OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[I'm A Banana]

What you won't see is a Mutants and Masterminds, which is completely divorced from D&D, using 4e mechanics.

Actually, my bet is that you will see that.

At least, you'll see it as much as M&M uses 3e mechanics.

Which is to say, derivative, perhaps compatible, but without actual reference to the D&D books in any way.

Because mechanics can't and won't be copyrighted.

M&M could take the concepts of "flat math," of a d20 vs. a DC, of Tiers, of Feats, the mechanics for Skills, the idea of per-encounter/per-day/at-will powers, etc., put them in it's own terms, and still publish a completely compatible product and still be on fairly solid legal ground.

They wouldn't be able to take text wholesale from the PHB and reprint it, but they didn't really need to in the first place. A nudge here, a tweak there, to better suit it for their own purposes....perfection.

 

[Lizard]

This nicely ends the problem of the OGL specifying that all versions of the OGL are valid, and any content can be used under any version. 4e is NOT being released under the OGL, period, full stop.

Among other things, this means all currently open content -- huge volumes of it -- is 'closed' to 4e. Publshers who wish to convert their existing products must be careful that they own 100% of the content. Looking at the 'Section 15' of many products, this is often not the case. Specific ownership of individual bits and pieces of merged open content must be tracked down, difficult since the OGL did not require identifying sources -- indeed, it mandated against it.

For example:

Company 'A' publishes a sourcebook. Its S15 lists books 1,2, and 3.
Company 'B' published a book which uses some bits of Book A. Its S15 now lists itself+1,2,3. However, the author of 'b' doesn't know which bits from 'a' came from which sourcebook.
Company 'C' uses a paragraph from Company 'B's books. Problem expands. Since S15 is additive, it is nigh-impossible to know which particular bits of formerly open content belong to who. Only if a book references just itself and the SRD can it be safely upgraded -- and then only by the original copyright holder.

 

[Lizard]

3rd-party products cannot be published in a way that makes the core books unnecessary. So, no more "complete" games that reprint large chunks of the core books. Instead, publishers will have to focus on content that references the core books (the SRD now being an actual reference document that points to "open content," rather than a container for OGC) rather than reprinting it. So, this sounds like the Advanced Player's Guide is just fine, but something like the WoW RPG (which reprints over 100 pages from the SRD) is not.

So what this means is a lot of wasteful book-flipping.

It's worth noting that the original D20 STL had the "Requires the use of the PHB" clause in it, and this did not stop games like Spycraft 1.0, the Everquest RPG, and many other "complete" games from appearing. Since it is VERY unlikely anyone would be playing a D20-derived game who did not already own a PHB, the 'lost sales' from such games are minimal.

Basically, this new license is as unlike the OGL as it can be. The whole point of the OGL was to encourage code re-use, make the D20 system "the" system for playing in every kind of game and genre, and mandate sharing of material derived from open content. The current GSL is, basically, an old-fashioned 'license to print supplements', ala the old Judges Guild stuff. It will not surprise me if it is non-viral, as well -- Necromancer's derived material will not be open to, say, Mongoose, and vice-versa.

 

[Vigilance]

3rd-party products cannot be published in a way that makes the core books unnecessary. So, no more "complete" games that reprint large chunks of the core books.

Only if you're intent on borrowing the fiddly-bits from 4e.

M&M is as possible today as it ever was, because all that 3e material is open forever.

So someone who wants to make something using the considerable R&D investment in 4e WoTC just laid out will have a few more restrictions, but there's still plenty of OGL complete games to be made using 3.x material.

 

[Vigilance]

So what this means is a lot of wasteful book-flipping.

It's worth noting that the original D20 STL had the "Requires the use of the PHB" clause in it, and this did not stop games like Spycraft 1.0, the Everquest RPG, and many other "complete" games from appearing. Since it is VERY unlikely anyone would be playing a D20-derived game who did not already own a PHB, the 'lost sales' from such games are minimal.

Right, but "losing PHB sales" shouldn't be their only concern. At least imo it shouldn't be.

Especially right out of the gate, asking folks to use the new material Wizards just spent a lot of time and money developing to support THAT MATERIAL seems not only good common sense on their part, but also just plain polite.

If you want to make a complete OGL book but can't using 3.x material, I guess this would limit you. I really don't see how that would be the case though.

Basically, this new license is as unlike the OGL as it can be. The whole point of the OGL was to encourage code re-use, make the D20 system "the" system for playing in every kind of game and genre, and mandate sharing of material derived from open content.

That might have been the original idea but we both know it didn't really work that way. The only material that got re-used in large part was Wizards' material.

Because let's face it, we're all proud but poor cobblers here. You have your way of making shoes, and I have mine, and I like mine better. This isn't the same as open source software, which was the analogy being used.

There's no objective way to say "mechanic X works better". Even the most widely lauded 3rd-party derived mechanic I can think of, the Damage Save, is not everyone's cup of tea.

The current GSL is, basically, an old-fashioned 'license to print supplements', ala the old Judges Guild stuff. It will not surprise me if it is non-viral, as well -- Necromancer's derived material will not be open to, say, Mongoose, and vice-versa.

I don't think this will necessarily be true. We have no reason to suspect that the license won't allow you to use Mongoose's content in your book as long as it requires the 4e PHB.

But again, I don't see this as a huge barrier, because however much the 3e license might have allowed real open source development, that's not how it worked in practice anyway.

Chuck

 

[Cassandra]

Company 'A' publishes a sourcebook. Its S15 lists books 1,2, and 3.
Company 'B' published a book which uses some bits of Book A. Its S15 now lists itself+1,2,3. However, the author of 'b' doesn't know which bits from 'a' came from which sourcebook.
Company 'C' uses a paragraph from Company 'B's books. Problem expands. Since S15 is additive, it is nigh-impossible to know which particular bits of formerly open content belong to who. Only if a book references just itself and the SRD can it be safely upgraded -- and then only by the original copyright holder.

I agree that Company C will not be able to use any of the material it got from B's book, nor will B be able to use the material it got from A's book. However, Company A, since it knows what material it used from where, could possibly republish only its own content.

Of course, it should go without saying that all Open Content published under the OGL was by definition derived from the 3E SRD, which itself falls under the Open Gaming License. It seems to me that such content would, in effect, have to be "re-derived" from the new SRD to be able to be published under the Game System License.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The whole point of the OGL was to encourage code re-use, make the D20 system "the" system for playing in every kind of game and genre, and mandate sharing of material derived from open content. The current GSL is, basically, an old-fashioned 'license to print supplements', ala the old Judges Guild stuff. It will not surprise me if it is non-viral, as well -- Necromancer's derived material will not be open to, say, Mongoose, and vice-versa.

A game system is not "code" to be "re-used". It's not the GPL.

d20 can do a lot, but I don't think it can do everything. The ones that "stretch" the system aren't really d20, can you really mix M&M, Spycraft, Arcana Unearthed, and D&D together without SOME conversion?

"Mandate sharing of material"--how much of that was really done? I think most publishers did their own thing, and didn't make a lot of cross-compatible products. The virus was mostly D&D to their own campaign setting or variant PHB. WoTC stopped creating OGL stuff outside of a few books.

Honestly, it was a great experiment. But I think it was a failure. WoTC primary market is selling "core books". The PHB has always sold more than the supplements. I think it was mentioned while Millions PHBs were sold, only 300,000 of the FR 3e Campaign Setting were sold. This has always been true--Gary Gygax once mentioned millions of D&D players but only 100,000 subscribed to Dragon magazine. Having the rules on-line may have hurt sales. I even suggested maybe the best thing to do with Unearthed Arcana would be not to convert it to on-line format, since I thought that the best way to reward WoTC for doing that would be to buy the book and show that you'd publish it.

No other major publisher has adopted a similar method for their created game systems--White Wolf hasn't opened the Storyteller System, Steve Jackson hasn't opened GURPS, etc. If the concept of open gaming is so great, wouldn't other publishers have followed suit?

And for those that still believe in the OGL, continue using the third game! Honestly, the people who are complaining the most are those who wanted 4e open. Wizards has said "no, it's not". So, if your primary goal is to support open gaming, using 3e INSTEAD OF 4e. It'll keep at least one thing I liked about the OGL--keeping a form of D&D alive if the parent company died.

Trying to "reverse engineer" 4e is just going to prove some hypocrisies. It's Wizards choice to use a different license system. I don't think there would be an ethical way to "reverse engineer" it. Granted, you might be able to legally do this. However, I'd personally take a dim view of a publisher that decided to do that. Wizards has their own license which (hopefully) allow you to keep your own product identity, so using anything other than the GSL would no be required. And unlike OSRIC, you're not trying to support a "dead" game with no license.

If you're trying to do something "completely different", why even bother making it 4e compatible? The question is, since (a) Wizards is offering a license and (b) those using the existing OGL can still use the 3e game, why would somebody like Green Ronin decide to upgrade M&M to be 4e compatible.

Honestly, what I think will happen is that instead of trying to make 4e compatible cames, you'll see more game companies come up with truly original ideas and not try to make many minor variations of the same ruleset. Those that make major changes could just as well create their own new games. Why make a knockoff of D&D when you can create your own game? With the d20 glut, I have a feeling people would rather get a totally new thing than another umpteeth edition of D&D.

I honestly think this is a good thing, the market had much more creativity before the d20 animal, and we lost some of that "bio-diversity" when everybody rushed into the d20 market. Now, we'll have those people who are cool with the more restrictive license who want to suppliement WoTC products or produce their own settings. And, we'll see more creative games.

Of course, it should go without saying that all Open Content published under the OGL was by definition derived from the 3E SRD, which itself falls under the Open Gaming License. It seems to me that such content would, in effect, have to be "re-derived" from the new SRD to be able to be published under the Game System License.

Technically, D&D is not derived from the SRD, the SRD is derived from D&D. D&D itself isn't subject to the OGL.

But even if so, I believe one of the major reasons for changing the whole "fluff" or background is to make elements of D&D require WoTC. The new planes, world like the Feywild and Shadowfell, new creatures, the new cosmology, etc. The key thing is to make the new elements so integrated with the game and so desirable that you'll want to use the GSL. I'll bet the GSL allows you to use all the "fluff" in an adventure or supplement, while the OGL will not.

 

[Shroomy]

How many companies regularly used another companies product? Paizo seems to be the only one to do it regularly, though I thought that Goodman Games used some ToH in some DCCs (not sure which ones though).

 

[The Little Raven]

So what this means is a lot of wasteful book-flipping.

So, having to flip through a book you're expected to own is worse than paying money to buy the same content twice because a publisher wants a "complete" game that only contains a small percentage of new content? I don't think so. God forbid I have to flip through the PHB I already own instead of getting the combat chapter repeated, word for word, from some lazy developer.

The whole point of the OGL was to encourage code re-use, make the D20 system "the" system for playing in every kind of game and genre, and mandate sharing of material derived from open content.

If that was the point, then it has failed pretty definitely.

 

[Vigilance]

How many companies regularly used another companies product? Paizo seems to be the only one to do it regularly, though I thought that Goodman Games used some ToH in some DCCs (not sure which ones though).

It didn't happen much.

Myself as an example, RPGObjects has used significant OGL content in exactly one product in the last 6 years.