Answers on the GSL!

Delta said:

(a) Why do they insist on releasing these blurbs on Friday night, just as everybody goes incommunicado for the weekend?

Click to expand...

We really don't like to release info on Fridays for just this reason, but we didn't want folks to have to wait until Monday to get the info. Scott & I spend quite a bit of time in the internets over the weekends so hopefully we'll be able to keep up with the comments and major concerns.

Lizard said:

I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:

Classes
Powers
Equipment
Fluff

I create classes like Gunslinger, Commander, Sneak, and Con-Man. I add rules for guns. I create appropriate exploits. I write a lot of modern fluff.

I do not include any forbidden rules. Since I probably won't be able to reproduce large blocks of text, I write my combat rules to integrate as smoothly as possible with the 4e rules, including additional material as needed. Ditto feats and skills. While it won't be as elegant as having all the rules (except chargen/XP) in one volume, it's still functional, since almost all of my target audience will have the 4e PHB anyway.

I can always add a worldwide mystical conspiract headed by, I dunno, a dragon or something, and say "It's a game of fantasy espionage adventures".

I'm not trying to "break the rules" -- I'm trying to show the rules aren't (at this point) making a whole lot of sense. I am really nervous about any attempt to define something as slippery as "fantasy" in a legal document. I think it will cause publishers to self-censor, reining in their imaginations so as not to stray too far from where the current consensus places "fantasy".

Click to expand...

As I read the announcement, the d20 GSL is specifically designed to allow things like a 4e Spycraft. It's a modern game that would require the 4e PHB.

Green Knight said:

As for turning their back, can you name any other company who's done as much?

Click to expand...

? Is this a trick question? All the other companies who have released their games/content as open, which is a large number of them nowadays. From whole games (Action!, Spirit of the Century, RuneQuest, True20, Mongoose Traveller, Pathfinder, etc.) to their content for other games (like most people who have done D&D OGL stuff), there are many other entities and people who have given what they have into the open community. Many have given as much into open gaming as Wizards; obviously their contribitions' merit varies to you if you're a "WotC only D&D boi" as many proudly are, but that doesn't take away from their openness.

Wizards is now turning their back on what they've done, going full closed, and trying to undo openness in the marketplace as well. Whether it's at the company, product line, or product level - that's a matter of degree, not of the nature what they're doing.

Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?

Green Knight said:

Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?

Click to expand...

I know Traveller and Runequest aren't spinoffs from WOTC IP.

You either didn't read or didn't understand my last post.

There are many games that companies have put out that are openly licensed and are not d20/D&D-based. I listed them, but will do so again.

RuneQuest, a venerable percentile-based system that shares its roots with Call of Cthulhu. http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/runequest.php

Spirit of the Century, whose FATE engine is a FUDGE variant.
http://evilhat.wikidot.com/fate-v3

Traveller, which is a science fiction ruleset also originating back in the day.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=51
http://www.travellerrpg.com/

Action!, which is a new modern-focused 3d6-based game system. http://www.action-system.com/

There are more, as well as others put out under other licenses like Creative Commons.

May I suggest http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/ if you'd like to find out more.

No, Palladium et al. have not done anything for open gaming. Palladium is the worst of the crowd, with their anti-fan site doctrine. But none of these other companies have ever tried (that I know of) to try to get other companies to sign agreements that require them to *not* produce open games.

Pramas said:

I realize this is just an example, but let me just say first that this isn't something we're going to do. WotC has been clear that stand-alone games won't be allowed under the GSL. True20 is its own game and will stay that way. If GR does 4E stuff, it won't be by updating True20 or M&M.

As for the question, it really depends on Trademark issues. True20 was released under the OGL. This has always meant that people could design compatible product with it, but use of our Trademark requires permission. We have a new trademark license that allows it, so if that were still in force people could use it in conjunction with the OGL, just not on a line that was using the GSL.

Click to expand...

See, what I'm wondering is whether the GSL allows for a 4E Freeport Guide. Since the new Freeport line is explicitly system free, you guys might be able to do one, but because there is already an OGL/d20 Freeport Guide, maybe not. The content would be different, because most of the stuff in the Freeport Guides is system-specific stat block stuff, meant to supplement the content of the Pirate's Guide to Freeport. Since the d20 license is going poof, then you're gonna hafta sell through the existing stock of d20 Freeport Guides anyway, but does the True20 Freeport Guide come close enough to keep you from doing a 4E/GSL Freeport Guide?

I dunno.

Green Knight said:

Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?

Click to expand...

Please tell me how the following systems are spinoffs of D&D:
Action!
FUDGE
Runequest
Traveller
FATE

Lemme see, how can I put this in terms that won't get me banned? I strongly recommend you research the topic further before continuing to post on it.

Green Knight said:

Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?

Click to expand...

I don't think the makers of True20, Mutants&Masterminds, Conan, et al, appreciate your attitude of their efforts just being "spinoffs of WotC's IP".

It seems WotC fanbois will take any crap with the same inane argument "well, WotC are the nicest since they gave us the d20 SRD". Wake up, WotC is not the same company anymore. They have distanced themselves from Open Gaming and gone back to being a closed shop.

Maybe the WotC fanbois need to look up the meaning of BOHICA.

Piratecat here. This post is a problem for a couple of reasons, primarily the manner in which you manage to insult vast numbers of people with your "WotC fanbois" line. Here's the deal: if you're going to discuss it, don't sink to cheap shots and insults. If you can't do that, don't post.

That goes for everyone.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me. My email is in the Meta forum.

- Piratecat

Look both camps have their points.

The Open Gaming camp has their point that Open Gaming is not limited to the OGL or its use. FUDGE didn't use the OGL when it was first released (don't know if they adopted it or not). It is being used for a couple Mongoose games, some use other licenses, etc. So it's not solely for D&D, nor was the OGL the first attempt to do it. They also like the advantages of the viral license and certain legal benefits.

But the other camp has their point as well. If Open Gaming was a true paradigm shift you would have seen other big companies like White Wolf or Games Workshop use it. Instead, they didn't. WoTC was the odd "big guy" in the open gaming camp--before it was limited to less popular games. People who used the OGL may or may not have been fans of "Open Gaming" in particular--it was just the only license you could get from Wizards, you'd have to ask them individually. Those other games listed are minor--RuneQuest and Traveller are "big names" but they lost a lot of market share over the years and I think the primary reason they are going OGL is to get more third party support--and AFAIK the OGL versions are only one version of a system that has multiple versions.

Open Gaming may or may not be the "wave of the future". It all depends on what happens and how the market reacts.

Keep in mind too that the majority of players probably don't give a darn if the game is open or not. So making appeals to WoTC "closing the system" will probably get a lot of people who say "So?". Open Gaming has its advantages--but in the bigger scheme of things it doesn't have a big effect on the player base. We've always been able to tinker and use all rulesets as we see fit--we just don't have the right to publish. As a consumer I never saw it as fulfilling a specific need for me as a consumer.

Let's all try to avoid attacking the person. We can be friends with people who hold different religious and political views, we should be able to be friendly with people who like, dislike, or are indifferent to open gaming.