New GSL Announcement

[Thulcondar]

I realize this might seem completely naive, coming from someone with only a small bit of experience in the gaming industry, but I must ask why the companies dedicated to 3E and the OGL feel they have to follow the herd and support 4E and the GSL as well?

Yes, you get to use the D20 logo, come July, and yes, you get to profit from the "Dungeons and Dragons" brand name (which is no mean thing), but other than that...?

Speaking completely hypothetically, if a consortium of folks got together and came up with a truly open-source system for role-playing games, which wasn't tied to either the OGL or GSL, and was marketed by individual content producers as a competitor for D&D 4E, how might that fare?

Bear in mind I'm coming from the mindset of the early days of RPGs, when anybody with access to a typewriter, a photocopier and a saddle-stitch stapler could come out with their own game (and woe betide the loss of that spirit of inventiveness and entrepreneurship in our hobby!).

But it seems to me that if the terms of the GSL are really so onerous as to tear down some folks businesses, it might be prudent to at least consider dumping 4E for some yet-to-be-conceived open source RPG, to draw in a subset of people who want "The New Thing", but might be built structurally along the same lines. It wouldn't have the name recognition of D&D, of course, but it would afford supporting companies the luxury of maintaining 3E products while simultaneously supporting the newcomer challenger to 4E, without the restrictions of the GSL.

Just musing. Hopefully the final version of the GSL would make such a thing completely unnecessary.

Joe

 

[nothing to see here]

Yes it was.

Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.

This was the clause that Valar did the end-run around with the Book of Erotic Fantasy. That ruffled a few feathers at WOTC. If all that the GSL permits is a small-font compatibility statement similar to the crackdown they imposed after that debacle, I'll stand corrected.

However, Scott Rouse's statement implied they are comfortable with products displaying a far more prominent brand compatibiltiy than that.

 

[BryonD]

Well, presumably so-- we haven't seen the GSL yet. I expect so. I expect so mainly because the GSL such as it has been described so far feels a lot more like the d20 STL than the OGL.

If the GSL has the same kind of safety net features as the OGL... well then...

Yes, you are 100% correct. I am presuming.
I'm open to wagers from you. E-mail me.

 

[Nellisir]

Green Ronin's in a slightly more complicated situation, but with similar incentives. It'd be in their long-term interest to do major overhauls of M&M and True20 that no longer rely on the SRD and also release under a non-OGL license (if using an open license at all). Since they're no longer likely to draw compatibility converts from D&D, there's probably not much downside to doing a big re-vamp of their games.[/SIZE]

I'm not sure I follow, at least in regards to True20. The point of True20 is a stripped down d20 game. The reason I, at least, like True20 is because it is functionally compatible with most of my d20 material. That's one of its selling points. How does taking the 20 out of True20 not count as a downside? I mean, if I were just going to follow a game around through "major overhauls" and not care about the actual game, I'd keep my life simple and stick with D&D.

It'd be like substituting a Monopoly board for Mr Potatohead. It's just weird.

 

[Orcus]

No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

 

[Urizen]

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

Provided you ditch every other system deemed not healthy to WOTC's growth as a company, which, depending on the company, means you need to drop support for products fans know and love.

Not very "open" in my opinion...

 

[BryonD]

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

Can WotC change their mind and announce that no product released under GSL can be sold after whatever date they choose?

It seems to me that you are saying that renting a home is just as good as owning as long as you have a place to sleep. I don't see it that way.

 

[Fifth Element]

d20 System Trademark Guide v5

And the Guide is specifically referred to in paragraph 4 of the license, as part of the quality standards. Any d20 publisher ought to know that.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I'm not sure I follow, at least in regards to True20. The point of True20 is a stripped down d20 game. The reason I, at least, like True20 is because it is functionally compatible with most of my d20 material. That's one of its selling points. How does taking the 20 out of True20 not count as a downside? I mean, if I were just going to follow a game around through "major overhauls" and not care about the actual game, I'd keep my life simple and stick with D&D.

It'd be like substituting a Monopoly board for Mr Potatohead. It's just weird.

Yah, you're probably right for True20. M&M though I think could make a transfer to a pure house system okay.

 

[BSF]

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

Well, almost no cost. By my understanding, Necormancer will no longer be able to sell versions of Tome of Horrors, Bard's Gate, etc for 3.x once you begin to release GSL material. You won't even have the choice to convert it from d20 to OGL, you won't be able to sell both.

Hopefully, you have most of your stock sold and clear of the warehouse. If you don't, then it might make sense to hold off on GSL products until you are clear.

But it also kills the PDF channel. The presumptively evergreen products that would allow people to still pick up old material for old games in perpetuity. That goes away now.

This impacts me as a customer. There are a lot of game settings that I have that I like using OGL material in. I have always liked the idea that I would always be able to get this material.

But it looks like WotC doesn't want that to be available to me. So if a couple of years from now I want to break out my Dragonstar books to run a game for my kids, and I wanted to grab a couple of old PDFs that might complement the game from Necromancer Games, I might not be able to pick up any of those from Fantasy Flight Games or from Necromancer because you guys will have had to pull those PDFs if you wanted to publish under the GSL.

So I wouldn't say the GSL is available at no cost. One of the definitons of cost is a sacrifice, loss or penalty. I see the loss of support for products I enjoy today. A loss that is being enforced by WotC through exclusivity.