What benefit is there for a smart/careful 3pp to use the GSL?

[Wyrmshadows]

This is kind of my point. If you are looking for control and guarantees, 3rd party publishing is the wrong sort of business. The OGL for 3E D&D was a fluke, and fairly unique in what it offered. The GSL is more along the lines of what most 3rd party licensing deals look like. People got spoiled by the OGL, and if you judge the GSL by comparing it to the OGL its going to look unfair.

You are publishing material for somebody elses game. They have control of it, not you. Its their game. It wasn't this way in the past, and that was a bit of an aberration. This is why I say that the OGL has spoiled people somewhat.

I'm not a game designer, I can create monsters, classes, and whatnot but I'm not a system designer. My strength is in writing internally consistant...and I think... very good "fluff" that conveys solid thematic elements and the setting "personality" through the writing. The truth is that folks like me are always plugging our stuff into someone else's mechanics. Even though that does force me to relinquish some control, ultimate control is still mine because I always take my toys and leave so to speak abandoning that which no longer serves me.

Under the GSL, I can leave, but I forever forfeit the ability to adapt my IP to a new set of mechanics. Not a bargain IMO. Plus, there is a populist appeal to the OGL that just serves my sensibilities very, very nicely.



Wyrmshadows

 

[pawsplay]

You are publishing material for somebody elses game. They have control of it, not you. Its their game. It wasn't this way in the past, and that was a bit of an aberration. This is why I say that the OGL has spoiled people somewhat.

They have control over their own creative work. There is nothing aberrant about creating a compatible product (vacuum cleaner bags do this all the time), nor about creating a guide to playing a game (Zelda, etc), nor about commenting on a literary work (unofficial guides and books do this al the time). What is protected is the work that went into creating a specific organization of ideas, distinctive service marks, and patentable discoveries.

A unique campaign is wholly your own ideas. If you are careful, you are not likely to infringe on someone else's service mark. And there is nothing in 4e that is remotely patentable.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't see why they wouldn't.

Because if you do use the GSL, rather than attempt an end run around it, you won't have to compete with Hasbro's attorneys. While Fair Use allows good faith claims of compatibility, Hasbro still has a responsibility to defend their trademarks and can probably keep most third-party publishers tied up in litigation until they (i.e., the third party publishers) run out of money.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Its kind of the lesser of a series of evils:

1. Play by WotC's rules and be subject to them

2. Go around the GSL and live in fear of a big freaking lawsuit at every turn

3. Forgo putting out things for what will end up being the most popular and supported system.


I don't see how being subject to a reversal by WotC is that much worse than living in fear of a Cease and Desist legal attack. As for number 3, that depends on your plans about making money.

 

[pawsplay]

Because if you sign the GSL, you have a losing hand if you do go to court. It is possible to survive and win against a C&D.

 

[GMSkarka]

While Fair Use allows good faith claims of compatibility

Technically, that's nominative fair use, which is a common occurance in pretty much every industry but this one.

Hasbro still has a responsibility to defend their trademarks and can probably keep most third-party publishers tied up in litigation until they (i.e., the third party publishers) run out of money.

The trademarks are not being challenged -- in the case of Kalamar, you can clearly see the Registered mark on the text "Dungeons & Dragons", and I'm sure Kenzer is smart enough to property cite that registration in his indicia. CITING a trademark, and correctly crediting it, is not the same as CHALLENGING a trademark.....and Hasbro's legal department knows this.



Seriously, though --do these sort of discussions really belong in the general discussion area? Shouldn't they be in the publisher's forum, or the GSL/OGL/Licensing forum?

 

[jdrakeh]

CITING a trademark, and correctly crediting it, is not the same as CHALLENGING a trademark.....and Hasbro's legal department knows this.

I didn't mention Kenzer and, in fact, I think that they're probably safe from litigation. That said, there were a fair number of publishers back in the early 3x days that did not properly credit or cite trademarks (and even more when the PDF market blew up).

I see no reason why this should suddenly cease to be an issue. My guess is that incorrect citation and trademark use will be as much of an issue now as it was was back then -- and that given the new status of the D&D game, such violations will be pursued with as much vigor as they were back then, too.

 

[Melan]

1. Control--Some people want full control over what they produce. 3rd party game design isn't really the sort of thing that lends itself well to having full control. I think people got a little spoiled by the OGL. WotC actually lost a degree of control over their game because of the OGL, and was the major reason 4E is GSL only IMO. In the end, it is their game.

In the end, spoiled or not, more of WotC's control is being lost, since publishers will just work around the GSL. One advantage of the OGL was that it established clear and safe boundaries, encouraging others to flock under its banner. This mutual advantage no longer exists, and I expect that C&D letter will not stop it, while litigation is not necessarily a road that's healthy to take, even for industry giants.

2. Dungeons and Dragons--One of the things that happened with the OGL was the mindset that you could consider your own creation its own game. For example, the creator of Pathfinder could consider Pathfinder its own game, instead of D&D. The GSL is for producing D&D material, period. If you can accept the mindset that you will be producing a D&D supplement, the GSL can work for you. Again, I think WotC wants people to publish D&D books instead of their own systems using what WotC created, and I think people got a little spoiled by the OGL in this regard(again).

Once again, the wishes of present day WotC are no longer relevant. They can't offer people the proverbial crap sandwich and expect them to choose that over the nice buffet at the other table. Threats may work against small entities who fold before the first nastygram, but it is pretty damn certain Kenzer&Co (a company run by a skilled IP lawyer) and others will not go so easily.

Once more, Ryan Dancey made something really impressive and smart back then; he invited people to play in his backyard, and they did even though they did not have to.

 

[GMSkarka]

My guess is that incorrect citation and trademark use will be as much of an issue now as it was was back then -- and that given the new status of the D&D game, such violations will be pursued with as much vigor as they were back then, too.

Perhaps. It's certainly not something that I'd recommend any publisher attempting without legal representation to make sure you're doing it correctly, that's for sure.

That said, if a flood of amateurs come in and screw it up, you'll have an interesting situation -- on the one hand, too many cases to cost-effectively combat, plus individually too small to bother with....but on the other hand, Hasbro would not want to be seen as abandoning trademark by failing to defend actual challenges. The question will come down to financial impact vs precedential impact.

Of course, in a perfect world, publishers would actually *know what they're doing* before stepping into issues of copyright, but then again I'm a hopeless romantic.

 

[grickherder]

delete