New GSL Announcement

[Alzrius]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Weapons Locker was the only Modern title released under the OGL. Most d20 Modern material that is open was released through the Modern SRD instead.

I thought d20 Past was also released under the OGL. I admit to not knowing, though, since I never cared much for the entire line and didn't buy any of it.

 

[Ashardalon]

I thought d20 Past was also released under the OGL. I admit to not knowing, though, since I never cared much for the entire line and didn't buy any of it.

Nope, not released under the OGL, just checked.

 

[mxyzplk]

How much would M&M have to change to no longer fall under the OGL but still have the game be basically the same? Change to a percentile roll instead of a d20 (neatly have it all still be 5% increments of success tho), reword abilities like Dodge that appear in the SRD, what else?

You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20. All you have to do is:

1. Not claim OGL licensing (to be able to GSL)
2. Not be found to be infringing on the copyrighted material in the D&D Player's Handbook or other WotC products (to not get sued as a result).

Looking at the M&M 2e book, they'd definitely need to rework the first 10 pages heavily - not cut and paste the list of definitions from the SRD, for example, but reword them.

It's easy to be "scared of the lawyers" because of how litigious Hasbro is, but if you look at the relevant suits you'll see they've lost the ones where it matters - like, for example, the "Monopoly add-on" suit. And even the Scrabulous suit is being analyzed by legal folks to revolve more around whther they took trade dress or not versus the rules, even down to a high level of specificity.
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/scrabulous/

 

[La Bete]

With 4e slightly open, WoTC gets Necromancer to cease trading 3e, while WoTC gains the power to subsequently revoke the 4e license and put Necromancer out of business, putting WotC in a very strong position.

I think though that slightly-open may be the worst of all worlds for the general consumer, as it will minimise the actual variety of product on the market. Fully closed would have guaranteed plenty of continuing OGL/3e content. Fully open would have guaranteed plenty of 4e content. Slightly-open will reduce the amount of 3e content greatly in return for a limited amount of 4e content.

That seems to be a bit of a tinfoilhatish spin on things. Yes It would be possible for WotC to use the GSL to kill off 4e-supporting companies - but more likely they would use said power when they launch 5e to avoid the current kerfuffle.

And I have to disagree with your view with regards the general consumer - as a likely 4e adopter some time this year or next, 3pp support for 4e = good thing. 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = indifferent thing.

As a consumer, I'm largely uncaring about the trials and tribulations of the companies involved (though on a personal level, I'm sympathetic to the people affected by this). All I'm interested in is the end product. And I'm confident the market will sort that out.

You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.

The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.

So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash.

This.

The poll "Will you buy 4e even if closed?". had around 1000 votes - which isn't too bad - But on a board with 60K+ members? With 2000 users online right now? One of the busiest - and probably most 3pp-friendly boards out there?

Looking a the OGL/GSL threads - it's pretty much largely the same couple of dozen people.

To most gamers "openess" means "can someone write stuff for the system, not get sued, and make some money?". Sure, thats not the legal definition for open, but it's a common usage - and at the moment, the answer looks like "yes".

One last point - some 4e-positive people seem to knock third party support (and by extension the publishers). This situation certainly does suck for them, and you have my sympathy.

And thanks Scott and Linae for your hard work.

Cheers

 

[La Bete]

You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20. All you have to do is:

1. Not claim OGL licensing (to be able to GSL)
2. Not be found to be infringing on the copyrighted material in the D&D Player's Handbook or other WotC products (to not get sued as a result).

Looking at the M&M 2e book, they'd definitely need to rework the first 10 pages heavily - not cut and paste the list of definitions from the SRD, for example, but reword them.

It's easy to be "scared of the lawyers" because of how litigious Hasbro is, but if you look at the relevant suits you'll see they've lost the ones where it matters - like, for example, the "Monopoly add-on" suit. And even the Scrabulous suit is being analyzed by legal folks to revolve more around whther they took trade dress or not versus the rules, even down to a high level of specificity.
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/scrabulous/

Willing to put your cash on the line?

 

[BryonD]

And I have to disagree with your view with regards the general consumer - as a likely 4e adopter some time this year or next, 3pp support for 4e = good thing. 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = indifferent thing.

But you are not the "general consumer" any more than he is.

For me, as someone pretty much certain not to go to 4E, 3pp support for 4e = fine thing and 3pp support for 3e/derivative games = very big deal. But, again, I'm just one guy and so my opinion doesn't mean much either.

However, there is a bigger issue here.
GSL that allows free use by 3pps: good
GSL that actively seeks to damage the existing open gaming community/network: Very very bad

 

[mxyzplk]

Willing to put your cash on the line?

WotC is forcing a Prisoner's Dilemma with this new plan - the 3p's are putting cash on the line whichever way they jump. Your options are limited - Bet on 4e and go GSL and cancel all your other games that have every had any OGL "taint" with the knowledge that WotC's going to have no compunctions about making you dance like a trained monkey in other ways later on, bet on pure OGL and join forces with Paizo etc. to fork D&D, which might work but would require near-unanimous participation of the big 3ps, or try to find some way to get in on 4e without discontinuing all other products.

Clark and a couple people like him who do this on the side and/or exclusively support D&D already can safely take option 1, but all the other 3p's we're talking about here might well go out of business in the transition even if they decide on the trained monkey route. If a safe legal path to #3 can be found, it'd be best for everyone.

 

[La Bete]

However, there is a bigger issue here.
GSL that allows free use by 3pps: good
GSL that actively seeks to damage the existing open gaming community/network: Very very bad

Yeah, but I don't accept this as a given fact either.

 

[JVisgaitis]

In a manly way, let me say--I love you.

Come on! I know you can't say anything about this because of the NDA, but do you have to flaunt it in front of everyone?

 

[La Bete]

WotC is forcing a Prisoner's Dilemma with this new plan - the 3p's are putting cash on the line whichever way they jump. Your options are limited - Bet on 4e and go GSL and cancel all your other games that have every had any OGL "taint" with the knowledge that WotC's going to have no compunctions about making you dance like a trained monkey in other ways later on, bet on pure OGL and join forces with Paizo etc. to fork D&D, which might work but would require near-unanimous participation of the big 3ps, or try to find some way to get in on 4e without discontinuing all other products.

Clark and a couple people like him who do this on the side and/or exclusively support D&D already can safely take option 1, but all the other 3p's we're talking about here might well go out of business in the transition even if they decide on the trained monkey route. If a safe legal path to #3 can be found, it'd be best for everyone.

Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher. You seemed pretty confident with your "it's easy to be scared by the lawyers" line, so I was enquiring if you were planning a product that would be a test case - and willing to back it with cash for the lawyers.

Now admittedly, I was speaking mainly in jest , but I'm also certain that encouraging people to invest their money on a legal principle that hasn't been tested in the appropriate circumstances probably isn't the best idea. Unless of course, mouth and money and all that.

P.S. I'm not entirely sure if the "trained monkey" verbiage really helps.