Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4316700" data-attributes="member: 1054">Yes. Precisely. 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.</blockquote>

Verification