New GSL Announcement

[Wulf Ratbane]

First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license.

You won't see that, because as we "know," mechanics cannot by copyrighted. There is no question that all issues of copyright will be in order with respect to 4e.

I would be very surprised if you could find matching text of any OGC-- which is to say, the copyrightable text used to describe a game mechanic-- used in 4e. That would be something.

But that is not to say that many of the concepts of 4e were not developed as OGC first. You'll note, I did not say anything about Open Content-- merely that Robin Laws is incorrect that concepts born of Open design were not incorporated into the core system. I think many good OGC concepts were incorporated into 4e-- but it was not done through the safe harbor of the OGL.

WotC could have done it that way, of course.

Caveat, I don't think WotC is reusing anyone else's OGC in 4e. They hire their own designers for a reason.

Hiring their own designers doesn't necessarily mean that their designers won't learn from OGC design.

And I think to suggest that Mike Mearls can go from the OGC in the SRD, take that and design Iron Heroes, and then move on to Lead Designer on 4e, without there being some amount of derivative work involved is questionable at best.

Some of the concepts in 4e were likely laid down in UA as well-- also OGC.

I'm not trying to rock the copyright boat at all, here. Everybody just be cool.

All I am saying is that there was lots of good design born from the openness of 3e, and that 4e is better for it.

 

[JohnRTroy]

It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."

It's still a critique, not so much of the OGL, but from the viewpoint that the OGL in itself was a superior license to any other.

You keep mentioning this - it's one of the very few instances of a book that was near-totally Open Game Content being released for free on the internet. However, what other people keep pointing out to you, and you keep refusing to acknowledge, is that this is not an indictment of the OGL.

No, it's not an indictment of the OGL, but it does show there is precedent for WoTC reconsidering its stance. I suspect a few game designers might not like the OGL. We won't know, and I think any who do might be afraid of admitting it--when Chris posted his thoughts he got pilloried by some as being "biased" and "anti-OGL".

Have you ever considered this might be a sample conversation in Wizards, between game designers.

"Should we support the OGL or Not?"
"I want to get rid of the viral part. We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
"Won't they support us via patronage"
"No, remember Unearthed Arcana? People ripped that and put it online."

While this might not have happened, it could have. I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior. It is not out of the realm of possibility, any any defense saying "we used the license like their faq said we could" doesn't mean that it had no influence on them changing their minds.

It's not surprising that corporate "suits" want to have it killed, since they take the (quite possibly unreasonable) position that the OGL hurts WotC's sales. The fact that Scott and Linae disagree (as Orcus keeps noting) should point out that this position is hardly universal, and suggests that those "in the know" think Open Gaming is better for WotC anyway.

Like I said, the suits probably read the profit statements, and some of those suits might be the game developers or in R&D. In that statement, you're assuming that everybody in WoTC who want the license changed are stereotypical "pointy-haired bosses" who don't understand. Maybe they do.

Your points are questionable at best, and are mendacious at worst. You regularly posit that a large number of gamers and publishers agree with you - often misrepresenting other people's statements in the process - but there's almost no evidence to support that, and plenty to disprove it.

I don't think I've said a "large number of gamers" hate it. I think most gamers and publishers are more or less indifferent to it. In other words, if the OGL was replaced by the GSL, most people would be okay with it. We're here to game, the "OGL" isn't necessary for a healthy industry provided the GSL or whatever replacement is sufficient enough.

Now, as a mea culpa, I will admit that the question I aimed at WoTC was biased and loaded. I would personally like to see wizards give the licensees more control over the stuff they create, and I think making it viral will lead to people exploiting it. It's why I also like the BSD license as opposed to the GPL. The former gives the ultimate control to the creator, the latter for a principle.

However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming". It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.

One can be zealous without taking it to a religious degree; enthusiasm does not equate fanaticism. While it's true that there are a lot of posts here that are just blunt statements or over-inflated opinions, there are also a lot of people here who are willing to engage in a reasonable debate over this, and a large portion of those people seem to be doing so in favor of the OGL and against the GSL.

That's true. I would like to discuss the merits and flaws with people. But there have been a lot of reactions here. And there are people who think the "open" part of open gaming is the most important thing, where I think the "gaming" part is. There are a few people here who care more about the OGL more than the GSL. So we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[JohnRTroy]

In the case of WotC using such material, there are two enormous stumbling blocks to doing this. First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license. And second, the owner of that OGC, someone who most likely would like to work with WotC in the future, would need to file suit against WotC, manage to afford such a lawsuit, win that lawsuit, and potentially ruin their relationship with WotC forever.

And I also think these legal snafus are why Wizards wants to make sure anybody who licenses the GSL for 4e voluntarily gives up using the OGL for anything. It is quite possible that they want to make sure there are no back doors to open up their content, or people using the OGL to free up 4e games.

Similar clauses exist at other businesses. At Microsoft, there is a policy for some coders that they are not allowed to ever look at anything GPL--I remember the guy writing IronRuby said he couldn't view any of the core Ruby libraries. I could see a similar policy applied to the 4e D&D rules.

Granted, you can't copyright rules, but I can see them not opening sticky doors for this. So I doubt they will ever accept a viral OGL. And I also predict that if anybody tries to reverse engineer D&D 4e rules into a SRD or a competing game, if you also try to use the OGL license to protect it, you are actually more likely to be sued by Wizards than if you just didn't use any license whatsoever.

Any lawyers care to consider if there is risk for Wizards allowing the OGL and GSL to be supported by the same company? I'm suspecting that the reason for not allowing companies to dual-support these two licenses are because of the corruption inherent in any "viral" license.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

"Should we support the OGL or Not?"
"I want to get rid of the viral part. We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
"Won't they support us via patronage"
"No, remember Unearthed Arcana? People ripped that and put it online."

While this might not have happened, it could have. I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior.

First, WotC doesn't have to release ONE WORD as OGC if they don't want to. Second, WotC has released the ENTIRE SRD online, as I am tired of pointing out to you. It's still on their website.

Andy Collins has one, "DUH" moment on the release of UA, and that's the basis of your entire perspective on the OGL?

Unless you're making the argument that Andy Collins is the driving decision maker over there?

However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming".

Hey, John? I'm right here, in the ing thread. If you're going to put words in my mouth, too, please keep in mind that I'm here to call you on it personally.

It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.

I can see why WotC might not continue it, too. It's not a mystery, and no nuance is required. I've said it several times: They're walking back from the OGL.

 

[Nikosandros]

Gary believed that WotC should have re-released D&D 1E once they acquired the game. He didn't care for the changes that were made to it in 3E in any capacity. He wanted to go back to the old days of TSR in every regard, including licensing. His position had nothing to do with the pros or cons of Open Gaming at all.

Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.

 

[JohnRTroy]

First, WotC doesn't have to release ONE WORD as OGC if they don't want to. Second, WotC has released the ENTIRE SRD online, as I am tired of pointing out to you. It's still on their website.

How does that refute my stating a hypothetical possibility that the behavior of some fans might be the reason why they've decided the OGL isn't for them? That conversation is entirely plausible.

When people say "hey, they knew everything about the license, they knew what to expect", they may have also decided later on that "hey, it turns out open gaming isn't really worthwhile".

Hey, John? I'm right here, in the ing thread. If you're going to put words in my mouth, too, please keep in mind that I'm here to call you on it personally.

Okay, maybe it wasn't you, but I distinctly remember somebody using the exact phrase "Wizards doesn't understand the OGL". I could have sworn it was you. I'm pretty sure you have said at least once "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming" or something of the sort.

Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.

He wasn't against licensing the game, but he was voting for the "closed version", that is, if Wizards wanted to license it, they should treat it as a traditional license, approving content, similar to how others did it, and focus on 4-12 publishers who would produce high-quality products.

 

[Alzrius]

It's still a critique, not so much of the OGL, but from the viewpoint that the OGL in itself was a superior license to any other.

Actually, no, what he's critiquing in the two posts of his that you linked are, in the first one, the idea that the OGL has numerical data to back up its success, and in the second one, the idea that the OGL is all Green Ronin has. He's not comparing the OGL to other Licenses, he's just saying it's not the be-all end-all of gaming, but that it is still a good license.

In short, he's talking about temperance in support of the OGL; that's not the same as saying he doesn't support it at all.

No, it's not an indictment of the OGL, but it does show there is precedent for WoTC reconsidering its stance.

This is a pretty tangential point, and a fallacious one. First, why do we care about the precedent for why WotC reconsidered its stance, since we're talking about the effect of the GSL on the gaming community. Secondly, since we don't know precisely why WotC changed its policy, the idea that the situation with UA being reprinted online motivated WotC's change in attitude is nothing but speculation.

I suspect a few game designers might not like the OGL. We won't know, and I think any who do might be afraid of admitting it--when Chris posted his thoughts he got pilloried by some as being "biased" and "anti-OGL".

This is more speculation on your part though. With the possible exception of Robin Laws, there's nothing (that you've shown) to back this idea up. And why would designers be afraid of admitting it? I doubt Chris Pramas was crushed by a few people on message boards engaging in childish name-calling. You're trying to say that you think there's hidden support for your points, but just speculating it exists isn't even close to proving that there is.

Hence, thus far, there's nothing to say that game designers don't particularly like the OGL.

Have you ever considered this might be a sample conversation in Wizards, between game designers.

"Should we support the OGL or Not?"
"I want to get rid of the viral part. We gotta get rid of the free alternatives"
"Won't they support us via patronage"
"No, remember Unearthed Arcana? People ripped that and put it online."

While this might not have happened, it could have. I think one of the reasons the OGL is not being supported by Wizards is because of that behavior.

Well, as long as we're making stuff up, have you ever considered that this might also be a sample conversation at WotC, between game designers.

"Hey, do we wanna release 4E under the OGL?"
"Absolutely. Hey, wait, there's a fax coming in... it's from Hasbro, and it says we should drop the OGL like a bad habit, and stick it to everyone else in the industry."
"Seriously? But...I know a lot of those guys. I don't wanna do that to them."
"Yeah, but this memo is pretty clear. Anyone who doesn't follow these orders, and publicly support this idea, is fired."

Now, while this might not have happened, it COULD have. And I think one of the reasons the OGL isn't being supported is because of that behavior.

Now, clearly, I'm satirizing your previous post; you're again making stuff up and claiming that the lack of direct evidence to disprove your scenario means that what you posted must then have some merit.

It doesn't. Making things up and claiming that they MIGHT have been a factor isn't a rational basis for debating anything.

It is not out of the realm of possibility, any any defense saying "we used the license like their faq said we could" doesn't mean that it had no influence on them changing their minds.

It doesn't mean it did have influence either. Please stop asserting something you have zero knowledge of being true at all.

And again, the debate going on here isn't about why WotC changed their policy. It's about the merits and flaws of the GSL, particularly in regards to the OGL.

Like I said, the suits probably read the profit statements, and some of those suits might be the game developers or in R&D. In that statement, you're assuming that everybody in WoTC who want the license changed are stereotypical "pointy-haired bosses" who don't understand. Maybe they do.

My assumption was at least based on what we've been able to gather from the posts given here by Scott, Linae, and Orcus. We know that several members of WotC are arguing in favor of Open gaming, and we know they're arguing against people with more control than them, which leads one to believe that it's their bosses who are making the call. Hence, suits who apparently have less understanding than the people who interact with the community.

I don't think I've said a "large number of gamers" hate it. I think most gamers and publishers are more or less indifferent to it. In other words, if the OGL was replaced by the GSL, most people would be okay with it. We're here to game, the "OGL" isn't necessary for a healthy industry provided the GSL or whatever replacement is sufficient enough.

You posted a thread entitled "The GSL: What We Want" in which you indicated that "we" (the gaming community) wanted all of the points you've been saying for a while now. That seems to be a pretty clear indication that you think a "large number of gamers" hate the OGL.

Now, as a mea culpa, I will admit that the question I aimed at WoTC was biased and loaded. I would personally like to see wizards give the licensees more control over the stuff they create, and I think making it viral will lead to people exploiting it. It's why I also like the BSD license as opposed to the GPL. The former gives the ultimate control to the creator, the latter for a principle.

However, Wulf, who wanted to rebut that, is also making various statements that can't be backed up, such as "Wizards doesn't understand Open Gaming". It's the same flawed argument, and if you're going to have a point of view, I'd rather see it more nuanced like Chris Pramas does, admitting that while the OGL was good for him, he can see why Wizards might not continue it.

Saying "but someone else is making unfounded statements too" doesn't overwrite the fact that you're also engaged in it. And that aside, the OGL already gives the creator a large amount of control over "viralizing" content via the Product Indentity guidelines, something I've never heard you acknowledge.

That's true. I would like to discuss the merits and flaws with people. But there have been a lot of reactions here. And there are people who think the "open" part of open gaming is the most important thing, where I think the "gaming" part is. There are a few people here who care more about the OGL more than the GSL. So we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Some people think that the best way to serve the "gaming" part is via the "open" part, as a method of enlightened self-interest. I'm one of them.

 

[Oldtimer]

I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL. I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.

Since you more or less just called me (and others) a religious zealot, I'll be equally blunt.

No, John, you're neither intellectual nor honest.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Since you more or less just called me (and others) a religious zealot, I'll be equally blunt.

I didn't call anyone a religious zealot, I said a "religious-like zeal", which is what I believe happens when you care more about the OGL as a thing unto itself rather than the bigger picture of letting the publishers publish D&D.

 

[jmucchiello]

You won't see that, because as we "know," mechanics cannot by copyrighted. There is no question that all issues of copyright will be in order with respect to 4e.

Wulf, the sentence before the one you quoted said there were two enormous stumbling blocks. So you are agreeing with me yet your tone implies disagreement. Am I reading you incorrectly?