Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?

[Corjay]

Apparently, you mean SRD- or OGL-based products. As I still maintained, there are few System Reference Documents outside of WotC's own.

Here's a page of SRD's.

Even Paizo is planning a Pathfinder SRD when the full system becomes available.

The claim that there are few doesn't seem to hold up.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want to derail on a terminological point. Here is one of my earlier posts:

The apparent success of what are, in effect, "variant SRDs" - Conan OGL, Arcana Evolved/Unearthed, Iron Heroes, etc - may show that Dancey was wrong in his estimation of the degree to which the multiplication of RPG systems was an unhappy burden resulting from the constraints of IP law, rather than a demand-driven phenomenon.

If there really is more demand for variant mechanics than Dancey thought, it does make sense (from WoTC's point of view) to try and tighten up the degree of such variation (eg via the "no redefinition" clauses in the OGL), whilst still having the game be open enough to enable the sort of 3pp support that will grow the market for sales of D&D products.

I stand by that, and have been reiterating it. Those who are saying that the OGL was an unbridled success for WoTC have to explain why I am wrong about this.

Eric Andondson and Dmmcoy have argued that WoTC benefits even from people playing such games, because they are still in what we might call the periphery of D&D. I am not persuaded - practically every RPGer is in the periphery of D&D, because it is the game through which nearly all enter the hobby (maybe Vampire runs a poor second here) and the most widely played game, and hence the game to which practically any RPGer might resort if a game in their preferred system is not available.

In any event, absent solid data about the rate of movement from such OGL games back to D&D, compared to the rate of movement from other games back to D&D, this remains at most reasoned speculation.

There is a second issue, however, as to what Ryan Dancey had in mind when he talked about the OGL supporting WoTC via network externalities. My recollection (admittedly dulled by the passage of 8 intervening years) is that he had in mind unified mechanics (ever-honed by "natural selection" under the OGL) with variant settings and genres. In fact, what has proliferated under the OGL is variant mechanics (OGL Conan, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, C&C, True20 etc) with unified settings and genres (roughly, mainstream fantasy of one sort or another).

I regard this as a refutation of this part of Dancey's theory. I'm interested, though, to hear why I'm wrong - either because I'm wrong about what Dancey said at the time, or because I'm misinterpreting the evidence provided by the proliferation of OGL-based games.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The claim that there are few doesn't seem to hold up.

Looking at that page, I think it is evidence there are few. Two of those are WotC's own SRDs. Another is FUDGE, and two more are variants of FUDGE (and as I recall, didn't FUDGE preexist WotC's OGL?). Two more on that page are simple compilations of d20-compatible Open Content spells and monsters.

Leaving three on that list with direct d20 SRD derivation (True20, Anime20, and Perfect20). Has anyone ever published for Perfect20?I am honestly curious. Guardians of Order went under, so is anyone else using Anime20 now? Leaving True20 still actively supported not only by its creator but by other 3rd parties as well.

There may be more other complete SRDs, but that list seems to reinforce "few" other WotC-SRD-inspired SRDs. We all may have varying thresholds for when "few" becomes "many" though.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In fact, what has proliferated under the OGL is variant mechanics (OGL Conan, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, C&C, True20 etc) with unified settings and genres (roughly, mainstream fantasy of one sort or another).

If you look at the section 15 declarations you will see that many products are indeed borrowing mechanics "honed" through use in other OGL books. Look at Black Company, Grim Tales, Darwin's World's section 15. to see more examples of using time-tested rules from others.

The OGL ecosystem is not stagnant and there is always cross-pollination going on. If there are no publishers borrowing from Iron Heroes' or C&C's OGC then we could say that there is Balkanization. I don't know who has used from those systems however. I seriously doubt that Ryan would say that publishers taking a chance on experimentation and inventing new mechanics to meet a believed need (as Iron Heroes and C&C are) was an unintended consequence of the OGL.

 

[Corjay]

Looking at that page, I think it is evidence there are few. Two of those are WotC's own SRDs. Another is FUDGE, and two more are variants of FUDGE (and as I recall, didn't FUDGE preexist WotC's OGL?). Two more on that page are simple compilations of d20-compatible Open Content spells and monsters.

Leaving three on that list with direct d20 SRD derivation (True20, Anime20, and Perfect20). Has anyone ever published for Perfect20?I am honestly curious. Guardians of Order went under, so is anyone else using Anime20 now? Leaving True20 still actively supported not only by its creator but by other 3rd parties as well.

There may be more other complete SRDs, but that list seems to reinforce "few" other WotC-SRD-inspired SRDs. We all may have varying thresholds for when "few" becomes "many" though.

From that perspective, I agree. Personally, I think the fact that few have provided such SRD's shows a lack of confidence in the use of SRD for their product to this day and thus shows that WOTC may actually prefer not to give out information so readily as they did with the original d20 SRD did. That would be circumstantial support to why the OGL is not a flawless document, and to bring it back to point, it shows a motive on WOTC's part to correct the ill.

It seems to me that OGL has been fairly unique to d20 outside of Fudge (which is a d6 system run by a guy out of his garage, and thereby knowing little about what's good for business). I think the other companies relize that the OGL isn't as influential as many seem to think. A 3pp sees an OGL for the largest game on the market and sees a free ticket to ride. Now here's where the OGL works for D&D, but wouldn't work for other systems run by smaller companies. The OGL proliferates these 3pp's, diminishing the share of companies with independent systems and thus eventually putting them out of business.

Now, as a corporate entity, WOTC should have made the OGL so that it wasn't "perpetual" and shouldn't have made it so that you can still use an old OGL, meaning that changes to the OGL mean nothing. What WOTC could have done there is expand the d20 market, while drawing competitors in, then when d20 is has forced non-d20 systems out of the market, then cut competitors off from the system, collapsing them and D&D stands upon a mound of corporate corpses. That's how the GSL could be manipulated. But considering that the d20 OGL is perpetual, it makes it impossible for WOTC to execute such a plan by any license at all, as d20 will forever hold the lion's share of the market until OGL's for other non-d20 systems proliferate.

Now how does WOTC provide a product that takes the lion's share of the lion's share? If they provide a product that is just like everyone else's, then there will never be a lion's share of the lion's share. What they have to do is provide a product superior to d20 classic and is superior to all other systems, so they are back to square one. The water levels may have raised temporarily, but what happens when you replace one liquid for another? You're still in the same boat. So now they have to produce a superior product to what was already considered a superior product. But now they aren't the only ones with the original superior product. Now everyone has it and they must produce a product even more superior and indeed superior to the improvements that others have been allowed, even encouraged, to make.

The question now becomes How to do that? Answer: Create a system that is not only superior, but different, then give your core system a license that invites companies to use the system, but which requires their customers to use your core product to get the fullest benefit.

The OGL market is stagnant (not in the sense that no one's making money. The problem is that EVERYONE has the same opportunities at making the money, no different than before the OGL. The OGL could only grow things so far. To quote Syndrome: "When everybody's special, then nobody will be"). There's only so much money that can be made there. But if companies help WOTC make money, then they can make MORE money, and WOTC gets even richer. If they had done that from the start instead of the OGL, WOTC would be a giant far surpassing what it is now, and the OGL would be no cure. In other words, the GSL will be what puts WOTC back on top of the heap, because there will now be a heap. No one is ever king of an ocean, but there's always a king of the hill.

Trust me. WOTC WANTS 3pp to want to make products through the GSL. They also want it to be even more attractive than the OGL. Because with the GSL, the more money 3pp's make from the GSL, the more money WOTC can make, because they are selling the core rulebooks. It becomes money forever.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Some things to add. The "True20 romantic" srd is actually illegal and Green Ronin has asked that guy to take it down. He hasn't. GR never released an SRD for the True20 system because the entire core book is the "SRD" (with a few minor exceptions).

Paizo is still undecided about whether or not they will be doing an SRD. Their rules are going to be OGL so there is no real need for an SRD. Personally, I don't feel they should, but that's not my call. I'm guessing they'll release "something" in the end simply because if they don't, someone else will.

The term SRD gets thrown around by those that don't understand it. The guy that you're referring to doesn't understand it. The core idea of an SRD is so that you can make all your books closed content while still releasing OGL material. Others think that all OGL material belongs natively in an SRD. That is a bad business idea. Those that just want the game mechanics would download a product's SRD and never buy the book. Wizards specifickly never released enough information to completely make the PHB irrevilent.

Of all the SRDs I've ever seen, my favorite is Mongoose's Traveller SRD. It doesn't give away the Traveller core book, it allows 3PPs to make compatable material. I call it a "Smart SRD". Wizards 4E SRD tried to go with a similar idea, but they went to skimpy. They just released a bunch of words you could use. Mongoose's said, "Do this and you'll be compatable with our material. Oh and here's the skill system, combat system, ship creation system, and planet creation system if you want to make your own game."

 

[dmccoy1693]

It seems to me that OGL has been fairly unique to d20 outside of Fudge (which is a d6 system run by a guy out of his garage, and thereby knowing little about what's good for business).

Actually no. RuneQuest, Traveller, OSRIC (that's 1E' AD&Ds system not d20), and Basic Fantasy (BD&D's system).

Trust me. WOTC WANTS 3pp to want to make products through the GSL. They also want it to be even more attractive than the OGL. Because with the GSL, the more money 3pp's make from the GSL, the more money WOTC can make, because they are selling the core rulebooks. It becomes money forever.

There's little that's going to be more attractive then the OGL. The only thing that could entice 3PPs away from the OGL is the D&D logo. Scott Rouse admitted as much earlier this year back around Jan. He said that in exchange for a more restrictive license, you get the benefit of having the world's most powerful IP in the RPG industry on your products. Frankly, it was a smart move on Wizards part.

The downside is that I don't know of any publishers that whole heartedly believe that there will be any kind of license for 5E. Only time can tell what will happen between now and then.

 

[Corjay]

Thanks for the SRD info. That's what I thought and what I spoke from, but couldn't confirm it. I'll consider your knowledge a verification.

There's little that's going to be more attractive then the OGL. The only thing that could entice 3PPs away from the OGL is the D&D logo. Scott Rouse admitted as much earlier this year back around Jan. He said that in exchange for a more restrictive license, you get the benefit of having the world's most powerful IP in the RPG industry on your products. Frankly, it was a smart move on Wizards part.

I don't think the logo is the only attractive thing. For the same reason that the logo is attractive, so too is its focus on WOTC's other IP. It's encouraging the system's uniformity from publisher to publisher. While some would view this as restrictive, it would actually be helpful to everyone if the customers can move well from product to product without having to learn huge amounts of new rules from one to the next. Using references to D&D rules instead of reprinting them will actually leave lots of room for the 3pp's IP. In the end, I think the 3pp's that sign on are going to be the ones who benefit better than the OGL publishers ever did.

Another attractive thing about the GSL is the licensee's clearly spelled out latitude. Not all garage publishers are familiar with copyright laws. Spelling out those limitations in the GSL protects them and makes it clear where exactly they can act. The OGL, as clear as it seems, is no help to those not familiar with copyright laws. Yeah, the GSL could use less legal language and more direct language with a definitions section. If people could understand the GSL as clearly as they understand the OGL, and WOTC rewrites the four trouble parts to protect the rights of the licensee, then the parts spelling out the limitations would be attractive in themselves.

The downside is that I don't know of any publishers that whole heartedly believe that there will be any kind of license for 5E. Only time can tell what will happen between now and then.

I think that depends solely upon how the revised GSL works out. If it works as well as the intention, they should be able to shift the GSL from edition to edition without generating one for each edition. I think the termination and change without notice stuff may very well have been intended for that purpose. The problem could be that it wasn't fully expressed to their lawyer(s). Perhaps their words to the lawyer(s) was "make it so that we can change it at will" without specifying that they meant to change the edition at will or something like that.

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's a page of SRD's.

Even Paizo is planning a Pathfinder SRD when the full system becomes available.

The claim that there are few doesn't seem to hold up.

My bad. Then there are several, not counting WotC's SRD (3.0e and 3.5e) and MSRD.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I think that depends solely upon how the revised GSL works out.

I think you're being overly optimistic. There almost wasn't any license for this edition. My best guess (and the guess of several publishers I've talked to) is that the 4E license will be free. Once publishers are more use to working with a more restrictive license, the 5E license will be paid license only.

While there is nothing wrong with that, it does move away from the core idea of Wizards of 8 years ago. The core idea of 8 years ago at Wizards was listen to the customer and give them EXACTLY what they want. Wizards today definitely listens to their customers. (Hell, the current model they're using for campaign settings originated at ENWorld and I was one of many people that suggested something quite similar to its current incarnation.) But enough of the decisions ... well ... appear to have gone through many committees, and the final product barely resembles the initial intent.

The GSL is a prime example. The original intent at GenCon 07 was to have 4E be OGL. But to me the GSL reads like something that started off as OGL 2.0 but got went through 10 months of committee meetings and various departments and each making changes and the final product is far from its initial intent, ineffective at reaching its stated goals, and confusing.

So when I was quick to point out a page ago that I didn't say that WotC is the world's most evil corporation, I quickly pointed out that I never said that. Wizards today appears to be a corporation filled with "weasels" (to borrow the Scott Adams definition of the term), atleast to me. Is that good, no. Is that bad, ehhh no. It just is. But I do not see it as effective in the long run as Wizards of 8 years ago.