New GSL Announcement

[DaveMage]

What's to stop game companies from splitting into two separately-incorporated companies: one using the 4e GSL and one using the OGL?

Travis

A termination clause.

 

[Urizen]

Yet somehow, I've managed to be boggled and amazed at the number of posters in this thread who represent in some capacity, owner, writer or other, RPG publishers who I respect and value above many others. These are posters whom, once I realised what I was seeing, I had to stop and take note of, if for no other reason than that their books own significant chunks of space on my RPG bookshelves and, in pdf form, on my computer. And pretty much all of them are aghast at what is being suggested. Even Orcus, who owns more of my bookshelf space than the Wizards themselves [and I'm not sure what I'm going to do when he goes 4E yet .]

The only major publisher, by my personal reckoning and my personal tastes and cares alone, who has stayed out of this fray is Troll Lords, although I am doubtful that they really care what happens with 4E. They don't plan on going that route, and in fact have been converting their 3.x books to C&C OGL.

Appearing so far:

• Necromancer

• TheLe

• Green Ronin

• Dreamscarred Press

• Reality Deviant

• Inner Circle

• Paizo

• RPGObjects

• [And by association, Louis Porter Designs]

And those are all publishers I care deeply about.

[I'm probably missing some folks, but see, I have signatures turned off and I'm only noting the folks I know and regard.]

Hey, thanks, Greylock. RDP won't be going 4th ed if it means we have to alienate kind people like you by stopping production of materials you like.

It's not a reasonable request by WOTC, and it's certainly not fair to the customers, who, ultimately are the reason we get to do what we do.

 

[phloog]

One person asserted I believe that it could be a GOOD thing, because we'd get a 4E/GSL version of M&M.

First off, I dispute that it would have to be better, but more importantly - doesn't the new license basically FORBID you from creating a non-D&D game.

Unless you're suggesting that this new version of M&M would not have that annoying old dinosaur called 'Character Creation', which I believe is not allowed in the GSL.

 

[Pinotage]

One person asserted I believe that it could be a GOOD thing, because we'd get a 4E/GSL version of M&M.

First off, I dispute that it would have to be better, but more importantly - doesn't the new license basically FORBID you from creating a non-D&D game.

Unless you're suggesting that this new version of M&M would not have that annoying old dinosaur called 'Character Creation', which I believe is not allowed in the GSL.

Remember there will be 2 licenses of the GSL. One for D&D fantasy games, and another for other d20 games and genres. Presumably a 4e M&M would be under that license. However, it's still not clear whether you can update OGL material to the GSL, although presumably you could if you were the original owner of the material.

Pinotage

 

[Urizen]

Remember there will be 2 licenses of the GSL. One for D&D fantasy games, and another for other d20 games and genres. Presumably a 4e M&M would be under that license. However, it's still not clear whether you can update OGL material to the GSL, although presumably you could if you were the original owner of the material.

Pinotage

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, it's the STL which forbids chargen rules. I'm sure that's being folded into the GSL.

 

[pawsplay]

And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled.

I have publishing credits. I was also working on my own imprint, but I've been in holding position ever since the 4e announcement. While I am unlikely to become a 4e writer, it is important to me what happens to the OGL/d20 industry.

 

[Zaister]

What's to stop game companies from splitting into two separately-incorporated companies: one using the 4e GSL and one using the OGL?

Probably the terms of the GSL. WotC might reserve the right to withdraw the licence if you try to circumvent it in any way they don't like.

 

[Jayouzts]

Gsl

And I am baffled, BAFFLED by the sheer number of people in this thread complaining about the license who have absolutely ZERO freelance, or publishing credits to their name. - Baffled.

I have publishing credits. I was also working on my own imprint, but I've been in holding position ever since the 4e announcement. While I am unlikely to become a 4e writer, it is important to me what happens to the OGL/d20 industry.

Pawsplay is right. I remember the bad old days when TSR would send cease and desist letters to people for putting up home-brew modules and materials on their personal Websites/BBS.

Consider this hypothetical. Joe the Average DM runs a 3.5 game. He puts his PC's and best NPC's on his website. He starts a new a 4E game while keeping the 3.5 game going. He puts his 4E stuff up alongside the 3.5 stuff. How strict will WOTC be enforcing the GSL in this situation?

If I am their lawyer, and the purpose of 4E is reinvigorating the D&D brand, I would advise WOTC to send a cease and desist letter to Joe. He would either have to take down the 3.5 stuff or take down the 4E stuff. The fact that he is not a "commercial" publisher makes no difference. I have not seen the license, but I imagine Joe COULD be treated like any publisher.

Will WOTC be as hard-nosed? Time will tell.

 

[Matthew_]

And so passes another age, let the age of iron begin!

Well, this pretty much sucks. I admit that I have just about zero interest in D20, but I am interested in how this affects games like Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC and Castles & Crusades. Up until this announcement it was possible for third party publishers to make most of their sales off the extremely lucrative D20 market and occasionally produce something new or a conversion of some sort for the old school crowd. Good Man Games, Expeditious Retreat Press and 0one Games spring to mind as perhaps the most visible examples, and Green Ronin, I believe, have a Castles & Crusades version of Free Port in the works. Now it seems likely that these companies will have to make choices as to where their best interest lies, and that is saddening.

I hope that there will be more room for maneouvre than what is being suggested here, but I am not very optimistic. Still, I doubt Wizards particularly care what I think, and I guess the feeling is mutual.

 

[robconley]

If the GSL pertains to ALL OGL product regardless if they are devried from the d20 SRD then I wound if this would come into play?

http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm

Simply put, a tying arrangement is an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product (often known as a positive tie), or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier (often known as a negative tie).

However RPGs may run afoul of this. The Third Party RPG market may not be large enough to bring any case to federal court.

D. Effect on "Not Insubstantial" Amount of Commerce The fourth requirement for a per se tying violation is a showing that a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in the tied product market be affected by the tying arrangements. Although the courts could have stated this in a different way, by requiring a showing that a substantial amount of commerce be affected, they have relied on this language. Thus, tying arrangements are unreasonable when a "not insubstantial" amount of interstate commerce is affected. This has been clarified so that "substantial" means substantial enough in terms of dollar-volume so as not to be merely de minimis.

Granted that 4th edition could be simply not open. But on the other hand I seems to me to be unfair to create a open license that impacts games other than the previous edition, like Traveller and Runequest.

Rob Conley