GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Lizard]

What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea? That's the reality that WotC is concerned about. They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.

Almost every board of note has a similair EULA. Most people are just less paranoid about other companies.

Also, most people grossly overvalue their ideas. I saw this during the open call which led to Eberron. Ideas are worthless. I get a dozen ideas a day. Turning an 'idea' into a saleable product...THAT takes work and effort. It is completely idiotic to believe any company wants to "steal your ideas". If your idea has ANY value, they will be happy to pay you to develop it. (It is also very, very, likely you're not 1/1000th as original as you think you are, and your idea is either a)under development, or b)has been considered and rejected.)

I can't tell you how many times "my ideas" have ended up in print -- because I tend to think like all the other geeks out there. Hell, the current 4e cosmology is VERY close to my "Sea of Worlds", which was in development with Mongoose for a while. Do I think WOTC "stole" my ideas? No. I think both I and the current developers looked at the "Great Wheel", saw the same problems with it, and came up with very similar solutions.

 

[Henry]

The gleemax terms and conditions are something I hadn't realised at all. So if the OGL/GSL is seriously toned down or scrapped we could find that certain kinds of fan generated material can only be out up on Gleemax and then that WoTC owns it all without needing any further permission.

I am sure they wouldn't do this................................would they?

Again, this is a misrepresentation of what their terms say. What their terms DO say, is that by posting there, you give them free reign to use your material in however they see fit; "we can use it" is NOT the same as "they own it."

Many people are making this same misunderstanding, and I hate to see it get perpetuated out any further than it is.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm responding to your assertion that the openness of 4e has no ramifications at the design level. It absolutely can.

And while I agree with you-- I don't think 4e was written with the intent to close it off-- I disagree that there are not elements of the design that were written with the intent to pull more terminology back into their control.

I predict there will be quite a few things joining the beholder, mind flayer, and displacer beast in 4e. Shadowfell and Feywild spring immediately to mind.

To say that, however, is not to say that I think WoTC intended, or even now intends, to close 4e entirely.

Hope that's clear.

All right, I think I see what's happening. (And I think it's why we've been talking past each other throughout most of this exchange. )

I've been limiting my comments, more or less, exclusively to the issue of how the existence, or lack thereof, of an OGL (or similar license) impacts things like the creative team. You're speaking in more general terms, about how legal concerns in general can impact the creative team.

So when I say things like "no impact," I'm referring specifically and strictly to the OGL issue, but you're reading it as "no legal impact at all, ever." And when you talk about them claiming or trademarking IP, I've been reading it as "for purposes of eliminating said license," when you didn't mean it that narrowly.

Sound about right?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Almost every board of note has a similair EULA. Most people are just less paranoid about other companies.

...

I can't tell you how many times "my ideas" have ended up in print -- because I tend to think like all the other geeks out there.

Abso-friggin'-lutely. I've seen an enormous number of my ideas see the light of day on projects that I had nothing to do with--not because anyone stole 'em, but because there's no such thing as a 100% unique, original idea.

To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, ideas are to finished, salable books as algae, zooplankton, and other organics are to petroleum. You can't have the latter without the former, but only the latter is worth anything; the former by itself is utterly valueless.

 

[Dark Mistress]

What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea? That's the reality that WotC is concerned about. They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.

I believe he would say something to that effect and Clark has so far earned my trust. Obviously if it keep happening to posters that would be suspicious but I doubt it would happen. I don't think Clark would. Just simple cause he is not doing Necromancer games as a business but as a hobby on the side. So money is not his motivation, just having fun and doing something he enjoys is. Which is why i seriously doubt he would try and screw someone over like that.

It is not really about if I think they will do it or won't do it. Lots of idea's come up at the same time or come from some other source completely unrelated.

It just makes me a bit leary of posting a idea there as a way of working on something.

The type of posts I was talking about is if you was brain storming a idea and asking for input on it. To either use inhouse or if it was well received perhaps see about getting it published. It is the wording on their site that makes me a bit leary of it. Most sites are less clouded in lawyer double speak and likely less legally binding.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've been limiting my comments, more or less, exclusively to the issue of how the existence, or lack thereof, of an OGL (or similar license) impacts things like the creative team. You're speaking in more general terms, about how legal concerns in general can impact the creative team.

Sound about right?

Pretty much. I'm saying both.

Legal considerations (apart from the OGL/GSL) "create" names like Shadowfell and Feywild and other Nounverbs. Hasbro marketers/designers don't have free reign to name anything without Legal clearing the name-- to make sure both that nobody else owns it, and to make sure it's ownable.

Once that IP is created, under its own set of legal considerations, then there's the further question of whether or not those terms end up being Open or usable under the OGL/GSL.

Girallon was open. Mind flayer was not. What will be Open in 4e, and what will not?

So when I say things like "no impact," I'm referring specifically and strictly to the OGL issue, but you're reading it as "no legal impact at all, ever." And when you talk about them claiming or trademarking IP, I've been reading it as "for purposes of eliminating said license," when you didn't mean it that narrowly.

I definitely don't mean it that narrowly. I am saying that legal considerations CAN drive design, and subsequent OGL issues CAN bring new light to those considerations.

EDIT: Just in case it's not clear, I'm not saying that Legal vets every word in every book. But they'll look closely at the things WotC wants to protect/own.

 

[Orcus]

What is D&D to you? It was 3.0E, then 3.5E, obviously your very excited about 4E.

That, my friend, is an excellent question.

It really has to do with my philosophy. I support D&D. That means the current incarnation of the rules by the official publisher.

That may sound on its face like I'm just a shill for the owner of the trademark. I'm not.

Necromancer was founded to be a modern day Judges Guild. JG always supported the current rules (until they werent allowed to). I have that same philosophy.

Further, D&D has always expanded and grown. Edition change and content change is a part of the history of the game, and was embraced by Gygax himself. I mean, we had the boxed set. Then Greyhawk supplement. Then Blackmoor. Then Eldritch Wizardry. They add stats, change races, add classes (heck, at first "elf" was a class, not a race; chew on that change), add artifacts, higher level content, levels over 3 , psionics, bards, druids, artifacts and relics, and that was before 1E even hit. Then skills and 2E and THAC0 and kits and all sorts of stuff. Specialty wizards and clerics. Heck, if D&D wasnt about change we would all be playing PCs with only STR INT and WIS. Think about that.

So philosophically, I always support the current version of the game.

Which, in my view, makes Necro and companies like us all the more important.

People play D&D for lots of reasons. Many of those reasons can be described by different feels of the game, what the game means to them, styles of play, type of content, etc. Necro speaks very strongly to old school players who like the classic feel but with the modern rules. I'm not knocking Wizards. I am the biggest Wizards supporter you can imagine. But they simply cant speak to all the players of D&D. Many would peel off and go to other games or systmes if they cant get the feel and content and style of play that they want. I give that to them. And other companies out there serve a similar role.

So that is the long and short of it. I always support the modern rules. But I feel that I know what the heart of classic D&D is and I think it is my job to make sure that heart beats in the modern rules.

 

[Orcus]

I have to say, speaking for myself as both a Necro fan and a hobby publisher, there's a little something that dies with respect to Necromancer if they are "simply" a licensed partner, as opposed to being along for the Open ride. It's not enough that WoTC recognize the value of 3rd party publishers. They need to be on board with Open Gaming. If 4e is not Open but Clark manages to snag a license anyway (which I think it probably the most likely at this point) then sadly, I'm probably off the bus.

I'm sad to hear that, but I cant disagree with you. Frankly, my hope is 4E is open to some degree even if under a GSL and not an OGL.

I said it back in the day and I will say it again--open gaming was a renaissance of the golden age of D&D from its early days when companies like Judges Guild and Wee Warriors (check them out if you want some D&D history!) and others made stuff for the game. When it was at its peak. It felt like that again with early 3E.

It truly was a reawakening of that golden age. Everyone involved felt it. Ryan felt it. I felt it.

There really is something to the wonder of open gaming. Something Wizards can really be proud to have been a part of. Something that really resonates with gamers in particular. We are all creative people. And we all value that creation, and our own creation. And D&D specifically for so long was a game owned by a company that had at its heart some people whose sole goal was to crush that creativity. It was so liberating when Wizards bought D&D and swept out the old and changed that mindset that ruined D&D and acknowledged the creativity of all of the people who play this amazing game. Nothing could have been more right. It is an absolute credit to Wizards and everything they stand for that they embraced open gaming the way they did.

 

[Orcus]

What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea? That's the reality that WotC is concerned about. They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.

Yeah, and there are several ways to react to that. I'd post and say "hey, rad idea you have there. Coincidentally, you will probably like product XYZ that we are working on that is pretty similar."

That said, the "what you post here is ours" mentality is pretty prevalent and cant really be used as a "Wizards is evil!" argument. They arent evil. They are just a tad more corporate than the gamer mentality is comfortable with. Which is why there will always be a bit of friction. And I dont mean that as disrespect to Wizards. I am a huge supporter. I am the guy telling people to calm down about licenses being under NDAs. Its normal. But it certainly chaffes the gamer mind.

 

[Oldtimer]

While I don't disagree with you per se, I must take you up on some details of OD&D:

(heck, at first "elf" was a class, not a race; chew on that change)

No, elf was a race at first. Page 8 of Men&Magic describes them as "Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game."

levels over 3

The STATISTICS REGARDING CLASSES table on page 17-18 in Men&Magic lists levels up to 10 for Fighting-Men, up to 16 for Magic-Users, and up to 10 for Clerics.

Heck, if D&D wasnt about change we would all be playing PCs with only STR INT and WIS. Think about that.

Page 10 in Men&Magic lists the six abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma.