New GSL Announcement

[The Little Raven]

I am struck by the narrowness of this definition, that is,to sell 4e products. I would consider "selling 4e products" to be a business strategy, and the business was selling games and game related material.

Narrowness? The guy is the D&D Senior Brand Manager. It's his job to sell D&D, which means 4th Edition. It isn't his department's business to sell Magic. Or Star Wars. Or anything but D&D. And since D&D is going to 4th Edition, that means his job is to sell 4th Edition products. D&D has a wide range of products from core books to Forgotten Realms to Eberron to Dungeon Tiles to D&D Miniatures. It's his business to sell 4e products.

 

[defendi]

I think Clark has been beaten on a little much in this thread. Nothing to see here, I'm sure he didn't mean it personally. He's been in the center of a couple firestorms in the last two weeks. Give him a moment to calm down. I think you stepped in his way when he hit his breaking point and needed to unload.

I'm with Clark (at least where he was at the beginning of the thread). Sad (the either or decision flies in direct defiance of my business model), but I see why they'd do it and I don't hold it against them. Now there are a couple things they could do that would REALLY devastate me, but we won't mention them. I don't want to jinx it.

 

[breschau]

Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd be dangerous. Thankfully you haven't a clue.

Any and all games that use the OGL are, by definition, open games. Take the time to read. Every bit of the M&M rules are open content that can be used (except the Product Identity material, which only includes the character names, place names, artwork, and the term "power points"). Considering that the system is so different from standard d20 (character creation, toughness saves, damage bonus, etc) and that all of those are open game content, they are contributing quite a bit.

Asking someone to give out their entire book for free so you don't have to buy it is ridiculous. No one asked WotC to create the OGL. They did it on their own. Asking small companies to give away their only source of income—for free—is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

 

[phloog]

A new version of the GSL or of D&D? If you are saying a new version of D&D in 1 or 2 years then I'm just going to laugh at you. If you mean the GSL, WotC has updated the OGL license along the way, but people could use older versions of the OGL b/c it already exists and there is no way to revoke it. I'll be very interested to see if WoTC is able to close up the license -- SNIP.

Actually I meant GSL, but it could apply to the D&D game too - don't laugh at me - I'm not saying that it would be vastly different, but different enough (4.01) for them to make a sales pitch to the 3rd parties that it's worth doing...and if they DID come up with 4.01, you'd basically be in the same boat - - go ahead and stay with v4, or switch to 4.01 and never be able to publish for any older versions.

But the GSL is the more serious one, because I sincerely believe that it will have terms that say essentially that they can alter or revoke at any time, and that you're basically required to follow them along.

It's just basically a dangerous path, because if you DO buy in to this agreement as a publisher, you can have no reasonable assurance that they won't come up with a new version of the base game, and force you to abandon all old products.

I just hope that MORE publishers stick with the OGL, because that's now the way my group is going...I was going to give the new version a play or two, but I'm not going to get caught in a situation where all the 3rd parties I trust are forced to abandon things I like whenever WOTC decides to do a revamp.

 

[nothing to see here]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Have the logo is great for publishers but what if wizards says to a publisher "We've reviewed your product and have a competing product that will be out in two months, so you can't publish that". Without knowing how the process is going to work for approval of your product and what WotC has in the pipeline how can any small publisher hope to put out product?

I originally thought that this was going to only really hurt the 2nd-tier publishers, then revised my opinion that it will hurt 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. Now I think it hurts all publishers who wanted to support 4E.

Is it wizards right to do so? Absolutely. Can I fault them for it? No, they've got to protect their business. Do I like it? From what i've read so far, absolutely not.

Well that would be a concern. But, from what I have seen, there has been zero indication that, within the 4e ruleset, this sort of new "non-compete clause" will be a feature of the GSL.

If it did, it would change the calculous. Not very many working business models provide such discretionary authoirty to your competitors. That's why I seriously doubt it will be a feature of the GSL.

 

[S'mon]

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

This is misleading. Neither ideas nor game mechanics are protectable IP - per the Monopoly case. Elements of distinctive trade dress may amount to trade marks in US law (here in UK it falls under 'passing off' law), but in fact it would potentially be legally possible to make and market spell-o-grid.

 

[Henry]

Clark, I can understand the stress involved, but you might want to dial it back a bit. I'm not saying "out of the thread," I'm just saying that was a bit uncalled for.

Mxyzptlk, that's enough on the insults, the "acting like people are sheep" comments, and so forth. Dial it back, or you will leave the thread.

I appreciate the majority of civil discussion in here. I know it ain't easy when we're not just "talking about games," but people's livelihoods, here.

-----------------


That said, I keep getting reminded of this quote from the d20 FAQ:

...Changes to the core require a general consensus from large numbers of people to be successful, otherwise they'll just be ignored or "fixed" to maximize compatibility.

In fact, one of the biggest groups affected by this force will be the Wizards of the Coast tabletop RPG Research & Development team. When the time comes to make a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, they'll have to make a very persuasive case to the market to adopt any changes to the core rules they want to make! The R&D team has already made some variations close to the core. The Star Wars rules include a different system for tracking character health, the Vitality Point/Wound Point system. Only time will tell if two variations that close to the core will both be supported by the market.

If there was ever a case of proving this point, this will be it. I think the new math paradigm they've introduced (the "sweet spot" stuff) will be the selling point for this edition - this will be the part that is their biggest draw. If it doesn't work, though, we could well see the D&D market fractured to a degree like it's never been before. 4e will be a success, but so could whatever succeeds 3E as an open standard.

It also means that as Oldtimer noted, it's almost assured a competing system will be made whose core mechanics will follow many of 4e's conventions, even if it doesn't follow it to the letter; think about it -- the core mathematic (the progression of +1 per 2 levels for all classes in attack bonus and saves) is already in the SRD. For that matter, it strikes me that so much of the basic design work is in the Epic Material, in Unearthed Arcana, and in iron might / iron heroes. A system incorporating many of the sweet spot precepts, while looking and acting very different from the 4th edition, could be created right now -- and not violate a single trademark, patent, or copyright.

Or, for all we know, Pathfinder might morph into the killer app that keeps D&D gamers adding to the OGL, along with Runequest, Traveller, et. al.

But guys and gals? Let's PLEASE make sure to eliminate the personal insults and the Nazis and Sweatshops. It goes nowhere but down.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well that would be a concern. But, from what I have seen, there has been zero indication that, within the 4e ruleset, this sort of new "non-compete clause" will be a feature of the GSL.

If it did, it would change the calculous. Not very many working business models provide such discretionary authoirty to your competitors. That's why I seriously doubt it will be a feature of the GSL.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15651565&postcount=58

We will likely have a clause for allowance of similar designs that protects everyone in case a 3PP and WOTC release similar ideas at different times. EG someone does "Tome of Riding Dogs" and a month later we release "Complete Riding Dog"

EDIT: I haven't caught up on that thread since last night, so it may be clarified a little later on.

 

[nothing to see here]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15651565&postcount=58



EDIT: I haven't caught up on that thread since last night, so it may be clarified a little later on.

I think that quote confirms my point, actually.

Read the quote again, the GSL would contain language to protect WOTC from charges of ripping off third parties. That's a far cry from a provision allowing them to ban potential tird party competition. The human resources cost alone of such a discretionary approvals process would make such an possibility a long shot at best.

But of course we haven't seen the text of the GSL yet...etc...etc

 

[Greg K]

I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if WOTC is so confident in 4e, the company should be allowing third party companies to produce versions of a product for both 3e and 4e.