You reap what you sow - GSL.

Lizard · Jun 18, 2008

Mercule said:
Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO. The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face. It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

D20 System FAQ by Wizards Of The Coast said:
Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?

A: Sure.

Q: Could I publish the whole thing?

A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.

I eagerly -- and that's an understatement -- await your reply.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Raven Crowking said:
Especially when we were all "pretty sure" that (1) 4e wasn't coming any time soon, and, when that bubble burst, (2) 4e would be OGL.

There are a few "This opens the door for WotC to...." predictions that haven't surfaced yet, but the majority of them, from the time Dungeon & Dragon were cancelled, have come to pass. Despite the fact that some claimed that doing things like tiered licensing and making 4e a non-OGL game would be "corporate suicide", many of these same folks are still claiming that they are "pretty sure" that WotC won't do X or Y.

I, personally, think it's time to take what WotC has done lately into account when determining what it is likely to do in the future.

Please note also that, from my reading of the GSL, WotC could shut down EN World (at considerable cost to the owners) for containing both 4e and OGL materials. And, if WotC decides that EN World hits their Gleemax bottom line where it hurts, please tell me that you think that WotC will not so.......despite the fact that Hasbro's shareholders can demand that WotC not act in a way that hurts their profits.

If EnWorld was under the OGL or GSL, yes. But they are not, thus what the GSL or the OGL say on the matter is immaterial. Copyright Law, Fair Use and similar stuff are the only law relevant for EnWorld.

The Fan Site policy they have been speaking of looks like it might tell site owners what they have to expect from WotC, and how they can avoid any legal pitfalls.

Of course, they could say something like "We will not take legal actions against message boards that only discuss one edition of D&D... But everyone else is fair game for our legal department. We advice you to study your old cease-and-desist letters from TSR, because you're getting similar ones soon". But I will only believe this if I see it.

The only whiff of interest in all of 4e came from Necromancer Games' announcement of planned suppliments, and I have no idea what will actually be produced under the new GSL. IMHO, WotC's policies are turning the D&D brand name into a sinking ship. Luckily, the OGL allows for D&D to survive...albeit without the brand name.

And without good rules! [/cheap shot]

Okay, if you found that too cheap, replace it with: "And without rules that I, Mustrum Ridcully, prefer.

nothing to see here · Jun 18, 2008

The Sigil said:
IANAL, but it seems to me that the GSL essentially grants me the ability to use the D&D logo - but in return, it restricts me even more than Fair Use does. Sorry, the logo ain't worth it to me.

It should be. It's hard to quantify brand value in dollar figures but I would happily argue that the three words "Dungeons and Dragons" hold more value than every other word ever published for every other TTRPG combined.

Lizard · Jun 18, 2008

nothing to see here said:
It should be. It's hard to quantify brand value in dollar figures but I would happily argue that the three words "Dungeons and Dragons" hold more value than every other word ever published for every other TTRPG combined.

Then you would never have seen most of the market switch to OGL-only games, largely abandoning the D20 logo and the ability to use the "Dungeons&Dragons" brand. You would not have seen Kingdoms of Kalamar, which was not D20 but actually was a "Dungeons&Dragons" licensed product, with logo use, fail to really blast away from the other, not branded, settings.

The fact that people swtiched to using just the OGL when WOTC decided to add extra conditions to the STL should tell you just how much the market valued the right to use those three words versus how much the market valued editorial freedom and the lack of arbitrary smackdown.

Farland · Jun 18, 2008

I can't say as I'm very happy with the new GSL and SRD. It seems like the lawyers at WOTC have gone into overdrive. It doesn't give me a good feeling toward the company.

MongooseMatt · Jun 18, 2008

Lizard said:
Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.

Thank you, Lizard.

It was that quoted line that kicked us off on the project - the kind of thing that makes you sit down and wrack your brains thinking 'right, just _how_ can we do this?'

I was amazed that no one else had done it up to that point. Still, as they say, the simplest ideas are often the best.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Lizard said:
Then you would never have seen most of the market switch to OGL-only games, largely abandoning the D20 logo and the ability to use the "Dungeons&Dragons" brand. You would not have seen Kingdoms of Kalamar, which was not D20 but actually was a "Dungeons&Dragons" licensed product, with logo use, fail to really blast away from the other, not branded, settings.

The fact that people swtiched to using just the OGL when WOTC decided to add extra conditions to the STL should tell you just how much the market valued the right to use those three words versus how much the market valued editorial freedom and the lack of arbitrary smackdown.

But I wonder if it still works so well now. Basically, in the beginning, few customers knew what the OGL meant. The d20 System License was easy to understand, so they tried that.

But then, the customer learned that d20 STL products weren't automatically good, but OGL products were, and they were often still usable with D&D.

Until the point came where OGL products stopped to be compatible with D&D, and they were just a niffty publishing feature that gave you a chance to get a good game.

It's hard to say - maybe if the D20 STL would have guaranteed high quality products, the OGL might actually not be that strong? Or are Open licenses always an advantage, since they never restrict creativity for sake of license conformance?

Aus_Snow · Jun 18, 2008

Personally, I was amazed WotC didn't do it themselves.

I might be wrong (of course) but it seems to have worked well enough in the cases of Conan: the Roleplaying Game and also True20 - publishing a pocket 'player's handbook', I mean.

Please, publishers or others in the know, correct me if I am wrong there. Do/did they sell well enough?

MongooseMatt · Jun 18, 2008

Aus_Snow said:
Please, publishers or others in the know, correct me if I am wrong there. Do/did they sell well enough?

Yeah, they did - at least, well enough for publishers of our sizes. And well enough for us to do the same with Traveller at some point (but then, there is the whole Little Black Book thing going on anyway).

Psion · Jun 18, 2008

jdrakeh said:
Do some Google searches for "OGC Wiki" and you'll gain some insight on which publishers were firmly for using the OGL to their own advantage but firmly against letting anybody re-use their content (even material that had been designated as OGC).

Basically, Mike Mearls proposed an OGC wiki as a fan/publisher resource, and a bunch of movers and shakers in the hobby industry blew a gasket, going so far as to state that they did not want any content they had previously declared as OGC reused for such a project.

Yep, I remember that.

Some have called Mearls a mensch for other things. For me, that was Mearls' mensch moment. Some publishers--including some I greatly respect (enough so to respect their wishes on this)--have submitted material under the OGC, then turned around and asked people not to use it. In some cases, I think it's failure to fully understand what they were getting into. In other cases which I have less sympathy for, those concerned have implied some sort of ethical breach. In these cases, that strikes me as saying one thing and meaning another.

You reap what you sow - GSL.

Lizard

Explorer

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

nothing to see here

First Post

Lizard

Explorer

Farland

Explorer

MongooseMatt

First Post

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

Aus_Snow

First Post

MongooseMatt

First Post

Psion

Adventurer

Similar Threads