GSL FAQ up

[Green Knight]

For goodness sake, we're about to have a public license to use D&D content and the name and some version of the logo--for free. THAT didnt even happen back in the golden days of gaming. Is it the OGL? No. But in some ways it is better. This is still a very very significant move and one that should be applauded.

Exactly. Yet it seems like there're people who're intent on casting every single bit of news in the most negative light possible. I'm sure there are people at WotC who would've preferred there be no GSL, but you'd think that the complete absence of a "poison pill" clause would make people happy. And yet here and elsewhere we've got people dreaming up scenarios in which WotC may yet institute it.

I doubt "that person" is getting into any trouble

Boy, I hope not. I also don't care for calls by some posters, here and elsewhere, that the guy should be fired. He didn't accidentally slip rat poison into food that got served to preschoolers. He didn't leave a live power line unattended in the middle of a playground. He made a mistake on a gaming license which, as far as I know, didn't cost anybody any money, and did nothing except get a bunch of people on the intranets up in arms. Firing the guy, or calling for his firing, seems to me like a pretty big overreaction.

 

[Jer]

True, but then you have to weigh this disincentive against the incentive that comes with the GSL (being able to use a D&D logo, etc). If you believe the positives outweigh the negatives, then it makes sense to use the GSL.

The D&D GSL lets you use the D&D logo. Since they're putting out two different versions of the license, my understanding was that the D&D GSL lets you use the D&D logo while the d20 GSL will let you use the d20 logo. In fact, I thought there was a post from someone (Rouse? Linnae?) that indicated this very difference a few weeks ago, but I can't find it now, so I'm willing to believe I was wrong. I don't see why you'd need two different licenses if that were the case, but the minds of corporate lawyers are often opaque in my experience .

I suppose that if you can put a D&D logo onto your game that might be an incentive. I can definitely see it as an incentive if you're putting out a campaign setting or a set of adventures for D&D, but if you're putting out a new sci-fi game, or a new modern horror game, I'm not sure it's THAT much of an incentive. (And if the d20 GSL only lets you put a "d20 logo" on your product I'm not sure that counts as an incentive at all - the d20 logo isn't THAT big of a draw these days as far as I can tell. That may change with the new system, but it's not something that's really a big incentive today.)

And you have to remember that the positives are immediate and real, while the negative you mention (revocation) is only a possibility, not guaranteed to happen.

If I were putting out a new game line, I'd pretty much presume that Wizards was going to revoke the license at the next edition upgrade. Without some kind of contractual agreement from them, if there's a revocation clause in the mix that's the safest bet to make and the most responsible assumption to make for long term planning. Especially given this part of the Q&A posted on the front page:

Q) Is the GSL a perpetual license, or is it revocable by WotC for reasons other than violation?

A. The Game System License Is revocable as it is tied to the D&D trademark and other intellectual property. Because of this Wizards needs to maintain control of the license.

Now again, if this isn't the same for the d20 GSL then that puts a new spin on things. In fact if the only reason there's a revocation clause in the D&D GSL is to prevent people from putting the D&D logo on 4e products after 5e is released down the road then there'd be no reason to build it into the d20 GSL and 3rd party publishers could merrily continue to do what they've been doing with the OGL 3e mechanics. But if the d20 GSL is similar in spirit to the D&D GSL then I don't see it being adopted nearly as much as the 3e OGL was for new games. In fact I would think that successful game companies would avoid tying any long-term, non-D&D product plans to that kind of license (though again, it looks to be a great license for folks putting out D&D supplements -- better in some ways than the d20STL/OGL might have been). And I really do think THAT will impact Wizards more negatively than anyone might think at first blush.


(Edited because I didn't see this before

The d20STL is being revoked, so it doesn't enter into the discussion for future products. And the OGL does not allow for direct compatibility language, or the use of a recognizable logo, so it does not have the same benefits as the GSL. So you have to weigh these benefits that the OGL cannot give you against the potential negatives of the more-restrictive GSL.

No, this isn't what I'm getting at. I'm talking about the benefit that Wizards received from the d20STL/OGL combination that they're not going to get from the new GSL given the facts that we know about it so far. I'm not talking about future support or future usage or companies staying under the OGL instead of going with the new GSL, I'm talking about a benefit that Wizards actually GOT over the last 8 years from having the d20STL/OGL in the form that they had it that the new license format does NOT give them.

Under the old license a company could spin the mechanics off into their own game. They could create a Spycraft or a Mutants and Masterminds or a True20 or whatever and maintain their own control over that gameline. The cancelling of the d20 STL doesn't affect this because by this point these game lines are their own things. But those games are still using 3e mechanics, which means that Wizards received the benefit of keeping those players in a D&D orbit. The new license doesn't seem to have a strong incentive for publishers to continue to do that. Which means that there is more of an incentive to come up with their own mechanics or to keep using modified OGL mechanics. Which is fine for those publishers but it moves players of those games one step out of that "D&D orbit" which in the long run is bad for Wizards. Not hugely bad, really, but enough that it creates more of a fractured market that didn't exist before.

What I'm saying is that, if the d20 GSL is like the D&D GSL, we're not going to see NEW games come out of it. We're going to mainly see supplements for Wizards games. Which may be exactly what Wizards intends but its going to fracture the market in ways that the d20STL/OGL licenses were specifically crafted to avoid. And it will be in a way that harms Wizards more than the other publishers. (Not much harm, mind you, but it will probably make the market look more like it did in the 90s than it has for the last 8 years in the long term).

 

[Fifth Element]

If I were putting out a new game line, I'd pretty much presume that Wizards was going to revoke the license at the next edition upgrade. Without some kind of contractual agreement from them, if there's a revocation clause in the mix that's the safest bet to make and the most responsible assumption to make for long term planning.

Why? Why wouldn't you assign some probability to it and go from there? Assuming the probability is 100% will make your decisions very conservative, and maybe that's the way you want to go. But you seem to be advocating giving up a large chance of a more successful product because of a small chance of something out of your control happening.

And even if you assume the GSL will be revoked at the next edition change, doesn't that give you several good years (at least) to benefit from the GSL before it's revoked?

I guess it's my training in financial decision-making talking here, but I just can't see how you take one potential risk that exists and decide that it trumps all potential benefits, in all cases.

Say you do a NPV analysis and determine that, even with this risk, the value of using the GSL greatly outweighs not using is. How is it then "responsible" to not use the GSL when planning long-term (remembering that long-term in the RPG industry is a few years at most, I would suggest)?

Sometimes you have to take risks in business, in order to reap rewards. Deciding not to undertake a venture simply because there is risk involved is extremely conservative, and does not follow from systematic decision-making.

 

[JohnRTroy]

A revocation clause is usually a part of any product license out there. It's not sinister. Most licenses are designed to never last forever. Those that aren't revocable end up in legal battles. Any publisher worth his salt realizes that this is the standard for any licensed property. D&D is one of those properties.

The OGL was a very unusual license in this industry. So, just because Wizards decided not to be that open doesn't automatically mean that they have sinister motives. A revocation clause usually keeps both parties honest and helps to prevent exploitation by either side.

 

[Fifth Element]

What I'm saying is that, if the d20 GSL is like the D&D GSL, we're not going to see NEW games come out of it. We're going to mainly see supplements for Wizards games. Which may be exactly what Wizards intends but its going to fracture the market in ways that the d20STL/OGL licenses were specifically crafted to avoid.

I guess that depends on how you define what WotC's market is. I'm not sure that players playing M&M or some other mostly-d20 game that does not require the use of WotC products really benefits them at all.

I'm also not sure if I agree with the assertion that fewer new games = a more fractured market.

 

[Henry]

While the calculus can vary, this is exactly correct, IMO. The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.

I'm not sure if this is a huge concern for most publishers. For someone like Green Ronin, who has a bread-and-butter line with Mutants and Masterminds, they simply retool "Bleeding Edge" or similar for 4e adventures and material. If the GSL suddenly later drops a hypothetical "poison pill" in, they stop producing 4e stuff, pure and simple, because the OGL is more profitable. WotC is not likely to do such without a "sell-through" period, just as they're doing now (and did in the past), so the 3e/OGL base is not lost, they're in fact MORE catered to.

For companies who switched completely to the GSL, they'd just go along with whatever the GSL 2 said. THe only way they'd lose out is if the GSL 2 said, "THERE IS NO GSL 2", in other words, it's hereby revoked, and there's no more use of our content at all. This might happen, but it's not as likely.

I still forsee some turbulent airlanes ahead for OGL and GSL in general, because there's still a lot of questions to answer legally about the extent to which one can mimic another (in other words, if innovations push the OGL to include some rules similar to 4e, what can happen and how similar can it be), but to me, all this stuff is exciting times, interesting times, instead of "herald of the Dark Times" kind of stuff.

 

[Jer]

Why? Why wouldn't you assign some probability to it and go from there? Assuming the probability is 100% will make your decisions very conservative, and maybe that's the way you want to go. But you seem to be advocating giving up a large chance of a more successful product because of a small chance of something out of your control happening.

Because given past performance we can only assume that it WILL be revoked? They're revoking the d20 STL, they have every reason to revoke this GSL when the next edition comes out for the exact same reasons that they're revoking the d20 STL now. If they wanted to let this version stand as is they wouldn't need the revocation clause at all.

And even if you assume the GSL will be revoked at the next edition change, doesn't that give you several good years (at least) to benefit from the GSL before it's revoked?

Sure. And if I were putting out D&D supplements I'd be all over that. And if there's a d20 Modern line coming out I'd be all over that too.

But if I'm putting out a new modern horror or superhero game or what have you that wasn't a d20 Modern supplement - the way Green Ronin put out Mutants & Masterminds based on 3e mechanics - I wouldn't touch this at all. Why would I wrap up my IP with a license that Wizards is telling me that they have control over and they can revoke?

I guess it's my training in financial decision-making talking here, but I just can't see how you take one potential risk that exists and decide that it trumps all potential benefits, in all cases.

Say you do a NPV analysis and determine that, even with this risk, the value of using the GSL greatly outweighs not using is. How is it then "responsible" to not use the GSL when planning long-term (remembering that long-term in the RPG industry is a few years at most, I would suggest)?

Sometimes you have to take risks in business, in order to reap rewards. Deciding not to undertake a venture simply because there is risk involved is extremely conservative, and does not follow from systematic decision-making.

So I guess the part I'm not getting - I don't see what benefit any publisher would get from putting a new game out under the GSL that would outweigh the substantial risk of Wizards stepping in and saying "we're revoking your license - you need to upgrade". If I know I'm going to spend a considerable amount of energy massaging mechanics and marketing my new "Mutants and Masterminds" or "Spycraft" game to get my trademark to the point where my game is making a mark to gamers, why would I do it with the GSL when I can either start from the OGL mechanics that are already there OR develop my own mechanics?

(Again, I can see the benefit if you're doing D&D supplements or "d20 Modern" supplements - that's not an issue to me at all. I cannot, however, see anyone putting out the next "Mutants & Masterminds" or "Spycraft" or "True20" under a license scheme like this. But I'm willing to believe that I'm wrong and that control over your own IP isn't as important as tying into the d20 logo - I just don't see it myself).

(Again edited because I didn't see this earlier)

I guess that depends on how you define what WotC's market is. I'm not sure that players playing M&M or some other mostly-d20 game that does not require the use of WotC products really benefits them at all.

I'm also not sure if I agree with the assertion that fewer new games = a more fractured market.

NOT "fewer new games" - fewer new games that use the same mechanics as D&D. I don't think we're going to see less games come out over the next few years than we did over the previous decade. I think these licensing changes will just lead to fewer of them that use D&D mechanics. One of the original purposes of the OGL was to create a common ruleset that would keep people in the D&D orbit. I think it worked beautifully at that - most of the groups I know that aren't playing "old school" games play some form of d20 game consistently. And when they tire of playing M&M or Spycraft they gravitate back to D&D for their dungeon crawling needs.

And that is something that I think will impact Wizards negatively in the coming years. People will gravitate away and not come back because they're out of the D&D orbit. It happened before, it will happen again. The d20STL/OGL has worked wonderfully to keep the market "D&D-focused" in that regard. I don't think that GSL is designed to do that, and that's where I think Wizards is making their error.

 

[phloog]

LOL. One would think you're either an absolutist, or you're not. If you're only a bit of an absolutist, you're not an absolutist.

Good point...or maybe not.

Me no work so good with my word usements sometimes - - I should have said 'absolute about some things'...or probably more correctly 'absolute about some things' - -also, there was a posted reply about 'bait and switch' - - while I can't say they are NOT thinking this way, I think it's more likely that they are doing what seems right NOW...my point was not that there was a grand bait-and-switch plan or trap, but that when business dictates, they will do things that could harm 3pp in a way not possible under OGL.

 

[Fifth Element]

So I guess the part I'm not getting - I don't see what benefit any publisher would get from putting a new game out under the GSL that would outweigh the substantial risk of Wizards stepping in and saying "we're revoking your license - you need to upgrade".

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The GSL is not intended for games that are substantially different from standard D&D. I agree that using the GSL to publish something it is not intended for is a bad idea.

 

[Fifth Element]

I should have said 'absolute about some things'...or probably more correctly 'absolute about some things'

No, I think you got it right the first time.