A nice followup to Chris Dias' letter to WotC

[enrious]

Personally, I'd call it the GSL.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The difference between 'no license' and a license that few consider using is small. Present, but small.

Maybe 120 degrees instead of 180?

And given that there is a thread on not using the GSL, but creating stuff for the game anyway....

A good license is give and take - the OGL had restriction, but allowed things that would otherwise have been prohibited.

The D20 STL was more restrictive, but allowed (in fact demanded) the use of the D20 logo. Making compatibility obvious.

The problem is that the GSL tries to combine both licenses, then adds more prohibitions on top of it, without many of the benefits of the OGL. You gain the use of the 4e logo, but are severely limited in what you can do under the license.

So folks either ignore the license or do not create any 4e material at all.

Not good, and I do not know if the GSL is salvageable at this point, at least in regards to regaining 3PP support. But I would like to see WotC at least try.

The Auld Grump

 

[Erudite Frog]

Why should they try? They are morphing into a digital format. I don't foresee D&D being the same, in a traditional sense. Once they have this new uncharted territory opened up, we might see some changes. Regardless, people seem to be griping just to gripe. What are we truly missing out on right now? When I look at the 3.x 3pp, 98% of them are total crap.

 

[gamerprinter]

Why should they try? They are morphing into a digital format. I don't foresee D&D being the same, in a traditional sense. Once they have this new uncharted territory opened up, we might see some changes. Regardless, people seem to be griping just to gripe. What are we truly missing out on right now? When I look at the 3.x 3pp, 98% of them are total crap.

Honestly, there was a lot of 3pp crap in 3x days, but most of the surviving 3pps have matured, and many have not survived at all, so that by in large only the quality 3pp is left.

98%, is this some number out of your head? Because I see mostly high quality game material among Pathfinder 3pps. There's probably some 'crap' still out there, but I haven't seen it. So I'd more likely guess that there's 2% crap to 98% quality RP materials being created. Though I would never claim to know some exact number, as you seem to be implying.

My guess is that you haven't looked at all - at 3pp's (at least not since 3x), and through blinders you are coming up with some number to defend your point of view, when really you have no idea at all.

Look at Frog God Games, 4 Winds Publishing, Super Genius Games, Rite Publishing, LPJ publications, to name a few, and they are creating tons of great, really great material.

Where is this 98% crap you speak of - I think you're making that up.

GP

 

[TheAuldGrump]

73.6% of statistics are just made up. *

The Auld Grump

* No, I didn't make up that statistic... but somebody else did.

 

[Wicht]

When I look at the 3.x 3pp, 98% of them are total crap.

Hmm. I've enjoyed about 99% of the 3pp 3e material I've bought over the years.

One man's trash and all that.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

<typing this rushed at work, so apologies concering grammar>

Two sources I have talked to regarding the departure of 4E products have placed the cause with the evolving rule structure of 4E (errata and Essentials) coupled with the interactive online element, which not only does not include 3PP products, but also (if signed onto the GSL) prohibits them from creating their own.

I was told by the technical director of WOTC that incorporating 3PP products into the Character Builder was, coincidentially, a techincal/cost issue. Considering the importance of the DDI in the D&D community, it was my opinion that 4E third party companies were at a disadvantage in that marketplace (not taking into account the budget of WOTC). I am not saying that all with Paizo are created equel (it may be true, but I don't know), but Paizo definetely appears to offer 3rd party companies the same opportunities to advertise their products as Pazio.

It was offering work arounds to the Character Builder issue by suggesting ideas that would be technically easier and perhaps profitable.

Once again stressing this was only opinion on the matter...

 

[pemerton]

WOTC does NOT want 3rd party products with 4e. From the GSL's orginal relase, to its slow division, to wotc's delay in handing out the GSL to 3rd parties.

They dont want other folks in their playground in 4e.

As others have pointed out, there would be a simple way to achieve this - namely, no GSL.

A good license is give and take - the OGL had restriction, but allowed things that would otherwise have been prohibited.

The D20 STL was more restrictive, but allowed (in fact demanded) the use of the D20 logo. Making compatibility obvious.

The problem is that the GSL tries to combine both licenses, then adds more prohibitions on top of it, without many of the benefits of the OGL. You gain the use of the 4e logo, but are severely limited in what you can do under the license.

Well, the GSL is give and take - indeed, it has to be in order to create a valid contract. What is given is the right to use various WotC trademarks, and what is taken away is the right (i) to use text from 4e rulebooks (some, perhaps much, of which would enjoy copyright protection in any event) and to use non-copyrighted game terms (like "elf") to describe something different from what they describe in the 4e rulebooks.

When people talk about the benefits of the OGL, I think what they really mean is not the OGL per se, but the SRD released under the OGL. And from its subsequent behaviour it is pretty clear that WotC believes the benefits of releasing the bulk of its rules text - in which it might otherwise have asserted copyright - under a royalty-free, irrevocable licence flowed mostly to the licensees, rather than to it as licensor.

How is not supporting their 3pps, which help get market penetration with no cost to WotC oppositie to established policy? That's just a silly statement.

It makes good business sense to follow Chris's suggestions. Is it WotC's goal not to use good business sense?

Presumably, WotC is not acting irrationally (by its own lights) in respect of its licensing policy. Therefore, I assume that WotC believe (and presumably on the basis of at least some evidence) that in fact 3PPs do little to help market penetration, or alternatively that the increase in that respect which would be achieved by WotC support would not justify the costs of providing that support.

I think the existence of a license that says "write adventures to support our game but don't you DARE create anything new" vs. the license that allowed Spycraft and M&M is where I decide to call the GSL 180 degrees from the OGL.

It seemed to me, that WOTC didn't *really* want full throated support for 4e from 3PP's. Sure, some extra adventures from us would be nice, but they didn't want any settings including variant rules

I think that your last clause slightly exaggerates the restrictions that the GSL imposes, but in general terms you must be correct - because if WotC had wanted games like Spycraft and M&M they would have offered a different licence with different permissions and different terms.

Applying the same principal that WotC is acting rationally by its lights, I assume that WotC believes (and presumably on the basis of at least some evidence) that it is in their best interests not to release their rules text under a royalty-free licence in a fashion that would permit the creation, out of their rules text, of games like Spycraft and so on.

The OGL+SRD was an experiment. Ryan Dancey had a hypothesis - based on network externalities etc - that this move would offer commercial benefits to WotC. WotC's decision to create a game that in many respects diverges from the SRD released under the OGL, and the rules text of which is not itself released under the OGL, suggests that WotC formed the view that Dancey's hypothesis was disproven.

The GSL can also be seen as an experiment, namely, to see what interest there might be from 3PPs in publishing material to support 4e that would not demonstrate the type of variance and departure from the assumptions of the game, nor the duplication of rules text, that grew up under the OGL+SRD. It seems that the answer is "not much".

This does not necessarily show that WotC is evil or stupid, anymore than it shows that 3PPs are evil or stupid. It may just be that, in fact, there is no model for 3PPs of D&D that serves both WotC's interests (as conceived of by WotC) and 3PP interests (as conceived of by 3PPs).

(And as others have said, Paizo is in a completely different situation from WotC - given that its game depends utterly on the OGL+SRD model it is going to have 3PPs in orbit about it, and it may therefore be well worth the cost to Paizo of bringing those 3PPs into the tent, where Paizo can have some influence over their direction and output.)

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

A
This does not necessarily show that WotC is evil or stupid, anymore than it shows that 3PPs are evil or stupid. It may just be that, in fact, there is no model for 3PPs of D&D that serves both WotC's interests (as conceived of by WotC) and 3PP interests (as conceived of by 3PPs).

(And as others have said, Paizo is in a completely different situation from WotC - given that its game depends utterly on the OGL+SRD model it is going to have 3PPs in orbit about it, and it may therefore be well worth the cost to Paizo of bringing those 3PPs into the tent, where Paizo can have some influence over their direction and output.)

That's a great response. I agree with the ideas there. It does make sense that the OGL/SRD was an experiment that WOTC was not obligated to repeat. I have no counter to the comment; it's just a very intelligent post I wanted emphasize.

Obviously, if they did believe the OGL to be a huge success, they would have repeated it verbatim in 4E. There was some communication from WOTC leading up to the release of 4E that claimed the GSL stricter guidelines was a byproduct of 3PP titles being released of poor quality but still boasting the D&D banner. This may also be true, but the specifics of the GSL seem to be more about IP protection rather than product quality (just my opinion). I don't want to make assumptions, but the present evidence can allow some educated guesses.

If we were back 10 years ago with the release of 4E, there would be no issue...all the game companies were on equal footing when it came to opportunities to advertise their products. Game updates aside (as 3rd edition did have to contend with the update to 3.5), the two biggest shifts with 4E in the intervening 10 years has been the GSL and DDI. The GSL prevents a "licensed" product from copy-pasting rules and from altering defined terms, including races and classs. The GSL also prevents the "licensed" company from creating a computer program or online database using D&D definitions. At the same time, the DDI and Character Builder are created, allowing WOTC a further edge.

I don't want to make any further guesses about WOTC motivation. All I can do was recommend a course of action. Naive? Sure. Useless? I don't think so.

 

[carmachu]

As others have pointed out, there would be a simple way to achieve this - namely, no GSL.

Except of course, WOTC was at the time already taking PR hits for a variety of things. Remeber canceling the magazines and the bad PR they had to deal with? Trotting out folks to calm the flames?

Coming out and giving no GSL would have been simplier, but more costly- imagine the firestorm that would have created. Instead, they delayed, delayed some more, then brought out a really crappy GSL- much to the customer base complaints, then reigned it back to a bad license- one that folks went with copyright workaround in many cases.

SO in essesnce, they got what they wanted while stringing folks along, but not nearly the bad publicity of coming out and saying "NO 3RD PARTY PRODUCTS!" and still got the same results- no real third party support.