# GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault



## Admiral Caine

There has been an ongoing discussion about the GSL in the 4E News area that sprang out of this this specific thread. Page 3 is perhaps one of the most relevant.



What is the status of the GSL? What is a realistic date that it might be available to 3rd party companies?
Will 3rd Party Companies be able to create aspects of the game that are not available at the new Edition's launch? For example, if a setting is ripe with bards, but WOTC plans on releasing their official bard in a future work in 2009, will those companies be able to create their own version? This goes to the question of an existing setting's continuity.
Will publishing under the GSL prohibit publication of older material under the OGL?
This is a fluff question (so it is the least priority of the three)- but does WOTC realize that the fans and the customers are very much in tune with the process, and have their own vested interests in the GSL. That is, do they understand that this is not something just between Wizard's and the Third Parties, but that the customers are involved too. We're the ones that make decisions on our purchasing habits, not the 3rd parties themselves.


I am going to stop this post here and let the questions stand by themselves. In my following post I'll cover some of the standard replies that I've received already from other forum posters.

Thank you in advance to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault for their replies.


----------



## Admiral Caine

*Follow up to the first post*

I'd like to field some typical responses I have gotten so far, to expedite some of the discussion.

*"This is another conspiracy theory"*: No, actually it's not. They are four straight questions. I'm not implying there is any emotional aspect involved with the timing of the GSL release.

*"EN World Reporters have already answered this, here, let me give you a link"*:  Yes, they have. In the form of a second hand conversation without a quote. Without anything said on a podcast. Without anything said on a webcast. I believe EN World (and other fan site) reporters to be genuine and sincere people, and do not mean to imply that they softballed their interviews. Nevertheless, I'd like a comment from WOTC directly. Especially in light of the tardiness of the GSL's release.

*"Why do you care?"*" Because 3rd Party companies are actually suffering in the form of lost sales, as they're not able to answer their customers whether they can adopt 4th Edition or not. For them to commit to 4th Edition without seeing the GSL would be careless and irresponsible.

*"You should be grateful that there's going to be a GSL at all, in the old days..."*: _(I want to avoid sarcasm, but I love this one)_ I am very grateful that there was an OGL. Prior to that, things were hard. TSR and other companies often issued Cease and Desist orders. Respectfully, that was the past and it has no great context or bearing on today. If 3rd Party Companies don't like the GSL, they have an alternative in the OGL. Prior to that there was nothing. The OGL changed everything. The reader may not feel that the OGL is a viable alternative, but that's an entirely different and unrelated conversation. As for me owing gratitude for the GSL? Not really. The GSL is a component to whether I purchase 4th Edition or not. I don't feel gratitude to an auto-manufacturer concerning anti-lock brakes and power steering. I don't feel gratitude to a PC manufacturer when I get a flat screen monitor when I purchase a new desktop. These are not gifts, they're selling points. If WOTC chooses not to provide a GSL, then I have a choice whether or not a I buy it or not. I only owe them the purchase price of the product, not my gratitude. That's why, we the customers, are the Second Party and not the Third Party.

*"If Paizo thinks they can survive on 3.5 they're crazy!"*: Not relevant. A different conversation for another thread.

*"This isn't WOTC or Scott Rouse's fault. He's a nice man who cares. This is all the doing of Rhode Island!"*: I'm willing to believe Scott Rouse is a real nice guy. I believe he cares. Unfortunately, sometimes it sucks to be the Boss, because you get left taking responsibility. And actually, I believe that Hasbro is the culprit. Nevertheless, I'm asking for some WOTC Staff person to step and respond directly. Not a second hand comment paraphrased by someone else. _Plus, Question Two has nothing to do with a date. Nothing whatsoever. If they can't answer Question #1, Question #2's answer will be better than nothing at all._

*"Can't you just be patient?"*: The first week of January WOTC placed a conference call with several major players, where upon they set up an expectation that the GSL would be out soon after that time. Business decisions were made upon that expectation, but now it's months later and nothing is being said. There are three factions in the GSL relationship: WOTC, 3rd Party Companies, and the Customers themselves. If they want me to buy the product, please answer the questions. It's the business of the Customers as much as it is the 3rd Parties.

Thank you!


----------



## Jack99

I doubt that any WoTC representative posting here will be able to give a clear answer. If indeed the papers are with the lawyers, they won't know when it is done, until it actually is done, in which case I am sure they will be otw to the 3rd parties.

But good luck, it would be nice to know if Paizo, the rest are going to go with 4e.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I doubt that any WoTC representative posting here will be able to give a clear answer. If indeed the papers are with the lawyers, they won't know when it is done, until it actually is done, in which case I am sure they will be otw to the 3rd parties.
> 
> But good luck, it would be nice to know if Paizo, the rest are going to go with 4e.




Thank you for the good luck! I felt it was important enough to try.

I've been watching third party communities turn on themselves, and their companies be unable to offer any information or leadership in a vacuum. I've been a witness to people deciding against 4th Edition just from marketing fatigue.

There's no desire on my part to rake WOTC Reps over the coals.. Still, a direct comment would be better than nothing.


----------



## Crashy75

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> Thank you for the good luck! I felt it was important enough to try.
> 
> I've been watching third party communities turn on themselves, and their companies be unable to offer any information or leadership in a vacuum. I've been a witness to people deciding against 4th Edition just from marketing fatigue.
> 
> There's no desire on my part to rake WOTC Reps over the coals.. Still, a direct comment would be better than nothing.



I wish you good luck as well.  It's something I'm interested in hearing about also.


----------



## zoroaster100

I really do hope that WOTC gives Paizo the GSL soon.  I like what I've seen of the 4th edition rules, and I am very hopeful that WOTC has done a great job with the rules.  But no one does adventures as well as Paizo, in my opinion.  I would love, love, love to be able to run a 4th edition adventure path produced by Paizo.  If WOTC sabotages that, inadvertently or not, they will be robbing so many customers and potential customers of the chance to enjoy what I think would have been the ultimate gaming experience - WOTC's 4th edition rules combined with Paizo's adventure paths.


----------



## Orcus

This is a great thread. And I hope you get some official answers.

As far as I know, things are near done and perhaps the push to get ready for, get to, run, and now recover from being at DDXP slowed things down a bit. I can see why that is a bit more important to WotC than we are right now  

The one problem I see is this: once we get the GSL to review, we get it as part of the designer pack (the first step anyway). And the GSL itself is under our NDA. So WE wont be able to answer those questions. And if WotC is putting this stuff under an NDA then they may not want to talk about it publically (or why would we have to be under an NDA). So I guess I have a funny feeling we might not get answers.

That said, I can help with a few things:

*"This is another conspiracy theory":* This is not a conspiracy theory. Just some interested people asking questions the answers to which are important to us.  

*"EN World Reporters have already answered this, here, let me give you a link":* I dont think the second hand answer actually is an answer either. To me, this is definately still and open question that has not been answered, meaning no disrespect to the enworld reporters. 

*"This isn't WOTC or Scott Rouse's fault. He's a nice man who cares. This is all the doing of Rhode Island!":* Scott Rouse and Linae Foster are super-cool. It may not be their fault, and I dont think it is, but the buck stops somewhere. I also firmly believe that Scott and Linae and company want to help the Third Party publishers and that they will do the best that they can. 

I am 100% convinced that WotC believes Third Party support is a good idea and that they are dedicated to making it happen for all of us--meaning the publishers and the gamers. It is clear that third party support gave more choice to the gamers and expanded options and that we really made some great stuff. I've talked to these people. I know they are dedicated to helping us support them. They read these boards. They see the people who say "I wasnt going to consider 4E but now that [trusted publisher] is in, I am going to try it!" They saw the impact we had on bringing people to 3E. 

WotC are the good guys. 

Dont blame them if they are just a little busy getting their flagship product to press by the various deadlines.

Like it or not, third party publishing is a secondary goal for them, not a primary one. And that makes sense. It is more important for them to use their man-(and woman-)hours to hitting the 4E release than it is to finalize the GSL. That is just a business reality. And I am OK with that. But that doesnt mean we cant keep asking questions. I just want to encourage everyone to be supportive of WotC and not overly-critical. I have dealt with Scott and Linae and they are great and they want us to have this stuff and they dont like that there has been a slowdown. So ask all the questions you want, but please dont throw grenades. 

*"Can't you just be patient?":* I have been.  I do really want those rules  

Clark


----------



## DaveMage

The irony to me is that 4E probably wouldn't exist without 3E and the OGL.

Without it, Mike Mearls doesn't write or contribute to the 50+ (or so it seems) d20 products, probably doesn't get hired at Wizards, and doesn't help design 4E.

So, maybe if WotC wants 5E to be that much better than 4E, it's in their best interest to have 3rd party publishers.  (Sort of the designer "minor leagues" if you will.    )


----------



## mach1.9pants

Yeah I really _hope_ some replies turn up here, because I am interested in 3rd party products, but I can't actually see it happening. The terms of the GSL are under NDA from what it seems to me. 
However good luck with your fishin'


----------



## Lizard

This is in reply to Orcus' comments about releasing existing OGC under the GSL:

We do know, I think very certainly, that the GSL cannot place material released under the OGL under itself without the consent of the copyright holder. It's not a new version of the OGL and thus can't 'cover' older material. Now, it might be that it's trivial to place OGL material under GSL and that there will be a reason to do so, in which case, Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters) can rerelease them under the GSL, no problem, provided, of course, that the 3x SRD, from which the TOH critters are derived (mechanically, at least, and in terms of references to spells, onster types, and so on) is also placed under the GSL. If the 3x SRD is not re-released in some form under the GSL, I cannot see how any OGC derived from the SRD can be re-used without explicit permission. Books which draw from any sources and make use of other people's OGC will have a tangled mess of derivations to sort through.

The other issue is that while it might be possible to release existing OGC under the GSL easily, a lot of companies won't bother. For example, I have done a great deal of work for many publishers which is open content. While I don't own the copyright to that work, I can use the open version of it as legally as anyone else and republish or edit it as I see fit. What I can't do is update it for 4e unless the copyright holder (the publisher) re-releases it under the GSL.

If you think there's a legal way to make the GSL automagically incorporate other people's OGL-based OGC without a formal rerelease from the current copyright holders, well, you are cleverer than me (which may be to damn with faint praise). Feel free to PM me with your speculation.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja

Lizard said:
			
		

> Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters)




Um, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think WotC owns those copyrights and (either through the OGL or through a special agreement with Necromancer) allowed Necromancer to use them in developing OGL products. And this is only to the degree that monster stat blocks are even copyrightable (since public domain, math, etc. can't be copyrighted), which is a point the OGL *intentionally* left open because it was a legal mess. (I think the explanation went something like, "Some of the stuff published under OGL may be copyrighted and some may not, but if it's under OGL you can definitely use it as a basis for further OGL products without fear of legal issues.")


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> This is in reply to Orcus' comments about releasing existing OGC under the GSL:
> 
> We do know, I think very certainly, that the GSL cannot place material released under the OGL under itself without the consent of the copyright holder. It's not a new version of the OGL and thus can't 'cover' older material. Now, it might be that it's trivial to place OGL material under GSL and that there will be a reason to do so, in which case, Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters) can rerelease them under the GSL, no problem, provided, of course, that the 3x SRD, from which the TOH critters are derived (mechanically, at least, and in terms of references to spells, onster types, and so on) is also placed under the GSL. If the 3x SRD is not re-released in some form under the GSL, I cannot see how any OGC derived from the SRD can be re-used without explicit permission. Books which draw from any sources and make use of other people's OGC will have a tangled mess of derivations to sort through.
> 
> The other issue is that while it might be possible to release existing OGC under the GSL easily, a lot of companies won't bother. For example, I have done a great deal of work for many publishers which is open content. While I don't own the copyright to that work, I can use the open version of it as legally as anyone else and republish or edit it as I see fit. What I can't do is update it for 4e unless the copyright holder (the publisher) re-releases it under the GSL.
> 
> If you think there's a legal way to make the GSL automagically incorporate other people's OGL-based OGC without a formal rerelease from the current copyright holders, well, you are cleverer than me (which may be to damn with faint praise). Feel free to PM me with your speculation.




I dont agree that we "know" that at all.

No one has seen the GSL.

We dont know what its terms will or wont be. 

Frankly, my speculation is that some of what you say is correct. My guess is that the GSL will have restricitons on how it works with prior OGC. What those will be, I dont know. No one does, right now. You may wind up being right. But please stop saying it is known because it isnt at all. Not a single person outside WotC/Hasbro has seen the GSL.


----------



## Piratecat

We have a specific forum for GSL discussion. I'll slide this over.


----------



## Orcus

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Um, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think WotC owns those copyrights and (either through the OGL or through a special agreement with Necromancer) allowed Necromancer to use them in developing OGL products. And this is only to the degree that monster stat blocks are even copyrightable (since public domain, math, etc. can't be copyrighted), which is a point the OGL *intentionally* left open because it was a legal mess. (I think the explanation went something like, "Some of the stuff published under OGL may be copyrighted and some may not, but if it's under OGL you can definitely use it as a basis for further OGL products without fear of legal issues.")




That wasnt the problem with the OGL at all. Your analysis is all wrong, respectfully. Of course stat blocks are copyrightable. And no the OGL didnt intentionally leave that issue open cause it was a legal mess. That is just a total misunderstanding of the license, its creation, its history and its use, I am sorry to say. I know that may be public sentiment, but I happen to know because I was there and I was part of it. I understand taht is a commonly held belief. This isnt the first time I've had to debunk this myth, so please know I am not criticizing you. I am just trying to debunk that notion. 

As for what the new GSL will do with stuff like Tome, I dont know yet. Yes, that material is copyright Necro. We do hold the copyright to Tome1. But that doesnt answer the question. That content was also made into OGC, with WoptC's permssion, so long as the original authors were credited (whcih was our idea). And that content was used by us with permission. So depending on the terms of the GSL, its hard to say what we can do with that content. We'll have to wait and see. 

Clark


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont agree that we "know" that at all.
> 
> No one has seen the GSL.
> 
> We dont know what its terms will or wont be.
> 
> Frankly, my speculation is that some of what you say is correct. My guess is that the GSL will have restricitons on how it works with prior OGC. What those will be, I dont know. No one does, right now. You may wind up being right. But please stop saying it is known because it isnt at all. Not a single person outside WotC/Hasbro has seen the GSL.




I think I am being unclear.

The GSL *cannot* (unless I am very, very, wrong) cover content released under the OGL, anymore than, say, the OGL could apply to content released under the GPL or the Creative Commons license. A copyright holder consented to place material under the OGL; this doesn't grant another party (WOTC) the right to create an unrelated license which still covers that content. The GSL is not a version of the OGL; if it were, it would be irrelevant, since all versions of the OGL are interchangeable and its more severe restrictions could be ignored. (This is why it's the GSL and not the OGL, and why it's almost three months from the announcement and no actual license yet...)

Again, this doesn't prevent a copyright holder from releasing material under the GSL, but this can't apply to material to which they don't own the original copyright OR material derived from such -- such as anything derived from the SRd, *unless* the SRD is also released under the GSL -- something I very much doubt will happen. Most likely, there will be a 'gentleman's agreement' (much like in the early days of the OGL, before the SRd was finalized) which would allow companies to 'upgrade' material derived from the SRD but not to create new, 3x compatible material *under the GSL*. (They could, obviously, keep using the OGL)

This really has nothing to do with the content of the GSL or what it says; it has to do with the nature of licenses. As I said before, if WOTC could write a license which somehow covered content released under a *different* license, it would mean I could do so, too.

To be more clear:

I write a game supplement. I release it under the OGL. The copyright is mine and mine alone; other people can use the material according to the terms of the license *I* chose to release it under.

WOTC releases the GSL. I don't like the terms of the GSL; I choose not to release my material under it.

There is nothing anyone can do to "re open" my OGL content under the GSL. It is a different license and does not bind me in any way. If anyone attempted to use my content under the GSL, I could sue them and win handily. I cannot imagine *any* structuring of the license which would let it re-license *other people's copyrighted material* under itself[1], and the GSL *cannot* be a "version" of the OGL or the entire exercise becomes moot.

Further, if my material derives from any other OGL sources which are not, themselves, released under the GSL -- say I used Jubilex from the TOH -- even if I wished to re-license my material under the GSL, I could not, because it is 'contaminated' with material whose copyrights I do not own, and only THAT copyright holder can release it under the GSL.

By deciding to abandon the OGL in favor of a new license, WOTC has created a complicated legal nightmare for anyone seeking to edit or upgrade existing works. If we assume there's some way to still derive from the 3x SRD, that still means products which use OGC from multiple sources are screwed without a lot of explicit permission.

[1]Again, I must note that releasing material under the OGL doesn't in any way remove your copyright to it or place it into the public domain; the OGL is a license allowing re-use of copyrighted material under specific terms, it is not a waiver of copyright. I know you know this, but I think other people might be confused.


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> As for what the new GSL will do with stuff like Tome, I dont know yet. Yes, that material is copyright Necro. We do hold the copyright to Tome1. But that doesnt answer the question. That content was also made into OGC, with WoptC's permssion, so long as the original authors were credited (whcih was our idea). And that content was used by us with permission. So depending on the terms of the GSL, its hard to say what we can do with that content. We'll have to wait and see.
> 
> Clark




Since you own the copyright to TOH, I suspect you'll be able to re-release it under the GSL, *provided* there's some way to include those portions of the TOH which derive from the SRD, which is, uhm, a whole lot of it.  I'm certain WOTC will make some attempt to make this possible, but how convoluted and dependent on trust and goodwill it will be, I don't know.


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> I think I am being unclear.
> 
> The GSL *cannot* (unless I am very, very, wrong) cover content released under the OGL, anymore than, say, the OGL could apply to content released under the GPL or the Creative Commons license. A copyright holder consented to place material under the OGL; this doesn't grant another party (WOTC) the right to create an unrelated license which still covers that content. The GSL is not a version of the OGL; if it were, it would be irrelevant, since all versions of the OGL are interchangeable and its more severe restrictions could be ignored. (This is why it's the GSL and not the OGL, and why it's almost three months from the announcement and no actual license yet...)
> 
> Again, this doesn't prevent a copyright holder from releasing material under the GSL, but this can't apply to material to which they don't own the original copyright OR material derived from such -- such as anything derived from the SRd, *unless* the SRD is also released under the GSL -- something I very much doubt will happen. Most likely, there will be a 'gentleman's agreement' (much like in the early days of the OGL, before the SRd was finalized) which would allow companies to 'upgrade' material derived from the SRD but not to create new, 3x compatible material *under the GSL*. (They could, obviously, keep using the OGL)
> 
> This really has nothing to do with the content of the GSL or what it says; it has to do with the nature of licenses. As I said before, if WOTC could write a license which somehow covered content released under a *different* license, it would mean I could do so, too.
> 
> To be more clear:
> 
> I write a game supplement. I release it under the OGL. The copyright is mine and mine alone; other people can use the material according to the terms of the license *I* chose to release it under.
> 
> WOTC releases the GSL. I don't like the terms of the GSL; I choose not to release my material under it.
> 
> There is nothing anyone can do to "re open" my OGL content under the GSL. It is a different license and does not bind me in any way. If anyone attempted to use my content under the GSL, I could sue them and win handily. I cannot imagine *any* structuring of the license which would let it re-license *other people's copyrighted material* under itself[1], and the GSL *cannot* be a "version" of the OGL or the entire exercise becomes moot.
> 
> Further, if my material derives from any other OGL sources which are not, themselves, released under the GSL -- say I used Jubilex from the TOH -- even if I wished to re-license my material under the GSL, I could not, because it is 'contaminated' with material whose copyrights I do not own, and only THAT copyright holder can release it under the GSL.
> 
> By deciding to abandon the OGL in favor of a new license, WOTC has created a complicated legal nightmare for anyone seeking to edit or upgrade existing works. If we assume there's some way to still derive from the 3x SRD, that still means products which use OGC from multiple sources are screwed without a lot of explicit permission.
> 
> [1]Again, I must note that releasing material under the OGL doesn't in any way remove your copyright to it or place it into the public domain; the OGL is a license allowing re-use of copyrighted material under specific terms, it is not a waiver of copyright. I know you know this, but I think other people might be confused.




I agree with you in theory, but I see a possibility that you are not accounting for--that a product could be covered by BOTH the GSL and the OGL. I see that as a possibility. For instance, perhaps the GSL -ONLY- covers use of content from the 4E SRD. If that is the case, you could create a product that uses the GSL for the 4E parts and then also uses the OGL to pull from 3E/OGC sources. That would work nicely. 

However, I happen to think that you are likely right. I think the GSL will likely preclude you from also using any other license in a product that also uses the GSL. Or, in the alternative, allows you to use OGC only so long as you have permission of the copyright holder. But I am not sure. 

I think your stance comes from a belief that the GSL cannot work with the OGL and OGC in any way. I am not sure that is a certainty. Had I been consulted by WotC (which I wasnt, though I offered) this was exactly the problem I wanted to help with--how to intertwine 3E OGC with new 4E content under the GSL.

I also dont see it as a legal nightmare at all to upgrade existing works. If you were the creator of the intial work, even if under the OGL, you own the concepts and can easily do them in a new incarnation of the license. 

Let me give you an example. I dont know if the GSL will work with the OGL in any way. But permission from the content owner is always a good way to go. For Tome 4E I wanted to include a few monsters from the old Creature Collection that I produced. I dont technically own that content. If the GSL works with the OGL then I can use it under that license. But I dont think it will. So I called Steve and Stew and got permission, in writing, to use the couple of monsters that I wanted to use. So I know, without almost any doubt, that I will be able to create those creatures for Tome 4E because I have the right to do so (unless the GSL has some wierd provision I havent envisioned, which I find hard to believe, but who knows). 

I also do agree that one thing that is in question is downstream use of OGC. That issue you raise above I believe is very valid--for instance you create a work that includes someone elses OGC, you then release your work as OGC under the OGL. All good and appropriate. Now, however, if the new GSL doesnt work with the old OGL then if you want to redo that work you likely wont be able to use the content that you used that was prior OGC. But the rest of the work you could. So, depending on how much reuse you did, you may have an extra step.

This leads me back to something I was a HUGE advocate of under the OGL--asking permission even if you didnt have to. I always advocated that if you were going to reuse someone else's OGC that you give them the courtesy of asking permission. You didnt have to, of course. But this is a small industry. Professionalism is always the best way to go. Now, here we are. If you used someone's OGC previously for a product and want to use it again in updating that work under the GSL, guess what--if you asked permission the first time and got it, dont you think they would likely give it again when you ask for permission to use it under the GSL? It always pays to be nice... 

I do agree with your important comment about copyright and how the OGL is not a waiver of copyright. I think that is an important comment to remind people about. 

It is going to be intersting to see how this all plays out. 

Clark


----------



## Ranger REG

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The irony to me is that 4E probably wouldn't exist without 3E and the OGL.



Heh. Trust me when I say, 4e would exist with or _without_ the OGL. And since the license have been given an entirely different name, I'm guessing it's the latter.


----------



## GentleGiant

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Heh. Trust me when I say, 4e would exist with or _without_ the OGL. And since the license have been given an entirely different name, I'm guessing it's the latter.



I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).


----------



## GentleGiant

A couple of other things that some people are curious about (at least some customers, not too much info on this from the various publishers) are these:
 Will the GSL prevent a company from publishing OGL content alongside 4e products* (e.g. dual-statted books, a 3.x gameline/gameworld etc.)?
 Will there be any clauses to prevent backward engineering from 4e to 3.x (even if it's kept within the other confines of the GSL)?
 Will it be possible to release 3.x content under the GSL (similar to the above) or will it only cover the 4e SRD (thus making 3.x material that incorporates rules from the 4e SRD)?

* this could be by including a clause that basically says something to the affect of "if your company decides to release 4e products you will cease to produce 3.x products." Although you might still be able to upgrade existing 3.x products to 4e (as Clark has talked about further up the thread.


----------



## DaveMage

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).




Yep.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I'll add a question:

Why is the GSL under NDA?


----------



## Belen

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'll add a question:
> 
> Why is the GSL under NDA?




1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.

2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.  

I think that option 2 is the more likely reason.  I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.

Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.


----------



## Voadam

Belen said:
			
		

> 1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
> 
> 2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
> 
> I think that option 2 is the more likely reason.  I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
> 
> Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.




Another possibility

3: The GSL and rules were originally supposed to be sent to 3rd party publishers long ago so they could get used to the rules and develop material to supplement the release of 4e. WotC did not want the rules allowed out before their own public unveiling such as in DDX or the actual relase of 4e books. Even though the passing of DDX may have obviated the rationale for the NDA, institutional inertia at the corporate level may keep it in there.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Gentlefolk,

I just wanted to drop a note to let you know that WOTC is aware of the thread.

If you followed the link to the original thread (link was in the first post of this thread), you will know that Mike Lescault promised to try and get some answers. He has reaffirmed that promise. He is, however, giving EN World reporter Dangergirl the opportunity to present this information. Which if you followed the original thread is pretty reasonable, my original comments on the GSL came from her video interview at DnDXP. If she's not interested, he'll follow through anyway.

So stay tuned.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Belen said:
			
		

> 1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
> 
> 2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
> 
> I think that option 2 is the more likely reason.  I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
> 
> Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.




I am inclined to agree with your reasoning...  But....



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Another possibility
> 
> 3: The GSL and rules were originally supposed to be sent to 3rd party publishers long ago so they could get used to the rules and develop material to supplement the release of 4e. WotC did not want the rules allowed out before their own public unveiling such as in DDX or the actual relase of 4e books. Even though the passing of DDX may have obviated the rationale for the NDA, institutional inertia at the corporate level may keep it in there.




This really is a pretty fair point too. I can see this happening. I think scenario #2 (above) is more likely, but this is not outside the realm of possibility.

I'm curious about the $5000.00 deal for an advance look at the rules. Obviously the value of that has shrunk as the means to produce a quality product in time for August Gencon has been diminished (though not eliminated). Will they extend the window of exclusivity for the early adopters?


----------



## Admiral Caine

Orcus said:
			
		

> I am 100% convinced that WotC believes Third Party support is a good idea and that they are dedicated to making it happen for all of us--meaning the publishers and the gamers. It is clear that third party support gave more choice to the gamers and expanded options and that we really made some great stuff. I've talked to these people. I know they are dedicated to helping us support them. They read these boards. They see the people who say "I wasnt going to consider 4E but now that [trusted publisher] is in, I am going to try it!" They saw the impact we had on bringing people to 3E.
> 
> WotC are the good guys.
> 
> Dont blame them if they are just a little busy getting their flagship product to press by the various deadlines.
> 
> Like it or not, third party publishing is a secondary goal for them, not a primary one. And that makes sense. It is more important for them to use their man-(and woman-)hours to hitting the 4E release than it is to finalize the GSL. That is just a business reality. And I am OK with that. But that doesnt mean we cant keep asking questions. I just want to encourage everyone to be supportive of WotC and not overly-critical. I have dealt with Scott and Linae and they are great and they want us to have this stuff and they dont like that there has been a slowdown. So ask all the questions you want, but please dont throw grenades.




I agree, and this is not intended to rake anybody over the coals. Though, with respect to Dangergirl, it did start heated. Hopefully we're past that.

I fully understand that these questions might suck if you're on the hot seat. I regret to admit, I wasn't trying to make it easy. But I'm not trying to get an apology either, just the best straight answers I can get. So even a limited answer is better than silence.

To quote Chris Matthews, political pundit of MSBC, "Let's play Hardball!"   

Part of the issue is that the fan base is fairly educated and aware of the process. Even if the GSL is under an NDA, the receipt of the NDA is not. That is, to the best of my knowledge it's perfectly okay to say, "We have received the GSL and we can not discuss it." One does not have to keep receipt of the document a secret in of itself.

So every day anybody who cares enough to ask someone willing to answer, can find out that it hasn't been sent yet. That is contributing to this issue being under a microscope now that the public unveiling of the rules has taken place.  

There is something of a spirit to the questions as well as the questions themselves. It speaks to the feeling that the GSL is not "_Grown up talk_ that takes place between WOTC and the 3rd Parties." The GSL is a feature of the product, I maintain, and it's a consideration for the Consumer when he/she goes to buy the game.

Granted, maybe not all fans see it that way, but I do. The product is intended to be Utilitarian in nature. The ability to have 3rd Party support, and under what terms, is my business too. Thinking of the Core Rules as a PC Operating System, wondering what software I can run with it is a valid concern. Hopefully that metaphor makes sense.

On the other hand, I'm not crazy either. I understand why there's an NDA involved. I just want the *spirit * of there being 3 Parties in the GSL relationship recognized and remembered, because the Customer is the 2nd Party. So if something is under the NDA and can't be answered, my expectations won't be shot to heck, but I'd like someone from WOTC to give an official 'college try' anyway.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Voadam said:
			
		

> Another possibility
> 
> 3: The GSL and rules were originally supposed to be sent to 3rd party publishers long ago so they could get used to the rules and develop material to supplement the release of 4e. WotC did not want the rules allowed out before their own public unveiling such as in DDX or the actual relase of 4e books. Even though the passing of DDX may have obviated the rationale for the NDA, institutional inertia at the corporate level may keep it in there.




The problem with this is that the GSL and the game rules are separate things. They have already said that the GSL will refer to another SRD type document which will have the game rules that will be open. Keeping the GSL under NDA should have nothing to do with the game rules according to what they have stated publicly. This should work just like now where the OGL is the licence only with no game rules built in. The question is why is the GSL under NDA and not just the SRD type document which actually has the game rules.


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree with you in theory, but I see a possibility that you are not accounting for--that a product could be covered by BOTH the GSL and the OGL. I see that as a possibility. For instance, perhaps the GSL -ONLY- covers use of content from the 4E SRD. If that is the case, you could create a product that uses the GSL for the 4E parts and then also uses the OGL to pull from 3E/OGC sources. That would work nicely.




It could, but I'd be wary of such a product, because declaration of content would be very, very, critical. As it is, many publishers have vague/confusing declarations of OGC/PI; imagine if you added mixed-license content to that!




> I also dont see it as a legal nightmare at all to upgrade existing works. If you were the creator of the intial work, even if under the OGL, you own the concepts and can easily do them in a new incarnation of the license.




Well, here's the problem.
a)The copyright holder of the SRD is WOTC. Therefore, for the huge bulk of OGL material which is SRD-derived, the publishers don't hold the copyright. Say I want to release spells 'missing' from 4e, but which were in the SRD. Unless the SRD is placed under some kind of license, I can't, because I don't own the copyright to the SRD. 

b)There's also a problem of derived content. I used Atlas' "Tide of Years" when I worked on Seafarer's Handbook; Seafarer's Handbook shows up in the S15 of a lot of other works on underwater adventuring. The exact material used is not specified. A third party would need to be sure which material in a book came from which source, and that's not always easy -- it can be sut, chopped, edited, spread out, or even non-existent! (The SFH S15 referenced Tide of Years. A third publisher might use a feat from SFH which had nothing to do with TOY, but TOY will still be in their S15 due to the way the OGL works.)) This is, obviously, not a problem if there is no content except that derived from the SRD. (You address this further on; I just wanted to call it out in detail for other readers.)



> This leads me back to something I was a HUGE advocate of under the OGL--asking permission even if you didnt have to. I always advocated that if you were going to reuse someone else's OGC that you give them the courtesy of asking permission.




I agree, but not everyone did. (I found people were often willing to send me pure ASCII of their work if I was going reuse large chunks of it, which made it MUCH easier!)



> It is going to be intersting to see how this all plays out.




Yes, it will.


----------



## Orcus

Belen said:
			
		

> 1: (The Good)- It contains 4e information that WOTC does not want to release.
> 
> 2: (The Bad)- It contains language that could negatively impact sales of 4e before launch.
> 
> I think that option 2 is the more likely reason.  I'll bet that WOTC thinks that if they can get people to buy it before the negative information is released, then they will be less likely to drop the game because of how the GSL turned out.
> 
> Honestly, I see no reason that the license/contract would be under NDA except that the fanbase will not be happy with the language/rules of the GSL.




I wouldnt look at it that way at all. Its just what we lawyers do. ALL of my licenses and contracts--with WW, Paizo, JG, everyone--have all had confidentiality provisions. Its not that unusual. What IS unusual is to release draft agreements publically. So its the OGL that was unusual, not the GSL.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual in normal business circles with proposed licenses not being public. Nothing. WotC should take no heat for this. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> It could, but I'd be wary of such a product, because declaration of content would be very, very, critical. As it is, many publishers have vague/confusing declarations of OGC/PI; imagine if you added mixed-license content to that!




Yeah, but that is only because (1) people dont know what they are doing, which I cant fix, or (2) people are doing crappy designations on purpose, which I cant fix either. There are plenty of people who do it right and do a good job and make their content easy to use--like Necro for example.


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, here's the problem.
> a)The copyright holder of the SRD is WOTC. Therefore, for the huge bulk of OGL material which is SRD-derived, the publishers don't hold the copyright. Say I want to release spells 'missing' from 4e, but which were in the SRD. Unless the SRD is placed under some kind of license, I can't, because I don't own the copyright to the SRD.




True, but WotC coould grant that permission as part of teh GSL so no worries. 



> b)There's also a problem of derived content. I used Atlas' "Tide of Years" when I worked on Seafarer's Handbook; Seafarer's Handbook shows up in the S15 of a lot of other works on underwater adventuring. The exact material used is not specified. A third party would need to be sure which material in a book came from which source, and that's not always easy -- it can be sut, chopped, edited, spread out, or even non-existent! (The SFH S15 referenced Tide of Years. A third publisher might use a feat from SFH which had nothing to do with TOY, but TOY will still be in their S15 due to the way the OGL works.)) This is, obviously, not a problem if there is no content except that derived from the SRD. (You address this further on; I just wanted to call it out in detail for other readers.)




Reuse has always been frought with peril  Yes, that does make things more complicated, but not impossible. 

Clark


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Orcus said:
			
		

> I wouldnt look at it that way at all. Its just what we lawyers do. ALL of my licenses and contracts--with WW, Paizo, JG, everyone--have all had confidentiality provisions. Its not that unusual. What IS unusual is to release draft agreements publically. So its the OGL that was unusual, not the GSL.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual in normal business circles with proposed licenses not being public. Nothing. WotC should take no heat for this.
> 
> Clark




It looked like tro me that Belen was aslking why the final GSL licence would be under NDA until June, not why a draft license like the OGL situation would be under NDA. Since as far as we have been told the GSL priomised to the publishers would be a final license and the same as the one to be released to the general public in June. 

To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.




It does seem like it's a secret with only a 90 days lifespan.


----------



## Orcus

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> It looked like tro me that Belen was aslking why the final GSL licence would be under NDA until June, not why a draft license like the OGL situation would be under NDA. Since as far as we have been told the GSL priomised to the publishers would be a final license and the same as the one to be released to the general public in June.
> 
> To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.




Everything is a process. I wouldnt be surprised to see a small term here or there tweaked after the publishers look at the GSL and in response to our suggestions. 

But whether draft or not, it isnt public till June. So it isnt strange or uncommon for a licensor to keep the license private. That doesnt bother me in any way other than the -hey, i want to see it now!- way. So please lets stop suggesting that there is something inappropriate, improper or unusual about a licensor keeping a license private until finally released. The fact we want to see it, doesnt make it wierd that they arent showing it to us. People are all too ready to indict WotC over this. I'm not a fan of the delay, but the "secret license" isnt the problem.


----------



## Ranger REG

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).



Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).

Regarding the former, I doubt it.


----------



## Orcus

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).




I like Mearls alot. And he is a heck of a designer. But I have to give the nod to Monte. I've never met anyone like him when it came to design. He is a Genius! Mearls is five shades of awesome, but Monte is Monte. He is the man. No disrespect to Mearls, of course.


----------



## Orcus

I sure do hope you get some answers to those questions of yours, to loop this back to where you started


----------



## Admiral Caine

Orcus said:
			
		

> I sure do hope you get some answers to those questions of yours, to loop this back to where you started




I hope so too, Clark. I hope so too.  :\ 

There have been times I've felt like an angry man with a sandwich sign in a street corner, proclaiming that end times are coming.

However, this morning I woke up and saw something I wish now, I hadn't seen. And I'm embarrassed to show it to anybody, but I am going to anyway. I think it illustrates the point about the frustration and marketing fatigue that the GSL delay is causing in our RPG communities..

Not a proud day, no matter if everyone is responsible for their own actions or not. 

Each person is responsible for what they say and what they do. And there are always going to be message board trolls no matter where you go. All that notwithstanding, this place had a good reputation, and this morning the community is in pain. Turned in on itself. Through no fault of the Company at all, who, like you Clark- have steadfastedly maintained a positive neutral stance (albeit cautious at times). The customers and the fans brought themselves to where they are now.

Yeah, a lot of places have a lot of bitter arguments, but this wasn't one of them, and it steadily ramped up since the end of January when the GSL never materialized.

I can't blame Scott Rouse for this, and I don't mean to try. But by golly, I can show him what this delay is costing the role-playing community. I will probably get slammed for airing dirty laundry, but there's a direct cause and effect relationship between the delay and community division like this.

If the people had closure in regards to 4th Edition, they could make whatever choices they need to make and then move on, leaving the other camp in peace.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> However, this morning I woke up and saw something I wish now, I hadn't seen. And I'm embarrassed to show it to anybody, but I am going to anyway.




Some geeks on the internet were arguing in an uncivil fashion?

Dear God, what has Scott Rouse wrought.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Some geeks on the internet were arguing in an uncivil fashion?
> 
> Dear God, what has Scott Rouse wrought.




Well, I can take comfort in that the instinct to resort to cheap shots, sarcasm, and basic immaturity is not confined to just one community. 

I understand. It's easier to make fun of me, rather than think of others, think of communities, and the industry as a whole. You can give yourself a little self-esteem checkmark for having walked over somebody else today.

Scott Rouse wasn't blamed for anything. Nevertheless, the GSL is months late. That's a fact, and the delay is hard on people and the industry.

EDIT: I changed my mind Wulf, don't worry about, it's okay.

You just don't know any better.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> Well, I can take comfort in that the instinct to resort to cheap shots, sarcasm, and basic immaturity is not confined to just one community.
> 
> I understand. It's easier to make fun of me, rather than think of others, think of communities, and the industry as a whole. You can give yourself a little self-esteem checkmark for having walked over somebody else today.
> 
> Scott Rouse wasn't blamed for anything. Nevertheless, the GSL is months late. That's a fact, and the delay is hard on people and the industry.
> 
> EDIT: I changed my mind Wulf, don't worry about, it's okay.
> 
> You just don't know any better.




Well thank you for sparing me any further overwrought drama with your reply. I like _totally_ can't read it at all.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well thank you for sparing me any further overwrought drama with your reply. I like _totally_ can't read it at all.




 

I concede the point, Sir. You got me.    You got irritated for just a few moments. Score one for you.

So, I'll desist with throwing barbs back and forth. The only thing I find curious is that you felt the need to come and say something sarcastic. My post didn't just disinterest you, _it bothered you_. Enough that you felt the need to take it down a notch.

What was that?

4th Edition was not spoken of disparagingly.
I actually said Scott Rouse wasn't personally responsible. You may have to read the previous posts, but personally blaming him has never been a theme here.

Assuming you've followed the whole thread and not just this morning's post, you don't see that 3rd Party companies are having a hard time with lost sales, confused customers, and a market turning in itself without the GSL?

Yeah, maybe I was melodramatic, but I was sincere. If we strip away my drama, do you still think the delay is harmless?

And maybe by asking I'm just feeding a troll, but here's your chance. Do you have anything serious to say on the topic?


----------



## Orcus

AC-

I'll admit I'm a little disappointed. 

You brought me over to this thread to add my comments. I did. Now I feel a bit sucked in. 

That last post of yours, with the melodramatic link to the Paizo board, is just over the top.

I've said what I need to say here. I believe in WotC and Scott and Linae. I'm not going to get sucked into this any further.

Clark


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> Yeah, maybe I was melodramatic, but I was sincere. If we strip away my drama, do you still think the delay is harmless?




No, the delay is not harmless.

But you went from rational yesterday to "Won't somebody _please_ think of the _community_!?" today. 

As if the angst about a new edition has escaped WoTCs notice; as if they could do anything about it if they cared.



> And maybe by asking I'm just feeding a troll, but here's your chance. Do you have anything serious to say on the topic?




No, the question is, will _you_ go back to being serious about the topic?

I am not the troll here. _You crapped in your own thread._


----------



## Dalvyn

Melodrama on the one hand ...

Sarcasm/snide/condescending remarks on the other hand ...

Is the first one really more condemnable than the second?

If the melodrama annoys you, I think it's easy enough to just ignore it. I actually find it easier to ignore a melodramatic answer than a sarcastic one, since the first one is not aimed at hurting or at ridiculing.

Granted, the Paizo thread is just one small example. Granted, there is no need to go all dramatic over it. Yet, it's a symptom of a clear division in the community. The main topic of this thread remains valid, and the questions about the GSL are still worth asking.

Dropping out of this thread because of that one post or derailing the thread into "boohoo, you're overly melodramatic; let me laugh at you instead of discussing the main topic" seems like a waste to me: it's like getting rid of the baby along with the bathing water (or whatever the correct expression is).

Can we go back to the original topic/questions and avoid the sniping at each other's chosen words?


----------



## Disenchanter

Orcus said:
			
		

> AC-
> 
> I'll admit I'm a little disappointed.
> 
> You brought me over to this thread to add my comments. I did. Now I feel a bit sucked in.
> 
> That last post of yours, with the melodramatic link to the Paizo board, is just over the top.
> 
> I've said what I need to say here. I believe in WotC and Scott and Linae. I'm not going to get sucked into this any further.
> 
> Clark




It is just proof that even the most civil of people can fall victim to their passions from time to time.

It happens to the best of people, it happens more often to the worst of people.

I do not fault Orcus' opinion, nor do I hold it against him.  I would extend the same attitude to all that feel similarly.

I would ask that you not let the last couple of posts by Admiral Caine to color your opinion of his earlier posts in this thread and others.  Admiral Caine has gone to great lengths to present his points in a dispassionate manner, so they can be viewed as is rather than as he wants them to be viewed.


----------



## Orcus

I'll reconsider my position, based on your post.

But you have to remember, I'm not just a poster named Orcus. I am the president of a company--a company that happens to do business with Paizo. So I dont just represent me, I represent my company. I'm happy to join in the GSL discussion. It is an interesting discussion. But I get vary wary of being a part of a discussion that seems to be critical of people I like and do business with. I felt, also, like I was being sucked into an agenda. I got in this thread because I thought it was a good, balanced discussion of the GSL issues that were outstanding and that it was done without the drama and BS that accompanies such discussions these days. I also thought the recent posts derailed that. But I'm willing to believe that perhaps that is not the norm for AC. I'm willing to extend that benefit of the doubt. Everyone is human. Everyone gets upset or frustrated. I understand that.


----------



## DaveMage

Clark - how would you characterize the last 7 years of the OGL?  (From your own perspecive first, and then from WotC's point of view, do you see it as a success on the whole?)  And, if you were in WotC's shoes, how would you frame the OGL/GSL going forward?


----------



## Admiral Caine

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'll reconsider my position, based on your post.
> 
> But you have to remember, I'm not just a poster named Orcus. I am the president of a company--a company that happens to do business with Paizo. So I dont just represent me, I represent my company. I'm happy to join in the GSL discussion. It is an interesting discussion. But I get vary wary of being a part of a discussion that seems to be critical of people I like and do business with. I felt, also, like I was being sucked into an agenda. I got in this thread because I thought it was a good, balanced discussion of the GSL issues that were outstanding and that it was done without the drama and BS that accompanies such discussions these days. I also thought the recent posts derailed that. But I'm willing to believe that perhaps that is not the norm for AC. I'm willing to extend that benefit of the doubt. Everyone is human. Everyone gets upset or frustrated. I understand that.




Fair enough Clark.

If I had a time machine, I'd delete that post as an unwise and ill considered decision. Unfortunately there is enough attention to it already that it's a matter of public record.. so I'm stuck with it and the disappointment it might have engendered.

It was emotional. So on some level I believed what I was saying. I didn't fake the emotion, I only allowed it to get the best of me.

I accept however that productive conversation can not take place where emotions are what is being debated, or discussed. Emotions are subjective

Nevertheless, I'm stuck with what I wrote, and I do regret it. And that is meant as apology- I'm just trying not to be too melodramatic in doing that as well.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, the question is, will _you_ go back to being serious about the topic?
> 
> I am not the troll here. _You crapped in your own thread._




Duly noted and accepted. That's the best I can do.


----------



## Orcus

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Clark - how would you characterize the last 7 years of the OGL?  (From your own perspecive first, and then from WotC's point of view, do you see it as a success on the whole?)  And, if you were in WotC's shoes, how would you frame the OGL/GSL going forward?




That is a great question.

I would call the OGL and Open Gaming in general a huge success from WotC's standpoint. However, I'm not sure that everyone has the point of view as me. And, I will concede, I think there were a few things that werent great from WotC's perspective. 

Open Gaming played a role in WotC's objectives, and in my view it is clear beyond any doubt. D&D was re-energized in no small part by the third party companies. They helped WotC achieve this. D&D's market presence increased because of the OGL. Companies often discuss shelf presence for their brand. The massive prolifieration of D&D compatible products made D&D dominate the shelves in retail stores, more so than it would have with just official products. It created a group of desginers and gave them an outlet to show their stuff professionally which WotC has pulled from to great success (see Mearls). It increased the "coolness" factor of WotC by promoting Open Gaming, and that matters. Too often the big guy in the industry, fairly or unfairly, gets a Microsoft label. WotC has that a bit. Gamers are contrarians and underdog supporters. They dont like the big guy. WotC being a part of Open Gaming garnered them some "street cred" and some love. I think it was a brilliant move. Open gamining and the OGL also allowed others to fill in the blanks that D&D didnt have time to fill. I think it also energized roleplaying to a great degree. Our hobby, like it or not, is slipping. It is running the risk of fading to a small core in the face of online and computer and console gaming. That is just the reality. Open gaming got more people involved in D&D. I also think open gaming and third party products pushed quality forward. Previously, D&D competed against itself. It didnt have anything pushing it. But we third party publishers came pretty close to WotC quality. We made some great stuff. And I think that pushed WotC. Granted, they started the bar high with 3E--which was a huge quality and production improvement from prior editions. But look at some of those final 3E products--the "return" and "expedition" adventures and the fiendish codex, etc. Look how great their production values are. I think those were pushed by the way the smaller companies were nipping at their heels. So I think a bit of competition for quality is a good thing (yet all the while pumping D&D). 

Frankly, I think D&D would be in a much worse place right now if it werent for the third party support. 

A short sighted person would say: every OGL book was a dollar we could have made had we made that book. But that is short sighted. Becuase if you were going to have made the book you would have. You cant talk about hypothetical products you didnt make. Point is, you didnt make that book. So dont get upset if some people make some money for themselves. 

I think the few things open gaming did poorly --FROM WOTC'S STANDPOINT-- is allow the creation of competing game systems that are complete themselves and dont require the purchase of WotC products. I think the GSL will address this. I also happen to think it is the prime reason for the GSL not being simply another OGL. Why give rules away that let people start their own alternative games that never in any meaningful way push D&D's brand dominance or sell D&D products? Much of that had to do with the way the OGL and d20 STL worked together, or I should say still worked when apart. Which is why you see important parts of the STL creeping into the core license (the GSL). 

In my view, open gaming in general and the OGL particulary, were amazing and positive moves that earned wotc money and continued market dominance. 

There were things I would fix: the ability to create stand alone competing game systems (as mentioned above) and the lack of the d20 logo living up to a quality mark and the eventual dilution of the value of that mark. And, it appears, both of those are being addressed by the GSL.

And that in and of itself tells me something. The fact that the GSL seems to be aimed at fixing the very things I am mentioning means, to some degree, that WotC agrees with teh above observations. 

Clark


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Orcus said:
			
		

> Everything is a process. I wouldnt be surprised to see a small term here or there tweaked after the publishers look at the GSL and in response to our suggestions.
> 
> But whether draft or not, it isnt public till June. So it isnt strange or uncommon for a licensor to keep the license private. That doesnt bother me in any way other than the -hey, i want to see it now!- way. So please lets stop suggesting that there is something inappropriate, improper or unusual about a licensor keeping a license private until finally released. The fact we want to see it, doesnt make it wierd that they arent showing it to us. People are all too ready to indict WotC over this. I'm not a fan of the delay, but the "secret license" isnt the problem.




This thread is about questions for WotC to answer in their own words, not to be translated through 3rd parties. While your explanation is a good one and make sense that does not make it official. I think the question stands and is a good one for them to answer themselves. Otherwise everyone is just debating about more internet speculation (no matter how knowledgeable the source of speculation is). 

So to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault through Dangergirl: Why will the GSL be under NDA until June?


----------



## Orcus

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Clark - how would you characterize the last 7 years of the OGL?  (From your own perspecive first, and then from WotC's point of view, do you see it as a success on the whole?)  And, if you were in WotC's shoes, how would you frame the OGL/GSL going forward?




From my standpoint, that is easy. Necro wouldnt exist without open gaming. I would be here posting this. I wouldnt be working with Paizo. I wouldnt have met Monte and Sue Cook and Erik Mona and and Lisa Stevens and Ryan Dancey and the crew at WotC and Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz and Steve and Stewart Wieck and the WW crew and Bob Bledsaw and all the fans who have become friends and all the many other cool people I have gotten to meet. I wouldnt have gone to multiple GenCons and multiple GAMAs. I wouldnt have won Ennies or been a judge for RPG Superstar or invited to participate in Dungeon's article ranking the all time best adventures. I'd be Clark the gamer. Luckily, I am still Clark the Gamer first and Clark the head of Necro second. 

I dont know how long I would have stuck with 3E. I would have --foolishly-- house ruled alot of the stuff I thought I didnt like about 3E and never given it a chance. I'm glad I did, cause there is stuff in 3E I didnt like at first that now I cant imagine going back on. That gives me immense hope for 4E. Just like 3E there will be stuff I think I dont like at first that I'm sure will grow on me and become things I cant do without. 

As Clark the head of Necro, I didnt like the delay to my products caused by the switch from 3E to 3.5. As Clark the head of Necro I dont like the delay to my plans caused by the GSL. But I cant blame that on open gaming. 

The last seven years have been a rebirth of the golden age of D&D in my view.


----------



## DaveMage

Thanks for the insight, Clark!


----------



## Voadam

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think the few things open gaming did poorly --FROM WOTC'S STANDPOINT-- is allow the creation of competing game systems that are complete themselves and dont require the purchase of WotC products. I think the GSL will address this. I also happen to think it is the prime reason for the GSL not being simply another OGL. Why give rules away that let people start their own alternative games that never in any meaningful way push D&D's brand dominance or sell D&D products? Much of that had to do with the way the OGL and d20 STL worked together, or I should say still worked when apart. Which is why you see important parts of the STL creeping into the core license (the GSL).
> 
> In my view, open gaming in general and the OGL particulary, were amazing and positive moves that earned wotc money and continued market dominance.
> 
> There were things I would fix: the ability to create stand alone competing game systems (as mentioned above) and the lack of the d20 logo living up to a quality mark and the eventual dilution of the value of that mark. And, it appears, both of those are being addressed by the GSL.
> 
> And that in and of itself tells me something. The fact that the GSL seems to be aimed at fixing the very things I am mentioning means, to some degree, that WotC agrees with teh above observations.
> 
> Clark




This seems a little wierd to me. I used to buy non-D&D books to use in my D&D games. I used Ars Magica, GURPS, Palladium, MERP, Rolemaster, Earthdawn, WoD, and other stuff as fodder in my D&D games. With the OGL I switched to focusing more on OGL stuff because it was easier to convert than other systems, but I used my Arcana Unearthed and Iron Heroes and Deeds Not Words in my 3e D&D games. I got the Conan Pocket RPG book to use in my D&D game. I got the Wheel of Time complete in itself d20 game by WotC to use in my D&D games. A lot of complete in themselves d20 and OGL books directly supported my D&D gaming.

As the market leader I always thought the benefits for WotC of having fairly compatible game stuff out there outweighed the numbers lost to those who only went for the third party niche games exclusively.

The losses to WotC here are people starting and ending with these 3rd party complete in themselves d20 games or people who try a 3rd party variant like True20 and never go back to WotC D&D stuff (assuming they would not have moved instead to a completely different nond20 system like GURPS, WoD, etc.)


----------



## Orcus

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> This thread is about questions for WotC to answer in their own words, not to be translated through 3rd parties. While your explanation is a good one and make sense that does not make it official. I think the question stands and is a good one for them to answer themselves. Otherwise everyone is just debating about more internet speculation (no matter how knowledgeable the source of speculation is).
> 
> So to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault through Dangergirl: Why will the GSL be under NDA until June?




I'm not trying to give the official answer. I'm just trying to say that there are some things that gamers are trying to project onto publishers as being the problem we are having. Such as the fact that the GSL is under an NDA. I'm just saying that as an actual publisher that is not my issue. I dont care about it and it makes business sense to me.


----------



## kenmarable

Voadam said:
			
		

> As the market leader I always thought the benefits for WotC of having fairly compatible game stuff out there outweighed the numbers lost to those who only went for the third party niche games exclusively.



That's a good point I hadn't really considered either. Perhaps cutting off the competing games that piggyback on D&D is shortsighted as well? Given the fact that there will be competing systems no matter what, forcing those systems to be less compatible might be costing WotC in the long run? I don't know, there's a lot of factors. How compatible is it? Would more competing systems exist under the OGL than the hypothetical GSL? Or would they just be more visible?

For something like Malhavoc's alt systems - Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes - it would seem to me that they are compatible enough that those who play Malhavoc's systems would still be likely to buy D&D products for use in their AU/E and IH games. The core books might directly compete, but (fact pulled from Stephen Colbert's gut here) I have a feeling the majority of shelves that have Arcana Evolved sitting on them, also have a Player's Handbook. With these examples, it seems, to me at least, closer to the "Don't complain because you didn't get those dollars, because you didn't make those products" reasoning that Clark mentions. They are close enough to D&D to be pretty much D&D accessories than entirely competing systems.

Shifting now to one of the other big examples is True 20. Now, this seems to be more of a potential worry to WotC. There are more fundamental changes in the system (as well as the strong branding of it as a different system, whereas Malhavoc's always felt more like a different flavor of D&D than an entirely different game). Products are even less compatible, but still usable between systems. However, the difference in compatibility seems to be big enough (especially given that True 20 is set up to handle more than fantasy), that is does appear to be a true direct competitor that doesn't boost D&D much at all.

Then shifting one step further to Mutants and Masterminds. Given the different genre and vast differences in rules, it really isn't compatible with D&D at all. However, to me at least, this seems like less of a direct competitor because it is for an entirely different genre. There is the issue of "gamers only have so much time to play RPGs" and if they are busy playing a supers game, they have less time for D&D. However, I think the simple fact is, some people will want to play a supers game either way, so it's best keeping them happy with a great supers game like M&M. So the small loss of having some play M&M as opposed to D&D is probably offset by the general benefit of keeping them playing RPGs.

So, overall, I think many competing systems aren't a problem. Either they are pretty similar to D&D accessories (Malhavoc's) or they are so separate that they no longer really compete (M&M). But something like True 20, that can hit the same genre, but really is a substantially different game can be a worry for WotC. So, I guess it's all Green Ronin's fault.  (Just kidding, I love their systems!) Or, alternatively, if Monte Cook had tried pushing AE as a full on alternate game, bringing even more publishers in on the act, releasing only AE compatible products, and working to market and brand it as less of a "campaign setting with some alternate rules" (after all, it wasn't really much further from core 3.x than Dark Sun was from 2e) and more of a "this is a different game", then that could have been a worry as well. 

Apparently, either WotC disagrees with my reasoning above, or the benefit of D&D compatible alternate games was outweighed by the threat of the directly competing True 20's. (Or the short-sighted ones won out on this issue, and they would rather have competing systems have as little compatibility as possible.)


----------



## Admiral Caine

I'm enjoying the continued discussion. I'm chillin' after yesterday's mistake, but I'm still holding out for an answer.

If yesterday's comments gave offense, I do apologize to the WOTC 4Th Edition Development Team. It was a weak moment. Hopefully we can move past it, as there's a lot of people who would like some more information, despite my gaffe.


----------



## kenmarable

Oh, and another question I have (however, it might have been asked already, so sorry if it has) is IF the GSL is incompatible with the OGL, will it address third party to third party content licensing or only WotC to third party licensing?

Although it wasn't used as much as it could have been, one of the great features of the OGL was not just being able to use the SRD's content, but also the sharing of content between publishers. This is probably most evident in adventures (my particular area of interest). Being able to use monsters and templates from a variety of sources is a huge benefit and one that I sincerely hope will still be possible in 4e without each individual publisher developing their own licensing agreements if they want others to use their content.

(Personally, my hope is for the GSL to be compatible with the OGL so that a product can be covered by both.)


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Voadam said:
			
		

> As the market leader I always thought the benefits for WotC of having fairly compatible game stuff out there outweighed the numbers lost to those who only went for the third party niche games exclusively.
> 
> The losses to WotC here are people starting and ending with these 3rd party complete in themselves d20 games or people who try a 3rd party variant like True20 and never go back to WotC D&D stuff (assuming they would not have moved instead to a completely different nond20 system like GURPS, WoD, etc.)




The original belief was actually that *all* RPG stuff out there, including incompatible systems, helps drive the market leader's sales -- that's it's good for the market leader if there are smaller companies out there servicing the niche RPGers and keeping them playing RPGs rather than switching to video games or hanging out in pubs.


----------



## Oldtimer

kenmarable said:
			
		

> That's a good point I hadn't really considered either. Perhaps cutting off the competing games that piggyback on D&D is shortsighted as well?



I really believe it is. That is as shortsighted as cutting of all third party products would be.

Since the OGL is not going to be used for 4e, sights seems to have shortened.


----------



## Orcus

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I really believe it is. That is as shortsighted as cutting of all third party products would be.
> 
> Since the OGL is not going to be used for 4e, sights seems to have shortened.




I'm not sure about that--that "sights have shortened." Just because the OGL isnt being used doesnt mean they are short sighted. The OGL could use improvements, from everyone's standpoint. Granted, WotC will make changes that address the problems from their stanpoint, not necessarily from our standpoint.  But I think WotC is just reacting to the way the OGL worked for 3E--some stuff worked great, some didnt--and they are making appropriate changes based on those things. The big issue is uncertainty. I know what the OGL lets me do from a product standpoint. But I dont know what the GSL will let me do. That, in my view, is the big problem. Until that question is answered, its hard for us to go forward as publishers. 

Though I do agree that cutting off all third party support would be short sighted.

My discussions with Scott and Linae and others indicate that they want to help the third party publishers. They get it.


----------



## Henry

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Given the fact that there will be competing systems no matter what, forcing those systems to be less compatible might be costing WotC in the long run?




This was Ryan Dancey's original supposition, one of the reasons why he pushed for the OGL. If the theory is "all roads lead to Rome", then the idea of making Interstates to replace meandering country roads is a sound one. I know from my personal experience, d20 games of all stripes (from Mutants and Masterminds, to Grim Tales, to Spycraft, to d20 Modern) kept us from playing other game systems out there, like Shadowrun, Unknown Armies, etc. because we were too busy playing games similar enough to not bother with a big learning curve. When were weren't playing D&D, we were playing another d20 game; the non d20 games we DID play had such dirt-simple mechanics that we didn't spend much time learning, like Feng Shui, for instance.

IMO, Network Externalities was a lot more effective under the OGL than people are willing to give it credit for.

In other news, I, too, will be glad to see what the final license of the GSL contains.


----------



## Oldtimer

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about that--that "sights have shortened." Just because the OGL isnt being used doesnt mean they are short sighted. The OGL could use improvements, from everyone's standpoint. Granted, WotC will make changes that address the problems from their stanpoint, not necessarily from our standpoint.  But I think WotC is just reacting to the way the OGL worked for 3E--some stuff worked great, some didnt--and they are making appropriate changes based on those things. The big issue is uncertainty. I know what the OGL lets me do from a product standpoint. But I dont know what the GSL will let me do. That, in my view, is the big problem. Until that question is answered, its hard for us to go forward as publishers.
> 
> Though I do agree that cutting off all third party support would be short sighted.
> 
> My discussions with Scott and Linae and others indicate that they want to help the third party publishers. They get it.



I have no doubt that Scott and Linae care about third party publishers - no doubt whatsoever.

And of course we are just guessing how the GSL will differ from the OGL, but the feeling I get is that WotC considers "compatible" game systems (ie Conan, True20, M&M, et al) as an undesirable effect of the OGL. I'm guessing that the GSL will not allow for that. And I would call that a _slightly_ reduced sight, at least.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> And of course we are just guessing how the GSL will differ from the OGL, but the feeling I get is that WotC considers "compatible" game systems (ie Conan, True20, M&M, et al) as an undesirable effect of the OGL. I'm guessing that the GSL will not allow for that. And I would call that a _slightly_ reduced sight, at least.




Though as a minor counterpoint, we don't know how much of that will be due to WOTC's insistence, and how much of it will be due to their parent company. That doesn't change your point, but it does shift the emphasis.

And, say it is straight from WOTC, just to explore that possibility. It does make a certain amount of business sense. Third parties who create fantasy campaign settings create a 'sales synergy' with WOTC in terms of the Core Books. Fantasy products convert the fan base and help sell Core Books, and everybody wins in that scenario

M&M does not.

But then M&M is not 'ruined' because of this either. They still have the OGL to fall back on and a path forward. I haven't been to the Atomic Think Tank lately, but I imagine those folks are doing just fine.


----------



## Oldtimer

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> Though as a minor counterpoint, we don't know how much of that will be due to WOTC's insistence, and how much of it will be due to their parent company. That doesn't change your point, but it does shift the emphasis.



True, it does. It might be that Hasbro has shorter sights than WotC.



> And, say it is straight from WOTC, just to explore that possibility. It does make a certain amount of business sense. Third parties who create fantasy campaign settings create a 'sales synergy' with WOTC in terms of the Core Books. Fantasy products convert the fan base and help sell Core Books, and everybody wins in that scenario
> 
> M&M does not.



Here is where the disagreement lies. I would contend that M&M does more for D&D than, for example, WoD. There will always be other RPGs out there. The more simliar they are to D&D, the better for D&D.

It is more obvious that a fantasy campaign for D&D helps, but I still think that another fantasy RPG built on D&D rules help more than one which is not.


----------



## Ranger REG

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> True, it does. It might be that Hasbro has shorter sights than WotC.
> 
> Here is where the disagreement lies. I would contend that M&M does more for D&D than, for example, WoD. There will always be other RPGs out there. The more similar...



...or familiar...


			
				Oldtimer said:
			
		

> ...they are to D&D, the better for D&D.
> 
> It is more obvious that a fantasy campaign for D&D helps, but I still think that another fantasy RPG built on D&D rules help more than one which is not.



Unfortunately, WotC covets the fantasy RPG field. They'd rather you make setting books than competing rulebooks.


----------



## Mike_Lescault

Hi All,

I haven't forgotten about the questions. I chatted with people about it internally to see what information we could provide, and while I could give you some quoted answers right now, they'd be kinda lame because there are still so many unanswered questions. 

I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.

Thanks,
-Mike


----------



## Henry

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.




Thanks, Mike. We appreciate the drop-in. We really do think the world of you guys, even if it occasionally doesn't sound like it.


----------



## Orcus

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> And of course we are just guessing how the GSL will differ from the OGL, but the feeling I get is that WotC considers "compatible" game systems (ie Conan, True20, M&M, et al) as an undesirable effect of the OGL. I'm guessing that the GSL will not allow for that. And I would call that a _slightly_ reduced sight, at least.




I'd call it a wise business move on their part.  I'd do the same thing. I dont think when Ryan started open gaming that the goal was to create competing games. It was to support D&D and be an externality driving the sale of PHBs. I dont mind them closing that loophole. Then again, I dont publish one of those competing games.


----------



## Lizard

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> I haven't forgotten about the questions. I chatted with people about it internally to see what information we could provide, and while I could give you some quoted answers right now, they'd be kinda lame because there are still so many unanswered questions.
> 
> I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike




That's kinda scary, as it implies the GSL is still over a week from release...


----------



## Admiral Caine

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> I haven't forgotten about the questions. I chatted with people about it internally to see what information we could provide, and while I could give you some quoted answers right now, they'd be kinda lame because there are still so many unanswered questions.
> 
> I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike




I'd like to echo Henry's sentiments. We all appreciate you checking in back in, and I'm sure we all look forward to any news you have next week.

Thanks again!


----------



## Oldtimer

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'd call it a wise business move on their part.  I'd do the same thing. I dont think when Ryan started open gaming that the goal was to create competing games. It was to support D&D and be an externality driving the sale of PHBs. I dont mind them closing that loophole. Then again, I dont publish one of those competing games.



Neither do I. 

I don't think it was a goal for Ryan to create competing games, but I think he realized the possibility. Since competing games will always be created, closing the "loophole" will just cause them to be incompatible with D&D, ie less of an externality driving PHB sales.

One can apply exactly the same reasoning towards "competing" d20 games, as you did above towards "competing" D&D accessories. They all work to make the D&D market stronger, since people can mix and match products. If you bought Conan and play it, you could easily pick up a WotC Monster Manual to spice things up. More customers and less resistance to try D&D.

So, it might not be such a great business move.


----------



## xechnao

Imagine CODA (LotR, ST) was open. Imagine Star Wars was CODA too. In this case I can easily see CODA Conan, Dragonlance, CoC.... 

If Wotc did not have Star Wars, D20 and OGL could have not even existed.

Wotc and d&d biggest bet is Brand name(s like) Star Wars. Not D20 or OGL. Wotc Dungeons & Dragons sells more due to Wotc Star Wars than due to OGL.

And regarding marketing it was not random that Star Wars got updated first and D&D second and they linked each other (SAGA is a preview of 4th Ed they have been saying).

The above points get proven by the small success of open systems like savage worlds or tri-stat (BESM). The market value is more geek value than true value (what it offers).

At this point of D20 being associated with geeky important brand names already, Wotc and D&D perhaps has less to win with opening their system and more to lose. A close 4th Ed will rise its geek value more or to put it differently an open 4th Ed will lower its geek value.


----------



## kenmarable

Lizard said:
			
		

> That's kinda scary, as it implies the GSL is still over a week from release...



Mike's just passing information to us as the Online Community Liaison (or whatever his title is). Him taking a week off has no impact on the writing of the GSL. He just said he can't get us answers to the questions until he is back.

Now maybe it is still a week or more away given all the unanswered questions he had. Or maybe  those in charge are having a meeting today to determine everything and get the GSL out to third party publishers, but they won't have time to talk to Mike before he leaves to answer his questions. So it could still be released anytime between today and, oh... June. 

Basically, you can't read anything about the timing of the GSL into his response other than "yesterday afternoon they didn't have the answers for him".


----------



## Cergorach

xechnao said:
			
		

> If Wotc did not have Star Wars, D20 and OGL could have not even existed.



No offense, but from what I have seen (look at amazon.com for example), sales for D&D far outweigh sales for SW. And while SW is similar to D&D, it isn't directly compatible (genre). While most things released under the OGL are compatible with D&D and thus directly strengthen the position of D&D in the market place. If WotC/LucasArt had released a SW SRD and allowed the use of the term "Requires the use of the Star Wars rulebook", then the OGL could increase the position of the SW game.

The OGL market created a diversity of products that is to date unrivaled in the RPG industry, all based on the same game system, and most assume you'll be using the supplement with the D&D rules. Sure there are some variant systems that grew from the OGL (M&M, Conan, True20, Spycraft, etc.), but to be honest, these have become so different from the D&D game that they're no longer really compatible with it. And thus do not really benefit from the OGL, I would say that they're actually hindered by it (needing to release their content under the OGL). I would go so far as to say that if there was no OGL, these variant systems would have been created in some form or another, the only problem would have been that they wouldn't have had the exposure they now benefit from (due to the OGL).

While I'm disappointed that the GSL won't open up the rules as the OGL did, it does have the added benefit of focusing folks on the D&D brand and compatibility with it. In exchange it seems that WotC is opening up more of their IP, something I always found strange before. While you were encouraged to support 3.x, supporting their support material wasn't easy (maybe if you asked nicely), why reinvent the wheel if WotC already did a marvelous job on it. WotC did a wonderfull Samurai, how many variant Samurai were presented in numerous rules supplements by third part publishers? If you could include the Samurai class from WotC by stating "The Samurai class is taken from Oriental Adventures published by WotC.", this would interest folks in that book, while saving publishers the time of 'inventing' a new class.


----------



## xechnao

Cergorach said:
			
		

> No offense, but from what I have seen (look at amazon.com for example), sales for D&D far outweigh sales for SW.




This is irrelevant. Star Wars could have sold 0 rpg books and still my point be valid the same. Star Wars is the booster geek attraction -that adds to the D&D sales- not the actual product to sell. Because Star Wars universe may be less suited or attractive for a roleplaying game experience than D&D.

Think of tourism. You pay hotel rooms and services but you would rather choose a location for your holidays with a high value of sight seeing.


----------



## Ranger REG

xechnao said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. Star Wars could have sold 0 rpg books and still my point be valid the same. Star Wars is the booster geek attraction -that adds to the D&D sales- not the actual product to sell. Because Star Wars universe may be less suited or attractive for a roleplaying game experience than D&D.



Oh, please.  :\ 

You make it sound like the reason _Magic: The Gathering_ sell is because at one time WotC was selling _Pokemon_ TCG.

I'm gonna tell you again. We don't need _Star Wars_ to sell _D&D._ We have a much bigger RPG fanbase than _Star Wars_ RPG fanbase (counting the _d6_ gamers too).


----------



## Crashy75

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Neither do I.
> 
> I don't think it was a goal for Ryan to create competing games, but I think he realized the possibility. Since competing games will always be created, closing the "loophole" will just cause them to be incompatible with D&D, ie less of an externality driving PHB sales.
> 
> One can apply exactly the same reasoning towards "competing" d20 games, as you did above towards "competing" D&D accessories. They all work to make the D&D market stronger, since people can mix and match products. If you bought Conan and play it, you could easily pick up a WotC Monster Manual to spice things up. More customers and less resistance to try D&D.
> 
> So, it might not be such a great business move.



So, I'm getting the impression that there won't be any variant PHB's...  That would make me very sad.  My wife and wallet will be happy however.  Those games never stopped me from purchasing WotC stuff.  They did excite me about d20 however.


----------



## Orcus

Cergorach said:
			
		

> While I'm disappointed that the GSL won't open up the rules as the OGL did, it does have the added benefit of focusing folks on the D&D brand and compatibility with it. In exchange it seems that WotC is opening up more of their IP, something I always found strange before. While you were encouraged to support 3.x, supporting their support material wasn't easy (maybe if you asked nicely), why reinvent the wheel if WotC already did a marvelous job on it. WotC did a wonderfull Samurai, how many variant Samurai were presented in numerous rules supplements by third part publishers? If you could include the Samurai class from WotC by stating "The Samurai class is taken from Oriental Adventures published by WotC.", this would interest folks in that book, while saving publishers the time of 'inventing' a new class.




C-

I'm not sure that the "GSL won't open up the rules as the OGL did." In fact, I am pretty sure that it will, just not in the same way--the rules wont be in the same SRD format all typed out. In fact, as you mention, it appears that their intent is to allow more access to the rules and supplements by continued expansion of the content that can be referred to (something Wizards didn't do well in 3E/3.5; stuff just stopped with the original SRD and Epic and Psionic, if you wanted to refer to stuff from other books you couldn't, which sucked). We'll just have to see. Right now, no one knows what the GSL will do. But from discussions at the conference call, it seems clear that they don't want third parties using their free license to create stand alone games, a la M&M, etc. (they didn't mention any specific games or companies during the conference call, but I think everyone got the point).


----------



## Orcus

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> So, I'm getting the impression that there won't be any variant PHB's...  That would make me very sad.  My wife and wallet will be happy however.  Those games never stopped me from purchasing WotC stuff.  They did excite me about d20 however.




I think there will be. But I guess I'm not sure what you mean by variant PHBs. My guess is WotC will make a 4E Modern. If allowed, I intend to do an Advanced Player's Guide with the omitted classes, races, etc. So we'll see...


----------



## Bacris

Orcus said:
			
		

> But I guess I'm not sure what you mean by variant PHBs.




I'm assuming he means ala Arcana Unearthed / Iron Heroes.

Still d20, still fantasy, just not using the WotC PHB.


----------



## Henry

I don't think you CAN have a competing RPG against D&D, but that's a windmill to tilt at in another thread.


----------



## Crashy75

Bacris said:
			
		

> I'm assuming he means ala Arcana Unearthed / Iron Heroes.
> 
> Still d20, still fantasy, just not using the WotC PHB.



That's it.


----------



## Orcus

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> That's it.




Hard to say. Iron Heroes/Arcana Unearthed still support core D&D. But they do replace the PHB to some extent. I dont know. That's a hard one. I know they arent excited about complete systems that stand alone without D&D. I'm not sure IH/AE goes that far. It will be interesting to see what is restricted by the GSL. I hope things like IH/AE are allowed. 

I would say it would be shortsighted to stop stuff like that.


----------



## xechnao

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Oh, please.  :\
> 
> You make it sound like the reason _Magic: The Gathering_ sell is because at one time WotC was selling _Pokemon_ TCG.



 MtG is a different story. It is a collectible competitive affair that focuses on a solo investment like Quake or Counterstrike or even WoW -or even the hobbist affair Games Workshop sells. You need just a good product -not an attractive covering or package to sell it.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm gonna tell you again. We don't need _Star Wars_ to sell _D&D._ We have a much bigger RPG fanbase than _Star Wars_ RPG fanbase (counting the _d6 gamers too)._



_

It is not about the "RPG fanbase" but rather the "fanbase". If you can understand the difference._


----------



## Crashy75

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hard to say. Iron Heroes/Arcana Unearthed still support core D&D. But they do replace the PHB to some extent. I dont know. That's a hard one. I know they arent excited about complete systems that stand alone without D&D. I'm not sure IH/AE goes that far. It will be interesting to see what is restricted by the GSL. I hope things like IH/AE are allowed.
> 
> I would say it would be shortsighted to stop stuff like that.



Agreed.  The thing about AU especially was that it could be used with the PHB with no problem.   There was no alt. rogue or ranger for example(though the warmein could be seen as an alt. fighter).


----------



## Ranger REG

xechnao said:
			
		

> It is not about the "RPG fanbase" but rather the "fanbase". If you can understand the difference.



Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any mass movement from the [general] _Star Wars_ fanbase picking up the RPG from WotC. I'm hoping.


----------



## xechnao

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any mass movement from the [general] _Star Wars_ fanbase picking up the RPG from WotC. I'm hoping.




This is not my point. Star Wars being more mainstream (as an idea) gives a better consumer "excuse" to establish D&D. People are more likely to accept any of D&D's price (from money and time investment to gaining negative social "labels") if it somehow connects to Star Wars which is already massively accepted and established.


----------



## Lizard

xechnao said:
			
		

> This is not my point. Star Wars being more mainstream (as an idea) gives a better consumer "excuse" to establish D&D. People are more likely to accept D&D's payouts (from money and time investment to gaining negative social "labels") if it somehow connects to Star Wars which is already massively accepted and established.




Conversations never heard in High School:
"So, you lamewads are pretending to be magical fairies?"
"Yeah, but if we wanted to, we could use the same rules to pretend to be Jedi Knights!"
"Oh. Well, that makes it totally kick-ass!"

Your thesis has no evidence to support it except your own assertion that it is so. The idea people would be more likely to play D&D because a Star Wars RPG exists and uses a similair rule set is pretty much self-evidently absurd. Do you have anything to offer to support it? Sales figures? Marketing surveys? Statements from WOTC insiders? 

Star Wars used the D20 system in part to lure D&D players to the brand, not to lure Star Wars fans to D&D.


----------



## xechnao

Lizard said:
			
		

> Conversations never heard in High School:
> "So, you lamewads are pretending to be magical fairies?"
> "Yeah, but if we wanted to, we could use the same rules to pretend to be Jedi Knights!"
> "Oh. Well, that makes it totally kick-ass!"
> 
> Your thesis has no evidence to support it except your own assertion that it is so. The idea people would be more likely to play D&D because a Star Wars RPG exists and uses a similair rule set is pretty much self-evidently absurd. Do you have anything to offer to support it? Sales figures? Marketing surveys? Statements from WOTC insiders?




What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?  



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Star Wars used the D20 system in part to lure D&D players to the brand, not to lure Star Wars fans to D&D.




The relation is mutual. D&D at this point lures D&D players to the Star Wars RPG brand, but Star Wars did give value to D&D to begin with. I am distinguishing two separate entities here: Star Wars as a general brand name and the RPGs.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

xechnao said:
			
		

> What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?




If I am publishing role-playing games?

NO QUESTION that D&D is the better brand. No contest. It's not even _close._


----------



## DaveMage

xechnao said:
			
		

> What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?
> 
> The relation is mutual. D&D at this point lures D&D players to the Star Wars RPG brand, but Star Wars did give value to D&D to begin with. I am distinguishing two separate entities here: Star Wars as a general brand name and the RPGs.




I'm thinking this may be a topic for a separate thread, eh?


----------



## Lizard

xechnao said:
			
		

> What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?
> 
> 
> 
> The relation is mutual. D&D at this point lures D&D players to the Star Wars RPG brand, but Star Wars did give value to D&D to begin with. I am distinguishing two separate entities here: Star Wars as a general brand name and the RPGs.




These questions indicate you really don't understand the topic at hand.

WEG managed to go broke despite owning the Stars Wars RPG IP. Even when they had it, they were never a serious competitor for dominance, trailing TSR and White Wolf in the marketplace. People were not drawn to other WEG games because of the Star Wars RPG license.

Star Wars gave NO value to D&D. None, zero, zip, nada, zilch. Ownership of Star Wars for WOTC was part of general synergy (Hasbro makes Star Wars toys), cachet, and possibly to keep a valuable IP from being owned by another party. The Star Wars RPG (pre-saga edition) was not 'entry level' or especially n00b-friendly; it was not a gateway game, but one aimed at experienced roleplayers -- primarily D&D players.


----------



## Lizard

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm thinking this may be a topic for a separate thread, eh?




On what board do we start threads on "Strange Beliefs People Make Up Out Of The Whole Cloth"?


----------



## xechnao

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If I am publishing role-playing games?
> 
> NO QUESTION that D&D is the better brand. No contest. It's not even _close._




My question was not limited to just publishing RPGs. I think I tried to make that clear above.


----------



## xechnao

Lizard said:
			
		

> These questions indicate you really don't understand the topic at hand.
> 
> WEG managed to go broke despite owning the Stars Wars RPG IP. Even when they had it, they were never a serious competitor for dominance, trailing TSR and White Wolf in the marketplace. People were not drawn to other WEG games because of the Star Wars RPG license.
> 
> Star Wars gave NO value to D&D. None, zero, zip, nada, zilch. Ownership of Star Wars for WOTC was part of general synergy (Hasbro makes Star Wars toys), cachet, and possibly to keep a valuable IP from being owned by another party. The Star Wars RPG (pre-saga edition) was not 'entry level' or especially n00b-friendly; it was not a gateway game, but one aimed at experienced roleplayers -- primarily D&D players.




When WEG had the rights to Star Wars it was a diiferent age -either for Star Wars either for RPGs and many other things. 

On a seperate note remember also that TSR failed too.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

xechnao said:
			
		

> When WEG had the rights to Star Wars it was a diiferent age -either for Star Wars either for RPGs and many other things.




You said a mouthful. Star Wars didn't suck then.


----------



## Bacris

xechnao said:
			
		

> This is not my point. Star Wars being more mainstream (as an idea) gives a better consumer "excuse" to establish D&D. People are more likely to accept any of D&D's price (from money and time investment to gaining negative social "labels") if it somehow connects to Star Wars which is already massively accepted and established.




This is an interesting opinion.

But without any sort of proof, that's all it is - an opinion.

Please stop trying to browbeat others into believing it to be fact.


----------



## xechnao

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You said a mouthful. Star Wars didn't suck then.




No, it didn't suck. But no comparison of the 90s and what comes just after. Internet, video games, new Star Wars films...the possibility for you and many others to publish due to OGL plus the ease of digital publishing...too many changes, a totaly different world to compare with.


----------



## xechnao

Bacris said:
			
		

> Please stop trying to browbeat others into believing it to be fact.




I am more likely defending it from people trying to convince me that it is nosense rather what you are saying I am doing here.


----------



## DaveMage

Lizard said:
			
		

> On what board do we start threads on "Strange Beliefs People Make Up Out Of The Whole Cloth"?




I think that's the Rules Forum.


----------



## Bacris

xechnao said:
			
		

> I am more likely defending it from people trying to convince me that it is nosense rather what you are saying I am doing here.




Actually, a few people have asked you for supporting evidence, but you have yet to give any while still claiming your statement to be accurate.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I'm honestly not sure they are trying to prevent "alternate PHBs" as much as protect against the following.

1)  Gross republishing of the SRD rules by themselves, either for profit or for free.  The free SRDs can be used as a replacement for their core products.  Their core products sell more than all their supplements combined.  Regardless of their use to the community, it would make sense for them to close up the license.

2)  Right to revoke.  I think Orcus might agree that licenses involved a contractual agreement between two parties.  Most regular contracts have an exit clause--"tenant at will" for instance means the landlord and tenant can both decide to end the contract from month to month.  The OGL has no built-in expiration date or any sort of revocation clause.  This is great for the licensees, but not so great for the licensor.  From a business standpoint, a perpetual license that doesn't allow any sort of revocation for standards, content, morals, etc., is not a good one from the creator's standpoint.  Now, a lot of third-parties and fans don't like it because they're afraid Wizards could shut them down "just because they are too good", so I understand it's risky.

So those are the two areas I think they're trying to prevent from happening.


----------



## xechnao

Bacris said:
			
		

> Actually, a few people have asked you for supporting evidence, but you have yet to give any while still claiming your statement to be accurate.




Business does not run only with the evidence you are asking about. Do you disagree SW is a bigger franchise than D&D? Other than our general perception there are no other hard evidence for us.


----------



## Ranger REG

xechnao said:
			
		

> What is a bigger franchise? Star Wars or D&D? It is like comparing the Mario Bros brand name and a Mario specific video game. What would you prefer to commercialy own? The rights to Star Wars or to D&D?



_Star Wars_ may be the bigger franchise, but its fanbase contains tiny portion of roleplayers.

As I said earlier, during WotC's publishing _Star Wars_ RPG for the past 8 years, I'm not seeing an increase of roleplayers within that fanbase.

You can talk about general, but my focus in narrowly on roleplayers. Granted, the potential for roleplayer increase is there. I'm just not seeing it.  :\ 

At least the _Pokemon_ franchise is big on both fans as well as TCG players.


----------



## Admiral Caine

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm thinking this may be a topic for a separate thread, eh?




I'm loathe to be critical of anyone after what I did earlier this week..  However, I'm thinking you're correct DaveMage.

I wouldn't want the WOTC Reps to return next week and become sidetracked by this 'Did Star Wars energize DnD' discussion.

Xechnao, may I ask the favor of you starting a new seperate thread elsewhere with your basic premise? This isn't intended to be disrespectful to you..  But I'd like to see us at least remain focused on the DnD GSL.


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm honestly not sure they are trying to prevent "alternate PHBs" as much as protect against the following.
> 
> 1)  Gross republishing of the SRD rules by themselves, either for profit or for free.  The free SRDs can be used as a replacement for their core products.  Their core products sell more than all their supplements combined.  Regardless of their use to the community, it would make sense for them to close up the license.
> 
> 2)  Right to revoke.  I think Orcus might agree that licenses involved a contractual agreement between two parties.  Most regular contracts have an exit clause--"tenant at will" for instance means the landlord and tenant can both decide to end the contract from month to month.  The OGL has no built-in expiration date or any sort of revocation clause.  This is great for the licensees, but not so great for the licensor.  From a business standpoint, a perpetual license that doesn't allow any sort of revocation for standards, content, morals, etc., is not a good one from the creator's standpoint.  Now, a lot of third-parties and fans don't like it because they're afraid Wizards could shut them down "just because they are too good", so I understand it's risky.
> 
> So those are the two areas I think they're trying to prevent from happening.




I agree. 

Initially, the idea was that everyone would want the d20 license because that let people use the d20 logo, which was on the D&D books. What publishers really wanted to do was say "compatible with D&D" but the license didnt allow that. The d20 logo was the next best thing. And as a result, things like standards and stuff were tied to the d20 STL because it was presumed that was the thing we couldnt live without. But that isnt how it played out. In the end, that d20 logo proved to be pretty irrelevant, since WotC watered it down. It didnt just mean D&D anymore. So as the value of the d20 logo declined, so to did the need to use the d20 STL. All of a sudden, we could do D&D products without the d20STL and just with the OGL. Once that happened, there were no longer any restrictions. Now, that happened in part because people didnt want to use the d20STL because of the restrictions it included. But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we needed the d20 logo. 

Clark


----------



## xechnao

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You can talk about general, but my focus in narrowly on roleplayers. Granted, the potential for roleplayer increase is there. I'm just not seeing it.




IMO your focus is too narrow from a business perspective. Do you remember or know about the "satanist" period of D&D? It is not that satanists were potential roleplayers, it is the hype that boomed the commercial value of D&D. This however, I think was unintentional. OTOH, I think that SW is intentionaly used in a similar way. Albeit a more passive one, since SW lies on the positive, rather than the negative way of hyping.


----------



## Orcus

xechnao said:
			
		

> Business does not run only with the evidence you are asking about. Do you disagree SW is a bigger franchise than D&D? Other than our general perception there are no other hard evidence for us.




This is a silly bunch of comments. It has nothing to do with the thread. Please post elsewhere. And on top of that your argument is lame. Of course SW is a better property to own as a general matter. It is not a better property to own as a RPG, never has been. And I can tell you without any doubt that more people came to D&D from third party supplements that from the fact that SW was a d20 system game. SW did not add to D&D. I can tell you that from the horses' mouth, having talked to the D&D brand managers on this very issue (Ryan Dancey, Valterra, etc). They hoped SW would do that, it didnt. That is straight from the people who know. End of topic. 

Please stop discussing that SW rubbish in this thread.


----------



## Ranger REG

Orcus said:
			
		

> But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we needed the d20 logo.



Hypothetically, what could have been done to make the _d20_ logo more valuable?


----------



## xechnao

Orcus said:
			
		

> This is a silly bunch of comments. It has nothing to do with the thread. Please post elsewhere. And on top of that your argument is lame. Of course SW is a better property to own as a general matter. It is not a better property to own as a RPG, never has been. And I can tell you without any doubt that more people came to D&D from third party supplements that from the fact that SW was a d20 system game. SW did not add to D&D. I can tell you that from the horses' mouth, having talked to the D&D brand managers on this very issue (Ryan Dancey, Valterra, etc). They hoped SW would do that, it didnt. That is straight from the people who know. End of topic.
> 
> Please stop discussing that SW rubbish in this thread.




Well, allow me to say then I never intended to discuss these rubbish in this thread, just state an opinion about a reason why Wotc and D&D perhaps has less to win with opening their system and more to lose this time around. Perhaps we come from a different POV regarding this one but I find hard to accept 100% your statements too. I mean, if you were 100% correct and since this time they are closing their license why wouldn't they seek a closer relation with third party supplementing lines like Sword & Sorcery or Paizo if they were that good for them? Kind of like "specialist games-forge world-..." for "games workshop"?
Besides, in the world of business it is a mistake to undouptfully believe and accept what every businessman tries to tell you.


----------



## xechnao

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> I'm loathe to be critical of anyone after what I did earlier this week..  However, I'm thinking you're correct DaveMage.
> 
> I wouldn't want the WOTC Reps to return next week and become sidetracked by this 'Did Star Wars energize DnD' discussion.
> 
> Xechnao, may I ask the favor of you starting a new seperate thread elsewhere with your basic premise? This isn't intended to be disrespectful to you..  But I'd like to see us at least remain focused on the DnD GSL.




You are right. I am sorry and I ask to be excused. No other thread though.


----------



## Lizard

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hypothetically, what could have been done to make the _d20_ logo more valuable?




Promote the living crap out of it. Most gamers didn't "get" the D20 logo.

In retrospect, it probably would have been better to put some quality/rules consistency restrictions in the STL (not the OGL), and more strictly enforced it. Many "D20" products flagrantly violated even the minor content limits of the STL.


----------



## Orcus

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hypothetically, what could have been done to make the _d20_ logo more valuable?




Here is how:

Make "d20 = D&D" and really hammer that home. They didnt do that. That made it less than important for us publishers. I hate to admit it, but we publishers didnt necessarily want an open game license. I love it, dont get me wrong. But what I really want is a license taht lets me make D&D compatible products and lets me say "compatible with D&D." WotC didnt want to do that, so they created this intermediary symbol, the d20 logo. So, frankly, to the extent the GSL allows me to say "D&D" or use some version of the D&D logo, I actually like it BETTER than the OGL. And if they are going to update the SRD to allow me to access future books, I like it BETTER than the OGL. But the good thing about the OGL is that it didnt limit products. It let you use the content and do what you want with it. To the extent the GSL doesnt do that, I will definately like the OGL BETTER. 

But in the end, that is it. If "d20 = D&D" had been better established and advertised it would have worked better. Candidly, they should have simply let us say "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" and tied the STL to that phrase. We would have taken just about any restriction to have been able to say that. 

But the d20 logo lost its value and meaning for many reasons: it wasnt just tied to D&D, it was tied to a system. "d20" also came to mean the products by third party publishers and that led to the decrease in value with the glut of products, some of which were not very good.


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Promote the living crap out of it. Most gamers didn't "get" the D20 logo.
> 
> In retrospect, it probably would have been better to put some quality/rules consistency restrictions in the STL (not the OGL), and more strictly enforced it. Many "D20" products flagrantly violated even the minor content limits of the STL.




The quality/consistency rules WERE in the STL not the OGL. Which is why you had so many OGL-only products.


----------



## Ranger REG

xechnao said:
			
		

> IMO your focus is too narrow from a business perspective. Do you remember or know about the "satanist" period of D&D? It is not that satanists were potential roleplayers, it is the hype that boomed the commercial value of D&D.



Well, they say that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

But at least the hype above *directly* spotlighted _D&D._

_Star Wars d20_ RPG doesn't *directly* spotlight _D&D._ It mentioned it as a brief "OBTW" blurb.


----------



## Cergorach

*@Clark*
What I meant with the "GSL won't open up the rules as the OGL did" is that the GSL (probably) won't allow the reprint of the rules verbatim (such as the OGL allowed with the SRD). I find that a bad move from a consumers point of view (I'll elaborate in a second), but a brilliant move from a business perspective. Why do I think It's bad from a consumers perspective? If WotC decides on another edition, the then supplanted edition can't officially be supported anymore by third party publishers as it is now. In short, it doesn't allow for a fork in development, thus if you don't like the direction WotC is taking the game your out of luck. I'm certain that no significant portion of the D&D player base will stick with 3.x for long (too many gamers want the new bling-bling). From WotC's perspective the 'forking' of D&D is a bad thing, they don't want their flock diminished by different versions of their game.

Obviously WotC sees the advantage of integrating third party publications into their IP. That's why there they hint at opening up more of D&D, if that means mindflayers and beholders are opened up needs to be seen. While I hope that the GSL will be better supported then the OGL, similar promises were made by WotC employees when the OGL was released, after the initial rush of Psionics/Epic/Gods it became awfully quiet. The same might happen with the GSL, despite all the best intentions of the current WotC employees, I just hope there won't be a round of firing like there was after the 3E release.

*@JohnRTroy*
I highly doubt that WotC felt any negative effects that weren't canceled out by the positive effects from the 'free' releases of the SRD. Sure there are many folks that said and continue to say that they'll never need a PHB because they have the SRD. I'm certain that 99% of those folks would have been as happy to use a 'pirated' copy of the PHB/DMG/MM if the SRD weren't available for 'free'. The 'free' versions of the SRD were used as 'light' rulebooks, because WotC couldn't keep up with the technology curve. Their digital initiatives failed miserably (character generator) or were horrendously late (digital versions of the rulebooks). While their efforts this time around do seem better, so seemed their efforts for 3E (anyone who remembers what their toolbox would do, will see the features repeated with their new efforts). I don't know if WotC lost many sales to games such as Conan, Spycraft, M&M, etc. Because my 'common' sense tells me that a lot of the folks playing those games might very well  have moved to other game systems if the OGL variant systems weren't created.

The ability to revoke the GSL for any other reasons the not following it, I see as bad! Very, very bad! Not only publishers invest an enormous amount of effort and money into third part product lines, so does the consumer. If for whatever reason WotC decides to end the license, it means no further third products can be made, a logical time for that to happen would be when 5E is introduced (possibly under yet another license, or worse, no license). With all the changes a company like WotC (and their parent company Hasbro) go through, I have serious doubts about how much one should invest in a game and licence that could be yanked at any time. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

*@General*
I'm wondering if it would be prudent/profitable for third party publishers to release products under a dual license? But because in this case the licenses are connected to specific incarnations of a game system, it would need to be more then just dual licenses, the content related to the license would have to be different. Green Ronin separated their 'fluff' and their 'crunch' with their "Pirate's Guide to Freeport", they released a shorter rules booklet for True20 and D20, they could even release a 4E version. You would sell your customer effectively two books (the 'fluff' book and the 'crunch' book), the core product ('fluff' book) your trying to sell would reach a wider audience (more sales), the secondary product ('crunch' book) would share resources across multiple systems (art, layout, concepts, some writing). Most 4E third part designers would come from a 3.xE background, so should be intimately familiar with both systems, so they could develop for both systems. It would of course take more time to develop, and people would need to be paid for that work, the question is "Would the extra sales compensate the investment?". Not every product would benefit from this approach, but I think many would (a new ToH for example would work for both systems).


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> The free SRDs can be used as a replacement for their core products.



I can see that someone actually believing that would dislike the OGL. I don't really think, though, that the SRD was a replacement for the Core Rules in any way. The SRD was more like the free Quick Play rules you can sometimes download for free. The thing that gets you hooked. Seeing the SRD as competition to the PHB/DMG/MM is a serious mistake.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> The OGL has no built-in expiration date or any sort of revocation clause.  This is great for the licensees, but not so great for the licensor.



Except for the fact that it might be neccesary to actually get some licensees. If the GSL can be revoked at-will by WotC, I'll be amazed if they get _any_ licensees.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Cergorach said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that WotC felt any negative effects that weren't canceled out by the positive effects from the 'free' releases of the SRD. Sure there are many folks that said and continue to say that they'll never need a PHB because they have the SRD. I'm certain that 99% of those folks would have been as happy to use a 'pirated' copy of the PHB/DMG/MM if the SRD weren't available for 'free'.




Whether or not those same people would resort to getting illegal copies or not doesn't really matter.  What matters from WoTC's perspective is if it benefits them.  While a lot of consumers and fans of the OGL like to argue that there were positive effects, the key thing from WoTC is whether or not it fits their bottom line, their marketing strategies, etc.  Only they can know whether or not they benefit from it, and the decision is ultimately theirs.



> Because my 'common' sense tells me that a lot of the folks playing those games might very well  have moved to other game systems if the OGL variant systems weren't created.




True, but from what I've seen, back in the days before 3e, there were several competing games.  Regardless of whether or not the OGL exists, it doesn't seem to change the fact that the reason why the "d20 games" are popular is not because of the "open", but rather that D&D is the game people really want to play and write for.  

And technically, Mutants and Masterminds, True-20, etc, are significantly different enough for me to consider them different games.  In fact, the third-parties involved were smart, they 've differentiated their product enough from D&D to make it viable for fans to get it if they don't choose to use a 4e license.



> The ability to revoke the GSL for any other reasons the not following it, I see as bad! Very, very bad! Not only publishers invest an enormous amount of effort and money into third part product lines, so does the consumer. If for whatever reason WotC decides to end the license, it means no further third products can be made, a logical time for that to happen would be when 5E is introduced (possibly under yet another license, or worse, no license).




Well, all licenses have that risk.  It seems to work for everything such as franchises to role-playing games based on settings.  Usually, businessmen can work this out.  Other license work that way--you enter into a contract for 10 years, etc.  A fast-food franchise is purchased but has to follow rules of quality and pay the fees, or they get there license revoked.  Usually, there are protections for the licensee as well.  When somebody like Hasbro licenses GI Joe or Transformers to a comic company or a animation studio, they license for x years and have "standards and practices" or a "core bible" to follow.  

The OGL is a highly unusual license.  It was meant to emulate aspects of the GPL, but I personally think it's not a very good license to apply to creative fictional endeavors.

Using anybody else's content is always risky.  Thus, you have to make a decision if it's worth it or would you rather work with content you yourself created and have total control over.  Want the McDonald's name?  Pay the fee and follow the rules.  Want to publish an Indiana Jones comic, follow Lucasfilm's rules.  



> Except for the fact that it might be necessary to actually get some licensees. If the GSL can be revoked at-will by WotC, I'll be amazed if they get any licensees.




To be honest, I don't think it would be unilaterally at will.  I suspect they'd have guidelines and warnings.  If WoTC did revoke willy-nilly people wouldn't use it.  However, if they reserved it for people who did things like make the "Nazi Child-molesting Satanist's Happy-Fun supplement" and revoked those who did that, then people would know what would tick them off and simply not write such supplements.  

If you want total control, make your own restaurant, your own pulp-era adventurer, or your own RPG.


----------



## Cergorach

*@JohnRTroy*
1. Last Quote isn't from me, might be useful if you 'credited' the right individual ;-)
2. WotC is well within their right to change the terms with the release of their 'new' rule set. I do have my doubts whether that is wise, WotC created with the OGL a certain set of expectations, with the GSL they throw the OGL overboard (if they could cancel it they probably would have). Again, I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do so, they certainly do. It's just... Weird, it seems as if WotC is buying a new villa and letting the old one crumble to dust because there were some things they didn't like.

The OGL and the D20 STL were already two separate entities, of which the D20 STL could be revoked (it probably will). The OGL could be updated to version 2.0 in the same way as the GPL. The D20 STL could be replaced by a DnD STL, granting publisher exclusive rights to certain parts of the DnD IP that aren't covered in the OGL (such as claiming compatibility with D&D), but certain things might not be done with it (such as no independent rulebooks). WotC now comes across as a bit inconsistent, lord knows what they'll do in the future. Especially now with the actual license overdue by months, the confidence of publishers in WotC isn't getting much higher. Folks are of course very interested in 4E (I don't think I've seen Clark post this often on ENworld in years ;-) and that hype is going to continue for a while. But how many publishers are going to fork over 5k for a six month head start, if that also includes development time? There are already publishers that aren't sure if they're going 4E, Green Ronin and Mongoose. The 'dramatic' change in license didn't help, the ambiguity of that license is still a big problem (and getting bigger every week).


----------



## Admiral Caine

*Decision time ?!?!*

I just checked Paizo.com, and their message board and store have temporarily shut down with a mysterious message:

Paizo Board with strange message 

The main link switches over to this one...

I think we're going to have some answers soon.


----------



## Guillaume

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> I just checked Paizo.com, and their message board and store have temporarily shut down with a mysterious message:
> 
> Paizo Board with strange message
> 
> The main link switches over to this one...
> 
> I think we're going to have some answers soon.




An here it is.

Seems to me that WotC waited too long with the delivery of the GSL and lost one of the key players in the 3rd party field. Paizo has not closed the door to the 4E (they will work with Necromancer on that front), but it sure puts a damper on things.


----------



## Yair

I've got a few questions for WotC, though I doubt if they'll get answered:

1) Will the GSL include terms that will allow WotC to effectively change its content in an unrestricted manner, as the d20 STL did?

2) Will the GSL have termination clauses that will allow WotC to forbid the production of certain products or the use of the license by certain parties even if they did not violate a specific limitation of the licencse?

3) As someone that isn't publishing commercially and does not wish to register, pay money, or so on -  will the GSL or official WotC fan-site policy allow me to publish a setting, adventure, classes, feats, or so on on my website? 

Thanks,
  Yair


----------



## lurkinglidda

@Yair 

Of course we cannot reply! We cannot publicly share any data on the GSL until after June 6th.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> @Yair
> 
> Of course we cannot reply! We cannot publicly share any data on the GSL until after June 6th.




You can't or you choose not to. Very different answers. If you can't then you are likely under some higher level NDA. If you choose not to then it is a business decision likely based on marketing issues and potential impact on sales. The first is one you have no control over, the second is one that you could answer if you chose to, but for whatever reason you feel it is better not to.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> You can't or you choose not to. Very different answers. If you can't then you are likely under some higher level NDA. If you choose not to then it is a business decision likely based on marketing issues and potential impact on sales. The first is one you have no control over, the second is one that you could answer if you chose to, but for whatever reason you feel it is better not to.



Can't.
I prefer to remain employed.


----------



## Ranger REG

Orcus said:
			
		

> Here is how:
> 
> Make "d20 = D&D" and really hammer that home. They didnt do that. That made it less than important for us publishers. I hate to admit it, but we publishers didnt necessarily want an open game license.



You and who else?


----------



## Erik Mona

Guys, please be as cool as possible to LurkingLidda. She is the main point of contact for publishers hoping to use the GSL, but she does not call the shots. Clearly, the final GSL has not been approved by The Powers That Be, so Lidda can't provide concrete information about the terms of that unapproved document.


----------



## Bacris

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Guys, please be as cool as possible to LurkingLidda. She is the main point of contact for publishers hoping to use the GSL, but she does not call the shots. Clearly, the final GSL has not been approved by The Powers That Be, so Lidda can't provide concrete information about the terms of that unapproved document.




Not just that, Erik.  The GSL, as I understand it, is under NDA for all parties until June 6th, so even when it is done, she won't be able to discuss it publicly until then (assuming that it's done before June 6th).

I can't say for sure, since Texas doesn't require a "business license", only a "doing business as" filing and a sales & use tax certificate, so I couldn't apply for the GSL (thankfully, my business partner operates under a business license, so he'd probably know better).


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Guys, please be as cool as possible to LurkingLidda. She is the main point of contact for publishers hoping to use the GSL, but she does not call the shots. Clearly, the final GSL has not been approved by The Powers That Be, so Lidda can't provide concrete information about the terms of that unapproved document.




If I came off as dissrespectful I appologize, that was not my intent. There have been issues before on this board (not with LurkingLidda though that I know of) where imprecise language has caused missunderstandings. I was hoping to clarify that that was infact what she ment. If she really does have no authority to disscuss things then I understand. Better for this to come out though than for folks to keep pressing the issue pointlessly because she was nice enough to post here. I am happy to have both you and her posting here.


----------



## lurkinglidda

No offense taken. I knew what you were getting at. 

Besides, if my armor wasn't thick I would't dare post.


----------



## Jack99

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> No offense taken. I knew what you were getting at.
> 
> Besides, if my armor wasn't thick I would't dare post.




Good thing that armor makes you avoid blows entirely, instead of just lessening the damage, that way, you emerge unharmed from a thread such as this.

Cheers


----------



## Orcus

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Guys, please be as cool as possible to LurkingLidda. She is the main point of contact for publishers hoping to use the GSL, but she does not call the shots. Clearly, the final GSL has not been approved by The Powers That Be, so Lidda can't provide concrete information about the terms of that unapproved document.




I strongly join with Erik in this. I've worked with Linae on GSL issues and she is about as cool and nice as you could ever want. She is not the "problem" and I am certain that she doesnt like the delay any more than we do. Believe me, Linae and Scott want to help us third party publishers. So please be nice to Lidda/Linae. I know it is hip to dis Wizards as a faceless, heartless Microsoft-like evil megacorp, but that isnt the case at all. It is filled with cool people like Linae who love gaming. She has a huge heart and deserves our support.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Orcus said:
			
		

> I strongly join with Erik in this. I've worked with Linae on GSL issues and she is about as cool and nice as you could ever want. She is not the "problem" and I am certain that she doesnt like the delay any more than we do. Believe me, Linae and Scott want to help us third party publishers. So please be nice to Lidda/Linae. I know it is hip to dis Wizards as a faceless, heartless Microsoft-like evil megacorp, but that isnt the case at all. It is filled with cool people like Linae who love gaming. She has a huge heart and deserves our support.



Aww, shucks!


----------



## lurkinglidda

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Good thing that armor makes you avoid blows entirely, instead of just lessening the damage, that way, you emerge unharmed from a thread such as this.




Chris Perkins recently described me as the only person at WotC with the ability to make posts that don't upset the entire community (or something along those lines). 

I'll let you in on a secret: it's a feat called "Utter Integrity" and it can be found on page 1 of my personal PHB.


----------



## Jack99

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Chris Perkins recently described me as the only person at WotC with the ability to make posts that don't upset the entire community (or something along those lines).
> 
> I'll let you in on a secret: it's a feat called "Utter Integrity" and it can be found on page 1 of my personal PHB.




That is indeed a rare gift, especially these days. 

Cheers


----------



## Yair

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Can't.
> I prefer to remain employed.



What?! You prefer to stay employed over answering my questions? How insensitive of you.   

I'll have to wait patiently till June, apparently.  Thanks for coming over.


----------



## amethal

Bacris said:
			
		

> I can't say for sure, since Texas doesn't require a "business license", only a "doing business as" filing and a sales & use tax certificate, so I couldn't apply for the GSL (thankfully, my business partner operates under a business license, so he'd probably know better).



The impression I get is that the whole "business license" thing is just a guideline. If you can demonstrate that you are a genuine business I hope you'd be fine.

For instance, there's no such thing as a business license in the UK, but I dare say that if Mongoose wanted to sign up for the GSL then WotC would let them.


----------



## Bacris

amethal said:
			
		

> The impression I get is that the whole "business license" thing is just a guideline. If you can demonstrate that you are a genuine business I hope you'd be fine.
> 
> For instance, there's no such thing as a business license in the UK, but I dare say that if Mongoose wanted to sign up for the GSL then WotC would let them.




Sorry, but that contradicts what I've heard from people who specifically spoke with WotC about this issue - including people from the UK.

Maybe it's been changed since then, but at this point, it's a pretty moot subject, since the books are out in just over 2 months anyway.


----------



## Lizard

Bacris said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that contradicts what I've heard from people who specifically spoke with WotC about this issue - including people from the UK.
> 
> Maybe it's been changed since then, but at this point, it's a pretty moot subject, since the books are out in just over 2 months anyway.




More to the point, an abstract standard of "You're a real business if we think you are" is just asking for legal trouble. Something objective, for example, "Retail sales of over 10K of OGL product in the past year" would be a fair standard, though that excludes those who wanted to jump in on the nascent 4e market in the hope it would bloom like the 3e market did, early on. Frankly, the 5K alone should be enough; no one is going to pony up that just to look at the books six months...I mean, two months...early.


----------



## AZRogue

Does anyone know if the new release date for the GSL has been pushed back to AFTER the release of the game? It seems possible, given that we only have 2 months left to go. Is there an official update, at least, that has, or can be, announced? Even an occasional "the GSL is still under review and we apologize for the unexpected delay" would go a long way with me.


----------



## nutluck

kenmarable said:
			
		

> That's a good point I hadn't really considered either. Perhaps cutting off the competing games that piggyback on D&D is shortsighted as well? Given the fact that there will be competing systems no matter what, forcing those systems to be less compatible might be costing WotC in the long run? I don't know, there's a lot of factors. How compatible is it? Would more competing systems exist under the OGL than the hypothetical GSL? Or would they just be more visible?




I think having systems even if they did not directly help the sales of the PHB helped wizards as a whole. I know of more than one group that stuck with D20 games only. Once they got use to it they didn't want to learn other rules and while some of the D20 games where pretty different the basic concept of them was the same and easier to learn. 

So i think if they do cut out stand alone systems based on the new 4e D20 rules it will be a mistake. Will it cost them? i think so, how much is the question. I don't think it will be much but I do think it is short sighted not to see the value of such products and that they encourage everyone to stay with d20 derived games including DnD.


----------



## dmccoy1693

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Chris Perkins recently described me as the only person at WotC with the ability to make posts that don't upset the entire community (or something along those lines).
> 
> I'll let you in on a secret: it's a feat called "Utter Integrity" and it can be found on page 1 of my personal PHB.



For this encounter, your treasure is 10 lbs of respect.


----------



## lurkinglidda

amethal said:
			
		

> The impression I get is that the whole "business license" thing is just a guideline. If you can demonstrate that you are a genuine business I hope you'd be fine.
> 
> For instance, there's no such thing as a business license in the UK, but I dare say that if Mongoose wanted to sign up for the GSL then WotC would let them.




Our legal team is making exceptions for companies that are based in areas that do not have business licenses on a case by case basis.


----------



## lurkinglidda

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the new release date for the GSL has been pushed back to AFTER the release of the game? It seems possible, given that we only have 2 months left to go. Is there an official update, at least, that has, or can be, announced? Even an occasional "the GSL is still under review and we apologize for the unexpected delay" would go a long way with me.




Here goes: The GSL is still under review and we apologize for the unexpected delay ;-) That's the best I can say for right now.

I hesitate to comment on a new release date or if the window of exclusivity will be extended until I have a better status on the GSL.


----------



## AZRogue

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Here goes: The GSL is still under review and we apologize for the unexpected delay ;-) That's the best I can say for right now.
> 
> I hesitate to comment on a new release date or if the window of exclusivity will be extended until I have a better status on the GSL.




Haha, thanks.


----------



## Mike_Lescault

Hi All,

They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.

“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”

I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.

Thanks,
-Mike


----------



## Lizard

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.
> 
> “We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”
> 
> I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike




Hmmm.

That sounds like their planning to announce their policy -- not the release of the GSL.

Hands up, all those who think there WON'T be a GSL or an SRD by June....


----------



## lurkinglidda

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.
> 
> “We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”
> 
> I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike



Liz Schuh is my grandboss so what she says goes! I'll quote this line until we have more to share


----------



## Orcus

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.
> 
> “We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”




Hmm. I'm disappointed by that comment. But maybe I am reading it wrong. It is inconcievable to me that they are "vetting their final policy regarding open gaming." I could believe that they are deciding how to handle the new licenses.

I thought their policy on open gaming was on their current website at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which states, with a bit of editing:



> Q: Why create Open Games?
> 
> A: The tabletop RPG business lost 60% to 70% of its unit sales from the period from 1993 to 1997. After a detailed study of the market data available, business managers at Wizards of the Coast decided that the primary reason for this decline was the dissatisfaction consumers had about the products game publishers made available for sale.
> 
> One way to help publishers make products that will be more interesting to consumers is to allow them to use standardized systems that have large networks of players. Designing a product targeted at a large network of players gives that product a better chance of being commercially successful than designing a product targeted at a small, or a new network of players.
> 
> Due to the history of copyright litigation, and the relatively modest financial resources of most game companies, an informal agreement regarding the use of shared game rules, or a license requiring a monetary payment to a third party would not have been sufficient to generate sustained interest in using such systems. Open Games provide both a royalty free license (meaning they impose no financial burden on the publishers) and a formal, explicit agreement describing how to use copyrighted material owned by others without triggering lawsuits or threats of litigation.
> 
> Q: Any other reasons?
> 
> A: Yes. In addition to the potential improvement in the business of game publishing, Open Games will be subjected to a large, distributed effort to improve the games themselves. Because Open Game licenses allow publishers to make any changes they deem necessary to the material they are using, a publisher who thinks they have found a better way to write a game rule will be free to do so. And, if that new way is perceived as better than the existing alternatives, other publishers will be able to take that new rule and use it as well. In this way, the overall design of an Open Game should improve over time, and be the benefit of far more development and testing than any one game publisher, no matter how large and successful, could hope to apply by themselves.
> 
> Q: Is there an ethical reason to support Open Gaming?
> 
> A: In this writer's opinion, yes there is. It has been an established feature of RPGs since their inception that they should be used to create new content. Prior to the advent of widespread Open Game licenses, there was no practical way for that kind of material to be legally and widely distributed.
> 
> Open Gaming is recognition that your natural human right to free speech is protected and enhanced. The Open Game system is a way for the game publishing industry to finally deliver on the basic promises made by the very first RPGs; that individuals should be free to copy, modify and distribute their own creative works derived from the game systems they have acquired.
> 
> Q: Is there a business-related reason to support Open Games?
> 
> A: In the case of companies who own trademarks and brands associated with large player networks, one school of thought holds that Open Games which link to those large networks will tend to reinforce them and drive value to the owners of those trademarks and brands.
> 
> That is the primary reason that Wizards of the Coast, as a company, is supportive of the Open Game concept. It fully expects that it will gain a direct financial reward in years to come from the widespread positive effects Open Gaming will have on its RPG properties, specifically on sales of Dungeons & Dragons materials.
> 
> Of course, the flip side to that theory is that if it is successful, it is successful because other publishers have also been able to extract value from the network of players through the sale and promotion of their own Open Game product lines. Thus, at the same time the owners of large game network trademarks and brands stand to benefit greatly, so do smaller companies or individuals that simply want to sell their work to the largest possible audience of consumers.
> 
> Q: What good is a copyright license for Open Games then?
> 
> A: Even though portions of an RPG may not be copyrightable as an idea or as a rule, the actual text used to describe those rules is copyrightable. In addition, all the material surrounding the non-copyright portion is protected by the copyright law as well. The copyright licenses used by Open Games ensure that no matter where an individual judge might draw the line between copyright and non-copyright, you can be sure that you have the freedom to copy, modify and distribute the work. Removing this gray area creates a "safe harbor" that publishers can use to shield themselves from litigation. The safe harbor is an important component to the commercial viability of Open Games. Without it, most rational publishers would not attempt to use a shared rules system out of fear that someone somewhere would sue them for copyright infringement.
> 
> Another very valuable right you gain from an Open Game is the right to make a derivative work based on someone else's copyright. Without that right, you cannot legally make and distribute a derivative work. Since RPGs are often self-referencing (meaning, you use one part of the RPG to indicate how another part works or interacts with players during the game), RPGs are essentially chains of linked, derivative works. By giving you the right to make a derivative work, an Open Game license allows you to extend or modify these chains as you see fit.
> 
> Q: What does Hasbro think of the d20 System/Open Game concept?
> 
> A: The basic ideas were presented to the CEO of Hasbro in 1999 as a part of a wide-ranging overview of the company's Research & Development efforts.
> 
> In the great scheme of things, Hasbro as a corporation doesn't care one way or the other about Open Games and the d20 System. In fact, the RPG business itself is just barely large enough to be broken out as a separate line item in the financial accounting that Wizards of the Coast provides to Hasbro.
> 
> In short, Hasbro's management and oversight will be a non-factor in the success or lack thereof of the OGL/d20 experiment.
> 
> Q: Why is Wizards of the Coast pursuing this strategy?
> 
> A: The company believes that one of the major factors which caused the collapse of the commercial tabletop RPG market from 1993 to 1996 was the proliferation of different, incompatible, core game systems.
> 
> Wizards of the Coast believes that by doing so, and by educating consumers about the benefits of Open Games, the fundamental economics of the tabletop RPG category will be improved. One (obvious) consequence of this strategy is that if it works, Wizards will see significant, long-term financial benefits. Thus, the company sees this as a win-win situation, where it can benefit along with, rather than at the expense of, other publishers.




I cant imagine the massive PR hit that would come from a reversal of course on those beliefs. What, would those beliefs magically disappear overnight?

No, I dont think that is what the quote from Liz means. I remain convinced that Wizards is dedicated to open gaming and that we will get licenses to use content from 4E.

I think that quote, which I will admit made me nervous, was management-speak. I;ve vented. Now I am better.  I still firmly believe this will work out.

Clark


----------



## jgbrowning

Orcus said:
			
		

> I cant imagine the massive PR hit that would come from a reversal of course on those beliefs.




I can. That's why I'm now believing that the "There will be no GSL" announcement will be delayed until after the core products are released to minimize what little damage the announcement will create.

Personally, I believe there will be a minor backlash but very few purchasing opinions will change because of it. Those who were going to buy 4e won't change their mind about that decision because of no open gaming, IMO. I think the same opinion is shared, but prudence would support the announcement of such for the most beneficial time in the similar manner in which the existence of 4e was denied until the most beneficial time for that announcement.



> I remain convinced that Wizards is dedicated to open gaming and that we will get licenses to use content from 4E.




I don't think so. IMO, the most realistic reason for _any_ delay in the creation of the GSL is that the terms have changed from what was described in the conference call, probably because of the need to prevent the utilization of open "traditional D&D fluff" mixing with 4e rules and the new 4e fluff. I think after closely looking at what was desired by way of 3rd party support, I suspect it was realized that not having 3rd party products would be more beneficial than having 3rd party products that are supporting product fluff from older editions when the goal of 4e is to break fluff tradition. And, IMO, that break from fluff tradition was designed to prevent backwards compatibility as backwards compatibility is into an open system while forward migration is into the tremendously profitable subscription model.

We'll see if I'm right or wrong and it would be nice if I'm wrong. We'll probably know in a few months. I remember when there was discussion of a 4e OGL, then that turned into discussion of a GSL, and now we're back to "vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." This is a backwards process that has one very logical outcome. Once 3rd party material was viewed as competition instead of beneficial, as demonstrated through the creation of the more restrictive GSL concept, IMO, the ultimate fiscal benefit according to that belief would progress to no 3rd party material at all.

joe b.


----------



## Orcus

I'll admit, I dont have any inside info. All I have is faith and a strong belief that no one could be foolish enough to just disavow all the things they said they believe in. 

I'm concerned. And that isnt good, since I am probably the loudest voice on the interwebs supporting Wizards and saying "be patient, they will come through."

Someone official needs to get in here pronto and say something more clear than "we're vetting our policy on open gaming."

I'm worried. I'm worried for D&D. 3E existed and thrived becuase of third party support in part. I dont know why on earth you would say all those things on your website about supporting open gaming and all the valid reasons for it and then not back them up. Wizards has spent years distancing itself from the bad will created by the TSR days of D&D. Going back on open gaming would be a huge mistake. I cant even concieve someone would consider it. 

Clark


----------



## Oldtimer

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hmm. I'm disappointed by that comment.



Disappointed? Yes, me too. Surprised? No.

I really think they're going for a complete reversal. Even in management-speak, that doesn't sound like "we're just polishing off the pinnacle of Open Gaming that is GSL". That sounds like "we're trying to weasel our way out of this."


----------



## Lizard

Well, somewhere inside me is a cheerful optimist who likes to think that WOTC looked at the market, looked at initiatives like Pathfinder, looked at how ambivalent many companies are about 4e, and decided, "Y'know what? Let's just keep the OGL, make a new 4e STL, and try to make sure complying with the STL has such great benefits for companies that they'll really want to do it and drive our core book sales."

This is the same part of me that feeds nickles into slot machines.

The realist in me says that there will be nothing like an "Open" license. Licenses will be issued to specific companies who meet specific terms, and there will be limits on product type, product costs (no 2.00 PDFs flooding the market), number of products per year (no drowning the market in a dozen different sourcebooks inside of three months), general content limits (already discussed), and so on. The only thing which will be different from normal IP licensing is that the license will be either free (to companies which meet the requirements) or *relatively* low cost, and there will likely be no requirement for inspection/approval of products (that costs WOTC money for little gain). They will be able to 'kill' the license for any product or any company at will. There will probably be a clause allowing very limited reuse of the 3x SRD solely for purposes of 'migrating' existing products, though I suspect that will be closely watched. A key reason, publically stated, for holding back things like Druids and Frost Giants is to make the PHB II, MMII, etc, seem more 'core', so I doubt they're going to want to see this undermined by third-party replacements out a year early.

It will be interesting to see how close the final policy is to my prediction. I suspect WOTC marketing will 'spin' this as 'open' because "There's no fee" (maybe) or "There's no approval process". 

If my prediction is right, I think it will be bad for WOTCs bottom line, hurt adoption of 4e, and put WOTC in the unenviable position of competing with their own former game system, which will remain actively supported by professional publishers, something which never happened with any prior upgrade.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that part of the reason for the OGL was to end the problem of fan sites producing 'compatible with' material. After the late 90s idiocy of "We have trademarked 'armor class'", WOTC needed to win back the Internet. Ironically, free fan made material was relatively sparse for 3e, mostly because anyone who could produce anything even halfway worth using went into publishing.  (I used to be a big fan of Blue Troll, back in the day) Anyway, nowadays, WOTC doesn't want fans posting their homebrew stuff on their own sites -- they want everyone on Gleemax. This is another reason I think the GSL is going to be narrowly tailored for commercial use only -- they want to draw people to their own, pay, site, and I think any website which began to be known as a source of high quality fan-made 4e 'crunch' will find a C&D coming down the pike.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hmm. I'm disappointed by that comment. But maybe I am reading it wrong. It is inconcievable to me that they are "vetting their final policy regarding open gaming." I could believe that they are deciding how to handle the new licenses.
> 
> I thought their policy on open gaming was on their current website at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which states, with a bit of editing:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I cant imagine the massive PR hit that would come from a reversal of course on those beliefs. What, would those beliefs magically disappear overnight?
> 
> No, I dont think that is what the quote from Liz means. I remain convinced that Wizards is dedicated to open gaming and that we will get licenses to use content from 4E.
> 
> I think that quote, which I will admit made me nervous, was management-speak. I;ve vented. Now I am better.  I still firmly believe this will work out.
> 
> Clark




I am willing to believe that those working at WotC believe in open gaming. What I am not so confident about is that the Hasbro lawyers share those beliefs. While everyone working on D&D may really want the GSL to go out, that doesn't mean that someone higher up isn't having second thoughts. For all I know there could be massive discussions going on where Scott, Linae, and Liz are fighting for all they are worth to get the GSL out against Hasbro corporate factions that want it killed.

Edit: Or maybe Liz just needs PR to look over any quotes she is giving out to see if she is using the proper language to describe the situation.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'll admit, I dont have any inside info. All I have is faith and a strong belief that no one could be foolish enough to just disavow all the things they said they believe in.




Yeah, but the people who said all that stuff haven't worked at WotC for years. 

I could believe that WotC will keep 4E proprietary. They'd take a hit, sure, but the mass of D&D fans don't care about open gaming. They just like D&D.


----------



## Orcus

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the people who said all that stuff haven't worked at WotC for years.
> 
> I could believe that WotC will keep 4E proprietary. They'd take a hit, sure, but the mass of D&D fans don't care about open gaming. They just like D&D.




Yeah, but you are forgetting about the peel away effect. 

Gamers are fickle. Unless you provide them something they are interested in, they will peel away from the core game over time and will go to other games. There is no way any one company can keep all the D&D gamers continually interested in D&D forever. That is where third parties come in. We offer an endless variety of game options, but with a HUGE IMPORTANT KICK--it is all still D&D! That keeps people invested in the core game longer. That way they still identify themselves as D&D players when time for a new big D&D product comes out or a change to a 5th edition in 8 years. If they have already peeled off to other games, you've likely lost them. 

One of the huge benefits of the OGL to Wizards for 3E was that it kept people playing D&D as opposed to otehr games to a greater degree. There was some peel off, but it was less. 

And remember, though there is noise about edition resistance here, it is mostly between CURRENT D&D PLAYERS talking about if they are going to 4E or not. If those players had already been lost, they arent really even in the discussion. 

Since Wizards wisely believes their first step is to transition current players, they need to reach out to that player base. And the bottom line is that Wizards doesnt speak to that whole player base. But we third party publishers speak to those that Wizards doesnt. Net evidence is rarely true proof. But it is certainly evident from boards and from emails I get that people look to us to help them decide what to do. They trust us third party publishers. They trust Necro. They know what we can do. They know we will bring them content they will want to use in their game that feels like D&D to them. And no, more than ever with 4E, current gamers who like a particular feel and vision of D&D are worried that the new edition wont have that. 

So Wizards actually needs the third party pubs both to help bridge current players now and to keep those players with 4E longer and avoid peel off by providing those many alternate ways to play that is still D&D.

If they dont, then there is fractionalization of the player base. And that hurts when it comes time to put out a product that they want to be successful--say, a 4E MMO or a new edition. This issue isnt just about third party publishers. It is about making a move to find a way to keep people playing D&D longer and thus ensuring the lifelong value of the D&D brand.

Any business manager should see that plain as the nose on their face. 

Clark


----------



## Goblinoid Games

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'll admit, I dont have any inside info. All I have is faith and a strong belief that no one could be foolish enough to just disavow all the things they said they believe in.




IMHO, if WoTC still held the stance you quoted above, they wouldn't have moved away from the OGL to begin with. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the direction of 4.0 D&D is heading to be more online and computer based, and I'm just not sure where 3rd party support would fit into that. I'd think they would want to do what they can to get more and more people playing online and away from thinking of D&D as something you do with books around a table.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> I thought their policy on open gaming was on their current website at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which states, with a bit of editing:




Well, Orcus, that was mostly written when Ryan Dancey and Peter Atkinson was in charge.  The people in charge of D&D, Wizards, and Hasbro have changed.  I mean, c'mon Orcus, the company that Gygax and Kaye formed have gone through several different iterations.  You can't expect the company to always have the same beliefs over the years.

Corporate culture is something that changes from time to time.  



> The realist in me says that there will be nothing like an "Open" license. Licenses will be issued to specific companies who meet specific terms, and there will be limits on product type, product costs (no 2.00 PDFs flooding the market), number of products per year (no drowning the market in a dozen different sourcebooks inside of three months), general content limits (already discussed), and so on. The only thing which will be different from normal IP licensing is that the license will be either free (to companies which meet the requirements) or *relatively* low cost, and there will likely be no requirement for inspection/approval of products (that costs WOTC money for little gain). They will be able to 'kill' the license for any product or any company at will. There will probably be a clause allowing very limited reuse of the 3x SRD solely for purposes of 'migrating' existing products, though I suspect that will be closely watched. A key reason, publically stated, for holding back things like Druids and Frost Giants is to make the PHB II, MMII, etc, seem more 'core', so I doubt they're going to want to see this undermined by third-party replacements out a year early.




Actually, that sounds like a pretty good license Lizard, and probably something that they should have had with 3rd Edition.  I thought the OGL was too much like giving away everything for free, not allowing standards, etc.

Gary Gygax told me in the past that if he was in charge, he would have had a standard license, vetted publishers, and would have had quality control, so you wouldn't have bad product riding on the back of the (hopefully good) primary product.  This is how they handle licensing of movie properties, food franchises, etc.  And market controls can help kill the glut.

I do think they'll try to avoid getting the player base mad by saying they'd shut down things like somebody's campaign setting he puts on a web site.  They probably will have a form of the license one can use to freely distribute but not sell work.  



> Gamers are fickle. Unless you provide them something they are interested in, they will peel away from the core game over time and will go to other games. There is no way any one company can keep all the D&D gamers continually interested in D&D forever. That is where third parties come in. We offer an endless variety of game options, but with a HUGE IMPORTANT KICK--it is all still D&D! That keeps people invested in the core game longer. That way they still identify themselves as D&D players when time for a new big D&D product comes out or a change to a 5th edition in 8 years. If they have already peeled off to other games, you've likely lost them.




Well, D&D has mutated a lot over time, so much that you have a lot of fans of the 1st Edition and 2nd Edition.  And I think WoTC is further pushing older fans away by making so many radical changes, more than we had going from 2e to 3e, especially when you are changing the traditional views of monsters, the planes, the campaign settings, etc.  I think that's gonna push off the people more than anything else.

I mean, despite what you say about Necromancer products, there is a significant difference in the D&D assumptions and rules this time around, probably say 5x the change from 3e to 4e than 2e to 3e was.  It's gotta be a turnoff, and since your products are aimed at the traditionalists, I doubt it will always seem to be a good fit.



> If they dont, then there is fractionalization of the player base. And that hurts when it comes time to put out a product that they want to be successful--say, a 4E MMO or a new edition. This issue isnt just about third party publishers. It is about making a move to find a way to keep people playing D&D longer and thus ensuring the lifelong value of the D&D brand.
> 
> Any business manager should see that plain as the nose on their face.




To be honest Orcus, If they were so concerned about the fractionalization, they would not have created a new edition so quickly, or made the radical changes they did both to the game system and the shared mythology of the D&D settings.  They would preserve traditionalism and not have the desire to do things like radically alter campaign worlds, use Greyhawk names without their prior history, etc.  They've decided to go in a more radical approach this time, which would obviously fractionalize the player-base.  They could have learned the lessons of what happened when D&D changed twice before, some people stuck with the older system.  The key thing is probably whether or not they are calculating if the new blood will make the old guard obsolete.

I think many of the other publishers have prepared for this.  Monte released Arcana Evolved, Green Ronin has True 20, Pathfinder's releasing their own book.  Many of the  third parties realized that the best thing to do is control their own work and released their own systems--while simulateously building it from the base of 3e the OGL allowed them to do--which have given them a loyal following.  

I fear because you didn't do this Orcus, and the worst happens (which I don't think it will), guys like you and Goodman Games would be the ones most hurt.  Although that would be really sad since you guys are the kind of publishers they originally wanted with the 3e license.

I think they'll allow somebody to license their products for adventures--I hope!  I agree that 4e isn't "inevitable", I think there's gonna be a significant amount of people who say "no" this time around, because of the changes.  Not allowing third parties to publish for the game just exacerbates the problems.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Orcus said:
			
		

> So Wizards actually needs the third party pubs both to help bridge current players now and to keep those players with 4E longer and avoid peel off by providing those many alternate ways to play that is still D&D.




Hey, I agree with you, but it's pretty clear from its actions that WotC does not. You know what would have been a really effective way of helping transition current players to 4E? To rally the good third party publishers behind it. It seems crazy to me that WotC did not approach you guys, Green Ronin, Paizo, and FFG at least and pull you into the 4E marketing effort by giving you early access to the rules. Instead they've kept everyone at arm's length, then made promises that they haven't kept. Now Paizo has gone their own way and others may follow. WotC has no one but blame but WotC for that.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I thought the OGL was too much like giving away everything for free, not allowing standards, etc.
> 
> Gary Gygax told me in the past that if he was in charge, he would have had a standard license, vetted publishers, and would have had quality control, so you wouldn't have bad product riding on the back of the (hopefully good) primary product.  This is how they handle licensing of movie properties, food franchises, etc.  And market controls can help kill the glut.



I'm sorry John, but - to be absolutely honest - that only shows that both you and Gary embraced the wisdom of the past, while Ryan was a visionary who looked to the future. Tighter control won't win you a huge market share.

Putting D&D at the centre of Open Gaming was a bold and brilliant move. Maybe the most brilliant move in the history and future of D&D.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I actually think D&D and WotC will go the way you're advocating - and lose most of what was gained the last eight years.


----------



## xechnao

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Putting D&D at the centre of Open Gaming was a bold and brilliant move. Maybe the most brilliant move in the history and future of D&D.




I care more about the future of RPGs than D&D. Yes, IMO people should start to care more about the RPGs and less about the D&D. Publishers should start to think about this. And its not that desperate, is it? What Wotc is attempting with DDI or Gleemax, if it turns out successful has to convince the rest of publishers to join their forces and offer a competitive alternative while at the same time promoting their own products. And of course they should be offering to other vendors their services -at some fee of course. Something like drivethrurpg but with its own free forum, virtual table and RPG magazine.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry John, but - to be absolutely honest - that only shows that both you and Gary embraced the wisdom of the past, while Ryan was a visionary who looked to the future. Tighter control won't win you a huge market share.




It actually remains to be seen whether or not it was "visionary", and wisdom actually comes with experience.  I actually think history has yet to be written.  

A lot of the "visionary viewpoints" turn out to be wrong in the future.  Remember all the people who thought "dot com" would be the way of the future and all the "old stores" would be eliminated, all the middlemen would be eliminated, etc.  

I think the OGL might be fun for the consumers of property, but if the OGL turns out to make D&D something you get "for free" (which the OGL does), and allows anybody to enter and horn in on D&D and release anything anybody else creates for free, I think it ultimately hurts rather than help the brand, and hurt quality.  

Or, in other words, as Ted Rall put it oh-so-eloquently (responding to writings that "the future of content is "free"):


----------



## Goblinoid Games

You know I think one other thing should be said. This whole open gaming issue does _not_ equate to "people who support open gaming = good", and "people (or companies) who do not support open gaming = bad." If WoTC sees the D&D brand going in another direction, that is their prerogative.

Although it would be disappointing to many people if the open gaming tradition were not carried on by WoTC, it will be carried on nonetheless. The OGL is out there thriving fine on its own at this point. WoTC hasn't released anything new as OGC in how long? So it doesn't matter. It will carry on just fine and I think great things will still come of it.


----------



## Oldtimer

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It actually remains to be seen whether or not it was "visionary", and wisdom actually comes with experience.  I actually think history has yet to be written.



No, the last eight years have shown that it was indeed visionary. That history is already written.

And past experience doesn't always foster useful wisdom. But I know we have very different views on this. However, just because some people were more hot air than visionaries, doesn't mean that every new idea is wrong.

Still, I don't think anything is gained by you and me re-hashing the same old arguments.


----------



## Dark Mistress

I have to say making 3e OGL is what revived DnD after T$R and 2e. The 3rd party publishers filled the stores with ready made adventures in far greater number than was needed and WotC would never have been able to keep up with demand on their own. They keep people playing DnD longer because of options. Even games like True20 and Conan helped DnD. They are still D20 still the same basic rules, it is far easier for a change of pace of play one of those with out learning a whole new set of rules. Plus many DnD products could be more easily adapted and used with those games, because the basic core rules are similar.

I don't believe WotC would be stupid enough to not release the GSL or limit it as much as some people have posted. They would create bad blood with a small but vocal minority of their fan base and worse do the same with all those 3rd party companies. Who would then be forced to either make their own system or more likely jump in with Paizo and make Pathfinder RPG and support it. Then they really would directly compete against DnD. 

No even if worse case happen I still don't see 4e not being a success. But I think the cut in sales if all 3rd party publishers supported another game system would be noticed and further more I think Orcus aka Clark is right. It would have it's biggest impact in the future when 5e comes out. I think the number of people still playing 4e at that time would be a much smaller number than those that was playing 3e when 4e was announced.

I just can't believe WotC would do this, I can't believe the suits at Hasbro could be that short sighted and blind to the market and not listen to those in charge of WotC that know what they are doing. 

I won't say it can't happen only that I would be shocked if it did.


----------



## Orcus

I know. I just talked to Stewart Wieck from White Wolf just a few minutes ago. I was recounting some of the stuff here with him. My worry that someone at Wizards might be too shortsighted to see the value to Wizards of open gaming.

Here is what Stewart Wieck, the president of WW, the primary competitor of D&D said:

Clark: "I dont know why anyone who had any experience with 3E and the OGL would think it was bad for Wizards. I think it kept people playing D&D rather than peeling off to other systems."

Stew: "Of course it did! All the freakin' companies in the industry put their time into 3e books instead of new systems!"

That was from an email, from Wizard's primary competitor at the time. It doesnt get any more clear than that.

Open gaming takes competitors and makes them supporters. And it keeps people playing D&D instead of other systems. And it keeps competitors making D&D products instead of other systems. 

Wizards, read your own findings! Study your own market research!

Clark


----------



## DM_Jeff

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont know why on earth you would say all those things on your website about supporting open gaming and all the valid reasons for it and then not back them up.




Because that was Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey, talking there, good sir.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Orcus

I dont often talk about my personal life. Its not that relevant. But I want to make something clear because I think alot of people discount the views of the third party publishers because we have a self interest. We want the license so we can make products. Sure, that is true to some degree with all publishers. But in my case, I dont really care so much about that. 

Necro is a hobby for me. I am a fan of D&D first. If Necro closed its doors tomorrow, I would hate to see that, but it really wouldnt impact me financially. I love running Necro, but I am not financially dependant on it. It feeds my ability to buy guitars, actually  I am an attorney. I make comfortable six figure income and a big house and all the trimmings. I dont say that stuff to be a tool, or to brag or anything like that or to pretend I am better than anyone else. I'm not, I'm a gamer just like everyone here. I say it only to say, dont dismiss my motives because I am a publisher and stand to profit from the license. Any money I make from Necro is pure gravy. Necro is not my livelihood. 

My goal is this: I want D&D to last. I want D&D to be there when my daughter goes to college (13 years from now). I want her to be able to waste hours of her education exploring ruined castles like I did. 

So please, if you read my comments and say "yeah, yeah, another publisher crying because they dont have the license. They just are mad cause they cant make money." That just isnt the motivation for me. I am seriously interested in 4E being a success, because if it isnt the Dungeons and Dragons brand is in trouble. And I dont want that. 

It pains me because I see such a clear and easy solution to this problem and I try telling people but I dont know if it is doing any good.


----------



## Orcus

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Because that was Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey, talking there, good sir.
> 
> -DM Jeff




Nope. Check some of the pages. Linae signed off on at least one of them. Their current people have signed off on this stuff.


----------



## Goblinoid Games

Orcus said:
			
		

> IMy goal is this: I want D&D to last. I want D&D to be there when my daughter goes to college (13 years from now). I want her to be able to waste hours of her education exploring ruined castles like I did.




So are you in love with the brand name, or the style of game? They aren't the same. The brand name may become something very different than what you cut your teeth on. The "game" will remain, though, whatever it might be called. Why don't you have her explore castles using the same game you did, probably AD&D or OD&D?


----------



## Dark Mistress

Not to speak for Clark, but I would guess it is a combination of the two. For example I like what is called Pony cars, mustangs specificly. While you can get a camaro and others to have a similar experience, they are just not the same.


----------



## Goblinoid Games

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> Not to speak for Clark, but I would guess it is a combination of the two. For example I like what is called Pony cars, mustangs specificly. While you can get a camaro and others to have a similar experience, they are just not the same.




Yeah, I understand. It's something like trying to squeeze a "first edition feel" out of a game that is very different from 1st edition. I always wonder why if the 1st edition feel is so important people don't just play 1st edition.


----------



## xechnao

Goblinoid Games said:
			
		

> It's something like trying to squeeze a "first edition feel" out of a game that is very different from 1st edition. I always wonder why if the 1st edition feel is so important people don't just play 1st edition.




It is a message saying you get something even better of the current conditions in every way you directly interpret it.


----------



## Goblinoid Games

xechnao said:
			
		

> It is a message saying you get something even better of the current conditions in every way you directly interpret it.




Huh?


----------



## xechnao

Goblinoid Games said:
			
		

> Huh?




"New edition" sounds like we give you the improvements you need. "Old edition feel" sounds like we actively put and keep something else you need too. 

Thus what we give you is something better than the old edition and also has to be better than the new edition.

It is marketing speech.


----------



## Orcus

xechnao, you seem cool, but I never really know what you are saying  I'm sorry if it always seems like I am busting on you, I'm not. I just dont get it.


----------



## Orcus

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> Not to speak for Clark, but I would guess it is a combination of the two. For example I like what is called Pony cars, mustangs specificly. While you can get a camaro and others to have a similar experience, they are just not the same.




Yeah, well, you spoke for me pretty well. 

Look, D&D has always grown and evolved. There have been things with every edition I didnt like and other parts that were great. I think 4E will be no different.


----------



## Orcus

I was a bit grouchy today, and it came through in my posts. I posted some thoughts I was having. But that shouldnt change the fact that I trust the people at Wizards to do this and to do it right. I know Linae and Scott are good people. I know this will get ironed out. 

Though I have that belief, even I am given to human fits of impatience. Of course, part of that is Linae teasing me about how cool her 4E game is... which is just cruel 

My timetable is simply not Wizards' time table (no matter how much I think they should be the same). Or I should say that the other way around: their timetable is not my timetable. Some things just take time. 

Clark


----------



## Goblinoid Games

xechnao said:
			
		

> "New edition" sounds like we give you the improvements you need. "Old edition feel" sounds like we actively put and keep something else you need too.
> 
> Thus what we give you is something better than the old edition and also has to be better than the new edition.
> 
> It is marketing speech.




Ahhhh ok. Assuming we _need_ new "improvements" to begin with. That's also marketing. Good point you have there.


----------



## xechnao

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, you spoke for me pretty well.
> 
> Look, D&D has always grown and evolved. There have been things with every edition I didnt like and other parts that were great. I think 4E will be no different.




This is a purely hypothetical question to you:
Suppose that a new system hits the market tomorrow and after you check it you think it is so amazingly awesome. But it is not from Wotc, it is not D&D. It lacks the brand power but as a game at its premise you think it is better. You have the possibility to make the products you want to make for that system and support it but you know that it lacks the commercial trust of D&D. What will you do?


----------



## Dark Mistress

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, you spoke for me pretty well.
> 
> Look, D&D has always grown and evolved. There have been things with every edition I didnt like and other parts that were great. I think 4E will be no different.




Well I practically live on the Necro forums, I would hope by now i at least have a clue about your likes ect. You are pretty open and vocal which helps, but still it is never wise to put words in another person mouth even if you think your right. Like I did earlier.


----------



## Orcus

xechnao said:
			
		

> This is a purely hypothetical question to you:
> Suppose that a new system hits the market tomorrow and after you check it you think it is so amazingly awesome. But it is not from Wotc, it is not D&D. It lacks the brand power but as a game at its premise you think it is better. You have the possibility to make the products you want to make for that system and support it but you know that it lacks the commercial trust of D&D. What will you do?




When that game arrives, ask me. 

Right now, there is not even any game close to what you describe--for me, anyway. 

I dont care if it is Wizards or not. I care about D&D. That said, I think so far Wizards has done a good job caretaking my favorite game and hobby. They have done alot to distance themselves from the bad will T$R created. They havent been perfect, but then who is. I hope they keep up the trend of distancing themselves from the horrible decisions made by T$R in the alleged name of business that nearly ruined D&D. 

Clark


----------



## AZRogue

I want to add my voice to Clark's, here: I don't think WotC will nix a good GSL (I've just been very annoyed at their unprofessional delays). Why do I think they will produce an effective GSL? Because I don't think WotC can possibly be that ignorant. I don't think it's really possible to drop down to the level necessary to do away with Open Gaming and still be intelligent enough to, say, use a telephone, or pour yourself a glass of water.

I think there might be some trouble passing a usable GSL past the legal people, and I think that is where the delays are coming from. I don't believe that the company is going to retract the one truly great thing that it has accomplished. The ill will that would be generated amongst those who actually really, really want to like the new edition would be incredible. 

Maybe I'm just grouchy too, but I think that it's imperative that WotC continues to honor its commitment to open gaming. They gave some very good reasons why they should, backed by some very insightful market research. To suddenly turn their backs on that, for any reason, would be very disheartening. I really hope that my faith isn't misplaced and I hope that someone, somewhere, gives somebody permission to speak and put our minds at ease, because the "official" statement relayed so far really sounded like they were taking "three steps back."


----------



## Cergorach

Orcus said:
			
		

> I care about D&D.



What is D&D to you? It was 3.0E, then 3.5E, obviously your very excited about 4E. But what about Pathfinder RPG? It doesn't have the D&D brand name, but it's essentially 3.5E with enhancements. What I'm trying to say, do you follow the D&D brand name or is D&D something more then the D&D brand name? Where do you draw the line? Would Exalted with the D&D brand be D&D to you (I hope that made any sense)?

I would hate to see the 3rd party publisher go the way of the dodo for 4E, but with the whole mess of the GSL (hinted at limitations), I am not as excited about 4E as some. Paizo did what I hoped someone would do, continue working under the OGL with was D&D to me.

No GSL would mean very little to the core of the current pro 4E players, but those that it does matter to are often DMs/GMs that represent their gaming group(s). If those decide that the GSL/OGL is important to them and go with the alternative of Pathfinder (or one of the other OGL games), then it isn't just one player gone, it's entire groups gone. If I look at my own situation, I dragged 5 people with me into 3E, then into 3.5E. While not everyone bought every D&D/FR book, my little group was responsible for $1000s in sales, I know we're not unique. While our 3.5E game has died, in very much the same way as our 2E game died, I'm interested in resurrecting my old gaming group (I'm sure that I'm not the only one). With the rumours of 4E it seemed like a good time to try, but with the GSL announcement and some of the decisions that were made, it seemed less like a good idea to me. For me the OGL represents a certain amount of freedom, the GSL less so, but still better then none. As the needs of my friends have changed, I need to do a lot of work for Pathfinder or D&D 4E anyway. Having been around to witness the TSR crackdown on D&D fan material on the web, I don't want to worry about such a thing repeating itself, or be condemned to Gleemax...


----------



## Ydars

I just cancelled my pre-order for 4E. I have been really excited by the design ideas and some of the new mechanics, but if WoTC go back preventing gamers from participating in developing D&D, then I am bailing out and finding another system. I will buy 4E only if there is a GSL that allows fans and 3 party publishers to make substantial material for 4E.

I do so because, to me, the OGL/GSL is an expression of respect; a contract between WoTC and us, the players of the game. It is a recognition that WE are D&D, not a group of designers in some company. TSR made the mistake of believing that THEY were D&D and look where it got them. Without GSL, D&D will go the way it did with TSR, with an increasingly alienated fan-base peeling off and playing other games. This is not because the OGL is important in itself, but because it is a sign of who is in control at WoTC.


----------



## Mouseferatu

> I do so because, to me, the OGL/GSL is an expression of respect; a contract between WoTC and us, the players of the game. It is a recognition that WE are D&D, not a group of designers in some company.




Um...

I'm as big a supporter of the OGL as anyone. I wouldn't be working for WotC today if I hadn't gotten on board with some of the other D20 companies. I'll be _very_ upset if there's no OGL/GSL this time around.

_But..._

How does it make any sense to abandon D&D for another _closed_ system? There really aren't that many open RPGs out there. Almost _all_ RPGs are designed by "designers in some company." In fact, even at the height of the OGL, the products on the shelves were created by "designers in some company."

I'm all for the license, and I'm all for making it clear to WotC that we want said license, but this _particular_ argument makes no sense to me.


----------



## Goblinoid Games

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> How does it make any sense to abandon D&D for another _closed_ system?




I don't think he said that, or which system he'd switch to, in his above post. Did I miss something? Well, Pathfinder will be open it seems. Also I haven't heard what Mongoose will be doing with their 3.x player handbooks, etc.

There are plenty of open options.


----------



## Ydars

Thanks for the support Goblinoid.............

In fact I will switch either to a 3rd party producing stuff under the original OGL, or to Runequest (produced by Mongoose games) which is also produced under an OGL, despite being a non-d20 game.

Having said this, if WoTC produce a decent OGL (or GSL if they like) then I am back on board with 4E. Until they do, they have lost me as a customer.


----------



## Ydars

To answer Mouseferatu specifically;

I feel very strongly that if the corperate types get control of the CREATIVE direction of WoTC then D&D is DOOMED. I see the GSL as a kind of acid test of who is really in control of the direction of D&D.

It has been stated many times by Clark of Necromancer games that Bill S and Linae etc are in favour of GSL, so IF GSL doesn't come through, then this indicates that gamers are not much listened to over at WoTC anymore, even the ones who work for the company.

So my logic is very simple. Gamers make good games. Corporate people FACILITATE this by making financial decisions. Corporate people are very important to keeping any business afloat but when they start meddling in the creative direction of games, then things go downhill VERY quickly. This is because Corporates like SHORT-TERM gain and generally don't stay in a company very long. Look at the state of our planet to see where the kind of Short-term business logic has got us. Gamers are in it for the long-term, because they all have a stake in the game at a much deeper level.

Take Games Workshop for example. They are a very successful company that makes business decisions that make perfect business sense, they just end up destroying whole swaves of the RPG market. They have just completely cut the most successful RPG of this year (at least in the UK it was outselling D&D 4:1) Dark Heresy because it doesn't fit in with their short-term business plans anymore. I see the same one day happening to D&D after they have alienated so many of us that no-one buys it anymore.

What I am saying is that if the corporates, who have no emotional attachment to D&D, take over then sooner or later there will not be a game called D&D or there will be a game called D&D that completely unrecognisable to those who love the game and is just a cheap ploy to get our money.

I would rather get out now than see the game I have loved for 25 years, rot before my eyes. I also feel that if more people took this stance then the corporate people at WoTC would be undermined and our gamer/designer friends would be empowered. I don't expect this to happen but one thing I have learned in this life is that I can control just one person; ME! So this is my protest. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept and respect my decision.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> How does it make any sense to abandon D&D for another _closed_ system?




Surely it makes sense to you that some folks will play 4e whether or not it happens to be the best game system for their style of play, simply out of brand loyalty? That's not at all a hard concept to grasp. 

If 4e is not open, that is a knock against reciprocal loyalty. If you have your choice of closed systems, then 4e really has to compete on its own merits, and some folks are highly dubious on that count. 

As for Clark, he's got a bit of an Anti-Chicken Little thing going lately. I guess it remains to be seen whether "You guys can't _possibly_ be that stupid!" will open any doors to the D&D brand and Open Gaming, or to Necromancer in general.

And although Clark is right that Necromancer has value to WoTC with respect to gamers that they are able to bring along, I think that a closed 4e will peel away some of Necromancer's support, too. Necromancer stands for more than just quality products, they are champions of Open Gaming. Who knew that in just a few short years, being a champion of Open Gaming would be "old school?"

I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan _and_ a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.


----------



## Papa-DRB

Ydars said:
			
		

> <snip> but one thing I have learned in this life is that I can control just one person; ME! So this is my protest. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept and respect my decision.




QFT

-- david
Papa-DRB


----------



## Waylander the Slayer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan _and_ a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.





That's what I think will happen. Those that pay the licensing fee of 5k will be able to be licensees for D&D (maybe limited to adventures or MM's that don't infringe in anyway on future WOTC products; i.e- creating your own bards, druids, monks or whatever as those PI's will be key in selling future PHB, MM's etc.), and those that don't, will not.  I vaguely remember the Erick Noah "rumor" from 2006 about 4E- it seems pretty spot on.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Orcus said:
			
		

> When that game arrives, ask me.
> 
> Right now, there is not even any game close to what you describe--for me, anyway.




I hate to disagree with you, Orcus, but it does.  Its currently called Pathfinder RPG Alpha test.  Around GenCon of this year, it'll be called Pathfinder RPG Beta test.  And at about GenCon of 09, it'll be called Pathfinder RPG.  About a year a half out, all publishers (and gamers) can download a copy of the alphatest to begin planning material for it.  Its completely free (no $5K for a preview peak).  And the rules are fully open.  Lisa of Paizo said last week they will soon be discussing some kind of license to indicate compatability.

A little over a week old and its already being herolded as the true successor of 3E/3.5, in the same vein that Hackmaster was the true successor to 2E.

EDIT:  Ok, I apparently read over the last bit of your sentence, the part of "for me, anyways."  So, I apologize if my statement came across as harsh, which I never intended it to.  Also I didn't mean to sound like I was telling you how you should feel, I was merely trying to convey the pulse of a whole lot of gamers (that would love to see Necro produts for this game) that see this game as the true 4E.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Goblinoid Games said:
			
		

> There are plenty of open options.




You ain't kidding, and that number is only growing, not shrinking.  Current and near future open games (that I know of):

3.5
OSRIC
Mongoose Traveller
Mongoose Runequest
Mongoose Battlefield Evolution (yes, that is a minis game, an open minis game)
Paizo Pathfinder RPG
Green Ronin True20
Green Ronin Muntants and Masterminds
Fudge System
Action System

I know there are more, but I don't know any more.  And yes the list is short, but it is growing.  And major publishers (Mongoose/Paizo/Green Ronin) are supporting it.

EDIT:  Adde in all the Green Ronin stuff.  Thanks Bacris for reminding me.


----------



## dmccoy1693

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I really hope that my faith isn't misplaced and I hope that someone, somewhere, gives somebody permission to speak and put our minds at ease, because the "official" statement relayed so far really sounded like they were taking "three steps back."




To me, the official statement reads like they are preparing us for bad news in the future.  IMO, WotC made two major screw ups with the pulling of Dungeon and Dragon Mags Licenses:  1) Paizo made the announcement while they stayed silent when they should have made the announcement themselves and 2) they didn't prepare anyone for this, at all, in any way shape or form.  It came as a complete surprise to everyone in the gaming industry.  Wizards has learned from that mistake (as is evident in things they've done since) and this feels like they are preparing us for more bad news that is not that far down the road.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I'm going to have to disagree with it being an "open movement".  If the OGL was so successful, I think we'd see the biggest publishers adapt to it.  I think the popularity of the SRD of 3.x is because it comes from D&D, not because it is open.  Any variant of D&D counts as D&D to me.

Mongoose is interesting, but keep in mind Traveller and Runequest are classic games that have had hard-core followings rather than the huge success of D&D, and Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.  

If White Wolf made Storyteller or Exalted open, or if Games Workshop made Warhammer open, that would be more indicative of it being the "wave of the future" for me.  Or if fans decided that OGL SRD was better than D&D and boycotted D&D 4e "en masse", that would be telling.  The latter is possible, but really, I think most players and DMs care more about whether or not the game is fun for them than any publishing philosophy.  The lack of an OGL does nothing to prevent me from making my own adventures and campaign worlds, creating my own stories and characters--I just would have to keep them to myself.  Not everybody wants to be a publisher and make money of the game.

Keep in mind, I think it would be a blow if the GSL was scrapped and nobody at all could license D&D material.  I think they should give some kind of license to the fans for personal use (like putting D&D material on a web site).  But it doesn't have to be the same style of license as the OGL was.

I will admit that the "silence methodology" has been pretty disappointing and I do have fears.  They need to be more engaging with the fan base.


----------



## Delta

Orcus said:
			
		

> Nope. Check some of the pages. Linae signed off on at least one of them. Their current people have signed off on this stuff.




Hey, Clark. Your post about why you're interested and motivated to see D&D do well was downright moving and inspiring. It's comments like that that make me feel good to be part of the D&D community in any way.


This quote above I'll quibble with. The text you quoted earlier came from the Open Game Definitions FAQ that's been up since 2001 (with one minor revision in '04). I go to that a lot myself to re-confirm original motivation for the OGL. The box to the right specifically says "The author, Ryan Dancey, is not an attorney and makes no representation about the accuracy of the legal material contained herein." ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d )

Really, Open Gaming came from Ryan. Once he was gone, I don't think there was much remaining company buy-in for the idea. As soon as 3.5 came out in 2003 I very clearly recognized signs that WOTC was walking away from the principles of the OGL. ( http://www.superdan.net/down3-5.html -- wherein I quote stuff from that very FAQ again). 

The fact that WOTC has left a web page up for 8 years doesn't really constitute a "policy on open gaming" (as you put it earlier). IMO, it's just an old web page they haven't taken down yet -- all of the publishing actions taken since 2004 have been counter to those principles.


That said, all of your motivations and hopes I totally, completely agree with. Me, I've already had to deal with my disappointment over the promise of the OGL and the direction that WOTC has chosen to go in thereafter. I'm sure that when/if other bad news comes down, you're even more invested in the situation, and you have my great sympathies.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

Ydars said:
			
		

> I feel very strongly that if the corperate types get control of the CREATIVE direction of WoTC then D&D is DOOMED. I see the GSL as a kind of acid test of who is really in control of the direction of D&D.



The thing is, business types have _always_ had control of the creative direction.  Take a look at what happened the last time businessmen abdicated control of D&D, during the last few days of TSR.  Designers created all sorts of neat books that they wanted to create, but which no one actually bought in any numbers, resulting in TSR splitting is own market and going bankrupt.  Companies who're doing this as more than just a hobby should make books that people actually want to buy, which will make them profits.  In basic terms, the goal of making profits just means companies want to sell what people actually want to buy. 



> Take Games Workshop for example. They are a very successful company that makes business decisions that make perfect business sense, they just end up destroying whole swaves of the RPG market. They have just completely cut the most successful RPG of this year (at least in the UK it was outselling D&D 4:1) Dark Heresy because it doesn't fit in with their short-term business plans anymore.



The Games Workshop example has nothing to do with long term vs. short term planning.  It was the result of differences of scale.  RPGs are a fairly miniscule market.  No matter how much a RPG sells compared to other RPGs, its profits are just rounding error compared to the profits of novels and minis.

While I don't like that GW dropped dark heresy, it was a sound thing for them to do in the long term.


----------



## dmccoy1693

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to disagree with it being an "open movement".  If the OGL was so successful, I think we'd see the biggest publishers adapt to it.
> [snip]
> Mongoose is interesting,




Mongoose is also the RPG #3 publisher.  So they're one of the "biggest publishers".  The way they're marketting Traveller and Battlefield Evolution, they are trying to appeal to a larger audiance then either game traditionally had.  I believe they will succeed.  RuneQuest, IMO, was their test bed.  They did some good work, but from what I've seen of the way they're handling Traveller, they're really getting it "right" this time.

*EDIT:*



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.




Well... yea.... (Not to sound condescending).  This is the very reason why Wizards tried open gaming in the first place.  All the champions of open gaming back around the turn of the century freely and openly admitted that they were doing this to increase sales of Wizards D&D products.  End of story.  So, yes, that is exactly why Mongoose and Paizo and Green Ronin others are doing it.  More support there is for a game, the more likely people will play it.


----------



## mxyzplk

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.
> 
> “We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”
> 
> I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mike




You realize that every step y'all take backwards from openness is inviting you to get burned, as with Pathfinder.  If you had remained committed to openness and had gotten the new info out in a timely manner to third parties, they wouldn't be rebelling now.

The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.

Let me note something about real world economics.  A healthy market sector means more for everyone.  My IRL company has been posting record revenues for many consecutive quarters.  Our stock took a big hit lately.  Why?  Because our major competitors posted big losses.  This cast the entire sector in a bad light.  Doing well in a bad sector isn't any better than doing poorly in a good sector.  (Industry economics are different from "small company" economics and you have to make the adjustment.)  The naive businessman says "us doing well is good, our competitors going well is bad."  The smart businessman knows that's not true.  Rent some MBAs if you need to, but I think it's high time to look at this form a big economic picture point of view.  My company (hardware/software manufacturer) actively releases "free" standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard.  Y'all got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.

Competition never drove anyone out of business unless they were a) a small storefront or b) sucked and deserved it.  Competition is good.  Read a business book published in the last decade before making any more GSL "decisions."

I don't think the problem is "putting business over creative direction," it's having improperly experienced business folks.


----------



## Bacris

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> You ain't kidding, and that number is only growing, not shrinking.  Current and near future open games (that I know of):




Don't forget:
True20
Mutants & Masterminds

Both are open, both have ways to indicate compatibility, and it was announced that True20 is going to go even more "open" in May.


----------



## JohnRTroy

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.




Maybe it was, oh, I dunno, the new rules that did it, or the fact that WoTC bought out TSR's debt?  I think there's a little too much emphasis on the OGL being the key factor that saved the industry.



> My company (hardware/software manufacturer) actively releases "free" standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard.  Y'all got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.




What's good for a software industry might not be good for the rest of industry.  I can see open source working for software because it's such a complex industry and most software is developed in-house for specific tasks.  

Case in point.  Guardians of Order released Big Eyes Small Mouth, with rules that were completely OGLed.  However, this turned out to be their downfall, as people gathered those rules and released them for free.  

WoTC has always been in the primary process of selling PHBs and other core books.  Supplements and campaign settings like FR do a lot less business than the core books.  The free SRD hurt that potential market.  At the very least, I can see them removing a totally unrestricted OGL from the market.


----------



## arscott

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.



So, the exact same thing that WotC did with the OGL?

I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that Open Gaming works better for some games than for others.  D&D is defined by it's theme, while WoD is defined by it's specific setting.  Unless WW wants to make a license that lets other companies muck about with their Product Identity, then there's not much of a point.


----------



## mxyzplk

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Maybe it was, oh, I dunno, the new rules that did it, or the fact that WoTC bought out TSR's debt?  I think there's a little too much emphasis on the OGL being the key factor that saved the industry.




Hmmm, well that wouldn't be the view of the person who architected the revival of D&D, Ryan Dancey.  http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-good-old-days/



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> What's good for a software industry might not be good for the rest of industry.  I can see open source working for software because it's such a complex industry and most software is developed in-house for specific tasks.




But hardware and software are the "next best" analogy for a game system - complex systems that need to interoperate.  It's not just software; hardware standards are the same deal.  And I have no idea where "most software is developed in-house for specific tasks" comes from - anyway, I'm speaking specifically about product-focused software.  From ANSI C to the PCI bus to your new cell phone actually working, standards definitely make the computer world go around.

It's the same thing with RPG products.  You can buy a novel and read it, and it may be tied into some trilogy story arc but it doesn't require anything else to use.  RPG products are exactly like software - they require specific things to use.   It is this interoperability that Dancey so brilliantly deduced and built a new model on.


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Case in point.  Guardians of Order released Big Eyes Small Mouth, with rules that were completely OGLed.  However, this turned out to be their downfall, as people gathered those rules and released them for free.
> .




Uhm...no.

*GOO* released them for free. No other publisher did. (And it was Tri-Stat DX, not BESM, unless you're counting BESM D20, a fairly minor game. And since GOO was printing up Tri-Stat DX rules and selling them for rock-bottom, cost or less, prices, there wasn't really much room for anyone else to jump in...)

Currency issues (the weak dollar vs. the Canadian dollar), personal factors, and the general decline of the gaming industry is what killed GOO.

Can you find me a quote from anyone involved with GOO, who was there at the time, which says, "Damn, we never should have released those rules!"?

Can you point me to the 'other people' who released the rules? (Reposting the SRD -- something GOO made, of their own volition, freely available online, doesn't count.)


----------



## Cergorach

arscott said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that Open Gaming works better for some games than for others.  D&D is defined by it's theme, while WoD is defined by it's specific setting.  Unless WW wants to make a license that lets other companies muck about with their Product Identity, then there's not much of a point.



The StoryTeller system is also very good and can be used for just about everything, as WW has already demonstrated.

Fantasy => Exalted
SciFi => Trinity
Super Hero => Abberant
Pulp => Adventure
Modern => World of Darness / Hunter
Horror => Vampire / Werewolf / Mage / Demon / etc.
Medieval => Vampire Dark Ages
Victorian => Vampire Victorian Age
Crusades => Mage the Sorcerror Crusades
Wild West => Werewolf The Wild West
Wuxia => Kindred of the East

Probably forgot a few, but you get the idea ;-) If WW were to release the Storyteller system as OGL, I would be all over it, and many with me. One of WW gaming products greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses is the meta plot, it attracts a lot of gamers, but also repels a lot of them. I think you could do an excellent fantasy RPG with the ST system that isn't high fantasy, or heavly intertwined with the WoD.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Okay, I shouldn't have assumed people were talking about jumping to a closed system. That was a lapse on my part, and I apologize.

That said...

The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the _legal_ team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.

Again, I _support_ the OGL. I _want_ 4E to be open. And I respect that, for some people, if it's not, that's a big enough issue not to switch. But it's a big enough issue on its own; let's not go making it a bigger deal than it actually is. And what it's _not_ is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes. It would be bad for D&D and for the industry. But it wouldn't be _fatal_.


----------



## DM_Jeff

Orcus said:
			
		

> Nope. Check some of the pages. Linae signed off on at least one of them. Their current people have signed off on this stuff.




Right you are. Huh. Well, then I al right there with you, miond boggled and all. I do wish you were not left hanging by a line however!

-DM Jeff


----------



## Lizard

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the _legal_ team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.
> 
> Again, I _support_ the OGL. I _want_ 4E to be open. And I respect that, for some people, if it's not, that's a big enough issue not to switch. But it's a big enough issue on its own; let's not go making it a bigger deal than it actually is. And what it's _not_ is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes. It would be bad for D&D and for the industry. But it wouldn't be _fatal_.




Well, two things:
a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles. With reduced third party support, it will be a LONG time before 4e matches 3e in depth and breadth, and no matter what form the GSL takes, at this point, I think it can guaranteed that it will be much more restrictive than the OGL.

b)WOTC has a profound financial reason to return to the "failed policies of TSR" -- Gleemax. They do not want fan sites, PCGen, and other things cutting into their projected profits. I'd be very surprised if the bulk of expected revenue from 4e isn't supposed to come from DDI subscriptions and not from book sales. If "Netbooks" rebound in popularity due to obstacles placed in the way of commercial publication due to the GSL, look for a return to C&D letters.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, two things:
> a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles. With reduced third party support, it will be a LONG time before 4e matches 3e in depth and breadth, and no matter what form the GSL takes, at this point, I think it can guaranteed that it will be much more restrictive than the OGL.




Yep. And I did indeed say that I understand why it could be a deal-breaker for some. It's a big deal for me as well, though not quite a deal-breaker. I wouldn't have the career I do if not for the OGL; trust me, when I say it's a big deal for me, I mean it.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm _not_ claiming that a closed 4E wouldn't be a major step in the wrong direction. I think it's a _hideous_ idea. It'll harm D&D, it'll harm WotC, it'll harm the industry, it'll harm the hobby.

All I said is that it wouldn't _kill_ D&D.

As far as Gleemax and C&D letters, that's a level of speculation I'm simply not comfortable getting into until we have more info, one way or the other.


----------



## Ydars

I have to agree with you about Gleemax Lizard. It was the news about the DDI coupled with the OGL silence that first raised my concerns. I am seriously worried that WoTC has a new business model for 4E that is imcompatible with GSL.


----------



## AZRogue

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And what it's _not_ is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes.




I don't agree, Ari. I respect you a great deal but I would see such a move as a major step towards the TSR way of doing business. Would it end DnD? Of course not. The OGL is still out there.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Deleted.


----------



## Mouseferatu

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I don't agree, Ari. I respect you a great deal but I would see such a move as a major step towards the TSR way of doing business. Would it end DnD? Of course not. The OGL is still out there.




Thing is, there's a _wide_ gulf between "open as the OGL was" and "borderline fascist as TSR's later policies were."

The bulk of creative endeavors, be they RPGs or otherwise, aren't open-licensed. There's nothing intrinsically evil about not giving stuff away. I just don't see "lack of license" as equating to the TSR method of doing business.

Sure, anything's possible. But I hardly think the one guarantees or even implies the other.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The bulk of creative endeavors, ..., aren't open-licensed.




A Cat in a Dryer can dream, can't he?

*Edit*

Problem is thought, its kind of like Dr. King saying a few years after his "I have a Dream" speech that segragation is better or the Wright Brothers say, "Flying sucks, we should all just stick to land travel," or Mel Brooks saying, "I never should have made a parody of Star Wars."  Great advances like these should never be taken back.  And it is a sad day when the once great champion of open gaming walks away entirely from the advance they founded.


----------



## Mouseferatu

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> A Cat in a Dryer can dream, can't he?




As a guy who makes his living on creative endeavors, it sounds more like a nightmare to me. But that's a discussion for a different thread, and possibly not one that can happen on ENWorld at all.


----------



## xechnao

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, two things:
> a)The OGL did help sell me on 3e -- not because I wanted to support an open system (though I did), but because it led to an explosion of product which guaranteed almost any whim of gaming could be satisfied -- from alternate-history dinosaur riders to gritty westerns to massive tomes detailing every weapon from stone kinves to assault rifles.




If that be the case what we/you are discussing here it wouldn't be such a deal. OGL is still out there, isn't it? Why do we suspect it will stop to "guarantee almost any whim of gaming be satisfied" then?


----------



## Lizard

xechnao said:
			
		

> If that be the case what we/you are discussing here it wouldn't be such a deal. OGL is still out there, isn't it? Why do we suspect it will stop to "guarantee almost any whim of gaming be satisfied" then?




It won't. But it means I'll be buying 3x/variant products from third party publishers, not 4e products from WOTC -- because I won't be able to use their content in other games. Thus, it would be bad business for WOTC to reduce the scope of available 4e support. It will slow adoption as people will wait longer for the games they want to be available under the 4e rules.

3e drew me away from many other systems because of the tremendous breadth and depth of support which was available for it within a few months of release. That doesn't seem likely to happen w/4e, unless the GSL policy ends up being very different than it currently seems.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Lizard said:
			
		

> Thus, it would be bad business for WOTC to reduce the scope of available 4e support. It will slow adoption as people will wait longer for the games they want to be available under the 4e rules.




There, we agree completely. Especially in the midst of an edition change, for WotC to set things up to where potential competitors are _forced_ to stick with the old edition, rather than supporting the new one, just boggles the mind.

It's the main reason I fully expect that Clark is correct and that this will eventually be resolved in favor of _some_ sort of license, even if it's not as open as it was last time. I simply cannot think of any good reason to do otherwise. (Even if you're right about Gleemax, it doesn't require the elimination of an OGL-style license, just a careful definition of what's permissible.)


----------



## Glyfair

Ydars said:
			
		

> I do so because, to me, the OGL/GSL is an expression of respect; a contract between WoTC and us, the players of the game.



To you, maybe.  But it's not.  It's a contract between WotC and potential publishers of "D&D" content.  It allows other companies to jump on the "D&D"  train.   

What really is the contract between WotC & us would be the fan policy (which, as far as I know, has ever been publicly spelled out).  What we as gamers are allowed to create and share in a non-commercial way (since "publishing" is so vague now with the popularity of the internet).  Sure, with the OGL we had more rights spelled out if we followed it in our fan material.  However, as far as I know no fan material was threatened because it didn't follow the OGL requirements.

While I have concerns about the effect of the GSL/OGL on the D&D game, I'm much more concerned with their fan policy because it car directly effect me.


----------



## Ydars

Glyfair; OGL policy WILL directly affect you; if there is NO OGL you will get

1) Less support for D&D in the form of adventures, supplements etc

2) fewer designers working on the next generation of D&D; many current WoTC staffers came from 3 party publishers.

3) a shrinking of the D&D market share of gaming. In the past this has been associated with a downturn in the RPG industry in general.

That is why I am concerned. In the long term, OGL is necessary for the cohesion of the whole RPG industry.


----------



## Lizard

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There, we agree completely. Especially in the midst of an edition change, for WotC to set things up to where potential competitors are _forced_ to stick with the old edition, rather than supporting the new one, just boggles the mind.
> 
> It's the main reason I fully expect that Clark is correct and that this will eventually be resolved in favor of _some_ sort of license, even if it's not as open as it was last time. I simply cannot think of any good reason to do otherwise. (Even if you're right about Gleemax, it doesn't require the elimination of an OGL-style license, just a careful definition of what's permissible.)




I am very convinced the GSL will be a "business publisher's" license, focused entirely on producing commercial products, not on opening content per se. The "fan license" will be "Use Gleemax".


----------



## Mouseferatu

Lizard said:
			
		

> I am very convinced the GSL will be a "business publisher's" license, focused entirely on producing commercial products, not on opening content per se.




Even if that's true--and it may well be--it's certainly preferable to "no license at all." I'm not necessarily opposed to WotC keeping a tighter hand on the reigns than they did the first time around, as long as the grip isn't _too_ tight.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the _legal_ team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.




Yes, it does change the direction of D&D.

If it's Open, then D&D can go in any direction that 3rd party publishers choose to take it.

If it's not Open, then D&D goes in one and only one direction-- and some folks don't like that direction.

And I don't mean the direction of "Open" or not. I mean the direction of dragonborn warlords and tiefling Golden Wyvern adepts. That's simply not a direction where some folks are comfortable.


----------



## BryonD

nevermind


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yes, it does change the direction of D&D.
> 
> If it's Open, then D&D can go in any direction that 3rd party publishers choose to take it.
> 
> If it's not Open, then D&D goes in one and only one direction-- and some folks don't like that direction.
> 
> And I don't mean the direction of "Open" or not. I mean the direction of dragonborn warlords and tiefling Golden Wyvern adepts. That's simply not a direction where some folks are comfortable.




I was referring to core/formal D&D there, Wulf. Ultimately, the point I was trying to make was that the decisions of the legal team, in terms of Open or not, do not effect the creative decisions of the design team.

Yes, you're right that in the meta-sense, the game has more options with more publishers. No argument, no disagreement. But I was talking specifically about how the OGL (or lack thereof) impacted, or did not impact, WotC's D&D design team specifically.


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I was referring to core/formal D&D there



Doesn't that mean then that you simply were not addressing the entire issue and Wulf simply returned focus to the full picture?


----------



## Glyfair

Ydars said:
			
		

> 1) Less support for D&D in the form of adventures, supplements etc



Once publishers started the "create your own game" publishing style from the OGL, I got very little in the form of adventures/supplements/etc. for *D&D*.



> 2) fewer designers working on the next generation of D&D; many current WoTC staffers came from 3 party publishers.



That doesn't directly affect me.



> 3) a shrinking of the D&D market share of gaming. In the past this has been associated with a downturn in the RPG industry in general.



Pure speculation.  Also, that's not a *direct* effect. 

Besides, the RPG industry is already in a downturn.  Admittedly, it may largely be because everyone is waiting for 4E.  We'll know better at the end of this year.



> That is why I am concerned. In the long term, OGL is necessary for the cohesion of the whole RPG industry.



At the height of the RPG industry, there were no real 3rd party publishers of D&D product.  While it may not have been cohesive, clearly the RPG industry was more successful during a time when there wasn't an OGL.  It might be that it can't be successful in the future without one, but that's just guesswork.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

> Yes, you're right that in the meta-sense, the game has more options with more publishers. No argument, no disagreement. But I was talking specifically about how the OGL (or lack thereof) impacted, or did not impact, WotC's D&D design team specifically.




Sorry, I misunderstood your point then.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Ultimately, the point I was trying to make was that the decisions of the legal team, in terms of Open or not, do not effect the creative decisions of the design team.




And now that I understand you... As others have said in this thread: Perhaps they do. 

If 4e is not Open, then choices like "Golden Wyvern Adept" start to make more sense. 

As opposed to, for example, "Transmuter."

And I can tell you, every protected/ownable name goes through legal. They search it, they clear it, they own it. It's IP.

So again, not to pile on you, but whether or not 4e is Open _does_ have extensive ramifications; yes, down to the creative/design level.


----------



## mxyzplk

Lizard said:
			
		

> I am very convinced the GSL will be a "business publisher's" license, focused entirely on producing commercial products, not on opening content per se. The "fan license" will be "Use Gleemax".




Probably true.  Have you *seen* the Gleemax terms of use?  http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice.  Summary - "All your post belong to us."


----------



## Ydars

I am starting to wonder if they will try and patent the term "AC"; sound familiar anyone?


----------



## Dark Mistress

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Probably true.  Have you *seen* the Gleemax terms of use?  http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice.  Summary - "All your post belong to us."




Thats pretty much why I don't post there and why if I had a idea I most certainly would not post there. If I post a good idea on necro boards and Clark wanted to use it. I think he would ask if not offer me a free copy of the book when finished for using it. Assuming it was something he and no one else at necro had thought of and they wanted to use it.

I don't mind a company using my idea's I would just want to be asked. Or whats worse, what if you post a idea and then decided it would make a great game book and want to publish it yourself. Oops sorry you can't unless WotC allows it since they now own your idea.

While this is likely far more common with most companies than i would like to think about.


----------



## Ydars

The gleemax terms and conditions are something I hadn't realised at all. So if the OGL/GSL is seriously toned down or scrapped we could find that certain kinds of fan generated material can only be out up on Gleemax and then that WoTC owns it all without needing any further permission.

I am sure they wouldn't do this................................would they?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And now that I understand you... As others have said in this thread: Perhaps they do.
> 
> If 4e is not Open, then choices like "Golden Wyvern Adept" start to make more sense.
> 
> As opposed to, for example, "Transmuter."
> 
> And I can tell you, every protected/ownable name goes through legal. They search it, they clear it, they own it. It's IP.
> 
> So again, not to pile on you, but whether or not 4e is Open _does_ have extensive ramifications; yes, down to the creative/design level.




Sorry, I don't buy this in the slightest. 

A) The final decision on OGL apparently still hasn't been made.

B) WotC creative folks had meetings with third-party publishers as early as last GenCon, talking about the license; they obviously believed, at the time, the game would be open.

C) I know from talking to people at WotC during my own assignments that the creative staff expect (or at least expected) some level of openness.

4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.

Like I said, I'm not trying to minimize the impact such a decision would have--but I also don't want to see it exaggerated.


----------



## Glyfair

Dark Mistress said:
			
		

> Thats pretty much why I don't post there and why if I had a idea I most certainly would not post there. If I post a good idea on necro boards and Clark wanted to use it. I think he would ask if not offer me a free copy of the book when finished for using it. Assuming it was something he and no one else at necro had thought of and they wanted to use it.



What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea?  That's the reality that WotC is concerned about.  They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.


----------



## Lizard

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.




I agree. I think WOTC did not understand the license or what 'openness' entailed, and, apparently, never talked to their developers who had made careers using the license and thus understood it very well.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't buy this in the slightest. 4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.




I'm not suggesting that. I'm responding to your assertion that the openness of 4e has no ramifications at the design level. It absolutely can. 

And while I agree with you-- I don't think 4e was written with the intent to close it off-- I disagree that there are not _elements_ of the design that were written with the intent to pull more terminology back into their control. 

I predict there will be quite a few things joining the beholder, mind flayer, and displacer beast in 4e. Shadowfell and Feywild spring immediately to mind.

To say that, however, is not to say that I think WoTC intended, or even now intends, to close 4e entirely.

Hope that's clear.


----------



## Lizard

Glyfair said:
			
		

> What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea?  That's the reality that WotC is concerned about.  They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.




Almost every board of note has a similair EULA. Most people are just less paranoid about other companies.

Also, most people grossly overvalue their ideas. I saw this during the open call which led to Eberron. Ideas are worthless. I get a dozen ideas a day. Turning an 'idea' into a saleable product...THAT takes work and effort. It is completely idiotic to believe any company wants to "steal your ideas". If your idea has ANY value, they will be happy to pay you to develop it. (It is also very, very, likely you're not 1/1000th as original as you think you are, and your idea is either a)under development, or b)has been considered and rejected.)

I can't tell you how many times "my ideas" have ended up in print -- because I tend to think like all the other geeks out there. Hell, the current 4e cosmology is VERY close to my "Sea of Worlds", which was in development with Mongoose for a while. Do I think WOTC "stole" my ideas? No. I think both I and the current developers looked at the "Great Wheel", saw the same problems with it, and came up with very similar solutions.


----------



## Henry

Ydars said:
			
		

> The gleemax terms and conditions are something I hadn't realised at all. So if the OGL/GSL is seriously toned down or scrapped we could find that certain kinds of fan generated material can only be out up on Gleemax and then that WoTC owns it all without needing any further permission.
> 
> I am sure they wouldn't do this................................would they?




Again, this is a misrepresentation of what their terms say. What their terms DO say, is that by posting there, you give them free reign to use your material in however they see fit; "we can use it" is NOT the same as "they own it."

Many people are making this same misunderstanding, and I hate to see it get perpetuated out any further than it is.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that. I'm responding to your assertion that the openness of 4e has no ramifications at the design level. It absolutely can.
> 
> And while I agree with you-- I don't think 4e was written with the intent to close it off-- I disagree that there are not _elements_ of the design that were written with the intent to pull more terminology back into their control.
> 
> I predict there will be quite a few things joining the beholder, mind flayer, and displacer beast in 4e. Shadowfell and Feywild spring immediately to mind.
> 
> To say that, however, is not to say that I think WoTC intended, or even now intends, to close 4e entirely.
> 
> Hope that's clear.




All right, I think I see what's happening. (And I think it's why we've been talking past each other throughout most of this exchange. )

I've been limiting my comments, more or less, _exclusively_ to the issue of how the existence, or lack thereof, of an OGL (or similar license) impacts things like the creative team. You're speaking in more general terms, about how legal concerns _in general_ can impact the creative team.

So when I say things like "no impact," I'm referring specifically and strictly to the OGL issue, but you're reading it as "no legal impact at all, ever." And when you talk about them claiming or trademarking IP, I've been reading it as "for purposes of eliminating said license," when you didn't mean it that narrowly.

Sound about right?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Lizard said:
			
		

> Almost every board of note has a similair EULA. Most people are just less paranoid about other companies.
> 
> ...
> 
> I can't tell you how many times "my ideas" have ended up in print -- because I tend to think like all the other geeks out there.




Abso-friggin'-lutely. I've seen an enormous number of my ideas see the light of day on projects that I had nothing to do with--not because anyone stole 'em, but because there's no such thing as a 100% unique, original idea.

To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, ideas are to finished, salable books as algae, zooplankton, and other organics are to petroleum. You can't have the latter without the former, but only the latter is worth anything; the former by itself is utterly valueless.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Glyfair said:
			
		

> What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea?  That's the reality that WotC is concerned about.  They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.




I believe he would say something to that effect and Clark has so far earned my trust. Obviously if it keep happening to posters that would be suspicious but I doubt it would happen. I don't think Clark would. Just simple cause he is not doing Necromancer games as a business but as a hobby on the side. So money is not his motivation, just having fun and doing something he enjoys is. Which is why i seriously doubt he would try and screw someone over like that.

It is not really about if I think they will do it or won't do it. Lots of idea's come up at the same time or come from some other source completely unrelated.

It just makes me a bit leary of posting a idea there as a way of working on something. 

The type of posts I was talking about is if you was brain storming a idea and asking for input on it. To either use inhouse or if it was well received perhaps see about getting it published. It is the wording on their site that makes me a bit leary of it. Most sites are less clouded in lawyer double speak and likely less legally binding.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I've been limiting my comments, more or less, _exclusively_ to the issue of how the existence, or lack thereof, of an OGL (or similar license) impacts things like the creative team. You're speaking in more general terms, about how legal concerns _in general_ can impact the creative team.
> 
> Sound about right?




Pretty much. I'm saying both. 

Legal considerations (apart from the OGL/GSL) "create" names like Shadowfell and Feywild and other Nounverbs. Hasbro marketers/designers don't have free reign to name _anything_ without Legal clearing the name-- to make sure both that nobody else owns it, and to make sure it's ownable. 

Once that IP is created, under its own set of legal considerations, then there's the further question of whether or not those terms end up being Open or usable under the OGL/GSL.

Girallon was open. Mind flayer was not. What will be Open in 4e, and what will not?



> So when I say things like "no impact," I'm referring specifically and strictly to the OGL issue, but you're reading it as "no legal impact at all, ever." And when you talk about them claiming or trademarking IP, I've been reading it as "for purposes of eliminating said license," when you didn't mean it that narrowly.




I definitely don't mean it that narrowly. I am saying that legal considerations CAN drive design, and subsequent OGL issues CAN bring new light to those considerations.

EDIT: Just in case it's not clear, I'm not saying that Legal vets every word in every book. But they'll look closely at the things WotC wants to protect/own.


----------



## Orcus

Cergorach said:
			
		

> What is D&D to you? It was 3.0E, then 3.5E, obviously your very excited about 4E.




That, my friend, is an excellent question.

It really has to do with my philosophy. I support D&D. That means the current incarnation of the rules by the official publisher.

That may sound on its face like I'm just a shill for the owner of the trademark. I'm not. 

Necromancer was founded to be a modern day Judges Guild. JG always supported the current rules (until they werent allowed to). I have that same philosophy. 

Further, D&D has always expanded and grown. Edition change and content change is a part of the history of the game, and was embraced by Gygax himself. I mean, we had the boxed set. Then Greyhawk supplement. Then Blackmoor. Then Eldritch Wizardry. They add stats, change races, add classes (heck, at first "elf" was a class, not a race; chew on that change), add artifacts, higher level content, levels over 3  , psionics, bards, druids, artifacts and relics, and that was before 1E even hit. Then skills and 2E and THAC0 and kits and all sorts of stuff. Specialty wizards and clerics. Heck, if D&D wasnt about change we would all be playing PCs with only STR INT and WIS. Think about that. 

So philosophically, I always support the current version of the game. 

Which, in my view, makes Necro and companies like us all the more important. 

People play D&D for lots of reasons. Many of those reasons can be described by different feels of the game, what the game means to them, styles of play, type of content, etc. Necro speaks very strongly to old school players who like the classic feel but with the modern rules. I'm not knocking Wizards. I am the biggest Wizards supporter you can imagine. But they simply cant speak to all the players of D&D. Many would peel off and go to other games or systmes if they cant get the feel and content and style of play that they want. I give that to them. And other companies out there serve a similar role. 

So that is the long and short of it. I always support the modern rules. But I feel that I know what the heart of classic D&D is and I think it is my job to make sure that heart beats in the modern rules.


----------



## Orcus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan _and_ a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.




I'm sad to hear that, but I cant disagree with you. Frankly, my hope is 4E is open to some degree even if under a GSL and not an OGL. 

I said it back in the day and I will say it again--open gaming was a renaissance of the golden age of D&D from its early days when companies like Judges Guild and Wee Warriors (check them out if you want some D&D history!) and others made stuff for the game. When it was at its peak. It felt like that again with early 3E. 

It truly was a reawakening of that golden age. Everyone involved felt it. Ryan felt it. I felt it. 

There really is something to the wonder of open gaming. Something Wizards can really be proud to have been a part of. Something that really resonates with gamers in particular. We are all creative people. And we all value that creation, and our own creation. And D&D specifically for so long was a game owned by a company that had at its heart some people whose sole goal was to crush that creativity. It was so liberating when Wizards bought D&D and swept out the old and changed that mindset that ruined D&D and acknowledged the creativity of all of the people who play this amazing game. Nothing could have been more right. It is an absolute credit to Wizards and everything they stand for that they embraced open gaming the way they did.


----------



## Orcus

Glyfair said:
			
		

> What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea?  That's the reality that WotC is concerned about.  They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.




Yeah, and there are several ways to react to that. I'd post and say "hey, rad idea you have there. Coincidentally, you will probably like product XYZ that we are working on that is pretty similar."

That said, the "what you post here is ours" mentality is pretty prevalent and cant really be used as a "Wizards is evil!" argument.  They arent evil. They are just a tad more corporate than the gamer mentality is comfortable with. Which is why there will always be a bit of friction. And I dont mean that as disrespect to Wizards. I am a huge supporter. I am the guy telling people to calm down about licenses being under NDAs. Its normal. But it certainly chaffes the gamer mind.


----------



## Oldtimer

While I don't disagree with you _per se_, I must take you up on some details of OD&D:


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> (heck, at first "elf" was a class, not a race; chew on that change)



No, elf was a race at first. Page 8 of Men&Magic describes them as "Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game."



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> levels over 3



The STATISTICS REGARDING CLASSES table on page 17-18 in Men&Magic lists levels up to 10 for Fighting-Men, up to 16 for Magic-Users, and up to 10 for Clerics.



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Heck, if D&D wasnt about change we would all be playing PCs with only STR INT and WIS. Think about that.



Page 10 in Men&Magic lists the six abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma.


----------



## Orcus

There are four options:

*A. Close 4E.* Nothing more to discuss.

*B. Use the OGL.* That's easy. Just create the 4E SRD and say "this is released as open game content". Then let us use it under the license.

*C. License the PI and work those restrictions from the old STL back in.*

This would be really really easy.  

1. Designate ALL of the 4E core books and their contents as PI and require us to agree not to challenge or dispute said designation or to challenge ownership.

2. Then, give the publishers permission per OGL section 7 to use that PI under the OGL v1.0a subject to certain conditions--namely, that they follow some of the conditions from the STL/Guide:

a. no describing character creation,
b. no describing applying XP to a charcter
c. no interactive games
d. no minis
e. no using "core rules"
f. must meet community standards of decency, such as nudity, race and religion as found in the STL.

(you know, all the terms people got around by just going OGL and not using the d20 license because the d20 logo became meaningless).

3. Permit publishers to say "For use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" on their products.

4. Provide some version of the D&D logo, similar to the one on the back of the "Wizards Presents..." books for our use. 

5. Let us refer to the name of the book and page numbers for goodness sake!

6. Require us to say "This product uses content from the Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All such content is Product Identity and is used with permission and by seperate agreement. No such content is Open Game Content."

Then create a smart SRD. Dont just retype all the stuff. All that does is slow the SRD down and prevents us from supporting their future releases. Instead, for each product, simply do a Section 15 listing like what we would for an OGL product telling us how you want us to reference that book, with a provision that we have to say the blurb above. And as each book comes out, update the smart SRD with the title of the book and add it to the PI permission document. 

Its real easy to license this stuff and keep all the restrictions Wizards is likely concerned about. 

*D. Create a brand new license called the GSL.*

This is something that could be made from scratch. So its biggest benefit is that new people who didnt do the OGL can say, "yeah, I made that." I have no idea what the issues are. But the downside is that we have been working with the OGL for about 8 years now. We know what can and cant be done. We know how to use it. I'm not sure creating a brand new license is needed when you can simply use *C*, above. 

*My Opinion*

I think C is the best choice. It continues open gaming. It continues a license we all know how to work with. It works back in the restrictions that Wizards wanted in the license in the first place with the d2) STL. It ties the license back to D&D, which is really what Wizards wants to do--sell D&D books. It precents stand alone competing game systems like M&M, which arguably dont add as much to Wizards' percieved value of open gaming as do, say, products that straight support D&D. It protects their content by making it all PI which is impregnable in the OGL and, frankly, PI is protected even more solidly that regular copyright and it requires us not to challenge ownership.


----------



## Orcus

Of course B would be the easiest and would be my preference as Clark from Necromancer Games. But I mean if I was Wizards, I would choose C.


----------



## Orcus

Oldtimer, you are right of course. I shouldnt have said "at first" I should have said "back in basic D&D". 

But that said, in ODD you only had fighters, magic users and clerics. Not even theives. When I mention STR, INT, WIS its 'cusae those were the prime attributes of the 3 classes. Dex, Con and Cha were add ons.  

Of course, change can go both ways, not just from less options to more options. Heck, it couldnt get more open than ODD, which famously said: "there is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided that they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, ie a player wishing to be a dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being determined by the campaign referee." Though not ruling it out, AD&D went from the "why in the heck not" quote above to Gygax spending almost a whole page talking people out of monster PCs, even stating: "you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character."

But I dont want to get into a D&D history lesson. 

I do appreciate you correcting my error in statments though. 

Clark


----------



## Roman

I really doubt that WotC is seriously considering not including 'open' gaming in the 4th edition. Unless Orcus has some inside information, and I doubt that, there has been little evidence to suggest that apart from his own hunch. Now, I know that he has industry experience and all that, but a hunch is still merely a hunch. 

What is probably happening is the final approval of the exact details of 'open' gaming under the 4th edition. I keep putting 'open' in quotation marks, because it can mean different things: there are different levels of 'openness' and it is likely that 4E will have a more restrictive license than 3.5E, but nonetheless I think it will still be 'open' enough to warrant the 'open' label. 

There is no reason for the panic, the single post concerning policy vetting really does not imply what people here seem to fear. I suppose it _could_ imply that, but it could also imply many other possibilities. For some reason people jumped to their worst fear and think that it is that possibility among many, which will manifest, but the probability of that happening does not seem particularly high.


----------



## Roman

I have probably* never bought a third party d20 or OGL product before and throughout the course of the 3.X edition, my RPG book purchases have been exclusively from Wizards of the Coast. As such, one would think that the presence or the absence of third party support for 4E should not concern me. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I dislike many of the changes made in the process of making 4E and regardless of my previous purchasing behavior, if I do switch to 4E (and I am still undecided, but leaning against switching) I will have to rely on third party products that reverse those bad changes, while maintaining the positive aspects of 4E. If there are no 4E products that do this for me, there will be no agonizing decision process of whether to switch or not. I will simply automatically stay with my houseruled 3.5 edition or one of the '3.51' evolutions, such as the Pathfinder RPG, being developed by Paizo. That said, though, I really doubt that this will be an issue, as I doubt that 4E will not have an open license. I think this is needless panic on the part of many here - the plans for an open license have been announced a while back and I have seen no real evidence to indicate that this has changed. The single post by Mike Lescault does not really lead to the conclusions people are jumping to. 

*I say probably, because none come to mind - I might have bought some, but at the moment I certainly cannot remember doing so.


----------



## Yair

The language in that quote is troubling, but at this point it seems to me that the boat of Open Gaming has long ago sailed anyways. A reversal of the trend, going back to open standards, would very much surprise me. I'm pessimistic. 

It seems to me fan content would be limited to Gleemax (legally; I don't believe WotC would stoop so low as to close down fan sites), and commercial content would fall under the GSL - which would be a fairly typical franchise-type deal. 

I like open gaming. A lot. It has given me great stuff, but also a great sense of belonging, freedom, and community. I am going to test-drive 4e, but the fact that is isn't open is a huge point against it for me. I suspect 4e will be great. The main thing that will keep it from moving away from it, however, would be the work required to create an OGL (or public domain) clone (or better yet - an amalgam of it and other great gaming ideas). It is very possible that by the time I'm done testing it, OGL clones will be extant. I intend to seriously browse them and use them as-is or as raw material for my own homebrew sysetm.

I have nothing against propriety ownership of games. My favorite game is Ars Magica, and you won't hear me bitching that I'm gonna go OGL on its ass. But the taste of freedom is addictive, and I see no reason to go back to the days of solitude for my D&D games.


----------



## Nosey Goblin

Orcus said:
			
		

> I said it back in the day and I will say it again--*open gaming was a renaissance of the golden age of D&D from its early days* when companies like Judges Guild and Wee Warriors (check them out if you want some D&D history!) and others made stuff for the game. When it was at its peak. It felt like that again with early 3E.
> 
> It truly was a reawakening of that golden age. Everyone involved felt it. Ryan felt it. I felt it.



(emphasis mine)

So could it be said that Open Gaming helps promote the "First Edition Feel" in D&D as much as the style of the adventures themselves? When third parties operate under looser restrictions they can tread the same ground the old greats did back in the day.

Anyhow, my main reaosn for posting is this question:

Clark, I know your not psychic and all, but as an attourney what would you see the legal team at WotC advising the management? Both assuming they understand gaming, and assuming they don't/ (I'll understand if you don't want to answer put words into other people's mouths).

Regards,

Shane


----------



## mxyzplk

Nosey GoblinClark said:
			
		

> I'm not Clark, but one of the complicating factors about all this is that it's not clear whose "call" it is or whether the issues are coming from the WotC or Hasbro level.
> 
> Normally, corporate legal teams always advise "don't share nothin'!"  But a good corporate management team knows when to listen and when not to.  I asked this question to a bunch of Web entrepeneurs (Facebook, Flickr, etc.) who were doing a panel on protecting your intellectual property rights at South by Southwest Interactive.  "This panel's about protecting your stuff, but obviously many of you have partially or totally built your companies on sharing things."  They launghed, and said sure, the legal team always has a valuable perspective but when it comes down to it all they're there for is to analyse and minimize the risk of a course of action - the business types analyze the reward and balance it against the legal team's advice, and when it outweighs it it outweighs it.  And they admit a lot of the time it's hard to quantify the reward, but "feeling" it is as good - that's why they're millionaires and we (and their legal team) are not.
> 
> Now in this case it is complicated by having Hasbro above WotC.  In that case you need "permission."  It's possible they pushed the GSL up and they said "Hold on a minute.  We let people make Monopoly variants but they pay is for ths privilege.  What's this open rules nonsense?  Someone could make Monopolies wihtout paying us!  Unacceptable!"
> 
> But in the end this is probably not a "legal" call.  It's a business call.  Whose call, they're being very secretive about.


----------



## catsclaw

Orcus said:
			
		

> Of course B would be the easiest and would be my preference as Clark from Necromancer Games. But I mean if I was Wizards, I would choose C.



Unfortunately, the question seems to be what would you pick if you were Hasbro?


----------



## Dark Mistress

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, and there are several ways to react to that. I'd post and say "hey, rad idea you have there. Coincidentally, you will probably like product XYZ that we are working on that is pretty similar."
> 
> That said, the "what you post here is ours" mentality is pretty prevalent and cant really be used as a "Wizards is evil!" argument.  They arent evil. They are just a tad more corporate than the gamer mentality is comfortable with. Which is why there will always be a bit of friction. And I dont mean that as disrespect to Wizards. I am a huge supporter. I am the guy telling people to calm down about licenses being under NDAs. Its normal. But it certainly chaffes the gamer mind.




Just to be clear I don't think they are evil and i know why and get why they are doing it. I am just one of those it bugs and I was only saying that was why I won't post idea's there. And the above on how Clark would react is why i would post the same said idea's on Necro boards.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm sad to hear that, but I cant disagree with you.




Well, the good news is that a robust Pathfinder/3e community almost ensures that Necro will see some of my dollars anyway, assuming I can find some of your older stuff I still don't have (Wilderlands, some adventures, etc.)

I can't think of any reason that you won't see me spending the same amount of money on Necro print and PDF products as I always have-- it just probably won't be 4e stuff.


----------



## Rauol_Duke

*A bit off-topic...*

Clark, if the GSL, or whatever WotC ends up dealing you, is too restrictive to do all of the things you want to do with 4E, would you consider continuing to publish those things not allowed by the GSL using the OGL as 3.5 products?  If so, can you comment on where that would leave a product such as _Slumbering Tsar, Part 1: The Desolation_?  I would truely like to see that, as well as the other parts published using the 3.5 rules.

Thanks.


----------



## DaveMage

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I can't think of any reason that you won't see me spending the same amount of money on Necro print and PDF products as I always have-- it just probably won't be 4e stuff.




I'd just thought I'd quote this again for Clark to see.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd just thought I'd quote this again for Clark to see.




Well, PDF publishing pretty much ensures that 3.5 products will never go out of print...

... and Pathfinder pretty much ensures that 3.5 products won't go out of style.


----------



## Orcus

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> Clark, if the GSL, or whatever WotC ends up dealing you, is too restrictive to do all of the things you want to do with 4E, would you consider continuing to publish those things not allowed by the GSL using the OGL as 3.5 products?  If so, can you comment on where that would leave a product such as _Slumbering Tsar, Part 1: The Desolation_?  I would truely like to see that, as well as the other parts published using the 3.5 rules.
> 
> Thanks.




My number one goal, philosophically, is to support the modern version of the rules. I'v explained why in numerous threads. If 4E is licensed, I dont really see a way it would be too restrictive for me. Just make adventures? Fine. Just make sourcebooks? Fine. 

The only way I could see directly supporting 3.5 is if 4E wasnt licensed at all. 

But this thread is about what is up with the OGL/GSL/4E, not so much my publishing plans. I can start a seperate thread for that.


----------



## Rauol_Duke

Orcus said:
			
		

> My number one goal, philosophically, is to support the modern version of the rules. I'v explained why in numerous threads. If 4E is licensed, I dont really see a way it would be too restrictive for me. Just make adventures? Fine. Just make sourcebooks? Fine.
> 
> The only way I could see directly supporting 3.5 is if 4E wasnt licensed at all.
> 
> But this thread is about what is up with the OGL/GSL/4E, not so much my publishing plans. I can start a seperate thread for that.




Fair enough, Clark.  Thanks for the prompt reply.  I'll look forward to hearing what you've got planned.


----------



## Orcus

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> Fair enough, Clark.  Thanks for the prompt reply.  I'll look forward to hearing what you've got planned.




No problem!

Presuming 4E is open to some extent, and the following products are allowed, I am plannining several cool things:

1. The Iron Tower Adventure Path
2. Tome of Horrors 4E
3. The Advanced Player's Guide (with some alternative classes and things, such as druids and bards, etc; not intended to supplant whatever official version Wizards does, just provided as alternates).

and, just for you, a little scoop--I havent even posted on my own boards:

4. Tegel Manor

I just got things straightened out with Bob Bledsaw for it to go forward for 4E if 4E is open to any degree that would allow it.

Clark


----------



## Orcus

By the way, if you want evidence of what open gaming can do -- look around.

This community is a community of open gaming. This site started as a 3E scoop site and quickly turned into a community for open gaming and third party publishers. Heck, ENWorld does awards for OGL/d20 products. It has a print company that publishes d20/OGL products!

Just look what open gaming has done. 

This community is a voice. It is a presence. Even those here who arent thinking of adopting 4E or are vocally in favor of it (like me), we are here voicing our views on a site that is the result of open gaming. And we have all stuck with D&D and with this site for as long as we have in large part because of open gaming and the companies that come from it, and more importantly all of our ability to use our creativity and support the game we love. Is Wizards losing money from our books or the pdf publishers? Goodness, of course not. But here we are at this huge community, that is essentially a shrine to open gaming. 

I think this community will do the same for 4E. 

I remember at first here at ENWorld there were naysayers for 3E (hard to imagine, I know  . But look at what happened. We all thrived and grew together because we were all allowed to add our creativity to the game we love. It kept us playing D&D. 

This whole site is a testament to open gaming. Think about that for a minute. 

It was a stroke of pure genius to open D&D. It empowered all of us gamers, who are a creative lot, to add to and build on the game we love so much. D&D isnt like, say, Diet Coke--a product that you consume. D&D is a passion for us and a lifestyle. Allowing us to support it is essentially allowing us to be a part of it and that in turn keeps us connected to it.

I know that Wizards understands that. 

Remember, Wizards is the company that saved D&D and that provided open gaming in the first place. I, for one, support them and I believe that they still support open gaming. I have to believe that. 

So if I was the cause of any discontent last Friday, I am sorry.  I am passionate because I care about D&D and about open gaming. Where would this community be without it?

Clark


----------



## Orcus

Nosey Goblin said:
			
		

> Clark, I know your not psychic and all, but as an attourney what would you see the legal team at WotC advising the management? Both assuming they understand gaming, and assuming they don't/ (I'll understand if you don't want to answer put words into other people's mouths).




I am not a psychic. They cut that power from Orcus when they went to 4E  Just kidding. 

I am also not going to give legal advice 

But if I was Wizards, I would do one of two things:

Either:

1. Just make a smarter SRD and use the current OGL; or 
2. Make a smart SRD for 4E, designate it all as PI and provide a PI agreement for us that brings back into it all the restrictions from the STL/Guide, and provide a D&D logo. 

I outlined the options before earlier in this thread I think (I get so confused). 

Notice that both of my options include doing teh SRD for 4E differently than they did for 3E. I know that will aggravate some people, but that is what I would do.

Clark


----------



## Orcus

If you scroll up this page of the thread, you will see my four options as I see them. You asked what I would counsel Wizards to pick. Either B or C. In my thread I guessed they would do C, which is how I would structure the GSL if I was them.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Keep in mind Orcus can actually see both sides of the equation, as a fan of D&D, a publisher, and a lawyer who values IP and creative works.

This is what I've always argued.  I think Wizards will approve open gaming to some extent, but I also think the OGL was gave away too much of the game system.  Having clauses such as the right to revoke based on gross misconduct, the right to limit some IP from being used, and setting up quality standards just makes good sense.  Not to mention how people can abuse it by taking newly created work and putting it on-line for free.  

Also, one thing Orcus forgot in his A-D plans, is that Wizards now has to change the OGL to the GSL if they want to prevent people from using an older version of the OGL, which section 9 allows users to use older versions if they dislike the new restrictions.  So I doubt they will ever use the OGL again because of this.


----------



## Orcus

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Also, one thing Orcus forgot in his A-D plans, is that Wizards now has to change the OGL to the GSL if they want to prevent people from using an older version of the OGL, which section 9 allows users to use older versions if they dislike the new restrictions.  So I doubt they will ever use the OGL again because of this.




I already thought of that 

Actually, the problem isnt the OGL.

But if they chose "C" they could include in the PI agreement that it is usable with OGL version 1.0a or subsequent versions.

Because I am a goober and I love these licenses I have actaully taken a stab at drafting them how I would do them.  So I thought through that stuff already. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

Sorry I am blasting posts out so quick. I am just doing this over lunch.


----------



## Voadam

Orcus said:
			
		

> There are four options:
> 
> *A. Close 4E.* Nothing more to discuss.
> 
> *B. Use the OGL.* That's easy. Just create the 4E SRD and say "this is released as open game content". Then let us use it under the license.
> 
> *C. License the PI and work those restrictions from the old STL back in.*
> 
> This would be really really easy.
> 
> 1. Designate ALL of the 4E core books and their contents as PI and require us to agree not to challenge or dispute said designation or to challenge ownership.
> 
> 2. Then, give the publishers permission per OGL section 7 to use that PI under the OGL v1.0a subject to certain conditions--namely, that they follow some of the conditions from the STL/Guide:
> 
> a. no describing character creation,
> b. no describing applying XP to a charcter
> c. no interactive games
> d. no minis
> e. no using "core rules"
> f. must meet community standards of decency, such as nudity, race and religion as found in the STL.
> 
> (you know, all the terms people got around by just going OGL and not using the d20 license because the d20 logo became meaningless).
> 
> 3. Permit publishers to say "For use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" on their products.
> 
> 4. Provide some version of the D&D logo, similar to the one on the back of the "Wizards Presents..." books for our use.
> 
> 5. Let us refer to the name of the book and page numbers for goodness sake!
> 
> 6. Require us to say "This product uses content from the Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All such content is Product Identity and is used with permission and by seperate agreement. No such content is Open Game Content."
> 
> Then create a smart SRD. Dont just retype all the stuff. All that does is slow the SRD down and prevents us from supporting their future releases. Instead, for each product, simply do a Section 15 listing like what we would for an OGL product telling us how you want us to reference that book, with a provision that we have to say the blurb above. And as each book comes out, update the smart SRD with the title of the book and add it to the PI permission document.
> 
> Its real easy to license this stuff and keep all the restrictions Wizards is likely concerned about.
> 
> *D. Create a brand new license called the GSL.*
> 
> This is something that could be made from scratch. So its biggest benefit is that new people who didnt do the OGL can say, "yeah, I made that." I have no idea what the issues are. But the downside is that we have been working with the OGL for about 8 years now. We know what can and cant be done. We know how to use it. I'm not sure creating a brand new license is needed when you can simply use *C*, above.
> 
> *My Opinion*
> 
> I think C is the best choice. It continues open gaming. It continues a license we all know how to work with. It works back in the restrictions that Wizards wanted in the license in the first place with the d2) STL. It ties the license back to D&D, which is really what Wizards wants to do--sell D&D books. It precents stand alone competing game systems like M&M, which arguably dont add as much to Wizards' percieved value of open gaming as do, say, products that straight support D&D. It protects their content by making it all PI which is impregnable in the OGL and, frankly, PI is protected even more solidly that regular copyright and it requires us not to challenge ownership.




Doesn't your suggested C1 violate the OGL if WotC designates the game rule mechanics from the 4e books as IP under the OGL instead of as OGC in an OGL product?

If there is new 4e IP material such as Shadowfell and Feywild that they declare as IP and license off of that and the 4e D&D statements then it seems to work no problem, but I thought under the OGL Section 1 (d) and (e) game mechanics must be OGC and PI explicitly excludes OGC.



> (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic
> and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to
> the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
> and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional
> content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the
> Contributor, and means any work covered by this License,
> including translations and derivative works under copyright law,
> but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity"
> means product and product line names, logos and identifying
> marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters;
> stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents,
> language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses,
> formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and
> other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of
> characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas,
> likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments,
> creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects,
> logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or
> registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the
> owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the
> Open Game Content;


----------



## mhensley

Orcus said:
			
		

> The only way I could see directly supporting 3.5 is if 4E wasnt licensed at all.
> 
> But this thread is about what is up with the OGL/GSL/4E, not so much my publishing plans. I can start a seperate thread for that.





No disrespect, but didn't you almost close down Necromancer due to poor sales over the past couple of years.  And that was with you producing for an in-print version of D&D.  I can't see how the lack of a 4e license wouldn't be fatal for you guys.


----------



## catsclaw

Orcus said:
			
		

> Sorry I am blasting posts out so quick. I am just doing this over lunch.



No worries.  With the possible exception of WotC posters, you're near a lock on "most informed opinion" here.


----------



## Papa-DRB

Orcus said:
			
		

> Because I am a goober and I love these licenses I have actually taken a stab at drafting them how I would do them.  Clark




Off Topic --- Oh, I just fell out of my chair laughing over this!!! Thank you Clark,


----------



## Ydars

I almost wet myself as well! What a classic.

But honestly, I agree with you Clark; if the GSL is more restrictive than OGL, then so be it. As long as 3rd parties and fans can produce SOMETHING to add to and support D&D then I am happy. It would certainly ally my fears over WoTCs internal world view and I believe, would be the smart move for them as well.

No one is asking them to allow standalone 4e based 3PP games; we already knew some time ago that they were saying "no" to this and I did not say a word. It was when they started getting all corporate and coy over GSL that I started to smell a rat and hence the acoompanying thread.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> Remember, Wizards is the company that saved D&D and that provided open gaming in the first place. I, for one, support them and I believe that they still support open gaming. I have to believe that.




Hey Clark,

The problem I have with the statement above is that it implies something that isn't true. Yes WotC saved D&D, but that was a WotC run by Peter and a vision of D&D run by Ryan. It's a VERY different company right now and I'm not sure that the people in positions that matter care that much about Open Gaming.

I hope I'm wrong, because I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if it wasn't for the OGL, but I'm starting to think I'm not. :/

Hyrum.


----------



## Roman

I have made a poll on the issue of purchasing behavior with respect to 4E and whether it is open or closed. You can find it here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4138993&posted=1#post4138993


----------



## Orcus

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> Hey Clark,
> 
> The problem I have with the statement above is that it implies something that isn't true. Yes WotC saved D&D, but that was a WotC run by Peter and a vision of D&D run by Ryan. It's a VERY different company right now and I'm not sure that the people in positions that matter care that much about Open Gaming.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, because I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if it wasn't for the OGL, but I'm starting to think I'm not. :/
> 
> Hyrum.




Hyrum-

To some extent you are right. It is different people. But I have spoken with Scott and Linae about this stuff. I know they believe in open gaming. I know they see the value of it. I know they understand the value of the 3P publishers to migrating existing customers to 4E. I know they understand the value of keeping people playing D&D.

What I cant tell you is how far that gets us. 

But I think they deserve our benefit of the doubt. 

Clark


----------



## Nosey Goblin

Orcus said:
			
		

> If you scroll up this page of the thread, you will see my four options as I see them. You asked what I would counsel Wizards to pick. Either B or C. In my thread I guessed they would do C, which is how I would structure the GSL if I was them.




Ah, I must have missed them. Thanks.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it would be nice to get a definitive answer - no matter if its what we want to hear or not - just so folks can start moving forward.


Shane


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hyrum-
> 
> To some extent you are right. It is different people. But I have spoken with Scott and Linae about this stuff. I know they believe in open gaming. I know they see the value of it. I know they understand the value of the 3P publishers to migrating existing customers to 4E. I know they understand the value of keeping people playing D&D.
> 
> What I cant tell you is how far that gets us.
> 
> But I think they deserve our benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Clark




I've got no doubt that Scott and Linae are on our side.  

But, I don't know if the VP of their department is, much less the new guy from Hasbro. 

Hyrum.


----------



## mhensley

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> But, I don't know if the VP of their department is, much less the new guy from Hasbro.




Here's his picture.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Orcus said:
			
		

> I know they understand the value of keeping people playing D&D.




Orcus, you and Mona and top 3rd party publishers have vouched for Rouse and many others in the past.  So I have no doubt that they are all pro-OGL people.  My (and sounds like others) doubts are about those that sign their pay checks.


----------



## Orcus

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Orcus, you and Mona and top 3rd party publishers have vouched for Rouse and many others in the past.  So I have no doubt that they are all pro-OGL people.  My (and sounds like others) doubts are about those that sign their pay checks.




I hear what you are saying.

But consider this: if they were going to have killed open gaming, they could have done it already. All this hair pulling and tooth gnashing that seems to be going on over there suggests to me that the struggle is over HOW to do it, not over WHETHER OR NOT to do it at all.

That is one of the things that keeps me positive. 

Clark


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Orcus said:
			
		

> I hear what you are saying.
> 
> But consider this: if they were going to have killed open gaming, they could have done it already. All this hair pulling and tooth gnashing that seems to be going on over there suggests to me that the struggle is over HOW to do it, not over WHETHER OR NOT to do it at all.
> 
> That is one of the things that keeps me positive.
> 
> Clark



Or are they contemplating so long how they kill it? Totally? For 3.x, too? 
Maybe they are developing a time machine to retroactively undo the OGL, or rather add a special caluse "This license is only applicable until June 2008, after which no more products under this license may be published" to avoid the timeline changing to much...


----------



## dmccoy1693

Orcus said:
			
		

> But consider this: if they were going to have killed open gaming, they could have done it already. All this hair pulling and tooth gnashing that seems to be going on over there suggests to me that the struggle is over HOW to do it, not over WHETHER OR NOT to do it at all.




Fair point.  What do you think of this counter-point?  How do you cook frog legs?  If you put the live frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll jump out before you can get the lid on.  If you put it in a pot of cold water and slowly heat it, he'll stay in and die.  

What if we're looking at the OGL from the wrong angle?  What if it's not WotC vs. Customers/3rd party publishers?  What if instead the real struggle is between Upper Management and Employees?  If Upper Management told their employees before GenCon that 4E would not be open, how many of them would have been as gung-ho pro-4E if they knew they had to face their friends at Paizo at their weekly games and tell them that their boss just killed the game they're writing for?  How many of them would have been as excited about their game if they knew they weren't going to surprise their fellow employees with a monster out of the Tome of Horrors?  How fast would morale sink?  How many former Paizo employees would quit and seek out a job with Paizo?  How many OGL supporters would follow?  How many of them would do like Monte Cook and start their own company?

Possible scenario:  Upper management tells the employees that they are not going to issue anything to 3rd party publishers until the employees finish the rules.  They get them in binders and then have a confrence call with publishers.  They get NDAs.  Then upper management "raises the water temperature some" by saying they're not going to do an OGL but a GSL and its going to take time to develop this new license.  2 months later, still no license.  The final books are sent off to the publisher.  They still need their employees for supplements so they announce they're still vetting the final policy.  And once their employees get use to the idea of there being D&D products without 3rd party support, they announce there will be no open gaming.

What do you think?

(For the record, I use to be middle management.  Management does have to consider the logistics of employee retention in their plans.  Yes, I am very glad I am no longer at that job.)


----------



## xechnao

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> What do you think?




I think that it is difficult to believe that the employees get to know or suspect nothing if such a plan is in case. Equally I think it is difficult to hide and have such a plan against your employees.


----------



## dmccoy1693

xechnao said:
			
		

> I think that it is difficult to believe that the employees get to know or suspect nothing if such a plan is in case. Equally I think it is difficult to hide and have such a plan against your employees.



Factories get closed, subsideraries get sold off, departments get downsized all the time without employees suspecting until a public announcement is made.


----------



## mxyzplk

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Fair point.  What do you think of this counter-point?  How do you cook frog legs?  If you put the live frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll jump out before you can get the lid on.  If you put it in a pot of cold water and slowly heat it, he'll stay in and die.




I totally agree.  I doubt they're "revisiting" anything - whatever license there is would be at the printer with the core books.  They've been deliberately stringing along everyone in hopes that they could minimize the damage.  I'd guess they'll wait until after the books come out, and maybe right post Gen Con so they don't have to deal with gamer revolt there, and then say "Yeah so we thought about it and no third party products."

There would be some companies that usually conduct themselves openly and honestly that I wouldn't believe that of, but the current Hasbro/WotC - you better believe it.


----------



## xechnao

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Factories get closed, subsideraries get sold off, departments get downsized all the time without employees suspecting until a public announcement is made.




We are not talking about factories but the entertainment industry. The environment is not equally the same.


----------



## mxyzplk

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Factories get closed, subsideraries get sold off, departments get downsized all the time without employees suspecting until a public announcement is made.




Yeah, really!  Has anyone here actually worked in a business?  Come on people.

Happened to Black Industries (Warhammer RPG) just a couple months ago.  Game Workshop shut 'em right down.  

Some of the employees may "suspect" - but you usually don't want to quit what could be  a sweet job on "suspicion."  Even when managers, who part of you knows you shouldn't believe but human nature makes you want to, are reassuring you and saying "Oh, we'll get through this," "You know, delays with upper management," etc.  Even when there have been a round or two of layoffs, people still stick with it.  Then they show up and there's a padlock on the door and they don't get their last paycheck until after a year of siccing the US Department of Labor on someone.  (This true life example brought to you by a publishing company.  No one's "different.")

An unfortunate number of companies still firmly believe in the "lie to 'em as long as you can" model of employee and customer communication.


----------



## xechnao

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Yeah, really!  Has anyone here actually worked in a business?  Come on people.
> 
> Happened to Black Industries (Warhammer RPG) just a couple months ago.  Game Workshop shut 'em right down.
> 
> Some of the employees may "suspect" - but you usually don't want to quit what could be  a sweet job on "suspicion."  Even when managers, who part of you knows you shouldn't believe but human nature makes you want to, are reassuring you and saying "Oh, we'll get through this," "You know, delays with upper management," etc.  Even when there have been a round or two of layoffs, people still stick with it.  Then they show up and there's a padlock on the door and they don't get their last paycheck until after a year of siccing the US Department of Labor on someone.  (This true life example brought to you by a publishing company.  No one's "different.")
> 
> An unfortunate number of companies still firmly believe in the "lie to 'em as long as you can" model of employee and customer communication.




Again do you know their relations? Do you know how it worked and works out for these people eventually? It is wrong to equate the relations of the labor industry with the entertainment industry.


----------



## Lizard

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> I totally agree.  I doubt they're "revisiting" anything - whatever license there is would be at the printer with the core books. .




This is highly dubious. The license is going to be data -- or run off on an office printer and snail-mailed to 'early adopters'. It's not like the 3x books included copies of the OGL.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Let me state, that I don't want to start another panic.  This is just a theory from a former middle management person.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I've never been upper management.  I know no one at Wizards.  I have no clue how close upper management is to their employees.  I have no inside info as to much much/little people like brand managers are included in legal decisions and so on.


----------



## Lizard

I have very little -- almost no -- doubt that any public statements made by people WRT to the OGL/GSL were believed by the people making them when they made them. I also strongly doubt anyone deliberately deceived employees as to the future of the OGL.

I do believe people changed their minds -- or that management itself changed.

I also believe that there were errors in people's beliefs about how flexible the OGL was and how it could be 'modified' with ease. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.

I think a combination of misunderstanding of the OGL and changes in both policy and personnel led WOTC to their current state of indecisiveness. I also think that no matter what policy they put worth, they've burned a LOT of goodwill. WOTC earned tremendous trust with the 'gentleman's agreement' back in 2000; it became a sign that companies could work with them and not get screwed. While no one paid money for the GSL yet, I know of companies which made plans and committed resources based on WOTCs timeline, which has cost them; I know of at least two companies which might have been planning to make 4e supplements but which, due to the delays, have reallocated resources towards other, competing, products. How all this translates into the 'bottom line' is very uncertain, but it's a clumsy misstep in public and corporate relations.


----------



## Alzrius

I'm wondering if any of the delays - and possible alterations - to the OGL this late are related to some of the other things WotC has seemingly done wrong lately.

If you think about it, WotC seems to have been tripping over its own feet almost since 4E was announced. Specifically, I'm referring to the fiasco involved with moving _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ online. First they say they're going to have them be appearing on their website from now on until 4E launches. Then both magazines experience massive delays. Then the announcement that e-_Dragon_ was going to basically serve as a 4E promo until the new edition launched.

Clearly, there was a lack of planning, and insufficient resources, taken with that particular step. Likewise, the GSL appears to have been similarly mis-managed in being held up so much, and apparently still being worked on.

Could the two have anything to do with each other, and/or with WotC receiving a new president? How deep do all of these internal troubles go?


----------



## DaveMage

Lizard said:
			
		

> I have very little -- almost no -- doubt that any public statements made by people WRT to the OGL/GSL were believed by the people making them when they made them. I also strongly doubt anyone deliberately deceived employees as to the future of the OGL.
> 
> I do believe people changed their minds -- or that management itself changed.




Then WotC higher management has killed their credibility going forward.  How can anything they say (without written proof) have any value?

It reminds me of a column in Dragon Magazine shortly before TSR died.  Allan Varney (IIRC) wrote a column indicating how well TSR was doing.  It turned out to be quite incorrect.  The credibility of that column was instantly destroyed.  (Not that I blame Allan or those caught in the middle here, but it does mean that as long as they are in their current positions, their word alone loses significant value, IMO.)


----------



## Ydars

I am sure Scott and the others believed there would be a GSL when they announced it so there are three possible reasons for a backtrack/delay/cancellation;

1) Unable to deliver; WoTC seem to work by defining what they want to acheive, then they try and make it a reality. This is what they did with the 4E game engine itself so I suspect that they may have started out with the presmise "GSL will be a restricted OGL that doesn't support standalone games" and announced this. Then they now find they can't actually achieve it legally without undesirable side-effects (letting people use FR or Mindflayers because they wanted no settings books). Or that one legal stategy compromises other projects that they have yet to announce.

2) There has been a change of heart at WoTC because of new personnel (New CEO).

3) The reaction by 3PPs to the adoption of 4E was so lukewarm at the conference call (or read by WoTC as this) that they decided there was actually no real appetite for a GSL within the 3PP industry.

3 seems incredibly unlikely given what Clark at Necro has told us and his very public endorsement of 4E. I would like to know more about the attitude of the parties at that meeting (but it is probably all NDA'ed to hell, so no chance of that).

All in all, the delay is not very heartening and nor is the silence. I am hearing alot of static at the moment..sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


----------



## JamesM

I will make a prediction based on nothing but gut instinct, so feel free to mock me either now or later if I'm proven wrong.

Ready?

There will be no free, open license for 4e at all. There _may_ be -- and I'm not even sure of this -- a paid, limited use trademark license available for 4e at some point for a select few publishers. They may even call this license the Game System License to save face, but it will bear little to no relationship either to the OGL/D20 STL or what people expect the still-unseen GSL to be.

I'll even add a further detail to my prediction: this new GSL-but-not won't be available to third parties till after GenCon 2008, if not later.


----------



## HyrumOWC

JamesM said:
			
		

> There will be no free, open license for 4e at all. There _may_ be -- and I'm not even sure of this -- a paid, limited use trademark license available for 4e at some point for a select few publishers. They may even call this license the Game System License to save face, but it will bear little to no relationship either to the OGL/D20 STL or what people expect the still-unseen GSL to be.
> 
> I'll even add a further detail to my prediction: this new GSL-but-not won't be available to third parties till after GenCon 2008, if not later.




I'm pretty sure that there will be a paid, limited license available for companies like Necro, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, and the others on the call. I don't think that 4e will be open for awhile, if ever.

I would love to be wrong because I've got ideas for 4e products I'd like to sell, but the signals I'm seeing from WotC are all pointing towards the above.

Hyrum.


----------



## mxyzplk

JamesM said:
			
		

> I will make a prediction based on nothing but gut instinct, so feel free to mock me either now or later if I'm proven wrong.
> 
> Ready?
> 
> There will be no free, open license for 4e at all. There _may_ be -- and I'm not even sure of this -- a paid, limited use trademark license available for 4e at some point for a select few publishers. They may even call this license the Game System License to save face, but it will bear little to no relationship either to the OGL/D20 STL or what people expect the still-unseen GSL to be.
> 
> I'll even add a further detail to my prediction: this new GSL-but-not won't be available to third parties till after GenCon 2008, if not later.




Oh, I totally agree.  

1.  They'll make sure and delay the "closed" announcement till after June (because they want to sell books to people that wouldn't buy if they heard "closed" but will give in when it's "undefined".

2.  They'll wait till after gen Con so they don't have flash mobs chanting "OGL!  OGL!" at the Wizards area in the dealer room all the time.

3.  Then they'll announce that no, it won't be open, and that there's some super secret licensing scheme that they'll discuss with "reputable companies."  They'll then extract money from the big 3ps to put out D&D branded stuff.  

All this is decided now, it's just being timed so as to avoid "unfortunate side effects", like havingto deal with the fact that a very large percentage (20%, according to the poll) of their customers don't like this.


----------



## Delta

I actually think that that's about the most likely thing at this point. Or possibly they want to line up maybe 2 specific projects so they can announce "We've listened to you, and we're working with the biggest names in gaming to bring you the support products you demanded blah blah blah".


----------



## JamesM

Delta said:
			
		

> I actually think that that's about the most likely thing at this point. Or possibly they want to line up maybe 2 specific projects so they can announce "We've listened to you, and we're working with the biggest names in gaming to bring you the support products you demanded blah blah blah".



Wow, you should work in marketing  That's a brilliant spin on it and probably the best way to sew a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a screw-up.

(That said, I'm not at all convinced even this will happen)


----------



## Delta

Heh, yeah.  After a couple days rumination that really is my best guess for what's happening behind the blackout. I guess if I was forced into the same position that's what I'd recommend -- but feel pretty cruddy about it at the same time.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I'm disappointed in the blackout, because the one thing I would hope WoTC, Hasbro, and all others involved is that the player base are not idiots.  It reminds me of what used to be status quo in things like radio and TV--somebody leaves the news desk or a DJ leaves, you sort of pretend they never exist and don't address their departure, or not ever naming your competition.  In this day and age that attitude is somewhat insulting.  I know it's not L's fault but she's getting orders from somebody who isn't factoring this into play.

However, the quietness tells me that there may be a bigger bombshell on the horizon.  Perhaps Hasbro is selling the D&D game/brand and needs to tighten up any IP problems involved with an open license, or Wizards is being absorbed into Hasbro.  Perhaps they want to keep the rules out of third party's hands because they've patented a few critical mechanics, and want to prevent other companies from previewing them and trying to challenge the patent.  Or perhaps Hasbro is merging with another company.


----------



## hossrex

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed in the blackout, because the one thing I would hope WoTC, Hasbro, and all others involved is that the player base are not idiots.  It reminds me of what used to be status quo in things like radio and TV--somebody leaves the news desk or a DJ leaves, you sort of pretend they never exist and don't address their departure, or not ever naming your competition.  In this day and age that attitude is somewhat insulting.  I know it's not L's fault but she's getting orders from somebody who isn't factoring this into play.
> 
> However, the quietness tells me that there may be a bigger bombshell on the horizon.  Perhaps Hasbro is selling the D&D game/brand and needs to tighten up any IP problems involved with an open license, or Wizards is being absorbed into Hasbro.  Perhaps they want to keep the rules out of third party's hands because they've patented a few critical mechanics, and want to prevent other companies from previewing them and trying to challenge the patent.  Or perhaps Hasbro is merging with another company.




The biggest "Yes Chicken Little, the Sky IS Falling" post of the year.

It so absurd nothing else can/need be said.  If thats what a person chooses to believe, then best of luck.  It shouldn't suit you far beyond hobby message boards.


----------



## JohnRTroy

What are you talking about, hossrex?  It's a legitimate concern, and none of those theories are out of the realm of possibility.  I didn't say "D&D was being killed" or anything like that.

This whole OGL/GSL/WTH (What the Hell) license issue has not been managed well by WoTC.  Third Edition they discussed all their plans a lot, they are being very quiet now and there has been a delay in getting information to the third parties involved, and from all perspectives they seem to be changing their minds.  

I think a lot of us can agree that this has not been handled very well, so I do have to wonder what's going on.  Usually, when a company gets very quiet there's some cause for concern, there is precedent when companies are sold or introducing major policy shifts.  I've seen that happen before in entertainment and software industries.


----------



## Dragon Snack

Well, you did throw out a lot of overly drastic things in that post.  I agree that something big is coming and I doubt I'm going to like the outcome either, but about the only thing I think is realistic in your bombshell list is that D&D might end up for sale (not likely, but releasing a new edition so your sales look better is a classic move).

-Dragon Snack



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It reminds me of what used to be status quo in things like radio and TV--somebody leaves the news desk or a DJ leaves, you sort of pretend they never exist and don't address their departure...



What do you mean "used to be status quo"?  It's still done all the time, it just may not be as easy to get away with when listeners start complaining on your website (or another radio station).

-DJ Uno


----------



## Eridanis

Hossrex - posters at ENworld are entitled to their opinions, as long as they are couched in polite terms. Whether you agree with someone or not, please treat them with courtesy. The FAQ page can help if you have questions, or feel free to email me directly.


----------



## carmachu

Orcus said:
			
		

> I was a bit grouchy today, and it came through in my posts. I posted some thoughts I was having. But that shouldnt change the fact that I trust the people at Wizards to do this and to do it right. I know Linae and Scott are good people. I know this will get ironed out.





I keep hearing that from you and others, adn I'll take your word for it. But perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Instead of asking/saying you trust the folks at WotC, do you trust Hasbro to come through? Ultimately they pull the strings.


----------



## carmachu

Ydars said:
			
		

> Take Games Workshop for example. They are a very successful company that makes business decisions that make perfect business sense, they just end up destroying whole swaves of the RPG market. They have just completely cut the most successful RPG of this year (at least in the UK it was outselling D&D 4:1) Dark Heresy because it doesn't fit in with their short-term business plans anymore. I see the same one day happening to D&D after they have alienated so many of us that no-one buys it anymore.




Games workshop is a very bad example. They've been tanking the last several years(ie- sales have been going down each year iwth an exception in '04, according to their public records), their stock has tanked badly, and have bad several business decisions that might NOT make perfect business sense at all.

Thats not including Dark Heresy....which has been liscenses/picked up by another party I believe....

You might want another example.


----------



## Orcus

carmachu said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that from you and others, adn I'll take your word for it. But perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Instead of asking/saying you trust the folks at WotC, do you trust Hasbro to come through? Ultimately they pull the strings.




Yes, I do. Good question. And I guess we'll just see whether or not my faith is well placed or not. I still think it is primarily a Wizards/D&D question. I dont think the dreaded "Hasbro suits" are as involved as people like to speculate. That is just my feeling from my conversations with people. I have no inside info on that. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Oh, I totally agree.
> 
> 1.  They'll make sure and delay the "closed" announcement till after June (because they want to sell books to people that wouldn't buy if they heard "closed" but will give in when it's "undefined".
> 
> 2.  They'll wait till after gen Con so they don't have flash mobs chanting "OGL!  OGL!" at the Wizards area in the dealer room all the time.
> 
> 3.  Then they'll announce that no, it won't be open, and that there's some super secret licensing scheme that they'll discuss with "reputable companies."  They'll then extract money from the big 3ps to put out D&D branded stuff.
> 
> All this is decided now, it's just being timed so as to avoid "unfortunate side effects", like havingto deal with the fact that a very large percentage (20%, according to the poll) of their customers don't like this.




OK, I say 4E is open, to some degree such as a GSL. Maybe not all the way as the OGL. But I dont think it will just be by super-secret individual licenses. 

Dinner at GenCon. Takers?


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> OK, I say 4E is open, to some degree such as a GSL. Maybe not all the way as the OGL. But I dont think it will just be by super-secret individual licenses.
> 
> Dinner at GenCon. Takers?




Can we define 'open' as "No fee required for production of supplements after some reasonable date"?


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Can we define 'open' as "No fee required for production of supplements after some reasonable date"?




Sure. Other than a "preview buy in" that they already announced, my money goes that there will be a publically available license for free.


----------



## catsclaw

Orcus said:
			
		

> Dinner at GenCon. Takers?



Just to be clear: I can take the bet, fully expecting to lose, and my penalty is being able to take you out to dinner at Gen Con?

That seems to be a rather big loophole, right there.


----------



## Orcus

catsclaw said:
			
		

> Just to be clear: I can take the bet, fully expecting to lose, and my penalty is being able to take you out to dinner at Gen Con?
> 
> That seems to be a rather big loophole, right there.




Yeah, but you have to buy and I like sushi--lots of sushi. 

Oh, and Seanchi is coming along


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you have to buy and I like sushi--lots of sushi.
> 
> Oh, and Seanchi is coming along




I like sushi too.

Is there an all-you-can-eat Sushi bar in Indy? I mean, gods, we have one in Louisville, for Ghu's sake...


----------



## catsclaw

Lizard said:
			
		

> Is there an all-you-can-eat Sushi bar in Indy?



Hrm.  Apparently there is.  The reviews are kind of inconsistent though, and it's 20 miles outside of downtown.  So if you're attending Gen Con, effectively, no.







			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh, and Seanchi is coming along.



That's not all bad.  I could use the ensuing distraction to slip out without paying the tab.


----------



## Filcher

We need a 3rd party publisher celebration dinner at Gen Con. 

And if there isn't an GSL, we can make it a wake.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Filcher said:
			
		

> We need a 3rd party publisher celebration dinner at Gen Con.
> 
> And if there isn't an GSL, we can make it a wake.




Or a pathfinder RPG 3rd party networking dinner.


----------



## Vigilance

I happen to agree that the GSL will be as initially advertised and not something totally different. 

This delay is a delay.

It's not a conspiracy or anything insidious. 

Until proven otherwise, I choose to believe Wizards is not lying that they continue to be committed to open gaming and that they deeply regret the delay.


----------



## catsclaw

Hey Clark -- is that bet still on the table?  I've just confirmed my tax refund check, so I'm no longer in danger of risking my mortgage if I lose.

I guess I'd be taking the opposite side--that 4e either doesn't have a public license at all, or the public license doesn't roughly resemble the d20 license.  Specifically, that means either 1) it costs money, or 2) it is so restrictive you cannot legally publish all of the following: a campaign setting, a new class, or a new race.  Branding limitations, "quality standards" provisions, and the ability to republish content in the PHB, MM, or DMG are all irrelevant.

Is it a bet?


----------



## Ydars

I am now with Clark; after everything I've heard about the GSL coming from people in the know, it seems more and more like there will be one, or at least that WoTC intends there to be one at this point in time. 

Just take a look at what Nick Logue said in response to that thread misquoting him and stating that WoTC was not hiring 3.5E writers. He said that WoTC had a few issues with one of his projects that would be cleared up after GSL had been sorted out.

If there was no intention to have a GSL, this is a strange thing to say. Now we can argue about what GSL actually means, but I think it will be like Scott Rouse said; an OGL that does not allow 3rd parties to produce games that don't require the core rulebooks.

I just hope I am right!


----------



## mxyzplk

Well, I hope y'all are right.  I'm definitely up for dinner at Gen Con.

I've decided not to worry about it so much.  You see, for me, 3e and the OGL were what re-interested me in D&D after me feeling it was pretty much played out and had moved on to other game systems.  I guess I was feeling unhappy that both the 4e changes and the reduction/elimination of the OGL are causing me to face that transition again.  

My more in depth and ranty thoughts that I'm sure would get modded if I posted them directly:

http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/wizards-presents-worlds-and-monsters-review/

In short I think I'm beginning to agree with xechnao.  Openness, while good for D&D, has been keeping a lot of writers/designers that can do much better work stuck in the "D&D ghetto."  If it weren't so open, then maybe people like Jonathan Tweet, Robin Laws, and Ray Winninger could work on good, groundbreaking games again.  The Paizo crew could put together their awesome story-driven adventures for something else.  (Well, they kinda are, now.)  So even though I believe the OGL to help the role-playing market financially, it's helping it "through" WotC - and obviously as recent events indicate, maybe that's not a healthy approach.


----------



## carmachu

Orcus said:
			
		

> I hear what you are saying.
> 
> But consider this: if they were going to have killed open gaming, they could have done it already. All this hair pulling and tooth gnashing that seems to be going on over there suggests to me that the struggle is over HOW to do it, not over WHETHER OR NOT to do it at all.
> 
> That is one of the things that keeps me positive.
> 
> Clark




Thats one way to look at it. The more pessimistic way is:

Their stringing you along, along with other 3rd party folks so when they do drop the hammer of no OGL/GSL, you'll have nothing for GenCon or summer release, and they have the 4e release free of any distractions of 3.X products to possibly draw folks away. So by the time 4e launch is over and you do get something out.....They've gotten it free of something like Pathfinder or Any Necro product.

Not saying thats what their doing at all. But even you have to admit thats a possibility. It celars the summer deck of any competetion......no matter how slight.


----------



## HyrumOWC

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Jonathan Tweet, Robin Laws, and Ray Winninger could work on good, groundbreaking games again.




Um, Jonathan Tweet is an employee of WotC, Robin Laws has been working on his Gumshoe games (including Trail of Cthulhu), and Ray is hip deep in video game work. 

Hyrum.


----------



## mxyzplk

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> Um, Jonathan Tweet is an employee of WotC, Robin Laws has been working on his Gumshoe games (including Trail of Cthulhu), and Ray is hip deep in video game work.
> 
> Hyrum.




Yes, I know.  So Robin and Ray have escaped, somewhat, though a lot of their work over the last N years have been d20-oriented.  And Laws still is, he's working on "some small, unnanounced projects for WotC" according to his blog.  Tweet needs to get the heck out of there!


----------



## Henry

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Tweet needs to get the heck out of there!




...However, the siren-song of a steady Nine-to-Five and a regular paycheck is a pretty intense one.


----------



## Seanchai

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh, and Seanchi is coming along




No thanks.

Seanchai


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, so now we've endured two weeks of absolute silence from WotC since that interesting quote from Liz Schuh. Only eight weeks left to the release of 4e. Will the silence continue to be as deafening?


----------



## HyrumOWC

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> OK, so now we've endured two weeks of absolute silence from WotC since that interesting quote from Liz Schuh. Only eight weeks left to the release of 4e. Will the silence continue to be as deafening?




Yes.



Hyrum.


----------



## Lizard

At this point, there's almost no point to a pre-release of the GSL. Given the lack of benefit and the fact several major players have already foregone 4e for at least the GenCon season, I'd guess WOTC has decided the best use of their resources would be on getting 4e out the door, and that a release-day announcement would be the best. In theory, I suppose if they released it tomorrow, a company could have *something* ready by GenCon, but, would it be worth paying 5000? 

I'm thinking that there'll be a new 'exclusivity period' going to 1/2010, or possibly to the end of GenCon 2009. (i.e, the flood of cheap PDFs will begin the day after GenCon 2009 ends.)

The longer it goes without an announcement, the better the odds the license will be more and more restrictive. I can't think of any reasons to delay announcing 'good news', but many to delay announcing 'bad'. As for the delay itself...well, it did have the effect of tying up competitor resources while they waited information on whether they could/could not commit to 4e.


----------



## mxyzplk

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> OK, so now we've endured two weeks of absolute silence from WotC since that interesting quote from Liz Schuh. Only eight weeks left to the release of 4e. Will the silence continue to be as deafening?




Sure; as they clearly plan to cancel it, they want to get 4e out and have everyone who's giving them the benefit of the doubt buy the books first.  Probably wait till after Gen Con so they don't have to "personally" deal with aggrieved gamers too.


----------



## Alzrius

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Sure; as they clearly plan to cancel it, they want to get 4e out and have everyone who's giving them the benefit of the doubt buy the books first.  Probably wait till after Gen Con so they don't have to "personally" deal with aggrieved gamers too.




I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how WotC thinks they'll be able to pull that off. They'll be holding seminars at Gen Con like everyone else, and they're dreaming if they think they won't be bombarded with questions about the GSL et al from fans and other publishers.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how WotC thinks they'll be able to pull that off. They'll be holding seminars at Gen Con like everyone else, and they're dreaming if they think they won't be bombarded with questions about the GSL et al from fans and other publishers.




Yeah, but they can say they're still looking into it and will have a decision "soon". If they cancel it before GenCon they have to talk about why in seminar after seminar after seminar.

Hyrum.


----------



## DaveMage

Lizard said:
			
		

> The longer it goes without an announcement, the better the odds the license will be more and more restrictive. I can't think of any reasons to delay announcing 'good news', but many to delay announcing 'bad'. As for the delay itself...well, it did have the effect of tying up competitor resources while they waited information on whether they could/could not commit to 4e.




At least many third party publishers don't use this as their main source of income and therefore aren't personally impacted, right?  And those that do have generally moved on to their own systems.

So maybe the delay really doesn't matter.

And since Paizo's taken up the 3.5 mantle, those that want to only make D&D products can do so for 3.5 until WotC gets its GSL act together.  It's not like 4E is going to flop, and it won't be going away any time soon, so if a third party publisher has to wait until next year to make a 4E product, is it really that big a deal?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

While the publisher side of the GSL could wait till after Gen Con they have to have something of a license by the June release. What I am thinking here is the consumer side and rights to republish on the web. They are dreaming if they think that people will hold off on web publishing campaigns, characters, house rules, and general chatter. Without some kind of license people will wonder whether what they put on the web will get a cease and desist letter or not. This does not need to be a license that allows for any for profit uses, but at least something that allows their customers to share information over the web. I don't want a repeat of TSR.


----------



## Lizard

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> While the publisher side of the GSL could wait till after Gen Con they have to have something of a license by the June release. What I am thinking here is the consumer side and rights to republish on the web. They are dreaming if they think that people will hold off on web publishing campaigns, characters, house rules, and general chatter. Without some kind of license people will wonder whether what they put on the web will get a cease and desist letter or not. This does not need to be a license that allows for any for profit uses, but at least something that allows their customers to share information over the web. I don't want a repeat of TSR.




They want people to use DDI/Gleemax for these things.

I think they will be as harsh, or worse, with online use of their material than TSR was, because their business model is so heavily based on the success of DDI/Gleemax. (Look at the 4e FAQ. Look how much is "What is D&D?". Look how much is "What is DDI?" It's obvious where they think their money is coming from -- the online subs, not the game books.


----------



## mhensley

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> OK, so now we've endured two weeks of absolute silence from WotC since that interesting quote from Liz Schuh. Only eight weeks left to the release of 4e. Will the silence continue to be as deafening?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Lizard said:
			
		

> They want people to use DDI/Gleemax for these things.
> 
> I think they will be as harsh, or worse, with online use of their material than TSR was, because their business model is so heavily based on the success of DDI/Gleemax. (Look at the 4e FAQ. Look how much is "What is D&D?". Look how much is "What is DDI?" It's obvious where they think their money is coming from -- the online subs, not the game books.




That may be their wish but its not going to happen. Sure DDI/"that which shall not be named" will appeal to some people but they will run into a PR nightmare if they think they can force everyone to use these. If they start sending out cease and desist letters before Gen Con I wouldn't want to be anywhere near their booth or seminars either. But without a GSL in place in June to let people know what is or is not acceptable there will be almost certain problems.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Lizard said:
			
		

> They want people to use DDI/Gleemax for these things.
> 
> I think they will be as harsh, or worse, with online use of their material than TSR was, because their business model is so heavily based on the success of DDI/Gleemax. (Look at the 4e FAQ. Look how much is "What is D&D?". Look how much is "What is DDI?" It's obvious where they think their money is coming from -- the online subs, not the game books.




While I'm increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for the GSL, I don't think that WotC will put in a new, harsher fan-site policy.

They've been friendly in the past to fan-sites and I think everybody's pretty much of the opinion that fan-sites aren't real competition for WotC's books or the for-pay features they'll have on Gleemax.  Fan-sites will likely work well as "feeders" for Gleemax by introducing customers to online content, then the people who want something more robust move on up to the pay site.


----------



## xechnao

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> While I'm increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for the GSL, I don't think that WotC will put in a new, harsher fan-site policy.
> 
> They've been friendly in the past to fan-sites and I think everybody's pretty much of the opinion that fan-sites aren't real competition for WotC's books or the for-pay features they'll have on Gleemax.  Fan-sites will likely work well as "feeders" for Gleemax by introducing customers to online content, then the people who want something more robust move on up to the pay site.




I agree with this.


----------



## Delta

My prediction is also that there will be some number of cease & desist letters going out to website operators by the end of the year.



			
				2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Fan-sites will likely work well as "feeders" for Gleemax by introducing customers to online content, then the people who want something more robust move on up to the pay site.




As another prediction, I think it's a safe bet that something like ENWorld will continue to be "more robust" than the official Gleemax DDI site. All historical data about WOTC digital services points in that direction.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Delta said:
			
		

> As another prediction, I think it's a safe bet that something like ENWorld will continue to be "more robust" than the official Gleemax DDI site. All historical data about WOTC digital services points in that direction.




I should be more clear -- by "robust" I mean having the actual content of the D&D books/magazines and various software gadgets like the tabletop and character generator.

As far as user-communities goes I think people will hang out where they always hung out and Gleemax won't have a significant edge there.  

In fact, WotC's best approach would be to forge strong ties between places like ENWorld and Gleemax so that people could sign on for the Gleemax tools, and hang out in the communities they prefer.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> OK, so now we've endured two weeks of absolute silence from WotC since that interesting quote from Liz Schuh. Only eight weeks left to the release of 4e. Will the silence continue to be as deafening?




Not only keep the WotC-people their silence, even our head demon withholds his pearls of demonic wisdom... I sense the presence of some weird conspiracy here...

---
Huldvoll

Jan van Leyden


----------



## Wystan

Good point, where is Orcus in all this here now?


----------



## mhensley

Delta said:
			
		

> My prediction is also that there will be some number of cease & desist letters going out to website operators by the end of the year.




If this happens, I predict wotc's sites will be the frequent target of dos attacks.


----------



## BryonD

Wystan said:
			
		

> Good point, where is Orcus in all this here now?



I'd say there is a 1% chance he has learned something and is being quiet and a 99% chance he just doesn't see any point in covering the same ground and contributing to keeping things stirred up in a lack of any further knowledge.


----------



## HyrumOWC

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> While I'm increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for the GSL, I don't think that WotC will put in a new, harsher fan-site policy.
> 
> They've been friendly in the past to fan-sites and I think everybody's pretty much of the opinion that fan-sites aren't real competition for WotC's books or the for-pay features they'll have on Gleemax.  Fan-sites will likely work well as "feeders" for Gleemax by introducing customers to online content, then the people who want something more robust move on up to the pay site.




The problem is that WotC wants Gleemax to function as a MySpace for gamers. One stop shopping for all your D&D needs. Letting people run fansites outside the Gleemax bubble is contrary to that vision. 

There's supposed to be a free component to Gleemax although they haven't been clear on what that is.

Hyrum.


----------



## Voadam

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd say there is a 1% chance he has learned something and is being quiet and a 99% chance he just doesn't see any point in covering the same ground and contributing to keeping things stirred up in a lack of any further knowledge.



99%?

I'd say there is a good chance that he is busy with other things such as say, his day job, and just not been around.


----------



## BryonD

Voadam said:
			
		

> 99%?
> 
> I'd say there is a good chance that he is busy with other things such as say, his day job, and just not been around.



He last logged in this morning.  

Though I don't understand why you are taking issue with me.  In the end my point is the same as yours, his lack of input is not meaningful.


----------



## Delta

mhensley said:
			
		

> If this happens, I predict wotc's sites will be the frequent target of dos attacks.




Frankly, I'd doubt that. D&D players aren't really that aggressive in real life. Anything's possible, I suppose.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Delta said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'd doubt that. D&D players aren't really that aggressive in real life. Anything's possible, I suppose.



If they targeted fan sites?  I'd absolutely hit them with some DDOS attacks, you start pissing on people and I'll return the favor.  Just ask Tajikistan how they liked it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

I honestly don't think they'll go after fan sites.  Heck, bigger outfits like Marvel, DC, Paramount, and even Disney to the best of my knowledge don't go after fan sites unless they make extremely serious breaches.  

Incentives to use Gleemax will probably be carrot based rather than stick based.


----------



## mhensley

Delta said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'd doubt that. D&D players aren't really that aggressive in real life. Anything's possible, I suppose.




Well, let's just say things would get mighty ugly for them on teh interwebs real fast.  TSR had no real competitors for the D&D market back when they were being jerks about things online.  Today is a very different story.  Nobody needs WotC to play D&D anymore.


----------



## Vigilance

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think they'll go after fan sites.  Heck, bigger outfits like Marvel, DC, Paramount, and even Disney to the best of my knowledge don't go after fan sites unless they make extremely serious breaches.
> 
> Incentives to use Gleemax will probably be carrot based rather than stick based.




This.

Today is not 1989. Companies have now realized that fansites help them, and have, for the most part, stopped going after them. 

The willingness, nay, blatant eagerness, of some folks in this thread (even those who have financially benefitted from the OGL) to attribute wide-sweeping malice to Wizards because of the delay in  the GSL is down right staggering. 

Chuck


----------



## trancejeremy

Vigilance said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> Today is not 1989. Companies have now realized that fansites help them, and have, for the most part, stopped going after them.
> 
> The willingness, nay, blatant eagerness, of some folks in this thread (even those who have financially benefitted from the OGL) to attribute wide-sweeping malice to Wizards because of the delay in  the GSL is down right staggering.
> 
> Chuck




Well, to be fair, it really wasn't that long ago that TSR did attack fansites (mid 90s, not 1989), instead forcing people to only submit fan material to a few designated sites. Some people can't help but see a glimmer of that in Gleemax and the DDI.

And while WOTC might not have a history of suing fansites and such, Hasbro has been quite active legally.  Just how much is WOTC still WOTC? And what about the future? Time ends to erode the independances of subsidiaries.


----------



## Ranger REG

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Just how much is WOTC still WOTC?



Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want an answer?


----------



## Vigilance

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, it really wasn't that long ago that TSR did attack fansites (mid 90s, not 1989), instead forcing people to only submit fan material to a few designated sites. Some people can't help but see a glimmer of that in Gleemax and the DDI.
> 
> And while WOTC might not have a history of suing fansites and such, Hasbro has been quite active legally.  Just how much is WOTC still WOTC? And what about the future? Time ends to erode the independances of subsidiaries.




Ohhh, so it was just 11 years ago, not 20. 

Gee, when you put it that way, I see why everyone is being so paranoid and consider them fully justified.


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ohhh, so it was just 11 years ago, not 20.
> 
> Gee, when you put it that way, I see why everyone is being so paranoid and consider them fully justified.



Ya know Chuck, I agree that WotC isn't going to go after fan sites.  Not a chance.

But I think being concerned about something that did happen in the past might happen again is more justified than being a jerk towards people who are concerned about it.


----------



## AZRogue

Still no news from T$R? That's some serious vetting! They must be pleased with all the love their silence is generating.


----------



## dmccoy1693

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Still no news from T$R? That's some serious vetting! They must be pleased with all the love their silence is generating.




Dang AZ, I think this is the strongest negativity I've heard you towards WotC/4E.  

As to Orcus' whereabouts, I offer the following logical speculations to help calm nerves:  

-He's busy.  He is a lawyer after all.  I don't know alot of lawyers with alot of free time.  And he has commented in the recent past that he was trying to quickly post during his lunch.  

-He's secretly discussing with Wizards about some kind of license (GSL or private).  If that were the case, it would not be prudent for him to discuss much publicly regarding licenses.  Who knows, maybe Wizards is discussing with Orcus to have him draft the GSL.  I mean, who is better to write Legal licenses then a demon lord.

-He's interviewing for the open Sr Lawyer position (or whatever it was) at WotC that we hard about recently.  Making public comments would not be prudent here either.

Just some thoughts.  I hope this helps to calm fears.


----------



## Vigilance

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ya know Chuck, I agree that WotC isn't going to go after fan sites.  Not a chance.
> 
> But I think being concerned about something that did happen in the past might happen again is more justified than being a jerk towards people who are concerned about it.




So I am being a jerk when I point out that the "past" was more than a decade ago, perpetrated by a management team long gone, by a company that no longer exists?

I call that telling the truth.

Bluntly perhaps, but imho some bluntness is called for with the vitriol being released in this thread.


----------



## Lizard

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ya know Chuck, I agree that WotC isn't going to go after fan sites.  Not a chance.
> 
> But I think being concerned about something that did happen in the past might happen again is more justified than being a jerk towards people who are concerned about it.




Wish I could agree with you.

The mid-90s TSR attack on fandom was motivated by ignorance and the desire for control. Fan sites weren't hitting their business model. In 2008, fan sites ARE directly in competition with how WOTC seems to plan to make either the majority or a large minority of their money from 4e - and that gives them a powerful motive.

Does this mean they WILL do it? No, but I can't say it's impossible, either.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So I am being a jerk when I point out that the "past" was more than a decade ago, perpetrated by a management team long gone, by a company that no longer exists?
> 
> I call that telling the truth.
> 
> Bluntly perhaps, but imho some bluntness is called for with the vitriol being released in this thread.




By that same logic the OGL was created almost a decade ago, by a management team long gone.


----------



## Vigilance

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> By that same logic the OGL was created almost a decade ago, by a management team long gone.




And if you want to argue that the OGL might be going away, I'm perfectly ok with having that discussion.

Purposeful delay so the books can get out, followed by them "springing" the fact that there will be no license on folks, followed by them suing fan sites?

Not so much.


----------



## Orcus

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> -He's interviewing for the open Sr Lawyer position (or whatever it was) at WotC that we hard about recently.  Making public comments would not be prudent here either.




Ack!

No thanks. 

Just busy.

I posted in another thread. I'll copy paste here. 

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=222814&page=7&pp=30

I say hang tight.

Clark


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So I am being a jerk when I point out that the "past" was more than a decade ago



If that was all you had done the answer would be no.

We are still talking about something that DID happen.  So it isn't simply paranoid to be concerned that history could repeat itself.  Is it at all likely?  I personally don't think so.  But thinking it may be is well more justified than calling that thought paranoid.



> perpetrated by a management team long gone



Again, I agree.  It isn't going to happen.  But, then again, this same point applies to the pro-OGL side also.


----------



## AZRogue

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Dang AZ, I think this is the strongest negativity I've heard you towards WotC/4E.
> 
> As to Orcus' whereabouts, I offer the following logical speculations to help calm nerves:
> 
> -He's busy.  He is a lawyer after all.  I don't know alot of lawyers with alot of free time.  And he has commented in the recent past that he was trying to quickly post during his lunch.
> 
> -He's secretly discussing with Wizards about some kind of license (GSL or private).  If that were the case, it would not be prudent for him to discuss much publicly regarding licenses.  Who knows, maybe Wizards is discussing with Orcus to have him draft the GSL.  I mean, who is better to write Legal licenses then a demon lord.
> 
> -He's interviewing for the open Sr Lawyer position (or whatever it was) at WotC that we hard about recently.  Making public comments would not be prudent here either.
> 
> Just some thoughts.  I hope this helps to calm fears.




Yeah, I know. The game, 4E, still excites me but the GSL situation just really annoys the hell out of me. I think it's because they gave a date, then couldn't keep that date, then said "soon", then gave us silence, then said they were now "vetting their policy", and now have gone back to silence. No updates, no reassurances, no new timetable, no new "strategy", no new anything. 

If you say you're going to do something, do it. If you can't for some reason, apologize. Going all silent with your fanbase insults me, even if it probably is the best they can do at this point. Sometimes I just can't resist coming in and making sure they hold no illusions on how disgruntled the "corporate silence" is making me, that's all.


----------



## Vigilance

AZRogue said:
			
		

> If you say you're going to do something, do it. If you can't for some reason, apologize. Going all silent with your fanbase insults me, even if it probably is the best they can do at this point.




Well, to be fair, while the delays are frustrating, it's not like they never apologized or made a statement on the delay.

By my count they have:

Apologized for the delay (which sent people into a tizzy).

Made a clarification comment (which sent people into a tizzy).

THEN went silent (which sent people into a tizzy).

So really, I don't blame them for the silence at this point, since we (as a group) seem to snap freak no matter what.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Made a clarification comment (which sent people into a tizzy).
> 
> THEN went silent (which sent people into a tizzy).




I don't think that's really an excuse.  

If the only news you've got is bad news then, yes, when you tell people the bad news they're going to get upset.  And, yes, if you duck the question because you don't want people to get upset at your bad news, they're still going to be upset.  

An airline doesn't get let off the hook for delaying the flight simply because after hemming and hawing for 40 minutes they finally admit the truth.

And when they finally do tell people the bad news the people will be justified in being upset that the news is bad -- that's why it's called bad news and not called good news.


----------



## Vigilance

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I don't think that's really an excuse.
> 
> If the only news you've got is bad news then, yes, when you tell people the bad news they're going to get upset.  And, yes, if you duck the question because you don't want people to get upset at your bad news, they're still going to be upset.
> 
> An airline doesn't get let off the hook for delaying the flight simply because after hemming and hawing for 40 minutes they finally admit the truth.
> 
> And when they finally do tell people the bad news the people will be justified in being upset that the news is bad -- that's why it's called bad news and not called good news.




Right, but there IS no new news.

So they could either repeat the bad news, or wait until something changes.

Once you say a flight is being delayed indefinitely, I don't think you owe people weekly updates that in fact, it is still delayed.

They have said it will be delayed an indefinite period while they sort things out.

Really, what else is there to say after that?


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So really, I don't blame them for the silence at this point, since we (as a group) seem to snap freak no matter what.



I'd say that is a rather strongly slanted assessment.  Everything that has caused a "tizzy" could have been handled in a better manner that would have either avoided or significantly reduced the response.  Unless the supposed reasons for the way they choose to present things are correct, in which case they have done the best they could, but the tizzies turn out to be justified.


----------



## Vigilance

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd say that is a rather strongly slanted assessment.  Everything that has caused a "tizzy" could have been handled in a better manner that would have either avoided or significantly reduced the response.  Unless the supposed reasons for the way they choose to present things are correct, in which case they have done the best they could, but the tizzies turn out to be justified.




I disagree.

As Steve points out above, they were delivering bad news, with no definite date on when they would have GOOD news. 

This isn't something people want to hear. But at this point, we're in a holding pattern until something new develops, hence the silence.

I suppose they could come out and say "nothing has changed", but since they apparently can't say much more, what effect would that have? 

I mean, what positive effect.

It might stir up another round of us being upset at the continuing delay, and asking the poster a lot of questions he or she can't answer, but what else would "nothing has changed" possibly do that was constructive at this point.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, while the delays are frustrating, it's not like they never apologized or made a statement on the delay.
> 
> By my count they have:
> 
> Apologized for the delay (which sent people into a tizzy).
> 
> Made a clarification comment (which sent people into a tizzy).
> 
> THEN went silent (which sent people into a tizzy).
> 
> So really, I don't blame them for the silence at this point, since we (as a group) seem to snap freak no matter what.




Also in fairness, Liddy has done an EXCELLENT job of talking to people without spinning the whole comminity mad.  Also, Rodney has posted a number of times on Paizo's 4E forums and no matter how negative the atmosphere was over there, things were just much nicer and calmer when he was around.


----------



## AZRogue

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Also in fairness, Liddy has done an EXCELLENT job of talking to people without spinning the whole comminity mad.  Also, Rodney has posted a number of times on Paizo's 4E forums and no matter how negative the atmosphere was over there, things were just much nicer and calmer when he was around.




Yes, I hold no ill will whatsoever towards the various designers, developers, and managers over there. They all seem like great people who are, I'm sure, in a bad situation. They're awesome and I have nothing but respect for Liddy, Rodney, Mearls, The Rouse, Chris Simms, and the rest. I've deleted several rant-like posts over the last few weeks just because I didn't want any of those guys to think that any malice was directed at them. I like it when they post so would not do anything to discourage them from feeling comfortable posting.

I do, however, have endless snap and snark on hand for the company, WotC, itself for the way things have been handled so far. There's no transparency right now so we don't know WHAT this latest long silence is all about. I don't know what it means, but I know that it FEELS like WotC, as a company, couldn't care less what we think and doesn't feel like it's worth its time to keep us informed and reassured.  :\


----------



## lurkinglidda

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I suppose they could come out and say "nothing has changed", but since they apparently can't say much more, what effect would that have?
> 
> I mean, what positive effect.
> 
> It might stir up another round of us being upset at the continuing delay, and asking the poster a lot of questions he or she can't answer, but what else would "nothing has changed" possibly do that was constructive at this point.




What  you said!

Plus, it seems like my posts are usually thread-enders. It's in my best interest to watch the debates (both pro- and anti-WotC) so I can keep a pulse on the community. I don't want to be the cause for a discussion to cease.

A thousand apologies for not having additional information about the license. When I do have something to share I will.


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As Steve points out above, they were delivering bad news, with no definite date on when they would have GOOD news.
> 
> This isn't something people want to hear. But at this point, we're in a holding pattern until something new develops, hence the silence.
> 
> I suppose they could come out and say "nothing has changed", but since they apparently can't say much more, what effect would that have?
> 
> I mean, what positive effect.
> 
> It might stir up another round of us being upset at the continuing delay, and asking the poster a lot of questions he or she can't answer, but what else would "nothing has changed" possibly do that was constructive at this point.



I agree with all that.  However, you have very pointedly avoided parts of your own posts that I replied to.  Specifically, the key points I took issue with.

The reasonable portions of your statements don't justify calling people paranoid or stating that people "snap freak no matter what".  You seem to like to throw those little cheap shots into your post and then when someone else takes issue with them you hide behind other issues.  

There is a big difference between having a negative reaction to something that is going to cause a bad reaction and "snap freak no matter what".


----------



## dmccoy1693

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Plus, it seems like my posts are usually thread-enders. It's in my best interest to watch the debates (both pro- and anti-WotC) so I can keep a pulse on the community. I don't want to be the cause for a discussion to cease.



I'd argue that you don't end discussion as much as lessen frustration and anxiety (and thus take away the 'need' to post frustrated and anxious posts).  You're approachable and you don't dance around the subject.  If you can't say something, you say you can't say it.  You don't hem and haw and give a politician-like dodge.  It makes me and plenty of others, I'm sure, feel like you respect us.

I don't mean to imply that there are those you work with that do not, merely that your presentation of things gives that feeling.


----------



## Vigilance

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree with all that.  However, you have very pointedly avoided parts of your own posts that I replied to.  Specifically, the key points I took issue with.
> 
> The reasonable portions of your statements don't justify calling people paranoid or stating that people "snap freak no matter what".  You seem to like to throw those little cheap shots into your post and then when someone else takes issue with them you hide behind other issues.
> 
> There is a big difference between having a negative reaction to something that is going to cause a bad reaction and "snap freak no matter what".




No, I responded to that, just not in a manner you deemed acceptable.

How's this:

I have responded with a level of bluntness that I think is warranted based on the comments I was responding to. I don't think I was being snarky, nor do I think I was being a jerk.

You disagree. And that's ok. 

The fact that I don't dwell on something where we're unlikely to agree apparently troubles you. I prefer to talk about other things, having gotten some thoughts off my chest that, I felt, needed to be said in exactly the way they were said. 

Chuck


----------



## Alzrius

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> I'd argue that you don't end discussion as much as lessen frustration and anxiety (and thus take away the 'need' to post frustrated and anxious posts).  You're approachable and you don't dance around the subject.  If you can't say something, you say you can't say it.  You don't hem and haw and give a politician-like dodge.  It makes me and plenty of others, I'm sure, feel like you respect us.




I think all of this is true in regards to Linae, which is why her posts do tend to be thread-enders; she takes all of the fun out of posting quasi-hysterical musings and over-analyzing every bit of information (and not-information) we get.


----------



## carmachu

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, but there IS no new news.
> 
> So they could either repeat the bad news, or wait until something changes.
> 
> Once you say a flight is being delayed indefinitely, I don't think you owe people weekly updates that in fact, it is still delayed.
> 
> They have said it will be delayed an indefinite period while they sort things out.
> 
> Really, what else is there to say after that?




But no news=bad news, from a customer perspective. Doesnt matter what the product.

We use to, whether dealing with warranty or with custom orders, call once a week, or once every two, just to say "hey, we havent forgotten about you or your problem/order....but nothings changed yet. Hang in there"

They appreciated it. Knowing you still hadnt forgotten them. THATS what WotC should be doing. Because between the delays and silence, its not looking good(hell the whole freaking 4e launch has been one bone headed bad PR move after another, starting with cancellation of the magazines).

Keeping folks in the loop, even when things dont change, is what they should do. Silence? Not a good thing.


----------



## AZRogue

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> What  you said!
> 
> Plus, it seems like my posts are usually thread-enders. It's in my best interest to watch the debates (both pro- and anti-WotC) so I can keep a pulse on the community. I don't want to be the cause for a discussion to cease.
> 
> A thousand apologies for not having additional information about the license. When I do have something to share I will.




It might not seem to be much help, but it really, really is. When there's no response, even a "we can't comment yet, sorry" response, it makes us feel like no one is reading, or doesn't care what we're saying. It's like walking into a room with someone, talking, and after a while you turn around and find out they left a while back. At least the occasional comment lets us know someone is still present. Doesn't make much real sense, I know, but that's how it FEELS. 

And thanks for the response. It's much, very much appreciated.


----------



## Henry

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> A thousand apologies for not having additional information about the license. When I do have something to share I will.




Linae, despite the grousing we do back and forth, thank you for keeping an eye on the OGL discussions, and keeping us posted. We really appreciate the attention to the fans.


----------



## lurkinglidda

...still nothing to share...

I'm thinking of a blog:
Day 1137 on the OGL saga: still nothing to share
Day 1138 on the OGL saga: still nothing to share
Day 1139 on the OGL saga: still nothing to share
Day 1140 on the OGL saga: i thought there might be something but then i realized it was my own reflection.
Day 1141 on the OGL saga: still nothing to share
Day 1142: the cat is watching me. she wants my cheetos. oh, and nothing new to share on the OGL.


----------



## Alzrius

Given that we seem to be in something of a lull, I'd like to have a quick sidebar: Linae, how the heck is your name pronounced? Is the "e" silent, and it's "LEE-na," or does the "e" modify the preceding vowel, and it's "lin-AY"?


----------



## dmccoy1693

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Given that we seem to be in something of a lull, I'd like to have a quick sidebar: Linae, how the heck is your name pronounced? Is the "e" silent, and it's "LEE-na," or does the "e" modify the preceding vowel, and it's "lin-AY"?




Well since we're on completely unrelated topics now, Lidda, how much hairspray does your avatar need to hold her hair in that position?


----------



## Drkfathr1

Hmmmm. Notice how her "blog" has "days" and not actual "dates"....


----------



## lurkinglidda

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Given that we seem to be in something of a lull, I'd like to have a quick sidebar: Linae, how the heck is your name pronounced? Is the "e" silent, and it's "LEE-na," or does the "e" modify the preceding vowel, and it's "lin-AY"?




It's like lin-AY or LeNez if you're french. However, I respond to almost any ladies' name that starts with an L, including Lidda. In college a drunk guy called me Lemonade...that followed me for the rest of my schooling.


----------



## lurkinglidda

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Well since we're on completely unrelated topics now, Lidda, how much hairspray does your avatar need to hold her hair in that position?



None! She's meant to be in action, about to fall backwards - see the cover of Book of Challenges for the whole piece. 

When I was posing for it Lockwood said, "Hope you ski because after holding this 'I'm going to fall backwards' pose for 20 minutes your legs are going to burn!"


----------



## lurkinglidda

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. Notice how her "blog" has "days" and not actual "dates"....



That wasn't accidental


----------



## Drkfathr1

Lidda is still my favorite iconic.


----------



## Jack99

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's like lin-AY or LeNez if you're french. However, I respond to almost any ladies' name that starts with an L, including Lidda. In college a drunk guy called my Lemonade...that followed me for the rest of my schooling.




LeNez as in The Nose?

So we got The Rouse and The Nose now, sounds like fun...


----------



## Dark Mistress

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> In college a drunk guy called me Lemonade...that followed me for the rest of my schooling.




Always the best way to end up with nick names.


----------



## Wystan

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

Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.

The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.

The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.

Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.


----------



## Mike_Lescault

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone. I appreciate your patience.

As you may have heard, we've made an announcement. Here it:


Here's the announcement text:



> Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License
> 
> Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.
> 
> The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.
> 
> The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.
> 
> Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.




Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

-Mike


----------



## Scott_Rouse

I also just want to say thank to everyone for the positive vibes and patience. 

I know it has been a long time coming but we are making significant progress and today it is great to be able to push this thing forward!


----------



## Lizard

Mike_Lescault said:
			
		

> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
> 
> -Mike




Sure. Is the actual GSL currently available, or is it, like the SRD, not available until June 6?

How do you legally define "fantasy"? Does Dragonmech count, for example? Does a modern-day setting with dragons and orcs count? Defining a genre in a way that will not be a confusing mess of legal pitfalls is pretty tough going; the Supreme Court couldn't even define "pornography" beyond "I know it when I see it".

You say


			
				announcement said:
			
		

> publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game




Does this mean publishers who do NOT register may still use the license and SRD, but not the logo?

How, if at all, does this license interact with the OGL? Is it permissable to reference material in the D20 3x SRD which is not part of 4e and produce third-party conversions of it?


----------



## Lizard

Duplicate post.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure. Is the actual GSL currently available, or is it, like the SRD, not available until June 6?




The final GSL and SRD are forthcoming. I expect to have final drafts late next week with an aim to have them sent out the following.



> How do you legally define "fantasy"? Does Dragonmech count, for example? Does a modern-day setting with dragons and orcs count? Defining a genre in a way that will not be a confusing mess of legal pitfalls is pretty tough going; the Supreme Court couldn't even define "pornography" beyond "I know it when I see it".




You are right this is hard to define. We'll work with the publishers on this if they want but i think most know where things fall. Thet did under the Modern and Fantasy SRDs in the OGL and I don't see this changing with the two GSLs.  

Modern day setting with Dragons and Orcs sounds a lot Urban Arcana and would fall under D20. Dragon Mech has enough fantasy tropes that it could live probably live under D&D just like Eberron has Magic infused tech. 



> You say
> 
> 
> Does this mean publishers who do NOT register may still use the license and SRD, but not the logo?
> 
> How, if at all, does this license interact with the OGL? Is it permissable to reference material in the D20 3x SRD which is not part of 4e and produce third-party conversions of it?




You must use the logo(s) under the terms of the GSL

The OGL and the GSL are mutually exclusive licenses.

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


----------



## catsclaw227

Hi Scott --

This is great news!  I noticed that the Oct 1st date is after GenCon.  Will some of the publishers that received advanced be allowed to release content at GenCon?


----------



## Lizard

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> You are right this is hard to define. We'll work with the publishers on this if they want but i think most know where things fall. Thet did under the Modern and Fantasy SRDs in the OGL and I don't see this changing with the two GSLs.




However, since under the OGL all Open Content was equal, there was no formal, legal, distinction between the two SRDs -- it was just Open Game Content, identical to that produced by other publishers, or even non-D20 based OGC, like FUDGE and ACTION!, all of which could be intermixed as desired. 



> You must use the logo(s) under the terms of the GSL




So this means that publishers must register with WOTC prior to any use of the GSL. How does this interact with non-commercial use, or website use? Suppose I want to put up a web site with GSL material in October, 2008. I use Google Ads to make a smidgen of change from it. Do I need to register with WOTC to do this? Would it matter if I didn't have the ads?



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




How does this work, precisely? Many works under the OGL quoted verbatim text from the SRD -- that was its purpose, things like feat descriptions, spell descriptions, monsters, and so on. Is there an explicit "safe harbor" provision for the use of this text in GSL works? If I use a monster (let us say, Brass Dragons) in an OGL adventure, and I want to publish a Brass Dragon in a 4e version of that adventure, am I allowed to base it on the Brass Dragon of the 3x SRD?


----------



## Alzrius

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> You are right this is hard to define. We'll work with the publishers on this if they want but i think most know where things fall. Thet did under the Modern and Fantasy SRDs in the OGL and I don't see this changing with the two GSLs.




Well, yes, but those were two different SRDs both released under the same umbrella agreement that was the OGL (for that matter, I'm not sure if the Modern and Fantasy SRDs both fell under the purview of the d20 STL or not, since both could have the d20 logo). Given that the two GSLs seem to be distinct (though likely similar) licenses, it might not be that simple. Would it be possible to publish a single product under both GSLs at the same time?



> _You must use the logo(s) under the terms of the GSL_




Hm, I'm not sure I quite understand. The announcement said "publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions." And you're saying that you must use the logo under the GSL. Does that mean that companies that want to use the D&D 4E GSL will be required to register with WotC?

What does such registration entail? Will it also cover the d20 GSL?



> _The OGL and the GSL are mutually exclusive licenses.
> 
> Publishers can update titles done under the OGL to the GSL as long as they are compliant with the new license._




I'm glad to hear that, but what will it do in regards to the pitfall of writing a 4E version of your 3.5E book if that includes someone else's OGC that's in your book?

Also, is there any language about GSL-based Open Game Content under the GSL(s)? Will people be able to use GSL-OGC from other 4E products in their own products?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scott, I'm sorry, I'm still a bit confused. Forgive me in advance if this question is obtuse.



			
				Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> You must use the logo(s) under the terms of the GSL




Does this mean:

a) You MUST use the logo(s), and you must do so under the terms of the GSL

or 

b) IF you use the logos, it must be under the terms of the GSL.


----------



## Vigilance

This looks awesome.

I wish I was one of the lucky ones getting the material in advance but still awesome news.


----------



## BryonD

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd say there is a 1% chance he has learned something and is being quiet and a 99% chance he just doesn't see any point in covering the same ground and contributing to keeping things stirred up in a lack of any further knowledge.



Dang, I should've taken the long odds.....  

Good news WotC.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> b) IF you use the logos, it must be under the terms of the GSL.




this


----------



## Vigilance

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> this




Wait, does that mean companies can use 4e materials under the existing OGL?


----------



## lurkinglidda

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Wait, does that mean companies can use 4e materials under the existing OGL?



No. We've designed the licenses to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## Vigilance

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> No. We've designed the licenses to be mutually exclusive.




Ok, Im thoroughly confused. 

So when you say if you use the logo, you must use the GSL, you're saying we can refrain from using the logo, and publish independent books, including modern books, but can only use materials from the 4e SRD in doing so?


----------



## JohnRTroy

> How does this work, precisely? Many works under the OGL quoted verbatim text from the SRD -- that was its purpose, things like feat descriptions, spell descriptions, monsters, and so on. Is there an explicit "safe harbor" provision for the use of this text in GSL works? If I use a monster (let us say, Brass Dragons) in an OGL adventure, and I want to publish a Brass Dragon in a 4e version of that adventure, am I allowed to base it on the Brass Dragon of the 3x SRD?




Why would anybody bother doing so, though?

Remember, _The 4e game is *extremely different* from the 3e one_.  Dragons don't have spell levels anymore, they have powers, the powers are really different, and the rules for characters have changed.  Hit points, powers and effects, etc., it's all changing.  All that's really left right now are ability scores and the d20 mechanic.  

I mean, WoTC have said that they aren't going to bother with a "conversion book".  It would be a lot less painful to take their 4e version of the creature and use that then try to convert a 3e version of something to the 4e version.


----------



## Ourph

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The final GSL and SRD are forthcoming. I expect to have final drafts late next week with an aim to have them sent out the following.



Hey Scott, I had two questions.

First, will anyone other than the invited publishers be able to see the contents of the SRD before June 6th?

Second, is the GSL a completely open license (as in, anyone can publish using the GSL without previous approval from WotC) or will there be some sort of application/registration/vetting process involved in using the license?

Thanks for the info.  I'm glad you guys can finally talk about this a little.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Ourph said:
			
		

> Hey Scott, I had two questions.
> 
> First, will anyone other than the invited publishers be able to see the contents of the SRD before June 6th?




Likely not.



> Second, is the GSL a completely open license (as in, anyone can publish using the GSL without previous approval from WotC) or will there be some sort of application/registration/vetting process involved in using the license?
> 
> Thanks for the info.  I'm glad you guys can finally talk about this a little.




There is a registration card similar to the d20 STL but that is about it in terms of acceptance.


----------



## Voadam

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The final GSL and SRD are forthcoming. I expect to have final drafts late next week with an aim to have them sent out the following.




Will the GSL be publicly available then or not until June?

Can you tell us now what types of products will not be permitted at all under the GSL? (stand alone variant games, srd type products, extreme bad taste products, Specific IP references, etc.)

Can you tell us what the specific goals WotC was trying to achieve by the changes between the GSL and OGL? (i.e limit products to support D&D so no stand alone variant games, prevent copy and paste commercial srds, prevent bad taste products, increase d20 value, etc.)

Thanks


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Voadam said:
			
		

> Will the GSL be publicly available then or not until June?
> 
> Can you tell us now what types of products will not be permitted at all under the GSL? (stand alone variant games, srd type products, extreme bad taste products, Specific IP references, etc.)




The allowed products will look a lot like those allowed under the d20 STL.



> Can you tell us what the specific goals WotC was trying to achieve by the changes between the GSL and OGL? (i.e limit products to support D&D so no stand alone variant games, prevent copy and paste commercial srds, prevent bad taste products, increase d20 value, etc.)
> 
> Thanks




I would say the one primary goals was to allow 3PPs to produce products that supported 4e D&D products from WOTC by tapping into the network effect. In the process over the last few months non D&D 4e d20 came into the mix as well.

A little of all of these were in play as we discuss the GSL with the bid stand out being a license that drove support our core RPG business.


----------



## crow81

It sounds to me like WotC gave 3PP a royal kick in the pants by not allowing them to publish for GenCon. I for one will be interested in seeing the final document.

 Not that I will play 4e but sorta like hey look at that car wreck.


----------



## Orcus

Scott.

Thanks. 

And please tell Linae I said "thanks" too. 

You guys really, really did great. I've had my faith and trust in you for so long. I am so glad to see this finally come to fruition. 

Clark


----------



## Jack99

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The allowed products will look a lot like those allowed under the d20 STL.




Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

And still more questions for Scott, to be answered after a good night's sleep   : 

Will the GSL permit Character Generator Software?

If so, can this Software legally include data (e.g. powers) from the actual books?

Yea, I know, I sound like a spoiled child, who wants, wants, WANTS more, more and MORE!!!   So let's make one thing clear: I'm very happy about this openness and want to thank you and your department very much for making this happen!

---
Huldvoll


Jan van Leyden


----------



## Knight Otu

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.



IANAL. But from my reading, under the d20STL, the following products were not allowed:

Miniatures (except paper miniatures)
Interactive Games (pretty much everything where a die roll would be involved)
Games that change a few Defined Game Terms (such as Fortitude save or saving throw - you couldn't use the 4E definition of a saving throw in a d20STL book for instance.)
Games that include character creation or advancement rules (such as Arcana Evolved or Mutants and Masterminds), not extending to the creation of new races or classes
Books using Core Book in any fashion
Books that fail certain decency standards (containing sexual content, excessive gore, prejudice, and the like)
Books released under the d20STL also required a minimum of Open Content, a few sentences to note that the book required a WotC product (PHB, d20 Modern, ...) to use properly.


----------



## Lizard

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The allowed products will look a lot like those allowed under the d20 STL.




IIRC, Spycraft 1.0 was published under the STL... 

My most important question remaining is, I think, is it viral? Is there a concept of 'open content' which is shared among third party publishers?


----------



## Voadam

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.




From the d20 license



> 2.  License to use
> You are hereby granted the non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to use the d20 System trademark logos, the d20 System trademark, and certain other trademarks and copyrights owned by Wizards of the Coast (the "Licensed Articles") in accordance with the conditions specified in the current version of this License and the d20 System Guide.
> 
> . . .
> 
> 4.  Quality Standards
> The nature of all material You use or distribute that incorporates the Licensed Articles must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as community standards of decency, as further described in the d20 System Guide.  You must use Your best efforts to preserve the high standard and goodwill of the Licensed Trademarks.  In order to assure the foregoing standard and quality requirements, Wizards of the Coast shall have the right, upon notice to You, to review and inspect all material released by You that uses the Licensed Articles. You shall fully cooperate with Wizards of the Coast to facilitate such review and inspection, including timely provision of copies of all such materials to Wizards of the Coast.  Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License immediately upon attempted notice to you if it deems, in its sole discretion, that your use of the Licensed Articles does not meet the above standards.





From the d20 license guide v. 5.0
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20Guidev5.rtf


> Quality Standards
> 
> In determining whether a product complies with community standards of decency, Wizards of the Coast uses, but is not limited to the following.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to determine, in its sole discretion, whether a product complies with community standards of decency.
> 
> Violence and Gore – Descriptions of combat are acceptable in a Covered Product. However art or text depicting excessively graphic violence or gore is not acceptable.
> 
> Sexual Themes - Sexual situations—including abuse and pornography—may not appear graphically in art or text. When depicting the human form—or creatures possessing humaniform features—gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable. While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be salacious in nature.
> 
> Prejudice - Covered Products can not depict existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities as a group inferior to any other group. Current, real-world religions and religious groups and/or practices will not be portrayed in any way that promotes disrespect for these religions or their participants. A Covered Product can not endorse or promote any specific religion or religious practice.
> 
> Mandatory Restrictions:
> 
> No Covered Product may contain rules or instructions of any kind that:
> 
> •	Describe a process for Creating a Character
> •	Describe a process for Applying the Effects of Experience to a Character
> 
> No Covered Product may change or extend the definition of any Defined Game Term as enumerated in this Guide.
> 
> No Covered Product may include “Miniatures.”
> 
> No Covered Product may use the term “Core Book” on its cover, title, advertising, or self-reference.
> 
> No Covered Product may be an "Interactive Game" as defined in this Guide.
> 
> 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.




and 



> •	"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users.  Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another.  This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.
> 
> •	“Miniature”: Means a three-dimensional sculpture of a figure or creature, composed of plastic, metal, resin, stone, rubber, or fiberglass or similar material.  Paper representations of figures or creatures are not considered “miniatures” under this definition.


----------



## Flynn

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.




Think of it in these generalized terms:

The OGL (Open Gaming License) governs the declaration of game mechanics that are designated as open content. Using the OGL alone, you cannot label your products as being D20 System-compliant with the D20 System logo. This is the license that covers content.

The D20 STL (System Trademark License) is simply a way to allow people to use the official approved D20 System logo and build up brand recognition. In order to avoid stepping on WOTC's toes, they require you to avoid using certain terms or rules, but you get to use the D20 System logo and in theory cash in on brand recognition. This is the license that governs logos used for marketing purposes.

That's it as I understand it, in a rough nutshell. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. There's more to it than the above, but for general understanding purposes, the above should cover your bases.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Many of these questions could be answered easily enough by releasing the GSL (Not the SRD) publicly when the publishers get it and not have it be NDAed. Its not like this wont be public in a month and a half anyway.


----------



## Voadam

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.





The OGL licenses use and reuse of d20 game rules and has no content restrictions except for prohibiting use of declared product identity from other OGL products, prohibiting use of trademarked stuff absent separate licenses, and some compatibility statements.

The d20 STL allows use of the trademarked d20 logo and some compatibility language but is restricted to products that do not violate WotC's community standards, are not physical miniatures, character generators, do not describe character creation or how to apply experience to advancement.

A book about salacious sex or promoting or disparaging a real world religion or minority is OK under the OGL but not the d20 STL. As are complete games in themselves, games that modify core d20 mechanics like saves, etc.


----------



## Orcus

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Could anyone explain what this means more concretely to me, since I don't get (or rather know) the difference between OGL and the d20 STL.




As others have said, it is very likely that the same restrictions (all noted above) from the STL and Guide will apply to the GSL (and perhaps more). 

That means:

No miniatures
No interactive games
No applying effects of XP
No character creation
No violation of certain standards
Etc.

It also appears that the GSL will have a provision that if you use the GSL you may not use the OGL ever again and if you do you lose the right to use the GSL.


----------



## Pramas

Orcus said:
			
		

> It also appears that the GSL will have a provision that if you use the GSL you may not use the OGL ever again and if you do you lose the right to use the GSL.




That would be...interesting.


----------



## Nellisir

Orcus said:
			
		

> It also appears that the GSL will have a provision that if you use the GSL you may not use the OGL ever again and if you do you lose the right to use the GSL.





			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> That would be...interesting.




No kidding.  That'd be...I dunno.  Words fail me.  I'm sure someone else will say something in a few minutes or so, though.


----------



## catsclaw227

Orcus said:
			
		

> No miniatures
> No interactive games
> No applying effects of XP
> No character creation
> No violation of certain standards
> Etc.




Does this mean that online and software tools like DMGenie, RPGExplorer, or NPCDesigner are not possible with the GSL?  I'd love to be able to make an online DM Aid like DM Genie for 4th edition.


----------



## Alzrius

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that online and software tools like DMGenie, RPGExplorer, or NPCDesigner are not possible with the GSL?  I'd love to be able to make an online DM Aid like DM Genie for 4th edition.




So far as we're aware of, that's the case - you can't legally make (and sell) a program that has any aspects of creating a character. That makes sense, since WotC wants people to turn to the D&DI for that.

Bear in mind, that's just my understanding based on what's been said so far. I could be completely wrong when all's said and done.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> It also appears that the GSL will have a provision that if you use the GSL you may not use the OGL ever again and if you do you lose the right to use the GSL.




Wow.

If that's true, that might be the nail in the coffin for me and 4e. I like some of what I've seen, and I don't like a lot of it, but with the announcement yesterday I've started brainstorming ideas but if the above ends up being true I'll have to rethink those ideas.

Hyrum.


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ok, Im thoroughly confused.



So, are all the existing RPGObjects titles going away?


----------



## Orcus

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that online and software tools like DMGenie, RPGExplorer, or NPCDesigner are not possible with the GSL?  I'd love to be able to make an online DM Aid like DM Genie for 4th edition.




We dont know yet. But based on Scott's comment that [paraphrasing] the same kinds of products could be made as were possible under the STL, I am guessing that means that if those things didnt work with a d20 logo, they wont work with the GSL.


----------



## AZRogue

Nellisir said:
			
		

> No kidding.  That'd be...I dunno.  Words fail me.  I'm sure someone else will say something in a few minutes or so, though.




I'm not a 3rd party publisher and I don't play 3.5 anymore, so this doesn't effect me that much, but I will say that, if true, it would be kind of sad.

Still, I can understand the restriction, if it does in fact exist. I see it as a move to push forward and to limit the remnants of the old system still taking up "shelf" space. I can't say I like it, but I understand it and it isn't a deal breaker for me in any way.

Still, I sympathize for those publishers for whom this could end up being a deal breaker. It makes an easy decision into a much more difficult one. Some companies, I'm sure, will decide to delay any transition (once again, if this turns out to be true) until they see how successful 4E is and how the 3E market is impacted. Understandable, but it would have been nice to see the floodgates opened and the products all lined up for me that much sooner.

But I will wait and see what happens. My faith-meter has been pegging at 9000 rpms since the announcement so this isn't slowing me down.  I have faith in the people who pulled this off and am more curious than really concerned.


----------



## Vigilance

BryonD said:
			
		

> So, are all the existing RPGObjects titles going away?




Not for the life of my mother. Even if I knew who she was. /Ladyhawke


----------



## BryonD

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Not for the life of my mother. Even if I knew who she was. /Ladyhawke



I'm glad to hear that.  (about the games, not about your mom    )


----------



## Vigilance

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear that.  (about the games, not about your mom    )




Actually, backstock will pretty much decide the issue.

If it's a question of discontinuing all OGL backstock, then the decision is easy. 

If it's a question of choosing between supporting the OGL or 4e going forward, that would be heartbreaking.


----------



## pawsplay

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that online and software tools like DMGenie, RPGExplorer, or NPCDesigner are not possible with the GSL?  I'd love to be able to make an online DM Aid like DM Genie for 4th edition.




So make it. Just don't include a license from WotC. Don't copy any text from the rulebook. And don't mislead anyone into thinking you are WotC or have their approval in making the product. If it's purely a mechanical dealie, I don't see a problem.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

No I read it to say that you can't tell people how to actually build the character but you can give then the tools to do so. You are just not allowed to explain the process. You can't give then a die roller. You can't tell them when to level, and you can't put in any sort of Avatar or Mini generator.

At least I know HeroForge Software will be forging forward into 4E. With out HF D&D wouldn't be as easy to play.

Din'elen Darkstar


----------



## Thraxas

*Thanks to all*



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Scott.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> And please tell Linae I said "thanks" too.
> 
> You guys really, really did great. I've had my faith and trust in you for so long. I am so glad to see this finally come to fruition.
> 
> Clark




Scott, Linae , Clark & Morrus,
   Your love for the game and dedication to the community are obvious and deeply appreciated.   Thank you for keeping us informed, listening to our comments and answering our questions.  I understand the respective business interests of WotC and 3PP, as well as the passion of the community; we all love D&D and want to see it thrive with compelling products and a dynamic gaming community.   With so little to chew on these past months, much of the community's collective passion has been spent on speculation.  Once June comes and 4E & DDI are released, I think the speculation and all that comes with it will quickly be replaced by more concrete dialogue and sharing of ideas.  I'm greatly looking forward to it.  Two questions:

Q1:  What reaction do you expect from the community re 4E & DDI come August (3 months in)?
Q2: Under the 4E/GSL what do you think will be the most lucrative product lines for 3PP, and will more products go pdf ?   
Again, my thanks.


----------

