Revised GSL TODAY!

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Wow

I'm really happy to see this! I think it marks a real turnaround for post-3E WoTC, and for 4E as a system. I'm really glad to see that Necromancer Games, my favorite publisher, will be having a go at an old school 4E.

As for the stat block issue, I like the idea of having links to DDI that let you download all that stuff from a WoTC site. Honestly, there were times during the 3E era when I felt shortchanged by the need for all those statblocks -- because a 32 page adventure with 16 pages of statblocks has less of everything else than I had come to expect from a 32 page adventure in 1E.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing an Old School spin on 4E. I'm looking forward to Pathfinder too. Good times!

Ken

 

[Umbran]

Huh. I was thinking the reverse: let people become entitled enough, and they'll start to expect free licenses that no one is actually required to grant.

Yeah, really. The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it. I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".

I am reminded of Veruca Salt...

 

[JohnRTroy]

But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.

The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.

The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.

Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.

Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.

I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem. Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety. I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry. Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome. You all have a game system that has been weakened. The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.

A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.

 

[CapnZapp]

I wonder if Paizo will jump in? I don't like pathfinder, but their adventures rock.

Add my vote as well!

Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now.

But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)

It sounds like you're trying to start an argument! Discussing the upcoming success or failure of Pathfinder really has no place in this particular thread. Carry on, folks, without taking this particular bait. ~ Piratecat

 

[wedgeski]

Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly. Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money. In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.

I never said they didn't gain anything, I'm not sure where you got that from. Your point was that this isn't charity, that Wizards have much to gain from the GSL. My point was that licensees have so much *more* to gain, relatively speaking, that arguing the GSL as a business contract and bemoaning the fact that it is one-sided is silly.

 

[Scribble]

This problem of content added to the SRD by WotC "retroactively" causing a licensee to be in violation of the GSL on the other hand I can definietly see occurring. Unless 3pp are very creative with the names of content they produce I could see a very real risk of coming into conflict with WotC. Given that 3pp will generally want to publish content with D&D-like names, I think this risk increases.

I get the feeling this is in there to prevent themselves from having to rename stuff they've spent a lot of money advertising because they didn't know joe little pdf seller had already used it.

Take that as you will... I don't think it's really going to come to pass that much with the big companies whom also might have spent a lot on promos for their new product because it seems like WoTC is pretty aware of them, and they are pretty aware of WoTC. And if it does come up, they've left themselve an avenue of discussion. The smaller companies... I don't think it will be such a big deal if they have to change a name.

I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...

 

[CapnZapp]

Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.

Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.

I believe this was the #1 reason put forth by the creators of the d20 OGL. You certainly seem to believe it was a success, then.

By your line of reasoning, you should be happy the GSL is nowhere as generous as the OGL...

 

[LurkMonkey]

Add my vote as well!

Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now.

But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)

I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.

No, my analogy doesn't miss that at all. You can see the broader ecosystem if you choose to; I merely chose not to. I was speaking of the ecosystem that directly supports D&D and its close relatives - my games of choice.

Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.

That's pretty good enough, AFAIAC. If the RPG ecosystem of which I speak includes Fantasy, Modern, Sci-Fi, Spy and Mutant Supers, I think it's broad enough to support pretty much anything you could ask for.

I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem.

It certainly changed the ecosystem. Whether it hurt the ecosystem I guess depends on your point of view. As a gamer I see it as an improvement.

Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety.

Less variety of what? To-hit tables? Thanks, I'll pass. d20 means gamers don't have to learn a new game mechanic every time they want to try a different setting or thematic element. This is a "Good Thing." As a gamer nothing annoyed me more than that learn-up period. The learning curve is much, much shorter going from D&D to Spycraft (or M&M) than from D&D to Mage: The Ascension (or Marvel Supers). Considering the breadth of worlds and games that have been translated to d20 (including World of Darkness) I really don't see a substantive argument here.

I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry.

I see this more as a signal of market demand than anything related to the OGL or d20.

A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives.

There are. I've got my Burning Wheel, NWoD and Spirit of the Century.

True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.

This is just false. Constrained innovation is real. It can also be elegant and beautiful. d20 has become more refined with each passing year as designers and publishers learned from each other (both the successes and the mistakes). I have witnessed this purely from the consumer side, and have been really excited about it. I want it to continue.

 

[see]

It would seem pretty standard, if being objective, to mention that the first two parts of your criticism of the license - that WotC can change it at any time or cancel it - are quite standard clauses for many such licenses, including the OGL and the licenses for most every videogame open to modding.

No, not including the OGL. The OGL was (and therefore is) an explicitly perpetual license, and while new versions with different terms can be released by WotC, the OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use whatever version of the OGL you prefer with any OGC.