GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Orcus]

There are four options:

A. Close 4E. Nothing more to discuss.

B. Use the OGL. That's easy. Just create the 4E SRD and say "this is released as open game content". Then let us use it under the license.

C. License the PI and work those restrictions from the old STL back in.

This would be really really easy.

1. Designate ALL of the 4E core books and their contents as PI and require us to agree not to challenge or dispute said designation or to challenge ownership.

2. Then, give the publishers permission per OGL section 7 to use that PI under the OGL v1.0a subject to certain conditions--namely, that they follow some of the conditions from the STL/Guide:

a. no describing character creation,
b. no describing applying XP to a charcter
c. no interactive games
d. no minis
e. no using "core rules"
f. must meet community standards of decency, such as nudity, race and religion as found in the STL.

(you know, all the terms people got around by just going OGL and not using the d20 license because the d20 logo became meaningless).

3. Permit publishers to say "For use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" on their products.

4. Provide some version of the D&D logo, similar to the one on the back of the "Wizards Presents..." books for our use.

5. Let us refer to the name of the book and page numbers for goodness sake!

6. Require us to say "This product uses content from the Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All such content is Product Identity and is used with permission and by seperate agreement. No such content is Open Game Content."

Then create a smart SRD. Dont just retype all the stuff. All that does is slow the SRD down and prevents us from supporting their future releases. Instead, for each product, simply do a Section 15 listing like what we would for an OGL product telling us how you want us to reference that book, with a provision that we have to say the blurb above. And as each book comes out, update the smart SRD with the title of the book and add it to the PI permission document.

Its real easy to license this stuff and keep all the restrictions Wizards is likely concerned about.

D. Create a brand new license called the GSL.

This is something that could be made from scratch. So its biggest benefit is that new people who didnt do the OGL can say, "yeah, I made that." I have no idea what the issues are. But the downside is that we have been working with the OGL for about 8 years now. We know what can and cant be done. We know how to use it. I'm not sure creating a brand new license is needed when you can simply use C, above.

My Opinion

I think C is the best choice. It continues open gaming. It continues a license we all know how to work with. It works back in the restrictions that Wizards wanted in the license in the first place with the d2) STL. It ties the license back to D&D, which is really what Wizards wants to do--sell D&D books. It precents stand alone competing game systems like M&M, which arguably dont add as much to Wizards' percieved value of open gaming as do, say, products that straight support D&D. It protects their content by making it all PI which is impregnable in the OGL and, frankly, PI is protected even more solidly that regular copyright and it requires us not to challenge ownership.

 

[Orcus]

Of course B would be the easiest and would be my preference as Clark from Necromancer Games. But I mean if I was Wizards, I would choose C.

 

[Orcus]

Oldtimer, you are right of course. I shouldnt have said "at first" I should have said "back in basic D&D".

But that said, in ODD you only had fighters, magic users and clerics. Not even theives. When I mention STR, INT, WIS its 'cusae those were the prime attributes of the 3 classes. Dex, Con and Cha were add ons.

Of course, change can go both ways, not just from less options to more options. Heck, it couldnt get more open than ODD, which famously said: "there is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided that they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, ie a player wishing to be a dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being determined by the campaign referee." Though not ruling it out, AD&D went from the "why in the heck not" quote above to Gygax spending almost a whole page talking people out of monster PCs, even stating: "you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character."

But I dont want to get into a D&D history lesson.

I do appreciate you correcting my error in statments though.

Clark

 

[Roman]

I really doubt that WotC is seriously considering not including 'open' gaming in the 4th edition. Unless Orcus has some inside information, and I doubt that, there has been little evidence to suggest that apart from his own hunch. Now, I know that he has industry experience and all that, but a hunch is still merely a hunch.

What is probably happening is the final approval of the exact details of 'open' gaming under the 4th edition. I keep putting 'open' in quotation marks, because it can mean different things: there are different levels of 'openness' and it is likely that 4E will have a more restrictive license than 3.5E, but nonetheless I think it will still be 'open' enough to warrant the 'open' label.

There is no reason for the panic, the single post concerning policy vetting really does not imply what people here seem to fear. I suppose it could imply that, but it could also imply many other possibilities. For some reason people jumped to their worst fear and think that it is that possibility among many, which will manifest, but the probability of that happening does not seem particularly high.

 

[Roman]

I have probably* never bought a third party d20 or OGL product before and throughout the course of the 3.X edition, my RPG book purchases have been exclusively from Wizards of the Coast. As such, one would think that the presence or the absence of third party support for 4E should not concern me. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I dislike many of the changes made in the process of making 4E and regardless of my previous purchasing behavior, if I do switch to 4E (and I am still undecided, but leaning against switching) I will have to rely on third party products that reverse those bad changes, while maintaining the positive aspects of 4E. If there are no 4E products that do this for me, there will be no agonizing decision process of whether to switch or not. I will simply automatically stay with my houseruled 3.5 edition or one of the '3.51' evolutions, such as the Pathfinder RPG, being developed by Paizo. That said, though, I really doubt that this will be an issue, as I doubt that 4E will not have an open license. I think this is needless panic on the part of many here - the plans for an open license have been announced a while back and I have seen no real evidence to indicate that this has changed. The single post by Mike Lescault does not really lead to the conclusions people are jumping to.

*I say probably, because none come to mind - I might have bought some, but at the moment I certainly cannot remember doing so.

 

[Yair]

The language in that quote is troubling, but at this point it seems to me that the boat of Open Gaming has long ago sailed anyways. A reversal of the trend, going back to open standards, would very much surprise me. I'm pessimistic.

It seems to me fan content would be limited to Gleemax (legally; I don't believe WotC would stoop so low as to close down fan sites), and commercial content would fall under the GSL - which would be a fairly typical franchise-type deal.

I like open gaming. A lot. It has given me great stuff, but also a great sense of belonging, freedom, and community. I am going to test-drive 4e, but the fact that is isn't open is a huge point against it for me. I suspect 4e will be great. The main thing that will keep it from moving away from it, however, would be the work required to create an OGL (or public domain) clone (or better yet - an amalgam of it and other great gaming ideas). It is very possible that by the time I'm done testing it, OGL clones will be extant. I intend to seriously browse them and use them as-is or as raw material for my own homebrew sysetm.

I have nothing against propriety ownership of games. My favorite game is Ars Magica, and you won't hear me bitching that I'm gonna go OGL on its ass. But the taste of freedom is addictive, and I see no reason to go back to the days of solitude for my D&D games.

 

[Nosey Goblin]

I said it back in the day and I will say it again--open gaming was a renaissance of the golden age of D&D from its early days when companies like Judges Guild and Wee Warriors (check them out if you want some D&D history!) and others made stuff for the game. When it was at its peak. It felt like that again with early 3E.

It truly was a reawakening of that golden age. Everyone involved felt it. Ryan felt it. I felt it.

(emphasis mine)

So could it be said that Open Gaming helps promote the "First Edition Feel" in D&D as much as the style of the adventures themselves? When third parties operate under looser restrictions they can tread the same ground the old greats did back in the day.

Anyhow, my main reaosn for posting is this question:

Clark, I know your not psychic and all, but as an attourney what would you see the legal team at WotC advising the management? Both assuming they understand gaming, and assuming they don't/ (I'll understand if you don't want to answer put words into other people's mouths).

Regards,

Shane

 

[mxyzplk]

I'm not Clark, but one of the complicating factors about all this is that it's not clear whose "call" it is or whether the issues are coming from the WotC or Hasbro level.

Normally, corporate legal teams always advise "don't share nothin'!" But a good corporate management team knows when to listen and when not to. I asked this question to a bunch of Web entrepeneurs (Facebook, Flickr, etc.) who were doing a panel on protecting your intellectual property rights at South by Southwest Interactive. "This panel's about protecting your stuff, but obviously many of you have partially or totally built your companies on sharing things." They launghed, and said sure, the legal team always has a valuable perspective but when it comes down to it all they're there for is to analyse and minimize the risk of a course of action - the business types analyze the reward and balance it against the legal team's advice, and when it outweighs it it outweighs it. And they admit a lot of the time it's hard to quantify the reward, but "feeling" it is as good - that's why they're millionaires and we (and their legal team) are not.

Now in this case it is complicated by having Hasbro above WotC. In that case you need "permission." It's possible they pushed the GSL up and they said "Hold on a minute. We let people make Monopoly variants but they pay is for ths privilege. What's this open rules nonsense? Someone could make Monopolies wihtout paying us! Unacceptable!"

But in the end this is probably not a "legal" call. It's a business call. Whose call, they're being very secretive about.

 

[catsclaw]

Of course B would be the easiest and would be my preference as Clark from Necromancer Games. But I mean if I was Wizards, I would choose C.

Unfortunately, the question seems to be what would you pick if you were Hasbro?

 

[Dark Mistress]

Yeah, and there are several ways to react to that. I'd post and say "hey, rad idea you have there. Coincidentally, you will probably like product XYZ that we are working on that is pretty similar."

That said, the "what you post here is ours" mentality is pretty prevalent and cant really be used as a "Wizards is evil!" argument. They arent evil. They are just a tad more corporate than the gamer mentality is comfortable with. Which is why there will always be a bit of friction. And I dont mean that as disrespect to Wizards. I am a huge supporter. I am the guy telling people to calm down about licenses being under NDAs. Its normal. But it certainly chaffes the gamer mind.

Just to be clear I don't think they are evil and i know why and get why they are doing it. I am just one of those it bugs and I was only saying that was why I won't post idea's there. And the above on how Clark would react is why i would post the same said idea's on Necro boards.