WotC Doesn't (Didn't) Understand the OGL

[2WS-Steve]

Psion has mentioned it in other posts and I remember how the OGL in (I think) the Monster Manual 2 wasn't properly implemented. The guys at Lone Wolf, makers of Hero Lab, said this in a forum post:

Originally Posted by rob @ Lone Wolf

At the start of January, Wizards announced a new plan
for the 4th Edition OGL and the opportunity to be an early adopter
for a $5000 buy-in. We were keenly interested. The following week,
Wizards rescinded the plan and "re-started from scratch", according
to Wizards' point-person for the program. They've now decided to call
it the "Game System License" to effect a full departure from the OGL
and SRD, which means Wizards may be making substantial changes to how
the new GSL works. Consequently, we have no idea how the GSL will be
structured relative to software like HL. As of this week's update
from Wizards, they are "60% done" with the re-write, after which they
need to get it "reviewed by senior management". This is after four
weeks of re-work already. So our best guess is that we'll actually
have something we can *start* to assess in the middle of March.

Frankly, amateurs with no legal expertise were discussing and debating how WotC would handle the "use any version" clause of the old OGL months ago -- even pointing out precisely that we assumed WotC would simply call it something new, so that it wouldn't count as a new version of the old license.

That, what I imagine is a highly paid legal staff, didn't notice this until January ought to be pretty embarrassing.

[Henry]

The only thing that concerns me is that the "Early Adopter" license's actual draw is going to be frittered away to nothing if the license doesn't get out by early March or so. Given that publishers are going to need to have time to absorb the rules and their impact, and that they'll only have five months of lead time, that leaves only a couple of months to produce quality product to look good enough to complement what Wizards has lined up. Too late, and the early adopters and those thinking about it might decide to just wait.

[Oldtimer]

Originally Posted by Henry

The only thing that concerns me is that the "Early Adopter" license's actual draw is going to be frittered away to nothing if the license doesn't get out by early March or so. Given that publishers are going to need to have time to absorb the rules and their impact, and that they'll only have five months of lead time, that leaves only a couple of months to produce quality product to look good enough to complement what Wizards has lined up. Too late, and the early adopters and those thinking about it might decide to just wait.

From what I've heard, they are now considering extending the exclusive period for the early adopters to make up for the lost time.

[DaveMage]

Remember when all the publishers were hoping for the rules last November?

[Bacris]

If Monte's new book introduces concepts similar to what 4E has, but using 3.5 rules, I foresee some interesting things happening in the industry.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by 2WS-Steve

Frankly, amateurs with no legal expertise were discussing and debating how WotC would handle the "use any version" clause of the old OGL months ago -- even pointing out precisely that we assumed WotC would simply call it something new, so that it wouldn't count as a new version of the old license.

That, what I imagine is a highly paid legal staff, didn't notice this until January ought to be pretty embarrassing.

Here's the other thing -- one of the main designers of 4e is Mike Mearls, a man who earned a living with the OGL for many years. Speaking as someone who did quite a bit of OGL development myself, if you earned money from the OGL, you knew it, backwards and forwards. You were on the debate lists and forums, you understood all the terms and requirements. Since I do not think Mr. Mearls is either evil or incompetent, I have to assume he (and the other game designers) were "out of the loop" during the development of the "new" OGL (now GSL), and were never asked to provide their input into it.

Rich Baker is also an OGL "graduate", isn't he?

[2WS-Steve]

Originally Posted by Lizard

Rich Baker is also an OGL "graduate", isn't he?

He wrote a module for Atlas, but I'm not sure how much else.

I figure you're right about them not talking to Mearls -- though I don't remember him being on any of the discussion lists so I'm not sure how up he is on the execution of the license as opposed to working with covered material.

[HalWhitewyrm]

I assure you that Mearls and the rest of that team has nothing to do with the development of the GSL, as that falls under Legal.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by HalWhitewyrm

I assure you that Mearls and the rest of that team has nothing to do with the development of the GSL, as that falls under Legal.

And I (and many other freelancers and OGL publishers) had nothing to do with the GSL, but we all commented in August that adding a "community values" clause to the OGL would be pointless due to the nature of the license, so if we knew it (and publicly commented on it), it's odd that none of the OGL-aware developers and designers at WOTC simply remarked, in passing, "Dude, you're doing it wrong." This would imply that not only did WOTC/Hasbro legal not understand the license, that they did not seek any input from those on the staff who DID, nor did they pay any attention to the various public discussions on the license, or the discussions on industry lists which WOTC employees are subscribed to.

That's a level of isolation I find difficult to believe.

[Bacris]

Well, there's also the option that the way they wanted to handle the OGL / GSL from the beginning to now changed significantly, so the original agreement worked fine, but then when opinions / decisions changes, the agreement itself had to be changed.

Just a thought, instead of assuming WotC legal were ignorant or isolated.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Bacris

Well, there's also the option that the way they wanted to handle the OGL / GSL from the beginning to now changed significantly, so the original agreement worked fine, but then when opinions / decisions changes, the agreement itself had to be changed.

Just a thought, instead of assuming WotC legal were ignorant or isolated.

It's certainly possible, but if so, it was poorly handled -- first, announcing the use of the OGL, then announcing a very different and restrictive license called the OGL, then changing the license entirely for 'retooling' AFTER making an announcement of the terms.

No matter how you wish to spin it, this was not well done.

Again, one only needs to compare the current setup -- where the *license itself* is under NDA until June -- to the way the OGL was created, with many public drafts and RFCs.

[Orcus]

Originally Posted by Lizard

It's certainly possible, but if so, it was poorly handled -- first, announcing the use of the OGL, then announcing a very different and restrictive license called the OGL, then changing the license entirely for 'retooling' AFTER making an announcement of the terms.

No matter how you wish to spin it, this was not well done.

Again, one only needs to compare the current setup -- where the *license itself* is under NDA until June -- to the way the OGL was created, with many public drafts and RFCs.

Lizard, lets not get too nostalgic about the original OGL. It wasnt all wine and roses back then either.

First off, we operated on a "gentleperson's agreement" for over a year. 3E was out for over a year before there was even a formalized OGL and d20 STL. Then there was much gnashing of teeth over the specifics of the STL. Then they changed the STL to add those terms. More gnashing of teeths. I remember back in the day everyone was afraid there would be no real license and our stuff could get yanked. Heck, there was a real fear that WotC would just take our best stuff and republish it under the OGL! So its not like everything was great then and bad now.

There are a few big differences that I see.

1. WotC is trying to get the licenses out BEFORE release of the game. That is a HUGE change from 3E and is in our favor. You have to remember, while they said great things about open gaming way in advance of the release of the game and the OGL, even with all that great talk resources werent committed to the actual legal text of the OGL and the content of the SRD until WAY after launch of 3E. And here we are griping because WotC is slow to give us galleys of their actual pre-press books BEFORE launch. Yes, we had drafts last time, but it isnt the same.

2. There is no Ryan Dancey. For those of you who have had the pleasure to know him (as I have) Ryan is a great guy and a forceful personality. He just flat gets stuff done by personal will and charisma. 4E doesnt have a Ryan. Heck, my guess is with 3E Ryan just went to Peter and said "This OGL thing is hot, its on the cutting edge of the open source movement, its hip, its now, we will be awesome!" And Peter said "do it!" The same people and processes simply arent in place now. It was his baby and he championed it. I dont think people at WotC view it the same way. There is no head guy there for whom this is their baby, like it was for Ryan. As a result, it is treated differently.

3. The operation is way more professional this time around. Yes, perhaps Ryan's discussion lists made the process more transparent last time (and they did), but they were cobbling it together on the fly. It was awesome, but it was an experiment. This time, it is clear that third party support was part of a bigger strategy. I mean, that conference call was pretty impressive. It was planned, coordinated and done in a way that you dont see much in gaming. It was professional.

I think this hangup with the GSL is external to the main group of people at WotC dealing with D&D 4E.

Different times, different problems. But I still feel the intent is there. It was clear with Ryan, and public. I think it is similarly clear now, but they are just less public about it. That is more a byproduct of the fact that Ryan ran it last time. I still am 100% convinced that WotC wants us to help them support 4E. It may not happen on my timetable, and given that the 3E final docs werent done until over a year after release, I guess I cant bitch too much.

Clark

[Orcus]

I am a HUGE fan of Scott Rouse and Linae Foster (and all the other 4E crew, not meaning to slight anyone by not mentioning them but I mostly deal with Scott and Linae). I absolutely believe in them 100% that they will get this done for us and, more importantly, for all of you.

Clearly, it is already way past our ideal delivery time frame. And, my guess is, theirs too. But business decisions arent made in a vaccuum when you are a company like WotC owned by a larger corporation.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Orcus

Lizard, lets not get too nostalgic about the original OGL. It wasnt all wine and roses back then either.

First off, we operated on a "gentleperson's agreement" for over a year. 3E was out for over a year before there was even a formalized OGL and d20 STL. Then there was much gnashing of teeth over the specifics of the STL. Then they changed the STL to add those terms. More gnashing of teeths. I remember back in the day everyone was afraid there would be no real license and our stuff could get yanked. Heck, there was a real fear that WotC would just take our best stuff and republish it under the OGL! So its not like everything was great then and bad now.

I know; I was there. I had just started freelancing for Pelgrane and Dying Earth, and then I got stuff into Relics&Rituals, and then I began doing a ton of work for FFG, all in the first few months after 3e was released. I actually ran a game of 3e a few weeks *before* GenCon, using the PHB in Word format Ryan Dancey emailed to people on the OGF-L list. I still have that Word doc on my hard drive somewhere. (Note this was the PHB, not the SRD, and he just sent it out to us.)

That's a big difference. WOTC asked developers to trust them -- the gentleman's agreement and the long wait for the formal OGL/STL/SRD -- and they, in turn, showed they trusted developers. This is a far, far, cry from "We won't even show you the *license* unless you pony up 5K". Never mind early release of the SRD -- the *license* *itself* is being kept secret from the public. That's a major point of confusion to me; what can be in the *license* that is proprietary, as opposed to the content released under the license?

And here we are griping because WotC is slow to give us galleys of their actual pre-press books BEFORE launch. Yes, we had drafts last time, but it isnt the same.

I'm only "griping" because the license itself is being treated as a state secret. That worries me.

The GSL is a lot more like the old licenses TSR used to forge with Judge's Guild, et al, than it is the OGL, and that's their right, but it's a very different beast and is very much not, IMO, continuing the 'spirit' of the OGL.

[Orcus]

I hear you. I wish the process was more transparent and open, too. I liked that about Ryan and the 3E process.

But the bottom line is trust. Sure, it is easier to trust when you have a discussion list and frequent updates. You feel more in the loop. But we shure took a big chance with the way the 3E licenses worked out. I dont see the risk being much different here. Its just that there is less of a "loop." So it doesnt feel as good. Again, that is a side effect of Ryan. Open Gaming was his baby. Literally. And that was how he treated it.

But that said, I trust Scott and Linae too. I think they are nice. I think they genuinely want this to happen and are doing everything in their power to make it happen (even if the process is a bit more "secret squirrel" than anyone wants).

But I also think we have the almight dollar on our side. And when I am unsure what someone might do, I generally ask myself "if I was them, what would be in my financial best interest?" The answer there is clearly--help third party publishers support 4E. I think WotC knows the impact third party publishers have and I think they know it would be stupid not to have us help them. All you have to do is read the boards to see it. They've seen it. I know it. The people who said "we wouldnt have ever played 3E if it wasnt for Necromancer," and the "if Paizo or Necro go 4E, I will to." Its not hard to miss. Sure, 4E wants to hit new players, but NO ONE in business (that stays in business) tries to hit an uncertain new market and give up on their existing market. That is suicide. They want their current customers to come along. They also know that there is not the same NEED for 4E that there was for 3E. The game was, in my view, crying out for an update when 3E came along. That isnt true this time. Frankly, I think they know that we will be very helpful in bringing current players over to 4E. It strikes me that the critical time for that is launch. I dont think they want "4E launches, two thirds of current D&D players dont care" as a head line. So I think they have a clear business interest in helping us help them.

My worry is some short-sighted suit thinks that third party publishers cut into WotC sales. But anyone who was actually around for 3E launch knows that is bull (of course, one problem is that there are too many people involved with 4E that werent around for 3E launch). You were there. You know. If you remember, we pulled quite the coup. SSS BEAT WOTC TO MARKET with a monster book. Our Creature Collection was on the shelves a month before the official monster manual!!!! And guess what, WotC didnt sell ONE FEWER Monster Manuals as a result. In fact, it energized gamers and helped with the adoption of 3E. Despite the rumors that WotC didnt like it, Ryan Dancey paraded the book around the WotC office and heralded it as a sign that open gaming was working--and he was right! Think about it--D&D competes with other game systems and companies (they dont compete with me and Green Ronin and guys like that, they own us). Yet, with open gaming, here was White Wolf--the second largest company and one of WotC's main industry competitors--selling a monster book that supported D&D! Ryan had competing companies making products to help support and increase his own companie's market share. Genius. Total genius. Of course, morons could say "hey that was a book we could have made and money we could have made." No it wasnt. If it was, you would have made it. So in my view, there always has been and there remains a strong business reason to get us supporting 4E ASAP. I think WotC knows that--I'm pretty convinced Scott and Linae get it, since I've talked about it with Scott personally.

So in the end, even if it isnt as transparent as I would like it, I believe firmly that we will be allowed to support 4E in a meaningful way, and very soon.

[kenmarable]

Originally Posted by Lizard

That's a big difference. WOTC asked developers to trust them -- the gentleman's agreement and the long wait for the formal OGL/STL/SRD -- and they, in turn, showed they trusted developers. This is a far, far, cry from "We won't even show you the *license* unless you pony up 5K". Never mind early release of the SRD -- the *license* *itself* is being kept secret from the public. That's a major point of confusion to me; what can be in the *license* that is proprietary, as opposed to the content released under the license?

One quick clarification - publishers pay *after* seeing the license. Not before. Paying just to see the license would definitely be an awfully risky venture.

Secondly, it has been insinuated (if not outright stated) that with 4e, there will not be an SRD. The GSL itself will apparently state what is open and not. So there will most likely be specific references to the content, and therefore, proprietary information within the license itself. Yes, it does feel odd and confusing having the license itself kept secret, but only when thinking of it as another OGL. The GSL is a different beast, and does appear to have secret info in it.

[Orcus]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

One quick clarification - publishers pay *after* seeing the license. Not before. Paying just to see the license would definitely be an awfully risky venture.

Secondly, it has been insinuated (if not outright stated) that with 4e, there will not be an SRD. The GSL itself will apparently state what is open and not. So there will most likely be specific references to the content, and therefore, proprietary information within the license itself. Yes, it does feel odd and confusing having the license itself kept secret, but only when thinking of it as another OGL. The GSL is a different beast, and does appear to have secret info in it.

My understanding is that there will be a seperate SRD, it wont be in the GSL. That SRD will not be like the current 3E SRD. It wont have all the content in it. It will simply be a list or a document saying what we can use.

As for the GSL being private, there is nothing "odd or confusing" about that if you have any real world business experience, as essentially all draft licenses (and even final ones) are confidential between the proposed parties. Would I prefer it to be open, sure. But you simply cant say it is odd or confusing at all. Regardless of whether or not the license contains proprietary info or not, it is normal for such licenses to be confidential. In fact, given that the GSL is not the OGL, it makes more sense that the GSL is not immediately public.

Of the things I dont like about having to wait, the fact that the GSL will be under an NDA until public is the least of my complaints

Clark

[DaveMage]

Shouldn't the 5K be pro-rated at this point. Since it was originally suppoed to be out in January (5 months prior to release), since it's March now, shouldn't it be a $3,000 fee now (3 months from launch)?

[Admiral Caine]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Shouldn't the 5K be pro-rated at this point. Since it was originally suppoed to be out in January (5 months prior to release), since it's March now, shouldn't it be a $3,000 fee now (3 months from launch)?

Or the exclusivity of the early adopter period extended.

[hossrex]

Possibility A: Wizards of the Coast is run by retarded monkeys who despite being the most successful company in the history of Hobby Gaming, has no idea what they're doing.

Possibility B: A few very dedicated, very well meaning people here have misinterpreted a few things, misread a few others, and in general lack the business/legal knowledge of a very successful corporation.

If we were talking about something you weren't passionate about (like... say... agricultural reports), which possibility would you think was more likely? Doesn't it seem like we're letting our passions guide us maybe a little too much? I'm not saying you're wrong per se. I simply see so many "WoTC doesn't know what its doing", "WoTC is screwing up again", or "WoTC is going down the tubes, and Paizo is going to dominate the sector!" (you get the idea anyway).

Its awful easy to misunderstand what a company is doing when you're privy to less then 1% of the motivations behind its corporate decisions.