New GSL Announcement

I'm crossing my fingers too. I hope the answer is "We didnt understand the question Clark was asking/Clark didnt understand the answer we gave, we thought he meant something else. Product by product, you cant make a 3E version and a 4E version of the same product. Yes we did say companies have to choose to support 4E or 3E. But we didnt mean to say that you could never use the OGL again."

I am more than happy to have the answer be that I was confused. Please.

Clark

Scott_Rouse said:

I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.

Click to expand...

I have a process question. You stated you didn't want to comment without the license in front of you. Can you explain why you can't state the intent of the license? Are you not responsible for the intent of the license? Who is?

Someone, at some level at WotC, must be the guy who says to legal "I want a license which does X, Y, and Z." This is the guy who intention for the GSL is what legal must accomplish. There would be back and forth as I'm sure legal will point out issues this guy didn't know or understand. But at some point isn't it that's guy's job to make the decision about what legal creates?

My point is people have asked what is the intent behind some of these questions and you are hiding behind the language of the license rather than stating the intent of the license. It seems odd to me that the brand manager doesn't know what this new license intends. If the intent of the license and the text of the license do not match are you going to just use it anyway? No, I would assume you would kick it back to legal and ask for another revision.

So, flat out, can a single company release product A using GSL and unrelated product B using OGL on the same day? What is the intent for this case?

Scott_Rouse said:

I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point.

I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.

Click to expand...

Scott,
Just to pipe up here again, I do appreciate the work you are doing. I'm not a publisher, but I am a picky consumer. I also acknowledge that I am in the vast minority of market share that WotC is targeting.

That being said, I don't like the fact that some of my favorite companies may have to discontinue sales and potential ongoing support for OGL products.

Clark is right in saying that this is WotC exercising leverage. I appreciate the business acumen involved. From a strictly business perspective, it makes sense to flex that muscle. But I don't like it.

That is coming from a customer.

I don't want you to think that any frustration that I have expressed is directed toward you specifically. You have a tough job since you get to deal with all of this stuff. I know you understand my concerns and probably appreciate where I am coming from. Whether you can do anything to directly address them or not isn't, perhaps, the most important thing. I know you have listened and if you can't address my specific area of concerns, then I know it wasn't because you simply ignored the things that have been expressed. I don't envy the position you are in. But I do respect you and Linea for the work you have put in. For that matter, there is probably an entire team involved that I would like and respect if I knew more of who they are and what they are doing.

EDIT: Danged spelling errors. I hope I got them all...

Guys, please please please take it easy on Scott and Linae. They are in a tough position.

I know for a fact that they helped make openness* for 4E a reality. My guess is that was an epic level battle. In fact, I hope they leveled and got some great lewt when they won that fight.

They deserve our goodwill. I'm as frustrated as the next guy, but please dont accuse Scott of hiding behind anything.

Clark

Nlogue said:

We browncoats keep just enough fuel in our fireflies to hop round the verse, not take her over...we ain't Alliance afterall.

Click to expand...

Shiny a firefly reference, if only we could have had a rebirth of the series.

Orcus said:

When you really think about this poison pill, Wizards is asking us to do nothing more than they are doing themselves (yes, I know this isnt 100% true but it is a good model for thought)--dont support 3E anymore, with all the handwringing that comes with such a decison--and jump on 4E. Its faster, better, cooler, newer, and 200% improved! or whatever other market speak you use when you releaunch.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, but I am still concerned with support for OGL games.

Let me open up an example here and I will use Adamant Entertainment. My apologies to Gareth-Michael in advance.

Skull & Bones was published and distributed by Green Ronin. I don't know the sales figures, but I am guessing the game was somewhat successful without being a blockbuster game.

Adamant Entertainment has provided support for Skull & Bones in the form of the Buccaneers & Bokor products. Sure, a new Buccaneers & Bokor hasn't been released lately, but one could at some point in the future. An old product (Skull & Bones) with potentially new support (Buccaneers & Bokor).

Northern Crown was published by Atlas Games. Again, I doubt this was a blockbuster game.

Adamant Entertainment has provided support for Northern Crown through the Franklyn's Almanack products.

Adamant Entertainment provides support for the D20 Modern ruleset through several product lines, but let's pick the Thrilling Tales products.

Right now, if Adamant Entertainment chooses to support GSL, all of those products may have to be discountinued.

Presumably WotC will eventually cover the bases of D20 Modern with some sort of flavor of 4.x. But Green Ronin and Atlast games might never choose to rewrite Skull & Bones or Northern Crown as GSL products.

But how does pulling Buccaneers and Bokor from availability benefit WotC? How does preventing Adamant Entertainment from releasing another Franklyn's Almanac benefit WotC? Are those market dollars so valuable that WotC needs to close off those avenues of support?

I do know that closing those avenues of support doesn't benefit me at all. Not as a customer. If I have a group of friends that gets together twice a year and we all happen to like to play Skull & Bones, we might like to keep those options open.

Instead, WotC is using market leverage to prevent more support for those niche products from being released. It is one thing if that support doesn't come to fruition because it doesn't make sense for Adamant Entertainment to devote energy to developing the support. It is an entirely different issue that if Mr. Skarka has an idea burning in his head one night for just one more issue of Buccaneers and Bokor, he can't publish it because he chose to support the GSL.

I can find more examples all over the place. I have two weekly groups that play D&D. But we don't always play D&D, sometimes we play something else as a change of pace. As well, that isn't the only gaming I do. I liked the OGL because it allowed the creation of new games with the same basic mechanics. It made the learning curve much shorter if I wanted to play a game that WotC didn't directly support. What's more, as an educated consumer, I understood that the OGL was irrevocable. And as a PDF consumer/advocate, I understood why OGL support could always exist. Once a product has been created in a PDF format, it doesn't take up warehouse space. It could sit in digital land forever. These products could trickle in sales year after year, which might be convenient since I might not get around to playing a new game immediately. In fact, it might be downright old by the time I get around to playing it again. But if it was an OGL product and there was PDF support for it, I might even be able to find material that was new to me when I did get around to playing it.

I just never anticipated that WotC would feel so threatened by those products that they would make new licenses contingent on the removal of that old product.

Sure, it makes sense that WotC would want GSL adopters to commit to the new system. But what I want as a customer is support for every system I own and want to play. I still have my 1st Ed and 2nd Ed D&D stuff. And because I left D&D in the 2nd Ed days (because I didn't like the way TSR was running their business), I don't have all the material that was published. But I can get that material in PDF format if I want it. But I won't be able to get support in PDF format for some of my OGL games if an excellent company wants to porduce GSL products. The poison pill certainly doesn't benefit me in this case.

Orcus said:

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not a lot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

Click to expand...

Not ANYONE can use the license, only those that meet the requirement of the license. WotC has already indicated that only those with a business license could apply for the initial release. I don't know if that will be in the final license, but it wouldn't surprise me. Also the inability to use the GSL if your using the OGL, limits those who can use it (if actually true). Additional restrictions wouldn't surprise me. It's currently unclear if it allows you to reuse material published under the GSL by third party publishers. WotC even dropped the 'Open' from the name of the license.

Yes it's nice that WotC is allowing the use of 4E under license, but it's a big step back from the 3E open license they had. While you might perceive it as more 'open' then no license, it is an inaccurate name for the 'beast' and will confuse the heck out of folks.

I'm currently wondering if no license wouldn't be a better option then the impressions I'm getting from the GSL. I'm sure folks like yourself are very happy they can even publish under the GSL. But I'm very afraid that folks are tying themselves in legal knots that will ultimately limit their creativity. WotC is also in the perfect position to tighten the knots every time they feel like it. Products require a long time to produce, in the past if WotC changed the D20STL, you could always drop the logo, now you might have the whole product or do a large rewrite. Those things cost a lot of money, something game companies don't have. They could even pull the license entirely and your out of business. I feel that the GSL is becoming something that allows you to print money for a limited time, but not something to build a business around...

I'm curious about a US legal aspect, can a company legally exclude you from business if you do business with another company or sell a certain product?

Just looking through the General forum and I see a topic on older adventure modules with good plot. And that makes me think of the obvious area that would be impacted by exclusivity conditions: 3.x modules!

There are obvious reasons why WotC would prefer to see new development of GSL modules, and I certainly don't blame them for that! But why is there a need to have the OGL modules removed from the market? People are still mining modules that are editions old for good ideas. Heck, we can still buy those modules in PDF format. So why do the 3.x modules have to go away? Is it just to push customers forward toward 4.x and the GSL?

OK, maybe I am beating a dead horse at this point. I've made my point and then some right? I'll wrap this up and head to bed for the night. Maybe I will be less emotional tomorrow.

BSF said:

Just looking through the General forum and I see a topic on older adventure modules with good plot.

Click to expand...

That's me!

People are still mining modules that are editions old for good ideas.

Click to expand...

Actually, truth be told, I'm mining them for Holmes D&D And for Story Engine (a non-D&D game.) That said, your point is a valid one. A new edition never has rendered past editions obsolete but this possible clause in the new license seems to be a real step in that direction.

So why do the 3.x modules have to go away? Is it just to push customers forward toward 4.x and the GSL?

Click to expand...

I suspect so, yes, as that makes sense from a business standpoint. A lot of people may not like it (myself included), though I don't begrudge WotC their right to engineer the D&D market to their advantage (after all, at the end of the day, it is their market.)

Okay, I just read this whole thread. It's taken me about 12 hours, since I walked away from the computer many, many times to do other things. 12. Hours. I think I'd rather be waterboarded than go through that again.



On to the subject at hand. The limitation on previous material, as referenced by Clark, seems too drastic to me and actually seems as though it would hurt WotC more than help. Why? Because a lot of big, quality companies would be absolutely nuts to quit their successful lines under the OGL just to print some stuff using the more restrictive GSL for the unproven 4E system. So, in one stroke WotC may have guaranteed quality 3rd party publishers BECOME competition instead of enlisting their aid in promoting 4E and taking the system further.

It's simple: some companies that may have wanted to come over to 4E will now find themselves unwilling to do so. As a matter of fact, the companies least likely to make the switch are the companies with the most successful OGL products (successful because they were largely GOOD). It would have been nice if those companies could have also made successful--good--4E products. Green Ronin, I'm looking at you, as I still own nearly all of your books even though I never bought a WotC book after 3.5 came out. I would have loved me some GR books for 4E. Now that seems unlikely to ever happen.

I'm not really upset over all this, just a bit surprised. I EXPECTED a clause to prohibit not releasing the same book under both licenses. That makes sense and wouldn't be a roadblock, IMO, except for certain specific books ... but no hurdle in general. But to make the COMPANY choose seems too much. It takes whatever value the GSL has and nullifies it. Too great a cost for too little return.

I think WotC may have just ensured, maybe even guaranteed, a fracture in the DnD fanbase that will never heal. I can easily see game companies stepping up to continue support of the OGL forever. Instead of withering and dying, a large pool of talent will remain with the OGL and 4E will continue on its way, poorer for the loss.

But nothing is written in stone yet. It may all turn out to be nothing. I certainly think that things can still change and CERTAINLY don't think that this is being done from malice. I just don't think the results are going to be what they are expecting. I trust in Scott, Linae, and the others working for open gaming at WotC. Hell, I'm grateful we'll have SOME 3rd party support. VERY grateful. I just wish that it wasn't set up in such a way as to exclude the best publishers from 4E.