HeavenShallBurn: Stepping out of the discussion a second: I know how frustrating it is to lose a long post. If you're using Firefox, there are two add-ons in Firefox that can help. The first one, called "AutoSaveTextToCookiee", does as its name suggests, recording your posts in a file as you type, so that if you lose the window or navigate out, it will return when you go back to the page. The second one, called "DisableBackspaceNavigation", also doing as its name suggests, disabling the annoying backspace back-navigation in Firefox. If you're using another browser, you might look for plugins for that browser that do similar things. I hope this helps.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?
- Thread starter Corjay
- Start date
CapnZapp and Corjay,
I understand how the licensing issue is important to many. But it is not worth spreading ill-will between folks who's basic goal is, ultimately, just to have fun with a game. This getting in each others faces needs to stop.
So please, the two of you, just don't reply to each other any more.
I understand how the licensing issue is important to many. But it is not worth spreading ill-will between folks who's basic goal is, ultimately, just to have fun with a game. This getting in each others faces needs to stop.
So please, the two of you, just don't reply to each other any more.
This thread seems to be all over the place. I've read all of it, and it seems the discussion is not staying on the subject of what is WOTC's goal with the GSL. So instead of responding to one of the tagents in the thread, I am going to give me own two cents on the original question:
I think the GSL has a number of goals for WOTC:
1. Creating core rulebook sales by referencing official rule books instead of referencing online, free SRD rules.
2. Spread the D&D brand, by allowing the D&D logo to be printed on GSL products. In fact, the GSL logo is designed to not mesh with a company's graphic design with its big white box and extra text around the D&D logo. I actually find the GSL logo unprofessional and its primary purpose is to draw attention to the D&D logo instead of being a professional looking mark of quality.
3. Kill off the OGL by getting as many 3PP moved over to the 4e GSL and blocking their product lines from returning to 3.x.
4. If WOTC's intentions are not entirely above board, then the GSL also ruins 3PP when the license is changed severely, or pulled from them without warning. Without any safe harbor clause, the current GSL can destroy a 3PP at WOTC's whim.
When the revision is released, if it either a) blocks returning to the OGL or b) does not have safe harbor properties to protect publishers from losing their rights to use the liscense while compliant with the license, and if they do lose the license a way to restore complience, then I would highly question WOTC's intentions.
Likewise, even with an air tight GSL, if it is not edition proof (i.e. negated by WOTC going to 5e) then it still holds the dangers of the current GSL.
If WOTC's intentions are honorable, then the GSL's goal is to allow 3PP to help build the D&D brand and protect WOTC without any loopholes.
If WOTC is trying to rid themselves of the 3PP, then they are going to make the 4e GSL inticing with some limited safe horbors, but it will still kill the 3PP right to return to the OGL. Even if it doesn't, if enough 3PP go to the 4e GSL, they will indirectly kill the OGL support. Then, when all is said and done, 5e could wipe out any 3PP support entirely and by that point OGL would be fully dead.
I think the GSL has a number of goals for WOTC:
1. Creating core rulebook sales by referencing official rule books instead of referencing online, free SRD rules.
2. Spread the D&D brand, by allowing the D&D logo to be printed on GSL products. In fact, the GSL logo is designed to not mesh with a company's graphic design with its big white box and extra text around the D&D logo. I actually find the GSL logo unprofessional and its primary purpose is to draw attention to the D&D logo instead of being a professional looking mark of quality.
3. Kill off the OGL by getting as many 3PP moved over to the 4e GSL and blocking their product lines from returning to 3.x.
4. If WOTC's intentions are not entirely above board, then the GSL also ruins 3PP when the license is changed severely, or pulled from them without warning. Without any safe harbor clause, the current GSL can destroy a 3PP at WOTC's whim.
When the revision is released, if it either a) blocks returning to the OGL or b) does not have safe harbor properties to protect publishers from losing their rights to use the liscense while compliant with the license, and if they do lose the license a way to restore complience, then I would highly question WOTC's intentions.
Likewise, even with an air tight GSL, if it is not edition proof (i.e. negated by WOTC going to 5e) then it still holds the dangers of the current GSL.
If WOTC's intentions are honorable, then the GSL's goal is to allow 3PP to help build the D&D brand and protect WOTC without any loopholes.
If WOTC is trying to rid themselves of the 3PP, then they are going to make the 4e GSL inticing with some limited safe horbors, but it will still kill the 3PP right to return to the OGL. Even if it doesn't, if enough 3PP go to the 4e GSL, they will indirectly kill the OGL support. Then, when all is said and done, 5e could wipe out any 3PP support entirely and by that point OGL would be fully dead.
Good contribution, Najo. Glad to have another voice in here. What you highlighted as the variables should indeed remain variables until we see the GSL revision, which, from what I've seen, appears to be heading in the right direction.
I agree, the thread does at first glance appear to be all over the place, but only because the issue has a lot of different avenues to cover that could influence WOTC's motives. Like, currently, we were discussing WOTC's corporate status as affecting that motive, fine-lining between what is corporate red tape and what is intentional application on WOTC's part. The apparent side-avenue regarding WOTC's survival does indeed seem to be slightly off topic. I thought we'd explore its importance to the issue. If it has no importance to this issue, we can fork it to discuss it separately or drop it if that's HSB's preference. Don't feel obligated to pick up that part. If anyone wants to get beck to the current issue of the difference between their corporate obligations and corporate motive, I'd be glad to get it back to issue.
I agree, the thread does at first glance appear to be all over the place, but only because the issue has a lot of different avenues to cover that could influence WOTC's motives. Like, currently, we were discussing WOTC's corporate status as affecting that motive, fine-lining between what is corporate red tape and what is intentional application on WOTC's part. The apparent side-avenue regarding WOTC's survival does indeed seem to be slightly off topic. I thought we'd explore its importance to the issue. If it has no importance to this issue, we can fork it to discuss it separately or drop it if that's HSB's preference. Don't feel obligated to pick up that part. If anyone wants to get beck to the current issue of the difference between their corporate obligations and corporate motive, I'd be glad to get it back to issue.
Last edited:
Wotc's motives are obviously something that is very speculative. We have really two options for how to judge it from the outside in (aside from corporate espionage 
)
1) Make an assumption about their position and goals, and then draw conclusions (i.e. are they trying to kill off the 3pp or work with them). I know WOTC (and Scott) are saying they intend to work with the 3pp, but actions speak louder than words. If there was a movement within WOTC to rid us of the OGL, we would not hear about it publicly, heck, Scott might not even be privy to it.
2) Look at the facts and try to discern from them what WOTC's strategy and plans are.
So far, the actions are very negative towards the 3pp. Let's look at the facts:
1) The GSL terms shut down the OGL and give no safe harbor. A 3pp who comes into the GSL cannot take their product back to the OGL, and WOTC can at any time cut the 3pp out of the GSL without warning. Any legal matters that arise are all out of the 3pp pocket. Basically, anything and everything that could be wrong with the GSL from the 3pp perspective is wrong. WOTC in that agreement is a lion asking you to put your head in its mouth and trust it won't bite down. If at anytime the lion gets bored or hungry, it can bite. Would you do it?
2) Profit driven company's do not do something for nothing. WOTC has something to gain here. What is it though? Now, looking at the big picture, the OGL brought everyone to D&D. I had customers who stopped playing any other system because of the OGL. All of the company's basically hopped on board the d20 movement, and the few company's that didn't are looking foolish for not doing so (Palladium being the lead offender, Rifts d20 should have happened).
So, WOTC puts out the OGL and the D20 license. It makes WOTC look good for sharing D&D with everyone. As Ryan Dancy said, their surveys showed that all rpgs brought people to D&D, and that by unifying the d20 system with the OGL it would allow for roleplayers to easily share their rules and games. Now, alternatives to the d20 system are nearly extinct (except for White Wolf, Hero and Gurps for all intents and purposes). What did WOTC gain there? But that is not all..
Now, we have D&D4e. Like it or not, D&D 4e by its brand name and eventually a good library of support material, will be in control of the industry as D&D has always been. The GSL's key element is how it shuts down the OGL and ties the 3pp to the D&D player's handbook. You can't even print material from the core books (as Mongoose's preview of their cryomancer shows). Basically, the more core stuff you try to use, the more references "see the player's handbook" line afer line in your products you have. This makes for a product that is inconvinent for the customer, but convient for WOTC. This is also a sign of what WOTC wants and what they can gain. Basically, the company's publishing for 4e will drive all of their customers to 4e's player's handbook (and open the door to have to buy mostly WOTC D&D products). When WOTC releases 5e I garuantee there will not be a GSL. Also, I would not be surprised if after a period of time WOTC just closes the GSL. Which brings us to our next fact:
3) Their is no out clause in the GSL for 3pp, nor is their a terms of license continuancy. Now, I am not a lawyer. But I am a business owner who has worked with lawyers and contracts. When you draw a contract between two parties you want both parties interests met in the contract. If they are not or they are vague, then that is a bad contract. The GSL is allowing you to build a business on supporting D&D and building D&D's brand and WOTC doesn't have any contractual obligation to respect or protect that relationship. This is very bad. If I build a who series of products that boost D&D sales from my niche, and build my whole company around supporting 4e, then WOTC takes it from me, I stand alot to lose and have no legal recourse. I see posts here about well, WOTC is given you the rights to work with them, and its free. But the thing is, it is not free to work hard to build a business, build D&D even stronger for WOTC and then have WOTC snatch that away with a whim. That is dishonest. The 3pp have rights and deserve to have their contributions protected if WOTC wants to share the D&D sandbox, any other alternative is just a bad contract.
4) Then you mix in the downsizing, WOTC having issues getting the DDI to launch, Gleemax dying, and some major steps forward as well as backward that 4e made (though more forward than back in my opinion) and it is obvious alot of upheaval is occuring with the company. Hopefully it pans out for the better, I would not say it is a bad sign persay, though I think WOTC has a tendancy to bite off more than the company can chew and the leadership at the executive level doesn't understand the hobby game industry enough, while some of the visionaries within the company coming up with great ideas do not fully see the obstacles ahead.
So, what I see is a company with good intentions amognst its gamer employees who work for a corporate beast that wants 100% control of its interests and assest, that underestimates that hobby game companies, and thinks it can treat the game industry differently than the big business it deals with. I am sure Hasbro only takes parts of what WOTC does serious, and Hasbro's main interests is in building the brands in to mainstream elements. Hasbro would rather have a D&D mmo than a rpg for example, which perhaps the 4e path is the first steps in developing that.
The bottom line is what makes the most money for WOTC, while not hurting their public image. That is the key.
I have to cut this short due to time. Feel free to add or comment and I will try to complete my thoughts soon.
) 1) Make an assumption about their position and goals, and then draw conclusions (i.e. are they trying to kill off the 3pp or work with them). I know WOTC (and Scott) are saying they intend to work with the 3pp, but actions speak louder than words. If there was a movement within WOTC to rid us of the OGL, we would not hear about it publicly, heck, Scott might not even be privy to it.
2) Look at the facts and try to discern from them what WOTC's strategy and plans are.
So far, the actions are very negative towards the 3pp. Let's look at the facts:
1) The GSL terms shut down the OGL and give no safe harbor. A 3pp who comes into the GSL cannot take their product back to the OGL, and WOTC can at any time cut the 3pp out of the GSL without warning. Any legal matters that arise are all out of the 3pp pocket. Basically, anything and everything that could be wrong with the GSL from the 3pp perspective is wrong. WOTC in that agreement is a lion asking you to put your head in its mouth and trust it won't bite down. If at anytime the lion gets bored or hungry, it can bite. Would you do it?
2) Profit driven company's do not do something for nothing. WOTC has something to gain here. What is it though? Now, looking at the big picture, the OGL brought everyone to D&D. I had customers who stopped playing any other system because of the OGL. All of the company's basically hopped on board the d20 movement, and the few company's that didn't are looking foolish for not doing so (Palladium being the lead offender, Rifts d20 should have happened).
So, WOTC puts out the OGL and the D20 license. It makes WOTC look good for sharing D&D with everyone. As Ryan Dancy said, their surveys showed that all rpgs brought people to D&D, and that by unifying the d20 system with the OGL it would allow for roleplayers to easily share their rules and games. Now, alternatives to the d20 system are nearly extinct (except for White Wolf, Hero and Gurps for all intents and purposes). What did WOTC gain there? But that is not all..
Now, we have D&D4e. Like it or not, D&D 4e by its brand name and eventually a good library of support material, will be in control of the industry as D&D has always been. The GSL's key element is how it shuts down the OGL and ties the 3pp to the D&D player's handbook. You can't even print material from the core books (as Mongoose's preview of their cryomancer shows). Basically, the more core stuff you try to use, the more references "see the player's handbook" line afer line in your products you have. This makes for a product that is inconvinent for the customer, but convient for WOTC. This is also a sign of what WOTC wants and what they can gain. Basically, the company's publishing for 4e will drive all of their customers to 4e's player's handbook (and open the door to have to buy mostly WOTC D&D products). When WOTC releases 5e I garuantee there will not be a GSL. Also, I would not be surprised if after a period of time WOTC just closes the GSL. Which brings us to our next fact:
3) Their is no out clause in the GSL for 3pp, nor is their a terms of license continuancy. Now, I am not a lawyer. But I am a business owner who has worked with lawyers and contracts. When you draw a contract between two parties you want both parties interests met in the contract. If they are not or they are vague, then that is a bad contract. The GSL is allowing you to build a business on supporting D&D and building D&D's brand and WOTC doesn't have any contractual obligation to respect or protect that relationship. This is very bad. If I build a who series of products that boost D&D sales from my niche, and build my whole company around supporting 4e, then WOTC takes it from me, I stand alot to lose and have no legal recourse. I see posts here about well, WOTC is given you the rights to work with them, and its free. But the thing is, it is not free to work hard to build a business, build D&D even stronger for WOTC and then have WOTC snatch that away with a whim. That is dishonest. The 3pp have rights and deserve to have their contributions protected if WOTC wants to share the D&D sandbox, any other alternative is just a bad contract.
4) Then you mix in the downsizing, WOTC having issues getting the DDI to launch, Gleemax dying, and some major steps forward as well as backward that 4e made (though more forward than back in my opinion) and it is obvious alot of upheaval is occuring with the company. Hopefully it pans out for the better, I would not say it is a bad sign persay, though I think WOTC has a tendancy to bite off more than the company can chew and the leadership at the executive level doesn't understand the hobby game industry enough, while some of the visionaries within the company coming up with great ideas do not fully see the obstacles ahead.
So, what I see is a company with good intentions amognst its gamer employees who work for a corporate beast that wants 100% control of its interests and assest, that underestimates that hobby game companies, and thinks it can treat the game industry differently than the big business it deals with. I am sure Hasbro only takes parts of what WOTC does serious, and Hasbro's main interests is in building the brands in to mainstream elements. Hasbro would rather have a D&D mmo than a rpg for example, which perhaps the 4e path is the first steps in developing that.
The bottom line is what makes the most money for WOTC, while not hurting their public image. That is the key.
I have to cut this short due to time. Feel free to add or comment and I will try to complete my thoughts soon.
Very nice analysis, Najo. My following statement may appear to contradict my stand as many have assumed of me, but my stand is only to give people the benefit of the doubt, making me appear to be an apologist at times, but in actuality only want to keep all avenues open instead of letting the crowd jump on a train and ride it to nowhere. Because your view is open to possibilities, I have no need to provide a counter, so now there's room to look at things from an objective standpoint which is further bolstered by your well-stated open-minded analysis. For an extention of the first view, readers may review my previous posts.
According to the facts derived from the formatting of the GSL, the second scenario does appear most likely (appearance isn't proof of that view, but sets up a series of hard to ignore commonalities), and due to the failure to attract interest in the GSL because of those very things, it forces them to have to concede to more rights to the licensee. So they will likely find a way to create or exploit a legal loophole that appears innocent on the surface but in practice sets up similiar, but less threatening scenarios. In this case, the intent would be to balance the threat (variation of cost) vs. benefit to the 3pp. If the revised GSL proves to display this sort of tactic, then it would give greater credence to your second theory and would establish strong circumstantial proof. Public opinion would then be justified in distrust toward WOTC and a backlash may result in public boycott of all 4e material, and a lesser boycott on WOTC RPG's and maybe even other products. If the second theory is indeed WOTC's tactic, then we may see the end of WOTC as a power within the community and 3pp that have signed on may suffer as a result. Any 3pp that has signed all of their material over to 4e will not likely survive.
Now, if WOTC has no such ill-will, then the revised GSL that is produced will be above board, or show a very clear intent to be such, in all areas to counter the backlash from the first GSL. But at the same time, it could also mean that WOTC has abandoned its attempts at world domination for the time being to rebuild trust. In which case, we could all take solace in the fact that world domination has once again been thwarted for the time being.
According to the facts derived from the formatting of the GSL, the second scenario does appear most likely (appearance isn't proof of that view, but sets up a series of hard to ignore commonalities), and due to the failure to attract interest in the GSL because of those very things, it forces them to have to concede to more rights to the licensee. So they will likely find a way to create or exploit a legal loophole that appears innocent on the surface but in practice sets up similiar, but less threatening scenarios. In this case, the intent would be to balance the threat (variation of cost) vs. benefit to the 3pp. If the revised GSL proves to display this sort of tactic, then it would give greater credence to your second theory and would establish strong circumstantial proof. Public opinion would then be justified in distrust toward WOTC and a backlash may result in public boycott of all 4e material, and a lesser boycott on WOTC RPG's and maybe even other products. If the second theory is indeed WOTC's tactic, then we may see the end of WOTC as a power within the community and 3pp that have signed on may suffer as a result. Any 3pp that has signed all of their material over to 4e will not likely survive.
Now, if WOTC has no such ill-will, then the revised GSL that is produced will be above board, or show a very clear intent to be such, in all areas to counter the backlash from the first GSL. But at the same time, it could also mean that WOTC has abandoned its attempts at world domination for the time being to rebuild trust.
In which case, we could all take solace in the fact that world domination has once again been thwarted for the time being.
Last edited:
Before I reply, I had one more thing to add to my last post:
One of the elements that leaves a sour taste in my mouth regarding the GSL is the impending deadline for 3pp being able to release their products. The October go date has being known since May-June, but we still have no solid GSL and about 3 weeks ago 3pp need to be printing their products to hit the date. But since the GSL is not appealing, the publishers can't safely start using it.
This puts the companies in a place where they a) keep making 3.x products, b) hop on board and put their head in the mouth or c) wait it out and generate no income as they wait to see what happens. This could put alot of those publishers out of business, which looks like this is what WOTC wants. I hope that is not the case, as Scott and crew seem like nice, trustworthy people. So, with that being the case, either those approving the GSL are making things hard or D&D is understaffed, under budgetted or both.
Now, for my reply:
I think the only way WOTC truely can make the GSL safe is to open it like the OGL. They would have to allow the basic rules of the game to be open content in a SRD like the OGL is. Anything less makes it possible to close the license and take away the safe harbor the 3pp need.
The next suitable level is for WOTC to create an expectations list for a 3pp compliancy and rules on correcting violations of those expectations. As long as the company is in good standing, they are able to product materials for D&D. The safe harbor here is that it doesn't block the OGL if you lose compliancy and as long as you have compliancy the license is edition proof into the future too.
If we do not see either of these approaches or something close, then I think the intentions of WOTC are going to come into question. As they probably should. Personally, I think long term win/win is good for the D&D game and the hobby community. I hope WOTC sees that.
Oh, and thanks for the nice comments Corjay, its much appreciated
One of the elements that leaves a sour taste in my mouth regarding the GSL is the impending deadline for 3pp being able to release their products. The October go date has being known since May-June, but we still have no solid GSL and about 3 weeks ago 3pp need to be printing their products to hit the date. But since the GSL is not appealing, the publishers can't safely start using it.
This puts the companies in a place where they a) keep making 3.x products, b) hop on board and put their head in the mouth or c) wait it out and generate no income as they wait to see what happens. This could put alot of those publishers out of business, which looks like this is what WOTC wants. I hope that is not the case, as Scott and crew seem like nice, trustworthy people. So, with that being the case, either those approving the GSL are making things hard or D&D is understaffed, under budgetted or both.
Now, for my reply:
I think the only way WOTC truely can make the GSL safe is to open it like the OGL. They would have to allow the basic rules of the game to be open content in a SRD like the OGL is. Anything less makes it possible to close the license and take away the safe harbor the 3pp need.
The next suitable level is for WOTC to create an expectations list for a 3pp compliancy and rules on correcting violations of those expectations. As long as the company is in good standing, they are able to product materials for D&D. The safe harbor here is that it doesn't block the OGL if you lose compliancy and as long as you have compliancy the license is edition proof into the future too.
If we do not see either of these approaches or something close, then I think the intentions of WOTC are going to come into question. As they probably should. Personally, I think long term win/win is good for the D&D game and the hobby community. I hope WOTC sees that.
Oh, and thanks for the nice comments Corjay, its much appreciated
