4e D&D GSL Live

[jaldaen]

Or am I missing something?

The only things you can truly convert over to 4e wholesale is the PI (Product Identity or "fluff"; which was not released as part of the OGL) and the non-mechanical OGC.

The mechanical OGC in any converted product remains forever OGC, all you are doing is expressing the OGC in 4e mechanical terms using 4e References and creating new 4e rules to fill the gaps. This "new expression" of the OGC is not OGC and essentially becomes 4e GSC (4e Game System Content). You cannot take this content back with you if you attempt to return to the OGL. Nor can you return your PI once you convert because:

6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.

This means anything you convert over to 4e via the GSL, be it PI or OGC is considered "non-returnable" to the OGL for the Licensee. However, oddly enough the OGC is still OGC and so any one else, except for the Licensee can use it, which seems odd, but there you have it

In addition, once your PI becomes "non-returnable" to the OGL it is that way forever. No returning to the OGL for that PI or anything that Wizards of the Coast could construe as that PI.

Note: IANAL.

 

[Henry]

It wasn't. Many RPGs existed. In fact, one could make the case that the OGL--specifically the d20 SRD version licensed under the OGL--hurt the gaming industry by providing too many competitors that weren't really different. It's like everybody went into the dog breeding business and ignored hamsters, cats, bunnies, etc. Or everybody's making soup products, instead of other things like pizza, rice, etc.

Yet this doesn't compare with the period from 1991 to 2000, when there was no OGL, and gaming as a whole was at its weakest it had been in twenty years. Heck, the biggest fish after TSR was White Wolf, and they had -- what? Fifty thousand regular customers at most? I foudn one figure that says 5.5 million collective book sales over ten years, but that's not as many fans as D&D, by a long stretch.

I remember WotC's 1999 estimate that 2.5 million people tabletop-gamed monthly; Then an estimate by Charles Ryan in 2003 or so, that said (I'm thinking 4 million, I'd have to ask him or find a reference).

Found it - last paragraph of article. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ns-a-magnet-for-fantasy-fans---name_page.html

In just four years time, that's a substantial increase, and 3e and the OGL may not be responsible for all of it, but I really dispute someone dismissing it out of hand.

*Some people would attribute most all of it to 3rd edition and not the OGL, but to me that's like saying a cake is great solely because of the flour.

 

[GlassJaw]

I think it was created by people that DO fully understand what open source means -- and are frightened by it.

If they are frightened by it, I think that proves my point that they don't understand it.

 

[pemerton]

4E mechanics contain certain similiarities to other games previously published - one could argue that the experiences of various OGL games may have allowed 4E designers to introduce or avoid certain developments.

But does it contain mechanics similar to those of RPGs published under the OGL?

To the extent that it adopts a more self-consciously anti-simulationist mechanical approach, it seems to have learned mostly from non-d20/OGL games - and this hypothesis draws some support from references made to indie games by both Heinsoo and Mearls.

 

[pemerton]

The only things you can truly convert over to 4e wholesale is the PI (Product Identity or "fluff"; which was not released as part of the OGL) and the non-mechanical OGC.

The mechanical OGC in any converted product remains forever OGC, all you are doing is expressing the OGC in 4e mechanical terms using 4e References and creating new 4e rules to fill the gaps.

This could be summarised: a GSL conversion of an OGL product will reproduce the fluff (which may or may not have been OGC) and will replace the old mechanics (which may or may not have been OGC, but probably were to a large extent) with new mechanics which are stated using References from the new SRD.

This "new expression" of the OGC is not OGC and essentially becomes 4e GSC (4e Game System Content).

Unless I missed it, the licence does not define any such concept. What we have is text the copyright of which belongs (principally if not entirely) to the publisher, but which incorporates 4e References licensed under the GSL.

You cannot take this content back with you if you attempt to return to the OGL. Nor can you return your PI once you convert

Well, there are two issues here.

Any attempt to reproduce the content of a publication licensed under the GSL as a publication licensed under the OGL would be a violation of the GSL. But the issue I was considering was whether it would also be a violation of clause 5 of the OGL. And that clause only requires one to have authority to contribute the OGC in the publication. So, provided that everything appearing in the OGL version that had also appeared in the GSL version was not OGC, clause 5 would not come into play.

(I should add - I am assuming here what seems to me to be an overly wide reading of Clause 5. I do not think that clause 5 requires me to not be under contractual obligation not to contribute the OGC in question. I think that it only requires me to have sufficient rights in the OGC in question that, in purporting to contribute it, I am not infringing anyone else's property rights. But perhaps I am reading clause 5 too narrowly.)

This means anything you convert over to 4e via the GSL, be it PI or OGC is considered "non-returnable" to the OGL for the Licensee. However, oddly enough the OGC is still OGC and so any one else, except for the Licensee can use it, which seems odd, but there you have it

That is because the OGL does not preclude use of that OGC. And the Licensee would also enjoy the benefit of that non-preclusion - that is, a backwards conversion is forbidden by the GSL but (provided the OGC declaration is done properly) does not appear to be forbidden by clause 5 of the OGL.

In addition, once your PI becomes "non-returnable" to the OGL it is that way forever. No returning to the OGL for that PI or anything that Wizards of the Coast could construe as that PI.

Again these prohibitions arise under the GSL. As far as the OGL is concerned, what seems to matter (given clause 5) is proper declaration of OGC.

IANAL.

I am a lawyer, but an academic one, who does not teach contract and who does not have a practice certificate. So none of the above is legal advice - just an attempt to work out the implications of each licence.

Nor am I encouraging anyone to backwards convert in violation of obligations under the GSL - I'm just trying to understand the legal implications of doing so.

 

[Gilwen]

I think the bottom line is WOTC want's 3pp support but they them to support the game their way and the GSL is designed to do just that. Even during Dancey's tenure he said that 3PP suprised them in the ways they chose to support the game. They thought 3PP would do adventures and those kinds of supplements. For the most part 3PP didn't do that they came straight on and a lot in direct competition. I know I personally didn't buy many WOTC books beyond the 3 core for 3.0, about 7, but even fewer for 3.5 which amounted to 4 total. Over 90% of my RPG collection is from other publishers that used the OGL.

This time around WOTC is trying to shape things to go the other way and to get the type of support that they want the rest of the companies to provide in a away where tWOTC are left as head of the team. Nothing wrong or inheritly bad but this wouldn't be such a issue if the GSL had been released 8 years ago instead of the OGL.

Keep in mind my opinions are from what I am seeing now not from some intimate knowledge. You may reserve the right to say I'm nuts


my .02,

Gil

 

[Henry]

Nothing wrong or inheritly bad but this wouldn't be such a issue if the GSL had been released 8 years ago instead of the OGL.

Funny thing is, there was quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the OGL also when it was released, on rec.games/frp.dnd, about how WotC was trying to destroy the Gaming world by supplanting every game with d20. It didn't happen, but I don't think the GSL would have been any better received back then, and in fact might have flopped had it been as restrictive; the theory at the time was that the changes to D&D were possibly "too radical" and they didn't want to scare off the D&D fans, and in fact wanted them to embrace this new game system. Now, there's no doubt about the majority of D&D gamers "embracing d20", and the new D&D, so there's not as much fear to closing down the license a bit, because it's more of a known quantity now.

I'm still curious what will come out of it, other than a bunch of adventures from good to mediocre, and a few class/race/feat books. If something really innovative and important to D&D gamers comes out of the GSL, I'll be very surprised and impressed.

 

[Nellisir]

Thus, after eight years, the total attrition of the D&D market was much less than it had been in 2000, when D&D was pretty much at its nadir. The OGL kept people close to WOTC, even if they weren't actually playing D&D -- and primed them for the upgrade.

I think alot of people forget, or don't realize, that D&D's high point wasn't eight years ago, or ten years ago -- it was more like twenty-five years ago. Honestly, I think the OGL and the "game bubble" it created around D&D did a huge amount to level off and reverse D&D's decline.

 

[Gilwen]

I'm still curious what will come out of it, other than a bunch of adventures from good to mediocre, and a few class/race/feat books. If something really innovative and important to D&D gamers comes out of the GSL, I'll be very surprised and impressed.

Yah I remember all of that turmoil and the list debates. I learned alot from watching it all. I agree that there would ahve been just as much gnashing. Oh and when I say they should have released the GSL first, I mean it in the sense that they released it with the 3E stuff instead, not transplant the lincense and 4E SRD.

I'm leaning on the "I'll be impressed side" for the 3PP, there's a lot of talented ppl working hard. I htink after the dust settles and ppl get to work then something is going to come of it, someting new and unthought of and ppl will go "why didn't I do that". I think entry will be more cautious since the GSL is a higher barrier (at least with the current schools of thought about what the GSL means) than the OGL was and companies will really need to ease into the market rather than jump in first if they care about how the GSL can affect their IP longterm.
I'm looking to learn a lot from the GSL debates this time around too.

gil

 

[Gilwen]

I think alot of people forget, or don't realize, that D&D's high point wasn't eight years ago, or ten years ago -- it was more like twenty-five years ago. Honestly, I think the OGL and the "game bubble" it created around D&D did a huge amount to level off and reverse D&D's decline.

As I remember it ADD was all but stuck in the ground when WOTC took over the property.
I think you are right about the reversal, I don't know if the OGL can claim a majority of that feat but it certainly helped I think, epecially in the early days.
I also think that the GSL is going ot help WOTC sell a heck of a lot of DnD books this time around too.
Gil