GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Glyfair]

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

Once publishers started the "create your own game" publishing style from the OGL, I got very little in the form of adventures/supplements/etc. for D&D.

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

That doesn't directly affect me.

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.

Pure speculation. Also, that's not a direct effect.

Besides, the RPG industry is already in a downturn. Admittedly, it may largely be because everyone is waiting for 4E. We'll know better at the end of this year.

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

At the height of the RPG industry, there were no real 3rd party publishers of D&D product. While it may not have been cohesive, clearly the RPG industry was more successful during a time when there wasn't an OGL. It might be that it can't be successful in the future without one, but that's just guesswork.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point then.

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.

And now that I understand you... As others have said in this thread: Perhaps they do.

If 4e is not Open, then choices like "Golden Wyvern Adept" start to make more sense.

As opposed to, for example, "Transmuter."

And I can tell you, every protected/ownable name goes through legal. They search it, they clear it, they own it. It's IP.

So again, not to pile on you, but whether or not 4e is Open does have extensive ramifications; yes, down to the creative/design level.

 

[mxyzplk]

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".

Probably true. Have you *seen* the Gleemax terms of use? http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice. Summary - "All your post belong to us."

 

[Ydars]

I am starting to wonder if they will try and patent the term "AC"; sound familiar anyone?

 

[Dark Mistress]

Probably true. Have you *seen* the Gleemax terms of use? http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice. Summary - "All your post belong to us."

Thats pretty much why I don't post there and why if I had a idea I most certainly would not post there. If I post a good idea on necro boards and Clark wanted to use it. I think he would ask if not offer me a free copy of the book when finished for using it. Assuming it was something he and no one else at necro had thought of and they wanted to use it.

I don't mind a company using my idea's I would just want to be asked. Or whats worse, what if you post a idea and then decided it would make a great game book and want to publish it yourself. Oops sorry you can't unless WotC allows it since they now own your idea.

While this is likely far more common with most companies than i would like to think about.

 

[Ydars]

The gleemax terms and conditions are something I hadn't realised at all. So if the OGL/GSL is seriously toned down or scrapped we could find that certain kinds of fan generated material can only be out up on Gleemax and then that WoTC owns it all without needing any further permission.

I am sure they wouldn't do this................................would they?

 

[Mouseferatu]

And now that I understand you... As others have said in this thread: Perhaps they do.

If 4e is not Open, then choices like "Golden Wyvern Adept" start to make more sense.

As opposed to, for example, "Transmuter."

And I can tell you, every protected/ownable name goes through legal. They search it, they clear it, they own it. It's IP.

So again, not to pile on you, but whether or not 4e is Open does have extensive ramifications; yes, down to the creative/design level.

Sorry, I don't buy this in the slightest.

A) The final decision on OGL apparently still hasn't been made.

B) WotC creative folks had meetings with third-party publishers as early as last GenCon, talking about the license; they obviously believed, at the time, the game would be open.

C) I know from talking to people at WotC during my own assignments that the creative staff expect (or at least expected) some level of openness.

4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.

Like I said, I'm not trying to minimize the impact such a decision would have--but I also don't want to see it exaggerated.

 

[Glyfair]

Thats pretty much why I don't post there and why if I had a idea I most certainly would not post there. If I post a good idea on necro boards and Clark wanted to use it. I think he would ask if not offer me a free copy of the book when finished for using it. Assuming it was something he and no one else at necro had thought of and they wanted to use it.

What if you post a good idea on the Necro's boards and he happens to have a product in the works that actually already has used that idea? That's the reality that WotC is concerned about. They aren't considering using Gleemax as a method of stealing their fan's ideas and turning them into products.

 

[Lizard]

4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.

I agree. I think WOTC did not understand the license or what 'openness' entailed, and, apparently, never talked to their developers who had made careers using the license and thus understood it very well.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Sorry, I don't buy this in the slightest. 4E simply was not, and could not have been, written under the assumption that it would be closed material, as you're suggesting.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm responding to your assertion that the openness of 4e has no ramifications at the design level. It absolutely can.

And while I agree with you-- I don't think 4e was written with the intent to close it off-- I disagree that there are not elements of the design that were written with the intent to pull more terminology back into their control.

I predict there will be quite a few things joining the beholder, mind flayer, and displacer beast in 4e. Shadowfell and Feywild spring immediately to mind.

To say that, however, is not to say that I think WoTC intended, or even now intends, to close 4e entirely.

Hope that's clear.