How do you feel about WOTC, the 3PP and the intent of the GSL

[Najo]

First Paizo, now Clark and Necromancer Games. Neither is doing the GSL. This is a shame as both companies brought alot to the D&D game and I don't think they made a negative impact on WOTC's bottomline. The 3pp sell a 10th to a 50th of WOTC sells in volumn, and most of the purchasers of the 3.x 3pp still spend a considerable amount of money with WOTC.

I love 4e. I understand the reasons for most the system and GSL changes and agree with them, except the lack of 3pp safe harbor with GSL and the retro active clause towards the OGL.

The reason the GSL is so restrictive is either a) WOTC is trying to protect their brand from abuse by amature 3PP or b) WOTC is trying to wipe out the OGL and regain a RPG monopoly with the D&D brand.

WOTC, I think a happy medium needs to be met. The 3pp are essentially glorified DMs who want to produce high quality materials to share on a larger scale. I think this is a natural element for D&D of any edition to have. You need to look at company's like Microsoft with the Xbox 360 and treat your game engine like you would a video game system. Give publishers safety to publish and support your product instead of trying to figure out ways to compete with it. The issue with the OGL was that it was to open, but the GSL is not open enough.

Any rate, this thread is intended for two things.

1) Scott and Linae, I know you do not want to comment on timelines or legalities of the GSL, but what I like to know is what is the intention of the GSL? Does WOTC want 3pp playing the the D&D sandbox or not? Please at least let us know what the goal is.

2) To the fans, how do you feel about the effect of the GSL on the 3pp and the current facturing occuring in the 3pp community? Vote in the poll and place your comments in the thread.

 

[evilref]

WOTC, I think a happy medium needs to be met. The 3pp are essentially glorified DMs who want to produce high quality materials to share on a larger scale. I think this is a natural element for D&D of any edition to have. You need to look at company's like Microsoft with the Xbox 360 and treat your game engine like you would a video game system. Give publishers safety to publish and support your product instead of trying to figure out ways to compete with it. The issue with the OGL was that it was to open, but the GSL is not open enough.

While I agree that the GSL needed to be more of a safe harbor (I expected it to remove the ability for publishers to create their own systems using it), I disagree on your view on other publishers here.

Third party publishers, other companies in the industry (especially the larger ones) are primarily companies that want to make money. Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, they've all been making business decisions not to use the GSL. And, moreover, Paizo had certainly decided long before the GSL came out, and Green Ronin was certainly looking that way.

The reason the GSL is so restrictive is either a) WOTC is trying to protect their brand from abuse by amature 3PP or b) WOTC is trying to wipe out the OGL and regain a RPG monopoly with the D&D brand.

This really is an oversimplification and doesn't take into account any of the myriad other reasons for the GSL having the text it has. I've noticed this a lot since it was published, people saying 'The GSL is oversimplified because...' and it's invariably coming alongside a dig at WotC's ethics or practices.

IP law and courts interpretations of copyright breaches (In the US and to a lesser extent Europe) has changed a lot since the OGL was published, perhaps WotC legal (who would have had to sign off on it) didn't feel the OGL was strong enough to protect WotC's rights. I think (but could be wrong in my interpretation) that it's evident that WotC didn't want 4e to generate another M&M or republished and rebranded PHBs. Not allowing material to be published for both the GSL and OGL is a trickier one, but probably owes a lot to the unsurprising idea that they want to support the 4e brand and move away from 3.X. Something that any company wants to do when it publishes a new edition.

One of the fundamental points to remember is that most other succesful companies in the industry have no form of 'feel free to use our stuff' license for other publishers. Even Green Ronin, which publishes under the OGL, has a brand license for M&M that doesn't allow just anyone to publish using it.

All the 'I hate the GSL because...' (and note, I don't think it's a good license for a 3pp who has a lot of IP and would like to continue that forwards under 4e, though it works for what it is for the publication of new material) doesn't take into account that without the OGL this anger wouldn't be happening.

Personally, I'd like to see WotC taking into account the reduced takeup of the GSL and publishing more products themselves. I'd like to see Dragon and Dungeon doubling in size and providing a venue for skilled freelancers to write good material for 4e. It's not going to be until the middle of next year that anyone really has a handle on the longer-reaching effects of the GSL.

Even if it is deemed to have 'failed' though, I'll still have my 4e books and I can run campaigns for years using just them and my own development of them for my campaigns.

 

[Najo]

While I agree that the GSL needed to be more of a safe harbour (I expected it to remove the ability for publishers to create their own systems using it), I disagree on your view on other publishers here.

Third party publishers, other companies in the industry (especially the larger ones) are primarily companies that want to make money. Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, they've all been making business decisions not to use the GSL. And, moreover, Paizo had certainly decided long before the GSL came out, and Green Ronin was certainly looking that way.

Upon rereading my statement about glorified DMs, it is not coming off the way I intended it. It wasn't meant as an attack.

My intention was that businesses in this industry are doing it because they love the industry more than their trying to get rich. I think that many of the great companies like Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, Goodman Games, Kenzer and Company, etc are as much gamers as they are business people. I think they do set out to make money and turn over products. I think most of them try to make products that sell.

But, at the heart of each of them is that gamer that wants to share the game they love and express themselves and their company with it. I think D&D and roleplaying is a medium as much as they are a game, and WOTC should remember that. Allowing 3pp is good for D&D as much as tying officially to D&D is good for the 3pp.

By allowing these dedicated/ glorfied DMs to make cool stuff to sell and tie to the D&D brand (and having stanards and expectations that as long as those standards are met there is a safeharbor) then D&D gets 3pp marketing and innovation as well as market focus and less bad press.

The GSL should make a 3pp want to stand up and praise 4e while keeping WOTC's concerns met.

 

[wedgeski]

I voted for the second option. ENW naturally attracts players who enjoy and will miss 3rd party support for D&D... or should I say, 3rd party support for d20. I'm not one of them, but the majority here seem to be, so I expect the last option to win by a country mile.

For myself, I always considered the OGL a surprising gift from WotC. Now a lot of people seem to think it's a right, and that's an attitude I neither share nor understand.

But all of those thoughts are compartmentalised away... a huge, distant, tiny second place to the quality of the D&D game and its support from Wizards. From what I voted, you can see my opinion on that.

 

[evilref]

My intention was that businesses in this industry are doing it because they love the industry more than their trying to get rich. I think that many of the great companies like Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, Goodman Games, Kenzer and Company, etc are as much gamers as they are business people. I think they do set out to make money and turn over products. I think most of them try to make products that sell.

But, at the heart of each of them is that gamer that wants to share the game they love and express themselves and their company with it. I think D&D and roleplaying is a medium as much as they are a game, and WOTC should remember that. Allowing 3pp is good for D&D as much as tying officially to D&D is good for the 3pp.

While I mostly agree with you, there's nothing in the GSL that discourages those people from being able to share the game they love and express themselves. They're making a business decision not to do so. Moreover nothing stops them from spinning off a ltd company to put things out, or writing for Dragon/Dungeon etc etc.

And, again, I don't think the GSL is a great license. I think it's adequate but certain sections are overly harsh in their language and restrictions. Looking at Clark's reasoning, for example, it's primarily the 'risk' to pre-existing products and IP that he cited as things that concerned him.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The reason the GSL is so restrictive is either a) WOTC is trying to protect their brand from abuse by amature 3PP or b) WOTC is trying to wipe out the OGL and regain a RPG monopoly with the D&D brand.

With regards to a) I think WOTC is trying to protect thier brand from everyone EXCEPT amatuer 3PP. The big names with real publishing power are the only ones capable of competing with them. The GSL as written will only be used by smaller parties (or larger ones willing to take big risks) with little to lose if the rug gets pulled out from them.

By doing this they achieve b.

I love 3rd party material and I think the industry as whole is better because these guys are in business but I understand WOTC's desire to exclusively produce D&D. Nobody back in the TSR days could produce any D&D material and that was that. The OGL was such a great gift that I think many people forget just how unreal that kind of freedom is the normal business world and take it for granted.

Personally, the way things look now, I think systemless supplemental material is a great way to go. The 4E ruleset seems like it might fluctuate a great deal as WOTC does more post release tweaking. Releasing crunch related material for a system that changes this rapidly doesn't seem like such a great idea. What 4E is really lacking in is fluff material which can be produced as systemless product that won't become irrelavent when 4.275 comes out.

Take for example the citybooks from Flying Buffalo. These are awesome and I have used them for different editions of D&D, and GURPS. These provide great locations, adventure hooks, and guidelines for statting up NPC's that still work to this day. Systemless products can stand the test of both time and edition changes.

 

[Adrift]

I haven't read the GSL and don't feel like it matters to me either way.

I can however completely understand that this 'licensing' document is frustrating many sources of additional gaming material supplements. In turn, I can understand how this would frustrate fans.

 

[Najo]

I think the positive effect for WOTC the OGL had was getting everyone playing D&D 3.x or a version of its rules. Before 3.x other systems like White Wolf, Palladium, Hero, Gurps and WEG d6 all were doing decent. Then when 3.0 came out, this shift occured and over the years everyone migrated to the OGL. The only major player not OGL is white wolf, and they are selling a fraction of what they were before.

Now WOTC is potentially losing a percentage of their hardcore market and the marketing that comes with the DMs and players leaving them for Paizo, Green Ronin, Necromancer, White Wolf and the others. I think we could have a return to the splintered market of the 90's pre WOTC D&D.

That market could be as little as 10% up to 50% depending on what alteratives to D&D 4e come out. No matter what, D&D will control the majority, but I think WOTCs days of controlling 90% of the rpg market is over unless they make the GSL work more like the OGL without the OGL's ability to make your own player's handbook.

 

[Adrift]

I am asking these honestly and openly:
Why do we want WotC to dominate the market via something like the OGL?
Why do we want all other gaming systems to look just like DnD?

It sounds like the OGL made everyone the same.

 

[S'mon]

While I voted the final option, by "May stop playing D&D" I mean "May not buy further WotC product after the 3 4e core books, which at £13 each on release were too cheap not to buy" . I may never run 4e but I expect I'll play it eventually and I have no intention of ceasing to run 3.5e D&D, Castles & Crusades, Labyrinth Lord & Mutant Future etc, all of which is basically 'D&D' in my book.