New GSL Announcement

[Shroomy]

Scott, I appreciate your willingness to post on the weekend, but WOTC seems to have a bad sense of timing here. Why release the info on a Friday? In this past, this tactic has been used to kill bad news.

The GSL was announced on a Thursday.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

And this is why the public process of developing and refining the OGL and SRD did so much to *build* faith and confidence in WOTC and encourage people to take what was, at the time, a huge legal and financial risk...and why the behind-closed-doors process of developing the GSL has bred rumormongering, mistrust, and distortion.

I fully and completely understand why WOTC would want to keep the mechanics, rules, IP, and so forth of 4e under wraps until release and why you want total control over how 4e is presented, marketed, and hyped. That's a no-brainer. I do not understand, and still do not understand, why a free license -- one without special terms for one company or another, one which isn't independently negotiated -- needed to be developed in secret. I will assume you (WOTC/Hasbro) had a good reason, but it's a mystery to me.

That's a fair and valid point and maybe something we'll revisit in the coming weeks.

 

[Oldtimer]

That's a fair and valid point and maybe something we'll revisit in the coming weeks.

We surely live in interesting times.

 

[Jack99]

Maybe Dragonblade should have asked: How many other companies has invested millions of dollars into (one of) the most successful RPG's of all times and then allowed anyone with a pdf-program and some imagination to use said system and earn money off it?

Of course all the OGL-games are open, but did the company who made it chose that, or were they "forced" because the game was made under the OGL-rules. I don't know, it's not a rhetorical question.

 

[Belen]

And this is why the public process of developing and refining the OGL and SRD did so much to *build* faith and confidence in WOTC and encourage people to take what was, at the time, a huge legal and financial risk...and why the behind-closed-doors process of developing the GSL has bred rumormongering, mistrust, and distortion.

I fully and completely understand why WOTC would want to keep the mechanics, rules, IP, and so forth of 4e under wraps until release and why you want total control over how 4e is presented, marketed, and hyped. That's a no-brainer. I do not understand, and still do not understand, why a free license -- one without special terms for one company or another, one which isn't independently negotiated -- needed to be developed in secret. I will assume you (WOTC/Hasbro) had a good reason, but it's a mystery to me.

I wish we had posrep here. This is it exactly. The secrecy lends itself to a believe in bad faith on the part of WOTC.

 

[BryonD]

Here is the thing though. WotC owns the OGL and they own d20. Its theirs to do with what they will.

Actually, this is another reason this is a bad deal.
WotC has no control over the OGL.
WotC WILL own the GSL completely.
So 3Ps could produce product and if WotC decided that it was not working for them, they could pull the GSL. Hopefully the GSL provides some grace period, but regardless, the ability to generate income from your work would be completely at WotC's whim.

And, as has been defended multiple times, WotC is only doing what is best for WotC. There is no basis right now to think that any different standard would apply when future considerations of whether or not to yank the GSL came up.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Of course all the OGL-games are open, but did the company who made it chose that, or were they "forced" because the game was made under the OGL-rules. I don't know, it's not a rhetorical question.

If you use Open Gaming Content (such as, but not limited to, the SRD) then your product must be Open and use the OGL.

But there are game systems out there that use the OGL that did not have to do so. I believe Action! and FATE fall under this criteria.

I can't speak for either of them, but I imagine such companies released their games under an Open License for reasons that run the spectrum from "They wanted other folks to develop for their system and drive business to their door," (the business approach) to "A fundamental commitment to the concept of Open Gaming" (the altruistic approach).

 

[mxyzplk]

The following systems have been released under the Open Games License:
ACTION
FUDGE
Spirit Of The Century
Runequest
Traveller
Tri-Stat DX
BESM D20
True 20
...
To say you're off-base in your accusation is a bit light. You're out of stadium, past the parking lot, and riding the F-Train home to Brooklyn..

100% correct. Ignorance of the RPG marketplace is fine, but if you're ignorant of it you should'nt be saying things like "no one else does open!" in public.

I'll point out there are a number of other game companies that also publish open games under licenses other than the OGL. Take "The Shadow of Yesterday, which got the 2004 "Free Game of the Year" Indie RPG award; it's under Creative Commons.

Frankly, even most "for pay" licenses are better than this. The Savage Worlds license isn't free, you have to pay $500 to publish a 128-page book for example, but at least it doesn't screw up your overall company revenue streams.

 

[Oldtimer]

Maybe Dragonblade should have asked: How many other companies has invested millions of dollars into (one of) the most successful RPG's of all times and then allowed anyone with a pdf-program and some imagination to use said system and earn money off it?

Surely this must be a rhetorical question, though. Obviously there's only one company (well two, if you count TSR) that has invested millions of dollars in any single RPG.

 

[Jack99]

If you use Open Gaming Content (such as, but not limited to, the SRD) then your product must be Open and use the OGL.

But there are game systems out there that use the OGL that did not have to do so. I believe Action! and FATE fall under this criteria.

I can't speak for either of them, but I imagine such companies released their games under an Open License for reasons that run the spectrum from "They wanted other folks to develop for their system and drive business to their door," (the business approach) to "A fundamental commitment to the concept of Open Gaming" (the altruistic approach).

So, would you say that most games (besides Action! and FATE) made under the OGL system had to be open, by virtue of being made based on the OGL, and that the publishers had no part in that decision?