It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
(From another thread)
It's really, really, hard not to keep coming round to "WOTC felt somehow obliged to produce a license, but really doesn't know what they want from third parties". Dancey's vision was clear: He wanted D20 Uber Alles. He wanted to encourage every company to buy into the D20 system and spread it throughout gaming. One die to rule them all. The OGC/PI split was there to encourage companies to produce valuable IP (settings, backgrounds, fluff) without fear of it being "stolen", while keeping all mechanics open so that they system could grow. It might not have worked out perfectly, but the "vision" was clear. I don't know what WOTCs "vision" is for the GSL.
So I'm asking: What does WOTC want/expect from the GSL? We had a lot of essays from Ryan Dancey about what he expected, what he believed, what motivated him, what his philosophy was, what his influences were, and so on. We haven't seen anything like that from WOTC this time around. We have the license itself, and, on the surface, the "vision" we get from the actual text is "We're not really comfortable with this whole concept". However, if they were really the case, there wouldn't BE a license, so, I have to assume that the license isn't the entirety of the "vision". I'd like to know what the purpose, goals, etc of the license is.
("Sell more PHBs" doesn't cut it. With the license as written, it's hard to imagine any produce for it which wouldn't sell only to people already active in D&D. Under the OGL, a cool setting (such as Freeport) or a cool variant (such as Spycraft 1.0, a D20 STL -- not OGL -- game) could bring in non-D&D players and encourage them to 'buy in'. But the GSL is so tightly written that I don't see much being produced that isn't of interest solely to currently active players. I could be wrong, of course, and we'll see what surprises come about...)
1. Encourage third party publishers to deliver one-night-stands. Adventures or enhancements of low page count, minimum content of publisher's IP, building only on Wizards' material (no competing product lines).
2. Discourage third party publishers from establishing lasting brand names.
In short, they want the people to provide the most expendable type of product, which also happens to deliver least profit - IIRC, Ryan Dancey himself mentioned that adventures and niche expansions deliver smallest revenues.
Products which compete via introducing strong thematic elements, long products lines and alternative or modified rules are strongly discouraged.
regards,
Ruemere
__________________ Keeper of Scarred Lands Repository. Keep your .sig fit - save space and bandwidth.
Y'know, I was actually hoping for a post from Scott or Lidda articulating their motivations and goals...understanding what WOTC expects to gain from the GSL might make interpreting and understanding it easier.
I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.
So I don't expect anyone from WotC to come and post about wotC's motivations; different people at WotC may post their own motivations, if they're allowed to, but I imagine there's an official very neutral party line they all have to adhere to - so don't hold your breath!
I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.
Makes sense, and probably quite accurate. I believe (at least from what I heard in the past), even with regards to the OGL/SRD/d20 license, there were lines drawn. Some peeps loved the idea of open gaming, others couldn't believe that the company would even consider the idea.
I have a strong sense that there isn't a consistent vision within WotC for the OGL - different people want different things. My impression is that Scott and Linae have a strong open-gaming vision, and that other parts of WoTC have a strong closed vision; and what wehave is a compromise between the two.
So I don't expect anyone from WotC to come and post about wotC's motivations; different people at WotC may post their own motivations, if they're allowed to, but I imagine there's an official very neutral party line they all have to adhere to - so don't hold your breath!
I get the impression that individually a lot of people support open-gaming -- but that individual/personal support breaks down when it comes to identifying what is "best" for WotC and D&D. Or in other words, Open Gaming is great...for the other companies.
I would say the first part is definitely accurate: crush the OGL.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
I think the GSL, as written, will keep wavering companies on the OGL side of the fence, whereas a license which offered more protection for the possibility of either 4e or the GSL not living up to expectations would encourage them to take a chance. People forget, now, how wary many professionals were of the OGL, and how hard it was to convince companies to go for it. Many of the things they were worried about were specifically covered by the OGL/STL -- that is, they were given assurances that certain nightmare scenarios couldn't come to pass. The GSL, OTOH, explicitly and deliberately removes those protections, and it's difficult to think of any reason for them to be removed unless they would interfere with WOTC's long term plans.
1) the majority of 3PP hops onto the GSL, agreeing to abandon their 3E IP
2) WotC terminates the GSL in nine to twelve months time, as soon as the majority of 3E IP have been "upgraded"
3) D&D returns to being totally closed. Anyone trying to resurrect their 3E IP using the OGL will be shot down according to the terms of the GSL.
4) Hasbro creates a new division to handle D&D sales called Total Sales Restriction.
1) the majority of 3PP hops onto the GSL, agreeing to abandon their 3E IP
2) WotC terminates the GSL in nine to twelve months time, as soon as the majority of 3E IP have been "upgraded"
3) D&D returns to being totally closed. Anyone trying to resurrect their 3E IP using the OGL will be shot down according to the terms of the GSL.
4) Hasbro creates a new division to handle D&D sales called Total Sales Restriction.
Mostly, the fact that concerns over such a scenario will keep a lot of companies from converting existing IP to 4e. I think, instead, we will see new creations that don't have existing value. It may be this is deliberate, to encourage the creation of 4e-specific concepts instead of retooling 3e; the GSL makes "upgrading" risky.
1) the majority of 3PP hops onto the GSL, agreeing to abandon their 3E IP
2) WotC terminates the GSL in nine to twelve months time, as soon as the majority of 3E IP have been "upgraded"
3) D&D returns to being totally closed. Anyone trying to resurrect their 3E IP using the OGL will be shot down according to the terms of the GSL.
4) Hasbro creates a new division to handle D&D sales called Total Sales Restriction.
Nothing preventing it except the assumption that humans always behave with perfect benevolence, fairness, and kindness when money is involved.
I think WOTC was happy with the OGL as long as they could say
"See? We no longer have to publish adventures and we get people purchasing our PHB"
It is things like True20, the pocket PHB and Conan that soured WOTC I think. Here where products that used their work yet at the same time, DIDN"T force consumers to have the WOTC product.
As time went on, I suspect since the latter was the more common approach, many at WOTC were wondering, "Um, how does the OGL actually help us again?"
I think WOTC was happy with the OGL as long as they could say
"See? We no longer have to publish adventures and we get people purchasing our PHB"
It is things like True20, the pocket PHB and Conan that soured WOTC I think. Here where products that used their work yet at the same time, DIDN"T force consumers to have the WOTC product.
As time went on, I suspect since the latter was the more common approach, many at WOTC were wondering, "Um, how does the OGL actually help us again?"
And effectively made material better than the core rules sometimes. I still regard Arcana Evolved as far better than the 3.x PHB.
And effectively made material better than the core rules sometimes. I still regard Arcana Evolved as far better than the 3.x PHB.
Ah but then you have to answer to the stockholders. Remember, Hasbro is a publicly traded company and as such, it is actually ILLEGAL for them to take part in activities that would devalue the stock.
So, again, how does the latter day OGL help WOTC when people simply buy games like True20, Conan, all of which don't need the PHB but ride the coattails of the d20 License to get widespread notice?
Ah but then you have to answer to the stockholders. Remember, Hasbro is a publicly traded company and as such, it is actually ILLEGAL for them to take part in activities that would devalue the stock.
So, again, how does the latter day OGL help WOTC when people simply buy games like True20, Conan, all of which don't need the PHB but ride the coattails of the d20 License to get widespread notice?
As has been said many times before, by keeping people in the D&D "space", as opposed to moving to non-D20 games. It also keeps people in the hobby itself, based on WOTCs late 90s marketing studies.
Since all but a tiny percentage of players of 'spin off' D20 games DON'T already have a PHB, the loss to WOTC is minimal, and the benefit of keeping gamers "close" is great. (Not to mention, as Mike Mearls has noted, serving to train the next generation of designers. Also also, it keeps game companies from investing heavily in house systems which fragment the market and pull people from D&D. Also also also, any innovations in design can then be used by WOTC, without any R&D costs.)
Then why kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs? WotC laid out a lot of resources in R&D for fourth edition.
I think the want to recoup that before they relax a little on the IP reigns. Who knows maybe they will write a less restrictive companion after they get their money.
I bought fourth edition for the digital reason. All the rules are going to be online and you will be able to meet and play D&D online. So far I'm disappointed. I hope I don't continue to be disappointed by the way the whole Digital Initiative goes.
Linear Mode
