GSL news.

[helium3]

Great news!

We'll have to get a cleaning crew to mop up the mess from the conspiracy theorists - their heads just 'sploded all over the place.

Silly conspiracy theorists.

 

[helium3]

The way I read it, they don't. A few companies get early info and everyone else gets it in June. Since June is pretty close, that doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

No to mention that there's enough information floating around in the aether for most interested parties to gin up the skeleton of a product and then fill in the little fiddly bits when they get access to the core books and the SRD.

 

[Aezoc]

If you were to create a book of feats, magic items, and classes for publication, how much of it would be OGL?

Obligatory IANAL disclaimer again. The definition of Open Gaming Content according to the OGL v1.0a is (emphasis mine)

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

To me, this means that a book of all new feats, magic items, and classes could be entirely closed, i.e. not released under the OGL at all, if you want it to be. If anyone knows of a company that's done that, I'd be interested to know what reaction if any it got from WotC. But you would likely want to include the basic rules explaining feat progression, prerequisites, magic item creation, etc, however, and there's no reason not to include those straight from the SRD and designate them OGC (not that you could reprint them verbatim and claim they were closed anyhow).

Again, since Iron Heroes happens to be the book sitting beside my computer, I'll use it as an example. Its designation of OGC states in part

In Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine, all the material that also appears in the System Reference Document is open, and all other material is not.

The relevant chapters are titled Equipment, Combat, and Adventuring. In Equipment, for example, there are several new weapons that are not listed in the SRD. As I read the OGC designation, they are not OGC, even though the weapon template (meaning what attributes a weapon has - damage, size, etc) is in the SRD. Applying the same concept to your hypothetical book, the templates for feats, magic items, and classes are all in the SRD. But so long as your new creations didn't directly extend existing OGC (i.e. an improved fighter class that has only minor additions), you don't have to designate them OGC.

That said, most of the 3rd party stuff I have designates all or nearly all of the crunch as OGC, which in my mind is a great thing. The potential pitfall that I see for WotC is that the value of the core 4e is likely to be mostly crunch, if they follow the 3e trend of having a very minimal implied setting. And since the system itself isn't copyrighted, AFAIK there's nothing legally stopping someone from co-opting most of the 4e mechanics and releasing them as OGC. I disagree with your assertion that this is a flaw of the OGC though, I just think it is best suited to a service-oriented business model that doesn't really exist today in the pen and paper RPG world.

Please note that I'm not advocating either creating d20 compatible material without the OGL or trying to co-opt 4e mechanics and release them under the OGL, just that I don't see anything making it impossible. IMO the fact that WotC took a chance with the OGL in the first place was a great thing for the hobby, and I think we all benefit from publishers who are willing to openly exchange ideas via OGC.

 

[The Little Raven]

Sure they can.

Indeed, considering WotC's market share is larger than every other RPG company's market share, put together.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Indeed, considering WotC's market share is larger than every other RPG company's market share, put together.

And the fact that this will only hurt established companies (and even then, only if they had planned on putting out stuff for both editions).

For every established company that won't (or can't) hop on board this, I predict we'll see several new companies form to take their place. Some will be good, some will be bad.

But just like before, I think there will be an initial glut of 3rd party products for a couple of years after the release of this new edition. After a while, the bad companies will be winnowed out and we'll have several good companies that will produce quality stuff.

Those established companies that couldn't make the transition? We'll miss them, but new companies will be around to take their place.

 

[Dausuul]

i think that a lot of this is overly a attempt at the carrot and the stick approach to guiding 3rd party's to the 4th ed. the stick will be no new 3rd ed books if you want to do any thing 4ed, the carrot will be the logo, and i suspect some access to gleemax market place and to the D&DI and the tools that come with it . not that i have any insider info. its just i don't think that WotC can afford to have many big 3rd party players not move to the 4th ed.

Wizards can afford to not have any "big" 3rd party players move to 4E... because "big" in the 3PP world is miniscule by most standards, including WotC's.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

D20
Traveller
Runequest
SOTC
Action!
FUDGE

That is not a lonely genie.

And all material for all of those games is equally open and can be mixed and matched. The OGL does not recognize game systems, just Open Game Content. Convert the MM to SOTC! Use Traveller system generation rules and FUDGE characters! Take the insanely large library of open D20 content and convert it to Runequest!

If you ask me, the GSL is the lonely one.

Of the games you have mentioned (and I will mention that I LOVE SOTC IN ALL CAPS), I doubt their annual sales put together come up to even 10% of D&D's monthly sales. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if their annual sales put together don't even equal 1% of D&D's monthlies.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I personally think the "Open Gaming Movement" is really minuscule in the whole scheme of things. I don't really blame Wizards for not supporting it. It never got the traction deserved, and Ryan seems to have abandoned it.

There are vocal fans of it, but it's trying to "solve" a problem that in my opinion never existed. Because as gamers we can game, create, tweak, etc, privately. There's no need for open content unless you really want to profit from your work. I have concerns how the GSL will handle Internet fan sites. But "open gaming" for its own sake is not really solving a need. Most fans buy what they like and use what they like. Whether its OGL or GSL doesn't affect me.

Open for openness' sake is not a goal. Most people just wanna play games, D&D in particular. The people who are most upset by this seem to be the ones who see open gaming as a "movement that will conquer the world".

I think too many people are trying to read into what publishers will do. If one publisher decides to stick with the prior D&D base, and another goes to 4e, it may kill a few product lines, but that's the publishers choice. Ultimately it was Paizo's decision to go 3.5, Necro's decision to go 4.0, and nobody else's, even if it's heavy-handed. Too many people want both options, and simply put--it's not going to happen. I'm not going to be mad at WoTC for that. Those are the breaks when you license.

 

[Ydars]

JohnRTroy; I would like to pose a question to you.

If open gaming has had no impact and is not important (is "miniscule" to quote you) then why is WoTC now risking serious fan-alienation by designing a GSL document whose sole stated aim is to make all 3rd parties jump into supporting 4E. This suggests to me that WoTC don't see the open gaming movement as a miniscule concern.

And to clarify; I don't see open gaming as the answer to all world ills. I see it as ESSENTIAL for D&D at THIS point. 4E is not accepted in the way that 3E was embraced and the community is now fractured. I think FAR more gamers will stay with 3.5E than many people believe and I also think that WoTC are always on dangerous ground with Hasbro, because the cost of making D&D requires a HUGE success. If this doesn't happen then D&D could end up sold to someone far less capable of producing quality products.

Please don't try and tar all Open gaming supporters with the same brush. Our arguments are as complex and well thought out as yours are Sir!

 

[DandD]

What fan-alienation? I mean, let's be serious, the people who actually care about all that stuff are the more hardcore ones who even bother to know about these third-party companies and register on ENWorld to talk about their concerns. And they're in no way a big size of the fan-market. Most gamers and GM are just casuals who see some stuff, with rules and pictures they kinda like and think will enhance their game, and then they buy it. Add dragons and some power-creep in form of new classes and equipment, and it's surely going to be a winner.
No, I really can't see it being essential for D&D at all at this point. The community isn't fractured that much more like when 3rd edition was announced.