New GSL Announcement

[JohnRTroy]

To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL. Not the OGL as a license itself. People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.

 

[mxyzplk]

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?

Uh - yes, that's the way the OGL works. Your decision is whether or not to publish a game under the OGL. Once you do make that decision, the game is open, and there's not further decisions to be made regarding that fact. So yes, the publishers had a choice in the first place, but once it's OGL it's OGL. Best you can do is make the next version not open. Your question is worded very confusingly, but that should cover it.

 

[Urizen]

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?

I find this insulting.

Apparently you've never created a PDF and tried to sell it. It takes alot more than a "pdf-program and some imagination."

Just because the majority of us don't have millions of dollars to invest in a game doesn't mean that we don't care for our products and the people kind enough to purchase them.

You seem to think that we're all just a pack of dogs fighting over table scraps. We work hard on these products, invest alot of time and energy into creating new systems, new rules and new content for people such as yourself (ok maybe not YOU) to enjoy.

We're every bit as vital to the gaming industry as WOTC is. All most of us want is to be able to continue supporting game systems, and also to be able to support 4th edition at the same time.

How is that bad for the industry?

 

[phloog]

I only read the first 8 pages or so, and I think it's possible I missed some backpedaling or clarification, but I did want to just tell you how dismayed I was by this, and how if it truly is a company-wide All-or-nothing decision, it is absolutely worse than having 4e be completely closed.

Two possibilities:

4E operates under this GSL with the horrible 'ditch your old' requirements - - in this case, Wizards and any publishers that don't want to lose out publish 4E material. But anyone who still enjoys 3E loses out, because many publishers do the 100% switch, and 4E folks lose out, because some companies continue with OGL. Then 5E comes along, and all publishers must participate in GSLv2 (which is MORE restrictive) to do 5E, and if they agree they must abandon all 4E work.

4E is closed to 3rd parties: Wizards still puts out a ton of material for 4E...4e users lose out a bit from 3rd party work, but have 100% of the attention of the biggest publisher. 3.x users win big time, because publishers have no choice but to publish under the OGL.

And I'm not sure if anyone realized or posted about this, but with this action, WOTC also officially REQUIRES that anyone who wants to move 4E must compete with all other companies who make the switch, and they can have no alternate source of D&D revenue in the form of catering to those who stay with old additions. All the big guys move to 4E, and all compete for the same pie.

I guess I'm interested in protecting companies that have done right by me for years. Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and many others...let me just say right now that I have cancelled my bn.com preorder for the three-book set. Because with this new rule I can DEFINITELY foresee WOTC doing a new version in a year or two, revoking the last GSL, and demanding that everyone follow along.

If this restriction is in fact real, I would now state that it may be the WISER move for publishers of any size to stay with the old OGL, where there is a player base (some of which admittedly will move to 4E, true), and where you can remain sure that what you publish now won't be rendered invalid by WOTC's need to drive players to the next version.

 

[mxyzplk]

To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL. Not the OGL as a license itself. People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.

I would think that the Wizards of the Coast Brand Manager and Licensing Manager, when putting thoughts on D&D licensing down in writing, are not, or at least really, really should not, be "using these terms loosely."

 

[GMSkarka]

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?

Not all all. The publishers could have issued restrictive declarations of Open Content, sticking only to the minimum amount spelled out in the terms of the license. Some publishers did just that, in fact.

The publishers in question (and others) instead chose to fully open their work, allowing for its unrestricted use via the OGL.

 

[Delta]

Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky?

Yes, definitely.

As one example, I thought that the OGL was short, concise, and eminently readable. Other examples would be a few contracts I've written or signed for an indie game company, indie band, etc.

There's a really bad smell about trying to get promotional hype out of an "open" license that the company is unwilling to openly exhibit. Trying to community-manage the PR around this, when the questions are specific legal inquiries (as opposed to fan opinions), is really doing you guys a lot of damage.

 

[Morrus]

To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL. Not the OGL as a license itself. People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.

I doubt that very much. Nobody in the industry uses terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely, let alone the property owners. The terms are so intrinsic to their business models that it's almost imposisble for anyone actually in the industry to use them "loosely" any more than you'd find it natural to call a table a "chair".

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The GSL was announced on a Thursday.

And there was much rejoicing, congratulations and thanks to Scott and Linae, and some eating of crow where applicable.

The "bad news" was released-- if you want to call it a "release"-- at 10:33 PM yesterday, by Clark.

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?

Other than to say "open by virtue of being made based on the SRD, which was Open Content released under the OGL" you are correct.

To be really fair to the WoTC employees, I think when they say OGL they are talking about the System Reference Document released under the OGL. Not the OGL as a license itself. People tend to use terms like OGL, SRD, D20, etc, a little loosely.

To be as charitable as possible to both you and WotC, suffice to say WotC employees shouldn't be using the terms "a little loosely."

 

[Gryffyn]

Have you ever read a contract that wasn't murky? We could argue about the word "any" for hours.

There are a lot of semantical arguments being batted around and with out the words in front of me I am just another batter at the plate.

Surely, someone at WotC knows what the intent behind that part of the license is.