In contrast to the GSL, Ryan Dancey on OGL/D20 in WotC archives

[Mark]

It is the traditional and main view though.

Since the OGL does not make that distinction, then you are defining marginalization.


Off to school for me!

 

[Kwalish Kid]

That's a narrow view of what a publisher is that does not recognize the underlying document that triggered the Open Gaming Movement (the OGL). Mischaracterizing what a publisher is marginalizes most of the publishers of the community.

Well, you can try to be this incredibly inclusive about this all you want, but in the end, there is actual money at stake.

If the question at hand is whether or not people get paid to produce RPG material, then the limited definition of publisher is warranted. If the question is whether or not we should be all touchy-feely and make under-employed people feel better about themselves without actually doing anything to reward their creative work, then, yes, the broader definition is appropriate.

I, however, find your vague and conflicting definitions and your comments throughout this thread to foster a misunderstanding of the very enterprise of the RPG business, the Open Content movement in general, and the comments of people in this thread.

For example, your first comment in this thread was:

Unless, of course, WotC was doing a whole new edition for D&D and wanted to continue to lead the Open Gaming Movement, or at least be a part of it. Naw, I've got to call you on this one. There's obviously been a decision within WotC to pull as far back from Open Gaming as it can at this stage and that's just fine. It's their right to move away from the movement. No hard feelings.

This cannot, however, be said to be "calling anyone on something," since it is merely reiterating what Mike Mearls is saying. Of course WOTC is moving away from the Open Gaming Movement. Mearls was simply explaining why this was happening. This is why Mike Mearls responded to your post by discussing the GSL.

Your next post also portrays a misunderstood about what Mike Mearls was saying. He is not talking about some nebulous concept of open gaming, but the possibility of an actual, organized project with some hope of continuing success that is not aligned with a single publisher. There is no such entity.

When you say about Mearls, "You predilection to discuss the Open Gaming Movement in the past tense shows a bias with which I am not in agreement," this confuses WOTC's use of the OGL, which Mike Mealr actually talks about in the past tense, with your nebulous concept of open gaming, which Mearls does not talk about in the past tense, if he talks about it at all.

People will always publish, in some sense of the word, their own RPG material, but if we are actually concerned with the widespread distribution of RPG material, then we have to take a serious look at how actual resources get allocated in order to ensure the creation and distribution of this material. Calling everyone who has ever filled out a character sheet and given it to someone else a publisher will not aid us in this effort.

 

[Belen]

Well, you can try to be this incredibly inclusive about this all you want, but in the end, there is actual money at stake.

If the question at hand is whether or not people get paid to produce RPG material, then the limited definition of publisher is warranted. If the question is whether or not we should be all touchy-feely and make under-employed people feel better about themselves without actually doing anything to reward their creative work, then, yes, the broader definition is appropriate.

I, however, find your vague and conflicting definitions and your comments throughout this thread to foster a misunderstanding of the very enterprise of the RPG business, the Open Content movement in general, and the comments of people in this thread.

For example, your first comment in this thread was:

This cannot, however, be said to be "calling anyone on something," since it is merely reiterating what Mike Mearls is saying. Of course WOTC is moving away from the Open Gaming Movement. Mearls was simply explaining why this was happening. This is why Mike Mearls responded to your post by discussing the GSL.

Your next post also portrays a misunderstood about what Mike Mearls was saying. He is not talking about some nebulous concept of open gaming, but the possibility of an actual, organized project with some hope of continuing success that is not aligned with a single publisher. There is no such entity.

When you say about Mearls, "You predilection to discuss the Open Gaming Movement in the past tense shows a bias with which I am not in agreement," this confuses WOTC's use of the OGL, which Mike Mealr actually talks about in the past tense, with your nebulous concept of open gaming, which Mearls does not talk about in the past tense, if he talks about it at all.

People will always publish, in some sense of the word, their own RPG material, but if we are actually concerned with the widespread distribution of RPG material, then we have to take a serious look at how actual resources get allocated in order to ensure the creation and distribution of this material. Calling everyone who has ever filled out a character sheet and given it to someone else a publisher will not aid us in this effort.

This makes me wish ENWorld has a posrep function.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Am I saying the OGL was perfect? No.

I am. The OGL allowed for anyone, ANYONE, to take part in their dream of designing RPGs, myself included. If you didn't want something to be used by just anyone, don't release it open but make it available via a seperate license.

 

[eyebeams]

I am. The OGL allowed for anyone, ANYONE, to take part in their dream of designing RPGs, myself included. If you didn't want something to be used by just anyone, don't release it open but make it available via a seperate license.

You could have designed RPGs whenever you wanted.

 

[dmccoy1693]

You could have designed RPGs whenever you wanted.

Indeed, I could have. And plenty of others before the OGL did. But quite frankly, my preception of RPG design before the OGL was that it was something for the professionals, out there somewhere. The OGL gave me the preceived mental image of RPG design that I now had the power to do with my game whatever I wished. IMO, the OGL said that D&D was my game. The OGL changed my preception of RPG and RPG design.

Contrast that with the GSL. Rules cannot be changed. Alternate takes on the cleric cannot be made (unless you call it something else). The D&D game under the GSL is not my game, but Wizards' game. As a writer I can add onto it, but I cannot changed it and make it my game.

Its Wizards' right to do that, but in so doing they brought D&D back to my old way of thinking. This, more then any other change of 4E, saddens me. I choose to write for games that I can preceive as mine.

 

[cr0m]

One thing I don't really understand about the OGL as Open Source SW comparison: if the idea was that the public would improve the rules, then the custodian of the SRD needs to incorporate those improvements, no?

Otherwise, the SRD, which is the baseline for all rules additions and publications, tends to limit the widespread adoption of rules improvements. If I'm Joe Publisher and I want to reach a wide audience, I better write to the SRD to reach the most people and ensure the greatest amount of compatibility with other products.

 

[Belen]

Indeed, I could have. And plenty of others before the OGL did. But quite frankly, my preception of RPG design before the OGL was that it was something for the professionals, out there somewhere. The OGL gave me the preceived mental image of RPG design that I now had the power to do with my game whatever I wished. IMO, the OGL said that D&D was my game. The OGL changed my preception of RPG and RPG design.

Contrast that with the GSL. Rules cannot be changed. Alternate takes on the cleric cannot be made (unless you call it something else). The D&D game under the GSL is not my game, but Wizards' game. As a writer I can add onto it, but I cannot changed it and make it my game.

Its Wizards' right to do that, but in so doing they brought D&D back to my old way of thinking. This, more then any other change of 4E, saddens me. I choose to write for games that I can preceive as mine.

Huh? You can still write those items for your games. You just cannot publish them for-profit.

Even in the closed 1e/2e, I still wrote game material for my games.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Huh? You can still write those items for your games. You just cannot publish them for-profit.

Even in the closed 1e/2e, I still wrote game material for my games.

Its all about preception. While I can make my own custom spells and so forth, I never had the viewpoint that 1e was my game. What changed with the OGL was my preception that I owned the game and could change things that I saw fit. That sense of ownership (among other things) propelled me forward to becoming a writer.

 

[gill_smoke]

Huh? You can still write those items for your games. You just cannot publish them for-profit.

Even in the closed 1e/2e, I still wrote game material for my games.

Yeah, but did you put them on a website? Even subscription based websites count as publishing (IE D&D Insider). "Fan based websites" rules are to follow. With the restrictive nature of the GSL, I worry about the future of EN World.
If you are a publisher and you put a freebie out there it has to follow the GSL. That's if you signed up, otherwise prepare for the wrath of WotC.
Of course IANAL.