and join forces with Paizo etc. to fork D&D, which might work but would require near-unanimous participation of the big 3ps, or try to find some way to get in on 4e without discontinuing all other products.

Clark and a couple people like him who do this on the side and/or exclusively support D&D already can safely take option 1, but all the other 3p's we're talking about here might well go out of business in the transition even if they decide on the trained monkey route.  If a safe legal path to #3 can be found, it'd be best for everyone.


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> However, there is a bigger issue here.
> GSL that allows free use by 3pps:  good
> GSL that actively seeks to damage the existing open gaming community/network:  Very very bad




Yeah, but I don't accept this as a given fact either.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Orcus said:
			
		

> In a manly way, let me say--I love you.




Come on! I know you can't say anything about this because of the NDA, but do you have to flaunt it in front of everyone?


----------



## La Bete

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> WotC is forcing a Prisoner's Dilemma with this new plan - the 3p's are putting cash on the line whichever way they jump.  Your options are limited - Bet on 4e and go GSL and cancel all your other games that have every  had any OGL "taint" with the knowledge that WotC's going to have no compunctions about making you dance like a trained monkey in other ways later on, bet on pure OGL and join forces with Paizo etc. to fork D&D, which might work but would require near-unanimous participation of the big 3ps, or try to find some way to get in on 4e without discontinuing all other products.
> 
> Clark and a couple people like him who do this on the side and/or exclusively support D&D already can safely take option 1, but all the other 3p's we're talking about here might well go out of business in the transition even if they decide on the trained monkey route.  If a safe legal path to #3 can be found, it'd be best for everyone.




Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher. You seemed pretty confident with your "it's easy to be scared by the lawyers" line, so I was enquiring if you were planning a product that would be a test case - and willing to back it with cash for the lawyers.

Now admittedly, I was speaking mainly in jest  , but I'm also certain that encouraging people to invest their money on a legal principle that hasn't been tested in the appropriate circumstances probably isn't the best idea. Unless of course, mouth and money and all that.

P.S. I'm not entirely sure if the "trained monkey" verbiage really helps.


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I don't accept this as a given fact either.



And I'm still praying it is wrong as well.  I'll be thrilled to have been misled by bad information.
But it certainly doesn't sound that way.  I think there is a better chance of WotC changing their mind than of the current info being wrong.

But, are you saying if it does come out as fact that your position would be at least moved somewhat?


----------



## Dinkeldog

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Clark,
> 
> Check your email




I could point out that if you and Orcus became Community Supporters, you could PM each other and not taunt us with half-conversations.  You know, just saying.  

Have to cheerlead for the site once in a while.


----------



## Jack99

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I could point out that if you and Orcus became Community Supporters, you could PM each other and not taunt us with half-conversations.  You know, just saying.
> 
> Have to cheerlead for the site once in a while.




Yeah, because it is not like messages like that one peaks our curiosity... not at all, no Sir..


----------



## BSF

wickederror said:
			
		

> I'm glad for all the info.
> 
> I would also like to point out a consumer reaction that WotC may not have thought about, and has only really been touched apon in any of the threads I've read on the topic.
> 
> </SNIP>
> 
> I don't really have to be empathetic to WotC's plans on this matter...well because I'm a consumer and justification of this act really isn't much of a necessity to me in comparison to having access to the games I want to play.
> 
> WotC may want to give some consideration to people like me when they start signing up companies that then have to pull their products that I patronize off of the market.




You are not singular in this regard.  I would also hazard a guess that WotC has considered this effect to some degree.  In the end, it comes down to an estimate on how much market share people like you and I influence.  

The fact is, none of us needs more roleplaying material.  It is a luxury market item, competing with other entertainment spending dollars.  I could game for years and years without buying one new item.  I can afford to make decisions based on arbitrary things like my like/dislike of a company.  I am fickle and I have left entire companies because I didn't like their business practice and decisions.  I have also supported companies simply because I like the company.

But how much market share do we influence?  Is it enough to matter to WotC and their decisions?

I am not going to make a blanket statement that I would stop buying WotC material just because all of the worst aspects of exclusivity come out in the GSL.  But the poison pill aspect doesn't taste good and when a company leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I am less likely to patronize them.


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> And I'm still praying it is wrong as well.  I'll be thrilled to have been misled by bad information.
> But it certainly doesn't sound that way.  I think there is a better chance of WotC changing their mind than of the current info being wrong.
> 
> But, are you saying if it does come out as fact that your position would be at least moved somewhat?




I suspect there is a bit of "wrong end of teh stick" as well as potential for further change. Though I very much believe that there will be pressure on 3pps to put aside support for 3e.

To be honest though, if it is that bad, would my position change? No not really. If the 3e/OGL products  are that good, they will continue to sell. If they're not, they won't. 

Clark indicated (I think) that WotC are ok with the Necro/Paizo 4e/3e split in support. So I don't see any issues with publishers doing some sort of finessing to manage the situation. Ditto in the case of having to stop selling older stock (which I'm not convinced will occur).


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I could point out that if you and Orcus became Community Supporters, you could PM each other and not taunt us with half-conversations.  You know, just saying.
> 
> Have to cheerlead for the site once in a while.




I am or was. I gave my money via PayPal but my public profile never updated. It says I am in my user profile. I can PM so it must be Orcus.


----------



## BSF

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I am or was. I gave my money via PayPal but my public profile never updated. It says I am in my user profile. I can PM so it must be Orcus.




If you are a CS, you should be able to update your profile with all sorts of verbiage.  Of course, even with a CS account, you can decide not to accept PMs.  Given the position that both you and Clark have within the community, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of you refused PMs on the basis that you might be inundated with unwanted messages.


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> I suspect there is a bit of "wrong end of teh stick" as well as potential for further change. Though I very much believe that there will be pressure on 3pps to put aside support for 3e.
> 
> To be honest though, if it is that bad, would my position change? No not really. If the 3e/OGL products  are that good, they will continue to sell. If they're not, they won't.



I think you are pulling a bait and switch on the point here.
Quality is completely after the fact for this matter.
First, if companies feel compelled to drop OGL products then there won't be anything to judge as good or bad.
Second, depending on how many publishers stay or go, the impact on the market as a whole could strongly impact the ability to survive with even the very highest of quality.  
The quality issue is a red herring to the point of the highly negative impacts of a GSL assualt on open gaming.



> Clark indicated (I think) that WotC are ok with the Necro/Paizo 4e/3e split in support. So I don't see any issues with publishers doing some sort of finessing to manage the situation. Ditto in the case of having to stop selling older stock (which I'm not convinced will occur).



Paizo and Necromancer are stand outs in the overall 3P OGL field and do not accurately represent the overall community.  And even with that, having to deal with this kind of extra hoop-jumping will be a notable disincentive.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

BSF said:
			
		

> If you are a CS, you should be able to update your profile with all sorts of verbiage.  Of course, even with a CS account, you can decide not to accept PMs.  Given the position that both you and Clark have within the community, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of you refused PMs on the basis that you might be inundated with unwanted messages.





Got it. I thought it was automatic but I just learned I have to paste it in.

Thanks


----------



## JVisgaitis

So I just read through the bulk of all this. I would have thought that the announcement of an open 4e would have been met with people singing in the streets. Instead, we get another mired mess which is understandable considering the implications of the license.

Basically, I'm REALLY happy that 4e is open. I was pretty sure that it wouldn't be closed up, but Clark sowed my thoughts with much doubt. At least that worry is off my chest. Am I happy with the price we might have to pay for the sake of 4e being open? Not at all. Companies like Paizo and Green Ronin inspired us (and I'm sure a lot of other companies) to push the envelope and raise the bar. Considering the fact that they may be left by the wayside is very upsetting.

One thing I want to point out is how well Chris and Erik have handled all of this. I don't think a lot of people understand the amount of pressure you guys must be under with all of this and it seems like it just keeps getting worse. You guys are true scholars and gentleman. If I was in your position and my entire livelihood depended on what was going on with all of these delays and everything else, I only hope I could handle it with the elegance and grace that you guys have.

And to Scott and Linae, man, are you guys are taking a beating on this thread. I hope a lot of the snarkiness and nerd rage you guys are the brunt of doesn't keep you from posting here. I feel that you guys are genuinely concerned about the community and open gaming and I just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work and continuing to put up with the community. I know you guys handled everything the best you could, and I don't fault you for that one bit.


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think you are pulling a bait and switch on the point here.
> Quality is completely after the fact for this matter.
> First, if companies feel compelled to drop OGL products then there won't be anything to judge as good or bad.
> Second, depending on how many publishers stay or go, the impact on the market as a whole could strongly impact the ability to survive with even the very highest of quality.
> The quality issue is a red herring to the point of the highly negative impacts of a GSL assualt on open gaming.
> 
> Paizo and Necromancer are stand outs in the overall 3P OGL field and do not accurately represent the overall community.  And even with that, having to deal with this kind of extra hoop-jumping will be a notable disincentive.




I don't understand what you're trying to say in the underlined text - could you I get you to clarify that please? (if you can be arsed)

I disagree - quality is really all that matters here. If (for example) Mutants and Masterminds is *that good* a product, it will continue to be sold and developed. The same goes for any other OGL - or indeed any 3e-based game. If they are that good, and there is enough of a market, then they will continue to thrive. If not, they won't. The market will out either way.

And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway? As regards other publishers - sure there is extra hassle if they want to go a similar route - but to be honest, again if they have a high enough quality product, then returns will be worth the hassle.

One point I will give you, is that the fact that the GSL closes off new MnM-style standalone games is a bit of a shame.


----------



## robertsconley

Jack99 said:
			
		

> You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.
> 
> The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.
> 
> So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash.




You are right. In the past 90% of people buying computers are not aware of the Linux vs MS issue either. But slowly Linux is gaining ground as MS keeps shooting themselves in the foot. It is how MS beat IBM back in the early 90's as well. And both process are long and drawn out. 


In short, the backlash as such will be more of a long term effect then anything immediate. But it shouldn't be discounted.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Oops, I had a premature post... 

If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL. Once you dip your toe into 4th Edition, there should be no going back and I understand that. Let the publishers continue to sell what they have spent so much time and effort on. Let's face it, I'm not going to continue to try and push a product for an older system if I'm doing 4th Edition, but if there is a fan out there somewhere who wants an old copy of a 3.x product let the publisher sell it to them. I sincerely doubt that a 2 year old product is going to compete with 4th Edition in the slightest.

Also, it would be nice if the PDF publishers who have hundreds/thousands of products don't need to go back and remove the logo from every single product. That's a nightmare and is an incredible time sink. For a lot of the PDFs we've done, I don't even have the original Indesign files anymore. It would be a pain for me to have to recreate all of those covers. I think everyone here will agree that the marketing power behind the old d20 Logo is pretty worthless at this point. If you are going to allow old product to remain in the channel, why can't you let a publisher hold on to and sell old stock? I can understand wanting to stop the logo from appearing on future products, but what's the harm in it still being on old products?


----------



## La Bete

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL.




I'm absolutely certain a solution to this could be found - esp for pdfs.

Not sure if the "nerd rage" comment is called for - there are some people here who's livelyhoods we are talking about. Also some people with perfectly rational beliefs - just ones that you (and I) disagree with.


----------



## BSF

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Oops, I had a premature post...
> 
> If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL. Once you dip your toe into 4th Edition, there should be no going back and I understand that. Let the publishers continue to sell what they have spent so much time and effort on. Let's face it, I'm not going to continue to try and push a product for an older system if I'm doing 4th Edition, but if there is a fan out there somewhere who wants an old copy of a 3.x product let the publisher sell it to them. I sincerely doubt that a 2 year old product is going to compete with 4th Edition in the slightest.
> 
> Also, it would be nice if the PDF publishers who have hundreds/thousands of products don't need to go back and remove the logo from every single product. That's a nightmare and is an incredible time sink. For a lot of the PDFs we've done, I don't even have the original Indesign files anymore. It would be a pain for me to have to recreate all of those covers. I think everyone here will agree that the marketing power behind the old d20 Logo is pretty worthless at this point. If you are going to allow old product to remain in the channel, why can't you let a publisher hold on to and sell old stock? I can understand wanting to stop the logo from appearing on future products, but what's the harm in it still being on old products?




OK, allow me to bring up yet another factor here.  What about games that were released under the OGL, but were never actually derivitave of D20?  As Gareth-Michael Skarka has asked earlier, why does Adamant Entertainment have to choose between supporting _Spirit of the Century_ and D&D 4?  The OGL license was put out there for anybody to use, much like the GPL was in software circles.  

Your GPL software product doesn't need to reuse GPL code from previous products for you to decide to use it.  

Your OGL RPG product doesn't need to reuse any OGL material from previous products for you to decide to use it.  

Companies could have devoted significant R&D dollars to a game system and then released the game under the OGL because they believed in the OGL principles.  Now they can't sell and support that product as well as support GSL product at the same time.  

Sure, WotC can craft the GSL any way that they want to.  They can exercise thier market influence and strongarm product lines out of availability.  They can do those things.  But I don't have to like it.  

I would like to hear that such exclusivity is not part of the license.  I would love to hear that the GSL was as open as the OGL, because I think that serves my interests the best.  But I am just a customer.  Most of the time, companies would prefer to tell me what I want, and then orchestrate the market to restrict my options.  

A bit of an extreme opinion?  Sure it is.  But that is how it feels for me.


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you're trying to say in the underlined text - could you I get you to clarify that please?



If Green Ronin stops making True20 products then there is nothing further to judge as good or bad.



> I disagree - quality is really all that matters here. If (for example) Mutants and Masterminds is *that good* a product, it will continue to be sold and developed. The same goes for any other OGL - or indeed any 3e-based game. If they are that good, and there is enough of a market, then they will continue to thrive. If not, they won't. The market will out either way.



Sorry, but that is true completely outside of the GSL conversation.  The only relevant impact the GSL has is to reduce the scope of the marketplace in which these products rise or fall on their own merits.  Yes, it is possible that the GSL could fail to have sufficient impact.  But the GSL gets no credit for the presumption it will fail at its goal.  They are directly attacking the existence of the marketplace itself.  That is a negative thing regardless of any debate of quality inside that market.




> And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway? As regards other publishers - sure there is extra hassle if they want to go a similar route - but to be honest, again if they have a high enough quality product, then returns will be worth the hassle.



First, you are changing the subject.  The point of this part of the exchange was that smaller companies can not as easily make these kinds of arrangements.  Your reply doesn't in any way address that.

Second, again, the quality debate exists completely outside of the GSL issue.  Assume for 1 second that they don't have to jump through this hoop.  The returns on their product already exist in this reasonable marketplace.  Now you add these hoop-jumping hassles into the mix and the total revenue does not increase.  There is zero return on the new hassle part of the equation.  It does nothing but suck off the top of the profits.

Assume someone makes $100 a week off a product, and suddenly a $5 a week hoop-jumping expense is added.  If $95 a week isn't enough to justify producing the product then the consumers lose.  If the product is still viable, then the best you can say it is "only" a $5 a week harm.  But it has added nothing of merit to the system.



> One point I will give you, is that the fact that the GSL closes off new MnM-style standalone games is a bit of a shame.



"a bit"??  Talk about understatements.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

It looks like LPJ Design is stepping up to the plate with a free  OGL 3.5 logo design.


----------



## S'mon

_double post_


----------



## S'mon

La Bete said:
			
		

> That seems to be a bit of a tinfoilhatish spin on things. Yes It would be possible for WotC to use the GSL to kill off 4e-supporting companies - but more likely they would use said power when they launch 5e to avoid the current kerfuffle.




I disagree with your 'tinfoilhatish' characterisation.  I didn't say WoTC were _likely_ to withdraw the GSL, just that they would have the power to do so.  And since GSL 3pps would have shelved and discarded their OGL product, that means WoTC would gain the power to put them out of business.  That this power would likely never be used does not make it uinimportant.  Nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 but they have profoundly shaped international relations over that period.  Any sensible businessman looking at entering a contract needs to consider various scenarios; "What happens if the other party decides to end the contract" is an obvious scenario.  In this case the answer is "You go bust, no recourse, no damages".  That makes entering it a big gamble.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

La Bete said:
			
		

> Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher. You seemed pretty confident with your "it's easy to be scared by the lawyers" line, so I was enquiring if you were planning a product that would be a test case - and willing to back it with cash for the lawyers.



To put it another way, if someone tries this and WotC sues them, even if they win, they lose.  It's hardly a comfort to be 'right' when your company goes bankrupt from paying lawyers fees. (Unless, of course, Clark from Necromancer does it for free. )  WotC might be willing to spend the money on lawyers because, a) they probably have in-house counsel anyway, whose salaries will be paid no matter what they do, and b) it might be worth it to them just to protect their IP or set a precedent.


----------



## Angellis_ater

S'mon said:
			
		

> Any sensible businessman looking at entering a contract needs to consider various scenarios; "What happens if the other party decides to end the contract" is an obvious scenario.  In this case the answer is "You go bust, no recourse, no damages".  That makes entering it a big gamble.




Not only that, but it does seem like we've been put into this position while there is a viable license still available, for a system that isn't dead yet. To me, it feels like a given which way to lean, but I'll reserve final judgement until we DO see the GSL.


----------



## Kesh

Okay, here's something Scott probably can't answer until Monday:

What if I decided to write a new 4e-GSL-compatible product, but wanted to include _someone else's_ OGL content? For instance, an artifact from a sourcebook published under the OGL, rewritten for 4e stats.

My current understanding is that this is not possible, as we can't mix OGL & GSL in the same product. Which basically means unless the publisher themselves update the product to use the GSL, I cannot use that material at all in my own product.

That would be my biggest disappointment in this development: all that old content that's ripe for mining ideas here and there gets cordoned off into "OGL only" land. Still, it's understandable why that would be the case.

Also, that leaves us with the one question not fully clarified yet: is a publisher required to publish GSL material only, or can they publish separate OGL & GSL content (ie, not the same product at the same time)? For example, I could publish a "Dungeon Snacks" OGL supplement and a "Dungeon Weapons" GSL supplement at the same time as separate products, but not publish a "Dungeon Weapons" OGL at the same time my GSL version of the product is on the market?

I think getting those two questions clarified would do a lot to settle this thread down a bit.


----------



## xechnao

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.
> 
> Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.






			
				Scipio202 said:
			
		

> Also, since WotC has copyrighted the wording of the OGL, if anyone wants to create a new OGL-like open license for games they'll need to write a new one thats sufficiently different from the OGL.




But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.


----------



## Goobermunch

Hey everyone,

It looks like things are happening that we're not privvy to.  Right now there's a big discussion about the terms of a license we've never seen.  The folks involved in making decisions about the licensing have been watching the discussion, and they've indicated that we've been heard.  In addition, we can infer that something further is happening because Le Rouse and Orcus had a cryptic conversation.

How about we dial back the rhetoric and rage until we get some more information?  I'm seeing people here get into detailed debates of minutia and hypotheticals about hypotheticals that may never become reality.  Folks are getting entrenched in positions that may not be tenable come morning.

--G


----------



## Wicht

I have a question for the legal minds posting here.

Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?


----------



## S'mon

La Bete said:
			
		

> Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher.




(I teach copyright) - Rules per se are not copyrightable, but text does not cease to be copyrightable just because it embodies rules.  If your OGL work includes a chunk of rules text from the SRD, you can't just "rewrite" that chunk and discard the OGL.   That just turns literal copying into non-literal copying.  Copyright protects literary works - text.   I'd advise a whole new edition of the game with the rules expressed in a different manner, one not derived from the text of the previous OGL edition.  Even then it's risky, because there is clear evidence your work derived originally from WotC's copyright work.  This is very different from creating a D&D compatible non-OGL adventure, where WoTC's claim would be very weak.  In this case you've clearly derived a substantial amount of your work from the SRD, in which WoTC owns the copyright.  I would advise OGL publishers to stick with the OGL, or do what Mongoose is doing and phase out their SRD-derived works.


----------



## Morrus

Wicht said:
			
		

> I have a question for the legal minds posting here.
> 
> Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?




Sure.  And then WotC would say _"Hey, what, are you trying to pull a fast one on us?" _ and use whatever discretional revocation clause they have in the license.

That asumes the text of the license doesn't already cover that contingency, which is probably does.


----------



## GMSkarka

La Bete said:
			
		

> Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher.




Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.

Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.


----------



## xechnao

S'mon said:
			
		

> (I teach copyright)




So can you please comment on my issue raised just above? That would be very helpful
Thanks.


----------



## Nellisir

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Having thought about it more, I find myself in agreement with S'mon and Oldtimer. The GSL with the "poison pill" clause is worse than no GSL at all.
> ...
> As it stands now, the GSL is designed to try and shut down the OGL, essentially attempting to squeeze Open Gaming to a fraction of its former self - not in terms of the size of the publishing community, but in terms of how open Open Gaming is.



Ditto.  If WotC had gone with a closed system, the 3pp would stay with the OGL & the 3.5 ruleset by necessity.  If WotC had gone with an open license without the "non-compete" clause, companies would probably cheerfully support both 4e and OGL products, and support for 3.5 would die down, eventually stabilizing just as Basic/1e support is stabile.  Instead, they've given 3pp a choice: stick with the OGL and a ruleset the industry leader doesn't support, or burn your bridges* and hitch your wagon to D&D and whatever is best for WotC.  And then get ready to do it again in 8 years.

If what Orcus reports is true and not a misunderstanding, I flat-out won't buy 4e.  I understand why they might do it, but I don't have to support an action just because I understand the motivation.  And the more consumers and 3pp who do likewise, and simply walk away from 4e and the GSL, the more likely WotC will do something about it in the future (which could easily be just the next 12 months).

*I realise companies can always abandon the GSL and go back to the OGL, but they'll be without a presence in the OGL market for some time - who knows what the OGL market will look like then?  It may have evolved away from them, it may have shrivelled to the point that it can't support them when they return.


----------



## Goobermunch

xechnao said:
			
		

> But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.




Depends.

Federal laws aren't copyrightable largely because there's specific statute that prevents the government from claiming a copyright on its works.  I do not have the statute in front of me and am unwilling to speculate on whether the prohibition is limited in scope.

I know that certain IP firms do claim that their C&D letters are copyrighted and that distribution of the contents of those letters is infringement.  Whether the fair use doctrine applies, I don't know.

Generally copyright can be extended to any "original work of authorship."  There are some pretty broad categories that copyright applies to.  But, "ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices" are not copyrightable (though illustrations, descriptions and explanations are).

I haven't done copyright law since law school, and I'm not going to opine on whether it's copyrightable.  I will guess that given the circumstances under which it was released (and possibly under its own terms), Wizards would be unable to successfully make a claim for infringement (given that it is an irrevocable license that is required to be put into any document published under it).

Of course, that's not the issue.  You can still use the OGL after 2009.  The question is how the GSL plays with the OGL.  And we can't analyze that until we have the GSL in hand.



			
				Wicht said:
			
		

> I have a question for the legal minds posting here.
> 
> Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?




Good question.  Again, that would depend on the terms of the GSL.  The problem is that no one here knows precisely how the language of the GSL accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish.  There's also the question of whether such language would be enforceable.  Just because a contract has certain terms, doesn't necessarily mean that the terms are enforceable.  For example, contracts to commit a crime are not enforceable because that would be against public policy.  But without a copy of the GSL it's hard to day.  It's even harder, because the GSL may provide that disputes under its terms will be decided in accordance with the laws of certain states (choice of law provision).  Without access to that data, no one can really opine in an informed manner.

--G


----------



## xechnao

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Of course, that's not the issue.  You can still use the OGL after 2009.  The question is how the GSL plays with the OGL.  And we can't analyze that until we have the GSL in hand.
> 
> --G




No, it certainly is an issue if Wotc is only worried about the SRD derivative works of OGL and the "OGLization" of 4e.
If this is not the case, then Wotc would be just playing hard competition than trying to protect itself as its representatives are claiming here. And if this happens to be the case, then we can assume anything of their intentions and processes so far -that is being much less genuine than they would want to admit.


----------



## crow81

Nellisir said:
			
		

> If what Orcus reports is true and not a misunderstanding, I flat-out won't buy 4e.  I understand why they might do it, but I don't have to support an action just because I understand the motivation.  And the more consumers and 3pp who do likewise, and simply walk away from 4e and the GSL, the more likely WotC will do something about it in the future (which could easily be just the next 12 months)





I'll go further than that I am or now was a big collector of Star Wars figures the 3.5 inch ones. 

I had been anti 4e from the start. Now this decision just makes me anti Hasbro.


----------



## Roland55

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Hey everyone,
> 
> It looks like things are happening that we're not privvy to.  Right now there's a big discussion about the terms of a license we've never seen.  The folks involved in making decisions about the licensing have been watching the discussion, and they've indicated that we've been heard.  In addition, we can infer that something further is happening because Le Rouse and Orcus had a cryptic conversation.
> 
> How about we dial back the rhetoric and rage until we get some more information?  I'm seeing people here get into detailed debates of minutia and hypotheticals about hypotheticals that may never become reality.  Folks are getting entrenched in positions that may not be tenable come morning.
> 
> --G




Exceptionally sound advice.

It's so easy for molehills to become mountains (well, rhetorical ones, at least).  

I'm just a scientist (and engineer, program manager, educator/academic, .... etc.) and not a lawyer of the appropriate type.  But I can recognize good advice when I hear it.

It's FAR too soon to draw conclusions.


----------



## Roland55

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> And to Scott and Linae, man, are you guys are taking a beating on this thread. I hope a lot of the snarkiness and nerd rage you guys are the brunt of doesn't keep you from posting here. I feel that you guys are genuinely concerned about the community and open gaming and I just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work and continuing to put up with the community. I know you guys handled everything the best you could, and I don't fault you for that one bit.




It would be terribly, terribly wrong to fault either of them. 

They are just doing their jobs ... and keeping their families fed.  They've acted very professionally and they certainly have my respect.

Colleagues -- imagine yourselves in their positions.  Try to have a little more understanding.


----------



## S'mon

xechnao said:
			
		

> But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.




As far as I know, off the top of my head:

1.  Legal documents are fully copyright protected, copyright owned by their creator or other copyright owner.  Laws in the US are not copyright protected by special dispensation, but here in the UK laws are copyright protected - they're Crown Copyright.

2.  The OGL's own licensing provisions allow anyone to use it, WoTC can't control who uses it.


----------



## xechnao

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I haven't done copyright law since law school, and I'm not going to opine on whether it's copyrightable.  I will guess that given the circumstances under which it was released (and possibly under its own terms), Wizards would be unable to successfully make a claim for infringement (given that it is an irrevocable license that is required to be put into any document published under it).
> 
> --G







			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> As far as I know, off the top of my head:
> 
> 1.  Legal documents are fully copyright protected, copyright owned by their creator or other copyright owner.  Laws in the US are not copyright protected by special dispensation, but here in the UK laws are copyright protected - they're Crown Copyright.
> 
> 2.  The OGL's own licensing provisions allow anyone to use it, WoTC can't control who uses it.




So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
This is what I am trying to ask here.


----------



## S'mon

xechnao said:
			
		

> So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
> This is what I am trying to ask here.




I wouldn't advise that - most likely they'd both be infringing copyright in the OGL and in breach of contract re the GSL.

But they could create a new license which worked the same as the OGL.  The d20 SRD would not be covered by it, of course.


----------



## Ourph

xechnao said:
			
		

> So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
> This is what I am trying to ask here.



1) No they couldn't.  The OGL is copyright WotC and grants others the right to copy it as part of the terms of its own use.

2) They don't need to. If a company has a game that doesn't rely on OGC (WotC's or otherwise) for any of its writing, but was originally published under the OGL to allow 3rd party publishers to make compatible products for it, the original creators of that game, as owners of the copyright, can at any time, publish that game without including the OGL.  Just because a game was originally released as OGL doesn't mean the original authors have to continue publishing it that way.  The original authors cannot withdraw the permissions they gave to 3rd parties to continue accessing their IP through the OGL (and those 3rd party publishers must continue using the OGL to publish compatible materials), but the copyright owners do not have to rely on the OGL to publish, because they own it.


----------



## Goobermunch

xechnao said:
			
		

> No, it certainly is an issue if Wotc is only worried about the SRD derivative works of OGL and the "OGLization" of 4e.
> If this is not the case, then Wotc would be just playing hard competition than trying to protect itself as its representatives are claiming here. And if this happens to be the case, then we can assume anything of their intentions and processes so far -that is being much less genuine than they would want to admit.




I'm not sure what you're asking here.

There are a number of different publishers out there publishing under different documents.

There's the OGL, which is an irrevocable license granted by WotC to do certain things.

There's the SRD, which contains the core rules of 3.5.

There's also the D20 STL, which (I think) allows publishers to use a mark indicating that their products are compatible with D&D 3.x.

I'm not sure which of these documents you're referring to.  And honestly, I haven't read them all closely enough to tell you how they link together.  My understanding is that the OGL will continue to be a valid document post-1/1/09.  If the SRD is released under the OGL, then it also should continue to be open content and useable.  The D20 STL is being revoked on that date, and so its use will end.

--G


----------



## xechnao

S'mon said:
			
		

> and in breach of contract re the GSL.




So they are taking this 100% support seriously then. I have heard of 100% support compliant boutiques but it is the first time I see it in publishing. At this point I start wondering about their intentions. It is not protection of their investment anymore. It is aggressive market competition.


----------



## SSquirrel

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20.  All you have to do is:




I know mechanics can't be copyrighted, I was just thinking any extra "see we're not using your stuff" couldn't hurt   Besides, my % dice are getting lonely


----------



## La Bete

*To BryonD*

Hmmm. I'll try and avoid a battle of point-by-point here - life is a bit too short.

Key things - with regards my "bait and switch/changing the subject" - Lets just say I obviously see things differently than you.  From my perspective, quality of a product, and potential size of the market for said productare pretty important factors in operating in a marketplace. And the ability to operate in said market is governed by the OGL or the GSL.

You believe (i think) that the GSL is an assault on said marketplace. 

I (firstly) don't see it as an "assault". A change, certainly, but tbh I believe that the launch of 4e is just as big, or bigger factor.

Secondly, I believe that 3e-derived/OGL products will remain in the marketplace if they fulfil quality and market share requirements. There are certainly a number of people proclaiming their intention not to move to 4e.

An example: If GR believe that True20 is that good, and has a prospect of continuing market share, they will likely continue to publish it. So as the consumer I'm OK. If not, well I guess it wasn't that good (personally I'm of the mind that it is pretty good).

So in short, as a consumer, I believe that my requirements for 3rd party material will continue to be met by products released under the GSL, or potentially legacy 3e-compatible material (or related) under the OGL.

I should note that this is all in response to your question to me about if I would still feel the same way about the GSL in the current worst case scenario.

I know I said no point by point - I guess that was a bit of a fib.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> First, you are changing the subject.  The point of this part of the exchange was that smaller companies can not as easily make these kinds of arrangements.  Your reply doesn't in any way address that. .




Right - after a quick trawl through the posts:

Me - "Clark indicated (I think) that WotC are ok with the Necro/Paizo 4e/3e split in support. So I don't see any issues with publishers doing some sort of finessing to manage the situation."

You - "Paizo and Necromancer are stand outs in the overall 3P OGL field and do not accurately represent the overall community."

Me - "And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway?"

I don't recall mentioning smaller publishers. My view is that the higher-profile or larger publishers would probably be able to make some sort of arrangement that would be legit. I.e. publishers of quality material would continue to make their quality products available one way or another.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Assume someone makes $100 a week off a product, and suddenly a $5 a week hoop-jumping expense is added.  If $95 a week isn't enough to justify producing the product then the consumers lose.  If the product is still viable, then the best you can say it is "only" a $5 a week harm.  But it has added nothing of merit to the system.




Costs are incurred when operating with another (much larger) company? News at 11. Sorry, thats business. I don't believe that any company producing 3rd-party material based on WotC's licensed IP necessarily has a "right" to exist. You deal with the circumstances as they arise. I also don't believe that a publisher would be substantially deterred if they believed in their product enough (quality again).



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> "a bit"??  Talk about understatements




They'll still exist under the OGL - and anything published under the GSL, well I'll have the core 4e books already, so no big deal.


Don't get me wrong - I think I understand your point of view, and it is valid (I just disagree). I would also agree that the GSL is going to cause pain to some publishers - it's just that I believe that in the end the impact to me as a consumer is not going to be nearly as substantial as you might.

Apologies for the size of the post. I have to go and baby-wrangle, so I'll check in tomorrow if you wish to continue.

Cheers


----------



## JVisgaitis

La Bete said:
			
		

> Not sure if the "nerd rage" comment is called for - there are some people here who's livelyhoods we are talking about. Also some people with perfectly rational beliefs - just ones that you (and I) disagree with.




Yeah, people like you _and_ me. I'm a publisher and a consumer. I didn't single anyone out or mean anything derogatory by saying that. People have a right to be angry at the situation, but people don't have a right to make personal attacks or act like jerks as they have been.



			
				BSF said:
			
		

> OK, allow me to bring up yet another factor here. What about games that were released under the OGL, but were never actually derivitave of D20? As Gareth-Michael Skarka has asked earlier, why does Adamant Entertainment have to choose between supporting _Spirit of the Century_ and D&D 4? The OGL license was put out there for anybody to use, much like the GPL was in software circles.




I know Gareth mentioned this a few times. The only reason why I didn't bring it up is because I think it was just something they hadn't considered and I feel like it'll be addressed. I highly doubt that they would have issues with a company publishing products for both Fudge and 4th Edition for instance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it'll be an issue when the final license comes.


----------



## xechnao

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're asking here.
> 
> 
> --G




I think I have covered you in the subsequent posts, no?


----------



## Oldtimer

La Bete said:
			
		

> An example: If GR believe that True20 is that good, and has a prospect of continuing market share, they will likely continue to publish it. So as the consumer I'm OK. If not, well I guess it wasn't that good (personally I'm of the mind that it is pretty good).



You seem to completely disregard the fact that GR might want to publish 4e accessories under the GSL as well. If they decide to do that they will need to drop their True20 _no matter how good it is_.

That's why quality of product is only secondary. The terms of the GSL is this primary thing.


----------



## Goobermunch

xechnao said:
			
		

> I think I have covered you in the subsequent posts, no?




Fair enough.

I think S'mon has answered your question.  For works that were released under the OGL, but are in no way derivative of 3.xe, I think a publisher might be able to release under a different sort of open license and not run afoul of the GSL.  Of course, this is entirely dependent on the terms of the GSL.

--G


----------



## Dragonblade

Ok, now I have had time to calm down, I realized what I posted before was poorly thought out and in some cases wrong. I apologize.

I will say this, though. WotC DOES own the OGL. Pull out any OGL book and read it. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast. However, what they can't do is recall it, or force publishers to use a different version, and so on. But they do own it.

As far as open gaming, I wasn't talking about other companies releasing trademark licenses like Green Ronin's True20 STL, or the d20 STL. A lot of companies use trademark licenses, which I think is cool, but it doesn't mean their system is open to the degree that D&D 3.5 is, which was the point I was trying to make.

I was talking about a true OGL, where anyone can publish any content from your system. I was mistaken in that there are some systems that have joined the OGL that I wasn't aware of. Fudge, for example, is now using the OGL (and not just a trademark license which it also has akin to WotC) and I didn't know that. So I was wrong about that.

But some of my point still stands. For example, when you can point to a fan site not associated with Green Ronin that republishes ALL the mechanics from True20, or M&M, including power points and hero points (which are NOT open), then I will admit those systems are truly open.

And for Pathfinder, as long as I can only download branded PDFs from Paizo's site, I don't agree that Pathfinder is open. When Pathfinder is released, I'll read their designation of IP. If it would be possible for a fan to publish a website with the ENTIRE Pathfinder system using the OGL (obviously minus Golarion IP and the Pathfinder trademark) then I'll admit that it is truly open.

Basically my definition of an open game, is whether I can use your entire engine (without select elements like character creation stripped out of it) in order to publish a standalone product or website that does not in any way require a product from you.

WotC has generously done this (and a few other publishers as well), but most have not. A lot of publishers just use a trademark license, just like WotC has done with the d20 STL, and just like WotC will do with the GSL. And thats fine. Yet, WotC seems to be unfairly criticized when they do what other publishers do. That's what drives me nuts.

Now, I do think that requiring publishers to completely drop all use of the OGL in order to publish under the GSL is unduly harsh. And if I was a company like Green Ronin, I wouldn't do it. But, I also think that its WotC's ball that everyone wants to play with, and if those are the terms they set, then so be it. If you don't like it, then don't use the GSL. Hopefully, WotC will lighten up on that requirement, but I'm just thankful that 4e is open at all.


----------



## La Bete

S'mon said:
			
		

> _Wisdom_




Agree fully - that gels with my understanding. To paraphrase Orcus when he has commented on this subject in the past: "If it's your money - *get a lawyer* before you do anything"


With regards your other post (tinfoilhattery) - While I do certainly accept the potential pitfalls for a licensee under the GSL, to a lesser degree I believe that any company who's business is dependent (or symbiotic) on another businesses activities, should be prepared for major game-changing events at any time (case in point 3.5).

My main quibble was your choice of example, which I felt was unnecessarily inflammatory (try saying that six times quickly). Legally accurate though, so I'm happy to concede the point.


----------



## La Bete

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> You seem to completely disregard the fact that GR might want to publish 4e accessories under the GSL as well. If they decide to do that they will need to drop their True20 _no matter how good it is_.
> 
> That's why quality of product is only secondary. The terms of the GSL is this primary thing.





I was going.. honestly...  

Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - based on the market they work in. I imagine they would make said decision based on what would bring them the most cash (short and long term). They're businesspeople, I'm sure they are more than capable of dealing with it.

And if they come up with kickass 4e product and still want to produce True20? They're smart cookies, I'm sure that said product would make it's way to the market somehow - if the quality was high enough and the demand strong enough.


----------



## AZRogue

Morrus said:
			
		

> Sure.  And then WotC would say _"Hey, what, are you trying to pull a fast one on us?" _ and use whatever discretional revocation clause they have in the license.
> 
> That asumes the text of the license doesn't already cover that contingency, which is probably does.




It's not that bad of a "fast one" though, IMO. It seems to me that if they allowed that, just so that people wouldn't have to stop selling their old popular products to those fans who want them, the problem would be mostly solved. It would be a good workaround. 

Maybe they don't want to allow it, I don't know. But it may be the easiest way to get what a lot of us want while still keeping the "company must choose the edition to support" clause. Kind of a deliberate loophole? A Gentleman's Loophole?


----------



## Nyarlathotep

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.
> 
> Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.





Yes, because we all know that only publishers should be allowed to ask questions about this (or even have opinions on it). It certainly isn't something that affects everybody involved in this hobby.


----------



## BSF

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I know Gareth mentioned this a few times. The only reason why I didn't bring it up is because I think it was just something they hadn't considered and I feel like it'll be addressed. I highly doubt that they would have issues with a company publishing products for both Fudge and 4th Edition for instance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it'll be an issue when the final license comes.




Just to be clear, I specifically chose Adamant Entertainment because of the number of products they have brought to the market across multiple product lines and genres.  Products that I think do a lot to enhance the market in general.  

I do hope that I haven't put Gareth-Michael in an uncomfortable position with my using Adamant Entertainment as an example of how I think exclusivity could hurt the gaming market as a whole.  

I certainly hope that WotC isn't trying to aggressively drive out material for OGL games.  I would prefer to think that they are in a position of needing to protect IP that they are looking to make available in the GSL.  In that case, it would be better to have language that explicitly prohibits the co-mingling of GSL and OGL material. 

Still, with that as a stated intent, the legal language must be carefully vetted to be sure there aren't any unintended side effects. 

The exclusivity goes beyond that protection however.  WotC wants committed support by the third parties.  I can understand that, but I recognize that WotC's desires may run counter to my own, as a customer.  Aggressive exclusivity serves me even less.  Even if WotC doesn't (currently) intend to pursue aggressive exclusivity, the language might give them that option in the future.  

I think it is prudent for every third party publisher to watch out for that language because it affects them as a business entity.  I think it is prudent for consumers to watch out for that language because it gives WotC the potential to squash innovative products that they are afraid we might like more.  

It is their license and their developed material.  WotC is certainly within their business rights to do that.  Many people would argue that they would be foolish not to aggressively protect those business rights.  

But as a customer, I would argue that they created a great deal of good will with a strong product (D&D 3.0 at the time), and then they built upon that good will with the D20STL and the OGL.  I firmly believe these decisions made the market stronger and that WotC benefitted from those developments.  If WotC believes in 4.0 so strongly that they are willing to through their weight behind the product line, why do they need strong arm tactics?  If 4.0 is so good that my friends and I need to play this game for our RP needs, why not let the product stand on it's own?  Why does WotC need to require exclusivity?

Telling me that companies I like and respect will need to make a choice between supporting products I already like and 4.0.  If companies need to make that decision, then I lose out as a customer.  Because one way or the other, designers that I admire will not be able to fill my needs for products I already have, as well as any potential desires for a need with new, 4.0 products.  

That garners ill will with me, counteracting the good will that has been built up over the years.


----------



## xechnao

BSF said:
			
		

> J If WotC believes in 4.0 so strongly that they are willing to through their weight behind the product line, why do they need strong arm tactics?  If 4.0 is so good that my friends and I need to play this game for our RP needs, why not let the product stand on it's own?  Why does WotC need to require exclusivity?
> 
> Telling me that companies I like and respect will need to make a choice between supporting products I already like and 4.0.  If companies need to make that decision, then I lose out as a customer.  Because one way or the other, designers that I admire will not be able to fill my needs for products I already have, as well as any potential desires for a need with new, 4.0 products.
> 
> That garners ill will with me, counteracting the good will that has been built up over the years.




My guess is that they think they will gain further brand recognition value by their fans and perhaps this will help them with Gleemax community for now and other stuff for the future.


----------



## S'mon

La Bete said:
			
		

> With regards your other post (tinfoilhattery) - While I do certainly accept the potential pitfalls for a licensee under the GSL, to a lesser degree I believe that any company who's business is dependent (or symbiotic) on another businesses activities, should be prepared for major game-changing events at any time (case in point 3.5).




Yes, but it's one thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time.  That may well be a fair risk to take.  It's a very different thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time AND having eliminated all your OGL product lines, because you have eliminated all your other sources of income.  The combination of unilateral revocability plus no-OGL makes this license a very risky business proposition for most 3pps, it seems to me.


----------



## Dark Mistress

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Come on! I know you can't say anything about this because of the NDA, but do you have to flaunt it in front of everyone?




Knowing clark if I had to guess I would guess all the email says is that Scott is going to look into something and trying and fix it or make sure the wording is tweaked or something. My guess is that this is about the old stuff already made issue. Since that was Clarks biggest concern, not only one but biggest. Least that is my opinion.


----------



## La Bete

S'mon said:
			
		

> The combination of unilateral revocability plus no-OGL makes this license a very risky business proposition for most 3pps, it seems to me.




Hmm. Interesting point.


----------



## Oldtimer

La Bete said:
			
		

> Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - based on the market they work in.



This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are disregarding a fact that doesn't suit your arguments? GR _cannot_ bring any product to market. True20 and GSL products being the case in point.

That you don't really care about that fact, doesn't really improve the point you're trying to make... if any.


----------



## Oldtimer

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes, but it's one thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time.



A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material _without_ a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.


----------



## xechnao

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material _without_ a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.




That would put you in the black list of Wotc. That is fair enough if you have put them on your black list too. But do you know anyone around here that feels this way about Wotc yet?


----------



## dbolack

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> OK, this is an important point.  "Open" isn't a meaningless marketing term, it's a very specific attribute of a license.  Here's the Wikipedia definition of open content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_license.




Point of order. If Wikipoedia said the sky was blue it is still best to check a window.

The definition you cite is the very restrictive, viral definition that the zealots push.

Viral is *NOT* a requirement for openness. Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters. Anyone could implement NFS. It was an open standard. Anyone Could build a PDF tool. It's published and royalty free. They just don't meet some NARROW views as to what means open.  The debate about the harmfulness of viral is here nor there for this discussion.


----------



## S'mon

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material _without_ a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.




It's possible to legally publish D&D-compatible material without a license; first off, you need to ensure your use of trademarks is non-infringing; they must not be used to indicate an association between your product and the D&D TM-holder.  Second, you must not infringe any copyrights.  Reproducing substantial chunks of WoTC-owned text such as a Monster Manual stat block would be literal copyright infringement.  Paraphrasing such may also be non-literal copyright infringement - though a 1e style stat block (orc AC 6 hd 1 hp 4 THACO 19 dam 1-8 (sword)) - will not infringe copyright IMO, not being a substantial work.  Finally, US copyright law includes the concept of 'derivative work' which can be expansive (in the UK we don't have this, only 'adaptations' of the original infringe).  Derivative-work claims might conceivably succeed for an adventure centred around the detailed ecology of a fictional D&D race such as Drow*, though this would be a tough one unless the adventure was a direct adaptation of eg a Drizzt novel or of D3 Vault of the Drow.  But a generic 'save the village from raiding monsters' or 'explore wizard's dungeon' type adventure wouldn't count as a derivative work of the D&D game as far as I can tell.

Edit: The safest approach is to write a generic fantasy/swords and sorcery product, and include game stats for D&D and probably for other games as well.  An adventure set explicitly in eg the Dragonlance world during the War of the Lance would be much riskier.  Better to create your own Dragonlance-like setting, eg Sovereign Stone.

*Edit 2: Teaching copyright I've come across some cunning tricks - eg I believe you could write an adventure about Githyanki based purely on their original appearance in White Dwarf.  WoTC don't own copyright in that particular block of text, technically it's almost certainly actually still owned by Charles Stross (White Dwarf published it under license) even though he signed a contract assigning copyright in certain text describing Githyanki to TSR prior to publication of Fiend Folio.  Copyright flows downhill through time and depends on copying, it's not a monopoly right like a patent.  And the concept of Githyanki per se is not ownable, it's the text (and art) describing them that the copyright vests in.
This is a somewhat esoteric legal argument though - don't try this at home, folks.


----------



## xechnao

dbolack said:
			
		

> Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters.




Agreed. Fantasy and non-fantasy is not transparent though. Remains to be seen where the revocable clause could be standing.


----------



## occam

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.




Sure, a third-party 4e product, but not necessarily one from WotC, which is the whole point of the GSL from their perspective.


----------



## JohnRTroy

S'mon said:
			
		

> Edit: The safest approach is to write a generic fantasy/swords and sorcery product, and include game stats for D&D and probably for other games as well.  An adventure set explicitly in eg the Dragonlance world during the War of the Lance would be much riskier.  Better to create your own Dragonlance-like setting, eg Sovereign Stone.




Actually, I believe it's better if you use your own stat system than multiple ones.  And the DragonLance thing would not be possible at all--you can't use settings like that without at minimum disgusing it.

Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license.  We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.


----------



## Zil

dbolack said:
			
		

> Point of order. If Wikipoedia said the sky was blue it is still best to check a window.
> 
> The definition you cite is the very restrictive, viral definition that the zealots push.
> 
> Viral is *NOT* a requirement for openness. Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters. Anyone could implement NFS. It was an open standard. Anyone Could build a PDF tool. It's published and royalty free. They just don't meet some NARROW views as to what means open.  The debate about the harmfulness of viral is here nor there for this discussion.



No, you are right.  Open doesn't have to be viral.  If we're dipping into software license pool, the GPL would be considered viral.  Whereas something like Berkeley/BSD license would be an example of a non-viral open source license.  

However, I do not think the GSL as we understand it so far could possibly meet the criteria for being accepted as a true open license.  Rather, it's some kind of limited free/shared license with some hefty restrictions on who can use it (i.e. the "no producers of OGL based material" exclusion).


----------



## La Bete

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are disregarding a fact that doesn't suit your arguments? GR _cannot_ bring any product to market. True20 and GSL products being the case in point.
> 
> That you don't really care about that fact, doesn't really improve the point you're trying to make... if any.





Disregarding facts that don't suit one's argument? On the Internet? Talking about a game where you pretend to be an elf? Sir, you slander me - I demand satisfaction!   



			
				La Bete said:
			
		

> Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - *based on the market they work in*.




You missed the bolded part - the market in which GR work is one in which as a licensee, they (will) have restrictions on their behaviour. They're big boys (and/or girls), I'm sure they can look after themselves.

Ewww.. I just quoted myself. I feel dirty now.

DISCLAIMER - I've used GR as an example - I in no way know how they feel about all this (I imagine they're unhappy), and in no way wish them or their products ill. They in fact produce some very Rousetastic stuff, some of which is part of my collection. Green Ronin, I want your manbabies.


----------



## Ydars

If I can summarise what we seem to have "learned" so far;

It APPEARS, from posts by Orcus, that WoTC has created a legal entity (the GSL) whose aim is to FORCE 3rd party publishers to choose between making products for 3.5E (OGL) OR 4E (GSL); note, I mean on a company by company basis i.e. company X accepts the GSL and can only make 4E products whereas company Y chooses not to adopt GSL and so retains the right to make 3.5E products but not 4E products. 

Note that it has also been suggested;

i) that the GSL is more narrow than the OGL in that 3rd parties cannot produce stand-alone games (this appears to be true from WoTCs rubrik about NO character generation in 3PPs products under GSL)

ii) that the GSL is revokable, by WOTC, at any time (this is unattributed at present).

iii) that the GSL allows use, by 3rd parties, of the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and the trademark.

If ALL the elements of the above are true then I can only conclude either that WoTC, despite their public statements,  DO NOT want 3rd party publishers involved in 4E OR they do want 3rd party publishers AND are staggeringly and mind-bendingly inept! 

I would suggest instead that perhaps one of the above "facts" is not true; 

a) Orcus got it wrong and GSL does not require a company to choose to either support EITHER 3.5E OR 4E (I think this EXTREMELY unlikely).

b) GSL is non-revokable by WoTC and guarantees that 3rd parties can use the GSL for as long as they like.

c) There is some other factor in play, that we don't know about, that makes the GSL significantly more attractive to 3PPs; more so than even the OGL.

Even if b AND c are true, if I were a successful 3rd party company, I would NOT be adopting the GSL and I suspect this is what will happen in most cases. I will leave you, the reader, to decide if this is deliberate or not. I confess I can't decide at present.

I suspect that WoTCs policy may have changed by Monday anyway, given the reaction here!


----------



## S'mon

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe it's better if you use your own stat system than multiple ones.  And the DragonLance thing would not be possible at all--you can't use settings like that without at minimum disgusing it.
> 
> Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license.  We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.




Re Dragonlance - the plaintiff has to show that you have infringed their copyright in the literary and artistic works (the novels and art) in which the Dragonlance setting is embodied.  You don't own copyrights in settings and characters per se, you own copyright in the (eg) books in which they appear.  It's at least theoretically possible to set a story in a fictional universe without infringing copyright; eg I once read a story nominally set in the Babylon-5 universe, but the use of specific setting elements from the TV show was minimal,  I didn't see anything I'd think could possibly amount to copyright infringement of B5.

Re 'malicious intent' - (again, off the top of my head, and it's getting late here): if you haven't done anything wrong, intent is not an issue.  Malicious intent becomes an issue once the court finds infringement has occurred, and affects damages.  Maliciously doing something non-tortious doesn't make it tortious.  The availability of the OGL cannot limit the legal rights of parties who chose not to use it, even if they're being 'malicious'.  You always have the freedom not to enter into a contract.


----------



## S'mon

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license.  We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.




This kind of argument makes sense if we were talking about a fair use defence vs a claim of copyright infringement, with WoTC arguing the use wasn't fair because malicious.  I'm saying it's possible to write a D&D-compatible product without using a substantial amount of WotC-copyright work to begin with, so fair use doesn't arise.


----------



## Ydars

Oh and I would also like to add, that I applaud Linae and Scott for trying to make 4E in any way "open" and I really feel for them at this time. I suspect that the GSL is one of those horrible compromises that they have had to swallow and are now forced to "front". So PLEASE can we keep this thread civil to them.

I only hope this thread adds impetus to their opinion since many of the posters here ARE the 3rd party community the GSL is designed to target. Going on current evidence, I would say the GSL is FAILING to meet its intended aims.


----------



## dbolack

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> How much would M&M have to change to no longer fall under the OGL but still have the game be basically the same?  Change to a percentile roll instead of a d20 (neatly have it all still be 5% increments of success tho), reword abilities like Dodge that appear in the SRD, what else?




Here's your dilemma.

Having been published as a D20/ D20 SRD based OGL (I don't have my copy in front of me, I can't be absolutely correct on the markings) M&M will have a very hard time arguing it isn't a derivative work, should the lawyers come a knocking.

While it is true that you can only copyright the expression of mechanics only one or two companies in this field could afford to go to verdict.

It makes little sense to risk this.


----------



## S'mon

dbolack said:
			
		

> Here's your dilemma.
> 
> Having been published as a D20/ D20 SRD based OGL (I don't have my copy in front of me, I can't be absolutely correct on the markings) M&M will have a very hard time arguing it isn't a derivative work, should the lawyers come a knocking.




Yeah, I said that upthread.  Work published under the OGL that has used chunks of the SRD really needs to stay OGL. Copyright at heart is still all about the copying of text.  Like I said, it flows downhill like a river.  If the judge can trace the flow from the WoTC-copyright SRD, through the OGL game, to the final non-OGL version of the game, there is copyright infringement.  The publisher is in a much weaker position here than if they never had anything to do with the OGL and SRD and simply published a game that used some of the same mechanics as D&D - heck, 3e D&D uses some mechanics I saw in other non-TSR non-WoTC games from the 1990s!  And that's fine, because game mechanics are not protectable IP*.

*Edit: I meant, they're not copyright protected.  Yeah, I know about WoTC's patent on 'tapping' in Magic: The Gathering.


----------



## xechnao

Ydars said:
			
		

> I only hope this thread adds impetus to their opinion since many of the posters here ARE the 3rd party community the GSL is designed to target. Going on current evidence, I would say the GSL is FAILING to meet its intended aims.




If you are talking about the "master veterans" I do not believe it at this point. My best guess is that their desire is to better address a Gleemax based emergence of support. Their target is what will make Gleemax flourish best. Big players that can build communities may not be their target. Especially since OGL is still out there. Sounds something familiar?


----------



## DaveMage

occam said:
			
		

> Sure, a third-party 4e product, but not necessarily one from WotC, which is the whole point of the GSL from their perspective.




You're thinking too small.  I agree that my one case is not necessarily relevant, but there are a few people on the Necromancer boards who are on the fence about 4E.  Allowing them to take baby steps may lead to their purchase of 4E.

Many of the NG board members are GMs, and thus could have the additional effect of converting their group, etc....


----------



## dbolack

Zil said:
			
		

> Whereas something like Berkeley/BSD license would be an example of a non-viral open source license.




Despite the folks who were so terribly upset you used to have to give credit. 



> However, I do not think the GSL as we understand it so far could possibly meet the criteria for being accepted as a true open license.  Rather, it's some kind of limited free/shared license with some hefty restrictions on who can use it (i.e. the "no producers of OGL based material" exclusion).




Its rather hard to say, but it seems far more like a "hopefully" straight forward, limited use, no-cost license with a reasonable cure period for revocations.

And that's my monthly allotment of optimism.


----------



## FalconGK81

*No GSL better than THIS GSL?*

Hello,

I am currently in the midst of a spirited debate on another forum with a person who is of the opinion that "No GSL would be better than the GSL we'll be getting".  I find this position to be completely ludicrous.  So, since there are actual 3PP owners/employess/staff on this forum debating this topic I wanted to ask.

Is there anyone here who has been or is planning to be a 3PP who feels that No GSL would actually be better than the current GSL?

Specifically Orcus and Pramas I would love to hear your take on this.  Orcus I think you've made your position on this clear, but if you'd love to elaborte I'd love to hear it.  I just don't understand how being given more choice and more options (whether you choose to use them or not) is somehow worse than not having those choices.

Of course anyone is free to post their takes on this question, but since 3PP employees/owners/staff are directly impacted by this GSL, I would love to hear there stance about it.

Thank you


----------



## xechnao

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> I just don't understand how being given more choice and more options (whether you choose to use them or not) is somehow worse than not having those choices.




Because of Wotc's perceived position of power in the market. It is like a Cesar trying to transfer more power away of the senate(3pp) and give it to the plebs (fans) only that in fact what he wants to do is to personally gain better control the fans. I guess the senate's argument at this case to the Cesar is that the whole actual established system of control on the fans could eventually fall apart in this phase of transition -that is they do not trust the Wotc's plan will succeed. Of course their primary concern could be their immediate loss of power on the fans because if in fact the Cesar seemed to get in conflict with the senate, the plebs-fans would be more suspicious of Cesar and perhaps root more for the senators.

This is the way I see it here. Cesar does not just give choices. It creates conditional choices. It is a different thing.


----------



## Orcus

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material _without_ a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.




You wanna go that route? Feel free...

That was the whole reason for the OGL and the "safe harbor."

As you can see, Mayfair weathered that storm just fine and is here with us today...oh wait. Death by litigation.  (yes, not 100% true, but you dont want those legal bills, believe me).

Which, actually, brings me back to a point I made some pages back. We are currently complaining about the poison pill of giving up our right to do more 4E stuff if we go back to the OGL. But there was a perhaps less hotly contested poison pill in the original d20 STL/Guide--that we not contest Wizards' ownership of certain things. Under original copyright law, analyzed outside of teh OGL, their claim of ownership was tenuous, but credible enough that the risk of a lawsuit was real. Many of the legally minded folks balked at having to swallow that poison pill too.


----------



## Orcus

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> Is there anyone here who has been or is planning to be a 3PP who feels that No GSL would actually be better than the current GSL?
> 
> Specifically Orcus and Pramas I would love to hear your take on this.




Goodness gracious, no. I dont like the alleged provision, but a GSL is better, in my view, then no GSL even with the "poison pill" term. 

I'm not saying I wouldnt be happy to support Paizo and Pathfinder. I would do it if I had to. I like 3E. But I want to support 4E. Philosophically, I believe in supporting the current rule set. I've explained that before. So my preference is 4E. But if they dont make that possible, then I will be right there saying Pathfinder all the way. I cant imagine they want that. Wizards is full of smart people. And good people. They know the value of third party support. They wouldnt be going through all of this headache just for some PR spin. They know the value of third party support.


----------



## smetzger

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.
> 
> Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.




I disagree.  The problem is that lack of clarity from WOTC.  
How can we possibly have a productive discussion based on hearsay?

WOTC needs to step up and just release the license for everyone to take a look at.  Then we can all move on to dissecting it and figuring out exactly what it means and how each of us can use it.


----------



## BSF

Orcus said:
			
		

> But there was a perhaps less hotly contested poison pill in the original d20 STL/Guide--that we not contest Wizards' ownership of certain things. Under original copyright law, analyzed outside of teh OGL, their claim of ownership was tenuous, but credible enough that the risk of a lawsuit was real. Many of the legally minded folks balked at having to swallow that poison pill too.




And that one is kind of odd to me.  More from the standpoint of principle than anything else.  However, when looking at the gaming market as a whole, that principle probably wasn't worth fighting for.  It would take litigation time and the payoff would never be realized financially, assuming a win.  So it becomes a business decision, much like the GSL is.  

Which brings up the question as to why I am even involved in these discussions?  I realize that many, many publishers will pursue the GSL for financial reasons.  It may be well worth the risks.  I wouldn't even hold it against them to make a decision to drop OGL products and pursue the GSL if there are exclusivity clauses.  But this is the opportunity I have to make my consumer perspective made known.  

My perspective may amount to nothing.  But if I don't participate in the conversation, my perspective will certainly amount to nothing.


----------



## Orcus

Lets not forget, whatever happens they cant revoke the OGL. They can make a new version of it, but they cant make us use those versions (by its own terms). And they cant recall the content released under the SRD. Its open content. Period. Forever. By its own terms. They gave that stuff away under the license. And Wizards knows this.

So even if the worst is the worst, and even if the GSL says you have to choose 4E or 3E, if you choose 4E you can always go back and make 3E stuff. You just might not be able to make 4E stuff again. The GSL could say you lose the right to use teh GSL if you make XYZ, but the OGL is its own license. The GSL cant force me to forfeit the use of the OGL, all it can do is deprive me of the benefit of using teh GSL. The OGL can never go away and it cannot be restricted, by its own terms. And the content released under the OGL similarly is open forever. Period. Indisputable legal fact. 

So people can always go back to 3E. 

The OGL is out there. Forever. The Open Content from the SRD is out there. Forever. Legally. Irrevocably. Indisputably. Period. 

Clark


----------



## xechnao

Orcus said:
			
		

> So even if the worst is the worst, and even if the GSL says you have to choose 4E or 3E, if you choose 4E you can always go back and make 3E stuff...
> Clark




Yes but it is worth noting that the more 3pp risk on 4e the more 3e will lose its power. So by the passage of time the more power Wotc will gain, the less power 3pp will have in every practical scenario. Unless they manage to make OGL stand its ground from the start up. Can they seriously commit themselves to such a thing?


----------



## Morrus

Where did this "3PP" terminology come from?  Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.


----------



## xechnao

Morrus said:
			
		

> Where did this "3PP" terminology come from?  Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.




I personally use it for "third party publisher".


----------



## Morrus

AZRogue said:
			
		

> It's not that bad of a "fast one" though, IMO. It seems to me that if they allowed that, just so that people wouldn't have to stop selling their old popular products to those fans who want them, the problem would be mostly solved. It would be a good workaround.




If it actually is in the GSL (which I guess we'll find out tomorrow), what's the point in allowing something they're trying to stop?  Why would they "work around" their own clause?  If it's there, it'll be there because WotC wants it there, not to create an intellectal challenge for WotC's own staff.


----------



## FalconGK81

Orcus said:
			
		

> Goodness gracious, no. I dont like the alleged provision, but a GSL is better, in my view, then no GSL even with the "poison pill" term.
> 
> I'm not saying I wouldnt be happy to support Paizo and Pathfinder. I would do it if I had to. I like 3E. But I want to support 4E. Philosophically, I believe in supporting the current rule set. I've explained that before. So my preference is 4E. But if they dont make that possible, then I will be right there saying Pathfinder all the way. I cant imagine they want that. Wizards is full of smart people. And good people. They know the value of third party support. They wouldnt be going through all of this headache just for some PR spin. They know the value of third party support.




Thanks Orcus, I was beginning to feel like I was taking crazy pills.


----------



## pawsplay

Morrus said:
			
		

> Where did this "3PP" terminology come from?  Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.




Obviously, someone had a hand cramp and a jolt of inspiration.


----------



## Big Mac

Orcus said:
			
		

> So while it is fair to expect your licensees to make the same business decision you have had to make, as I mentioned, since Wizards wont be abandoning pdf and backlist sales of old products, please dont require us, your licenseees, to do more than you will be doing.
> 
> Our sales of old backlist and of pdf is no more competing with 4E than your own sale of backlist and pdfs of old products is hurting 4E. Heck, you sold tons of 1E and 2E pdfs during 3E. That didnt hurt 3E sales. And selling old 3E products from backlist wont hurt supporting 4E.
> 
> That is my thought and my plea to Wizards, anyway. Probably inartfully said. But I am still working on my open letter. So any feedback is welcome.




I think that what you say here is pretty fair, Clark. I believe that gamers should have the right to be able to buy old stuff and convert it over to 4th edition.

I'd even go further than this and ask for WotC to strike up a new agreement for the Dragonlance PDFs made by Margaret Weis Productions. Cam Banks (of MWP) has promised to create 4e conversions of these PDFs (in his spare time) for Dragonlance Nexus. This is going to make the Dragonlance Campaign Setting something that is going to help drive sales of 4e core rulebooks. It seems to me that it is in WotC's interest to create a new deal that will allow those PDFs to carry on being sold after the DL licence expires.

To be fair, WotC should get something out of the new deal. I'd say that 50 percent sales commission in exchange for lifetime rights to sell the PDFs would be a fair opening bid.

You can read my full shopping list of things I'd like to get from 4e on the Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies? thread.


----------



## Thulcondar

xechnao said:
			
		

> Yes but it is worth noting that the more 3pp risk on 4e the more 3e will lose its power. So by the passage of time the more power Wotc will gain, the less power 3pp will have in every practical scenario. Unless they manage to make OGL stand its ground from the start up. Can they seriously commit themselves to such a thing?




Which is, of course, precisely why WotC is doing things the way they are. It makes perfect sense from their point of view. They make money by selling 4E Player's Handbooks, not by watching other folks sell books that don't require the possession of a 4E Player's Handbook. 

What I'm still stuck on is how WotC managed to convince the majority of the RPG industry that they needed to publish their own game under the OGL in the first place. Are you telling me that the minds that created M&M (to take but one example) couldn't have come up with their own system? Or that players who wanted a superhero game were so mentally lazy that they couldn't be bothered to learn a new "core" system, but were able and willing to learn all the other stuff? If they had, they wouldn't be in this position now.

Joe


----------



## xechnao

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> What I'm still stuck on is how WotC managed to convince the majority of the RPG industry that they needed to publish their own game under the OGL in the first place. Are you telling me that the minds that created M&M (to take but one example) couldn't have come up with their own system? Or that players who wanted a superhero game were so mentally lazy that they couldn't be bothered to learn a new "core" system, but were able and willing to learn all the other stuff? If they had, they wouldn't be in this position now.
> 
> Joe




Yeah, I wish they answer it themselves now.


----------



## FalconGK81

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> What I'm still stuck on is how WotC managed to convince the majority of the RPG industry that they needed to publish their own game under the OGL in the first place. Are you telling me that the minds that created M&M (to take but one example) couldn't have come up with their own system? Or that players who wanted a superhero game were so mentally lazy that they couldn't be bothered to learn a new "core" system, but were able and willing to learn all the other stuff? If they had, they wouldn't be in this position now.
> 
> Joe




The companies must have thought that putting a d20 label on the book and using a system that some gamers were familiar with (as well as saving themselves work) would make it more profitable/successful.  Of course they may not feel that way now, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> Which, actually, brings me back to a point I made some pages back. We are currently complaining about the poison pill of giving up our right to do more 4E stuff if we go back to the OGL. But there was a perhaps less hotly contested poison pill in the original d20 STL/Guide--that we not contest Wizards' ownership of certain things.



Yeah, but again, the STL was an optional add-on to the OGL.  Big difference.


----------



## Morrus

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> The companies must have thought that putting a d20 label on the book and using a system that some gamers were familiar with (as well as saving themselves work) would make it more profitable/successful.  Of course they may not feel that way now, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.




It did for a couple of years.  Very well indeed.


----------



## Fifth Element

smetzger said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The problem is that lack of clarity from WOTC.
> How can we possibly have a productive discussion based on hearsay?
> 
> WOTC needs to step up and just release the license for everyone to take a look at.  Then we can all move on to dissecting it and figuring out exactly what it means and how each of us can use it.



To be fair, we can "blame" Clark for the hearsay, not WotC. We're not discussing things WotC has released about the license, we're discussing things that Clark says WotC people said to him about the license.


----------



## TheLe

Cergorach said:
			
		

> I'm curious about a US legal aspect, can a company legally exclude you from business if you do business with another company or sell a certain product?




Ack. That sounds like a potential anti-trust issue.



.

.

.


----------



## Klaus

Morrus said:
			
		

> Where did this "3PP" terminology come from?  Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.



 ... of course, this begs for the Third Party Publishers forum to be renamed "3 Platinum Pieces".


----------



## pawsplay

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> What I'm still stuck on is how WotC managed to convince the majority of the RPG industry that they needed to publish their own game under the OGL in the first place. Are you telling me that the minds that created M&M (to take but one example) couldn't have come up with their own system? Or that players who wanted a superhero game were so mentally lazy that they couldn't be bothered to learn a new "core" system, but were able and willing to learn all the other stuff? If they had, they wouldn't be in this position now.




Creativity isn't just amount of effort. At the center of a snowflake is a speck of dust. No speck, no snowflake.


----------



## xechnao

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Creativity isn't just amount of effort. At the center of a snowflake is a speck of dust. No speck, no snowflake.




So are you saying that the OGL is the speck they needed? If not, what?


----------



## mxyzplk

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I was talking about a true OGL, where anyone can publish any content from your system. I was mistaken in that there are some systems that have joined the OGL that I wasn't aware of. Fudge, for example, is now using the OGL (and not just a trademark license which it also has akin to WotC) and I didn't know that. So I was wrong about that.
> 
> But some of my point still stands. For example, when you can point to a fan site not associated with Green Ronin that republishes ALL the mechanics from True20, or M&M, including power points and hero points (which are NOT open), then I will admit those systems are truly open.
> 
> And for Pathfinder, as long as I can only download branded PDFs from Paizo's site, I don't agree that Pathfinder is open. When Pathfinder is released, I'll read their designation of IP. If it would be possible for a fan to publish a website with the ENTIRE Pathfinder system using the OGL (obviously minus Golarion IP and the Pathfinder trademark) then I'll admit that it is truly open.
> 
> Basically my definition of an open game, is whether I can use your entire engine (without select elements like character creation stripped out of it) in order to publish a standalone product or website that does not in any way require a product from you.
> 
> WotC has generously done this (and a few other publishers as well), but most have not. A lot of publishers just use a trademark license, just like WotC has done with the d20 STL, and just like WotC will do with the GSL. And thats fine. Yet, WotC seems to be unfairly criticized when they do what other publishers do. That's what drives me nuts.




So, you seem to be confused on a couple points.

1.  The d20 SRD does not contain the entire ruleset.  WotC very specifically left out ability score generation and XP tables.  So no, WotC/D&D 3.5e do not meet your standard of openness.  

2.  All of True20 except for the usual restrictions is open.  Here's the PI statement from True20:
The following parts of Chapters 1 through 8 and the
Introduction are designated as Product Identity,
in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game
License, Version 1.0a: all character and place
names and descriptions, all artwork and images.
All other text is Open Gaming Content, except for
material previously declared Product Identity.

3.  I'm not sure what a "fan site republishing" these rules has to do with anything - a fan site could republish all of True20 except the art/character/places per above...  Don't know that anyone's felt it necessary to do so, but they could.  Oh wait, found it; the name "True20" itself is PI so they had to call it the "True System" in its SRD.  Go John Kim.  http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_true_romantic/index.html

4.  I'm unclear whether your point is just a hate-on for Green Ronin specifically - but in case it's general, there's many other public SRDs out there from 3p publishers.  http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/

5. What do "branded PDFs" have to do with anything re: Pathfinder?   Yeah, their store watermarks the PDFs, but all the rules are open content - if you wanted to take the time to cut out all the open bits and paste them onto a Web page (when the game's in alpha and changing by the week anyway), you're welcome to.  Their PI/OGC statement's pretty clear:

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game Licenseversion 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing
game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of
this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content might be reproduced in any form without written
permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20

So just cut all the instances of Seoni and her mighty juggies out and you're fine.

6.  Your definition of open isn't the standard one.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content

Anyway, so again I've put together a lovely little primer on OGL, STL, SRD, GSL, etc. that people coult read to make sure they're vaguely in tune with the facts at hand, so that opinions ladled on to make some sense:
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/


----------



## mxyzplk

Whoops, sorry, dupe post.  Delete me!


----------



## mxyzplk

FalconGK81 said:
			
		

> The companies must have thought that putting a d20 label on the book and using a system that some gamers were familiar with (as well as saving themselves work) would make it more profitable/successful.  Of course they may not feel that way now, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.




A lot of people that published under the OGL, and then the subset of those who also were leveraging d20, were also pursuing openness in good faith.  That is, if we don't have something stunningly new to say with our rules - it's better not only for us but for everyone else for us to use an open standard.  In technology we do that all the time.  "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the standard way."

Why are the non-d20 derived games like Spirit of the Century, Action!, etc. using the OGL?  Well, they thought that WotC was backing open gaming in good faith, and figure they'd use the "industry standard open license."   Now, of course, they are getting screwed for their good faith; had they published using Creative Commons or something else without "Copyright: Wizards of the Coast" on it they wouldn't have to worry about this whole discussion.  Definitely a lesson going forward - a company may seem trustworthy at the moment.  But it's a company.  Turn over all the decisionmakers, get bought out by a larger company - and you can't guarantee that trust.  Dancey tried to hedge that by making the OGL as truly open as possible.  But even he should have seen, and tried to push for a non-"WotC-owned" open license so that openness would have been more truly guaranteed.


----------



## charlesatan

First off, to those who want to know about the GSL now--honestly, WotC is not bound to share its information publicly. If you want to give them feedback (and they are reading the boards), there's the respective threads here at ENWorld. The public, or even the publishers themselves, are entitled to inner workings of the license until it is finally released. (And it is with good faith on WotC's part that they are communicating with a few publishers.) As for the rest of us, we'll most likely have all our questions answered and clarified when WotC finally releases on the license (either on June 6, 2008 or whatever date if the GSL is somehow delayed due to revision or appeal). (And let people like Rouse and Orcus enjoy their weekend, or what's left of it.   )

As for the GSL or no GSL is better debate, assuming it does have a "poison pill" (expect the worst, hope for the best), here's my take on it:

Overall, it's better to have the GSL. First off, remember that the GSL is an option. Obviously, it's not as benevolent as the original OGL, but it is nonetheless an option. Publishers don't have to use the GSL license. If they want to keep things as is or keep things as simple as possible, they simply don't have to use the GSL license and produce the same products they're releasing now.

As for the GSL, yes, there are significant tradeoffs. I like to think it as an opportunity cost. Or in business, it's an exclusivity package. First and foremost, we have to remember that the GSL is free. Second, it comes with an attachment to a brand (now whether this benefit is worth dropping your 3.xx products is for individual publishers to decide). Obviously, GSL will not be a boon to every publisher. But there are advantages to the GSL which make it lucrative (did I mention that it's free?*).

*But just because it's free does not mean it doesn't come with, as I mentioned before, opportunity costs.

Third, at the end of the day, GSL isn't out to kill OGL. It's up for publishers to decide whether they want to support one or the other and most likely, they're going to choose which is better for their business. (If you don't want -insert publisher here- to drop OGL, don't blame WotC for providing them with an option, voice your opinion to the publishers that you want them to continue producing -insert product here-.)

Fourth, the ones who are facing a huge opportunity cost with the GSL are the publishers who have had some success with OGL. If you're a PDF publisher who's sold, say, 20 copies of your product and you don't see those stats changing significantly in the future, the GSL is a lucrative license. Similarly, if I were to decide to start a publishing company now, the GSL is similarly enticing because I have no previous OGL products to begin with. (Yes, it would prevent me from publishing OGL products but that's the cost I'm giving up in exchange for producing 4E products.)

The GSL, even with the poison pill, is an option. It is not the death of OGL. And like all options, just because it's there does not mean you have to take it.


----------



## Dark Mistress

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Whoops, sorry, dupe post.  Delete me!




Done, consider yourself now deleted from reality.


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> Lets not forget, whatever happens they cant revoke the OGL. They can make a new version of it, but they cant make us use those versions (by its own terms). And they cant recall the content released under the SRD. Its open content. Period. Forever. By its own terms. They gave that stuff away under the license. And Wizards knows this.
> 
> So even if the worst is the worst, and even if the GSL says you have to choose 4E or 3E, if you choose 4E you can always go back and make 3E stuff. You just might not be able to make 4E stuff again. The GSL could say you lose the right to use teh GSL if you make XYZ, but the OGL is its own license. The GSL cant force me to forfeit the use of the OGL, all it can do is deprive me of the benefit of using teh GSL. The OGL can never go away and it cannot be restricted, by its own terms. And the content released under the OGL similarly is open forever. Period. Indisputable legal fact.
> 
> So people can always go back to 3E.
> 
> The OGL is out there. Forever. The Open Content from the SRD is out there. Forever. Legally. Irrevocably. Indisputably. Period.
> 
> Clark




Although that's true, if WotC is going t play dirty pool, there's many more things they can do to stomp it out.

Freelancer contracts.  Put in a noncompete.  "Want to publish anything for 4e through us?   You can't have done anything OGL recently or after."  Force other companies to do the same via the GSL - "If you want to keep publishing for 4e, make your contributors sign this."

Come on man,  you're a lawyer, you know how it works.  As the industry player in a near-monopoly position, WotC can certainly stomp out open gaming as well as if it were revocable; make it the purview of hobbyists and crazed libertarians only.


----------



## Thulcondar

charlesatan said:
			
		

> First off, to those who want to know about the GSL now--honestly, WotC is not bound to share its information publicly. If you want to give them feedback (and they are reading the boards), there's the respective threads here at ENWorld. The public, or even the publishers themselves, are entitled to inner workings of the license until it is finally released. (And it is with good faith on WotC's part that they are communicating with a few publishers.)




This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make. 

Joe


----------



## mxyzplk

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make.
> 
> Joe




Yeah, really.  How about we just have a bot to post in each page of this thread "Hey, WotC's a company and can do what they want to, don't have to explain it, and don' t have to listen to their customers or any other company if they don't want to."   Sure, we all sign off on that, don't strain yerselves finding more ways to say it.


----------



## mxyzplk

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Yeah, really.  How about we just have a bot to post in each page of this thread "Hey, WotC's a company and can do what they want to, don't have to explain it, and don' t have to listen to their customers or any other company if they don't want to."   Sure, we all sign off on that, don't strain yerselves finding more ways to say it.




Oh, and let's also have a bot to say "we don't know everything yet, it's all hearsay, let's wait until we get all the info to talk about it."  If that's your stance feel free to go elsewhere in the meantime...


----------



## charlesatan

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make.




Yes, that's true. Especially the consequences of their decision part.

But as for the decision making process itself, they're not obligated to share it with the rest of us. At least not NOW, several weeks before the license is publicly released. You can scream, complain, praise WotC when the license is finally released. My point is that they've given us a date and we can expect answers on that day (why give a release date after all if you're going to release the info earlier?). Unless you're the type of person who believes that every piece of info should be disclosed to the public, including corporate secrets or things that haven't been finalized yet.


----------



## Goobermunch

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Although that's true, if WotC is going t play dirty pool, there's many more things they can do to stomp it out.
> 
> Freelancer contracts.  Put in a noncompete.  "Want to publish anything for 4e through us?   You can't have done anything OGL recently or after."  Force other companies to do the same via the GSL - "If you want to keep publishing for 4e, make your contributors sign this."
> 
> Come on man,  you're a lawyer, you know how it works.  As the industry player in a near-monopoly position, WotC can certainly stomp out open gaming as well as if it were revocable; make it the purview of hobbyists and crazed libertarians only.




I'm a lawyer and I know how it works too.  A non-compete is unlikely to be effective for these kinds of purposes.  The reason is that many non-competes are unenforceable.  There's a general public policy against restricting a worker's ability to use his or her skills in the market.  While the specifics of the rule will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, noncompetes have to pass tests on their reasonableness before a court will enforce them.

For example, using the jurisdiction with which I am most familiar, in Colorado, noncompetes are presumptively void unless they fall into one of four limited categories.  Those categories are:

(a) Any contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business;

(b) Any contract for the protection of trade secrets;

(c) Any contractual provision providing for recovery of the expense of educating and training an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two years;

(d) Executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel.

None of these would apply to a freelancer working on 4e.  A, C, and D are clearly inapplicable, as WotC will not be selling their business to the freelancer, nor providing training to the freelancer.  Generally, executive and management personnel are folks within the corporation, not independent contractors.

As for the protection of trade secrets section, WotC would first have to show that the material a freelancer was provided with constituted a trade secret.  Since the 4e SRD is going to refer to specific passages of the 4e PHB, DMG, and MM to define terms (rather than post the relevant rules in one place), they're going to have a hard time showing that anything is secret.  Once they publish the rules for public consumption, it loses trade secret protection.

In addition, even assuming that a noncompete was held to be valid under the laws of the jurisdiction, generally, it still must be reasonably limited in time and geographic scope.  There is an excellent argument that imposing a noncompete on a freelance writer for any significant period of time is categorically unreasonable.  Unlike a typical employee, who enters into an employment contract with the expectation of retaining employment, a freelancer's reasonable expectation is to complete a project and start looking for new work.  I would argue that a noncompete of longer than a month is objectively unreasonable under those circumstances.

Open Gaming is here to stay.  And we have yet to see any actual evidence that WotC is declaring war on all Open Gaming.  We have seen statements from Scott and Linnae that indicate that a publisher will have to chose between supporting 4e and 3.xe, but I'm not prepared to accept that the GSL will impose a choice between 4e and the OGL.  Until we have the terms of the license in front of us, it is too early to make any kind of educated statement regarding its effects.

--G


----------



## der_kluge

I just read the entire thread.  

I seriously feel like this thread could use some more kittens in cups. So, here ya go.


----------



## Nellisir

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But some of my point still stands. For example, when you can point to a fan site not associated with Green Ronin that republishes ALL the mechanics from True20, or M&M, including power points and hero points (which are NOT open), then I will admit those systems are truly open.




First of all, you're conflating accessibility with openness.  Second of all, here.  The "True SRD", not affiliated with Green Ronin.  It's open.  Get over it.

Oops.  Mxyzplk beat me to it, and with a more comprehensive post, too.  Ce la vie.


----------



## Nellisir

_never mind...I guess this -wasn't- worth recalling...shoulda' just gone to bed earlier last night..._


----------



## mxyzplk

Nellisir said:
			
		

> First of all, you're conflating accessibility with openness.  Second of all, here.  The "True SRD", not affiliated with Green Ronin.  It's open.  Get over it.
> 
> Oops.  Mxyzplk beat me to it, and with a more comprehensive post, too.  Ce la vie.




But you get a hug for it anyway!


----------



## der_kluge

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I don't want to start any new rumors, and I don't know nuthin' about non-compete clauses, but didn't someone at Paizo that used to freelance at WotC get a letter from them indicating they wouldn't be using him anymore?  For reasons that might relate to this thread/paranoia? (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you after all!)




Completely unrelated. Someone will post that thread. I'm too lazy to look it up ATM. Search in the publisher's forum for that.


----------



## mxyzplk

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I don't want to start any new rumors, and I don't know nuthin' about non-compete clauses, but didn't someone at Paizo that used to freelance at WotC get a letter from them indicating they wouldn't be using him anymore?  For reasons that might relate to this thread/paranoia? (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you after all!)




Nick Logue I think, but he posted after that saying "but that's not got anything to do with me doing the Paizo work."


----------



## Wicht

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I don't want to start any new rumors, and I don't know nuthin' about non-compete clauses, but didn't someone at Paizo that used to freelance at WotC get a letter from them indicating they wouldn't be using him anymore?  For reasons that might relate to this thread/paranoia? (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you after all!)




N. Logue was told that WotC could not use him until the GSL was settled.

That is all.


----------



## SSquirrel

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Turn over all the decisionmakers, get bought out by a larger company - and you can't guarantee that trust.




As I've seen Mourn mention a couple of times previously, Hasbro purchased WoTC in Sept 99, 3E was released in 2000, so Hasbro knew all about the OGL before release and signed off on it.


----------



## der_kluge

And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. 

Baffled.


----------



## xechnao

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Open Gaming is here to stay.  And we have yet to see any actual evidence that WotC is declaring war on all Open Gaming.  We have seen statements from Scott and Linnae that indicate that a publisher will have to chose between supporting 4e and 3.xe, but I'm not prepared to accept that the GSL will impose a choice between 4e and the OGL.  Until we have the terms of the license in front of us, it is too early to make any kind of educated statement regarding its effects.
> 
> --G




They said they want 100% support. Anyway, if publishers do not somehow manage to give a standing value to OGL right now in the market it will weaken significantly because by the moment GSL starts the more drastic the poison will becoming.


----------



## Arrond Hess

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I just read the entire thread.
> 
> I seriously feel like this thread could use some more kittens in cups. So, here ya go.



Cups are to small... no room left for the hot coffee. *evil grin*


----------



## BryonD

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.



Woo HOO!!!! I don't have ZERO!!! I passed the test!!!!

Seriously, I don't remotely consider myself a publisher, but I consider this very important to me as a gamer who is interested in what materials will be produced for me to buy.


----------



## Lizard

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.




Why?

People whose bookshelves are lined with OGL/D20 books might well wish to have the same breadth of choice for 4e, and if the GSL reduces that, they lose out.


----------



## phloog

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.




If you're truly baffled I don't think that you're thinking it through enough.

I've published nothing, but I play a lot of D&D and use a TON of 3rd party materials - far more than WOTC stuff.  I also plan on continuing to play 3.5, and may or may not ALSO play 4e.  

So how is it baffling that I would complain about a license/policy that may cause companies that are currently supplying my 3.5 needs (and that HOPE to continue) to cease production of the stuff that I want so that they can produce 4E materials?

It impacts your business, it impacts MY ability to have a variety of materials for my game.

I guess I'm baffled if there are any publishers who don't get how this could impact the customer.


----------



## mxyzplk

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.




Yeah, me too, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY have any effect on RPG consumers.  Why, its no one's business but WotC's!  I'm sure they'll make decisions that are best for us.


----------



## Fifth Element

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I don't want to start any new rumors, and I don't know nuthin' about non-compete clauses, but didn't someone at Paizo that used to freelance at WotC get a letter from them indicating they wouldn't be using him anymore?  For reasons that might relate to this thread/paranoia? (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you after all!)



In the very thread discussing Mr. Logue, someone cautioned against broadcasting hearsay on the interwebs, since it will be undoubtedly be picked up by someone in the form of "didn't I hear somewhere that..." when in fact, it is not true.

Prophetic.


----------



## der_kluge

phloog said:
			
		

> If you're truly baffled I don't think that you're thinking it through enough.
> 
> I've published nothing, but I play a lot of D&D and use a TON of 3rd party materials - far more than WOTC stuff.  I also plan on continuing to play 3.5, and may or may not ALSO play 4e.
> 
> So how is it baffling that I would complain about a license/policy that may cause companies that are currently supplying my 3.5 needs (and that HOPE to continue) to cease production of the stuff that I want so that they can produce 4E materials?
> 
> It impacts your business, it impacts MY ability to have a variety of materials for my game.
> 
> I guess I'm baffled if there are any publishers who don't get how this could impact the customer.




Seriously?  I mean, last I checked, there is more 3rd party products compatible with 3rd edition than I think I could read in a lifetime, and you're concerned that you'll end up with *not enough* at some point? 

Now I'm more baffled.

Well, that and we don't know all the specifics of the license. 

I don't know - I find the idea that we could get updates and re-releases of things like Tome of Horrors or Toolbox, or the Freeport series or any number of great 3rd party products revised, errata'd, and redone for 4th edition very exciting.


----------



## Arrond Hess

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.



For me, it's the idea of WotC putting the crunch on 3pp companies to either pick one or the other system to support. I honestly do not think it is WotC's place to be telling another company what they can or cannot produce. Many of these 3pp companies would love to be able to support both systems and their respective customers. Just as their loyal customers would like to be able to support their favorite 3pp company.

It's because of that kind of strong arm tactic that I will not be supporting 4th Ed myself. If WotC does not have the faith and conviction in 4th Ed to succeed alongside of 3.x, well then, I guess I won't be going along for the ride.


----------



## der_kluge

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Yeah, me too, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY have any effect on RPG consumers.  Why, its no one's business but WotC's!  I'm sure they'll make decisions that are best for us.




Two points:

1) you're just being snarky.
2) last I checked, WoTC didn't have a gun held to any publisher's head telling them they had to switch to 4e "or else".


----------



## see

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.




Even without your reassurances, I would say that's probably true.  

However, assuming what we've been told about the GSL is true, it _is_ pretty clearly evidence of fear on the part of some important decision-maker(s) at Wizards of the Coast.

The by-company by-license xor approach has some pretty wide-ranging effects.  If a company wants to support D&D 4th Edition, they won't be able to sell stuff for, say, Mongoose's upcoming Traveller game (which is licensed under the OGL but mechanically unrelated to the SRD).  That's a pretty big splatter effect.  But, since it is not (apparently) banning GSL publishers from publishing for non-OGL third-party games, the GSL clause is pretty clearly not concerned with other RPGs in general.  The target is not games like Mongoose Traveller, any more than it is GURPS.  And it seems unlikely that it would be aimed at something similarly far away from D&D 4th Edition as, oh, Mutants & Masterminds.

The only really logical target is D&D 3.5.  Apparently, Wizards of the Coast (that is, a decision-maker at the company or its corporate parent) is afraid that continuing support for D&D 3.5 from third parties could significantly undermine D&D 4th Edition, and accordingly wants to cut off that support.

After all, if third-party support for 4th Edition is a bad thing, the logical move is no GSL.  If having third-party support for 4th Edition is good but restricting the number of third-party support companies is necessary, the logical move is no general GSL, but a limited contractual license with specific publishers.  If wide support for 4th Edition is a good thing and third-party support for D&D 3.5 is not a threat, the logical choice is a GSL which allows people to produce 3.5 material on the side, because that would maximize the number of companies willing to dip their toe into 4th Edition support.

But if third-party support for D&D 3.5 *is* viewed as a threat, well, barring a company from making both is going to be an effective way to reduce the available support for that game, killing things like continued sales of the 3.5-compatible versions of Tome of Horrors.

So, assuming a basically rational decision was made, somebody in an important decision-making capacity at Wizard of the Coast (or at a level in Hasbro with oversight of Wizards of the Coast) thinks that, e.g, the _Pathfinder RPG_ is a threat of some measurable significance to D&D 4th Edition.

Interesting.  And it reminds me (IIRC, of course), that Ryan Dancey said that the RPG division's biggest competitor was previous editions of the D&D game.


----------



## Greylock

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled.




Yet somehow, I've managed to be boggled and amazed at the number of posters in this thread who represent in some capacity, owner, writer or other, RPG publishers who I respect and value above many others. These are posters whom, once I realised what I was seeing, I had to stop and take note of, if for no other reason than that their books own significant chunks of space on my RPG bookshelves and, in pdf form, on my computer. And pretty much all of them are aghast at what is being suggested. Even Orcus, who owns more of my bookshelf space than the Wizards themselves [and I'm not sure what I'm going to do when he goes 4E yet  .]

The only major publisher, by my personal reckoning and my personal tastes and cares alone, who has stayed out of this fray is Troll Lords, although I am doubtful that they really care what happens with 4E. They don't plan on going that route, and in fact have been converting their 3.x books to C&C OGL.

Appearing so far:


Necromancer

TheLe

Green Ronin

Dreamscarred Press

Reality Deviant

Inner Circle

Paizo

RPGObjects

Adamant

[And by association, Louis Porter Designs]
 
And those are all publishers I care deeply about. 

[I'm probably missing some folks, but see, I have signatures turned off and I'm only noting the folks I know and regard.]

Edit: I KNEW I was leaving someone out. Sorry, GMSkarka.


----------



## der_kluge

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> For me, it's the idea of WotC putting the crunch on 3pp companies to either pick one or the other system to support. I honestly do not think it is WotC's place to be telling another company what they can or cannot produce. Many of these 3pp companies would love to be able to support both systems and their respective customers. Just as their loyal customers would like to be able to support their favorite 3pp company.
> 
> It's because of that kind of strong arm tactic that I will not be supporting 4th Ed myself. If WotC does not have the faith and conviction in 4th Ed to succeed alongside of 3.x, well then, I guess I won't be going along for the ride.





That's a completely valid argument, but I don't entirely agree with it. It's in WoTC's best interest to ensure that all publishers either come on board 100% or don't come on board at all. The market is already fragmented enough - we've got gamers playing 1e, 2e, 3e, C&C, and other variants. Really, if everyone just switched to the same system, everyone would be better off for it.  Of course, I don't believe that will actually ever happen, but you have to agree that if it were to happen, it would be the most ideal situation. 

Hey, look at me white-knighting WoTC.  That's Clark's job.


----------



## Goobermunch

see said:
			
		

> Interesting.  And it reminds me (IIRC, of course), that Ryan Dancey said that the RPG division's biggest competitor was previous editions of the D&D game.




Never more so than now, when the previous edition will continue in development and in the market long after the release of the new one.

--G


----------



## Flynn

I am a very small-time publisher. I have produced a number of works as a freelancer, and have been the creator and editor of a fanzine for Traveller for over three years now. I've published a few minor PDF products, the most lucrative of which is Fantasy Concepts, and that only hit the 50 copies mark this month. By far, this is not my living, but really something I do because I enjoy the experience of creating a product and seeing it from start to finish.

I was considering using the GSL to publish 4E products, but I am more interested in supporting the new open version of Traveller. It's where my heart beats the strongest. Way back on page 8, I think, I asked a question in regards to the matter of this discussion that is of the highest importance to me.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173645&postcount=230

I repeat that question now, in the hopes that it will not be lost in the massive backlog of questions:

Assuming that there is a restriction on a publisher such that the publisher using the GSL cannot release OGL materials without losing their ability to publish under the GSL going forward, does that restriction on OGL publications apply to any and all OGL publications? Or does it only apply to OGL publications that identify the System Reference Document or the Modern System Reference Document in its properly updated Section 15? (i.e. Can I publish Traveller OGL products and D20 Fantasy GSL products at the same time, or do I have to make a choice?)

Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

With Warm Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Moon-Lancer

der_kluge said:
			
		

> 2) last I checked, WoTC didn't have a gun held to any publisher's head telling them they had to switch to 4e "or else".




true, but the "or else"... seems to be very real at the moment.

I hope tomorrow that this post is wrong.


----------



## Wicht

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Really, if everyone just switched to the same system, everyone would be better off for it.




You are absolutely right.   Glad to see you are supporting the new Pathfinder RPG.  Or did you perhaps have a different system in mind for everyone to switch to?


----------



## mxyzplk

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 
> 1) you're just being snarky.
> 2) last I checked, WoTC didn't have a gun held to any publisher's head telling them they had to switch to 4e "or else".




1.  That's the proper response to being dense, senor baffled.

2.  True but irrelevant.  It will actively reduce choice in the marketplace by making third party companies less viable, as they have less choice with their product lines.  

I as a consumer lose Freeport, the D&D milieu that I bought at the same time as the 3e PH at Gen Con 2000, or I lose Mutants & Masterminds, the only supers RPG I've ever liked.  WotC is taking something away from me the consumer, and giving me nothing in return.  So screw them.  It's not like I haven't bought hundreds of dollars in 3.5e books from them.  It's a directly hostile act to RPG consumers.  As a consumer, I don't care if it's "their right," I don't care why they are doing it.  I care that it impacts the products I can choose to partake in, and there's no upside to me the consumer.


----------



## mxyzplk

Flynn said:
			
		

> Assuming that there is a restriction on a publisher such that the publisher using the GSL cannot release OGL materials without losing their ability to publish under the GSL going forward, does that restriction on OGL publications apply to any and all OGL publications? Or does it only apply to OGL publications that identify the System Reference Document or the Modern System Reference Document in its properly updated Section 15? (i.e. Can I publish Traveller OGL products and D20 Fantasy GSL products at the same time, or do I have to make a choice?)




Hey Flynn!  So it's not clear yet and they're supposed to be clarifying tomorrow, but there's reason to believe the answer is "no" - they said "OGL vs GSL."  It would be understandable if they were talking loosely and meant d20 OGL vs GSL, but several people asked about that and the subsequent posts from Scott/Linae didn't answer directly but did say things like "We know this is a hard business choice for other publishers..."  

We all hope this isn't what they mean, but confidence level isn't too high at the moment.  And the specific commitment by Scott to clarification was just about OGL backstock, not about OGL vs d20 OGL, so we may not find out soon.


----------



## der_kluge

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> I as a consumer lose Freeport, the D&D milieu that I bought at the same time as the 3e PH at Gen Con 2000, or I lose Mutants & Masterminds, the only supers RPG I've ever liked.  WotC is taking something away from me the consumer, and giving me nothing in return.  So screw them.  It's not like I haven't bought hundreds of dollars in 3.5e books from them.  It's a directly hostile act to RPG consumers.  As a consumer, I don't care if it's "their right," I don't care why they are doing it.  I care that it impacts the products I can choose to partake in, and there's no upside to me the consumer.




But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?

Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows. 

Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.


----------



## Arrond Hess

Wicht said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right.   Glad to see you are supporting the new Pathfinder RPG.  Or did you perhaps have a different system in mind for everyone to switch to?



 LOL


----------



## mxyzplk

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Really, if everyone just switched to the same system, everyone would be better off for it.  Of course, I don't believe that will actually ever happen, but you have to agree that if it were to happen, it would be the most ideal situation.




What possible justification could you have for this statement?   This, like any 'closed' approach, makes the classic mistake of putting all the system innovation and the competition that generates innovation into one place - Wizards R&D.  I think that's the least ideal situation, and I think there's about a billion real world examples in various industries proving that's the case.  Monopolies weren't declared bad by governments around the world just because they make baby Jesus cry.  It was because lack of diversity, competition, and innovation is directly antithetical to both progress and capitalism.


----------



## xechnao

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?
> 
> Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.




About M&M I think Chris Pramas said they won't and this makes perfect sense IMO regarding how M&M is structured and how 4e D&D is structured.


----------



## Arrond Hess

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?
> 
> Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.



From what i have seen, the flavor and feel of 3.x is not present in 4th Ed.. As such, the new system isn't one that appeals, how would you expect a consumer to react when their preferred game and support is required to switch in order to "stick with the _in_ crowd"? In fact, how would *you* feel if your favorite setting, company included, reverted to a system you didn't like? A company you supported, and whose products you enjoyed.

Sure, we could all play the same edition of D&D. Heck we could all even drive silver Saturns and wear blue shirts on Sunday's because a corporation/government told us it was in our best interests. Yup... that would be a very happy day for me.

I apologize for the snakryness, but I find it infuriating that somebody else or a company knows what is best for me, or that I should prefer a product because they say I should.


----------



## mxyzplk

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?
> 
> Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.




Well, besides that the 4e system, from what we see, is only half as cool as 3e, and M&M isn't a collectible minis game like 4e is, here's the deal.

Freeport is a d20 line.  They could GSL that and release under 4e - with the details that they just released products like the d20 Freeport Companion about a month ago, so they'd have to dump it fast and take a huge loss.  But of course they couldn't do that without doing M&M (and True20) at the exact same time, since "no mixing of GSL and OGL."

Mutants & Masterminds is an OGL line, which is d20 influenced but not based.  WotC has been pretty clear that the D&D 4E GSL is not for that; it's for D&D products.  But they did talk about in the future a "d20 GSL" that could allow people to create non-fantasy games with the D&D rules, so that's a possiblity.  See http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/ for your briefing.  

But - it's a large line with many products, and in fact there's a "M&M Superlink" licensing that means that a large number of other 3p companies are also publishing M&M products.  Every one of these would have to either update or "die".  You'll notice how few D&D products went to the trouble of updating for 3.5e - too much work, it wasn't good business sense,the costs are high and sales are low.  There's no feasible way to phase out this game line for a hard start of a 4e-based one without taking a huge bath - "burning" backstock, taking a long transition period where sales dips...  

I guarantee you WotC isn't burning their backstock, and Linae's comments notwithstanding they'll be selling 3.5e books to distributors long after 4e comes out.  And they had to weather the last year of poor sales in the version interim (talk to any game store owner to hear about the impact), but they're large and part of Hasbro, so book sales and the corporate mothership float them on through.

A lot of this is business basics - you can't wave a magic wand and upgrade, not in the real world.  Even Microsoft, who would like nothing better than to pretend nothing but Vista ever existed, can't do it.


----------



## Greylock

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Hey there all,
> 
> Since I have nothing to add to the main topic but idle speculation, I think I am going to stay out of this one. I do, however, have one thing to add. With the exception of a few IP sections (such as deities) the _Pathfinder RPG_ will be a completely open system.
> 
> Jason Bulmahn
> Lead Designer
> Paizo Publishing




And I am very glad for this. My group wants a familiar, more modern, backup for our regular game, which is Castles & Crusades, and I'm planning on directing my funds to contribute to Paizo's efforts and any who follow along. My next book purchase will likely be the new campaign setting Reality Deviant's releasing soon, though, which will be True20. 

Paragraphs like that should, I would think, cause Wizards some concern. But it's looking like it doesn't.


----------



## Pale

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.




You shouldn't be. The status of the license affects consumers as well as creators.

I, for one, would love for Green Ronin to translate, say, Freeport products or the Book of Fiends into a 4E format. But they more than likely won't because of the (unconfirmed but highly probably) restrictions being put into the GSL.

So, really, I'm baffled by your bafflement.


----------



## Flynn

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Hey Flynn!  So it's not clear yet and they're supposed to be clarifying tomorrow, but there's reason to believe the answer is "no" - they said "OGL vs GSL."  It would be understandable if they were talking loosely and meant d20 OGL vs GSL, but several people asked about that and the subsequent posts from Scott/Linae didn't answer directly but did say things like "We know this is a hard business choice for other publishers..."
> 
> We all hope this isn't what they mean, but confidence level isn't too high at the moment.  And the specific commitment by Scott to clarification was just about OGL backstock, not about OGL vs d20 OGL, so we may not find out soon.




That's the reason I'm asking, so that the question doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I figure the rest of it will be answered in time. I'm just trying to find out whether I personally will be doing 4E work or not, because I'm dedicated to supporting Traveller in whatever fashion I can. If I can't publish product for a rules system that isn't based in D20, simply because it's been released under the OGL, then I won't publish under the GSL.

My decision for Samardan Press is easy, but I know it's a lot harder for the much more established publishers out there. I wish them luck, and I look forward to seeing how this matter resolves itself in the days and weeks to come.

Best of Luck, All,
Flynn


----------



## Alzrius

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?
> 
> Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.




To borrow some internet lingo, this argument is made of fail.

Seriously, purely as a debating tactic, just saying "Well, X-scenario COULD potentially happen, and it's better than what you're talking about. And you don't KNOW it won't happen, so there," is both meaningless and fallacious.

This thread is to discuss, debate, and attempt to interpret the things we do know. Making stuff up and saying how that could happen does none of that.

There's absolutely no indication that Green Ronin will convert their OGL product lines to 4E, and there's certainly no way to say whether or not such hypothetical products are better or worse than the current ones that actually exist. Pointing out that such things are still possible is meaningless - there has to be at least some indication, no matter how small, that that will happen for that point to have any merit at all.


----------



## BSF

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But aren't you making a gross assumption here?  That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?
> 
> Imagine, revised, re-released versions of those products with expanded, streamlined rules, more art, higher production values, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. Obviously depending on WoTC allows.
> 
> Mutants & Masterminds 4th edition could be twice as cool and awesome as the one we have now. You simply do not know.




Sure, GR could do that.  Heck, they could even revamp True20 completely.  But here is the thing.  With any sort of exclusivity, they will need to stop selling all of those established product lines once they release one GSL compliant product.  

So, which product first?  And how long will the development cycle take for the rest?  Say I play Mutants and Masterminds and GR decides that they want to update Freeport.  Once they do that, will they be able to keep selling backstock of Mutants and Masterminds?  It looks like they might not be able to do that.  

So if I add a new player to my M&M campaign in the middle of these development cycles, I wouldn't be able to direct the player to pick up a copy of the rulebook, unless we could find one somewhere in the channel, or maybe used.  

So maybe these companies could have parallel development paths to update the products?  I don't know.  I do see that these products would go out of circulation and support for some period of time.  That doesn't do anything for me as a customer though.


----------



## Goobermunch

Alzrius said:
			
		

> To borrow some internet lingo, this argument is made of fail.
> 
> Seriously, purely as a debating tactic, just saying "Well, X-scenario COULD potentially happen, and it's better than what you're talking about. And you don't KNOW it won't happen, so there," is both meaningless and fallacious.
> 
> This thread is to discuss, debate, and attempt to interpret the things we do know. Making stuff up and saying how that could happen does none of that.
> 
> There's absolutely no indication that Green Ronin will convert their OGL product lines to 4E, and there's certainly no way to say whether or not such hypothetical products are better or worse than the current ones that actually exist. Pointing out that such things are still possible is meaningless - there has to be at least some indication, no matter how small, that that will happen for that point to have any merit at all.




If his argument is "made of fail," so is yours.  The fact is that no one on this thread has actual knowledge of the precise limitations imposed by the GSL, with the possible exceptions of Scott and Linae.  Based on their comments here, I suspect that even they don't know exactly what the license prohibits.

So, while the poison pill might be "No OGL if you pursue the GSL," it might also be "No d20 STL if you pursue the GSL."  It might even be "No d20 SRD if you pursue the GSL."  Clark indicated that there is some kind of mutual exclusivity provision.  He indicated that it was his understanding that it was no OGL if you pursue the GSL.  However, until we're able to determine a) his source, and b) his source's level of familiarity with the GSL, we are speculating wildly.  Really, until we see the precise language of the GSL, we won't know what it permits or doesn't permit.

Tempers in this thread are near boiling.  I'm sure Mxyzplk will call me a bot because I don't agree with his unrelenting view of what second hand comments mean for the future of open gaming.  Either that or he'll call me dense.  Regardless, I think I'm done for the night.  I hope Scott will be able to get us some useful information early tomorrow, but he's on the left coast, which means his day won't get started until well after mine.

I hope that the pessimists will remember that just because the optimists can see a different ending for the conflict doesn't mean that they're naive or stupid.  I hope the optimists will remember that just because the pessimists are assuming the worst doesn't mean they might be right.  I hope everyone remembers to at least try being civil.

Maybe when I wake up tomorrow all the world's governments will have declared peace, too.

--G


----------



## Alzrius

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> If his argument is "made of fail," so is yours.




It would help if you actually read what I wrote.

All of the things that have been discussed so far are, at least in part, based off of existing statements made by WotC or by someone in contact with WotC (e.g. Clark). Discussing the "poison pill" clause, what exactly it might or might not mean, ways to work around it, etc. are based off of that. It's speculation, yes, but it at least has some basis, in that it's working off of what we've been told.

Just saying "well, someone could release a 4E version of their existing work - even though they've given no hint at all of doing so - and it could be much better than what they've got now, ergo the poison pill is a good thing!" isn't even close to being the same. It's wishful thinking with a rationale that's both poor and fallacious.

Like I said, made of fail.


----------



## subbob

*What arrogance!*

That's my initial reaction - What arrogance!

And I think it could very well come back to bite Wizards (Hasbro) where it hurts.

I signed up for Gen Con events yesterday - no RPGA or WOTC events listed, but I'm certainly in all four Pathfinder Society adventures.

As much as I believe I'm not going to like 4E, I had intended on trying some Living Forgotten Realms events at Gen Con.  However, none were listed yet and I have a set schedule now.

Then tonight I was reading Jason Bulmahn's blog and found out about this "4E exclusive" clause of their GSL. In his blog he referenced this thread as breaking the news.

Between their lack of (or slow) support of Gen Con this year and this arrogant GSL clause, they could very well be PUSHING folks into other 3.5 compatible systems.  I know that's the direction I was already going, and this just reinforces my decision.


----------



## Arrond Hess

subbob said:
			
		

> That's my initial reaction - What arrogance!
> 
> And I think it could very well come back to bite Wizards (Hasbro) where it hurts.
> 
> I signed up for Gen Con events yesterday - no RPGA or WOTC events listed, but I'm certainly in all four Pathfinder Society adventures.
> 
> As much as I believe I'm not going to like 4E, I had intended on trying some Living Forgotten Realms events at Gen Con.  However, none were listed yet and I have a set schedule now.
> 
> Then tonight I was reading Jason Bulmahn's blog and found out about this "4E exclusive" clause of their GSL. In his blog he referenced this thread as breaking the news.
> 
> Between their lack of (or slow) support of Gen Con this year and this arrogant GSL clause, they could very well be PUSHING folks into other 3.5 compatible systems.  I know that's the direction I was already going, and this just reinforces my decision.



Check out the front page of the site here... ENworld Front Page

You'll find that GEN-Conis in bankruptcy proceedings now


> New at WotC
> This email was forwarded to me by Latvius, in response to a question to WotC as to why there are currently no D&D or Wizards events on the schedule posted for Gen Con:
> 
> Here is a brief FAQ concerning your questions:
> 
> Q: Why are there no D&D or Wizards events on the schedule posted for Gen Con at www.gencon.com?
> 
> A: Wizards had not submitted a schedule of events by the Gen Con deadline. Since we hadn't submitted our own schedule, none of our events are in the official Gen Con schedule at this time.
> 
> Q: Will Wizards attend Gen Con in 2008?
> 
> A: As you may be aware, Gen Con is currently in chapter 11 bankruptcy. Wizards' plans relative to Gen Con are dependent on the course of proceedings in US bankruptcy court. While we hope to participate in Gen Con, we must await further proceedings in the bankruptcy matter before we are able to confirm our plans.


----------



## kunadam

der_kluge said:
			
		

> The market is already fragmented enough - we've got gamers playing 1e, 2e, 3e, C&C, and other variants.



I don't see it all as a market segmentation. Those who stayed with 1st or 2nd edition probably do not buy 1st or 2nd ed material any more (albeit they are available as pdfs). They simply stay there, because they like it.
In similar veins, those who play WoD are also segmenting the market, but WoD caters for a very different style, than D&D.

I see the situation as some suit see competition everywhere, because this is what they were thaught in college. And the good folk at WotC needed to sacrifice some part of the openness in order to retain the other portion of it. This is exactly the reaseon why one should never ever let anyone with a primary education in economics or law get too close to decision making   

I think Monte Cook summed the whole issue up nicely some time ago.
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_154
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_155


----------



## Goobermunch

kunadam said:
			
		

> I see the situation as some suit see competition everywhere, because this is what they were thaught in college. And the good folk at WotC needed to sacrifice some part of the openness in order to retain the other portion of it. This is exactly the reaseon why one should never ever let anyone with a primary education in economics or law get too close to decision making




You mean like Clark Peterson, aka Orcus, head of Necromancer Games, and former attorney at law?



--G


----------



## Jack99

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> You mean like Clark Peterson, aka Orcus, head of Necromancer Games, and *former* attorney at law?
> 
> 
> 
> --G




I am pretty sure his 6 figure income doesn't steem from Necromancer's Games.. (he is still a laywer, NG is his hobby, from what I understand)


----------



## Orcus

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure his 6 figure income doesn't steem from Necromancer's Games.. (he is still a laywer, NG is his hobby, from what I understand)




Still a lawyer.  And no, my income doesnt stem from Necro. Necro provides me money to buy more guitars, basses and amps. Its an addiction.


----------



## Goobermunch

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure his 6 figure income doesn't steem from Necromancer's Games.. (he is still a laywer, NG is his hobby, from what I understand)




I'll gladly cop to being mistaken on that one.  The impression I'd gotten was that he had been in practice but was no longer.

It just makes my point even more pointed.

--G


----------



## Orcus

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> To be fair, we can "blame" Clark for the hearsay, not WotC. We're not discussing things WotC has released about the license, we're discussing things that Clark says WotC people said to him about the license.




I agree. And I, more than anyone, would love them to come in and say either they didnt understand my question or I didnt understand their answer.


----------



## S'mon

Orcus said:
			
		

> You wanna go that route? Feel free...
> 
> That was the whole reason for the OGL and the "safe harbor."
> 
> As you can see, Mayfair weathered that storm just fine and is here with us today...oh wait. Death by litigation.  (yes, not 100% true, but you dont want those legal bills, believe me).
> 
> Which, actually, brings me back to a point I made some pages back. We are currently complaining about the poison pill of giving up our right to do more 4E stuff if we go back to the OGL. But there was a perhaps less hotly contested poison pill in the original d20 STL/Guide--that we not contest Wizards' ownership of certain things. Under original copyright law, analyzed outside of teh OGL, their claim of ownership was tenuous, but credible enough that the risk of a lawsuit was real. Many of the legally minded folks balked at having to swallow that poison pill too.




Hi Clark - remember that TSR nailed Mayfair for breach of contract, not for copyright infringement.  Both the OGL and GSL are contractual documents.
It's much easier to win a breach of contract case than a non-literal copyright case.  Now, the OGL gave enough in return for what it took ("Product Identity"/no dispute) that it seemed a pretty good deal overall, but it looks like the GSL terms will be much more favourable to WoTC.  And they may give much stronger grounds for a lawsuit vs 3pps than copyright law would.


----------



## Ydars

I only hope this thread convinces WoTC that they have made a serious error. As I said earlier, I cannot see why any successful 3PP would take up the GSL license, Necromancer Games apart, because it makes no business sense.

So if WoTC really do want 3PP support for 4E, then they had better have included some really "cool" inducements that we don't know about.


----------



## AZRogue

Pale said:
			
		

> You shouldn't be. The status of the license affects consumers as well as creators.
> 
> I, for one, would love for Green Ronin to translate, say, Freeport products or the Book of Fiends into a 4E format. But they more than likely won't because of the (unconfirmed but highly probably) restrictions being put into the GSL.
> 
> So, really, I'm baffled by your bafflement.




I couldn't agree more. The loss of Green Ronin due to the "poison pill" provision we have heard about would be devastating to me. I have Necromancy, have lost Paizo, and now it seems must lose Green Ronin too. One of three ain't bad, but two of three is better, or so my dad used to say.


----------



## Pinotage

der_kluge said:
			
		

> That Green Ronin can't re-release Freeport and Mutants and Masterminds (help me out here, GR did product M&M, right?) under the new 4th edition license?




That's one of the unanswered questions of the license. Can you convert OGL to 4e? It's not been stated anywhere that you can or can't, and something that I'd like clarification on.

Pinotage


----------



## AZRogue

I just read Jason Bulmahn's RPG Blog and have to say it's very interesting. I hadn't thought of the potential consequences down the road. I'm not saying he's correct, just that I find his worst-case-scenario a bit disturbing. Here's the text of the blog post:



			
				Jason Bulmahn's RPG Blog said:
			
		

> Wow. I step away from my computer for about 6 hours and miss the craziness unfolding.
> 
> It seems like Wotc wants to put the genie back in the bottle (or at least put it on a leash). Allow me to explain.
> 
> Apparently, there will be terms in the new GSL (the Game System License, that allows publishers to put out material that is compatible with 4E) that states that if you use the GSL you must cease production of all OGL products. Forever... (unless you stop printing the GSL forever).
> 
> Alright, now let me take off my Paizo hat and put on my concerned gamer hat. The following bits are just my own wild conjecture.
> 
> So, it seems to me that the best way to close down the open system and move back to a closed one would be to follow this path.
> *
> 1. Force publishers to stop producing OGL products in favor of GSL products.
> 
> 2. Wait for the OGL games to die out, allowing the system to become a dusty relic.
> 
> 3. Rescind the GSL, either with the advent of 5th Edition or at some other convenient time. Since the OGL market is dead, publishers would have a hard time going back to it.
> *
> Voila, you're back to a closed system. Now, much of this is sheer conjecture on my part and I have absolutely no knowledge that this is indeed the plan, but this news did awaken my inner conspiracy theorist.
> 
> I am not really sure how this news affects Paizo. It seems that Necro (our partner) will still be able to do 4E material even if we stay with Pathfinder. Who knows though, I have not even been in the office since Monday. I cannot say that this move shocks me really, but it does seem a bit adversarial.
> 
> I guess I should feel fortunate that these licenses exist at all, but I can't help but feel disappointed. I guess this is why none of my friends at Wotc have talked to me in a about a month. Ugg...
> 
> BTW, if you want to see the thread that spilled all this news, go here.
> 
> Edit: Funny, I just realized that the GSL is the monk class of licenses, you can take levels of it, but if you then take levels of anything else, you can never go back.


----------



## S'mon

*Thulcondar*, please email me offlist at s.t.newman (at) yahoo.com

My reply to your query keeps getting delivery failure notification.

-Simon


----------



## Zaister

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I just read Jason Bulmahn's RPG Blog and have to say it's very interesting. I hadn't thought of the potential consequences down the road. I'm not saying he's correct, just that I find his worst-case-scenario a bit disturbing.




Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that corporate concept was the driving force behind the creation of Fourth Edition in the first place.


----------



## Piratecat

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Oh, and let's also have a bot to say "we don't know everything yet, it's all hearsay, let's wait until we get all the info to talk about it."  If that's your stance feel free to go elsewhere in the meantime...



Actually, no. _You_ leave the thread - and the other GSL thread in the 4e forum while you're at it, in case you were just tempted to switch over. We're tired of consistent rudeness.


----------



## RichGreen

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I just read the entire thread.
> 
> I seriously feel like this thread could use some more kittens in cups. So, here ya go.




Good call! It certainly did.


Richard


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Using both the GSL and OGL by splitting into two companies.*

What's to stop game companies from splitting into two separately-incorporated companies: one using the 4e GSL and one using the OGL?

Travis


----------



## DaveMage

TraverseTravis said:
			
		

> What's to stop game companies from splitting into two separately-incorporated companies: one using the 4e GSL and one using the OGL?
> 
> Travis




A termination clause.


----------



## Urizen

Greylock said:
			
		

> Yet somehow, I've managed to be boggled and amazed at the number of posters in this thread who represent in some capacity, owner, writer or other, RPG publishers who I respect and value above many others. These are posters whom, once I realised what I was seeing, I had to stop and take note of, if for no other reason than that their books own significant chunks of space on my RPG bookshelves and, in pdf form, on my computer. And pretty much all of them are aghast at what is being suggested. Even Orcus, who owns more of my bookshelf space than the Wizards themselves [and I'm not sure what I'm going to do when he goes 4E yet  .]
> 
> The only major publisher, by my personal reckoning and my personal tastes and cares alone, who has stayed out of this fray is Troll Lords, although I am doubtful that they really care what happens with 4E. They don't plan on going that route, and in fact have been converting their 3.x books to C&C OGL.
> 
> Appearing so far:
> 
> 
> Necromancer
> 
> TheLe
> 
> Green Ronin
> 
> Dreamscarred Press
> 
> Reality Deviant
> 
> Inner Circle
> 
> Paizo
> 
> RPGObjects
> 
> [And by association, Louis Porter Designs]
> 
> And those are all publishers I care deeply about.
> 
> [I'm probably missing some folks, but see, I have signatures turned off and I'm only noting the folks I know and regard.]




Hey, thanks, Greylock. RDP won't be going 4th ed if it means we have to alienate kind people like you by stopping production of materials you like.

It's not a reasonable request by WOTC, and it's certainly not fair to the customers, who, ultimately are the reason we get to do what we do.


----------



## phloog

One person asserted I believe that it could be a GOOD thing, because we'd get a 4E/GSL version of M&M.

First off, I dispute that it would have to be better, but more importantly - doesn't the new license basically FORBID you from creating a non-D&D game.

Unless you're suggesting that this new version of M&M would not have that annoying old dinosaur called 'Character Creation', which I believe is not allowed in the GSL.


----------



## Pinotage

phloog said:
			
		

> One person asserted I believe that it could be a GOOD thing, because we'd get a 4E/GSL version of M&M.
> 
> First off, I dispute that it would have to be better, but more importantly - doesn't the new license basically FORBID you from creating a non-D&D game.
> 
> Unless you're suggesting that this new version of M&M would not have that annoying old dinosaur called 'Character Creation', which I believe is not allowed in the GSL.




Remember there will be 2 licenses of the GSL. One for D&D fantasy games, and another for other d20 games and genres. Presumably a 4e M&M would be under that license. However, it's still not clear whether you can update OGL material to the GSL, although presumably you could if you were the original owner of the material.

Pinotage


----------



## Urizen

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Remember there will be 2 licenses of the GSL. One for D&D fantasy games, and another for other d20 games and genres. Presumably a 4e M&M would be under that license. However, it's still not clear whether you can update OGL material to the GSL, although presumably you could if you were the original owner of the material.
> 
> Pinotage




Unless I'm sorely mistaken, it's the STL which forbids chargen rules. I'm sure that's being folded into the GSL.


----------



## pawsplay

_And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled._

I have publishing credits. I was also working on my own imprint, but I've been in holding position ever since the 4e announcement. While I am unlikely to become a 4e writer, it is important to me what happens to the OGL/d20 industry.


----------



## Zaister

TraverseTravis said:
			
		

> What's to stop game companies from splitting into two separately-incorporated companies: one using the 4e GSL and one using the OGL?




Probably the terms of the GSL. WotC might reserve the right to withdraw the licence if you try to circumvent it in any way they don't like.


----------



## Jayouzts

*Gsl*



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> _And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled._
> 
> I have publishing credits. I was also working on my own imprint, but I've been in holding position ever since the 4e announcement. While I am unlikely to become a 4e writer, it is important to me what happens to the OGL/d20 industry.





Pawsplay is right.  I remember the bad old days when TSR would send cease and desist letters to people for putting up home-brew modules and materials on their personal Websites/BBS. 

Consider this hypothetical.  Joe the Average DM runs a 3.5 game.  He puts his PC's and best NPC's on his website.  He starts a new a 4E game while keeping the 3.5 game going.  He puts his 4E stuff up alongside the 3.5 stuff.   How strict will WOTC be enforcing the GSL in this situation?   

If I am their lawyer, and the purpose of 4E is reinvigorating the D&D brand, I would advise WOTC to send a cease and desist letter to Joe.  He would either have to take down the 3.5 stuff or take down the 4E stuff.  The fact that he is not a "commercial" publisher makes no difference.   I have not seen the license, but I imagine Joe COULD be treated like any publisher.

Will WOTC be as hard-nosed?  Time will tell.


----------



## Matthew_

And so passes another age, let the age of iron begin!

Well, this pretty much sucks. I admit that I have just about zero interest in D20, but I am interested in how this affects games like _Labyrinth Lord_, OSRIC and _Castles & Crusades_. Up until this announcement it was possible for third party publishers to make most of their sales off the extremely lucrative D20 market and occasionally produce something new or a conversion of some sort for the old school crowd. _Good Man Games_, _Expeditious Retreat Press_ and _0one Games_ spring to mind as perhaps the most visible examples, and _Green Ronin_, I believe, have a _Castles & Crusades_ version of _Free Port_ in the works. Now it seems likely that these companies will have to make choices as to where their best interest lies, and that is saddening.

I hope that there will be more room for maneouvre than what is being suggested here, but I am not very optimistic. Still, I doubt Wizards particularly care what I think, and I guess the feeling is mutual.


----------



## estar

If the GSL pertains to ALL OGL product regardless if they are devried from the d20 SRD then I wound if this would come into play?

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm



> Simply put, a tying arrangement is an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product (often known as a positive tie), or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier (often known as a negative tie).




However RPGs may run afoul of this. The Third Party RPG market may not be large enough to bring any case to federal court.



> D. Effect on "Not Insubstantial" Amount of Commerce  The fourth requirement for a per se tying violation is a showing that a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in the tied product market be affected by the tying arrangements. Although the courts could have stated this in a different way, by requiring a showing that a substantial amount of commerce be affected, they have relied on this language.  Thus, tying arrangements are unreasonable when a "not insubstantial" amount of interstate commerce is affected. This has been clarified so that "substantial" means substantial enough in terms of dollar-volume so as not to be merely de minimis.




Granted that 4th edition could be simply not open. But on the other hand I seems to me to be unfair to create a open license that impacts games other than the previous edition, like Traveller and Runequest. 

Rob Conley


----------



## Morrus

estar said:
			
		

> If the GSL pertains to ALL OGL product regardless if they are devried from the d20 SRD then I wound if this would come into play?
> 
> http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm




Nobody's buying or selling anything.  That's not relevant here.


----------



## thormagni

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name.
> 
> Baffled.




And as a fan, I am baffled that you would be baffled. While I might just be a dumb fan, I'm smart enough to see how many of my recent purchases have the OGL printed in the back of them. In fact, a significant portion of my gaming interest and dollars are tied up in games which are derivatives of the OGL. 

I am already miffed that I will soon find that all my D&D3.5 books are suddenly out-of-date. But I would be downright angry to find out that Wizards was a) forcing all of my OGL-derived books to become out-of-date, or b) putting the producers of those game books into a position where they have to choose to support either D&D4e, or the other OGL games that I enjoy.

The only thing that would make it even worse is to find out that a company whose products I deeply enjoy was no longer to stay in business because of such a situation. 

So, yeah. I care what is being discussed in this thread. And I can see why so many non-professionals are chiming in. We've got an interest here, even if we don't have a printing press contract or a copy of Adobe Acrobat.


----------



## Pinotage

Urizen said:
			
		

> Unless I'm sorely mistaken, it's the STL which forbids chargen rules. I'm sure that's being folded into the GSL.




The problem as I see it, Dave, is that if you want to update your OGL to the GSL, you have to make sure that you remove the old OGL copy from the market. But since the OGL is derivative in many ways, you'd can't realistically do that since you'd need to remove the Section 15 sources of the material as well. Which limits you to only updating material that the publisher owns, and not any other OGL material. Which means a lot of products simply cannot be updated to the GSL or a portion of their material would be gone (that derived from other OGL sources not owned by the publisher). It might not be a problem for many publishers, but it can be for some. I'm not sure what the section 15 of M&M says, but it might be a problem.

Pinotage


----------



## Psion

Pinotage said:
			
		

> The problem as I see it, Dave, is that if you want to update your OGL to the GSL, you have to make sure that you remove the old OGL copy from the market. But since the OGL is derivative in many ways, you'd can't realistically do that since you'd need to remove the Section 15 sources of the material as well. Which limits you to only updating material that the publisher owns, and not any other OGL material. Which means a lot of products simply cannot be updated to the GSL or a portion of their material would be gone (that derived from other OGL sources not owned by the publisher). It might not be a problem for many publishers, but it can be for some.




Makes the ones who limited OGC to sidebars/shaded sections look prescient. And punished those who opened entire works for their generosity.



> I'm not sure what the section 15 of M&M says, but it might be a problem.




Oh, I sort of think there's no question where M&M is concerned.


----------



## Moleculor

Hi.

I'm... well, I'm not really 'new', per se. Been on the 'net years. Jeeze, a decade? Been playing RPGs for a while. D&D since the EXTREME tail end of the 2nd edition on a PC, skipped right over 3.0 tabletop, and hit 3.5 running.

I've been following the announcement of and discussion of D&D4 since it was announced at GenCon, but not closely. I've seen and heard some preview materials, liked the way it seemed to be going, better streamlining, etc, and was generally interested and a bit excited to give it a whirl once it got released.

I just got home from work (at 9AM, so you can imagine what sorts of hours I work), popped on the 'net, and 'lo... Slashdot article on D&D4. Prepare to be Slashdotted, BTW. 

Anyhow, this article on Slashdot (and page four of this thread which the article links to, and is the only page of this thread I've read) seems to state that any publisher who wishes to publish for what may very well be the biggest tabletop RPG for the next decade has to DROP all of their currently successful material which they happened to base off of a licensing agreement Wizards whipped up back in the day? Huh?

Please realize, I buy almost exclusively Wizards published D&D material. In fact, it's the only D&D material I buy, as I rarely have time (or money) for any other systems or games. Plus there's something of a purist in me. 

However, in hearing that Microso... er... I mean Wizards wants to pull a Microsoftian move, essentially shutting down their 'competition' (Windows XP.. er, I mean D&D 3.5) in order to force folks to move to Vist... er, I mean D&D4, I can't help but think:

"Does Wizards/Hasbro have any confidence in their own product's viability?"

I mean... seriously. You don't see Sony or Nintendo saying "Ok, we've released the PS3/X360/Wii/DS, so all of you game makers and publishers, you now HAVE to stop making games for older systems! Or else!" No. You see the natural, usually fast shift from the old to the new. Game makers stop making products for the old systems and make them for the new ones. Why? Because the newer system is usually better. The only time that I recall this not happening is recently with the PS3. It was too expensive, too hard to make games for, had very few if any good games on it, etc, and thus sold poorly. And thus, people are still making (and buying) PS2 games, even to this day (the PS2's sales figures were newsworthy even for March of this year, despite the PS3 being out, what, a year now?). The Gamecube? Games for that were dropped like a hot potato once the Wii came out. Why? The Wii was better. The Xbox? Gone, the 360 was better.

D&D 3.5?

Wizards/Hasbro: "Oh. Uh. Well, D&D 4 is so much better than 3.5! We have all this cool new whizbang stuff, awesome tools, it's a blast to play, and we think people are really going to love it! They're going to have to love it anyway, because we're going to force them to switch, using legal maneuvering and pressure to force publishers to switch, because in reality we don't actually believe our product is fun enough to cause the switch from 3.5 to 4 to occur naturally!"

My own confidence in D&D 4 dropped several notches this morning. I really hope they rethink this (and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a Hasbro-From-On-High decision, and out of Wizards' hands completely... doesn't make me any more happy about it).

EDIT: However, a scroll through some of the comments of the Slashdot article seem to indicate that all of this is misinformation, and that Wizards hasn't made any sort of announcement of this kind at all, just that they might be THINKING about providing such a preventative measure in any license they attach to D&D 4. Which is the story?


----------



## TheLe

Moleculor said:
			
		

> I just got home from work (at 9AM, so you can imagine what sorts of hours I work), popped on the 'net, and 'lo... Slashdot article on D&D4. Prepare to be Slashdotted, BTW.




Thanks for pointing out the article, Moleculor.

If anyone is interested, they can find *The Article Here*.

snippet: "It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!""


~Le


----------



## gideon_thorne

Matthew_ said:
			
		

> I admit that I have just about zero interest in D20, but I am interested in how this affects games like Castles & Crusades.




TLG's sticking with its current line of quite successful products. So the 4e business wont affect C&C or TLG's other product lines since the company isn't going in the GSL/4e direction.


----------



## Moleculor

TheLe said:
			
		

> snippet: "It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!""




I saw that little bit and technically, if I understand what's being discussed here correctly, that comparison is -not- actually correct. 

What would be more correct would be saying "Ok, here's how to make programs run on Vista. The super-secret code that makes it all actually run. But now that you have it, you can't ever make a program for Windows XP ever again, even if it is a far more popular OS right now." Nothin' to do with Linux in any way, since Microsoft had no hand in making Linux (lets not get into the "recent" (last year or so?) claims by Microsoft that there IS code by MS in Linux distributions. Lets not mix crazy <censored> claims like that into a reasoned argument about facts).

As I stated in an edit of my above post, I'm reading some comments on the /. article, and noting that many people are saying that this isn't an official announcement yet, that nothing has been confirmed, that Wizards employees and Hasbro folk are all making conflicting statements, etc, and that many things that have come out of Wizards over the past months have later ended up being retracted. I'm hoping this is the case now. I'm far too tired to truly grasp what's going on right now.


----------



## TheLe

Moleculor said:
			
		

> I saw that little bit and technically, if I understand what's being discussed here correctly, that comparison is -not- actually correct.
> 
> What would be more correct would be saying "Ok, here's how to make programs run on Vista. The super-secret code that makes it all actually run. But now that you have it, you can't ever make a program for Windows XP ever again, even if it is a far more popular OS right now."
> 
> As I stated in an edit of my above post, I'm reading some comments on the /. article, and noting that many people are saying that this isn't an official announcement yet, that nothing has been confirmed, that Wizards employees and Hasbro folk are all making conflicting statements, etc, and that many things that have come out of Wizards over the past months have later ended up being retracted. I'm hoping this is the case now. I'm far too tired to truly grasp what's going on right now.




Yes, but what about selling existing software on XP?  Last I checked, EA The Sims 2 was a damn hot seller for XP

.
.
.
.


----------



## Morrus

TheLe said:
			
		

> Thanks for pointing out the article, Moleculor.
> 
> If anyone is interested, they can find *The Article Here*.
> 
> snippet: "It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!""
> 
> 
> ~Le




That's not good.  They're using *mxyzplk* as their info source?!?  And he's telling everyone that WotC has stated things that they, as yet, have not?


----------



## webrunner

I'm confused here... the reasoning given for doing this was so that they get people to support 4e, but isn't the 'poison pill' only reason NOT to support 4e?  Wouldn't a system that allowed transitioning to 4e fit that reasoning better?  Something that says, you can produce 3.5e content, but must make more 4e content than 3.5 content.. or something that says, you can make 3.5e content for two years? Or why would that even be necessary?  Either stuff is not supporting D&D 3.5 at all (say, stuff like M&M), or in time 4.0e will be the one that makes sense (since everyone will slowly move to it naturally unless it fails on it's own merits, in which case forcing people won't help)

the poison pill, to me, makes no business sense.. not just in terms of alienating people, but it's actively anti-4.0 by itself. 

"Hey, Wizards, can we make 4.0e content?"
"Sure, yeah, if you really WANT to make 4.0e content you can, but you have to give stuff up first and possibly go out of business.  Do you really WANT that?"
"Oh.. um.  Not really.  Okay, we'll stick with 3.5e"
"GOOD!"


----------



## Moleculor

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's not good.  They're using *mxyzplk* as their info source?!?  And he's telling everyone that WotC has stated things that they, as yet, have not?




Ah, good to see that on here. Others in that article have commented on its lack of actual basis in fact, and I just wanted to see it confirmed here. Thank you. Now I'll have to keep an eye on this thread in case it DOES become true.



			
				webrunner said:
			
		

> I'm confused here... the reasoning given for doing this was so that they get people to support 4e, but isn't the 'poison pill' only reason NOT to support 4e?  Wouldn't a system that allowed transitioning to 4e fit that reasoning better?  Something that says, you can produce 3.5e content, but must make more 4e content than 3.5 content.. or something that says, you can make 3.5e content for two years? Or why would that even be necessary?  Either stuff is not supporting D&D 3.5 at all (say, stuff like M&M), or in time 4.0e will be the one that makes sense (since everyone will slowly move to it naturally unless it fails on it's own merits, in which case forcing people won't help)
> 
> the poison pill, to me, makes no business sense.. not just in terms of alienating people, but it's actively anti-4.0 by itself.




I would think the best thing for WotC to do would be to offer a legal way for companies to separate their products from the poisoned licenses so as to continue publishing them and supporting them, while also publishing 4th edition materials. Not all publishers can afford crack teams of legal advisors, and if the legal advice is coming straight from the people who are trying to make this change happen, and they're offering alternatives so that people can continue to do both, then everyone should be happy... right?


----------



## Lizard

Moleculor said:
			
		

> EDIT: However, a scroll through some of the comments of the Slashdot article seem to indicate that all of this is misinformation, and that Wizards hasn't made any sort of announcement of this kind at all, just that they might be THINKING about providing such a preventative measure in any license they attach to D&D 4. Which is the story?




At the moment, this is all rumor based on conflicting statements and probable miscommunication. The only official statement we have indicates it will be per-product, not per-company, but others have been told different things, so, we're all waiting for a solid answer. Posting this story on slashdot, when it's still unconfirmed and may well be false, strikes me as very immature and irresponsible.


----------



## Morrus

Moleculor said:
			
		

> Ah, good to see that on here. Others in that article have commented on its lack of actual basis in fact, and I just wanted to see it confirmed here. Thank you. Now I'll have to keep an eye on this thread in case it DOES become true.




Oh, there's a possibility it might.  But at present it could be either; we're hoping for clarifcation today.  But baldly stating that WotC has said things that they have not is disingenuous.  Let's wait till (if) they say it before we all start posting it across the intrawebs as truth.

One would hope that mxyzplk will go back and correct that article.


----------



## Lizard

Morrus said:
			
		

> Oh, there's a possibility it might.  But at present it could be either; we're hoping for clarifcation today.  But baldly stating that WotC has said things that they have not is disingenuous.  Let's wait till (if) they say it before we all start posting it across the intrawebs as truth.
> 
> One would hope that mxyzplk will go back and correct that article.




I wouldn't take that bet.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's not good.  They're using *mxyzplk* as their info source?!?  And he's telling everyone that WotC has stated things that they, as yet, have not?




Yeah, slashdotting this rumor is a complete dick move.

And I suspect some mxyzplk sock-puppetry at work, and much grinding of axes.


----------



## Matthew_

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> TLG's sticking with its current line of quite successful products. So the 4e business wont affect C&C or TLG's other product lines since the company isn't going in the GSL/4e direction.



Sure Peter, I know it won't affect _Troll Lord Games_, I was thinking more of third party support for _Castles & Crusades_, such as the conversion of _Dungeon Crawl Classics_ from _Good Man Games_ or the much anticipated _Free Port_ conversion from _Green Ronin_.


----------



## gideon_thorne

Matthew_ said:
			
		

> Sure Peter, I know it won't affect _Troll Lord Games_, I was thinking more of third party support for _Castles & Crusades_, such as the conversion of _Dungeon Crawl Classics_ from _Good Man Games_ or the much anticipated _Free Port_ conversion from _Green Ronin_.




Ya, not sure about those folks either. We'll just have to see. ^_^

In both cases, as folks have mentioned, these two companies have other quite successful in their own right lines to consider.


----------



## Moleculor

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, slashdotting this rumor is a complete dick move.
> 
> And I suspect some mxyzplk sock-puppetry at work, and much grinding of axes.




Eh. Getting folks up in arms about a proposed idea before the idea becomes "The Official Word" would be a more certain way of making sure it isn't "The Official Word", rather than waiting for "The Official Word" and then trying to make those with "The Word" to reverse their decision once made.

That said, they really should have marked this as a rumor.


----------



## phloog

Moleculor said:
			
		

> Eh. Getting folks up in arms about a proposed idea before the idea becomes "The Official Word" would be a more certain way of making sure it isn't "The Official Word", rather than waiting for "The Official Word" and then trying to make those with "The Word" to reverse their decision once made.
> 
> That said, they really should have marked this as a rumor.




Agreed completely...while I don't like posting rumor as fact, posting rumor as a highly likely possibility in a wide distribution to a fairly reactionary group (basically everyone I've ever met on the web) might be an acceptable tactic to get the right thing done...assuming WOTC doesn't get their backs up.

If it truly is open (oops, there's that word!) to alteration, since it hasn't been fully released, hearing this kind of outcry might turn the conversation with Orcus into a 'trial balloon' - - it may not have been this when they had the initial conversation, but if it looks like it might explode in bad PR, perhaps they WILL reconsider...versus everyone being reasonable, calm, and collected, then when WOTC announces that the worst we imagined is indeed the truth, it becomes much harder to back away for them.


----------



## Greylock

Matthew_ said:
			
		

> Sure Peter, I know it won't affect _Troll Lord Games_, I was thinking more of third party support for _Castles & Crusades_,....




This is of major concern to myself as well. Goodman has done a good job of supporting C&C, but this all makes it look like that will end.


----------



## gideon_thorne

Greylock said:
			
		

> This is of major concern to myself as well. Goodman has done a good job of supporting C&C, but this all makes it look like that will end.




I guess it depends on whether a company prefers their eggs in one basket, or more than one, when it comes right down too it.


----------



## Goobermunch

phloog said:
			
		

> Agreed completely...while I don't like posting rumor as fact, posting rumor as a highly likely possibility in a wide distribution to a fairly reactionary group (basically everyone I've ever met on the web) might be an acceptable tactic to get the right thing done...assuming WOTC doesn't get their backs up.
> 
> If it truly is open (oops, there's that word!) to alteration, since it hasn't been fully released, hearing this kind of outcry might turn the conversation with Orcus into a 'trial balloon' - - it may not have been this when they had the initial conversation, but if it looks like it might explode in bad PR, perhaps they WILL reconsider...versus everyone being reasonable, calm, and collected, then when WOTC announces that the worst we imagined is indeed the truth, it becomes much harder to back away for them.




Either that or it irreparably ruins Orcus' relationship with WotC and causes them to close 4e.

--G


----------



## Orcus

Morrus said:
			
		

> Oh, there's a possibility it might.  But at present it could be either; we're hoping for clarifcation today.  But baldly stating that WotC has said things that they have not is disingenuous.  Let's wait till (if) they say it before we all start posting it across the intrawebs as truth.
> 
> One would hope that mxyzplk will go back and correct that article.




I agree it should be corrected. I was the source of the comment, and I am 100% certain that is what I was told. There is no doubt about it. But we have not gotten an official statement about it. And, as with many things regarding the GSL, it appears to be in flux. As I have said, I hope that my question was either misunderstood or their answer was misunderstood by me. 

In any event, this is hardly the thing that should get slashdotted as an actual fact. It is still pending resolution in my mind. I call on mxyzplk to make an appropriate retraction or notation. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Either that or it irreparably ruins Orcus' relationship with WotC and causes them to close 4e.
> 
> --G




I'm pretty sure my relationship with Wizards is fine.  And I dont think anything I am doing will cause the closure of 4E. In fact, I have said I prefer this GSL to none at all and I'm pretty sure I am one of the few that is actually defending the poison pill, whether or not I actually like it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Either that or it irreparably ruins Orcus' relationship with WotC.




The "dick move" I referenced earlier was exactly this. It throws Clark under the bus to score points against WotC.


----------



## TheRaven

Well, my guess is, that there is still something explosive waiting. We are talking about 3PP here but what about fanwork? What about selfmade stuff offered for free on fansites? It wouldn't be out of their way to integrate some kind of hosting service into the DI and prohibit the people from hosting 4E stuff anywhere else. Maybe even restrict uploading to people paying the fee or granting them additional advantages and comfort features.

What about the SRD? My guess is, that websites like mine (www.systemreferencedocuments.org) won't be possible with the fourth edition. Yes, the whole GSL thing might be better than fully closed but it is much worse for all the fans out there compared to the OGL/D20. WotC only does what they think will benefit them in the end (basically a good thing). We will have to wait and see if this move benefits the community as well. I'm skeptical about that though.


----------



## Arrond Hess

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Well, my guess is, that there is still something explosive waiting. We are talking about 3PP here but what about fanwork? What about selfmade stuff offered for free on fansites? It wouldn't be out of their way to integrate some kind of hosting service into the DI and prohibit the people from hosting 4E stuff anywhere else. Maybe even restrict uploading to people paying the fee or granting them additional advantages and comfort features.



Such as on Gleemax? Yeah, at this point, I can see WotC pulling something like that as they may view "fan sites" as competition to their own DDI/Gleemax projects.


----------



## xechnao

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Well, my guess is, that there is still something explosive waiting. We are talking about 3PP here but what about fanwork? What about selfmade stuff offered for free on fansites?




Almost impossible. Everybody knows now that this method is a disaster.


----------



## Piratecat

Boy, I sure doubt that. This isn't TSR we're talking about. The WotC folks I know are smart, knowledgeable about the industry, and aware of past blunders. I wouldn't expect to see any overly restrictive fan site decrees.


----------



## Alzrius

xechnao said:
			
		

> Almost impossible. Everybody knows now that this method is a disaster.




It's a PR disaster, certainly, but it seems legally feasible. And given the "poison pill" clause in the GSL, I don't think WotC is necessarily worried about making themselves look squeaky-clean; especially in regards to fan-sites, since they're virtual non-entities in the industry.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Boy, I sure doubt that. This isn't TSR we're talking about. The WotC folks I know are smart, knowledgeable about the industry, and aware of past blunders. I wouldn't expect that kind of decision from these folks.




PC, I agree with you, but a lot of what we're seeing smacks of decisions made by Hasbro, not WotC. Scott and Linae seem to have been struggling mightily to have 4E be Open at all, so it seems likely that the people who'd want 4E closed - and want to make sure the D&DI has no competition - are the ones with the pull.


----------



## jmucchiello

TheRaven said:
			
		

> What about the SRD? My guess is, that websites like mine (www.systemreferencedocuments.org) won't be possible with the fourth edition.



This is most likely already true. The 4e SRD will not contain the rules, it will contain references to the PHB, DMG and MM. For a site like yours to exist, you'd have to rewrite all the rules by hand (and probably in your own words) assuming that is allowed with the GSL.

You do bring up a different problem for fans. Can they host OGL and GSL content on the same domain? server address? That's a whole other kettle of fish I'm sure.


----------



## Lizard

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Boy, I sure doubt that. This isn't TSR we're talking about. The WotC folks I know are smart, knowledgeable about the industry, and aware of past blunders. I wouldn't expect that kind of decision from these folks.




The problem is, are they the ones making the decision?

There's been quite a few times when I've told Upper Management that "This is a really dumb idea", and they went ahead with it anyway.

After all, it wasn't the game designers, artists, and editors who were behind TSRs policies; it was Lorraine Williams, who knew nothing about games, and forced some of the staff to be the public face of the company and defend the inane decisions.


----------



## Orcus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The "dick move" I referenced earlier was exactly this. It throws Clark under the bus to score points against WotC.




Well, I guess its my fault. I cant control information flow. You say something and it risks being spread. But I sure didnt think a discussion here and a call for an official answer to my question would lead to that kind of a slashdot artice. I'd like to believe I didnt just get thrown under the bus, but it sure feels like that to me. Just so someone can do a "gotcha" on Wizards. 

I support Wizards 100%. I dont like the poison pill, but I understand it. I dont like getting leveraged, but I do it to people all day long in my job so its hard to object when it is done to me.  I also happen to know that Scott and Linae know I support them 100%. So I dont think I really got thrown under the bus, since I doubt Scott and Linae would be mad at *me* over this. But, of course, the person who posted the article didnt know that. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

I cant seem to win for losing these last couple days. And here we were Thursday and I was on top of the world that there was going to be a GSL.


----------



## Psion

Orcus said:
			
		

> I cant seem to win for losing these last couple days. And here we were Thursday and I was on top of the world that there was going to be a GSL.




Monkey's Paw, I guess.


----------



## InkwellIdeas

Wow, what a thread.  I've read about 30% of it, so hopefully my points haven't been hashed to death already. My post got kinda long, so I've put some of the key points in italics.

At first I thought of the same way around the issue (two companies with a licensing agreement) of requiring a publisher to drop OGL to use 4e, if that is a requirement.  (It seems we're still waiting to hear for sure.)  but these are smart people and they'll word the license to preserve their intent and they'll use their catch-all if someone does violate the intent.

_But more importantly/interestingly, why do you need to follow the GSL to make 4e compatible material?  _I'm sure someone could come up with some text to add to a product's cover that lets people know that the content inside works with a particular ruleset (or maybe several) without violating WotC's trademarks and copyrights.  Someone did a "4 any 3dition" logo a few months back for example.  Something like "Includes stats compatible with the latest version of the world's most famous fantasy role-playing game" would let everyone know they can use that adventure, setting, sourcebook, etc. with 4e while hopefully not violating any trademarks/copyright.  (I'm not a lawyer so I'm not confident my example is OK, but my point is a lawyer could think up something like it.)  We are a pretty sophisticated, intelligent market, I think.

The fact that you might have monsters and characters using stats based on the 4e rules shouldn't be an issue if my understanding is correct.  That is: rules/concepts can't be copyrighted, just the specific text of the rules.  (After all most RPGs borrow heavily from other RPGs.  After all, how many use some combination of the core 6 abilities--maybe with one or two renamed and one dropped or one added.  Examples of borrowing an idea and then tweaking it a little are more common than original ideas.)  So I don't understand/believe that WotC could come after someone just for saying that the character Suzy has a Strength of 10, Con of 12... Will Defense of 15... etc.  (If you copy the exact stats of a monster that probably is an issue, but you could easily just refer the reader to "your game system's monster guide.") 

If someone is a lawyer in these matters and knows otherwise, please say so.

_The d20/GSL licenses give that content/book some recognition in the market and the ability to copy portions (the extent of copying using the GSL is TBD) of the rules/stats.  So based on what I wrote above, the recognition might be lost to a degree, but it could still be largely preserved.  Copying rules/stats is an issue, but as I wrote above you could refer the reader in a generic way to the proper book and you should be free to list your own stats for your own custom creatures/monsters.  Likewise if you're developing a sourcebook (such as a book of new classes) you should be able to spell all your rules for the classes and simply refer in a generic way to the creation and leveling-up portions, etc._

_Now that I've hashed this out, I could see some publishers continuing to publish material based off the OGL, but include an appendix or shaded box or online reference so the same material can be played using 3.75-ish rules (where a publisher takes the OGL, maybe borrows a few ideas from 4e and adds a few of their own ideas), and also includes info (stats, new spell, etc.) for using the material with 4e while only referring to 4e in a generic way._ So publisher x could put out a book that is a fantasy pantheon for example.  Within the chapters of the book every god has core OGL-based stats.  But they know publisher y's ruleset is good and publisher x has a license with publisher y (an open license or not) so they include an appendix or on-line resource or shaded boxes for each god's stats (or just the needed differences) using publisher y's rules.  And the same pantheon book could also have the stats for the gods in the 4e rules as long as 4e is referred to generically.)

Of course, run this by an expert first.


----------



## xechnao

Lizard said:
			
		

> The problem is, are they the ones making the decision?
> 
> There's been quite a few times when I've told Upper Management that "This is a really dumb idea", and they went ahead with it anyway.
> 
> After all, it wasn't the game designers, artists, and editors who were behind TSRs policies; it was Lorraine Williams, who knew nothing about games, and forced some of the staff to be the public face of the company and defend the inane decisions.




I think Hasbro knows better. They are in business and going strong since when? And I seriously doupt Wotc is at odds with Hasbro as some people mention around here.


----------



## Flynn

I do find it interesting that the rate of posting on this thread has dropped significantly as the morning passes. I think it speaks well of us all that we are waiting for feedback from Scott and others at WOTC before we continue our discussions. I personally appreciate that so many of us are showing a level-headed approach to this situation, and I hope that this trend continues long enough to get some resolution from WOTC on the specific issues that are being discussed here.

I imagine that, whether the GSL is firmed up or not, the PR and Marketing departments have probably been holed up all morning discussing how to handle this most recent revelation. I can assume that they feel torn in different directions: on the one hand, there are a lot of fans and publishers that expect to hear something today, the sooner the better; and on the other hand, there's likely some pressure to make sure that the presentation of this information is handled in a calm, cool and professional manner, so they want to make sure everyone internally is on the same page.

When you combine this with a similar pressure in regards to the perceived Gen Con/WOTC issue that also arose this weekend, it can't be a good morning for The Rouse, as I'm sure he's got to handle both issues soon.

Talk about a Monday,
Flynn


----------



## La Bete

Lizard said:
			
		

> The problem is, are they the ones making the decision?
> 
> There's been quite a few times when I've told Upper Management that "This is a really dumb idea", and they went ahead with it anyway.
> 
> After all, it wasn't the game designers, artists, and editors who were behind TSRs policies; it was Lorraine Williams, who knew nothing about games, and forced some of the staff to be the public face of the company and defend the inane decisions.




I'm pretty certain that if they haven't C&D'd crystalkeep, they won't be doing any C&Ds on any other fan sites anytime soon.

Its one thing to piss off the third party publishers, open source 'enthusiasts', and some customers - but going after fan sites would result in a lot more negativity.

And I know its hip to see teh eval hand of Hasbro behind everything, but to be honest? I suspect they've had diddly to do with this. D&D as a tabletop rpg just isn't that important.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> So I dont think I really got thrown under the bus, since I doubt Scott and Linae would be mad at *me* over this. But, of course, the person who posted the article didnt know that.




Yes, that's point the first-- they didn't care what it did to you.

Second point worth considering, even if they _did_ know that, is that Scott and Linae are having a hard enough time defending Open Gaming without having to add defending Clark Peterson to the list. 

I'll just point out for the third time what a "dick move" that was, because I can't believe I've said "dick move" three times now and apparently there's no filter for it. I remember back in the day I couldn't even get "prick" into my Story Hour.

EDIT: I'm assuming it's not filtered because it would impinge on Morrus' ability to swap recipes for Spotted Dick.


----------



## The Little Raven

Orcus said:
			
		

> Death by litigation.




One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of trademark agreement violations in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a violation of trademark rights, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.


----------



## Goobermunch

Flynn said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that the rate of posting on this thread has dropped significantly as the morning passes. I think it speaks well of us all that we are waiting for feedback from Scott and others at WOTC before we continue our discussions. I personally appreciate that so many of us are showing a level-headed approach to this situation, and I hope that this trend continues long enough to get some resolution from WOTC on the specific issues that are being discussed here.
> 
> I imagine that, whether the GSL is firmed up or not, the PR and Marketing departments have probably been holed up all morning discussing how to handle this most recent revelation. I can assume that they feel torn in different directions: on the one hand, there are a lot of fans and publishers that expect to hear something today, the sooner the better; and on the other hand, there's likely some pressure to make sure that the presentation of this information is handled in a calm, cool and professional manner, so they want to make sure everyone internally is on the same page.
> 
> When you combine this with a similar pressure in regards to the perceived Gen Con/WOTC issue that also arose this weekend, it can't be a good morning for The Rouse, as I'm sure he's got to handle both issues soon.
> 
> Talk about a Monday,
> Flynn




Text  Removed As Inappropriate.

--G


----------



## Alzrius

Flynn said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that the rate of posting on this thread has dropped significantly as the morning passes. I think it speaks well of us all that we are waiting for feedback from Scott and others at WOTC before we continue our discussions.




Or maybe it was just that everyone had to go to work.


----------



## Flynn

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Or maybe it was just that everyone had to go to work.




Oh, yeah! I guess maybe I should do that, too, huh? 

Looking Forward To Some News Today,
Flynn


----------



## Charwoman Gene

BTW, I just pointed out as an AC(on slashdot) that Slashdot is helping said "dick move"

And I apologize to Orcus, I've reread his comments and he is clearly not flying off the handle, but seems just bearing info he didn't want to hear.


----------



## Piratecat

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I suspect that some of the reason for the slow down is that the thread's most furious and frequent poster took his comments elsewhere, in what has been described as a "dick move."  I think it might be better described as an "absolute dick move," but I'm going to wait and see how things fall out.
> 
> --G



I understand the anger and frustration, believe me. But please don't take personal potshots at another member, especially one who's been asked to leave the thread. That's neither fair nor appropriate.

We'll figure out what's actually going on, and then the conversation can explode again.


----------



## The Little Raven

Orcus said:
			
		

> Well, I guess its my fault.




Mxyzplk chose to go to a prominent internet news site and claim that your statement was 100% verified fact and was straight from WotC's mouth. The fault is definitely not yours for that mess.


----------



## Goobermunch

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I understand the anger and frustration, believe me. But please don't take personal potshots at another member, especially one who's been asked to leave the thread. That's neither fair nor appropriate.
> 
> We'll figure out what's actually going on, and then the conversation can explode again.




I apologize, P-kitty.  Would it be appropriate to redact my remarks so that my comment will appear no further?

--G


----------



## Jack99

Mourn said:
			
		

> Mxyzplk chose to go to a prominent internet news site and claim that your statement was 100% verified fact and was straight from WotC's mouth. The fault is definitely not yours for that mess.




Nah, I say lets blame Orcus!!!!


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Nah, I say lets blame Orcus!!!!




I Did.


----------



## Jack99

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I Did.




Exactly, but you kind of sucked at it, which is why I am trying to rally support for the cause..


----------



## Gilwen

Mourn said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of trademark agreement violations in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a violation of trademark rights, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.





Didn't Kenzer Co. originally have unlicensed AD&D compat products and claim compatibility. I don't think they ever go sued, probably grumped at by TSR but I don't think they got sued. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not willing to place my money going that route.

Gil


----------



## Jack99

Go here Link, for questions regarding the GSL.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> OGL - Important! Interview opportunity - what do you want to know about the GSL?
> We have a unique opportunity for an exclusive interview about the GSL. Morrus and I will select a handful of questions to ask WotC and get answers. Quick, what are the most important things you want to know?
> 
> I'll be submitting a list in approximately an hour from this post.
> 
> Thanks, everyone.




(just in case you aren't paying attention to the 4e forum atm)


----------



## TheRaven

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Boy, I sure doubt that. This isn't TSR we're talking about. The WotC folks I know are smart, knowledgeable about the industry, and aware of past blunders. I wouldn't expect to see any overly restrictive fan site decrees.



If this whole "not on the fence" business is executed as it is discussed in here, then this will certainly restrict fanwork as well. At least in the way of not being able to produce material for both, 3E and 4E. I somehow doubt, that this restriction will only be there for commercial products. And if WotC is truly serious and confident in their DI/Gleemax infrastructure, then it is not a far toss to assume some restrictions enforced on the fans creating D&D material. I'd even consider it a smart move from a business standpoint. Yes, there will be initial uproar but we all know how the internet works and this uproar won't transcend the net. The fans will fall in line.

Wild speculations? Yes indeed but as we await confirmation or dismissal we might as well talk about possible scenarios, can we not?


----------



## Piratecat

Thanks, Jack! *Important!*  We have the chance to get some answers in an exclusive interview about the GSL. Please head here and let me know what you'd like us to ask.


----------



## The Little Raven

Gilwen said:
			
		

> Didn't Kenzer Co. originally have unlicensed AD&D compat products and claim compatibility.




They very carefully avoided any direct trademark or copyright issues, so I don't think they claimed capability. Having never seen the original KoK books from the 90s, I couldn't tell you how much of a case TSR could have made.


----------



## InkwellIdeas

Mourn said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of trademark agreement violations in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a violation of trademark rights, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.




I've gotta believe it was the particular phrasing.  There's just too much "borrowing" then putting an extra spin that happens in the industry  (Heck, almost any industry) for it to be impossible to borrow/be compatible with rules and careful phrasing will let the consumer know.  As someone else pointed out there's got to be other examples.  The Mayfair incident is cited above.  But even outside the industry, what about generic drugs, off-brand replacement ink, generic garage door openers, universal remote controls?  All of these things denote they are compatible or have the same active ingredients, etc., as the other product and they have to use the original products specs (ingredients and amounts for drugs, dimensions of printer cartridges, signals and frequencies for remotes) in the creation of the new product.


----------



## deadDMwalking

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?



The thing for me is that you're taking a wonderful game, and making it something 'less wonderful'.  From the moment that the end of Dragon and Dungeon in print were announced, I knew that I was done with WotC.  I was a little sad about it.  I sent a lot of letters regarding it (and I got the same form letter back when I received acknowledgement at all).  So, I can't really say I'm a WotC customer.  I WAS, but that was some time ago.  I kind of think it's too bad, because I'm the 'decider' for our group.  If I go 4th ed, we go 4th ed.  Since I'm going Pathfinder, we're going Pathfinder.



			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy.  Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?




No, but your choice seems to be another poor one.  If you want people to support 4th edition, it seems you would want to make the choice to support 4th edition as enticing as possible.  As 'Orcus' says, there aren't a lot of companies that could have supported both.  Now many of those companies may support 3.5 instead, because 4th edition doesn't seem like a 'good option'.  If nothing else, it takes a lot of faith to commit to a game that hasn't proved its success yet.  



			
				LurkingLidda said:
			
		

> Heh. You got us on that one.  We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.
> 
> We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters.
> 
> We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.




I think it is too bad that there are obviously a lot of people at WotC who I agree with, but they were 'overruled'.  Perhaps they really were convinced that this was for the best.  Honestly, I don't really care what you as a company do with 4th edition.  As I was saying above, you've done enough to lose me without regard to the new rule set (Dragon and Dungeon were huge, but there's more).  I remain skeptical that a failure of 4th edition isn't in everybody (other than WotC and Hasbro's) best interest.  But I do think that if 4th edition were truly open and companies like Paizo had been included completely and fully, I might have considered switching to 4th edition 3 years from now, or so.  Now, that's an option that I don't have to consider, and I fully expect that there will be more 3.5 material released in 2011 than there was in 2008.  I think I'm looking at a good time for myself as a gamer.  

I don't mean to be hurling any personal insults, but the thing that still surprises me is how a company that has done so much good for gaming and garnered so much good will could throw it away so quickly?  The reason I haven't purchased anything from WotC in the last year is the 'my way or the highway approach' that I see you taking.  I just submitted orders totalling over $900 for gaming materials TODAY.  I have another order for $100+ at Paizo waiting to submit until they allow me to combine orders with my subscriptions.  The $800+ includes the World's Largest Dungeon, every Sword & Sorcery Module my local Game Store never seemed to have (there were a lot, apparently), a couple books I had missed from the Freeport series, a couple of other Green Ronin books, and some Historical books by Avalanche Press (I've enjoyed them so far).  The thing is, I used to spend 20x+ what I spent on 3rd party publishers on WotC products.  

I guess you might say that I'm exactly the kind of customer that Open Gaming was for.  I bought a lot of WotC stuff, and I did so in large part because of the support of other companies.  Without Dragon and Dungeon by Paizo, and some of the earlier Sword & Sorcery titles, I wouldn't have switched to 3.5.  I was impressed that the production values increased from 3.0 to 3.5, but it wasn't enough to encourage me to switch by itself.

What surprises me most, though, is that I still feel upset about all of this.  Sure, supporting WotC remains a choice I COULD make, but I feel that the choice is not in my best interest as a consumer.  So, whether 4th edition is a success or a flop for you, I hope that you as a company realize that there are still gamers out there that COULD be won back, but it's going to take a major change in the perception of how you as a company engage your COMMUNITY at large, including other publishers and your customer base.


----------



## mxyzplk

Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree it should be corrected. I was the source of the comment, and I am 100% certain that is what I was told. There is no doubt about it. But we have not gotten an official statement about it. And, as with many things regarding the GSL, it appears to be in flux. As I have said, I hope that my question was either misunderstood or their answer was misunderstood by me.
> 
> In any event, this is hardly the thing that should get slashdotted as an actual fact. It is still pending resolution in my mind. I call on mxyzplk to make an appropriate retraction or notation.
> 
> Clark




So technically I'm banned from the thread but there's no other good way to reply to this and it's kinda important to, so here goes.  

I only found out I got slashdotted an hour ago myself, so I'm just getting on top of this (day job, you know.)  Sure, if we learn more/different from WotC in this upcoming interview or later, I will immediately update my blog and alter/retract any necessary statements, make a new post, whatever.  I'm not interested in slandering WotC, I'm interested in the truth getting out, and that truth ideally being that WotC's being nice.  I'd much rather have only happy things to report.

Now I bow out of the thread again, hope that wasn't seen as naughty, ENWorld admins.


----------



## Scipio202

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> So technically I'm banned from the thread but there's no other good way to reply to this and it's kinda important to, so here goes.
> 
> I only found out I got slashdotted an hour ago myself, so I'm just getting on top of this (day job, you know.)  Sure, if we learn more/different from WotC in this upcoming interview or later, I will immediately update my blog and alter/retract any necessary statements, make a new post, whatever.  I'm not interested in slandering WotC, I'm interested in the truth getting out, and that truth ideally being that WotC's being nice.  I'd much rather have only happy things to report.
> 
> Now I bow out of the thread again, hope that wasn't seen as naughty, ENWorld admins.




Well, this seems to suggest that mxyzplk submitted his blog post to slashdot, which eventually made it a FPP.  So it's not like somebody just stumbled across his blog.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Nah, I say lets blame Orcus!!!!




I know I personally blame him for gas prices. i mean his a lawyer, just about everything is his fault.


----------



## rogueattorney

Mourn said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of trademark agreement violations in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a violation of trademark rights, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.




Unless there's something out there that I don't know about, this: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

is the only published decision to come out of the litigation between TSR and Mayfair.  In that decision, the court made no conclusions on whether Mayfair violated TSR's trademark.  It did however find that Mayfair violated a contract with TSR governing Mayfair's use of TSR's trademark.  Not the same thing.

If there's more information out there on the litigation between the parties, I'd love to see it.


----------



## deadDMwalking

The thing I forgot to say and I really should have:

If WotC is so confident in their 4th edition product, why not make it so anyone can support both?  If 4th edition is so clearly superior, shouldn't it 'win out' in any sort of 'competition'.  I gess that I'm bothered that although you guys say you're confident in it, this particular decision (assuming that it really is true) seems to be saying the opposite.  It seems to say that 3.5 is alive and well, and doing well enough that it can kill 4th edition if there's any support for it.  

I guess that strikes me as funny because the game 'can't stand under it's own weight'.


----------



## Piratecat

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> So technically I'm banned from the thread but there's no other good way to reply to this and it's kinda important to, so here goes.  Sure, if we learn more/different from WotC in this upcoming interview or later, I will immediately update my blog and alter/retract any necessary statements, make a new post, whatever.



Thanks, Mxyzplk. No worries about the exception, in this case; I appreciate you jumping in to clarify that.


----------



## Orcus

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> So technically I'm banned from the thread but there's no other good way to reply to this and it's kinda important to, so here goes.
> 
> I only found out I got slashdotted an hour ago myself, so I'm just getting on top of this (day job, you know.)  Sure, if we learn more/different from WotC in this upcoming interview or later, I will immediately update my blog and alter/retract any necessary statements, make a new post, whatever.  I'm not interested in slandering WotC, I'm interested in the truth getting out, and that truth ideally being that WotC's being nice.  I'd much rather have only happy things to report.
> 
> Now I bow out of the thread again, hope that wasn't seen as naughty, ENWorld admins.




Its all good as far as I'm concerned. If I didnt want people to talk, I shouldnt have said anything. I can hardly be mad at someone for making a story out of something I started. Sorry if I was grouchy.


----------



## Oldtimer

Mourn said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of *trademark agreement violations* in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a *violation of trademark rights*, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.



The two bolded parts are not even remotely the same thing. Mayfair Games entered into an agreement with TSR in 1984 and where found to be in violation of that agreement with some of their products. Not in violation of any trademark rights per se.

I'm no expert in US Trademark Law, but in Europe you can certainly indicate compatibility with a trademarked product. What you can't do is use that trademark in a way that leads the consumer into believing that your product is made by the trademark holder. But indications of compatibility are allowed and even expected. E.g. mufflers for Volvo cars, replacement bags for Siemens vacuum cleaners, etc.

I see no reason why companies couldn't publish 4e material without touching the poisoned GSL. Again, maybe US Law is very different, but European companies are rather reluctant to start frivolous lawsuits. The courts here don't, in my experience, like that too much.


----------



## Roland55

Orcus said:
			
		

> I cant seem to win for losing these last couple days. And here we were Thursday and I was on top of the world that there was going to be a GSL.




Brother, do NOT give up this feeling.

The jury is still out on this, despite what you were told.

It doesn't have to be doom and gloom ... the GSL text hasn't been released yet.

Keep the faith.


----------



## Orcus

Thanks for those words. I will keep the faith. 

And, I should mention that my horoscope predicts everything will be fine, so that pretty much is that, right? I mean, they couldnt print it if it wasnt true, could they?



> Things might feel a bit dramatic right now, but give them time. Soon enough you will see a way out of it. There's a good way to get through whatever issues you and your circle are facing. You panicking will only get everyone else stirred up, which in turn will only exponentially increase the stress level. Relax. Have faith that things will work out -- because they will.




Seriously, that was on my Yahoo page  Its like they can read my mind!

Clark


----------



## DaveMage

If you read it on the internet - it must be true.


----------



## Nikosandros

Orcus said:
			
		

> Seriously, that was on my Yahoo page  Its like they can read my mind!



Wow... that's actually uncanny....


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES

Orcus said:
			
		

> Seriously, that was on my Yahoo page  Its like they can read my mind!
> 
> Clark




I'm chucking out my Ouija board and listening to Yahoo from now on.


----------



## Urizen

Too bad yahoo's oracles couldn't have seen the MIcrosoft buyout coming...

It IS odd though. I've had some eerie horoscopes from yahoo.com too.


----------



## phloog

I guess I have a hard time 'blaming' the slashdot poster, Clark, or anyone other than WOTC.

All kinds of credit for them for TRYING to resolve the problem, if they are indeed making an honest effort....but the real fault for this state where rumors run rampant rests entirely with Wizards.

They have yet to reveal the details of the GSL, even apparently to companies that at one time paid for the info.  When something doesn't show up when promised, of course people are going to wonder why...and when Wizards (via its agents, however noble the individuals) tells someone that they've introduced this company-level policy, it's neither Clark's fault for asking about it here, nor anyone else's fault for asking for more or posting the info to another location...though there should have been more disclaiming, I guess.

Also, I'd be interested in Clark or another attorney's opinion about this: True, Wizards has been pretty cool about personal/individual web sites with content...but when they introduce the GSL, won't they be in some way required to be more harsh about protection?   I've always heard that in cases like this, if it can be shown that a company did not fiercely defend their IP (through C&Ds, lawsuit, etc.) then they could lose rights to defend in the future....so I guess I'm thinking that while they're pretty passive now, depending on what the GSL says they might crack down.


----------



## Fifth Element

phloog said:
			
		

> They have yet to reveal the details of the GSL, even apparently to companies that at one time paid for the info.



Sigh. *No one* paid for the info. In the original scenario, they could have paid the $5k *after* having read the GSL. Since no one has seen the GSL, no one paid the $5k. And now that portion of the GSL rollout has been cancelled entirely.


----------



## InkwellIdeas

I just want to be clear that I'm not pushing anything not on the up-and-up with WotC and 4e.

WotC deserves 4e to sell based on its merits as a game system and/or marketing.  But other publishers don't have to see the GSL as the only way to make material that is compatible with 4e.  Yes, the "Posh's Hideous Laughter" 4e spell may have to be generically named Hideous Laughter and the "Strongarm of Driskol" feat may have to be called simply Strongarm, but it may be possible to do it while following the law.  Check with a lawyer first, of course.  Obviously WotC has borrowed and is borrowing ideas from other sources as well.


----------



## Klaus

Orcus said:
			
		

> Thanks for those words. I will keep the faith.
> 
> And, I should mention that my horoscope predicts everything will be fine, so that pretty much is that, right? I mean, they couldnt print it if it wasnt true, could they?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that was on my Yahoo page  Its like they can read my mind!
> 
> Clark



 Don't stop
Believing!
Hold on to the feeeeeling!


----------



## cnath.rm

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Nah, I say lets blame Orcus!!!!



Ummm, no.  I owe the demon lords far too much to risk angering them with undeserved blame.   

So are we to guess that the interview that you were soliciting questions for is a replacement for the announcement that we were expecting today? Or am I just not looking in the right place?


----------



## Piratecat

Nope, I think that's accurate. I'm guessing 2-4 days until we get the interview questions back. We asked quite a few, but I'd say they were all good ones. The problem is that Scott is traveling right now, and he needs to take a look at them as well.


----------



## Arrond Hess

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Nope, I think that's accurate. I'm guessing 2-4 days until we get the interview questions back. We asked quite a few, but I'd say they were all good ones. The problem is that Scott is traveling right now, and he needs to take a look at them as well.



So, their saying they would have some info today was false... yet again.
Niiice...

Edit to add quote...


			
				Scott Rouse said:
			
		

> I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point.
> 
> I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.


----------



## Alzrius

phloog said:
			
		

> Also, I'd be interested in Clark or another attorney's opinion about this: True, Wizards has been pretty cool about personal/individual web sites with content...but when they introduce the GSL, won't they be in some way required to be more harsh about protection?   I've always heard that in cases like this, if it can be shown that a company did not fiercely defend their IP (through C&Ds, lawsuit, etc.) then they could lose rights to defend in the future....so I guess I'm thinking that while they're pretty passive now, depending on what the GSL says they might crack down.




I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is only true regarding trademarks, which is something else altogether from the situation with D&D and the GSL.


----------



## Rookseye

Wow, just when this whole GSL thing couldn't get any more bizarre, it has. 

Check out the link below, apparently Jack Chick has finally decided to weigh-in on 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/4DnD/0082.asp 











[sblock] That was your moment of levity for the day. Enjoy.[/sblock]


----------



## Thulcondar

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Nope, I think that's accurate. I'm guessing 2-4 days until we get the interview questions back. We asked quite a few, but I'd say they were all good ones. The problem is that Scott is traveling right now, and he needs to take a look at them as well.




Wasn't the whole point of this exercise to quell the out-of-control rumors? 

Now they're going to have a total of nearly a week of speculation and Slashdot articles. They had better pray Fark doesn't pick it up before their deign to clarify what's going on...

Gotta say this is very poor customer relations/damage control/whathaveyou on their part. They should've had a war room going all weekend long the instant they knew this was bubbling up, carefully crafting a statement to answer all the questions that have been coming up here and elsewhere about this issue. 

Now it gives the perception that they're stalling, and that inevitably leads to the question, "why stall if you have nothing to hide?"

I want to think the best of WotC in this, but they're not making it easy.

Joe


----------



## Lizard

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> Now it gives the perception that they're stalling, and that inevitably leads to the question, "why stall if you have nothing to hide?"




Because you're frantically editing and try to get quick corporate approval?

Somewhere way, way, way up in the Hasbro hierarchy, where the air is thin and thus lack of oxygen has damaged brain cells, someone is scratching their pointy hair and saying, "Wait, what, why wouldn't companies instantly drop their entire product line if we gave them the chance to make D&D products? What's up with that?"


----------



## Goobermunch

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> So, their saying they would have some info today was false... yet again.
> Niiice...
> 
> Edit to add quote...




Nothing false in Scott's statement.  He's been following the discussion (evidenced by his posts in this thread).  He _hopes_ to add clarity.  Not "will definitely make a post on Monday enlightening everyone about the details of the GSL."

Frankly, under the circumstances, requesting input from the community about its questions may result in a more helpful response from Le Rouse.

Also, accusations of lying are kinda rude.

--G


----------



## Arrond Hess

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> Now it gives the perception that they're stalling, and that inevitably leads to the question, "why stall if you have nothing to hide?"



 To me, it is just showing, just as in October, January and March with the GSL announcements, they still have yet to finish it.


----------



## Arrond Hess

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Nothing false in Scott's statement.  He's been following the discussion (evidenced by his posts in this thread).  He _hopes_ to add clarity.  Not "will definitely make a post on Monday enlightening everyone about the details of the GSL."
> 
> Frankly, under the circumstances, requesting input from the community about its questions may result in a more helpful response from Le Rouse.
> 
> Also, accusations of lying are kinda rude.
> 
> --G



And yet, which I was guilty of in adding my questions to, if he was really reading and following the thread, why ask us for our questions? We already have them listed here in the thread.


----------



## SSquirrel

This way he can make sure to get all the questions in a good clean copy.  It's far better of us to give him a series of questions carefully spelled out than refer to specific post #s on a thread


----------



## Piratecat

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> Now it gives the perception that they're stalling, and that inevitably leads to the question, "why stall if you have nothing to hide?"



This time, at least, I can answer the question. It's because:

1. Technically we asked 18 questions. But a bunch of those had sub-questions, and some of them weren't easy to answer. 

2. Linae Foster is in Seattle right now, but Scott Rouse is at GAMA in Vegas. Until yesterday, both of them were in New York at another trade event. And anything they answer has to be passed through WotC's various departments to make sure everyone is on the same page. We have a logistical challenge to deal with.

They know people are worried and upset, and everyone I've spoken to cares about this deeply. I'm suspecting that there's a Hasbro bureaucracy problem regarding information communication, but I can't confirm that for sure; I do get the impression that it isn't Scott Rouse or Linae Foster who are being deliberately cagey. It's frustrating to me because no information is worse than either good or bad information.

The good news is that our questions were designed for clarity. I have no idea if we're going to like the answers or not, but I believe that we _will_ get answers to many or all of them.


----------



## Ourph

Thulcondar said:
			
		

> Now it gives the perception that they're stalling, and that inevitably leads to the question, "why stall if you have nothing to hide?"



As we saw two weeks ago, the answer very well could be, "We're stalling because right now the answer is bad news, but if you give us a few days, we hope to turn that around so we can give you better news instead.".  Maybe Scott read the concerns people had about the poison pill clause, told the right people, convinced them to consider some changes and now he's waiting to hear what the final verdict is.


----------



## cnath.rm

Piratecat said:
			
		

> This time, at least, I can answer the question. It's because:
> 
> 1. Technically we asked 18 questions. But a bunch of those had sub-questions, and some of them weren't easy to answer.
> 
> **snip**
> 
> The good news is that our questions were designed for clarity. I have no idea if we're going to like the answers or not, but I believe that we _will_ get answers to many or all of them.



Cutting that thread down to 18 questions with sub questions is pretty good, and making them clear will help a lot. Looking forward to hearing responses.


----------



## Orcus

Klaus said:
			
		

> Don't stop
> Believing!
> Hold on to the feeeeeling!




I was just playing that song on my new bass last night, funny enough. I was waxing nostalgic.


----------



## coyote6

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 2. Linae Foster is in Seattle right now, but Scott Rouse is at GAMA in Ohio.




He's going to be lonely . . . everybody else is in Las Vegas.


----------



## SSquirrel

Orcus said:
			
		

> I was just playing that song on my new bass last night, funny enough. I was waxing nostalgic.




Since this thread is kind of in a holding pattern, may as well tell us what kinda bass ya got recently.  Some of us are music geeks too


----------



## Orcus

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Since this thread is kind of in a holding pattern, may as well tell us what kinda bass ya got recently.  Some of us are music geeks too




Just a cheapie Ibanez 5 string. I've got my eye on a Stingray though....


----------



## God

Rookseye said:
			
		

> Wow, just when this whole GSL thing couldn't get any more bizarre, it has.
> 
> Check out the link below, apparently Jack Chick has finally decided to weigh-in on 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons:
> 
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/4DnD/0082.asp



First, Rook-roll is a bastard.

Second, part of me (which ignores the other part telling me not to ascribe to conspiracy what is more simply explained by incompetence) thinks this whole thing is a move by Rouse and others in WotC to talk the Hasbro suits into a more lenient GSL. Seriously ... privileged (very bad) news is leaked to Clark ... who shares it with us ... riots on the Internets ensue ... and all the sudden Scott and Co. have something to back up their claims that some of the additional restrictions could kill the GSL.

Mostly, that's just me trying to reconcile my generally good feelings for Scott with the altogether hideous GSL. I do, however, think it's disingenuous for him to say that the GSL is not a "scorched earth" policy when it clearly is. It's like saying "We're not burning the field because we hate grass. We're burning it because we want everyone to come over to this other field, and never use this one again." Whatever the motivation, they're still trying to kill the OGL -- or rather, doing everything they can to ensure 3PPs leave the OGL to die.

(Disclaimer: Although initially excited about 4E, I was turned off months ago. God's going Pathfinder).

Now, I do have a question for Clark. In what's looking like the best-case-scenario at this point (3PPs can continue selling old .pdf's, but the OGL and GSL remain mutually-exclusive), is there any way for you to publish your Advanced Player's Guide (which is reportedly already written and paid for)? If the OGL and GSL cannot be mixed, how can you convert over the 3E races, classes and monsters that were left behind in the move to 4E?


----------



## Orcus

God said:
			
		

> Now, I do have a question for Clark. In what's looking like the best-case-scenario at this point (3PPs can continue selling old .pdf's, but the OGL and GSL remain mutually-exclusive), is there any way for you to publish your Advanced Player's Guide (which is reportedly already written and paid for)? If the OGL and GSL cannot be mixed, how can you convert over the 3E races, classes and monsters that were left behind in the move to 4E?




It doesnt take the OGL to create druids, bards, monks, barbarians, gnomes and half-orcs.

So, short answer, I anticipate having NO PROBLEM with the Advanced Players Guide.


----------



## SSquirrel

Orcus said:
			
		

> Just a cheapie Ibanez 5 string. I've got my eye on a Stingray though....




Stingrays are very nice.  I was buying my first bass last year and really dug the look of the Fender Jaguar bass (would go w/my Jazzmaster guitar nicely) but a trip left us broker than expected, so I bought the Squire 70s Modified Vintage Jazz Bass.  Definitely doesn't play like a $280 bass


----------



## GMSkarka

Nice.  Told (via the previously-quoted forum post, and even more directly via email) to expect communication on Monday.   But no, yet again.

I guess we should all be in the habit by now of multiplying all GSL-related WotC time estimates by a factor of 4.


I mean, sure -- why would they want to have a clearly-spelled out Q&A on the subject prepared and ready to go during the week when almost every major publisher will be able to meet with them face-to-face in Vegas?    Why, that's crazy-talk!


...and I'm sorry -- the fact that folks are in separate locations doesn't wash as an excuse for delays.    If my small company can manage 4-6 person Skype conferences with participants spread across the US and Europe, surely WotC can cope.

The level of corporate incompetence here has grown beyond merely 'unbelievable', and into the realm of 'staggering.'

My sympathy for Scott and Linae is immense, and I'm nearly positive this is Dilbert-esque corporate idiocy imposed upon them -- which they're being forced to bear the brunt of --- but come ON.  Is there any part of the announcement, implementation, roll-out and PR surrounding this issue that WotC *hasn't* screwed up?


----------



## Mouseferatu

God said:
			
		

> is there any way for you to publish your Advanced Player's Guide (which is reportedly already written *and paid for*)?




Let's not jump to conclusions...


----------



## WinningerR

Mourn said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to point out is that Mayfair Games was found guilty of trademark agreement violations in some of their "AD&D compatible" products, but not all. So, there is precedent for non-licensed "support" products being a violation of trademark rights, which would potentially work against anyone trying something like that today.




Not true.

Mayfair published a series of unlicensed AD&D adventures. TSR sued.

As the case neared trial, TSR's lawyers decided that they were unlikely to win. As long as you observe a few reasonable restrictions, there's nothing in the law to stop you from producing supplements compatible with somebody else's game system. In fact, you can even use the system's trademark to indicate compatibility--"suitable for use with Dungeons & Dragons"--so long as there is no chance that a reasonable consumer would mistake your product for an official D&D product. (This is known as "fair use." It's why companies like Belkin can label some of their products as "suitable for use with iPod," for instance.) Convincing the court that the Mayfair products were likely to be mistaken as official TSR releases wasn't going to be easy.

Once TSR's lawyers decided that they were unlikely to win they offered Mayfair a settlement before the lawsuit went to trial--TSR agreed to grant Mayfair a perepetual royalty free license to produce AD&D material. TSR offered the settlement to avoid expensive litigation, to remove the risk that they might go to trial and lose (thus establishing a precedent and clearly signalling to every other publisher in the industry that they could all produce AD&D-compatible products), and to exercise at least some control over what Mayfair was doing (the license included some additional restrictions on Mayfair's product line). Mayfair accepted the settlement to avoid costly litigation and to secure a somewhat unique position in the industry. (They alone would possess a license to produce AD&D material; others would have to brave legal uncertainty and stand up to TSR's lawyers to produce their own AD&D-compatible product.)

Mayfair merrily operated under this license for several years.

Eventually, TSR filed another lawsuit alleging that some of Mayfair's products were not honoring the terms of the license. Before this second case was resolved, Mayfair decided to exit the RPG business altogether. TSR and Mayfair settled the suit by agreeing that TSR would purchase all rights to Mayfair's AD&D product line (effectively buying back the AD&D license as well). In fact, a couple of AD&D manuscripts that I commissioned for Mayfair (Chronomancer and Shaman) were later published by TSR.

Thus, Mayfair was never found "guilty" of anything--there was never even a trial.


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is only true regarding trademarks, which is something else altogether from the situation with D&D and the GSL.




It's only true regarding commercial use of trade marks.  Even then it doesn't apply when the use is descriptive, to indicate compatibility - "compatible with the dungeons & dragons (R) game published by WotC" doesn't threaten WoTC's mark, quite the reverse.  

The kind of case where it does apply is a vacuum cleaner manufacturer calling their product 'hoovers'; Hoover needs to stop that or the term hoover becomes generic and loses TM protection.


----------



## Disenchanter

Orcus said:
			
		

> It doesnt take the OGL to create druids, bards, monks, barbarians, gnomes and half-orcs.
> 
> So, short answer, I anticipate having NO PROBLEM with the Advanced Players Guide.





I don't remember exactly where I read it, so please don't make me look it up...

But wasn't one of the restrictions of the GSL something of a "don't step on WotC's planned content?"

Yes, I am well aware that my wording isn't the greatest...  But I wasn't paying much attention to that part of the announcement/discussion.  But it involved something of a "publishers can't print material we have planned."


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Hey, 

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

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

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

Hang in there!


----------



## Zaister

Orcus said:
			
		

> It doesnt take the OGL to create druids, bards, monks, barbarians, gnomes and half-orcs.




Somehow I have difficulties believing that the GSL will actually let you do that, i.e. specifically pre-empting Wizards' own upcoming products.


----------



## S'mon

WinningerR said:
			
		

> Thus, Mayfair was never found "guilty" of anything--there was never even a trial.




Hmm, I could have sworn I read a judgement (preliminary finding?) that Mayfair were liable for breach of contract re the TM license.  It looked like Mayfair got screwed over badly by the earlier settlement, which put TSR in a much stronger position than they would have been in without any license.

Which may be relevant to the GSL.


----------



## Ranger REG

WinningerR said:
			
		

> Eventually, TSR filed another lawsuit alleging that some of Mayfair's products were not honoring the terms of the license. Before this second case was resolved, Mayfair decided to exit the RPG business altogether. TSR and Mayfair settled the suit by agreeing that TSR would purchase all rights to Mayfair's AD&D product line (effectively buying back the AD&D license as well). In fact, a couple of AD&D manuscripts that I commissioned for Mayfair (Chronomancer and Shaman) were later published by TSR.
> 
> Thus, Mayfair was never found "guilty" of anything--there was never even a trial.



That's too bad. I really like their _Role Aid_ products.


----------



## Ydars

Thanks for posting Scott; It is great to hear you are on the case with the GSL issue.

I am sorry we are causing you SO much trouble, but at least we are interested in what WoTC are doing! I bet sometimes you could do without our "interest" though.


----------



## Mondbuchstaben

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> If programmers or OGL game offers really dont' want their work to be open source, they need to not use an open license.  Utilizing an open license says you don't care if others make use of your hard work.
> 
> I do think that repackaging the entire SRD for pocket PHBs and nothing new was taking advantage of the license tho.  It's perfectly valid by the license, but IMO pretty lame.



But that was something the originators of the OGL were very aware of.

There was a retailer seminar at Gen Con (either in 1999 after the 3e announcement or in 2000 when 3e appeared) where Ryan Dancey explained the implications of open gaming to store owners. He was asked that very question by one of the attendees.
"Don't you fear that someone just makes his own PHB"?
And the anwer was (and I am paraphasing as I don't remember the exact wording), "Let them do that. We will always beat them in terms of printing quality, artwork, design, and price." (The PHB was 19.95 $ back then...)

Nevertheless, I was awaiting something along the lines of the Mongoose Pocket PHB _much sooner_ than it appeared! I still can't believe how long it took.


----------



## jmucchiello

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Stingrays are very nice.  I was buying my first bass last year and really dug the look of the Fender Jaguar bass (would go w/my Jazzmaster guitar nicely) but a trip left us broker than expected, so I bought the Squire 70s Modified Vintage Jazz Bass.  Definitely doesn't play like a $280 bass



I have a red Fender Jazz 5-string bass. I'm a guitarist but playing that bass is so much fun, as long as the low B is in tune. Man, I gotta go play that thing.

On topic, thanks for the update, Scott.


----------



## WinningerR

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hmm, I could have sworn I read a judgement (preliminary finding?) that Mayfair were liable for breach of contract re the TM license.  It looked like Mayfair got screwed over badly by the earlier settlement, which put TSR in a much stronger position than they would have been in without any license.
> 
> Which may be relevant to the GSL.




The document that most people are familiar with (someone linked to it upthread) is a judge's ruling on various pre-trial motions in the second lawsuit. It was basically a mixed bag with a couple of rulings in favor of TSR and a couple of rulings in favor of Mayfair. In essence, the judge found that Mayfair did technically violate the earlier licensing agreement with TSR in a couple of instances but that these breeches were too minor to render the earlier agreement null and void (which TSR asked for). The critical question of whether or not TSR actually suffered any damages from the minor contract violations was left for trial, though the judge himself expressed doubts in his ruling.

This second case wasn't about whether or not Mayfair violated TSR's trademark rights (as the initial poster suggested). It was about whether or not Mayfair materially violated its licensing agreement with TSR.


----------



## Mark Hope

29 pages and at last something worthy of comment comes up.

_>points with beaming smile at Kubicki Factor bass in avatar<_

That's my baby right there.  Fender Jazz basses are sweeet, though.  And I've heard nothing but good things about Stingrays.

Anybody wanna buy a fretless Rickenbacker?  Great bass but not getting the use out of it that I wanted and I could put the cash towards a fretless Kubicki instead 

Er, in a vain attempt to remain on-topic...

....umm....

Nope.  Sorry.  I got nothing...


----------



## S'mon

WinningerR said:
			
		

> The document that most people are familiar with (someone linked to it upthread) is a judge's ruling on various pre-trial motions in the second lawsuit. It was basically a mixed bag with a couple of rulings in favor of TSR and a couple of rulings in favor of Mayfair. In essence, the judge found that Mayfair did technically violate the earlier licensing agreement with TSR in a couple of instances but that these breeches were too minor to render the earlier agreement null and void (which TSR asked for). The critical question of whether or not TSR actually suffered any damages from the minor contract violations was left for trial, though the judge himself expressed doubts in his ruling.
> 
> This second case wasn't about whether or not Mayfair violated TSR's trademark rights (as the initial poster suggested). It was about whether or not Mayfair materially violated its licensing agreement with TSR.




Thanks.  It's funny how Chinese whispers can turn that into "Mayfair was found guilty of copyright infringement".


----------



## DaveMage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Let's not jump to conclusions...




I imagine it would be difficult to pay you for something he's not allowed to see.


----------



## Flynn

A question for the moderators: Is this thread large enough that it is in danger of being locked down and another opened to carry on the discussions here? Seems I remember something of that nature becoming a policy a few weeks ago, and figured I should check before the big news comes down in the next day or three.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I imagine it would be difficult to pay you for something he's not allowed to see.




I've paid for things I wasn't allowed to _touch_...


----------



## Goobermunch

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Nice.  Told (via the previously-quoted forum post, and even more directly via email) to expect communication on Monday.   But no, yet again.
> 
> I guess we should all be in the habit by now of multiplying all GSL-related WotC time estimates by a factor of 4.
> 
> 
> I mean, sure -- why would they want to have a clearly-spelled out Q&A on the subject prepared and ready to go during the week when almost every major publisher will be able to meet with them face-to-face in Vegas?    Why, that's crazy-talk!
> 
> 
> ...and I'm sorry -- the fact that folks are in separate locations doesn't wash as an excuse for delays.    If my small company can manage 4-6 person Skype conferences with participants spread across the US and Europe, surely WotC can cope.
> 
> The level of corporate incompetence here has grown beyond merely 'unbelievable', and into the realm of 'staggering.'
> 
> My sympathy for Scott and Linae is immense, and I'm nearly positive this is Dilbert-esque corporate idiocy imposed upon them -- which they're being forced to bear the brunt of --- but come ON.  Is there any part of the announcement, implementation, roll-out and PR surrounding this issue that WotC *hasn't* screwed up?




It's not the fact that people are in different locations, it's the fact that those people are all involved working on projects that have to be completed at those locations.

My boss and I were in different locations all day on Friday.  He was driving from Nebraska to Sioux Falls, SD.  I was in Denver.  Sure, we could have had a telephone conference about the projects I'm working on.  The only problem is that I was in a meeting with a Ph.D, a P.E., and a fencing contractor trying to explain why tension wires are a necessary part of fence construction.

It would have been rude to ignore them to talk to him.

As Scott mentions three posts down from yours.

--G


----------



## Goobermunch

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I've paid for things I wasn't allowed to _touch_...




Did you have to sit on your hands?

--G


----------



## Zaister

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I've paid for things I wasn't allowed to _touch_...



Does your wife know about that?


----------



## Delta

Flynn said:
			
		

> A question for the moderators: Is this thread large enough that it is in danger of being locked down and another opened to carry on the discussions here?




You may be right. The limit mentioned was 1,000 posts.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=219220


----------



## Piratecat

Yup. We'll plan to lock this and start a new one once it approaches 1000 posts -- or before the interview is posted.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Did you have to sit on your hands?




Nah. I'm not extraordinarily creepy, so it's never been very strictly enforced.



			
				Zaister said:
			
		

> Does your wife know about that?




Everything my wife knows about that sort of thing she learned from network TV. Ignorance is bliss, I think.


----------



## GMSkarka

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> It's not the fact that people are in different locations, it's the fact that those people are all involved working on projects that have to be completed at those locations.




Fine.    

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to try to figure out why, then, WotC chose NOT to send the Licensing Manager for the biggest issue surrounding the industry to the ONLY trade show for that industry --- a show where the majority of publishers are in attendance, and where major retailers and distributors are waiting for clear answers on what those publishers will be releasing.

I'm not at the trade show this year, mostly because my company has been in a holding pattern since the conference call in January, and I couldn't justify the expense of exhibiting without a clear release plan to talk to distributors about.   But the reports that I'm hearing from people in Vegas is that everybody is asking what the next 6-9 months are going to look like -- and because this issue wasn't resolved in time, nobody knows.


----------



## Orcus

Rookseye said:
			
		

> Wow, just when this whole GSL thing couldn't get any more bizarre, it has.
> 
> Check out the link below, apparently Jack Chick has finally decided to weigh-in on 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons:
> 
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/4DnD/0082.asp




Oh!!!!!

A Rick Roll! Very nicely done.


----------



## boerngrim

Rookseye said:
			
		

> Wow, just when this whole GSL thing couldn't get any more bizarre, it has.
> 
> Check out the link below, apparently Jack Chick has finally decided to weigh-in on 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons:
> 
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/4DnD/0082.asp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [sblock] That was your moment of levity for the day. Enjoy.[/sblock]




DOH! You got me!


----------



## Orcus

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Hey,
> 
> Just want to let you know I have not forgotten about this. It's almost midnight here at GAMA and I just got back from eating diner.
> 
> Today was a little nuts. Got up at 6am, drove to SeaTac airport for a 9am flight to Vegas. Talked to a couple people at the office about the GSL before the flight, worked on my 4e presentation on the plane. Landed at 11:30, cabs line at the airport and check-in lines at the hotel (no your room is not ready yet) and it is now 12:30. Grab lunch and then head up to the Skyview room to set up the WotC meet and greet. Meet and greet with retailers from 3-5:30. Talk with Linae around 5:30 about the GSL then break down the room. 6pm down to the lobby, got my room! Up to my room, track down Jesse Decker to get my bag from his room. 6:30 have my bags and my room, call the family and say goodnight to the kids. Change into jeans and a clean shirt, in the lobby at 7:30 o go to dinner. 12 am back at the room holy crap where did my day go?
> 
> Needless to say my day was busy, I don't have anything new to add. Aside from being here (and 8 hours of meetings tomorrow) this is my number 1 priority.  As soon as I have something I'll let you know.
> 
> Hang in there!




Scott,

Thanks for considering all of this. I know you will get to it as soon as you can. 

Have fun at GAMA. I miss it. I havent been in a while. It is such a cool show and it is so much easier to navigate than GenCon. It lacks the surging insanity of GenCon, which is both a plus and a minus. I still remember the first "d20 GAMA" when the d20 publishers came on the scene. Hyrum Savage and I got together for beers. A little shout out to Hyrum. 

Oh, and if you run into trouble in Vegas, give me a call. I know people.  

Clark


----------



## Greg K

Wow, Ray Winninger is now posting.  There is a name I haven't seen online in ages (since the old DC Hero mailing list to be exact! Or, I maybe, did at RPG.net. Regardless, it's been a while).

Hi Ray.  Nice to have you on board!



			
				WinningerR said:
			
		

> The document that most people are familiar with (someone linked to it upthread) is a judge's ruling on various pre-trial motions in the second lawsuit. It was basically a mixed bag with a couple of rulings in favor of TSR and a couple of rulings in favor of Mayfair. In essence, the judge found that Mayfair did technically violate the earlier licensing agreement with TSR in a couple of instances but that these breeches were too minor to render the earlier agreement null and void (which TSR asked for). The critical question of whether or not TSR actually suffered any damages from the minor contract violations was left for trial, though the judge himself expressed doubts in his ruling.
> 
> This second case wasn't about whether or not Mayfair violated TSR's trademark rights (as the initial poster suggested). It was about whether or not Mayfair materially violated its licensing agreement with TSR.


----------



## Ghostwind

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh, and if you run into trouble in Vegas, give me a call. I know people.
> 
> Clark





Boy, does he know people...


----------



## Klaus

Orcus said:
			
		

> I was just playing that song on my new bass last night, funny enough. I was waxing nostalgic.



 We have to jam someday. I call lead vocals. "Born to Run", maybe?


----------



## Failed Saving Throw

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how this is a "judo throw" to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG. We weren't planning on supporting 4th edition with Pathfinder anyway... the whole POINT of Pathfinder RPG is to give us something of our own to build on. It looks like that means we won't be able to support 4th Edition at all, which is very disappointing, but it's certainly not anything like a death blow to Paizo. We're doing quite well as it is right now without any 4th edition support.
> 
> I also disagree about the "somethign's gonna die" part of this statement. I'll be the first to point out that the tabletop RPG industry is really really small... but it's not THAT small. It's been going for decades, and there's been plenty of games that have survived for those decades. I strongly suspect that there's room in the industry for OGL products like Pathfinder and M&M and Spycraft and the rest AND for D&D. Will D&D make the most money? Sure, but it HAS to make more money. Wizards of the Coast is larger than the next largest RPG company by ten times at least; their overhead requires a huge success, and I think that they've got a great R&D team over there and that 4th edition will absolutely give them that success.
> 
> A smaller company like Paizo doesn't need to be #1 in the industry to survive. Pathfinder's doing VERY well for us right now, and I'm really excited to see what we've got coming up for the next few years. I'm pretty sure that Paizo will make it through with Pathfinder into the next decade, as long as we can keep up with the frantic pace we've set for ourselves.
> 
> I wish WotC the best of luck with 4th edition. I'll certainly be buying the game when it comes out to try it out. I'm also confident that Paizo'll be okay as well. The only part of this whole thing that really depresses and disappoints me is that a lot of our customers who were looking forward to Paizo 4th edition support are probably going to have to make some pretty tough decisions. I wish they didn't have to be put into that position.




James, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm bummed that, as things stand now, Paizo won't be able to put out any 4E material. I look forward to the full release of the Pathfinder rules, but I was really looking forward to seeing what the company would put out for 4E. It's a crappy turn of events.


----------



## Orcus

Failed Saving Throw said:
			
		

> James, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm bummed that, as things stand now, Paizo won't be able to put out any 4E material. I look forward to the full release of the Pathfinder rules, but I was really looking forward to seeing what the company would put out for 4E. It's a crappy turn of events.




FST (great name by the way)-

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but lets trust Scott and Linae. 

I said that for the GSL when everyone was saying there wouldnt be one and lo and behold there is a GSL. 

Now there is some confusion about the "poison pill" term of the GSL, and I admit I am a part of that confusion. But I still say lets trust Scott and Linae to get this resolved. 

Will it be resolved on our timetable? No. Will that be frustrating? Yes. But they have done so much and for so long. Again, I think they deserve our trust here. 

Clark


----------



## Rookseye

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh!!!!!
> 
> A Rick Roll! Very nicely done.




Thanks. I felt we needed a little tension breaker after 800+ posts or so.

Oh, Jack Chick also told me he was very upset that the succubus was mislabeled a devil in 4th edition...the ones that regularly visit him felt their demonic heritage had been slandered quite intentionally by WotC.

For Orcus: [sblock]Looks like I finally got you back for calling my magical earhorn 'lame' in the first round of RPG Superstar! In hindsight, it was. Oh well, I hope you judge next time around Clark (if only so I can redeem myself) you did a great job and we all learned a lot!  [/sblock]


----------



## Drow_Battlemind

The thing is, as manager of D&D for WotC, I feel sorry for Scott, because there is a veritable s**t-storm heading his way because of all this, and he's going to be the one to take the heat on this. Especially since I'm intuiting that many of the things that are outraging us in the community probably are not Scott's ideas, but most likely are things foisted upon him by Hasbro's legal department. And yet, he's the one and only visible target, so guess where the slings and arrows are going to be aimed?


----------



## Filcher

8:45 Vegas time. Saw The Rouse this afternoon and the dude looked haggard. No new GTS news on the GSL but it is all the d20 publishers are talking about. All the retailers are asking when the 1st 3rd party publishers will have 4E material for sale.


----------



## SSquirrel

Ya know Clark, I've been pushing for clear, concise answers this whole thread.  I'm totally happy to wait another couple of days if it means we get more clarity and less confusion.  Even if the worst case scenario happens, at least we will know w/no confusion.


----------



## Greylock

Filcher said:
			
		

> 8:45 Vegas time. Saw The Rouse this afternoon and the dude looked haggard. No new GTS news on the GSL but it is all the d20 publishers are talking about. All the retailers are asking when the 1st 3rd party publishers will have 4E material for sale.




Interesting. 4th Edition is not much of a thrill to my local shops.


----------



## Filcher

Greylock said:
			
		

> Interesting. 4th Edition is not much of a thrill to my local shops.




Not a thrill to the shop patrons, or the shop owners? (Yourself obviously.  ) I could be entirely mistaken, but GTS retailers seem excited for 4E. The Wizards 4E seminar was packed.


----------



## Dark Mistress

The local stores around me only seem to have a lukewarm response to 4e. Granted it is a chain and all owned by the same people. But I think they feel slightly burned at once being stuck with a back stock of 3.0 stuff that wouldn't sell and now they have a big back stock of 3.5 stuff that they just currently can't give away.

Of course they sell a lot of stuff other than just gaming stuff too.


----------



## Mondbuchstaben

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> But I think they feel slightly burned at once being stuck with a back stock of 3.0 stuff that wouldn't sell and now they have a big back stock of 3.5 stuff that they just currently can't give away.



This is a more difficult situation than with 3e. When 3e was announced, it was a year before the the first book would appear, so the stores were given time to adapt. Also, they were actively discouraged to stock too much 2e stuff in hopes for a collectors market. WotC emphasized this by physically destroying their stock of 2e after a certain cut-off date.

This time stores have a harder time, as it is very unclear if there will remain a 3.x market - and how strong it will be (through Pathfinder etc.)

(It seems that the chances are slightly better that stores will be able to sell at least some of that 3.x stuff, though.)


----------



## Greylock

Filcher said:
			
		

> Not a thrill to the shop patrons, or the shop owners?




Both. At the major game store, I talk to the owner quite often. He wants 4th Edition to sell, if for no other reason than to lively up things. But he's very pessimistic. As for the customers, the shop is pre-selling 4th Edition at deep discount. The boxed set, for instance, at $52.95. The signup sheet for presales? Not even half full, weeks in.


----------



## Lizard

My LGS seems pretty positive on 4e, or so the boss has told me. He's selling the slipcover set at about the same price as Amazon, so I cancelled my Amazon order and put in one with him. (He has a really pathetic gaming selection -- it's mostly a comics store -- but runs a lot of game nights and will special order anything I ask for, and I believe in supporting my local store.)


----------



## Pramas

Filcher said:
			
		

> No new GTS news on the GSL but it is all the d20 publishers are talking about. All the retailers are asking when the 1st 3rd party publishers will have 4E material for sale.




Well, it makes sense. GTS is the only real trade show for the game industry. We are debuting our 2008 catalog there. We waited until the very last minute to print it in case some news should break that would allow us to include potential 4E products or at least news of same in the catalog. No such luck.

I'm back in Seattle early but you can bet I had some conversations with other publishers while I was in Vegas.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Orcus said:
			
		

> I know I sound like a broken record on this, but lets trust Scott and Linae.




At this point, I think it's fair to ask, "Why should we?" Now Scott and Linae seem like nice folks and I don't doubt they are doing their best. This whole OGL/GSL thing has been handled very poorly though and they haven't given us any good reason to trust them. Everything has been late and/or messed up. They are actively harming good companies that have done nothing but support D&D. That's not a track record that inspires confidence. Trust Monte Cook or Chris Pramas? In a heartbeat. Scott and Linae? They haven't earned it yet.


----------



## Goobermunch

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> At this point, I think it's fair to ask, "Why should we?" Now Scott and Linae seem like nice folks and I don't doubt they are doing their best. This whole OGL/GSL thing has been handled very poorly though and they haven't given us any good reason to trust them. Everything has been late and/or messed up. They are actively harming good companies that have done nothing but support D&D. That's not a track record that inspires confidence. Trust Monte Cook or Chris Pramas? In a heartbeat. Scott and Linae? They haven't earned it yet.




I don't know Scott or Linae.  But I trust Orcus (never thought I'd say those words).  If Clark thinks we should extend them a portion of our trust, I'm willing to do so.  I suspect he knows much more about what's going on than the rest of us do.

--G


----------



## crazy_cat

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> At this point, I think it's fair to ask, "Why should we?" Now Scott and Linae seem like nice folks and I don't doubt they are doing their best. This whole OGL/GSL thing has been handled very poorly though and they haven't given us any good reason to trust them. Everything has been late and/or messed up. They are actively harming good companies that have done nothing but support D&D. That's not a track record that inspires confidence. Trust Monte Cook or Chris Pramas? In a heartbeat. Scott and Linae? They haven't earned it yet.



Sad to have to say this, but QFT.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I don't know Scott or Linae.  But I trust Orcus




I second this.  To date, I have heard Orcus, Pramas, and MANY of the Paizians vouch for them.  If these guys (all of whom wanted to publishing 4E products from their respective companies) can stick up for them even through the whole OGL/GSL ordeal, that's good enough for me.  I trust that Scott and Lidda are doing the best they can.

EDIT:  I should clarify that I believe they'll do their best.  I don't believe that the final result will lead to the next gaming renaissance.


----------



## Urizen

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> At this point, I think it's fair to ask, "Why should we?" Now Scott and Linae seem like nice folks and I don't doubt they are doing their best. This whole OGL/GSL thing has been handled very poorly though and they haven't given us any good reason to trust them. Everything has been late and/or messed up. They are actively harming good companies that have done nothing but support D&D. That's not a track record that inspires confidence. Trust Monte Cook or Chris Pramas? In a heartbeat. Scott and Linae? They haven't earned it yet.




I have to agree here.

While believe they have been working hard to keep the GSL to a certain extent "open," I don't believe this situation will be resolved in a manner which benefits any 3PP who wants to support both the ogl and the gsl.

I mean, they've *already* said as much in previous posts.

Now, with all due respect to you Clark, you are 100% pro 4th editon, so you are obviously going to look at any openness to the GSl as a 'win."  And that's fair. At the end of the day you have to be concerned about the success of your company.

I can't say the same for myself or other companies who want to produce products in support of Pathfinder, C&C, M&M, or True20, but won't be able to if previously statements by Scott and Linea hold true.

So as far as "trust" is concerned, no. I don't trust them to resolve this situation in a way I can be happy about.


----------



## Orcus

Urizen said:
			
		

> Now, with all due respect to you Clark, you are 100% pro 4th editon, so you are obviously going to look at any openness to the GSl as a 'win."  And that's fair. At the end of the day you have to be concerned about the success of your company.




Actually, my help here and my requests are what I believe are in the good of D&D.

I've addressed this issue before. And while I am getting tired of repeating it, I can see how people on the face of it think this is me acting in the interests of Necro. But I am a gamer first and a president of Necro third (lawyer second).

I have a great relationship with Wizards. I feel, as I have said before, that even if 4E is closed I may well be able to get permission to make some supplemental products for 4E. So really, if I was purely a sharp businessman, I would be wanting 4E closed so that I am the only one (possibly) who can support 4E. Yet I am the one leading the charge for openness. Why? Why would I want competitors when I could, possibly, be the guy with the golden ticket? Because I strongly believe that the greatest age of D&D were the early days when third party companies were able to support D&D and provide us different products and different visions of the game. And I see a public license as the best way to achieve that. 

People have even asked me directly why I am so vocal in support of openness, given the fact that a closed system would likely benefit me substantially. In fact, in another thread, someone told me "Clark, why dont you just shut up and let them goof this up and there be no GSL, cause you are the one that wins from that." While that is true, I think that is bad for D&D. And I love D&D. I want it to succeed. 

So to the extent your criticism of my position stems from a belief that my position is controlled by self-interest, if that was the case I would be taking a totally different course of action  Now, that said, if there is a GSL do I stand to make money? Of course. But so do others. And, if it is the way I think it should be, so would everyone who wants to. I believe in fairness and equality. 

But just because I might make some money from this doesnt mean that the actions I am taking are driven by that. I have an interesting luxury here--I make six figures from my day job. I dont need Necro. It is a hobby for me, that supports the game I love. So what I do, I do because I feel it is in what I believe are the best interests of D&D. 

Just to clear up that little issue  I dont have a problem with you raising it. What you say makes sense on its face. 

I encourage openness because I think it is right. And, given my circumstances, I have the luxury of doing what I think is right, regardless of whether I might make more money doing something else. Believe me, I'm not in gaming for the money.  

Clark


----------



## Orcus

So I guess what I am saying is either trust me or not, that is fine with me. That is your call. But please dont base that decision on the fact that you believe my conduct is shaped by financial interests, 'cause that isnt the case.  But, like I said, in the end it is up to you. I am just saying that in my experience, Scott and Linae are tireless advocates for open gaming and they deserve our trust. The twists and turns of all of this can't be blamed on them.


----------



## Nikosandros

I think that the point here is not about you being self-centered. As you argued, you would be likely to be able to publish even for a closed D&D.

The point is that Necro is moving ahead 100% towards 4e. So for Necro and other companies intending to do the same, the solution that is currently looming on the horizon is relatively favorable.

But there are several other companies that would like to be able to still produce OGL material. For them the so called "poison pill" might be very damaging. I also believe that gamers as a a whole will be worse off with a clause forcing the choice between OGL and GSL.


----------



## Orcus

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> I think that the point here is not about you being self-centered. As you argued, you would be likely to be able to publish even for a closed D&D.
> 
> The point is that Necro is moving ahead 100% towards 4e. So for Necro and other companies intending to do the same, the solution that is currently looming on the horizon is relatively favorable.
> 
> But there are several other companies that would like to be able to still produce OGL material. For them the so called "poison pill" might be very damaging. I also believe that gamers as a a whole will be worse off with a clause forcing the choice between OGL and GSL.




I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that. Now we just have to trust Scott and Linae to do their thing. And it will either happen or it wont.

Bottom line is this: there is no magic world where 4E was supportable under the OGL. That didnt happen. In fact, recent events show that there was a time wher it was likely there wouldnt be a GSL at all. So gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all. Because a 4E OGL was never a reality, you cant say gamers are worse off, since that hypothetical more favorable position never existed. We've gone from "no support for 4E" to "support for 4E through the GSL (eitehr with or without a poison pill)". Its then up to the publishers to choose. Some may choose not to support 4E. That is their choice. No one is guaranteed consequence-free choices in life. Not even RPG publishers. 

Clark


----------



## dmccoy1693

Orcus said:
			
		

> No one is guaranteed consequence-free choices in life.




[tangent]
You can't tell that to a gamer that use to be in my group.  He'd do the dumbest acts and not care.  I wonder if he realized that we kicked him out or if he still believes that he liberated his character from us.
[/tangent]


----------



## Alzrius

Respectfully, Clark, I disagree.

We didn't go from "no support for 4E" to "support 4E through the GSL." There was a time when 4E was going to be Open in a much truer sense of the word. At the announcement in Gen Con, it was said that 4E would be Open, and later a meeting was held to gauge publisher input as to exactly how that would work. The idea of 4E being closed completely was mentioned only in passing, and never seriously discussed.

Simply put, we were all given the message that, while the details weren't worked out, 4E would be an Open game system. The realization that 4E was very nearly closed is a very recent revelation, as is the "poison pill" clause.

And we can say that gamers are worse off, because a more favorable position does indeed exist - the position that the industry was in before all of this happened. The situation under the "GSL vs. OGL" paradigm is a net loss for the industry as compared to when only the OGL was around. Likewise, we were told that that paradigm would remain fundamentally unaltered with the advent of 4E. Now we're finding out that the exact opposite almost came true, and that the current GSL contains provisions specifically designed to nullify the most Open license the gaming community has ever known.

I respect your desire to do what's best for D&D. I think it's commendable, that it's phenomenal, that you put D&D's best interests ahead of Necromancer Games's. But as a fan, I want what's best for Open Gaming as a whole, since that gives me the greatest market to choose from. And I suspect other publishers want what's best for, if not the market that they work in, then at least their own companies.

And in that regard the GSL does not deliver.

Is any sort of GSL better than no D&D license at all? I'm not sure. But I know that the GSL, with the provisions we've been told about, has many drawbacks that compensate for the advantages that it gives to publishers; drawbacks that the OGL didn't have when it delivered advantages that were almost identical.

The GSL is a step up from having no license at all. But the price it demands is a steep one, maybe too steep, and it was a blow no one was expecting - even, no, especially, as a remedy for a bad situation that no one knew existed.


----------



## Drow_Battlemind

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that. Now we just have to trust Scott and Linae to do their thing. And it will either happen or it wont.
> 
> <snipped, due to irrelevancy to my post. Sorry.>
> 
> Clark




Unfortunately, Scott & Linae aren't the top of the food chain in their business, they're just in charge of the D&D section of WotC, which is owned in turn by Hasbro. (Yes, I know you're aware of this, I'm just trying to make a point, please bear with me.)  Because of that factor, there may not be anything that they can actually do, since they in turn have people that they must answer to or suffer the consequences (including the possibility of having their employment by Hasbro terminated if they buck the in-company political bandwagon too hard, only to be replaced at their supervisors whim with some corporate yes-man.) Then where would we be? Right back where we started (at first), then probably a re-enactment of the Lorraine Williams days of TSR.

Right now, as I see it, they have gone from having the best two jobs at WotC to having the worst two jobs at WotC, without even changing jobs, since they *may indeed* have their hands tied at this point, and yet have to face the flack all this is stirring up. Which is a point many of us in the gaming community seem to keep forgetting, since they are the public face of D&D.
It's my personal suspicion that Scott's found himself turned from the public face of D&D to suddenly being some Hasbro executive's public "meat-shield".


----------



## Nikosandros

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'd like to see that clause gone, too. And I have asked them to consider that.



And for that I'm grateful.


----------



## Delta

Orcus said:
			
		

> So gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all. Because a 4E OGL was never a reality, you cant say gamers are worse off, since that hypothetical more favorable position never existed.




I am a gamer who is worse off. I'm going to stick with 3E, and I want as wide support as possible to choose from. In fact, for me the best option is to have 4E be closed and third-party publishers being forced to stick with 3E-compatible products. Second-best option is to have publishers be able to separately publish 3E and/or 4E according to taste. Worst option is the GSL with "poison pill" because it actively pushes 3E OGL support off the market.

So the upshot of this is that I can certainly say that _some_ gamers are definitely worse off. Namely me. Frankly, it would be to my personal great benefit if Necromancer was actually forced to publish Pathfinder-compatible products due to a wholly closed 4E.


----------



## Morrus

Delta said:
			
		

> I am a gamer who is worse off. I'm going to stick with 3E, and I want as wide support as possible to choose from. In fact, for me the best option is to have 4E be closed and third-party publishers being forced to stick with 3E-compatible products. Second-best option is to have publishers be able to separately publish 3E and/or 4E according to taste. Worst option is the GSL with "poison pill" because it actively pushes 3E OGL support off the market.




This is true; you certainly are worse off.  However, you're not one of WotC's customers, 3.5 not being a game that they will be selling - you may as well be buying White Wolf products from their POV.  

Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't _want_ people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:
			
		

> Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't _want_ people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.



On the other hand, enacting certain policies might also cost WotC some customers.


----------



## Roland55

Orcus said:
			
		

> FST (great name by the way)-
> 
> I know I sound like a broken record on this, but lets trust Scott and Linae.
> 
> I said that for the GSL when everyone was saying there wouldnt be one and lo and behold there is a GSL.
> 
> Now there is some confusion about the "poison pill" term of the GSL, and I admit I am a part of that confusion. But I still say lets trust Scott and Linae to get this resolved.
> 
> Will it be resolved on our timetable? No. Will that be frustrating? Yes. But they have done so much and for so long. Again, I think they deserve our trust here.
> 
> Clark




I can live with that.

I don't know them, but I've 'hung around' with you electronically for years.  So ... I'm happy to do you this little favor.

You can repay me with excellent 4E-compatible products.


----------



## Starman

Morrus said:
			
		

> This is true; you certainly are worse off.  However, you're not one of WotC's customers, 3.5 not being a game that they will be selling - you may as well be buying White Wolf products from their POV.
> 
> Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't _want_ people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.




Part of the philosophy of the OGL, though, was to keep gamers in the fold with the philosophy that someone playing a different d20 game for awhile was more likely to come back to D&D. Wizards is putting up a big barrier now between 3.x and 4E when a more open license could have provided a similar situation.


----------



## Urizen

Orcus said:
			
		

> So I guess what I am saying is either trust me or not, that is fine with me. That is your call. But please dont base that decision on the fact that you believe my conduct is shaped by financial interests, 'cause that isnt the case.  But, like I said, in the end it is up to you. I am just saying that in my experience, Scott and Linae are tireless advocates for open gaming and they deserve our trust. The twists and turns of all of this can't be blamed on them.




It's not a lack of trust in you, Clark. To be quite honest, I respect and admire you for your staunch support of this issue. We just find ourselves on two sides of the same coin here.

I didn't mean to inferr that you are only in it for the money, and apologize if I came across like that.

The point I was trying to make, is that I'm not going to trust Scott or Linae to have my best interests (or those of the kind people who have supported my company over the years) at heart, not becuase they might be horrible people (which I don't believe), but because they have an obligation to further the interests of their  own company, whether they agree with the company or not.


----------



## Delta

Morrus said:
			
		

> Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't _want_ people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.




But Orcus wasn't talking about WOTC being better off or not. I'm responding to his position that "...gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all".

So it sounds like you & I agree that that's not actually the case for all gamers.


----------



## RedShirtNo5

Starman said:
			
		

> Part of the philosophy of the OGL, though, was to keep gamers in the fold with the philosophy that someone playing a different d20 game for awhile was more likely to come back to D&D.



Someone must have said this before, but much of what has been happening, both in terms of delay and GSL terms, can be explained by assuming that WotC went through a process in which that philosphophy was dropped.  
In short,
Licensing to drive sales of 4e core books: IN.
Licensing to keep players in d20 games for easy transition back to D&D: OUT.


----------



## Gundark

894......still counting.....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

This entire mess is caused by misunderstanding and a deliberate walking back from the OGL; trying to cram the genie back in the bottle. 

EDIT: And drying up the "safe harbor."

It was always an option for WotC to continue 4e in the same Open tradition as 3e, even assuming they did not want to continue the d20STL. 

If 4e were Open, it would neither encourage nor discourage the creation of "aberrant" stand-alone games any more than 3e did. The 3e SRD is still out there, and designers can still create stand-alone games to compete with 4e. 

It is coming to pass as Ryan Dancey predicted...

In my opinion, the best possible course would have been an Open 4e SRD released under the same OGL; the revocation of the d20STL; and entering into strictly licensed D&D branding with the best 3PPs, chosen specifically by WotC under whatever criteria WotC desired. 

Paizo, Necromancer, Goodman Games, Green Ronin-- all would have been at the top of my list for favored status and an exclusive (very juicy, mutually beneficial) licensing agreement.

It is as if WotC has disavowed any positive effect of the OGL other than driving their core sales. That is not and never was the sole benefit of the OGL.


----------



## Thraxas

Orcus said:
			
		

> So I guess what I am saying is either trust me or not, that is fine with me. That is your call. But please dont base that decision on the fact that you believe my conduct is shaped by financial interests, 'cause that isnt the case.  But, like I said, in the end it is up to you. I am just saying that in my experience, Scott and Linae are tireless advocates for open gaming and they deserve our trust. The twists and turns of all of this can't be blamed on them.





Clark,
        I think you've earned the trust by being out front, sharing your perspective in a balanced manner and shining some light on things outside our view.  I'd like to think a lot of the other players within WotC are supporting this effort behind the scenes as well, that Scott and Linae are not carrying the whole load.  If you had to make the pitch to Hasbro, what would it be based on...what's the selling point, to them, for open gaming?


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Respect. I think wizards gets a bad reputation and looses potential sales due to sneaky tricks they have pulled in the past. The OGL helped them to appear like a Community Leader rather then a BBEG you need to go to get your fix.


----------



## Nellisir

Orcus said:
			
		

> So gamers arent worse off when you consider that there was a strong likelihood that there was going to be no 4th edition support at all. Because a 4E OGL was never a reality, you cant say gamers are worse off, since that hypothetical more favorable position never existed.




:blink:
There was always going to be 4th Edition support, from the company that's always going to be the primary, core source for 4e material.  WotC.  Even if 4e was totally closed, WotC would produce material that would support most of the gamers out there, and the 3pp would continue to support the bubble of games around D&D.  Instead, we've got a situation where 3pp are compelled to support 4e exclusively, and the "game bubble" goes away.  My choices, as a gamer, will go down, probably dramatically.  I'm not convinced that the GSL will support much in the way of variant rules; what little I've heard leads me to think the defination of fixed terms will dramatically expand from the d20STL.  If my paranoia is correct, you'll be able to add onto WotC's rules, but not deviate from them or substantially step on their toes.

So, yeah, for gamers that are 100% happy with WotC's 4e D&D, this GSL is great.  For the rest, not so much.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Even if 4e was totally closed, WotC would produce material that would support most of the gamers out there, and the 3pp would continue to support the bubble of games around D&D.




There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:

1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;

2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.


----------



## Starman

RedShirtNo5 said:
			
		

> Someone must have said this before, but much of what has been happening, both in terms of delay and GSL terms, can be explained by assuming that WotC went through a process in which that philosphophy was dropped.




I agree. It is unfortunate because while there was a lot of chaff that came out of the OGL movement, there was also a _ton_ of awesome books to come out of it. I would like to see that same level of support for the new edition of D&D, but whatever. I'm happy with my 3.x books and the third party support for them. I also know it is going to continue so that makes me very happy.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> People have even asked me directly why I am so vocal in support of openness, given the fact that a closed system would likely benefit me substantially. In fact, in another thread, someone told me "Clark, why dont you just shut up and let them goof this up and there be no GSL, cause you are the one that wins from that." While that is true, I think that is bad for D&D. And I love D&D. I want it to succeed.




I think you're seeing people object simply because it doesn't fit their definition of open.  Open some of the fans is the OGL, and any clause that restricts it in any way is apparently unacceptable to some fans.



> But as a fan, I want what's best for Open Gaming as a whole, since that gives me the greatest market to choose from. And I suspect other publishers want what's best for, if not the market that they work in, then at least their own companies.




Well, we do have to separate the fans from the publishers now.  Some people are into the "Open Gaming" meme as an ideal.  To them, if it's not "viral", if it has anything like a revocation clause, expiration clause, or a content restrictions clause, it's not.  Many publishers, however, are more practical, and simply want to license 4e content.  I think it's important to remember that, in terms of the bigger picture, anything is more free that completely closed.  Yes, even with the so-called "poison pill".  



> In fact, for me the best option is to have 4E be closed and third-party publishers being forced to stick with 3E-compatible products. Second-best option is to have publishers be able to separately publish 3E and/or 4E according to taste. Worst option is the GSL with "poison pill" because it actively pushes 3E OGL support off the market.




Well, the publishers should make the choice.  Honestly, I think the reason most people are upset is that with the "either or" option, they are afraid all the publishers will "sell out" and give up the OGL for 4e rules.  Based on what the publisher does, that's not going to be the case for everybody.  I think people are seeing it as an all-or-nothing approach.  Some publishers will stick with the OGL.  Technically, it's up to the publishers to decide this.  I think rather than to WoTC about this, you might want to spend the effort discussing what you expect from the individual publishers.  I doubt they will change their minds on this--at best, I expect them to only clarify that the either or option only applies to games based on the System Reference Document, and not to other games that use the license.



> In my opinion, the best possible course would have been an Open 4e SRD released under the same OGL; the revocation of the d20STL; and entering into strictly licensed D&D branding with the best 3PPs, chosen specifically by WotC under whatever criteria WotC desired.




I doubt they would have accepted the OGL.  Let's face it, as much as some fans think the OGL is the best thing that happened to RPGs, some don't share that view.  I've spent time posting in threads here why I think the OGL is a little too open, and why a company might benefit a little more from a slightly more restricted license.  I think the company wants more control.  In fact, I suspect the exact nature and conditions of the OGL is the reason they want to make sure that no 4e content is ever mixed with 3e OGL content.  And I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

I think we have to face facts that to get 4e in third parties hands, there is gonna have to be some compromise.  And before you say "never compromise", remember, your own opinion is not the opinion of the publishers, who are more important than the fans in this particular case.  Ultimately, the fans who are pissed their favorite publisher might not be able to "double dip" into both rule-sets are, in this case, less important than the guys who are attending GAMA and have a lot at stake, so when you say "they should close it up rather than require they give up using OGL", you might want to think of their viewpoint.


----------



## Thulcondar

Orcus said:
			
		

> Why would I want competitors when I could, possibly, be the guy with the golden ticket?
> 
> Clark




So, in essence, you're saying that WotC's books are written by Oompa-Loompas. ;-)

I had a lot of more serious stuff to follow up that rather frivolous observation, but in re-reading it, it seemed rather pointless. So I kept the frivolity and dumped the pointlessness. Apologies.

Joe


----------



## xechnao

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:
> 
> 1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;
> 
> 2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.




It is more complicated than that. First of all one may damage you even when not directly competing with you. Have you seen this kind of drama where one hero has to slow down the other hero, usually his companion that is? Secondly, there might be indeed other truly competing heroes to add in the mix. And finally there is this situation where you say to yourself: do I really need those network effects now that I want to focus on my own network?


----------



## Nellisir

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:
> 
> 1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;
> 
> 2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.




Just to be clear, are you using my quote as a jumping-off point for your observation, or are you saying I'm advocating your two contrary positions?  I'm pretty certain I haven't said #2; if anything I'd say WotC's adversarial positioning re: the GSL is creating the prospect of competition it didn't have previously.  If 3e and the splinter games around it are a sphere, 4e and WotC's discouragement of variant systems are a point somewhere outside of it, with no possibility of creating its own sphere.  The strength of the OGL, of course, is that the OGL sphere of games could expand to include 4e design (and already has in many ways) without using the GSL at all.

Not sure if that makes any sense at all, but it looks pretty in my head.  There are little points of light labelled "Arcana Evolved" and "Arthurian Legends" orbiting around 3e, and 4e sitting off by its lonesome without even a shuttle.


----------



## Nellisir

xechnao said:
			
		

> It is more complicated than that. First of all one may damage you even when not directly competing with you. Have you seen this kind of drama where one hero has to slow down the other hero, usually his companion that is? Secondly, there might be indeed other truly competing heroes to add in the mix. And finally there is this situation where you say to yourself: do I really need those network effects now that I want to focus on my own network?




I'm pretty sure I don't understand most of this post.

I think you might be saying that the splinter games are a drag on WotC even if they aren't "competition" per se; the accumulated number of them (which seems to be weeding out just fine, IMO) constricts D&D or something.  As far as the second part...I'm pretty sure WotC can't really be a network unto itself (since a network includes, by default, multiple points or entities), and if they were, they'd be a drag on their own productivity (see: TSR).


----------



## xechnao

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I don't understand most of this post.
> 
> I think you might be saying that the splinter games are a drag on WotC even if they aren't "competition" per se; the accumulated number of them (which seems to be weeding out just fine, IMO) constricts D&D or something.




Yes, kind of.



			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> As far as the second part...I'm pretty sure WotC can't really be a network unto itself (since a network includes, by default, multiple points or entities), and if they were, they'd be a drag on their own productivity (see: TSR).




As far as the last part Gleemax and DDI are supposed to be the new network unto itself.


----------



## Ydars

I want to re-state something that I really really worry about; I DON'T believe that WoTC are as robust as most people assume. Sure they are a big company, but when you have to invest 7 figures in developing a product like 4E, the success you need to justify that is HUGE.

I really worry that the lack of GSL (or this poison pill clause in the GSL) will have the same net effect on conversion of gamers to 4E; it will discourage them from switching. I think this will be a MUCH more serious problem than most people believe. 

Couple this with the lack of support from 3 party publishers for 4E and a virtual guarantee that many of them will continue to support 3.5E and I think we have very dangerous situation; a splintering of the player base for 4E such that 3.5E or 3.75E will be a very serious threat. I agree that in the PAST, competitors were minor. NOW WoTC have contrived to set their competitors up very nicely. I predicted this, in my thread on GSL and why you should care. Since then, WoTC have done even more to make what I said true.

If 4E is designed to bring in new gamers, then I submit that this will take TIME. If the old guard of gamers, like people on this board, do not switch or don't switch in sufficient numbers, then there could be problems. And remember, 4E is probably driven by sales of DDI; not by books alone. If that fails, as it could well, I wonder how much time 4E has before the people at Hasbro start to think about cutting their losses? Don't think this is impossible; D&D is a SMALL product to them. The key is to consider how much of the total investment in 4E is investment in DDI etc. If it is a significant proportion of the investment then it is even more likely to cause problems.

Now I know many people will think I am crazy for saying this, but then many of the same people said this when I started the thread about "No GSL and why you should care."

I would just like to point out that most of what I said in that thread is now accepted; because of things that people like Orcus have now confirmed. I postulated a turf war in WoTC over open gaming; most people said I was mad. Now look back over the last page of this thread; most people NOW seem to agree that Scott and Linae are fighting for open gaming against "forces unknown" within WoTC. I also said that WoTC were thinking of canning the GSL; and this has subdequently emerged as likely TRUE.

If you look now, you can just see it in the language WoTC are using; they are SCARED! If you look at the way they are responding to us; something has them spooked. Whilst I like to see a company adapting to its customers, there is something else here......................................

I hope I am wrong but something about all the official stuff I am hearing from WoTC via this site is unsettling. They are THREATENED by something. THEY believe that 4E is in danger for some reason.

I just hope they realise the solution; remove the poison pill, get 3PPs on board and take the wind out of 3.5E/3.75E sails by making 4E SO attrractive to prospective publishers that they will switch and take away the competition. At the moment, WoTCs response is negative and reactive and is only deepening their problems..............


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Ydars said:
			
		

> I just hope they realize the solution; remove the poison pill, get 3PPs on board and take the wind out of 3.5E/3.75E sails by making 4E SO attractive to prospective publishers that they will switch and take away the competition. At the moment, WoTCs response is negative and reactive and is only deepening their problems..............




I agree. The only way to hold sand is with the palm and not with the fist. Sure it works for the masses from time to time, but we tend to defy THE MAN more then most demographics.


come on wizards. Show us that 3.5/OGL v1 is not a threat with your actions, not your words... please?


----------



## BSF

Ydars said:
			
		

> I want to re-state something that I really really worry about; I DON'T believe that WoTC are as robust as most people assume. Sure they are a big company, but when you have to invest 7 figures in developing a product like 4E, the success you need to justify that is HUGE.




It really isn't all that hard to accumulate 7 figures in development costs.  I don't know what the pay rate for RPG designers is, but just imagine $50,000/year in salary.  It would then take 20 people, working for a year, to add up to 7 figures.  

Now keep in mind that we have designers, marketing folks, development of DDI & Gleemax, and it starts to look real easy to add up to 7+ figures.  

My point isn't to disagree with your assertion that these costs might be very significant to WotC.  I just want to keep it in perspective to some degree.  Individually, 7 figures is a big number to most people.  But as far as expenses on a team go, it can add up surprisingly quickly.  It is even possible that the development costs are not extraordinarily high compared to the normal operating costs.  

The problem, however, is that those developers were working on a product line that was not being fed with robust sales as the announcement of 4.0 might have singificantly dried up the revenue stream.  As I said, I'm not trying to make light of the costs, just trying to keep it in perspective compared to operating costs.  




> I really worry that the lack of GSL (or this poison pill clause in the GSL) will have the same net effect on conversion of gamers to 4E; it will discourage them from switching. I think this will be a MUCH more serious problem than most people believe.




This is a very real danger for the types of gamers posting in a thread such as this.    The question is whether the market share of people that significantly cares about these types of decisions is substantial enough for WotC to be concerned. 



> Couple this with the lack of support from 3 party publishers for 4E and a virtual guarantee that many of them will continue to support 3.5E and I think we have very dangerous situation; a splintering of the player base for 4E such that 3.5E or 3.75E will be a very serious threat. I agree that in the PAST, competitors were minor. NOW WoTC have contrived to set their competitors up very nicely. I predicted this, in my thread on GSL and why you should care. Since then, WoTC have done even more to make what I said true.
> 
> If 4E is designed to bring in new gamers, then I submit that this will take TIME. If the old guard of gamers, like people on this board, do not switch or don't switch in sufficient numbers, then there could be problems. And remember, 4E is probably driven by sales of DDI; not by books alone. If that fails, as it could well, I wonder how much time 4E has before the people at Hasbro start to think about cutting their losses? Don't think this is impossible; D&D is a SMALL product to them. The key is to consider how much of the total investment in 4E is investment in DDI etc. If it is a significant proportion of the investment then it is even more likely to cause problems.




I do agree that it will take time to bring in new blood.  I also believe there is significant exposure for WotC if they are unable to encourage adoption of 4.0 quickly.  Especially given the current trend in the economy, there may be a lot at stake.  

It does look like WotC is working toward establishing a revenue model using DDI.  Their efforts are actually commendable in this regard.  I hope they are able to win over the demographic they are targetting.  I do have to wonder how many DDI subscribers they need to generate a healthy cashflow.  Of course, if DDI is successful, WotC may have challenges scaling server infrastructure.   I hope WotC is prepared for success as well.  



> Now I know many people will think I am crazy for saying this, but then many of the same people said this when I started the thread about "No GSL and why you should care."
> 
> I would just like to point out that most of what I said in that thread is now accepted; because of things that people like Orcus have now confirmed. I postulated a turf war in WoTC over open gaming; most people said I was mad. Now look back over the last page of this thread; most people NOW seem to agree that Scott and Linae are fighting for open gaming against "forces unknown" within WoTC. I also said that WoTC were thinking of canning the GSL; and this has subdequently emerged as likely TRUE.
> 
> If you look now, you can just see it in the language WoTC are using; they are SCARED! If you look at the way they are responding to us; something has them spooked. Whilst I like to see a company adapting to its customers, there is something else here......................................
> 
> I hope I am wrong but something about all the official stuff I am hearing from WoTC via this site is unsettling. They are THREATENED by something. THEY believe that 4E is in danger for some reason.




I don't think it is really danger for 4E.  WotC needs a quick shot of revenue while DDI kicks off and the new blood is brought into the market.  I think there are risks of cutbacks and layoffs if the release doesn't generate heavy sales.  But strictly speaking, it isn't really an issue of 4 being in danger.  



> I just hope they realise the solution; remove the poison pill, get 3PPs on board and take the wind out of 3.5E/3.75E sails by making 4E SO attrractive to prospective publishers that they will switch and take away the competition. At the moment, WoTCs response is negative and reactive and is only deepening their problems..............




That is certainly an opinion that I share.  Though it is simply an opinion.  

But to give some perspective on how some people might think, I will share my current stance.

The campaign I currently play in will almost certainly not move to 4.0.  We are deeply involved in the current campaign and our characters are 20th level.  There is no reason for us to try to convert.  Especially since the characters include a Bard (me), a Druid, a Monk, a Ranger and a Wizard.  Because of the way WotC is releasing the game, some of the characters are practically unconvertable at launch.  Now given that we have invested roughly 7 years into this campaign, we aren't going to abandon it just to adopt 4.0 when it is released.

I run a second campaign with another group of players.  I might be willing to convert that campaign to 4.0, but I certainly don't need to convert.  This campaign has more players and a few of them may be interested in picking up the books when they are released.  But unless I decide to convert the campaign, it just won't happen.  

So will I be buying the books at release?  Well, that kind of depends.  If there is a poison pill provision, then there will be a limited time for me to pick up OGL material from some companies.  Even as it is, the GSL seems to dictate that third party publishers won't be able to release product until October.  In all likelihood, I will wait until at least the 1st third party products make it to market before I purchase any 4.0 material.  Given that the publishers have six months to update or discontinue d20 product, I am more likely to be waiting until 2009 before I buy 4.0 material.  

Mind you, I am not arguing that WotC isn't being generous with the 6 months to get rid of d20 material, I'm just pointing out that WotC is creating a motivation for me to direct my gaming dollars toward that product before it disappears.  

Without a poison pill, I am much more likely to buy the 4.0 books when they are released.  I won't have pressure to spend my money on material I want to acquire before it goes away permanently.  At least, not as much pressure.  

So, the way the GSL has been handled will probably result in the opposite of what WotC was hoping, at least in regards to me specifically.  If enough people make decisions in a similar manner, WotC might see less sales than they hoped for.  

That could be bad for WotC, and in like manner, it could hurt the market in general.  I hope WotC is successful.  But if there is a true poison pill aspect of the GSL, WotC probably won't see very much money from me.  As a consumer, my wallet will have to speak for me where my words have been ineffective.


----------



## Ydars

Gotta agree with you BSF, that is must be so EASY to rack up 7 figures on a product like  4E! I was actually surprised that it wasn't alot more. Yet this is still a HUGE amount of money to commit to something in terms of what other companies have ever spent.

I just hope WoTC pull this off. I personally hope that DDI is NOT how they see this making money because I think this will make the whole venture that much more risky.


----------



## Delta

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think you're seeing people object simply because it doesn't fit their definition of open.  Open some of the fans is the OGL, and any clause that restricts it in any way is apparently unacceptable to some fans... Some people are into the "Open Gaming" meme as an ideal.  To them, if it's not "viral", if it has anything like a revocation clause, expiration clause, or a content restrictions clause, it's not.




Once again John, there a very clear and straightforward definitions of what "open" means, that have been used for over 8 years in both game publishing and software, and you're just spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt to confuse the issue.

It not like there's some mystery or debate on what "open" means. This page at OpenGamingFoundation.org has remained the same for 8 solid years, and a whole bunch of different licenses satisfy it ( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html ). Pretty simple:



> 1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
> 2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.


----------



## La Bete

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I agree. The only way to hold sand is with the palm and not with the fist. Sure it works for the masses from time to time, but we tend to *deify* THE MAN more then most demographics.




Thats quite right. I've been known to offer burnt offerings to the Rouse in my household shrine.

Wait.. What?


----------



## Tim Gray

Morrus said:
			
		

> This is true; you certainly are worse off.  However, you're not one of WotC's customers, 3.5 not being a game that they will be selling - you may as well be buying White Wolf products from their POV.
> 
> Not that that makes it any better for you - but we can understand why WotC don't _want_ people to do what you want to do: to them, that's a lost customer.



Technical correction: he/she/it is already a WotC customer. They just won't be a repeat customer. Of course this only makes a practical difference if you think customer service includes an obligation to keep feeding you new publications, which it doesn't.


----------



## SSquirrel

Urizen said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make, is that I'm not going to trust Scott or Linae to have my best interests (or those of the kind people who have supported my company over the years) at heart, not becuase they might be horrible people (which I don't believe), but because they have an obligation to further the interests of their  own company, whether they agree with the company or not.




Of course, the truly cynical view of things (no Scott and Linae this does NOT describe me) would be that they are actually in a great position.  "Hi guys.  We worked at it, pleaded, begged, cajoled but they would not budge on X Y and Z in the GSL.  We did our best, but it wasn't enough  "  That allows them to be the good guys working for positive change, but shut out by The Man(tm).  Much better than being viewed as untrustworthy "company people" that only claim to work for the game's benefit.

Again, I'm not calling them names and don't believe the last paragraph myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if that describes some folk's thought patterns about all this


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, are you using my quote as a jumping-off point for your observation, or are you saying I'm advocating your two contrary positions?




Sorry I wasn't around to clarify this sooner. I was just using your quote as a jumping off point.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Delta said:
			
		

> Once again John, there a very clear and straightforward definitions of what "open" means, that have been used for over 8 years in both game publishing and software, and you're just spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt to confuse the issue.




That reminds me, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, John:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4177868#post4177868


----------



## kenmarable

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There does seem to be the odd situation where some of the same folks are asserting two contrary things at the same time:
> 
> 1) 3PP are insignificant in the grand scheme of things as compared to WotC, and their little splinter systems cannot possibly compete with 4e D&D;
> 
> 2) 3PP are irreparably damaging WotC's 4e prospects by competing against them with countless little splinter systems.



Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle, but with no real hard public data, we'll never know where on the spectrum that is. Without the real data, people will bring up whichever point rhetorically helps their current argument.  

Plus, throwing terms like "insignificant" "cannot possibly" and "irreparably" does push those statements into being more opposite than they need to be. Especially considering the good comment above that each individual splinter game doesn't really compete, but the sum total of them can have a noticeable impact. 

Furthermore, this new edition change 
A) comes from a perpetually open edition, 
B) has had more than it's fair share of negative reactions and PR missteps, 
C) makes more dramatic changes to the game than any previous edition, and 
D) might be licensed in a way such that some of the largest 3PPs like Green Ronin will be forced to not support the new edition without abandoning their bread & butter splinter games.

From all of that, D&D looks more vulnerable to competition than during most any of its history. I'd put it right up there with the worst days of TSR in it's downward spiral. Back then D&D was obviously in far worse shape, but now, however, D&D 4 products have to compete with D&D 3 products from 3PPs. However, even though it is more vulnerable at the moment, it's still a vulnerable 800 lb gorilla. So I don't think irreparable harm is being done, but I think unlike before, splinter games, even directly competing fantasy ones like Pathfinder RPG, can have more bottom line impact on D&D than they ever could have before.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> Once again John, there a very clear and straightforward definitions of what "open" means, that have been used for over 8 years in both game publishing and software, and you're just spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt to confuse the issue.
> 
> It not like there's some mystery or debate on what "open" means. This page at OpenGamingFoundation.org has remained the same for 8 solid years, and a whole bunch of different licenses satisfy it ( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html ). Pretty simple:




You're missing the point that I was pointing out the exact same fact to Orcus.  I was pointing out two things in that original statement.  First of all, I was warning Orcus that he shouldn't use the term "open" because according to that definition you quoted, the GSL isn't open.

Secondly, I was pointing out that not everybody is a strict follower of that site or uses the term open the same way.  I assume that's why there is some confusion.  I think people at WoTC and other third-party publishers don't have the Open Gaming Foundation bookmarked and memorized and perhaps have a looser view of the term open, mixing it the same way some people mix the terms "free software" and "open source", etc.  I don't think it's fair to jump on people if they don't get the definitions right, because, hey, there's a lot of things people interpret differently.

I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm "spreading FUD" though.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> That reminds me, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, John:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.p...868#post4177868




I meant people, instead of publishers.  Naturally, it is hotly debated amongst people.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I meant people, instead of publishers.  Naturally, it is hotly debated amongst people.




Well, it's hotly debated by you, ad nauseam. I think you've established that in countless posts.

You said some publishers hated the OGL. 

Can you tell me who? I'd like to know who this publisher is that feels he should be able to use Open Content without contributing back.

I'd like to know who these publishers are whose words you are anonymously co-opting into your  tireless personal crusade against the OGL.

Barring that, give it a rest already.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> Well, it's hotly debated by you, ad nauseam. I think you've established that in countless posts.




First of all, I apologize for saying hate.  That was wrong of me, and like I said I corrected myself by saying "people" instead of publisher.  

I'm not the only one critical of it.  Both Chris Pramas and Robin Laws have critiques of it.  I know Gary Gygax thought it would have been better for them to have traditional licensing, I know Andy Collins was annoyed of the creation of the SRD version of Unearthed Arcana.  Orcus, while he would prefer the OGL, understands that a GSL might be better from the WoTC's perspective.  And obviously, some people at Wizards feel the OGL feel it's not worth it to keep around.  Heck, even Ryan Dancey admitted in an older OGL-F mail that he saw Wizards backing away from giving away content as OGLed versions.  



> Barring that, give it a rest already.




Look, this forum isn't just for the OGL-F list anymore--all discussion of OGL licensing or future  D&D licensing is done here.  (If it was just for fans of the OGL I'd bow out, but EnWorld has declared this is the place we debate it).  I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL.  I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.


----------



## Delta

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Secondly, I was pointing out that not everybody is a strict follower of that site or uses the term open the same way.  I assume that's why there is some confusion... I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm "spreading FUD" though.




Frankly, I don't see any confusion of the sort that you assert. You're manufacturing a debate that doesn't really exist anywhere else. That's what I would think to be classically identified as "spreading FUD".


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.



I think there is a major flaw in your use of these loaded phrases.
I've read a lot of things that a lot of publishers have said about the OGL. And the reality is that most people, including those you have quoted, have expressed a lot of praise for the OGL.  But rather than being on one radical end of the spectrum (as seems to be easy for you to attempt to misrepresent) there are both really good elements and problematic elements of the OGL.  Some result from the way the OGL itself is set up, but most are tied to the very nature of being open.  

You have set up a false standard where anyone who says anything at all critical about the system proves your point by being critical and anyone who doesn't proves your point by being "religious" about it.  I don't see that as at all a reasonable assessment.


----------



## Alzrius

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm not the only one critical of it.  Both Chris Pramas and Robin Laws have critiques of it.




It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."

He never once says that the OGL is a bad thing, that it hasn't been good to him, or that it should be removed or limited. In essence, he's not saying at all what you're putting in his mouth.

Wulf and Starman covered Robin fairly well in their posts below; Robin's complaint was largely in regards to product quality - with poor products flooding the market and creating a bubble - more than anything else (a position I don't believe is necessarily correct, but that's another matter).



> _I know Gary Gygax thought it would have been better for them to have traditional licensing_




Gary believed that WotC should have re-released D&D 1E once they acquired the game. He didn't care for the changes that were made to it in 3E in any capacity. He wanted to go back to the old days of TSR in every regard, including licensing. His position had nothing to do with the pros or cons of Open Gaming at all.



> _I know Andy Collins was annoyed of the creation of the SRD version of Unearthed Arcana._




You keep mentioning this - it's one of the very few instances of a book that was near-totally Open Game Content being released for free on the internet. However, what other people keep pointing out to you, and you keep refusing to acknowledge, is that this is not an indictment of the OGL. Firstly because Andy Collins never once said (that I'm aware of) that the OGL was a mistake in any regard. His annoyance over UA being released online was just that, annoyance. It didn't change his mind regarding Open Gaming. Secondly, the OGL already has provisions to stop things like this - large sections of books can be declared Product Identity, which stops things like that from happening. And thirdly, there are many, many books that are near-totally OGC that have not been reprinted on the internet the way UA was, which is a very strong indicator that that sort of thing is the exception, rather than the norm.



> _Orcus, while he would prefer the OGL, understands that a GSL might be better from the WoTC's perspective._




We all understand that the GSL might be better for WotC unto itself. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing how the "poison pill" provision is better for WotC at the expense of almost everyone else - quite possibly disproportionally so, as there's room to say that the poison-pilled GSL will have minimal gain for WotC with larger penalties for publishers and fans.



> _And obviously, some people at Wizards feel the OGL feel it's not worth it to keep around. _




It's not surprising that corporate "suits" want to have it killed, since they take the (quite possibly unreasonable) position that the OGL hurts WotC's sales. The fact that Scott and Linae disagree (as Orcus keeps noting) should point out that this position is hardly universal, and suggests that those "in the know" think Open Gaming is better for WotC anyway.



> _Heck, even Ryan Dancey admitted in an older OGL-F mail that he saw Wizards backing away from giving away content as OGLed versions._




He also said he thought that would be a bad thing. He wasn't supporting your position that the OGL is a bad thing, but rather he predicted that WotC would become close-minded in regards to Open Gaming when they started to see it as a competitor.



> _Look, this forum isn't just for the OGL-F list anymore--all discussion of OGL licensing or future D&D licensing is done here. (If it was just for fans of the OGL I'd bow out, but EnWorld has declared this is the place we debate it). I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL._




The problem, John, is that that "somebody" isn't you. Your points are questionable at best, and are mendacious at worst. You regularly posit that a large number of gamers and publishers agree with you - often misrepresenting other people's statements in the process - even though there's almost no evidence to support that, and plenty to disprove it. You tout a few small, isolated instances of the OGL being abused as being massive, inherent failures with the entire License. You largely ignore reasonable points made that counter your own, deciding instead to simply repeat the same things over and over.

There is a reasonable stance to be made regarding the negative points of the OGL, and the positive ones of the GSL (as it stands now). People like Goobermunch and Xenchao are doing a relatively good job taking those positions, but I don't believe the same can be said for how you're presenting yourself and your arguments.



> _I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it._




One can be zealous without taking it to a religious degree; enthusiasm does not equate fanaticism. While it's true that there are a lot of posts here that are just blunt statements or over-inflated opinions, there are also a lot of people here who are willing to engage in a reasonable debate over this, and a large portion of those people seem to be doing so in favor of the OGL and against the GSL. They've largely pointed out that your points are without merit, as stated above - simply calling them religious zealots and writing them off is the same sort of behavior that you're accusing them of.

EDIT: Added some more points.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

John, this is what you said:



> One item that is hotly contested is the provision that everything released under the OGL is "open". In other words, anybody adding new rules under the OGL must allow other publishers to be able to use them. Some fans love it, some publishers hate it.




It's extremely dishonest to present any of the opinions you linked as critical of the OGL because it required their content to be Open.


----------



## Starman

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."
> 
> He never once says that the OGL is a bad thing, that it hasn't been good to him, or that it should be removed or limited. In essence, he's not saying at all what you're putting in his mouth.




It's also worth noting that Robin Laws was more critical of the flood of d20 products in the wake of 3E's launch than the OGL itself. He was writing more about being in favor of the 6 month limited release window rather than the OGL license itself.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Starman said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that Robin Laws was more critical of the flood of d20 products in the wake of 3E's launch than the OGL itself. He was writing more about being in favor of the 6 month limited release window rather than the OGL license itself.




He also says this:


			
				Robin Laws said:
			
		

> It never became the community design collaboration that some envisioned; you didn’t see outside groups developing significant rules structures which were then folded into the main game.




I have two responses to that. 

First, even assuming it were true, the fault for that lies entirely with WotC. As the official keepers of the license, any ability to incorporate significant rules structures lies entirely with them, and any failure to do so lies entirely with them. 

But my second response is that it simply isn't true: There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP _and the community at large_ that are being folded into 4e, starting with Mike F'in Mearls himself and cascading on down from there. The entire lifetime of 3e was a giant playtest of the d20 System and the end result is 4e.


----------



## Matthias

There's two parts my post:

1.


			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP _and the community at large_ that are being folded into 4e, starting with Mike F'in Mearls himself and cascading on down from there. The entire lifetime of 3e was a giant playtest of the d20 System and the end result is 4e.




Is it legal to impose the more restrictive GSL license on material that incorporates other material that was created under the perpetual OGL license? What if someone uses the GSL to publish material incorporating some of that shared material, then goes against the GSL by returning to publishing products under the OGL, but still uses some of that shared material?



2. Is there a mailing list or something that I can sign up with that will notify me by e-mail when WOTC's answers to the submitted questions are published?


----------



## jmucchiello

Matthias said:
			
		

> Wulf Ratbane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP and the community at large that are being folded into 4e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it legal to impose the more restrictive GSL license on material that incorporates other material that was created under the perpetual OGL license?
Click to expand...


In the case of WotC using such material, there are two enormous stumbling blocks to doing this. First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license. And second, the owner of that OGC, someone who most likely would like to work with WotC in the future, would need to file suit against WotC, manage to afford such a lawsuit, win that lawsuit, and potentially ruin their relationship with WotC forever.

Caveat, I don't think WotC is reusing anyone else's OGC in 4e. They hire their own designers for a reason.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

La Bete said:
			
		

> Thats quite right. I've been known to offer burnt offerings to the Rouse in my household shrine.
> 
> Wait.. What?




curses! bullets... i mean spelling, my only weakness...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license.




You won't see that, because as we "know," mechanics cannot by copyrighted. There is no question that all issues of copyright will be in order with respect to 4e.

I would be very surprised if you could find matching text of any OGC-- which is to say, the copyrightable text used to describe a game mechanic-- used in 4e. That _would_ be something.

But that is not to say that many of the concepts of 4e were not developed as OGC first. You'll note, I did not say anything about Open Content-- merely that Robin Laws is incorrect that concepts born of Open design were not incorporated into the core system. I think many good OGC concepts were incorporated into 4e-- but it was not done through the safe harbor of the OGL. 

WotC _could_ have done it that way, of course.



> Caveat, I don't think WotC is reusing anyone else's OGC in 4e. They hire their own designers for a reason.




Hiring their own designers doesn't necessarily mean that their designers won't learn from OGC design. 

And I think to suggest that Mike Mearls can go from the OGC in the SRD, take that and design Iron Heroes, and then move on to Lead Designer on 4e, without there being some amount of derivative work involved is questionable at best. 

Some of the concepts in 4e were likely laid down in UA as well-- also OGC.

I'm not trying to rock the copyright boat at all, here. Everybody just be cool.    

All I am saying is that there was lots of good design born from the openness of 3e, and that 4e is better for it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."




It's still a critique, not so much of the OGL, but from the viewpoint that the OGL in itself was a superior license to any other.  




> You keep mentioning this - it's one of the very few instances of a book that was near-totally Open Game Content being released for free on the internet. However, what other people keep pointing out to you, and you keep refusing to acknowledge, is that this is not an indictment of the OGL.




No, it's not an indictment of the OGL, but it does show there is precedent for WoTC reconsidering its stance.  I suspect a few game designers might not like the OGL.  We won't know, and I think any who do might be afraid of admitting it--when Chris posted his thoughts he got pilloried by some as being "biased" and "anti-OGL".  

Have you ever considered this might be a sample conversation in Wizards, between game designers.

"Should we support the OGL or Not?"
"I want to get rid of the viral part.  We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
"Won't they support us via patronage"
"No, remember Unearthed Arcana?  People ripped that and put it online."

While this might not have happened, it could have.  I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior.  It is not out of the realm of possibility, any any defense saying "we used the license like their faq said we could" doesn't mean that it had no influence on them changing their minds.



> It's not surprising that corporate "suits" want to have it killed, since they take the (quite possibly unreasonable) position that the OGL hurts WotC's sales. The fact that Scott and Linae disagree (as Orcus keeps noting) should point out that this position is hardly universal, and suggests that those "in the know" think Open Gaming is better for WotC anyway.




Like I said, the suits probably read the profit statements, and some of those suits might be the game developers or in R&D.  In that statement, you're assuming that everybody in WoTC who want the license changed are stereotypical "pointy-haired bosses" who don't understand.  Maybe they do.



> Your points are questionable at best, and are mendacious at worst. You regularly posit that a large number of gamers and publishers agree with you - often misrepresenting other people's statements in the process - but there's almost no evidence to support that, and plenty to disprove it.




I don't think I've said a "large number of gamers" hate it.  I think most gamers and publishers are more or less _indifferent_ to it.  In other words, if the OGL was replaced by the GSL, most people would be okay with it.  We're here to game, the "OGL" isn't necessary for a healthy industry provided the GSL or whatever replacement is sufficient enough.  

Now, as a mea culpa, I will admit that the question I aimed at WoTC was biased and loaded.  I would personally like to see wizards give the licensees more control over the stuff they create, and I think making it viral will lead to people exploiting it.  It's why I also like the BSD license as opposed to the GPL.  The former gives the ultimate control to the creator, the latter for a principle.  

However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming".  It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.  



> One can be zealous without taking it to a religious degree; enthusiasm does not equate fanaticism. While it's true that there are a lot of posts here that are just blunt statements or over-inflated opinions, there are also a lot of people here who are willing to engage in a reasonable debate over this, and a large portion of those people seem to be doing so in favor of the OGL and against the GSL.




That's true.  I would like to discuss the merits and flaws with people.  But there have been a lot of reactions here.  And there are people who think the "open" part of open gaming is the most important thing, where I think the "gaming" part is.  There are a few people here who care more about the OGL more than the GSL.  So we're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> In the case of WotC using such material, there are two enormous stumbling blocks to doing this. First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license. And second, the owner of that OGC, someone who most likely would like to work with WotC in the future, would need to file suit against WotC, manage to afford such a lawsuit, win that lawsuit, and potentially ruin their relationship with WotC forever.




And I also think these legal snafus are why Wizards wants to make sure anybody who licenses the GSL for 4e voluntarily gives up using the OGL for anything.  It is quite possible that they want to make sure there are no back doors to open up their content, or people using the OGL to free up 4e games.

Similar clauses exist at other businesses.  At Microsoft, there is a policy for some coders that they are not allowed to ever look at anything GPL--I remember the guy writing IronRuby said he couldn't view any of the core Ruby libraries.  I could see a similar policy applied to the 4e D&D rules.  

Granted, you can't copyright rules, but I can see them not opening sticky doors for this.  So I doubt they will ever accept a viral OGL.  And I also predict that if anybody tries to reverse engineer D&D 4e rules into a SRD or a competing game, if you also try to use the OGL license to protect it, you are actually more likely to be sued by Wizards than if you just didn't use any license whatsoever.

Any lawyers care to consider if there is risk for Wizards allowing the OGL and GSL to be supported by the same company?  I'm suspecting that the reason for not allowing companies to dual-support these two licenses are because of the corruption inherent in any "viral" license.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> "Should we support the OGL or Not?"
> "I want to get rid of the viral part.  We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
> "Won't they support us via patronage"
> "No, remember Unearthed Arcana?  People ripped that and put it online."
> 
> While this might not have happened, it could have.  I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior.




First, WotC doesn't have to release ONE WORD as OGC if they don't want to. Second, WotC has released the ENTIRE SRD online, as I am tired of pointing out to you. It's still on their website.

Andy Collins has one, "DUH" moment on the release of UA, and that's the basis of your entire perspective on the OGL?

Unless you're making the argument that Andy Collins is the driving decision maker over there?



> However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming".




Hey, John? I'm right here, in the ing thread. If you're going to put words in my mouth, too, please keep in mind that I'm here to call you on it personally.



> It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.




I can see why WotC might not continue it, too. It's not a mystery, and no nuance is required. I've said it several times: They're walking back from the OGL.


----------



## Nikosandros

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Gary believed that WotC should have re-released D&D 1E once they acquired the game. He didn't care for the changes that were made to it in 3E in any capacity. He wanted to go back to the old days of TSR in every regard, including licensing. His position had nothing to do with the pros or cons of Open Gaming at all.



Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> First, WotC doesn't have to release ONE WORD as OGC if they don't want to. Second, WotC has released the ENTIRE SRD online, as I am tired of pointing out to you. It's still on their website.




How does that refute my stating a hypothetical possibility that the behavior of some fans might be the reason why they've decided the OGL isn't for them?  That conversation is entirely plausible. 

When people say "hey, they knew everything about the license, they knew what to expect", they may have also decided later on that "hey, it turns out open gaming isn't really worthwhile".



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Hey, John? I'm right here, in the ing thread. If you're going to put words in my mouth, too, please keep in mind that I'm here to call you on it personally.




Okay, maybe it wasn't you, but I distinctly remember somebody using the exact phrase "Wizards doesn't understand the OGL".  I could have sworn it was you.  I'm pretty sure you have said at least once "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming" or something of the sort.



> Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.




He wasn't against licensing the game, but he was voting for the "closed version", that is, if Wizards wanted to license it, they should treat it as a traditional license, approving content, similar to how others did it, and focus on 4-12 publishers who would produce high-quality products.


----------



## Alzrius

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's still a critique, not so much of the OGL, but from the viewpoint that the OGL in itself was a superior license to any other.




Actually, no, what he's critiquing in the two posts of his that you linked are, in the first one, the idea that the OGL has numerical data to back up its success, and in the second one, the idea that the OGL is all Green Ronin has. He's not comparing the OGL to other Licenses, he's just saying it's not the be-all end-all of gaming, but that it is still a good license.

In short, he's talking about temperance in support of the OGL; that's not the same as saying he doesn't support it at all.



> _No, it's not an indictment of the OGL, but it does show there is precedent for WoTC reconsidering its stance._




This is a pretty tangential point, and a fallacious one. First, why do we care about the precedent for why WotC reconsidered its stance, since we're talking about the effect of the GSL on the gaming community. Secondly, since we don't know precisely why WotC changed its policy, the idea that the situation with UA being reprinted online motivated WotC's change in attitude is nothing but speculation.



> _I suspect a few game designers might not like the OGL.  We won't know, and I think any who do might be afraid of admitting it--when Chris posted his thoughts he got pilloried by some as being "biased" and "anti-OGL".  _




This is more speculation on your part though. With the possible exception of Robin Laws, there's nothing (that you've shown) to back this idea up. And why would designers be afraid of admitting it? I doubt Chris Pramas was crushed by a few people on message boards engaging in childish name-calling. You're trying to say that you think there's hidden support for your points, but just speculating it exists isn't even close to proving that there is. 

Hence, thus far, there's nothing to say that game designers don't particularly like the OGL.



> _Have you ever considered this might be a sample conversation in Wizards, between game designers.
> 
> "Should we support the OGL or Not?"
> "I want to get rid of the viral part.  We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
> "Won't they support us via patronage"
> "No, remember Unearthed Arcana?  People ripped that and put it online."
> 
> While this might not have happened, it could have.  I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior._




Well, as long as we're making stuff up, have you ever considered that this might also be a sample conversation at WotC, between game designers.

"Hey, do we wanna release 4E under the OGL?"
"Absolutely. Hey, wait, there's a fax coming in... it's from Hasbro, and it says we should drop the OGL like a bad habit, and stick it to everyone else in the industry."
"Seriously? But...I know a lot of those guys. I don't wanna do that to them."
"Yeah, but this memo is pretty clear. Anyone who doesn't follow these orders, and publicly support this idea, is fired."

Now, while this might not have happened, it COULD have. And I think one of the reasons the OGL isn't being supported is because of that behavior.

Now, clearly, I'm satirizing your previous post; you're again making stuff up and claiming that the lack of direct evidence to disprove your scenario means that what you posted must then have some merit. 

It doesn't. Making things up and claiming that they MIGHT have been a factor isn't a rational basis for debating anything.



> _It is not out of the realm of possibility, any any defense saying "we used the license like their faq said we could" doesn't mean that it had no influence on them changing their minds._




It doesn't mean it did have influence either. Please stop asserting something you have zero knowledge of being true at all.

And again, the debate going on here isn't about why WotC changed their policy. It's about the merits and flaws of the GSL, particularly in regards to the OGL.



> _Like I said, the suits probably read the profit statements, and some of those suits might be the game developers or in R&D.  In that statement, you're assuming that everybody in WoTC who want the license changed are stereotypical "pointy-haired bosses" who don't understand.  Maybe they do._




My assumption was at least based on what we've been able to gather from the posts given here by Scott, Linae, and Orcus. We know that several members of WotC are arguing in favor of Open gaming, and we know they're arguing against people with more control than them, which leads one to believe that it's their bosses who are making the call. Hence, suits who apparently have less understanding than the people who interact with the community.



> _I don't think I've said a "large number of gamers" hate it.  I think most gamers and publishers are more or less indifferent to it.  In other words, if the OGL was replaced by the GSL, most people would be okay with it.  We're here to game, the "OGL" isn't necessary for a healthy industry provided the GSL or whatever replacement is sufficient enough._




You posted a thread entitled "The GSL: What We Want" in which you indicated that "we" (the gaming community) wanted all of the points you've been saying for a while now. That seems to be a pretty clear indication that you think a "large number of gamers" hate the OGL.



> _Now, as a mea culpa, I will admit that the question I aimed at WoTC was biased and loaded.  I would personally like to see wizards give the licensees more control over the stuff they create, and I think making it viral will lead to people exploiting it.  It's why I also like the BSD license as opposed to the GPL.  The former gives the ultimate control to the creator, the latter for a principle.
> 
> However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming".  It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.  _




Saying "but someone else is making unfounded statements too" doesn't overwrite the fact that you're also engaged in it. And that aside, the OGL already gives the creator a large amount of control over "viralizing" content via the Product Indentity guidelines, something I've never heard you acknowledge.



> _That's true.  I would like to discuss the merits and flaws with people.  But there have been a lot of reactions here.  And there are people who think the "open" part of open gaming is the most important thing, where I think the "gaming" part is.  There are a few people here who care more about the OGL more than the GSL.  So we're going to have to agree to disagree._




Some people think that the best way to serve the "gaming" part is via the "open" part, as a method of enlightened self-interest. I'm one of them.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL.  I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.



Since you more or less just called me (and others) a religious zealot, I'll be equally blunt.

No, John, you're neither intellectual nor honest.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> Since you more or less just called me (and others) a religious zealot, I'll be equally blunt.




I didn't call anyone a religious zealot, I said a "religious-like zeal", which is what I believe happens when you care more about the OGL as a thing unto itself rather than the bigger picture of letting the publishers publish D&D.


----------



## jmucchiello

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You won't see that, because as we "know," mechanics cannot by copyrighted. There is no question that all issues of copyright will be in order with respect to 4e.



Wulf, the sentence before the one you quoted said there were two enormous stumbling blocks. So you are agreeing with me yet your tone implies disagreement. Am I reading you incorrectly?


----------



## Enkhidu

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> ...Caveat, I don't think WotC is reusing anyone else's OGC in 4e. They hire their own designers for a reason.




Word for word? Agreed.

General implementation? Not so much. The seeds for a lot of ideas in 4e had a beta version in 3rd party products.


----------



## BryonD

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I can see why WotC might not continue it, too. It's not a mystery, and no nuance is required. I've said it several times: They're walking back from the OGL.



Absolutely.  
And that is completely reasonable, 100% within their rights and makes total sense from their point of view.  

It sucks that we can agree with that and yet somehow disagreeing in any way with any other action taken by WotC (or reportedly taken) gets cast as rejecting their right to do what they want with 4E.  It just ain't the case.

They can even put any strings they want in the GSL.  Perfectly within their rights.
But having the right to do something that amounts to an attempt to stick their thumb in the eye of the gamer community doesn't make that action above critical response.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I didn't call anyone a religious zealot, I said a "religious-like zeal", which is what I believe happens when you care more about the OGL as a thing unto itself rather than the bigger picture of letting the publishers publish D&D.



It is religious to see Open Gaming as a bigger picture than the most recent edition of a single game?????


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe it wasn't you, but I distinctly remember somebody using the exact phrase "Wizards doesn't understand the OGL".  I could have sworn it was you.




I *did* say that the whole mess was caused by a misunderstanding and walking back from the OGL.



> I'm pretty sure you have said at least once "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming" or something of the sort.




Do me a favor and don't quote me if you're not sure. I did not say they didn't understand Open Gaming.

What is immediately obvious to any publisher who has been paying attention since the first announcement, and who is familiar with the license, is that _somebody_ at WotC, somebody in a position to set policy with respect to the OGL, does not understand it, as shown in Exhibit A (the corpse is still available for viewing on WotC's site):

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

And when that news was announced here, I followed up with a very simple, straightforward question:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215976

So, let's review: In less than 15 minutes from the time that I first read the announcement, I immediately saw a problem and brought it to WotC's attention. I was not alone.

What happened after that question was raised in January? 

Back to the drawing board for _months._

And here we are. It's still unclear whether their understanding of, or their policy towards, the OGL is complete _even today._ It does seem at least that their understanding firmed up, though that revelation seemed to affect the policy.


----------



## jmucchiello

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's still a critique, not so much of the OGL, but from the viewpoint that the OGL in itself was a superior license to any other.



You want a critique of the OGL? It's a steaming pile of dog doo. That said, it is also the most perfect, most open, most useful IP license for gaming on the market short of "Here's the store; do what you want".

You don't like the OGL because it is viral. How do you know the GSL is not viral too? The GSL puts more control in WotC's hands. But that doesn't mean they threw out the viral nature of the OGL. We won't know for sure until it is released. Up until now, we've only been given a glimpse of the manner in which the GSL is similar to the d20 STL. Nothing about the "content" portion of the license has been revealed. So your complaints about the OGL are orthogonal to the issues we can meaningfully debate. When we know how the content portion of the license reads, then you can debate those points. Until then....


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is religious to see Open Gaming as a bigger picture than the most recent edition of a single game?????




Possibly when you start to Capitalise? 

Gents - you've all been here before - you already know you're not going to convince each other, and it's already gotten to insults....

I mean I know that this thread is going to get locked and all shortly anyway, but unless you want it to go down in flames, perhaps there should be some cooling of tempers?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Wulf, the sentence before the one you quoted said there were two enormous stumbling blocks. So you are agreeing with me yet your tone implies disagreement. Am I reading you incorrectly?




In the first part, I was mostly agreeing with you while expanding on your remarks. In the second part, I was mostly disagreeing with you that "hiring their own designers" meant much of anything with respect to how many concepts from Open design end up co-opted into 4e.

So it was a bit of both. Overall I'd say that means you read correctly.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> It is religious to see Open Gaming as a bigger picture than the most recent edition of a single game?????




I don't think it's religious, and I can understand the concern, but I do believe those few who were saying they would rather the game be closed than have Wizards ask publishers to give up any products under the OGL are being short sighted and unfair to those publishers.  It's sort of the Lady and Tiger story--the people who would rather Wizards close the system are like the ones who would choose the Tiger.

If the OGL is a strong movement, it will survive without the endorsement of WoTC, posion pill or not.  If those publishers decide they'd rather do 4e, I guess it wasn't strong enough to survive.  C'est LaVie



> You want a critique of the OGL? It's a steaming pile of dog doo. That said, it is also the most perfect, most open, most useful IP license for gaming on the market short of "Here's the store; do what you want".
> 
> You don't like the OGL because it is viral. How do you know the GSL is not viral too? The GSL puts more control in WotC's hands. But that doesn't mean they threw out the viral nature of the OGL. We won't know for sure until it is released.




I think the OGL is great if your a publisher, but I think it hurt Wizards because it gave a little too much control away.  It's a little lopsided, it's more beneficial for the licensees than the licensors.  My only argument about the OGL is I think it's a little too loose.

As for viral, I suspect that element of the OGL is one of the reasons the OGL isn't being used anymore.  My criticisms of viral is this--I think content creators should have the ultimate control over their creations, so I think the viral part shouldn't be mandated--the same reason I think the BSD license is superior to the GPL.  

I actually see removing the viral clause as being helpful to the publishers, so they can produce new rules without having them placed in other compilation works or for free when they are trying to make a profit.  And if you give them the choice, some publishers may allow their work as viral.  But let *them* make that choice.  So I am hoping the GSL gives them that incentive.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I didn't call anyone a religious zealot, I said a "religious-like zeal", which is what I believe happens when you care more about the OGL as a thing unto itself rather than the bigger picture of letting the publishers publish D&D.



Oh, yeah?

Well, let me just say "caveman-like stupidity", which is what I believe happens when you care more about "winning" an argument rather than the bigger picture of truthfulness.

Your posts continue to twist and turn reality into a distortion field seldom seen outside of Science Fiction. Trying to rebut each craziness is futile at best. You are hard set in your conviction that Open Gaming is a hippie pipe-dream and conventional business thinking will always rule the world.

Oh, and it's "OGF-L", not "OGL-F".


----------



## jmucchiello

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think the OGL is great if your a publisher, but I think it hurt Wizards because it gave a little too much control away.  It's a little lopsided, it's more beneficial for the licensees than the licensors.  My only argument about the OGL is I think it's a little too loose.



Only because WotC didn't take the community content and merge it back into the game. The whole point of a viral license is to get back from those who get. If the licensors don't take content back from the licensees then of course they have a net loss. But they chose to take that loss. They could have taken back the licensees' content (swapping roles) and gained. The OGL is not lopsided. WotC's use of it was lopsided. 

And even that may not be true. If you agree with Wulf that all OGC created under 3e is playtesting for 4e, then WotC got back infinitely more than they put into the OGL.


> As for viral, I suspect it's one of the reasons the OGL isn't being used anymore.  My criticisms of viral is this--I think content creators should have the ultimate control over their creations, so I think the viral part shouldn't be mandated--the same reason I think the BSD license is superior to the GPL.  I actually see removing the viral clause as being helpful to the publishers, so they can produce new rules without having them placed in other compilation works or for free when they are trying to make a profit.  And if you give them the choice, some publishers may allow their work as viral.  But let them make that choice.  So I am hoping the GSL gives them that incentive.



Publishers who wanted to control their content downstream have/had the option of making their innovations PI or of not making their innovations OGC in the first place. Green Ronin did it with Power Points in Mutants and Masterminds. You can't really reuse anything that is truly new from M&M because the new parts are tangled in the GR PI of Power Points. Monte Cook's AU/AE contains lots of innovative bits that he just did not claim was OGC. Both of them created separate licenses for people who wanted to reuse that material. There are plenty of similar examples.

Nothing about the viral nature of the OGL stopped them or other publishers from controlling things they did not want out of their control.  You can be as generous or as stingy as you want with the OGL since you ultimately declare what is or is not OGC. So your critique of the viral nature of the OGL has no legs.

And as I said above, we don't know that the viral nature of the OGL is not also in the GSL.


----------



## Fifth Element

Guys, I think we need to take it down a notch before the mods step in and start dispensing harsh justice. Tempers are flaring a bit.


----------



## Flynn

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Guys, I think we need to take it down a notch before the mods step in and start dispensing harsh justice. Tempers are flaring a bit.




Not only that, but we're less than fifty posts from having the thread locked anyway, so maybe you guys might want to consider taking this lively discussion to a new thread.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Oldtimer

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Guys, I think we need to take it down a notch before the mods step in and start dispensing harsh justice. Tempers are flaring a bit.



Yes, you're right. I think I'll ease up on the caffeine and do something else for a while.


----------



## Drow_Battlemind

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Well, as long as we're making stuff up, have you ever considered that this might also be a sample conversation at WotC, between game designers.
> 
> "Hey, do we wanna release 4E under the OGL?"
> "Absolutely. Hey, wait, there's a fax coming in... it's from Hasbro, and it says we should drop the OGL like a bad habit, and stick it to everyone else in the industry."
> "Seriously? But...I know a lot of those guys. I don't wanna do that to them."
> "Yeah, but this memo is pretty clear. Anyone who doesn't follow these orders, and publicly support this idea, is fired."
> 
> Now, while this might not have happened, it COULD have. And I think one of the reasons the OGL isn't being supported is because of that behavior.




An idea I've tossed out on many a board. Well, three boards, anyway. I'm glad to know I'm not the only fan/gamer who's considered that this may be what's really going on behind the scenes. It's real easy to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches and get a mob together roaring for Scott Rouse's blood, because he's the public face of WotC's D&D dept.
It's a bit harder to do so for "Faceless Hasbro Executive X", because F.H.E. X (_IF he or she exists_) has made sure that no-one outside the company knows his (or her) real name and that he/she handed the edict down. That is, if this scenario happens to be the correct one.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> And that is completely reasonable, 100% within their rights and makes total sense from their point of view.
> <SNIP>
> They can even put any strings they want in the GSL.  Perfectly within their rights.




Yes, they have that right. And, it's even legal. 
HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily make it ETHICAL.
Which appears to be another point of contention between the two sides here.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I don't think it's religious, and I can understand the concern, but I do believe those few who were saying they would rather the game be closed than have Wizards ask publishers to give up any products under the OGL are being short sighted and unfair to those publishers.  It's sort of the Lady and Tiger story--the people who would rather Wizards close the system are like the ones who would choose the Tiger.



 I don't think your assessment is in any way self-evident.  To the contrary, I'd say putting one edition of D&D over the entirety of open gaming would be the short-sighted approach.

That said....



> If the OGL is a strong movement, it will survive without the endorsement of WoTC, posion pill or not.  If those publishers decide they'd rather do 4e, I guess it wasn't strong enough to survive.  C'est LaVie



  I do agree with you here.  And, I expect a very strong portion of OGL community to survive.  
But no credit goes to WotC for that.  I'm in the camp that sees "attempted" crimes as no less objectionable than actual crimes, with failure being the only difference.  This is by no stretch a crime, but the same reasoning applies.


----------



## Piratecat

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right. I think I'll ease up on the caffeine and do something else for a while.



Thank you. John, you do the same.

No personal bickering, guys. Even when you disagree. You know that.


----------



## BryonD

Drow_Battlemind said:
			
		

> Yes, they have that right. And, it's even legal.
> HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily make it ETHICAL.
> Which appears to be another point of contention between the two sides here.



That is even further into purely subjective territory.  but I don't think that I'd even go so far as to call in unethical.  
I'm a on board with free market competition and all that.  Yeah Capitalism!!! 


But, this isn't some theoretical widget company in a Free Markets 101 course.  The nature of the gaming community is significant in this issue.  Being a "good guy" and going above and beyond is a smart move and WotC made that move before.  I'm certain that some people will have a "4E is the universe" single issue view of this, and as such the ability to have 3PP stuff is a simple litmus test.  For them any ability to publish makes WotC still a "good guy".  For others I think simply moving away from "open" but going to a free license would be a backward step, but still clearly a good position.  But, if open gaming is important, then it is easy to see how this one piece (and I'm still holding my breath hoping that much better news comes down in the clarifications) moves things into "bad guy" territory.


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> Possibly when you start to Capitalise?
> 
> Gents - you've all been here before - you already know you're not going to convince each other, and it's already gotten to insults....
> 
> I mean I know that this thread is going to get locked and all shortly anyway, but unless you want it to go down in flames, perhaps there should be some cooling of tempers?



Now exactly how is that kind of shallow and meaningless jab supposed to support cooling tempers?  Do you have an actual response of merit?


----------



## xechnao

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What is immediately obvious to any publisher who has been paying attention since the first announcement, and who is familiar with the license, is that _somebody_ at WotC, somebody in a position to set policy with respect to the OGL, does not understand it




The statements of press announcements and reality are two different things.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

xechnao said:
			
		

> The statements of press announcements and reality are two different things.




Never more apparent than recently.


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> Now exactly how is that kind of shallow and meaningless jab supposed to support cooling tempers?  Do you have an actual response of merit?




You're not seriously saying that you think that someone who believes in open gaming is the same as someone who believes in Open Gaming are you? It's not exactly an 'ism', but seems to have an whiff of that about it. 

Thus my response was _loaded _ with merit IYKWIMAITYD.

If you have a problem with the post, contact the mods. I felt it was well within the parameters of behaviour here, even in these fraught times. Your inability to take a bit of puckish mockery (unlike MoonLancer?) because you got het up over another futile argument John seems to be your problem. I'm really not sure why you guys aren't on each others ignore list (ditto OldTimer et al). Watching you discuss the OGL/GSL is interesting. In the Ford Fairlane context.


----------



## Alzrius

Drow_Battlemind said:
			
		

> An idea I've tossed out on many a board. Well, three boards, anyway. I'm glad to know I'm not the only fan/gamer who's considered that this may be what's really going on behind the scenes. It's real easy to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches and get a mob together roaring for Scott Rouse's blood, because he's the public face of WotC's D&D dept.
> It's a bit harder to do so for "Faceless Hasbro Executive X", because F.H.E. X (_IF he or she exists_) has made sure that no-one outside the company knows his (or her) real name and that he/she handed the edict down. That is, if this scenario happens to be the correct one.




Well, I made that post largely to satirize the idea of making up scenarios and then claiming they had some merit because they MIGHT have happened. I wasn't really trying to put forth the idea that some evil Hasbro executive forced WotC's hand in regards to how open 4E would be.

...even though I personally think that some degree of that is what happened.


----------



## Plane Sailing

ByronD, la Bete, you're not helping.

Get back to discussing the topic rather than the _way _that people are discussing the topic, or I'll have to ask you to step out of the thread.

Same goes for anyone else.

Thanks


----------



## Matthias

The second part of my previous post seemed to get lost in the stirrings-up of the first part, so I thought I might repeat it:



			
				I said:
			
		

> 2. Is there a mailing list or something that I can sign up with that will notify me by e-mail when WOTC's answers to the submitted questions are published?


----------



## Starman

Matthias said:
			
		

> The second part of my previous post seemed to get lost in the stirrings-up of the first part, so I thought I might repeat it:




I don't know of one. The easiest thing to do would be to check the boards here. About .00001 seconds after it goes up on Wizards site, someone here will post about it.


----------



## thormagni

This thread was picked up on by Boing Boing this evening under a "Sleazy new Dungeons and Dragons license seeks to poison open gaming systems" headline. Link 

As far as bad PR goes, this horse is far, far out of the barn now.


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think the OGL is great if your a publisher, but I think it hurt Wizards because it gave a little too much control away.  It's a little lopsided, it's more beneficial for the licensees than the licensors.  My only argument about the OGL is I think it's a little too loose.




I dont think there is any support for that. I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all. In fact, quite the contrary. I think it helped the d20 system dominate the market in a crazy way.  It also made it real easy for people to create 3E support products, which kept people plugged into D&D.



> As for viral, I suspect that element of the OGL is one of the reasons the OGL isn't being used anymore.  My criticisms of viral is this--I think content creators should have the ultimate control over their creations, so I think the viral part shouldn't be mandated--the same reason I think the BSD license is superior to the GPL.
> 
> I actually see removing the viral clause as being helpful to the publishers, so they can produce new rules without having them placed in other compilation works or for free when they are trying to make a profit.  And if you give them the choice, some publishers may allow their work as viral.  But let *them* make that choice.  So I am hoping the GSL gives them that incentive.




As a publisher, I can tell you this has no impact on me at all. If you want to protect certain content, you can. You dont really give away that much if you dont want to. This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false. 

Look, I'll say it flat out: a non-viral GSL is not better than the OGL, unless it is the same as the OGL and also gives us access to the D&D logo.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Just wanted to respond to Orcus.



> I dont think there is any support for that. I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all. In fact, quite the contrary. I think it helped the d20 system dominate the market in a crazy way. It also made it real easy for people to create 3E support products, which kept people plugged into D&D.




But Orcus, didn't you once say that you understood why they would want more restrictions?  I was arguing from a sense of a contract in general.  A licensor who doesn't include extra clauses to protect their brand, such as say, a termination clause (or a built in time limit) or a clause to protect the brand such as a "no X-rated content" clause.  That's the only point I make from a GSL being better.  I am actually thinking of a contract in general.  I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate on this, but I think Wizards having at least a few more protections--as unpopular as this opinion is sometimes--is better for the hobby and the D&D brand.



> As a publisher, I can tell you this has no impact on me at all. If you want to protect certain content, you can. You dont really give away that much if you dont want to. This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false.




The PI statement is true, but there was a problem, I felt, with the viral nature.  If you did do things to protect your content like not give away the names and descriptions of your spells or monsters, some would call it "crippled OGL", and there is a 5% clause or something like that.  It was and is sort of a peer pressure.  I think it's sort of the disagreement between philosophies.  (You can see an example of the argument in this thread, and even this OGF archive .)  Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring--but right now the OGL is the only method of the license.

It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled.  And it's just my belief that licenses such as the BSD is better than the GPL--let the person creating the work decide.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I am willing to admit that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false.




Maybe you're just running with the wrong crowd of publishers. Maybe you're just too close to the action-- you know, right in the eye of the storm-- to have seen the hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around you.

Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.


----------



## BryonD

La Bete said:
			
		

> You're not seriously saying that you think that someone who believes in open gaming is the same as someone who believes in Open Gaming are you?



For clarification of my point: I'm simply making a distinction between open gaming material and the community that supports it.  Capitalization seems pretty reasonable for a name.


----------



## Umbran

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all.




Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?  

For instance, let's say you have a product for a new edition, and it makes it to market, but does so late.  It sells, so sure it didn't actually hurt.  But failing to be out in the market as soon as it opens isn't just missed revenue from the first rush of buying - it also means not establishing your name and quality in the minds of customers, making it even harder to gain a share of the market.  

So, while it didn't hurt, it fails to help so much that it sure looks like it hurt, by comparison to others.

While we can really only speculate, could WotC not view the OGL in similar light?  Yes, it supported them, but they may now feel that a different scheme would help them _so much more_...


----------



## Drow_Battlemind

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Well, I made that post largely to satirize the idea of making up scenarios and then claiming they had some merit because they MIGHT have happened. I wasn't really trying to put forth the idea that some evil Hasbro executive forced WotC's hand in regards to how open 4E would be.
> 
> ...even though I personally think that some degree of that is what happened.




I admit, I have had very limited access to Mr. Rouse, limited to the WotC messageboards, but the person who responded to my queries seems very different from the person who wrote that portion of the GSL. 

However, having worked for a similar one-company-owned-by-another-company and the edicts that can come down from, well, from some schmuck high-up in the corporate ladder who has no real conception of how the smaller company not only works differently from the Big Business perspective, but in fact *needs* to work differently to be effective in their niche, I can easily see this as having been the case (since I have had similar policy changes dropped on me from some guy who hasn't ever been anywhere outside of an executive boardroom in decades.)

Maybe I'm self-identifying to much here, but stuff like this happens all the time in the corporate paradigm, some guy makes sweeping edicts that cannot hold water in the long-run, and finding out later that in some cases, the executive not only didn't have the practical experience to make such a call, but (in my experience) did so in order to make his own (competing) department come out ahead in order to feather his own nest. 

In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds. The multi-million dollar complex where I worked has now been gutted, sold, and is a Verizon cellular call-center.
I was never so glad as when my wife's career took off. With what she makes, I "retired" and am raising our kids. Let me tell you, raising a toddler and a teenage daughter is far, FAR less nerve-wracking and stressful as having to deal with moronic suit-and-tie types day-in and day-out was. When my son is in school, I'll get a new career, maybe something fun like silk-screening (my first job out of High-school.)


----------



## Vascant

Drow_Battlemind said:
			
		

> In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds.





*Off Topic*
Small world, I was the technical leader for a major project at ICI when WorldCom purchased the company just prior to the accounting issues.  I am so glad I took my stock options and cashed out to retirement.

*On Topic*
I think this is what I find very interesting, being the technical leader for several projects in my life (Some worth millions and one billions) I cannot help but raise an eyebrow at the fact licensing issues were not handled prior to the investment.  This is all part of the initial plan for such projects to get approval in a normal company.  With all the glaring half steps and trips, I have to add it does not give me confidence in the new edition.


----------



## Piratecat

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.



Tell me, do you really think you need to make a personal attack instead of discussing the argument?

(For everyone following at home, the question is rhetorical. The answer is "of course not!" Just so we're clear on that.)

No personal shots, please. You know that.


----------



## SSquirrel

Drow_Battlemind said:
			
		

> In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds. The multi-million dollar complex where I worked has now been gutted, sold, and is a Verizon cellular call-center.
> I was never so glad as when my wife's career took off. With what she makes, I "retired" and am raising our kids. Let me tell you, raising a toddler and a teenage daughter is far, FAR less nerve-wracking and stressful as having to deal with moronic suit-and-tie types day-in and day-out was. When my son is in school, I'll get a new career, maybe something fun like silk-screening (my first job out of High-school.)




Yay someone else who had to suffer at MCI Worldcom.  Like our AWESOME stock strike price.  That had the stock stay above that price for a total of 2 days before it spiraled down by $50 steadily over the course of a year.  As soon as it started going down I had told all my friends I would sell every option if it got to $5 over b/c we were never going to see the money.  They all said I was crazy and to think long term.  They didn't know that I was   My suffering was in Iowa City, you know, the guys who got all the mail and handled all customer email heh.


----------



## Zil

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.



Back when Gary was still running the show at TSR, he was very vigorous in protecting what he considered was TSR's intellectual property.  Even within the game products of the day, and also in much of his writing in Dragon magazine, there was lots of talk about how bad it was to use non-official products with the game.  It's no surprise that he would have problems with the OGL.    I guess we'll never know for sure what he would have thought of the GSL.


----------



## SSquirrel

Zil said:
			
		

> I guess we'll never know for sure what he would have thought of the GSL.




Nah, I memorized Speak With Dead today, we're cool!

(nothing but deep respect for the man)


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> But Orcus, didn't you once say that you understood why they would want more restrictions?




Sure. They wanted the restrictions that are in the STL (no nudity, no excessive violence, etc). That is different, in my view, than saying the OGL is bad or that the problem is that it is viral. The problem that Wizards had is that they tied their restrictions to a logo that became irrelevant.


----------



## Orcus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Maybe you're just running with the wrong crowd of publishers. Maybe you're just too close to the action-- you know, right in the eye of the storm-- to have seen the hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around you.
> 
> Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.




A couple people here complaining is hardly a "hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around" me. 

Not a single publisher I have ever spoken with, nor do I recall any major publishers on the ogl lists, ever complaining that the problem was that the license was viral. Not Monte, Mona, Pramas, Steve or Stew Wieck, etc. I think I've spoken with a good deal of the major publishers and I know I;ve been active on all the ogl/d20 lists. You're just trying to elevate your issue to the level of a major issue and it just istn. Sorry about that.


----------



## Orcus

Umbran said:
			
		

> Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?




Maybe you could cook up an example, but I would say no. Not helping as much as something should is still a help. Harm is different than help. I guess you could come up with some concept that anything that does less than 100% of its maximum possible value is a harm, but that is not that way people in business view it, I dont believe. That would be an extremely expansive and uncommon view of harm.

To me, harm is negative, help is positive. For instance, I go to sell my house. It is worth 400,000. I sell it for 500,000 but I could have sold it for 600,000 a year ago before things really got tight. That's not harm, that is failing to maximize profits. Selling for 380,000 is harm.


----------



## Flynn

Orcus said:
			
		

> A couple people here complaining is hardly a "hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around" me.




Ummm, Orcus, could it be, based on the second paragraph of his post, that perhaps Wulf was being sarcastic? Sometimes tone doesn't carry via email and forum post. The statement didn't jive with Wulf's previous comments, IMO, of course, so that's how I took it.

Of course, I'm not Wulf, so maybe I misunderstood.

Just Trying To Help,
Flynn


----------



## jmucchiello

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate on this, but I think Wizards having at least a few more protections--as unpopular as this opinion is sometimes--is better for the hobby and the D&D brand.



WotC doesn't need any extra protections to maximize their benefit from the OGL. They can release as little or as much OGC as they want under the OGL. You don't think that 8+ years of 90%+ of the RPG designers on the planet tinkering with your rules system *for free* did not benefit WotC when they were writing 4e?

People talk about the genie being out of the bottle. But IMO the OGL being as open as it was created conditions under which infinite monkeys wrote Hamlet. Any greater restriction in the OGL reduces the number of adopters and you lose critical mass. (Someone get my metaphors out of this blender, please.)



> The PI statement is true, but there was a problem, I felt, with the viral nature.  If you did do things to protect your content like not give away the names and descriptions of your spells or monsters, some would call it "crippled OGL",



So? What affect does this have on WotC? How is WotC harmed by 3PPs "crippling" their OGC? WotC never really reused 3PP OGC so crippled or not has no bearing on who useful the OGL was to WotC. And don't say they didn't reuse it because so much was crippled. Many major 3PPs released whole product lines full of 100% OGC. WotC could have easily dipped into a vast array of "uncrippled" OGC if they had wanted to. They just didn't want to.



> and there is a 5% clause or something like that.



That's the d20STL. Not relevant here.



> It was and is sort of a peer pressure.  I think it's sort of the disagreement between philosophies. Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring.



Pubs who feared ripping took the so-called crippled OGL route. Others just said 100% OGC except names, etc, and had no problems. Most of Freeport is 100% open. Where's the Freeport wiki?


> It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled.



You haven't explain how WotC was harmed by the viral nature of the license. You say 3PPs didn't like it but everything you've said about its viral nature seems like a win-win for WotC. In fact, the only thing about the viral nature that limited WotC was they didn't reuse OGC from 3PPs so I'll bet the GSL will not only maintain the viral clauses but may also indemnify WotC from the viral clauses.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> You haven't explain how WotC was harmed by the viral nature of the license. You say 3PPs didn't like it but everything you've said about its viral nature seems like a win-win for WotC. In fact, the only thing about the viral nature that limited WotC was they didn't reuse OGC from 3PPs so I'll bet the GSL will not only maintain the viral clauses but may also indemnify WotC from the viral clauses.




I didn't say WoTC were harmed or helped by it.  I do think it's better to not force the viral as the norm--this is more of an argument for third parties.  I'm not alone in my viewpoint, even if it may be a minority view.

However, with the current assumed requirement that the OGL has to be dropped by the company to sign up for the GSL, I suspect that might be one reason for the hard line of asking publishers to give it up, along with other reasons.  (And if Wizards really wants to protect itself, they would have a line in the new GSL saying they and they alone reserve the right to reuse content, which makes sense from a legal perspective, the indemnification.)  

But we'll see.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Flynn said:
			
		

> Ummm, Orcus, could it be, based on the second paragraph of his post, that perhaps Wulf was being sarcastic?




I'm not exactly batting 1000 lately. Folks who shouldn't be are reading snark into my posts, and yet when I'm actually so sarcastic that I get slapped by Piratecat, the sarcasm flies right past Clark. 

My internet is broken!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> Maybe you could cook up an example, but I would say no. Not helping as much as something should is still a help. Harm is different than help. I guess you could come up with some concept that anything that does less than 100% of its maximum possible value is a harm, but that is not that way people in business view it, I dont believe.




I can tell you with certainty that a "successful" product by any measure, that nevertheless fails to live up to management expectations, is considered a failure in a corporate culture such as Hasbro.

It doesn't matter how unrealistic those expectations are.


It's like telling a child that she's getting a puppy for her birthday, and she says, "Oh that would be wonderful! Or maybe even a pony!" When her birthday rolls around and she gets a puppy, she hates it.

/clumsy analogy


----------



## Alzrius

This was mentioned elsewhere, but ICv2 has posted a two part interview with Scott Rouse while at GAMA.

Part 1: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12449.html
Part 2: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12450.html

The first part reiterates what we already were told about the OGL and d20 STL; there's no new information there (except perhaps the implication that what we've heard about the d20 STL is unchanged). Part 2 discusses the launch and advertising campaigns for 4E.


----------



## jmucchiello

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I didn't say WoTC were harmed or helped by it.  I do think it's better to not force the viral as the norm--this is more of an argument for third parties.  I'm not alone in my viewpoint, even if it may be a minority view.



My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?




Presumably all the publishers that John knows that don't like the viral nature will finally feel comfortable enough to start publishing.

It should be a very exciting time for the hobby, since these are all new publishers that nobody has heard from before.


----------



## JohnRTroy

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?




I think for the same reason that they've changed the license from Open Gaming to Game System.  I suspect somebody at WoTC/Hasbro is not a fan of the copyleft elements of the license--the motives or the whys don't really matter.  Otherwise, why would they care about the OGL at all, they'd continue to use it.  I know I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Presumably all the publishers that John knows that don't like the viral nature will finally feel comfortable enough to start publishing.




No, you missed my point.  The only license for D&D now is the OGL.  There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms.  My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license.  Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license.  I'm kind of saying let it be "opt out" instead of "opt in" by default.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> No.  The only license for D&D now is the OGL.  There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms.



 So you are NOT claiming that anyone new would join the publishing arena.  Just that those that are there would have a warm fuzzy feeling with a new set of guidelines?



> My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license.  Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license.



I agree with you there.  If WotC gave me free use of their stuff and I was allowed to use it without any similar reverse expectation on myself, I'd call that a really cool deal.  I'd also like some free books while we are doing one-sided deals.


----------



## JohnRTroy

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree with you there.  If WotC gave me free use of their stuff and I was allowed to use it without any similar reverse expectation on myself, I'd call that a really cool deal.  I'd also like some free books while we are doing one-sided deals.




One-sided contracts are called End User License Agreements   

And like I said up-thread, all Wizards would have to do to prevent it from being one-sided is say that _WoTC and WoTC alone_ gets the right to use it, and no one else, which they may do if it's not viral.  WoTC doesn't usually use other people's content anyway, based on the track record.

My personal ideal is that it will be viral by choice of the individual company.  I'd also be happy if they did make it the same viral conditions as the last time.  

However, the cynic tells me it will be closed by default. :-/


----------



## Sora Justice

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is religious to see Open Gaming as a bigger picture than the most recent edition of a single game?????




Absolutely. The only thing Open Gaming has to its credit is that it was used by Dungeons and Dragons. If Dungeons and Dragons had not used it, it would never have meant anything, and now that Dungeons and Dragons does not use it, it does not mean anything.

(Yes, I'm sure you'll want to inform me that a few other insignificant games have, for whatever reason, fallen under the Open Gaming banner. I don't care, and neither should you, about those other games. By the admission of the second-largest company in the industry - the only other company in the industry that has market share worth talking about - D&D *is* fantasy roleplaying.)


----------



## Urizen

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The only thing Open Gaming has to its credit is that it was used by Dungeons and Dragons. If Dungeons and Dragons had not used it, it would never have meant anything, and now that Dungeons and Dragons does not use it, it does not mean anything.
> 
> (Yes, I'm sure you'll want to inform me that a few other insignificant games have, for whatever reason, fallen under the Open Gaming banner. I don't care, and neither should you, about those other games. By the admission of the second-largest company in the industry - the only other company in the industry that has market share worth talking about - D&D *is* fantasy roleplaying.)




In your opinion.

I'm sure alot of people would disagree with you.

Posting incendiary comments like this doesn't do anything for the debate, btw. You just breed resentment.


----------



## Vascant

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The only thing Open Gaming has to its credit is that it was used by Dungeons and Dragons. If Dungeons and Dragons had not used it, it would never have meant anything, and now that Dungeons and Dragons does not use it, it does not mean anything.




Maybe not to you...  

This is my biggest problem right now with how all this is being forced down, for a great many years Dungeons and Dragons was a game played by friends at a table.  Now I am finding many people are attempting to tell others what the game is or isn't?  There is a pretty big difference between 4e and 3.5e and just because 4e may not be someone's style of gaming does not mean they suddenly are not playing Dungeons and Dragons.  Anyone who thinks this way is pretty confused about this game.


----------



## The Sigil

Did the OGL benefit by having the D&D ruleset published under its name?  Absolutely.

Is the OGL perfect?  No.  Heavens, no.  Almost from the beginning, the "Attribution" portion of its viral nature has been a beast (with ever-expanding Section 15's) and I for one am *still* appalled at the general laxity with which the "You Must Clearly Identify What is Open Game Content" is treated (since for a great many publishers, I could say their designations makes it obvious that their understanding of "Clearly" is some new definition of the word with which I am not familiar).

Apart from the fact that I do not like the kludgy Section 15's (how I would have solved it: If you take material from a source, you need only attribute that source, not reproduce its section 15 in its entirety - while this takes away credit "downstream" I think it's preferable to the alternative) and preferred a clearer stance on PI/OGC especially with regard to clarity (not quite sure off the top of my head how I would have solved that one; limiting PI designations to, say, registered trademarks only would solve the problem but is probably too harsh).

So there... there are the flaws I see in the Open Gaming License... that in one case it is too tight and inflexible (section 15) and in one case it is too loose (clear designation).  

That it is viral I do *not* see as a flaw.  In fact, I see that as its primary FEATURE, not as a bug.  From the perspective of WotC, the OGL was there to allow support for - and thus increasing feedback into - D&D, via the "Skaff Effect."  While the OGL has had the side effects of allowing entirely new products to be birthed (e.g., the True20 system) that do not directly feed D&D, I think that, by and large, support for D&D was in fact the largest thing it accomplished, and the Skaff Effect probably kicked in well.

With my "gamer" hat on, I am glad that the 3E/OGL mix forever put D&D - or at least one incarnation thereof - beyond the reach of corporate control and vindictiveness on the scale Lorraine Williams(?) attempted.  D&D is now free to die of "natural causes" - not enough GAMERS supporting it - rather than of "unnatural ones" (its owner ceasing support/going out of business, etc.)

Now I hear that the GSL may contain clauses to try to force people to abandon the OGL.  I happen to believe strongly in Open Source ideology, so I'll say I'm not thrilled that this is even on the table.  In my mind, the proper thing to do would have been to go back and "fix" the problems with the Open Game License, then extend a new license, akin to the d20 license, but for 4E, to go along with it and release the 4E SRD-equivalent under the new-and-improved OGL.  From a practical, business standpoint, I understand why this is on the table at WotC... but it doesn't make the idealist in me take it the news any better.

ALL THAT SAID, I am reserving final judgment on the GSL until I actually get a final copy in my hot little hands.  Until that happens, the hue and cry and handwringing is at best premature and at worst unnecessary.  I like to worry about what IS the situation, not what MIGHT BE the situation.  Since there are far mor "MIGHT BE'S" than "IS's" it cuts my worry down a lot.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm kind of saying let it be "opt out" instead of "opt in" by default.



You do realize, John, that it is "opt in" by default. You are required to formulate an OGC declaration which describes what is Open Gaming Content in your work. If you don't include any of your own original work in that declaration, you haven't "opted in". PI was added as a convenience to white out single words or phrases you wanted to keep for yourself.


----------



## Orcus

Flynn said:
			
		

> Ummm, Orcus, could it be, based on the second paragraph of his post, that perhaps Wulf was being sarcastic? Sometimes tone doesn't carry via email and forum post. The statement didn't jive with Wulf's previous comments, IMO, of course, so that's how I took it.
> 
> Just Trying To Help,
> Flynn




It could be, and frankly I was surprised that Wulf was saying that based on prior comments. 

Thanks for helping. I need it. This whole thing is driving me crazy 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?




Why? Because a lot of people in corporate culture JUST DONT GET IT. Its that simple. They are scared of open content. They dont understand it. It bothers them on some internal level. They are managers who answer to larger overlords and fear being the person who is blamed for "giving it away." That is why.


----------



## Orcus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Presumably all the publishers that John knows that don't like the viral nature will finally feel comfortable enough to start publishing.
> 
> It should be a very exciting time for the hobby, since these are all new publishers that nobody has heard from before.




OK, yeah, now I'm getting the sarcasm


----------



## Urizen

1000!

Yup. I have KILLED THE THREAD.

Yay me!

Do I get a donut, at least.. or maybe a T-shirt?

hmm....


----------



## Goobermunch

'it's not dead yet.

--G


----------



## Urizen

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> 'it's not dead yet.
> 
> --G




I wanted my T-shirt, dangit..


----------



## Nellisir

Urizen said:
			
		

> I wanted my T-shirt, dangit..



Once you wear a thread-killer tee-shirt you can never wear a different t-shirt again....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> OK, yeah, now I'm getting the sarcasm




Well, ok, then. 

It's ok to lock down the thread now.


----------



## Alzrius

This post has no merit to it. I just wanted to get in on the thread post-1000 posts. That is all.



EDIT: Actually, it turns out there is some merit to this post after all. I noticed this mentioned in another thread, but Daniel Perez of Highmoon Media Productions posted some news he got at GAMA:



			
				HalWhiteWyrm said:
			
		

> Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.
> 
> I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.
> 
> In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.
> 
> Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.




So what does this mean? Well, it sounds like WotC might be interested in having the "poison pill" limited to things that use the d20 (or d20 Modern) SRD, rather than the OGL as a whole. Of course, even that'll present a few hurdles, as some of the systems they mentioned (such as M&M) still rely on the 3.5 SRD. Still, this is encouraging.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Biggest thing I noticed from that is ... The GSL is _still_ not done.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I suspect the GSL won't be done until the evening on June 5th.  They'll release the license on June 6th, not one day sooner.  Based on their internal chaos, I think it's going to be vetted internally until the very last minute.  And that's assuming it won't get delayed until after the D&D launch.

The not requiring a publisher to give up all OGL products, just applying it to D&D/d20 Modern products is good news, it's not an "attack on the principle of OGL".  I do suspect people won't be allowed to have "two labels" for publishing both sets of rules, based on that comment.

I'm wondering how the GSL will appear in products and for the publishers.  My suspicion now is that the license will not only be something you include in every product, but a physical contract you must sign (along with accurate personal information) and return to WoTC.  I think they mentioned something about a card.  

While I believe publishers are the highest priority, I would like to know how it affects people who just want to write their stuff for free on a Wiki.


----------



## Jack99

IBTL   

But yes, the interview that Alzrius quoted does have a more positive feel than the last few things we have heard. 

Here is to optimism!


----------



## Goobermunch

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Biggest thing I noticed from that is ... The GSL is _still_ not done.




Actually, the thing I took from that is that after the response here (and elsewhere) the "final" version of the GSL has been determined to be "not done."

I think it was final, and due to the questions that have arisen, it's in a process of revision.  Not that we'll ever know for sure.

--G


----------



## Fifth Element

Umbran said:
			
		

> Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?



Yes. It's the concept of the opportunity cost - the profit you could have made by investing your resources elsewhere. It is a real, economic cost and must be considered in business decision-making.


----------



## Fifth Element

Orcus said:
			
		

> To me, harm is negative, help is positive. For instance, I go to sell my house. It is worth 400,000. I sell it for 500,000 but I could have sold it for 600,000 a year ago before things really got tight. That's not harm, that is failing to maximize profits. Selling for 380,000 is harm.



Yes, but it depends on your definition of "negative" and "positive". If you know that you could invest your resources and earn 10%, but instead you try something else and earn only 5%, that's a negative, depending on how you look at it.


----------



## SSquirrel

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> 'it's not dead yet.




It's gettin' better!


----------



## BryonD

Sora Justice said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The only thing Open Gaming has to its credit is that it was used by Dungeons and Dragons. If Dungeons and Dragons had not used it, it would never have meant anything, and now that Dungeons and Dragons does not use it, it does not mean anything.
> 
> (Yes, I'm sure you'll want to inform me that a few other insignificant games have, for whatever reason, fallen under the Open Gaming banner. I don't care, and neither should you, about those other games. By the admission of the second-largest company in the industry - the only other company in the industry that has market share worth talking about - D&D *is* fantasy roleplaying.)



You welcome to not care.  That doesn't make your statements any less ill-informed.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> One-sided contracts are called End User License Agreements



The scenario you have built is almost perfectly the opposite of a EULA.



> And like I said up-thread, all Wizards would have to do to prevent it from being one-sided is say that _WoTC and WoTC alone_ gets the right to use it, and no one else, which they may do if it's not viral.  WoTC doesn't usually use other people's content anyway, based on the track record.
> 
> My personal ideal is that it will be viral by choice of the individual company.  I'd also be happy if they did make it the same viral conditions as the last time.



I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation of why this would be better for anyone.
As it is, in references you yourself already linked to, that option already exists.  If OGL is better you use it, if closed it better, you use that.



> However, the cynic tells me it will be closed by default. :-/



I have no doubt there.


----------



## La Bete

BryonD said:
			
		

> You welcome to not care.




I'm down with this -Sora Justice - sorry man , but surely after a bazillion posts you could have done better than that!

Man give us some love as to the WHY!

IBTL! FTW! and all that.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> In your opinion.
> 
> I'm sure alot of people would disagree with you.
> 
> Posting incendiary comments like this doesn't do anything for the debate, btw. You just breed resentment.




To be fair, a lot of the pro-OGL side do make statements of similar emotion as well.  I think we both have to accept that our individual viewpoints are not the "one true game".

I do want to take the time to say I am sorry for engaging in puffery in a few posts.  Obviously, at times I have used the "we" to represent my own opinions, and Wulf was right to call me on that.  And I guess I have crossed the lines at times myself.  I do usually try to take care to attack the position but not the person.  And I will bow out of the conversation.  

I'm not even that emotionally attached to the argument, I just don't think the argument can be as simply stated as the equation OGL = Good, GSL < OGL, Hasbro Lawyers = Evil, and and skeptical of copyleft in general.  I promise I will try to express my opinions in the future in a way to try to respect the opinions of others.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I just don't think the argument can be as simply stated as the equation OGL = Good, GSL < OGL, Hasbro Lawyers = Evil



Well, I'm sure you could point out some extreme cases, but as I'm on the list of people you have debated, I'd certainly take issue with this extreme nature of this characterization.

OGL = Good: The OGL has issues, but overall has produced a great deal of "good" with good defined as a wide range of gaming options that a lot of people get a lot of joy out of.

GSL < OGL: Well, if all you care about is publishing 4E compatible material then the GSL sounds somewhat BETTER than the OGL.  But if you want games like Mutants and Masterminds and Grim Tales to be cultivated, or simply think that open gaming is a good thing, then clearly the GSL falls way way short of that.  And that is without touching on poison pill issues.

Hasbro Lawyers = Evil: Meh, It is not "evil" or even unethical to engage in aggressive free market competition.  Neither is it unacceptable to put whatever restrictions you want into your own contract.  Anyone who finds he terms acceptable can go wth it and anyone who doesn't can decline with the loss of nothing.  Though rather than a good/evil thing, WotC HAS created an Us/Them thing with the poison pill.  Now, maybe in the end we will find out they have backed away from that.  I certainly hope so.  But in the mean time, if you are not part of WotC's "Us", then feeling like you been placed in the enemy "Them" camp is pretty natural.


----------



## jmucchiello

Ironically, the following quotes are in response to me and my response to them both is the same:


			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think for the same reason that they've changed the license from Open Gaming to Game System.  I suspect somebody at WoTC/Hasbro is not a fan of the copyleft elements of the license--the motives or the whys don't really matter.  Otherwise, why would they care about the OGL at all, they'd continue to use it.  I know I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not.





			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Why? Because a lot of people in corporate culture JUST DONT GET IT. Its that simple. They are scared of open content. They dont understand it. It bothers them on some internal level. They are managers who answer to larger overlords and fear being the person who is blamed for "giving it away." That is why.



No, the problem is not that someone at WotC is "not a fan of copyleft" nor that they don't "get it". The problem this supposed person has with the OGL is that it's a perpetual license. They can't kill it, can't alter it, can't destroy it. They aren't focused on the viral aspect of the license -- just the control aspect.


----------



## Kevin Brennan

I know this is not likely to make much of a difference, but I would suggest that WotC look hard at the amount of internal resources and energy they're devoting to trying to sort out the GSL, the ongoing negative publicity that they're getting from it, and the likely investment required to sort out all the remaining issues, and really ask themselves if the marginal benefit from preventing the publication of a few competing products really exceeds that cost. I think it's very unlikely that the positive benefits of the GSL over just putting 4e under the OGL would justify the drain on resources that it's causing. 

If I thought WotC would take me up on it I'd even offer to help them with the business case.


----------



## SSquirrel

Kevin Brennan said:
			
		

> I know this is not likely to make much of a difference, but I would suggest that WotC look hard at the amount of internal resources and energy they're devoting to trying to sort out the GSL, the ongoing negative publicity that they're getting from it, and the likely investment required to sort out all the remaining issues, and really ask themselves if the marginal benefit from preventing the publication of a few competing products really exceeds that cost. I think it's very unlikely that the positive benefits of the GSL over just putting 4e under the OGL would justify the drain on resources that it's causing.
> 
> If I thought WotC would take me up on it I'd even offer to help them with the business case.




On the flip side of this, the beancounters would say "well yes, but we've ALREADY spent X amount, and we only need to spend .3 X more now.  May as well not have that money be wasted"


----------



## Kevin Brennan

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> On the flip side of this, the beancounters would say "well yes, but we've ALREADY spent X amount, and we only need to spend .3 X more now.  May as well not have that money be wasted"




Sunk cost fallacy.   That money is gone no matter what, all that matters is whether even .3X cost is less than the benefits. I suspect it's not.


----------



## xechnao

Kevin Brennan said:
			
		

> I know this is not likely to make much of a difference, but I would suggest that WotC look hard at the amount of internal resources and energy they're devoting to trying to sort out the GSL, the ongoing negative publicity that they're getting from it, and the likely investment required to sort out all the remaining issues, and really ask themselves if the marginal benefit from preventing the publication of a few competing products really exceeds that cost. I think it's very unlikely that the positive benefits of the GSL over just putting 4e under the OGL would justify the drain on resources that it's causing.
> 
> If I thought WotC would take me up on it I'd even offer to help them with the business case.




I do not believe that they suffer due to this negative publicity as you have been thinking. They are instead drawing more attention. The most important for them is to gain max attention around 4e launch. Along the bad news that will be drawing these people, the good ones will pass along and hopefully prevail.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> (You can see an example of the argument in this thread, and even this OGF archive .)  Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring--but right now the OGL is the only method of the license.
> 
> It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled.  And it's just my belief that licenses such as the BSD is better than the GPL--let the person creating the work decide.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I am willing to admit that.



Seriously, it is quite clear you are terrified of someone using your work without your permission (even though you would never be materially harmed or even notice it), I kind of guess I can understand that.  I mean, the GNU type Open Source License came about in an environment where about 80%+ of the people that support or adhere to it _only write code for internal use_.  In other words, they don't write commercial software that gets sold.

Barring all that, you cited a post from _theRPGSite_ that was posted in 2006.  By RPGPundit himself.  Which was a re-posting from a blog entry of his that was a year old _at that point_.

Mr Fantastic can't stretch that much.

(EDIT:  Thanks to the mods for keeping this open just a touch longer than the 1k mark.  I had to point that out.)


----------



## Tao

Hey... haven't posted around here in a while, but I've been lurking and this was enough to bring me out of the woodwork.

The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition.  For every ripped copy of UA there were a dozen or so solid products (like Iron Heroes, True20, Iron Kingdoms, etc) that kept the attention and focus of the vast majority of gamers and game developers on the d20 system.  If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.

I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much.  They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors.  Sadly, with the bulk of a large corporation at their back, I don't know if the S.S. WotC is maneuverable enough to keep up with changing trends in gaming should they create too many competitors.  If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.

Again, this is only my own personal opinion... and I would hope that its something thats already been expressed within the hallowed halls of WotC.


----------



## xechnao

Tao said:
			
		

> Hey... haven't posted around here in a while, but I've been lurking and this was enough to bring me out of the woodwork.
> 
> The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition.  For every ripped copy of UA there were a dozen or so solid products (like Iron Heroes, True20, Iron Kingdoms, etc) that kept the attention and focus of the vast majority of gamers and game developers on the d20 system.  If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.
> 
> I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much.  They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors.  Sadly, with the bulk of a large corporation at their back, I don't know if the S.S. WotC is maneuverable enough to keep up with changing trends in gaming should they create too many competitors.  If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.
> 
> Again, this is only my own personal opinion... and I would hope that its something thats already been expressed within the hallowed halls of WotC.




What if Wotc plans 5E to sell on the basis of a different system? You do understand that it will have an even harder time to do it if what you have been saying here goes on. OGL was a good move under the certain conditions of 10 years ago. It seems not this time.


----------



## Morrus

Tao said:
			
		

> The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition.




That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise.  Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?



> If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.




To be fair, there are hundreds of those despite that.



> I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much.




I think it matters more than you do!



> They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors.




Sure, but even as competitors, they, combined, only make up a small percentage of the market. 



> If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.




I agree it would be nice; I strongly dispute your assertion that it's necessary for them to maintain their massive market share.


----------



## pawsplay

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> No, you missed my point.  The only license for D&D now is the OGL.  There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms.  My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license.  Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license.  I'm kind of saying let it be "opt out" instead of "opt in" by default.




What are you talking about? Publishers don't have to designate anything OGL they don't want to, and there's no question of opt-in or opt-out; the licenese requires you to clearly indicate what is OGC and what is not.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise.  Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?




I'm sure that D&D would be the big dog no matter what -- but prior to 3rd edition there was massive fracturing of game systems in the market -- all these publishers have their own little game.

We've seen some of that return in the last couple years -- but even now there's an awful lot of material around the core mechanic.  Moreover, we're seeing islands form around splinter OGL systems -- so you have a group of publishers doing M&M and another group doing d20 Modern.

Even a few people doing open content for Shadows of the Century and I won't be surprised to see extensive support for Mongoose's Traveler.

This is a lot different than the 90s -- and I think we're finally getting to the point where we're seeing a nice balance of experimentation in RPG design and supporting well-tested and relatively widely-used games.


----------



## Psion

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise.  Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?




This isn't an either or situation. D&D likely would have had a dominant position on the market either way; that doesn't mean that the OGL didn't contribute to its success, perhaps even priming the market for 4e (by preventing jaded players from moving too far away from the tree, as it were.)


----------



## Tao

I guess I should clarify my early post.  I'm not trying to insinuate that Wizards is wrong for limiting their gaming license nor do I believe that they haven't weighed the relative advantages and disadvantages of the OGL.  I am simply pointing out that there definitely _were_ advantages, in my own opinion.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise.  Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?



I don't doubt the impact of having an established brand name and resources, nor did I intend to imply that those wouldn't factor into their market share.  The fact that many other game designers were actively promoting their line for them couldn't have hurt though.  I don't think you or I or even Wizards of the Coast's head honchos can truly attribute their success to any one factor.  We can, at best, make estimates based on our own observations.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> To be fair, there are hundreds of those despite that.



Absolutely.  But there is really no system that I am aware of that attempts to do exactly what D&D does.  The majority attempt to fill a niche that isn't yet filled by a major gaming system.  No one has _seriously_ tried making a game for that specific genre (mid-high fantasy) and that specific style (primarily dungeon crawl and linear adventure), because it was easier to just make a  campaign setting or adventure module using the d20 Open Content and call it a day.  If its no longer easier to play by their rules (both literally and figuratively), someone may actually be crazy enough to develop a serious competitor to D&D and challenge their market share.  I don't know how well it would go over, but it appears as though Paizo is tentatively stepping up to the plate with the possibility of a "3.75".  Maybe others will do the same.  No way to tell for sure.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I think it matters more than you do!



Meh.  Blizzard was a latecomer to the videogaming market.  Marvel Comics was a latecomer to the comicbook market.  Google was a latecomer to the search engine market.  They did alright for themselves.  Talent sells.  Right now a lot of the talent, even if they aren't working _for_ Wizards of the Coast is still working for Wizards of the Coast.  I am hardly predicting an apocalypse on WotC's horizon.  Rather, I am stating the possibility that their actions will create more competitors: possibly more serious competitors.  Honestly, I am sure that this is something that was considered by people at all levels of Wizards of the Coast when the new GSL was drafted.  Its simply a risk they were willing to take.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I agree it would be nice; I strongly dispute your assertion that it's necessary for them to maintain their massive market share.



I didn't say that it was necessary.  The only thing necessary to maintain a massive market share is making a good game that people like to play.  They could do it without anyone at all if they wanted, and I don't doubt that they would still do very well for themselves.  I am simply saying that if they make it too hard to work with them they will more than likely find people on the other side of the fence.  Even this isn't necessarily a bad thing for Wizards of the Coast, since any growth in the roleplaying industry tends to lift everyone involved.  More variety in game lines could attract a bigger crowd.

Keep in mind, I am not even saying it will cost Wizards anything.  There is the possibility that if people step out of Wizards shadow, the whole industry will grow in ways that attract new players and a larger market.  Personally, I don't mind a little bit of fracturing in the market.  It could push everyone involved to new heights.  There's a lot of speculation at this point, and only time will tell how it turns out.



As for me personally, I fully plan on supporting 4e when it comes to my own publishing endeavors.  I have a good working relationship with Wizards of the Coast and have put a lot of work put into a setting for 4e.  I have also begun to lay the groundwork for a game that I hope will be viable under the non-fantasy d20 OGL.  If it is not possible under that OGL, I already have another system on the backburner that I am willing to run with to make it happen.  I'm willing to be pretty flexible, and hopefully it works.  If not, its still getting published.


----------



## BryonD

Tao said:
			
		

> I have also begun to lay the groundwork for a game that I hope will be viable under the non-fantasy d20 OGL.  If it is not possible under that OGL, I already have another system on the backburner that I am willing to run with to make it happen.



I assume you meant GSL.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> But there is really no system that I am aware of that attempts to do exactly what D&D does. The majority attempt to fill a niche that isn't yet filled by a major gaming system. No one has seriously tried making a game for that specific genre (mid-high fantasy) and that specific style (primarily dungeon crawl and linear adventure), because it was easier to just make a campaign setting or adventure module using the d20 Open Content and call it a day.




Actually, you have to remember that before the OGL existed there was about 25 years of RPG history.  Just a few years after D&D took of there were systems that have tried to do almost exactly what D&D does.  Perhaps the oldest of them were Tunnels & Trolls, Chivarly & Sorcery   and RuneQuest.  I think T&T especially had dungeon crawls, but I've never played that. Others include games like DragonQuest.  

You can't really say people haven't tried to create a "better D&D"--there have been attempts since the 1970s.  They just haven't gained a following that has eclipsed D&D.  If D&D were to be surpassed by another tabletop RPG--it already has been beaten in gaming if you count the CCGs and CRPGs--my bet is something completely different will surpass it for market share, such as the Urban Fantasy of White Wolf or another genre.  I believe it would take a long time and a slow movement to remove D&D from the top of the Fantasy RPG heap--barring anything like the company going into bankruptcy or killing the product.


----------



## gideon_thorne

Tao said:
			
		

> No one has _seriously_ tried making a game for that specific genre (mid-high fantasy) and that specific style (primarily dungeon crawl and linear adventure),




Actually, a system called Castles and Crusades (C&C) attempts to do just that. Seems to be pretty popular too. ^_~`


----------



## see

Tao said:
			
		

> But there is really no system that I am aware of that attempts to do exactly what D&D does.




How exact is exact?  I mean, Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest, the Palladium Roleplaying Game (later retitled the Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game after Palladium did other games), and Earthdawn all pretty much were aimed directly at the D&D market, while the Fantasy Trip and Rolemaster both began as subsystems to add directly to a D&D game before growing into full games.


----------



## pawsplay

Don't forget Swordbearer, the Arcanum, and Powers & Perils.


----------



## Cergorach

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise.  Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?



The brand name is what makes D&D a 'big dog', but I (and many with me) think that the OGL made D&D a 'bigger dog'. Why would I think that?

1.) The OGL created a LOT of goodwill from the gaming community, and beyond. It was some very good free publicity for D&D. Comparing it with Open Source Software made D&D more 'normal' and 'acceptable' to the general populace.
2.) The OGL (and D20) was linked to D&D, that made it a popular choice to make RPG material for. Because D&D sells, so did OGL/D20. Third party publishers made supplements that WotC would never make or only made much later, that attracted folks that would never have looked at D&D without third party products. Necromancer promoted a 1E feel for 3E D&D, that attracted a lot of older gamers to 3E. The list is long, folks that would never have touched D&D were suddenly interested in rolling that D20. Even if you were playing Spycraft, Traveller D20, Babylon 5, Conan, or a Mecha game, you were using the basic rules of D&D. That made D&D the defacto RPG operating system.
3.) Having a larger piece of the RPG market pie tied to your system not only hurts your competition, but at such a small scale, drives your competition out of business. Small print runs are not viable for most publishers. Since the introduction of the OGL, I've seen a lot less non-OGL game systems in print from the distributors. The digital age (pdf) and print on demand have created the possibility of small scale distribution, but those solutions just don't have shelve space at the RPG shops.

WotC eliminated much of the competition in the last decade or at least tied the competition to the D&D system. After that decade most of the surviving publishers that are tied to D&D are so dependant on D&D for their income that WotC can dictate more profitable (for WotC) license terms for a new version of D&D. Tying those publishers even closer to the D&D system, with even more control for WotC. It's a very cunning move on the part of WotC.

I'm very curious what companies like Mongoose will do, they were created on D&D accessory sales and attempts at expansion have faltered or failed (miniature lines have collapsed). On the other hand, companies like Fantasy Flight have moved on from publishing D20 material as their main source of income (fifth largest board-game company in the world). Green Ronin (Mutants & Masterminds, True20) and Crafty Games (SpyCraft) have developed their own unique systems based on the D&D system, but don't need a way to tie their systems into D&D 4E. I'm curious to see if Paizo will continue with their Pathfinder system under the OGL, and if they'll succeed to get a decent following/community.


----------



## xechnao

Cergorach said:
			
		

> 3.) Having a larger piece of the RPG market pie tied to your system not only hurts your competition, but at such a small scale, drives your competition out of business. Small print runs are not viable for most publishers. Since the introduction of the OGL, I've seen a lot less non-OGL game systems in print from the distributors. The digital age (pdf) and print on demand have created the possibility of small scale distribution, but those solutions just don't have shelve space at the RPG shops.
> 
> WotC eliminated much of the competition in the last decade or at least tied the competition to the D&D system.




Actually that was good competition for Wotc because it defined the gamer market itself. The gamer market can not hold on its feet with only one system: it will eventually collapse. Unless D&D is to totally become a board game in the future, if Wotc cares not to, this thing must stop.


----------



## Tao

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, you have to remember that before the OGL existed there was about 25 years of RPG history.  Just a few years after D&D took of there were systems that have tried to do almost exactly what D&D does.  Perhaps the oldest of them were Tunnels & Trolls, Chivarly & Sorcery   and RuneQuest.  I think T&T especially had dungeon crawls, but I've never played that. Others include games like DragonQuest.
> 
> You can't really say people haven't tried to create a "better D&D"--there have been attempts since the 1970s.  They just haven't gained a following that has eclipsed D&D.  If D&D were to be surpassed by another tabletop RPG--it already has been beaten in gaming if you count the CCGs and CRPGs--my bet is something completely different will surpass it for market share, such as the Urban Fantasy of White Wolf or another genre.  I believe it would take a long time and a slow movement to remove D&D from the top of the Fantasy RPG heap--barring anything like the company going into bankruptcy or killing the product.




Wow... that'll teach me to not think my ideas all the way through.  

So, yes, there have been some attempts.  And that's actually my point, I guess.  If you look at the publishing dates of all of those systems, most came around pre-OGL.  The fact that only one of the many systems named was published during the OGL years (and lets face it, Castles and Crusades is very D&Desque, almost to the point of being another edition of the same system, similar to the idea of "Pathfinder = D&D 3.75" that's going around right now) seems indicative of the very phenomenon I am trying to point out.  

The OGL kept people from developing unique systems end encouraged them to stick with WotC's d20 system.  You went from at least a half-dozen different fantasy roleplaying games down to one (that mattered)... and a dozen companies making supplements to that one.  In my opinion, it would be naive to believe that the OGL had nothing to do with that huge shift in the way that small game publishers were developing.

Again... I am not saying whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.  I am not even saying that the conversion from OGL to GSL is going to have a negative impact on Wizards of the Coast's immediate market share.  In all likelihood it won't.  What I am saying is that the OGL did bring about a shift in the way small publishers did business.  What I am also saying is that if it becomes too difficult to play by WotC's rules, instead of "True 20" and "Mutants and Masterminds" and other "modified d20 system games" we're very likely going to see those same people developing well outside of Wizard's box, just like they did before the OGL.  That has the potential to go a lot of different ways, and I would be interested to see what kinds of game systems start popping up in the next few years.  I don't doubt that a lot of them would be crushed beneath the 4e behemoth, but who knows... maybe something interesting will come of it.  And maybe, a decade or so down the road, someone will really strike gaming gold.  

I think for anyone to imagine that Wizards of the Coast will topple in the next decade is a bit naive.  They could print a book full of empty pages with the D&D logo on the cover and it would still sell at this point.  However, their actions now _will_ greatly effect the gaming landscape over the course of the next decade or so, and I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing.  The people who want to work closely with Wizards are going to be brought even closer.  The people who "kind of" wanted to do their own thing are going to have to be just a tiny bit more creative.  Neither of those options sounds that bad to me.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I assume you meant GSL.



Ack... too... many... acronyms...

Yes.  I meant GSL.  My mistake.


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, you have to remember that before the OGL existed there was about 25 years of RPG history.




I cant believe I actually agree with JRT on something.


----------



## Wicht

Tunnels and Trolls does not belong in the same catergory as D&D.  It was more a tongue in cheek spoof of D&D (IMO).  One of the supplements for instance was called "Rat on a Stick," with rules for the PCs to operate a Rat on a Stick franchise outside of the dungeons.

But yeah, there were/are other games that try/tried to do what D&D does.


----------



## SSquirrel

Orcus said:
			
		

> I cant believe I actually agree with JRT on something.




Yes Clark, but you can console yourself in knowing that it is only in immutable fact that you agree with him


----------



## kunadam

Cergorach said:
			
		

> WotC eliminated much of the competition in the last decade or at least tied the competition to the D&D system. After that decade most of the surviving publishers that are tied to D&D are so dependant




What game were the competitors of WotC? I cannot name any.
Please note that an alternate PHB or even an a completly new systems is not necessary a competitor of WotC. Most people, who bought Connan, Iron Heroes, Aracan Evolved, True20 probably have the 3rd edition PHB (3.5 too). They are D&D players, who wanted a different flavour or just tried out a bit different system.

WoD from White Wolf? (not to mention WoD d20) It is a different genere. You either were a D&D player who happened to want something else for a change, or you never were into fantasy RPG and preferred modern horror. In non of the cases are there any competition for WotC.

This is what Monte Cook wanted to show to us, this is what probably many people at WotC do not understand any more.

There is no such thing as competition to D&D!​


----------



## kalanijasmine

kunadam said:
			
		

> What game were the competitors of WotC? I cannot name any.
> There is no such thing as competition to D&D!​



Palladium Fantasy, GURPS, MERP/Rollmaster, Warhammer Fantasy, Legend of the 5 Rings.... 

These are all very different systems which competed with D&D directly for the fantasy RP market and have been very successful doing so. Nor are they the only games to have done so, but are simply the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

GURPS and MERP faded into the background during the 90s, with GURPs still having some success, and MERP being replaced by the new LOTR RPG.
Legend of the Five Rings was picked up by WoTC as their 3.0 Oriental Adventures Setting.
Palladium Fantasy (and the rest of the Palladium System) and Warhammer Fantasy continue to do very well to this day, although their market-share has been eclipsed by D&D thanks to the success of the 3.X engine, or more accurately, the d20 OGL.

You have been corrected.


----------



## see

kunadam said:
			
		

> What game were the competitors of WotC? I cannot name any.




That's so sad.  You see, you seem to have that odd form of illiteracy, so prevalent on the Internet, that leaves you capable of writing but not of reading.

You see, a bunch of D&D's competitors were named just a handful of posts earlier in the thread, and if you were literate, you could have read their names.  As it is, since you can't read, it isn't even possible for me to tell you that they were mentioned just above.

I really hope someone comes up with a cure for your affliction, I really do.


----------



## Plane Sailing

see said:
			
		

> That's so sad.  You see, you seem to have that odd form of illiteracy, so prevalent on the Internet, that leaves you capable of writing but not of reading.
> 
> You see, a bunch of D&D's competitors were named just a handful of posts earlier in the thread, and if you were literate, you could have read their names.  As it is, since you can't read, it isn't even possible for me to tell you that they were mentioned just above.
> 
> I really hope someone comes up with a cure for your affliction, I really do.




Now I don't know whether you meant this as humour or not, but you've been around long enough to know that being rude to other people here isn't allowed.

This thread is sensitive enough without adding in personal attacks, so don't post in this thread again.


----------



## Tao

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> with GURPs still having some success



Wait... you actually _know_ someone who plays GURPS?  Cause I heard there's only one active GURPS gaming group in the whole world and that they meet under the streets of Paris to play, but only on full moons.

Sorry... had to do it.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

Tao said:
			
		

> Wait... you actually _know_ someone who plays GURPS?  Cause I heard there's only one active GURPS gaming group in the whole world and that they meet under the streets of Paris to play, but only on full moons.
> 
> Sorry... had to do it.





Given the mood - wouldn't that be Vampire or Werewolf (under the streets and under a full moon?)   


Yeah, D&D is the industry leader, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other stuff out there - I've been playing HERO for nearly 20 years... and I primarily GM Fantasy Hero. 

I still play the odd occasional D&D game still though.


----------



## jmucchiello

kalanijasmine said:
			
		

> Palladium Fantasy (and the rest of the Palladium System) and Warhammer Fantasy continue to do very well to this day, although their market-share has been eclipsed by D&D thanks to the success of the 3.X engine, or more accurately, the d20 OGL.



Um, the market share of all the systems you names, all the ones you forgot and all the systems in other genres do not add up the market share of D&D several times over. WotC calls a book selling 30k units disappointing. WoD books might sell that well and when they do, I doubt White Wolf is disappointed. This had nothing to do with the OGL, TSR's sales were also far better than any competitor's sales since the first D&D box release.


> You have been corrected.



In the sense that you named competitors to D&D, yes. In the sense that WotC must care one iota what those competitors do in order to stay relevant, no. WotC, D&D specifically, is the 800 pound gorilla in the RPG market.


----------



## Pale

I thought that White Wolf had a larger share of the market towards the end of the Second Edition days.


----------



## Pale

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> In the sense that WotC must care one iota what those competitors do in order to stay relevant, no. WotC, D&D specifically, is the 800 pound gorilla in the RPG market.




So why do they seem to care what third-party publishers do with 3.5 OGL material? If there position is as secure as you make it out to be, why bother with the so-called "poison pill" clause at all?


----------



## jmucchiello

Pale said:
			
		

> So why do they seem to care what third-party publishers do with 3.5 OGL material? If there position is as secure as you make it out to be, why bother with the so-called "poison pill" clause at all?



I have NO idea. It makes no sense at all. Except, perhaps their view of RPGs is bigger than my view (which only includes table top gaming).


----------



## Vigilance

Pale said:
			
		

> So why do they seem to care what third-party publishers do with 3.5 OGL material? If there position is as secure as you make it out to be, why bother with the so-called "poison pill" clause at all?




I don't think they specifically care about 3.5 or feel threatened by it.

I think the attempt to break from the OGL and move to a new license is designed to allow Wizards to alter the terms over time, and encourage upgrading along with them, by fans and publishers, asw they release new versions of the game.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Pale said:
			
		

> I thought that White Wolf had a larger share of the market towards the end of the Second Edition days.



According to the WotC survey from 1999/2000, 66% played D&D monthly.  25% played Vampire and 15% played Werewolf, so even if there was no crossover that only gives White Wolf 40% of monthly gamers.

That's just what games they were playing though, not what they were buying...


----------



## madelf

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I have NO idea. It makes no sense at all. Except, perhaps their view of RPGs is bigger than my view (which only includes table top gaming).



Or it might be that even though those sales don't remotely rival the sales of D&D, they'd still like to _get _ those sales to go with the ones they have. Every sale is profit. The more sales they make, the greater the profit. The fewer competitors they have, no matter how small those competitors may be, the greater the profit. The numbers don't need to be huge to add up.

Every person who sticks to 3.5 instead of moving up to 4th edition is a lost sale for WotC. Just like every person who buys some other competing game instead of D&D is a lost sale for WotC. Every single one cuts that tiny little bit deeper into their potential profit. So all those games combined, are definitely competition to WotC, even if WotC does overshadow them all.

Beyond maintaining their dominance, there's not much WotC can do about that. But the thing with the "poison pill" is, WotC might think maybe they can do something to at least minimize the sales they're potentially losing to _3.5_ by using the terms of the GSL to reduce the overall number of their competitors (and the significance of the remainder), by locking the major players into being D&D support instead of direct competition.


----------



## BSF

madelf said:
			
		

> Or it might be that even though those sales don't remotely rival the sales of D&D, they'd still like to _get _ those sales to go with the ones they have. Every sale is profit. The more sales they make, the greater the profit. The fewer competitors they have, no matter how small those competitors may be, the greater the profit. The numbers don't need to be huge to add up.
> 
> Every person who sticks to 3.5 instead of moving up to 4th edition is a lost sale for WotC. Just like every person who buys some other competing game instead of D&D is a lost sale for WotC. Every single one cuts that tiny little bit deeper into their potential profit. So all those games combined, are definitely competition to WotC, even if WotC does overshadow them all.
> 
> Beyond maintaining their dominance, there's not much WotC can do about that. But the thing with the "poison pill" is, WotC might think maybe they can do something to at least minimize the sales they're potentially losing to _3.5_ by using the terms of the GSL to reduce the overall number of their competitors (and the significance of the remainder), by locking the major players into being D&D support instead of direct competition.




While this is certainly one strategy, and I wouldn't fault the business perspective that would dictate that WotC adopt this strategy, there is potential fallout from it.  A true poison pill provision can increase the number of customers that choose not to buy the new edition based on principle.  I've gone into more detail in other threads, so I won't delve deeply into my reasons here.  

The short of it is that WotC can choose to leverage market position to do what they wish.  Whether it is presented as pushing competing products out of the marketplace, or even discouraging support for products that are built upon an inferior foundation, you run the risk of alienating some of your existing customer base.  These are luxury products, after all.  WotC needs to determine if the risk of this alienation will be counterbalanced by the influx of new market share.  

If they are weighing the impact of lost sales opportunities for people that don't adopt the new edition because support for the old edition still exists, how many sales might they lose when picky fans don't adopt the new edition because WotC used market leverage to drive that support away?  

I'm not even sure WotC intended to have the proposed exclusivity provisions stamp out competing products.  I think they have more intent to keep mixed OGL/GSL products from infringing upon the intellectual property they are looking to open up.  

In that context, I can accept that a product released under both licenses would be a bad thing.  However, I will be very unhappy if the exclusivity provisions dictate that a given company cannot support differing OGL and GSL products.  

Yet, in many other ways, I am excited by the prospects of the GSL.  I can see a lot of very interesting and exciting ways that WotC can provide more opportunities to provide a rich support channel for the game and any given setting through the third party publishers and the GSL.  

I hope they have found a way to remove the poison pill aspects while still protecting the access that the GSL provides.  As a customer, I see no problems with having support for all of my favorite games from excellent publishers.  Even if some of the support products are for GSL based games while other support products are for OGL based games.


----------



## Piratecat

I'm closing this due to length, especially because WotC has answered the OGL questions! Time for someone to start a new thread.


----------

