4e D&D GSL Live

[GlassJaw]

I believe that the GSL was formulated by people who just don't get D&D.

I don't think the GSL was created by people that don't get D&D.

I think the GSL was created by people that don't fully understand what open source means.

 

[Lizard]

I don't think the GSL was created by people that don't get D&D.

I think the GSL was created by people that don't fully understand what open source means.

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

 

[JohnRTroy]

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

You use the term "frightened" to imply people are "fearful Neanderthals" of it. Criticism of open source can be justified.

Trying to paint people who are critical of so-called "new paradigms" as "frightened", "old-time thinkers", people who "don't get it", etc, is not a very good attitude to have, as it shows narrow-minded thinking towards other legitimate opinions.

 

[Lizard]

You use the term "frightened" to imply people are "fearful Neanderthals" of it.

Yes. Precisely.

Trying to paint people who are critical of so-called "new paradigms" as "frightened", "old-time thinkers", people who "don't get it", etc, is not a very good attitude to have, as it shows narrow-minded thinking towards other legitimate opinions.

That assumes the opinions are legitimate.

The GSL, as written, is not just aimed at protecting trademarks or avoiding people downloading the SRD -- as if anyone disinclined to pay for a game wouldn't just download an illegal PDF instead. It's about locking down one particular vision of D&D -- hence the whole "no extending or redefining terms" thing. It's worth comparing the GSL to the STL. The STL also defined a lot of terms and said they could not be redefined -- but they didn't include things like "elf" and there was no issue about replacing defined terms with new terms. (Also, WOTC never really enforced the 'defined terms' clause, but that's a side issue.) WOTC evidently spent a lot of time and money deciding what D&D "should be", and doesn't want a lot of variant playstyles out there -- even if the goal of selling PHBs and keeping players within the D&D 'sphere' is still met. The 'your product lines die when we say they die' clause also points to this.

The PTB at WOTC/Hasbro understands very well what the OGL did -- it created a baseline of D&D completely out of their control, one which could grow, mutate, split, and exist entirely on its own, in perpetuity. They fear that happening with 4e, after investing "seven figures" in it. Thus, the GSL.

I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.

 

[The Little Raven]

That assumes the opinions are legitimate.

"If you don't agree with my opinion on open gaming, then your opinion is not legitimate."

There's no room (or desire) for discussion on this topic with a person who is that arrogant and close-minded.

I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.

That's because any reason they would give would immediately be dismissed by you as illegitimate.

 

[Nellisir]

I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.

I'm not a fan of the GSL, but the fact is, it's only restrictive when you put it up against the OGL. If, 8 years ago, WotC had put out the GSL instead of the OGL, we'd all be cheering.

I'm not saying we should be cheering now - we do have the OGL to compare it against, after all -- but it has its place.

And I dunno, maybe I'm just cynical, but with airlines charging you for snacks and checked luggage, and $4/gallon gas, and contaminated tomatoes -- the GSL seems like it's just in line with the times.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The GSL, as written, is not just aimed at protecting trademarks or avoiding people downloading the SRD -- as if anyone disinclined to pay for a game wouldn't just download an illegal PDF instead.

That's different. Downloading an illegal PDF is still illegal and you can still be prosecuted for it. Downloading a free legal version is basically deciding to give away a valuable product by commoditizing it. And I can see a creator not wanting to do that.

WOTC evidently spent a lot of time and money deciding what D&D "should be", and doesn't want a lot of variant playstyles out there -- even if the goal of selling PHBs and keeping players within the D&D 'sphere' is still met. The 'your product lines die when we say they die' clause also points to this.

Well, that's the publisher's choice. People like Paizo decide to stick with the OGL. I think publishers have the right to license and dictate terms, while the licensees have the right to refuse them.

One of the reasons I seem a bit of a contrarian to the OGL perspective is that I believe creators have rights and should have control over their work. I think a creator should choose the terms of the license over the terms of the licensee. And I would like licensees to choose carefully. Ultimately, if people are pissed about a license becoming more restrictive, they should be thinking of creating their own stuff.

It's like work-for-hire. You want to write for Marvel comics, fine, accept the paycheck. But if you want total control, go the harder creator-owned route. I wish more people did the harder route, but at the same time I don't begrudge the people who want to write for a paycheck either. But the guys doing work for hire know the risks that they might someday be out of a job and have no control over their creations.

In other words--ANY license is risky, even the OGL, because you don't have ultimate control. Unless you own your own property there are risks. Anybody who licenses from another has to take risks.

I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.

Well, seeing as how people seem to value the D&D trademark from the official company more than a specific version of the game, based on how well the completely different D&D is selling, it stands to reasons that there is value in third party stuff. So I suspect it will be popular with the right publishers. If they choose to go the "work for hire" route, they know the risks. The GSL is a more typical license for IP.

I'm sure there are some publishers who would object to the ones saying that "there should not be a license if its this bad".

 

[Lizard]

"If you don't agree with my opinion on open gaming, then your opinion is not legitimate."

There's no room (or desire) for discussion on this topic with a person who is that arrogant and close-minded.

Again, you make the presumption all opinions are legitimate and equal, that some cannot, in fact, be dismissed out of hand. It's nicely egalitarian, but it's also wrong.

If someone begins a conversation with "In my opinion, 2+2=5", there's no real reason to go further. I do not consider that arrogance (though I also don't consider arrogance to be a sin). I could list many other, better, examples, but they'd veer into politics and religion which are out of place on this board.

IAE, I notice a sudden leap of logic here. I didn't say the PTB weren't right to fear open gaming. If their goal is control, and it is, then open gaming IS a threat to that, and it's quite rational to fear it. I wouldn't argue otherwise. Their opinion IS valid, given their desires. If you're allergic to bee stings, you are quite correct to fear bees.

That's because any reason they would give would immediately be dismissed by you as illegitimate.

Well, let's wait until we're given reasons. Then I'll tell you. At the moment, we've had 10 months of "WOTC believes in open gaming!", followed by a license which says "No, we don't." The actual reasoning behind the license remains entirely speculative.

Since you've spent a lot of time arguing that WOTC was hurt by the OGL, I find it a little hard to accept you're now saying that they're NOT driven by a desire to prevent that harm a second time. (I disagree that they were hurt, of course, and I notice no WOTC or Hasbro representative has stepped up and publically stated "We lost money due to competition from third parties" -- or, if they have, I haven't seen it posted yet.)

 

[Lizard]

Well, that's the publisher's choice. People like Paizo decide to stick with the OGL. I think publishers have the right to license and dictate terms, while the licensees have the right to refuse them.

Of course. Who is talking about "rights"? WOTC can say "To publish under the GSL, you must strip naked, paint yourself blue, and dance about on the steps of the Washington Monument", and I'd support their right to offer that as their terms of contract. I'd also say it was a pretty crappy deal if you took it, but wouldn't try to stop you from doing so.

You seem to be conflating "shouldn't" with "can't".

I think the GSL, as written, is a bad deal for most publishers and ultimately bad for WOTC.

I support the right of people to publish under it if they choose. I might. I will do so with the full knowledge I'm basically creating time-limited material and so produce things which do not have what I consider to be long-lasting potential, unless I see an easy way to convert them to a non-OGL system when the time comes.

I also support the right of people to complain about it and try to do something to change it. And WOTC has the right to listen, or not, as they see fit.

One of the reasons I seem a bit of a contrarian to the OGL perspective is that I believe creators have rights and should have control over their work.

No one was forced to publish under the OGL. They knew the terms. They accepted them. End argument.

I'm sure there are some publishers who would object to the ones saying that "there should not be a license if its this bad".

They can object. Isn't freedom great?

 

[The Little Raven]

Again, you make the presumption all opinions are legitimate and equal, that some cannot, in fact, be dismissed out of hand. It's nicely egalitarian, but it's also wrong.

I never said all opinions are equal. My opinion is obviously superior to yours, for example. However, dismissing someone's opinion as not being legitimate because it doesn't coincide with your own is just arrogant.

If someone begins a conversation with "In my opinion, 2+2=5", there's no real reason to go further. I do not consider that arrogance (though I also don't consider arrogance to be a sin).

This is BS. No one is saying 2+2=5. You basically call people that don't agree with your opinion on the GSL cowards. That's the sign of an arrogant jerk.

I could list many other, better, examples, but they'd veer into politics and religion which are out of place on this board.

No, instead you just use insults and provide examples that are frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

Their opinion IS valid, given their desires.

Wait a minute.. it's valid, but it's not legitimate?

What's this semantic dance you're doing called, anyhow?

Well, let's wait until we're given reasons.

That would be a good idea, but it's obvious from the tone of your posts that you've already made up your mind, since you declared dissenting opinions illegitimate.

Since you've spent a lot of time arguing that WOTC was hurt by the OGL, I find it a little hard to accept you're now saying that they're NOT driven by a desire to prevent that harm a second time.

I never said it hurt them. I said it didn't work out exactly as they intended. And I'm not saying that they're not driven by a desire to protect their interests. I'm saying that your off-hand dismissal of dissenting opinions as illegitimate is a barrier to any kind of serious discussion, since it rejects discussion out-of-hand because anyone opposed to your opinion doesn't have a legitimate opinion in your eyes.