GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Lizard]

If that be the case what we/you are discussing here it wouldn't be such a deal. OGL is still out there, isn't it? Why do we suspect it will stop to "guarantee almost any whim of gaming be satisfied" then?

It won't. But it means I'll be buying 3x/variant products from third party publishers, not 4e products from WOTC -- because I won't be able to use their content in other games. Thus, it would be bad business for WOTC to reduce the scope of available 4e support. It will slow adoption as people will wait longer for the games they want to be available under the 4e rules.

3e drew me away from many other systems because of the tremendous breadth and depth of support which was available for it within a few months of release. That doesn't seem likely to happen w/4e, unless the GSL policy ends up being very different than it currently seems.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Thus, it would be bad business for WOTC to reduce the scope of available 4e support. It will slow adoption as people will wait longer for the games they want to be available under the 4e rules.

There, we agree completely. Especially in the midst of an edition change, for WotC to set things up to where potential competitors are forced to stick with the old edition, rather than supporting the new one, just boggles the mind.

It's the main reason I fully expect that Clark is correct and that this will eventually be resolved in favor of some sort of license, even if it's not as open as it was last time. I simply cannot think of any good reason to do otherwise. (Even if you're right about Gleemax, it doesn't require the elimination of an OGL-style license, just a careful definition of what's permissible.)

 

[Glyfair]

I do so because, to me, the OGL/GSL is an expression of respect; a contract between WoTC and us, the players of the game.

To you, maybe. But it's not. It's a contract between WotC and potential publishers of "D&D" content. It allows other companies to jump on the "D&D" train.

What really is the contract between WotC & us would be the fan policy (which, as far as I know, has ever been publicly spelled out). What we as gamers are allowed to create and share in a non-commercial way (since "publishing" is so vague now with the popularity of the internet). Sure, with the OGL we had more rights spelled out if we followed it in our fan material. However, as far as I know no fan material was threatened because it didn't follow the OGL requirements.

While I have concerns about the effect of the GSL/OGL on the D&D game, I'm much more concerned with their fan policy because it car directly effect me.

 

[Ydars]

Glyfair; OGL policy WILL directly affect you; if there is NO OGL you will get

1) Less support for D&D in the form of adventures, supplements etc

2) fewer designers working on the next generation of D&D; many current WoTC staffers came from 3 party publishers.

3) a shrinking of the D&D market share of gaming. In the past this has been associated with a downturn in the RPG industry in general.

That is why I am concerned. In the long term, OGL is necessary for the cohesion of the whole RPG industry.

 

[Lizard]

There, we agree completely. Especially in the midst of an edition change, for WotC to set things up to where potential competitors are forced to stick with the old edition, rather than supporting the new one, just boggles the mind.

It's the main reason I fully expect that Clark is correct and that this will eventually be resolved in favor of some sort of license, even if it's not as open as it was last time. I simply cannot think of any good reason to do otherwise. (Even if you're right about Gleemax, it doesn't require the elimination of an OGL-style license, just a careful definition of what's permissible.)

I am very convinced the GSL will be a "business publisher's" license, focused entirely on producing commercial products, not on opening content per se. The "fan license" will be "Use Gleemax".

 

[Mouseferatu]

I am very convinced the GSL will be a "business publisher's" license, focused entirely on producing commercial products, not on opening content per se.

Even if that's true--and it may well be--it's certainly preferable to "no license at all." I'm not necessarily opposed to WotC keeping a tighter hand on the reigns than they did the first time around, as long as the grip isn't too tight.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the legal team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.

Yes, it does change the direction of D&D.

If it's Open, then D&D can go in any direction that 3rd party publishers choose to take it.

If it's not Open, then D&D goes in one and only one direction-- and some folks don't like that direction.

And I don't mean the direction of "Open" or not. I mean the direction of dragonborn warlords and tiefling Golden Wyvern adepts. That's simply not a direction where some folks are comfortable.

 

[BryonD]

nevermind

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, it does change the direction of D&D.

If it's Open, then D&D can go in any direction that 3rd party publishers choose to take it.

If it's not Open, then D&D goes in one and only one direction-- and some folks don't like that direction.

And I don't mean the direction of "Open" or not. I mean the direction of dragonborn warlords and tiefling Golden Wyvern adepts. That's simply not a direction where some folks are comfortable.

I was referring to core/formal D&D there, Wulf. Ultimately, the point I was trying to make was that the decisions of the legal team, in terms of Open or not, do not effect the creative decisions of the design team.

Yes, you're right that in the meta-sense, the game has more options with more publishers. No argument, no disagreement. But I was talking specifically about how the OGL (or lack thereof) impacted, or did not impact, WotC's D&D design team specifically.

 

[BryonD]

I was referring to core/formal D&D there

Doesn't that mean then that you simply were not addressing the entire issue and Wulf simply returned focus to the full picture?