New GSL Announcement

[Orcus]

So wait, if M&M continues to publish their game as is, that prevents them from publishing 4E material?

Yes.

And if they go 4E, they cannot support 3E products or OGL produts with further products.

Its one or the other. Publishers have to choose--go 4E and abandon your old lines, or stay 3E and give up the chance to support 4e.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages.

Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt).

That isnt the issue.

We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.

Clark

wow this is the most negative I have heard from you in awhile. Maybe you should have that third cup of coffee this morning.

 

[Goobermunch]

Eh, I don't think it's trying to stir it up as much as not really caring if they do. It's the Microsoft/RIAA/GM/American Airlines theory of business. Customers are sheep and they'll buy what you tell them to.

If you keep up with the news on Hasbro, this isn't unusual. The Scrabulous lawsuit, the clue.com lawsuit, the Constructible Strategy Game patent war vs. WizKids, the Magic "tapping" lawsuit. They are aggressive about maintaining exclusive holds on everything related to any of their game lines, by patent, trademark, lawsuit, license, or any other means.

Half a million Facebook users play Scrabulous every day - Hasbro obviously doesn't care about angering them, so they're definitely not going to care about the couple thousand D&D players who are sufficiently plugged in to see and understand the GSL.

Read n Learn:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/11/hasbro-tries-to-shut-down-scrabulous/
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/1226253
http://www.patentarcade.com/labels/Lawsuits.html

And let's get it out of the way cause I know the yes-men are chomping at the bit - yes, it's their God-given corporate right under US law to do all this. But it still sucks.

It's not only their god-given right, in many cases, it's their statutory duty. If you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them. Trademark goes beyond names and words, and includes things like packaging and, arguably, a board game's layout and distinct board coloring. Hasbro owns trademarks on Clue and Scrabble. If they wish to maintain those trademarks, they need to sue to protect them.

Should Hasbro commit fiscal suicide by letting random people copy their IP and ideas? There's a reason why our legal system protects creative works and provides creators with protection. You may think that the system is corrupt or broken, but how else is Hasbro supposed to stop me from copying Scrabble and releasing my new board game "Spell-o-grid?" Sure, their version may be made with a higher quality board, and maybe they only use the standard 26 "english letters," but mine is substantially cheaper, and if you flip over the qy and qj tiles, you can use them like Hasbro's "blank" tiles.

Or is it your position that it's okay for people to copy Hasbro's products, but not a small company or individual designer's work?

Hasbro does what it can because Hasbro must protect those rights.

--G

 

[Grogtard]

No, it appears that the unforseen accidental consequence was in the misunderstanding that the OGL = 3E-derivatives. Any system released under the OGL is being blanketed by this. So it's:

"Support 4E OR support 3E, Traveller, Runequest, FATE, Fudge, Action!, etc. etc."

Which is the problem I'm having. I have to admit, the reek of Hasbro Corporate is all over this.

WOTC: Have us support 4th Edition exclusively because it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, and we'd be fools not to --- not because we're *forced* into exclusivity.

And this is my fear and hope after all the initial dust settles that it isn't the case.

 

[Oldtimer]

Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...

...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!

This was NOT a feature of the d20STL. It was not a feature of the OGL.

Not only was it not a feature of OGL - OGL was designed to remove the possibility of another Mayfair Games tactics ("Suitable for use with Dungeons & Dragons").

But it is a new aspect of their licensing, that's true.

Now we just need to see the actual license...

 

[Scipio202]

We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.

Clark

Well, in a way it is relevant. There are multiple ways of making the open gaming proposition.

The OGL/STL offered use of a system in exchange for very few restrictions, and access to a new brand (that turned out not to have much value) for some more restrictions.

The GSL (we believe) offers use of a system and use of an already very valuable brand in exchange for several more restrictions, including some kind of exclusivity to a particular flavor of openness.

We don't know yet if GSL-flavor openness is net better or net worse than OGL/STL style opennes (or more accurately, for whom is GSL openness better and worse - since there will probably be some of both). But it seems true that the GSL offers some new benefits not present in the OGL/STL along with new restrictions. That means that GSL vs. OGL is not necessarily zero-sum between WotC and everyone else.

 

[nothing to see here]

Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages.

Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt).

That isnt the issue.

We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.

Clark

I apologize if my comment offended you Clark. It certainly was not my intention. A little surprising actually since you were doing yeoman's work early on as one of the few people sticking up for WOTC's intentions.

However I stand by my point, which as far as I can tell, was not addressed in any detail earlier. Letting 3rd parties use the 'Dungeons and Dragons' brand on their on their products is groundbreaking -- even when compared to the d20STL and OGL.

This does not dispell the talk of the GSL being a "step back". But it should temper that criticism.

I did not see that particular point raised in this thread (except from one early post from Scott Rouse), so I raised it. Sorry if it rubbed the wrong way.

 

[JohnRTroy]

And keep in mind that some people will continue to use the 3e rules available under the OGL.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing if the 3e line will have a significant market segment. I think companies like Paizo and Green Ronin will do well under that. To me, it's probably better that some are committed to 4e and some not at all. No "fence-sitting".

I would actually like to see a company using a ruleset based off the OGL 3e SRD do well. Overall, while I think this is heavy-handed of WoTC, I truly think only good can come out of it.

 

[nothing to see here]

Well, in a way it is relevant. There are multiple ways of making the open gaming proposition.

The OGL/STL offered use of a system in exchange for very few restrictions, and access to a new brand (that turned out not to have much value) for some more restrictions.

The GSL (we believe) offers use of a system and use of an already very valuable brand in exchange for several more restrictions, including some kind of exclusivity to a particular flavor of openness.

We don't know yet if GSL-flavor openness is net better or net worse than OGL/STL style opennes (or more accurately, for whom is GSL openness better and worse - since there will probably be some of both). But it seems true that the GSL offers some new benefits not present in the OGL/STL along with new restrictions. That means that GSL vs. OGL is not necessarily zero-sum between WotC and everyone else.

Agreed.

In hindsight, assuming that the "d20 system" brand would have any independent cache or staying power was one of the more naive assumptions of the whole 3.X/OGL phase of D&D's development.

 

[Mouseferatu]

SavageRobby, if you want to engage in namecalling childishness, do it on some other messageboard. Don't post in this thread again.

Folks, I understand that policy changes may leave many people upset. But let me be clear - it is not acceptable for you to take your frustration out on people here. No matter what WotC does, we expect you to be civil and respectful to other posters on EN World.

If you don't feel you can live up to that expectation, you should hold off posting until you can. Go take a walk in the spring sunshine, or something, and come back when your head is cool.

Particularly ironic, since if he'd actually read further before leaping to call me names, he'd have seen my other posts where I not only explained, but rather dramatically modified, my initial stance.