WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Darrin Drader]

I just hope WOTC is still able to maintain control of their product, as anside if I want to play dnd I want to play dnd, not a clone or rip off, if I want to play a different rpg I do not want that rpg to be using dnd mechanics.

And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules?

Also I really do not want companies to be able to mooch off of WOTC without doing a significant amount of work themselves.

The Pathfinder alpha 3 is 162 pages. All of that material is new or modified from the original SRD and you have to use it with the PHB to play the game. The beta will be more complete, but the point is that the original PHB is less than twice the amount of material Paizo put out themselves.

Further, why is it a problem for another company to use the SRD for their products when making new and compatible games with the D&D rules was the express intent of the OGL? I'm legitimately curious how this is a bad thing for you personally.

 

[Scribble]

Well, the current one can be changed or revoked at any time. Furthermore, whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).

So in other words, if you make up your own detailed Squidgeworld RPG and use the GSL to include 4th edition rules, and WotC later revokes the license, you cannot print Squidgeworld with a different ruleset. You have to ditch Squidgeworld totally and start all over, and you have to destroy all existing stock as well.

A nitpick, but it says nothing about any other rules system. It denies further use of the OGL for that product, but not EVERY other rules system uses the OGL. Again I know it's a nitpick, but it's inacurate to say it the way you did.

Also I know that the license can be updated to include other licenses on the "banned list" for a future version, but that's technically another issue.

 

[Alzrius]

And for those of us who prefer 3.5 but think that it needs a little bit of fixing? We should just be out of luck, or be stuck with every DM having their own set of house rules?

This sort of touches on why I'm a bit anxious about the new version of the GSL. If it's friendlier to third-parties, it could hurt the existing 3.5 community.

I know that sounds rather awful (and quite possibly selfish), but when the current GSL debuted, it made a lot of companies who would have produced 4E materials balk, and in some cases kept them in the 3.5 camp. Needless to say, for those of us who had no interest in switching editions, this was a great thing, as it kept some of our favorite companies producing the materials we wanted to see. However, solidarity fades away if there's a lack of opposition, and I'm worried that if the new GSL is friendlier, those companies will drop their 3.5 support for 4E. I don't want Kobold Quarterly to become a 4E publication. I don't want Paizo to let Pathfinder go in favor of a new 4E venture (though in all honesty that seems unlikely now anyway). I want third-parties to continue producing 3.5 materials, rather than 4E materials - but without a GSL that heavily penalizes them for it, they may now go ahead with the 4E plans they originally had.

Of course, I'm aware that that's a particularly negative way of looking at it. It might be that the new GSL will eliminate the "no-OGL" clause for product lines, meaning that companies might produce 3.5 AND 4E materials, which would actually help the 3.5 community more than it would have otherwise. However, the pessimist in me says that most companies don't want to put out multiple versions of products anyway, and we'll still see less 3.5 material if the GSL allows for both types of products.

I guess we'll see how it turns out.

 

[joethelawyer]

GVD-

Man, you are so negative.

This is not a "backtracking" or a "leverage" situation. How about--some good people (Scott and Linae) finally got listened to when it became apparent that the GSL was not doing what it was supposed to be doing.

I guess you are entitled to your own opinion of what to expect as to whether the changes will be "cosmetic" and "lipstick on a pig." I, on the other hand, expect them to be substantial. In fact, I am very hopeful that all the issues I have with the GSL will be addressed and Necro will be able to announce 4E support. That is my hope anyway. I guess we will see who is right. (smart money is on me)

Clark

i guess that was the subject of earlier debates---what it was supposed to be doing. somke speculated that there were more nefarious motives to it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, the current one can be changed or revoked at any time. Furthermore, whatever you have published under the current GSL cannot be published under any other system, ever. Basically, you're signing over the right to your intellectual property (IP).

So in other words, if you make up your own detailed Squidgeworld RPG and use the GSL to include 4th edition rules, and WotC later revokes the license, you cannot print Squidgeworld with a different ruleset. You have to ditch Squidgeworld totally and start all over, and you have to destroy all existing stock as well.

It has been some time since I read the GSL, but my understanding is that there is only one limitation with your IP under the GSL: Don't use it with the OGL. If you make up your own Squidgeworld 2d10+2d6 game system, fine. If you want to make a Shadowrun adaptation for it, fine. Publish either under the OGL: BAD!

I think that might be the reason why Redbrick has announced it 4E/GSL Earthdawn game - they know they would never use the OGL for that game - either create a new game system whole cloth, the original Earthdawn system (with or without revision), or 4E. They don't need the OGL for any of these scenarios.

There are other drawbacks, of course - the problem with having to update to a new edition, no grace periods or prior warnings to it, it makes life as a publisher a big hassle and can seriously impact sales. The d20 System License users got a warning that the license would run out and could still sell off existing stock, and rebrand all d20 System products (mostly the PDFs, I suppose) as OGL. But the GLS has no such "failsafes"...

Ah well, others probably understand the intracities of the GSL as it is now better then me...

 

[joethelawyer]

It seems to me that without being good, bad, or whatever, WotC chooses its actions as a company, and that therefore, every major decision is made with one goal in mind: to make more money.

Scott Rouse may be a champion for the 'gamer community' -- or he may be the 'good cop' who is the friendly, understanding, approachable person who makes the gamers feel better about the company. Regardless, he's got to pay his bills, also -- he needs his salary -- so he's not going to be standing there, pawing the ground in steely-eyed defiance, cowing the management into doing what's 'best for the gaming community.' The utmost he's going to do is find a way to persuade them that they'll make more money with a more open GSL.

So, that suggests a few quite logical scenarios to explain why making the GSL more open would give WotC greater profits:

1. 4e is successful, but an analysis of 3e's profits revealed that 3rd party support will make the success spike even higher, and bring in even more money than they're already making.

2. 4e isn't too successful, and they think -- again based on concrete data -- that an open GSL will boost sales and 'revive' their profits.

3. They're afraid of negative reaction causing a 'profit speedbump' in the future, based on a huge amount of complaining e-mails from customers. So they're stamping out the problem while it's still tiny.

4. Anything else that makes an open GSL beneficial to the bottom line of WotC.

totally agreed. no one in business does this sort of thing from the goodness of their hearts. there is a profit motive involved. accountability is the bottom line. in fact, if a company did something that was not in its financial best interests, it could be sued by its shareholders.

also, keep in mind the pinto cases from the 70's. ford knew that if a pinto was hit in just the right way they would blow up and likely kill or seriously injure the people inside. they put it out anyhow, because they thought that the cost of the suits would be less than the costs of fixing all the cars. decisions are made like that every day.

 

[joethelawyer]

Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?

(I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)

yes. absolutely.

 

[Voadam]

He wasn't talking about WotC's view or response to it, he was talking about his own view, based on preferences. He, like me, is pissed off when he purchases a book to find that 75% of it's page count is dedicated to a system we already own or could download from the SRD site. Yes, it's permissible and acceptable, but it's a cheap and lazy way to artificially inflate the cover price by reprinting something verbatim to inflate the page count.

Mutants & Masterminds? Good, because most of the content is wholly original.

World of Warcraft RPG? Bad, because most of the content is just a verbatim reprint of the SRD.

You bought the $40.00 400 page World of Warcraft RPG book not knowing it was intended to be a complete d20 game using a lot of srd material for game mechanics similar to WotC's d20 Wheel of Time, D20 Call of Cthulhu, d20 Star Wars, and d20 Modern?

Were you expecting it to be a World of Warcraft Campaign Setting instead?

 

[joethelawyer]

My theory (which I can't write enough of) is that WotC wanted to structure to GSL so 3pps could publish modules, but not D&D variants (they don't wand someone to make to 4th edition version of T20). I don't think they intended the OGL to allow them, but no one was thinking about them at the time. They made the GSL so that it would not allow variant, and so they could close any other loopholes at will. They ended up with a license so restrictive lots of folks would not even publish adventured for it. We'll now get to see what they can come up with to allow modules, not variants, and that won't scare off 3pps entirely.

another theory is that this was a planned delay. in other words they couldn't finalize a more open gsl when they needed to, the pressure from 3pp's was hot and heavy, and they put out something to appease the masses. buying themselves time to get out the gsl they envisioned but didn't have time to do a few months ago. not that wotc is ever late on delivery of anything...

this way they look like a hero at gencon and a consumer friendly company. one that listens to the people.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

another theory is that this was a planned delay. in other words they couldn't finalize a more open gsl when they needed to, the pressure from 3pp's was hot and heavy, and they put out something to appease the masses. buying themselves time to get out the gsl they envisioned but didn't have time to do a few months ago. not that wotc is ever late on delivery of anything...

this way they look like a hero at gencon and a consumer friendly company. one that listens to the people.

Busted.

you forget the inner office haha moment when the Rouse snaps after receiving his hundredth "way to go stupid" email about the GSL.