New GSL Announcement

[La Bete]

Now exactly how is that kind of shallow and meaningless jab supposed to support cooling tempers? Do you have an actual response of merit?

You're not seriously saying that you think that someone who believes in open gaming is the same as someone who believes in Open Gaming are you? It's not exactly an 'ism', but seems to have an whiff of that about it.

Thus my response was loaded with merit IYKWIMAITYD.

If you have a problem with the post, contact the mods. I felt it was well within the parameters of behaviour here, even in these fraught times. Your inability to take a bit of puckish mockery (unlike MoonLancer?) because you got het up over another futile argument John seems to be your problem. I'm really not sure why you guys aren't on each others ignore list (ditto OldTimer et al). Watching you discuss the OGL/GSL is interesting. In the Ford Fairlane context.

 

[Alzrius]

An idea I've tossed out on many a board. Well, three boards, anyway. I'm glad to know I'm not the only fan/gamer who's considered that this may be what's really going on behind the scenes. It's real easy to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches and get a mob together roaring for Scott Rouse's blood, because he's the public face of WotC's D&D dept.
It's a bit harder to do so for "Faceless Hasbro Executive X", because F.H.E. X (IF he or she exists) has made sure that no-one outside the company knows his (or her) real name and that he/she handed the edict down. That is, if this scenario happens to be the correct one.

Well, I made that post largely to satirize the idea of making up scenarios and then claiming they had some merit because they MIGHT have happened. I wasn't really trying to put forth the idea that some evil Hasbro executive forced WotC's hand in regards to how open 4E would be.

...even though I personally think that some degree of that is what happened.

 

[Plane Sailing]

ByronD, la Bete, you're not helping.

Get back to discussing the topic rather than the way that people are discussing the topic, or I'll have to ask you to step out of the thread.

Same goes for anyone else.

Thanks

 

[Matthias]

The second part of my previous post seemed to get lost in the stirrings-up of the first part, so I thought I might repeat it:

2. Is there a mailing list or something that I can sign up with that will notify me by e-mail when WOTC's answers to the submitted questions are published?

 

[Starman]

The second part of my previous post seemed to get lost in the stirrings-up of the first part, so I thought I might repeat it:

I don't know of one. The easiest thing to do would be to check the boards here. About .00001 seconds after it goes up on Wizards site, someone here will post about it.

 

[thormagni]

This thread was picked up on by Boing Boing this evening under a "Sleazy new Dungeons and Dragons license seeks to poison open gaming systems" headline. Link

As far as bad PR goes, this horse is far, far out of the barn now.

 

[Orcus]

I think the OGL is great if your a publisher, but I think it hurt Wizards because it gave a little too much control away. It's a little lopsided, it's more beneficial for the licensees than the licensors. My only argument about the OGL is I think it's a little too loose.

I dont think there is any support for that. I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all. In fact, quite the contrary. I think it helped the d20 system dominate the market in a crazy way. It also made it real easy for people to create 3E support products, which kept people plugged into D&D.

As for viral, I suspect that element of the OGL is one of the reasons the OGL isn't being used anymore. My criticisms of viral is this--I think content creators should have the ultimate control over their creations, so I think the viral part shouldn't be mandated--the same reason I think the BSD license is superior to the GPL.

I actually see removing the viral clause as being helpful to the publishers, so they can produce new rules without having them placed in other compilation works or for free when they are trying to make a profit. And if you give them the choice, some publishers may allow their work as viral. But let them make that choice. So I am hoping the GSL gives them that incentive.

As a publisher, I can tell you this has no impact on me at all. If you want to protect certain content, you can. You dont really give away that much if you dont want to. This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false.

Look, I'll say it flat out: a non-viral GSL is not better than the OGL, unless it is the same as the OGL and also gives us access to the D&D logo.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Just wanted to respond to Orcus.

I dont think there is any support for that. I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all. In fact, quite the contrary. I think it helped the d20 system dominate the market in a crazy way. It also made it real easy for people to create 3E support products, which kept people plugged into D&D.

But Orcus, didn't you once say that you understood why they would want more restrictions? I was arguing from a sense of a contract in general. A licensor who doesn't include extra clauses to protect their brand, such as say, a termination clause (or a built in time limit) or a clause to protect the brand such as a "no X-rated content" clause. That's the only point I make from a GSL being better. I am actually thinking of a contract in general. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate on this, but I think Wizards having at least a few more protections--as unpopular as this opinion is sometimes--is better for the hobby and the D&D brand.

As a publisher, I can tell you this has no impact on me at all. If you want to protect certain content, you can. You dont really give away that much if you dont want to. This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false.

The PI statement is true, but there was a problem, I felt, with the viral nature. If you did do things to protect your content like not give away the names and descriptions of your spells or monsters, some would call it "crippled OGL", and there is a 5% clause or something like that. It was and is sort of a peer pressure. I think it's sort of the disagreement between philosophies. (You can see an example of the argument in this thread, and even this OGF archive .) Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring--but right now the OGL is the only method of the license.

It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled. And it's just my belief that licenses such as the BSD is better than the GPL--let the person creating the work decide. But perhaps I'm wrong. I am willing to admit that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This argument you make about the viral part just doesnt make any sense. Not a single publisher I ever talked to or dealt with on this topic ever said "oh my god, if only this license wasnt viral!" Your argument is false.

Maybe you're just running with the wrong crowd of publishers. Maybe you're just too close to the action-- you know, right in the eye of the storm-- to have seen the hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around you.

Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.

 

[BryonD]

You're not seriously saying that you think that someone who believes in open gaming is the same as someone who believes in Open Gaming are you?

For clarification of my point: I'm simply making a distinction between open gaming material and the community that supports it. Capitalization seems pretty reasonable for a name.