My heroes: Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison

[Shining Dragon]

4E I mostly really like, but the license they came out with turns me off in a big way.

Huh? I'm not sure how such a license will stop people from playing 4E.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Lord Tirian, it's not gone! It will never be gone! It cannot be revoked. That is my point.

Yes, that's the beauty of the OGL.

But unfortunately, it's not for 4E!

That said, maybe we shouldn't worry that much about innovations like True20 or M&M. They were OGL products, "inspired" by 3E, but not really based strongly on them. The GSL is the D20 License for 4E, nothing more, nothing less. As such, the amount of real innovation is limited.

Now that 4E is out, its design elements and ideas are out, too. They are neither subject to copyright nor patented. That means it would still be possible to create a new game "stealing" some ideas from 4E. It would most likely not be compatible with it, but neither True20 nor M&M are compatible with 3E, so that's not such a big issue.

The only reason to use the GSL (and the d20 License before it was revoked) is to tap into the "powers" of the D&D brand. Using the name recognition to get a larger audience, or just to support your favorite game.
From a customer point of view, both Logos are supposed to indicate that the material can be used in your D&D game without any big problems.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Huh? I'm not sure how such a license will stop people from playing 4E.

Well, that wasn't what they were claiming either, so that all works out pretty neatly.

Mind you, they were (apparently) implying that the OGL was somehow limited by (or perhaps even to) 3e, which is totally not the case, of course. OGL != d20, and d20 ! necessarily = [use] OGL.

 

[kensanata]

I believe the OGL saved D&D – infused it with new creative energy, grew a market, allowed it keep going. That was, is, and remains a great thing!

I was surprised when I realized how many OGL products did not in fact contain any Open Game Content. That was, is, and remains a loss.

 

[Monkey Boy]

Personally I don't mind if Midnight doesn't go to 4E...it wouldn't be a great fit anyways. But if they can't even make any more Midnight d20 products, then, yeah, that sucks..

Banshee

Points of light baby! Midnight is a great fit for 4e. The only thing I see as a problem is low magic but the jury rigged something for 3.5. I am sure they could have done the same for 4e. Given FFG's hiring lately I figured they had Midnight 4e in development. Given the GSL I bet they are glad they got the Warhammer liscence.

My loss as I love me some midnight and love me some 4e.

 

[redcard]

I was surprised when I realized how many OGL products did not in fact contain any Open Game Content. That was, is, and remains a loss.

And that saddened me too. Because, I'm a free software developer. I'm used to people using my stuff and re-releasing it in new forms, all of it under the same open license. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.

The OGL was great , and it was good what was done, but the fact is, the only one really participating was Wizards. To be true to the OGL license, you need to release OGC. The people USING the license to reprint OGC from other companies aren't the ones that help, it's the people who release the OGC that are the ones that help.

And in the end, it just seemed like there wasn't enough OGC to make it worthwhile. It's a failed experiment in the business sense. It's still great for third party or indie developers or free developers.. but for big business, there was an immense amount of take and little to no give.

 

[Psion]

Yes actually. Immense.

Er, for Mutants and Masterminds... I'm not sure that new 4e mechanics will benefit M&M in any meaningful way. That's as if suggesting that WotC can come up with stuff that's beyond GR's ability to conceive.

The lack of other games of this type that might have been inspired by 4e is, on the other hand, regrettable.

 

[Mercule]

Yes however this being a niche hobby large corporations and their expectations have no part in it. They're predicated on models for much larger markets that can sustain the sort of strain and overhead a niche hobby can't. Steve Jackson Games is about the biggest company that can sustain itself on the limited niche of RPGs. D&D has only really survived in WoTC because it there were many other lines to bring in profit as well and cover the overheads of a corporation of that size. Even White Wolf ended up merging with that software company.

I guess what I'm saying is the corporate environment is not a one-size fits-all solution. It works for certain types of markets, but in others it's a hindrance. And such small niche markets with limited profitability have no place in large corporations, the two models don't mix well. Large corporations will inevitably be forced to do things in order to maintain the levels of income needed to cover their overhead that will shove them out of the market and alienate the customer base they were counting on.

I do tend to agree. As I've said, I think the OGL was the right thing to do.

The more I look at the GSL, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that it's really one of the worst bunglings that such a document could be. It's revokable. It unclear. It almost expressly prohibits things like adventures and monster books, but seems like it really just wanted to stop people from making oodles of sourcebooks.

I find myself not being able to blame WotC for restricted access to their IP, but starting to blame them for doing it extremely wrong.

 

[BryonD]

Raise a glass to good days. May they return again soon.

 

[Obryn]

Open gaming is revolutionary, wonderful, and philosophically beautiful to me. I think it's great that the door was opened and can't be closed.

If I had my preference, WotC would have stuck with it and done the same thing for 4e. Mind you, I don't know how much bigger a difference it would have made; I don't necessarily think there'd much for third parties to gain by switching to a 4e OGL from a 3e OGL. Still, it would have been nice.

I'm sad that they didn't, but then again, I don't get to make those decisions. The GSL is only bad & restrictive in comparison to the OGL... it still would have been considered extremely progressive not all too many years ago. Larger corporations are very, very conservative - I'd say stupidly so - when it comes to their IP and licensing. A smaller company like WotC could take that risk, but a shareholder-owned company like Hasbro evidently won't. I respect Scott Rouse and Linae for giving the community as much as they did.

In the end, I can't blame WotC for making the licensing rules such that third-party supplements directly support, rather than replace, their core line.

But yeah. I agree with Buttercup that it's awesome that, even should D&D tank, we'll still have the SRD and all the various d20 games that arose as a result.

-O