General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I'm really happy to see this! I think it marks a real turnaround for post-3E WoTC, and for 4E as a system. I'm really glad to see that Necromancer Games, my favorite publisher, will be having a go at an old school 4E.
As for the stat block issue, I like the idea of having links to DDI that let you download all that stuff from a WoTC site. Honestly, there were times during the 3E era when I felt shortchanged by the need for all those statblocks -- because a 32 page adventure with 16 pages of statblocks has less of everything else than I had come to expect from a 32 page adventure in 1E.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing an Old School spin on 4E. I'm looking forward to Pathfinder too. Good times!
Huh. I was thinking the reverse: let people become entitled enough, and they'll start to expect free licenses that no one is actually required to grant.
Yeah, really. The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it. I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".
But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.
The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.
The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.
Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.
Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.
I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem. Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety. I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry. Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome. You all have a game system that has been weakened. The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.
A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.
__________________
Forum FYI:
Kask is not the famous Tim Kask of the early days of TSR
I am that weird guy you see buried deep down in the credits section on many of EGGs later products.
I wonder if Paizo will jump in? I don't like pathfinder, but their adventures rock.
Add my vote as well!
Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now.
But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)
It sounds like you're trying to start an argument! Discussing the upcoming success or failure of Pathfinder really has no place in this particular thread. Carry on, folks, without taking this particular bait. ~ Piratecat
Last edited by Piratecat; 3rd March 2009 at 06:58 PM..
Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly. Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money. In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.
I never said they didn't gain anything, I'm not sure where you got that from. Your point was that this isn't charity, that Wizards have much to gain from the GSL. My point was that licensees have so much *more* to gain, relatively speaking, that arguing the GSL as a business contract and bemoaning the fact that it is one-sided is silly.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
This problem of content added to the SRD by WotC "retroactively" causing a licensee to be in violation of the GSL on the other hand I can definietly see occurring. Unless 3pp are very creative with the names of content they produce I could see a very real risk of coming into conflict with WotC. Given that 3pp will generally want to publish content with D&D-like names, I think this risk increases.
I get the feeling this is in there to prevent themselves from having to rename stuff they've spent a lot of money advertising because they didn't know joe little pdf seller had already used it.
Take that as you will... I don't think it's really going to come to pass that much with the big companies whom also might have spent a lot on promos for their new product because it seems like WoTC is pretty aware of them, and they are pretty aware of WoTC. And if it does come up, they've left themselve an avenue of discussion. The smaller companies... I don't think it will be such a big deal if they have to change a name.
I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...
Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.
Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.
I believe this was the #1 reason put forth by the creators of the d20 OGL. You certainly seem to believe it was a success, then.
By your line of reasoning, you should be happy the GSL is nowhere as generous as the OGL...
Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now.
But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)
I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.
The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.
No, my analogy doesn't miss that at all. You can see the broader ecosystem if you choose to; I merely chose not to. I was speaking of the ecosystem that directly supports D&D and its close relatives - my games of choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.
That's pretty good enough, AFAIAC. If the RPG ecosystem of which I speak includes Fantasy, Modern, Sci-Fi, Spy and Mutant Supers, I think it's broad enough to support pretty much anything you could ask for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem.
It certainly changed the ecosystem. Whether it hurt the ecosystem I guess depends on your point of view. As a gamer I see it as an improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety.
Less variety of what? To-hit tables? Thanks, I'll pass. d20 means gamers don't have to learn a new game mechanic every time they want to try a different setting or thematic element. This is a "Good Thing." As a gamer nothing annoyed me more than that learn-up period. The learning curve is much, much shorter going from D&D to Spycraft (or M&M) than from D&D to Mage: The Ascension (or Marvel Supers). Considering the breadth of worlds and games that have been translated to d20 (including World of Darkness) I really don't see a substantive argument here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry.
I see this more as a signal of market demand than anything related to the OGL or d20.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives.
There are. I've got my Burning Wheel, NWoD and Spirit of the Century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.
This is just false. Constrained innovation is real. It can also be elegant and beautiful. d20 has become more refined with each passing year as designers and publishers learned from each other (both the successes and the mistakes). I have witnessed this purely from the consumer side, and have been really excited about it. I want it to continue.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
It would seem pretty standard, if being objective, to mention that the first two parts of your criticism of the license - that WotC can change it at any time or cancel it - are quite standard clauses for many such licenses, including the OGL and the licenses for most every videogame open to modding.
No, not including the OGL. The OGL was (and therefore is) an explicitly perpetual license, and while new versions with different terms can be released by WotC, the OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use whatever version of the OGL you prefer with any OGC.
I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.
The GSL does not apply to websites.
The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)
Now that Gleemax is dead, WOTC is not in "competition" with other websites offering game-related content, so I can't imagine they'd care. However, the lack of any kind of "fansite license", promised shortly after the initial release of 4e, is a bit irksome; I really do not understand how it can be a complex process.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.
Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree. Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.
I'm certainly not saying that all games should have the same six stats, hit points, feats, etc. but having a common resolution mechanic at the very least seems to give gamers a common point to come back to in their cycle of trying new games.
And before I forget: My thanks also to Scott Rouse and his co-workers who put a lot of time and evergy into a GSL that reassures a lot of the 3rd peraty publishers that were once alienated. I've liked what I've seen for 4e from WotC thus far, but a lot of what I liked about 3e didn't come from WotC, but from other publishers who filled in the gaps that WotC just couldn't fill.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
Last edited by Henry; 3rd March 2009 at 08:22 PM..
Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses?
I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?
I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.
The GSL does not apply to websites.
The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)
You are right that if you don't sign the GSL, it has nothing to do with you. You fall under the "normal" law. Which isn't all that simple unto itself.
You are probably all right from a copyright standpoint, as game rules can't be copyrighted and you're not copying text.
The trick is that there's a bunch of other kinds of IP law that make this more complex. The GSL even lists them - "patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade name, trade secret, or anything else we can think of.” (I'm paraphrasing.)
Are any of those terms trademarked? Could the stat block format be justified as trade dress? These aren't black-letter law, it's more "what you could argue in court if you felt inclined."
Several companies have published 4e products without signing the GSL - Adamant and Goodman for sure, and probably others - and we haven't heard of them being crushed yet.
In your case, the worst that can happen is they tell you to take it down and/or get your ISP to delete your stuff. So I think it's reasonably safe.
Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree. Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.
I don't think they would disagree, actually, because I don't think any of them would claim to be "true innovators", and high-quality creative work is not necessarily tightly linked to innovation.
The OGL certainly did do what you're discussing to some significant degree. The GSL, including this new GSL, utterly forbids it. Which is sad, really, and I think it kind of supports claims that WotC have damaged the industry, as the OGL/d20 was helpful in some ways, but served to focus the market on d20-style products, and now the new GSL doesn't allow them to be "updated" as it were to being 4E-style. I'm sure some overzealous defender of WotC will be along to explain, slowly and carefully, that no 3pp has a right to kind of continuing support, but I think if the claim is "Overall, OGL/d20 has damaged the RPG industry and reduced diversity", then I think some support can be found for that argument.
I mean, for my part, I'd love to see 4E-ized versions of quality OGL/d20 things like Spycraft, but given the GSL, I seriously doubt that we will. So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.
__________________ Hobo - "You're confusing you with someone else."
Ruin Explorer is officially pleased with 4E's DM advice (mostly), and thinks that it's RP-advice etc. is both present and pretty darn solid, and certainly better than all other editions.
Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses?
I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?
I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now. Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point). I can't imagine it had any impact at all.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
The revised GSL is a huge improvement and includes many of the changes and suggestions that I specifically, and I am sure others as well, have been calling for for a long time.
One of the biggest changes is the "opt out" clause which the old GSL didnt have. In other words, if they change something you are bound by it. Now, if they change something you can opt out. Can they still change things? Sure, but that is the nature of just about any license and it was the nature of the d20 license that we all used for many years.
Plus, think about this. As I told Scott--wouldnt it be cool if the first revsion was an expansion that allowed us to do more with more freedoms and more content? what would the naysayers say then? Shure, they "could" make it more restrictive, but look what they have done.
This is a big WIN for all involved.
Clark
And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic. I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic. This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.
Jon Brazer Enterprises- Bringing You the Future
Players, put faith in your Pathfinder character with Book of the Faithful: Power of Prayer available at DriveThruRPG.com.
I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now. Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point). I can't imagine it had any impact at all.
Huh? Not the OGL.
On the GSL v 1.0 WoTC was listed as a corporation in Washington.
On the GSL v 2.0 WoTC islisted as a Limited Liability Company in Delaware.
So at some point between the two versions of the GSL, they changed the location of their company documents, as well as their business type.
I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)
It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.
Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
