OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[pawsplay]

Actually, I'm fairly certain Wizards does own the ideas behind 4e, legally, morally, ethically and by any other standard one would normally apply to "ownership".

Unfortunately, you're wrong. "Ownership" mostly and usually applies to the right to possess and use an object. When applied to intellectual property, ownership is a metaphor. For instance, if I "own" idea, you can't deprive me of it. Intellectual properties are a restriction on how information is used, whereas traditional ownership is the ability to use something. I can't save IP, nor do am I deprived of anything if I share it or give away the information. Furthermore, someone else could have the same idea somewhere else, and neither one of us would be the poorer for it. So intellectual property has some distinct differences from ordinary ownership. What you "own" is an economic prerogative, not the idea itself. So much for normal standards.

Now, let's hit the list. Legally, they don't own the ideas behind 4e. First of all, that's pretty much impossible. You might be able to patent some specific game inventions, but AFAIK there's not a single thing patentable about 4e. You can find prior art of absolutely everything I've seen. Second of all, 4e did not arise in a vacuum. A lot of D&D was actually based on things created by other people, some of whom weren't even compensated. Armor Class was a concept adapted from wargames, ents and orcs were taken from Tolkien, Law/Chaos from Moorcock, etc.

Morally, it depends on your morals. Ethically is another way of saying morally. I don't consider owning an idea to be within the realm of possibility, so there are no ethical dimensions to that "ownership." What do we owe to the creators of 4e? Are we not to profit from their work? They have profited from the work of others. Do we not have the right to create a competing product? In the US, we have a right to create a competing product.

In the end, 4e is a stack of books. WotC no more owns the ideas in those books than R.A.Salvatore owns the idea of a misunderstood outsider, or Margaret Weis owns the idea of a gathering army of evil, or some chef owns the idea of a pie crust. Moreover, 4e is a set of instructions for playing a game, and the idea that some company could own the form of game you play in your house is just ridiculous. That would be like claiming that because I created a recipe for Mexican omelettes, you cannot also create a recipe for Mexican omelettes.

 

[Vigilance]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. "Ownership" mostly and usually applies to the right to possess and use an object. When applied to intellectual property, ownership is a metaphor. For instance, if I "own" idea, you can't deprive me of it. Intellectual properties are a restriction on how information is used, whereas traditional ownership is the ability to use something. I can't save IP, nor do am I deprived of anything if I share it or give away the information. Furthermore, someone else could have the same idea somewhere else, and neither one of us would be the poorer for it. So intellectual property has some distinct differences from ordinary ownership. What you "own" is an economic prerogative, not the idea itself. So much for normal standards.

Let's be 100% clear of the point I was making and the context in which I was making it.

As I read it, people in this thread were openly advocating attempting an end run around the license to rip the guts out of 4e, which Wizards wants to put some restrictions on with the GSL, port them into the OGL, and use that end-run around the license to do whatever they want with 4e (within the bounds of the OGL).

You can try to convince yourself with a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo that they don't own it, but ripping the guts out of a game system, or an operating system, or a car, and using those "ideas no one can own" is stealing.

It's stealing just as much as pirating software, or scanning a comic and bit-torrenting it on pirate bay.

 

[pawsplay]

It's stealing just as much as reverse engineering software... which is completely legal.

EDIT: I think I read your post just fine. It looks like a restatement of a position I still consider indefensible and illogical.

 

[Nellisir]

You can try to convince yourself with a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo that they don't own it, but ripping the guts out of a game system, or an operating system, or a car, and using those "ideas no one can own" is stealing.

First of all, no one is "ripping the guts out" of anything. The point of ripping out guts is to disable or kill something; no one is "killing" D&D.

Second of all, I like pawsplay's analogy. Why is it wrong to create a game that has similar features to an existing game? Why is it wrong in this particular instance, but it's not wrong for any other game, or software, or tv show? Should there be only one word processing program? One search program? You can only bold in Wordperfect, and only underline in Word? Why is it OK for WotC to do it, and no one else? Where do you draw the line? People keep insisting that "we" stick with 3e -- that's it? That's our only choice? What's the point of the OGL, then?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Second of all, I like pawsplay's analogy. Why is it wrong to create a game that has similar features to an existing game? Why is it wrong in this particular instance, but it's not wrong for any other game, or software, or tv show? Should there be only one word processing program? One search program? You can only bold in Wordperfect, and only underline in Word? Why is it OK for WotC to do it, and no one else? Where do you draw the line? People keep insisting that "we" stick with 3e -- that's it? That's our only choice? What's the point of the OGL, then?

The problem is, your analogy is a little flawed. WordPerfect and Word, while doing similar things, had differences. Different interfaces, different methodologies, etc. Lots of little and sometimes big differences. Word had style sheets, WP had codes. Software manufacturers try to add their own distinctions and own methodologies.

Before the d20/OGL glut, people did this. We had other RPGs. DragonQuest, RuneQuest, Shadowrun, GURPS, Deadlands, RIFTS, etc. Most publishers really try to make themselves distinctive, and not derivative. (Heck, with games like Traveller and Gamma World you had whole different systems each revision!) You rarely had people making things too similar to D&D. You either asked their permission or some did it anyway, sometimes risking lawsuits, othertimes being ignored. But for the most part, people competed by doing similar things--statistics for hit points, armor, resistance rolls, etc.

Most people don't want to be known as a cheap knock-off, the types of products that are knock-offs from third-world countries that look like another product, with a vague name that is similar to another trademark, such as the time I saw in the 80's a couple of cheap action-figured named "Dynacats", which looked like Thundercats, in a drugstore. They want to create on their own. Especially when it comes to creative works (as opposed to functional products like drugs where you can have "generics", for instance), you make your move by being distinctive.

Even the professional publishers are doing this. Stuff like True20 and Spycraft are trying to make themselves as different from the other publishers as possible. I can see a strategy over the last several years...the publishers are actually making their products as different so it will be a distinct game from D&D. Maybe they might abandon the OGL rules that are based on D&D and create a new game system after it becomes distinctively difference, so they can control their own properties after that.

I think Vigilance and I are targeting those specific individuals who want to copy 4e completely, making an OGL version of the game rules, when the publisher is actually making so many radical changes that it's a completely different system, to get "99%" of the rules.
I think he and I would agree if you did that with GURPS, Storyteller, and any other game and tried to make it an OGL game--which you could do, since as you say, you can't copyright game rules--it wouldn't go over well, either with the publishers or the public. How come people aren't asking to do that?

When I say "stick with 3e", I see it as this. Wizards gave you the 3e rules under the OGL. The OGL is still a license, graciously given to you by WoTC. This is more than any other publisher of games systems ever did in the past (to my knowledge). But they've decided for their own purposes, they don't want to use it with their new iteration. Which I respect, it's their right. If they tried to say all released products are invalid, I'd complain, but they aren't doing that.

Since they are giving a new license, you have an option to create 4e compatible products. If you don't like the terms of the license, you can still use the non-revocable 3e license. I'm sure we'll see some guys do the one, other guys do the others.

It's not that you can't take any ideas from 4e once it's out, but I think a wholesale creation of a 100% clone would be frowned on. Professional publishers wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole, fans of WoTC would denounce it, and people like myself would likely see it as akin to a "cheap Mexican/Chinese knockoff". (I also have a feeling it's gonna be somewhat difficult to do).

When I say "stick with 3e", I'm saying that if you really want to send a message about open gaming, using the game system that is under the OGL "as is", without changing it to 4e, would send a message--along with not buying D&D 4e. It would say--"here, WoTC, we would rather play the older version of D&D because of the OGL. We care about the more open system, so we will support it than your new system" But if you decide to "end run" the new license, you'd be spitting in WoTC's face, saying "doesn't matter, we'll take your game anyway, you can't stop us". It will look more like you just want a game system "for free", or are trying to say Wizards has no right to set the terms of their licenses to people. 3e and 4e are different animals.

 

[pawsplay]

It will look more like you just want a game system "for free", or are trying to say Wizards has no right to set the terms of their licenses to people.

Now you're finally getting it.

Because, you see, Wizards has no right to restrict 4e concepts to people. None. First of all, they probably didn't invent them, second of all, they're probably not patentable, third, if they were, they didn't bother to patent them. That leaves copyright and trademark. Neither one prevents anyone from creating a similar game.

As a courtesy, you want to avoid nullifying someone's hard work. As a matter of prudence, you want to avoid the appearance of a "derivative work."

But if WotC decides to make an end run around the OGL concept and the accepted scope of IP laws I don't think they deserve any special respect. I think it's contemptible what they have done to the OGL and I think it's immoral to "license" something for $5000 that already belongs to public by virtue of it being a common application of the art. I.e. there is likely nothing in 4e that is not already a part of the everyday design toolkit of RPG writers. Various novel patents have been rejected... along with the boardgame case law, it appears very, very, very unlikely you could defend a roleplaying system as anyone's IP.

I suggest you educate yourself better on the distinctions between copyright, trademark, and patent, as well as between actual ownership and intellectual property rights.

 

[Delta]

John, what business are you in? You commented on how one poster's being in Sweden would bias his opinion, where do you practice your work?

It really sounds like you must have some heavy incentive to spend so much time arguing against public domain and openly accessible works. I'm guessing that you work in a company of some moderate size in the proprietary publishing or software business, and feel that the issue generally affects your bottom line.

The crux of the issue for me is earlier where you argued that "Most people are not authors, they are gamers." Philosophically, I (and most people I know) would completely disagree. I feel that everyone should have the right to be an author. Moreover, all gamers actually participate in the act of authorship by writing their own gaming scenarios and characters -- hey, that's the magic that let D&D take off in the first place. And in the age of the internet everyone also has the capacity to publish their works -- practically everyone has a blog these days.

So why would anyone spend so much time trying to prop up restrictions, and trying to create a wall between gamers and authors -- that doesn't have to be there, legally, ethically, or technically? I certainly get more mileage out of open source software and movements that firmly support free speech than those that fight against them in favor of some tiny company's tentative profit.

Artistically, I'm in a punk band where the philosophy is "Anyone can do it," and I firmly defend the rights of everyone to create their own stuff and participate in the culture; no one is specially annointed. The social effects on bands that have had to deal with the large copyright-industry labels are pretty uniformly devastating, if you read up on them. My band provides almost all of our stuff for free downloads online, and it's exciting to try and support ourselves in the new era when everyone can publish and get access.

And I'll definitely be sticking exclusively with 3E. It was specifically Open Gaming that brought me back to the D&D game in 2000, and if WOTC doesn't support it anymore, then the future value of their products isn't enough for me to bother with.

 

[Ranger REG]

It would be interesting to see what the next generation ruleset "branches" are going to be ... assuming 3e/SRD is the first-gen "root." You will have 4e from WotC (who claimed that we are already playing 4e through 3e) and many clones from third-party publishers, although one could argue that Arcana Unearthed is pretty much a second-gen engine.

 

[Nellisir]

The problem is, your analogy is a little flawed. WordPerfect and Word, while doing similar things, had differences. Different interfaces, different methodologies, etc. Lots of little and sometimes big differences. Word had style sheets, WP had codes. Software manufacturers try to add their own distinctions and own methodologies.

Semantics. Different methodologies, same result. Any OGL product is going to have different methodologies than 4e. We are talking about a legal OGL product that creates the "feel" of 4e, not a word-for-word copy of the 4e core rulebooks.

Most people don't want to be known as a cheap knock-off.... They want to create on their own. Especially when it comes to creative works (as opposed to functional products like drugs where you can have "generics", for instance), you make your move by being distinctive.

So if I want to write my own setting, I need to write an entire game system? I don't think so. The fact is, you don't know what the GSL will allow. You think it'll allow "enough"; I think it's already sunk below my most pessimistic forecast with the two-tiered approach and publication restrictions. I have no confidence that I can maintain my wiki under the GSL, or publish house rules that modify parts of the 4e core rules.
Also, I'm not sure I'd call Arcana Evolved, Spycraft, True20, and Mutants & Masterminds "cheap knockoffs".

Even the professional publishers are doing this. Stuff like True20 and Spycraft are trying to make themselves as different from the other publishers as possible.

So are they derivative or creative? You can't have it both ways.

I think Vigilance and I are targeting those specific individuals who want to copy 4e completely, making an OGL version of the game rules, when the publisher is actually making so many radical changes that it's a completely different system, to get "99%" of the rules.

If a majority of the changes already exist in the body of OGC lore, how is it a "completely different system"?

I think he and I would agree if you did that with GURPS, Storyteller, and any other game and tried to make it an OGL game--which you could do, since as you say, you can't copyright game rules--it wouldn't go over well, either with the publishers or the public. How come people aren't asking to do that?

I don't know. I don't play any of them, and neither does anyone I'm familiar with, so if I had to point a finger, I'd say "market fragmentation". The number of people familiar with the OGL and interested in converting GURPS is probably pretty small.

When I say "stick with 3e", I see it as this. Wizards gave you the 3e rules under the OGL. The OGL is still a license, graciously given to you by WoTC. This is more than any other publisher of games systems ever did in the past (to my knowledge). But they've decided for their own purposes, they don't want to use it with their new iteration.

They didn't do it for 1e either. Is OSRIC a cheap, immoral knock-off?

It's not that you can't take any ideas from 4e once it's out,

Ah, thank you. How many? Can you give me a line between "cheap Mexican/Chinese knockoff" and "creative"?

but I think a wholesale creation of a 100% clone would be frowned on.

You do recall we're speaking about a legal system, right? The only way to get a 100% clone would be to scan and copy the rulebooks, and no one here wants that. If I wanted to pirate material, I wouldn't hassle with the OGL.

And finally, to wrap up this post, a new product from the world's greatest Mexican/Chinese RPG writer...Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might

So Monte took a break from his fiction work to compile this book, a collection of the house rules he currently uses in his own games. These include a spell progression system that ranks spells from levels 1 to 20, new rules for healing and curative magic, magical disciplines for spellcasters that always give them an active power and a way to contribute, and much more.

This book also includes an entirely new base class, the runeblade, for players wanting a character that combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells. New rules for wizards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are provided, offering each class magical disciplines like Godhammer, Eldritch Bolt, and Nature's Senses. And, of course, the book also offers dozens of new spells, feats, and magic items.

Inherent within all the rule changes in this book is the idea that characters should be able to keep adventuring longer than the rules currently allow. Disciplines, more ample healing, and the other experiments in this PDF exclusive help bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to.

Start your own experiment this month!

 

[JohnRTroy]

Because, you see, Wizards has no right to restrict 4e concepts to people. None. First of all, they probably didn't invent them, second of all, they're probably not patentable, third, if they were, they didn't bother to patent them. That leaves copyright and trademark. Neither one prevents anyone from creating a similar game.

But if WotC decides to make an end run around the OGL concept and the accepted scope of IP laws I don't think they deserve any special respect. I think it's contemptible what they have done to the OGL and I think it's immoral to "license" something for $5000 that already belongs to public by virtue of it being a common application of the art.

Actually, I started another thread in the 4e section suspected that Wizards might actually have a patent or two planned for 4e. We will see.

They may not have rights under the law, but most professional developers have a common courteously to respect that. You've finally admitted your motivation--your pissed that they decided the OGL is not a good license for them and want revenge. You also haven't seen the 4e rules, so you can't really say how "derivative" they are. And, like I explained in yet another thread, the OGL was a license of their own property, they never gave up their rights to that.

John, what business are you in? You commented on how one poster's being in Sweden would bias his opinion, where do you practice your work?

The US--computer programming. I don't own my work or want to. I've done creative things for gratis.

It really sounds like you must have some heavy incentive to spend so much time arguing against public domain and openly accessible works. I'm guessing that you work in a company of some moderate size in the proprietary publishing or software business, and feel that the issue generally affects your bottom line.

Nope. I have not argued against the public domain or openly accessible works. What I have argued about is that it is up to the author themselves to decide how it should be accessed, not "the people". I tend to be different than most of my peers because I tend to follow authors over properties. I followed Gygax to his latest games, I follow the writers of comic books rather than the characters, etc. I have a good empathy towards them, and I want to see them get compensated. I defend the right to companies to have that as well since if we abolish the rules for companies we'd abolish the rules for individuals.

The crux of the issue for me is earlier where you argued that "Most people are not authors, they are gamers." Philosophically, I (and most people I know) would completely disagree. I feel that everyone should have the right to be an author. Moreover, all gamers actually participate in the act of authorship by writing their own gaming scenarios and characters -- hey, that's the magic that let D&D take off in the first place. And in the age of the internet everyone also has the capacity to publish their works -- practically everyone has a blog these days.

What my intent to say was, most people who are playing D&D are not trying to enter the publishing side of things, be it "for free" or "for pay". The lack of an OGL license never stopped them from doing this before. And I also expressed that statement because most people just want to play the game. They don't seek to get published and seek financial renumeration.

Basically, my point was I think very few of the fans care how "open" it is. They care if they like the game. So I think whether or not the OGL is used for the 4e rules will matter little to the rank and file who play the game. It obviously matters to you, but similar to the fact that most people seem to plan to go to 4e, I'd be very surprised if the difference in licensing terms will make all that difference.

So why would anyone spend so much time trying to prop up restrictions, and trying to create a wall between gamers and authors -- that doesn't have to be there, legally, ethically, or technically? I certainly get more mileage out of open source software and movements that firmly support free speech than those that fight against them in favor of some tiny company's tentative profit.

I never fought against open source. What I fight for is the right for anybody, be it sole individual or multinational corporation, the right to set the terms how they release their creations. I have nothing against open source. I dislike the people who say everybody should be forced to release it that way, we need to abolish copyright, etc. Wizards, despite being the "800lb gorilla", has the right to set their terms and decide their future products won't be OGL compatible, and I support the same way I support the individual authors have that same control.

People assume it's the "big corporation" that evil. Somebody brought up Microsoft earlier. Well, Microsoft got successful not from "stealing ideas", but because they worked hard and a lot of the other guys they competed with had many issues--dBase, WordStar, Borland, IBM, Novell, etc., all did some very stupid things that killed them. (For a good read, look for "In Search of Stupidity, 2nd Edition"--and yes, the book is critical of Microsoft when deserved). And now I see Google getting the same hatred. People forget these monopolies are not caused by mergers or acquisitions, they're caused because the people made their choice and the companies produced good product.

I'm a bit critical of the OGL because I believe Wizards gave up a little too much control. I personally would not have done this with a game I created it, for various reasons. I see what's happening with 3e and 4e as similar to if a video game publisher released a first trilogy of games under the GPL, then decided they would build a whole new engine and use a more restrictive license. It's their right to do so.

Artistically, I'm in a punk band where the philosophy is "Anyone can do it," and I firmly defend the rights of everyone to create their own stuff and participate in the culture; no one is specially annointed. The social effects on bands that have had to deal with the large copyright-industry labels are pretty uniformly devastating, if you read up on them. My band provides almost all of our stuff for free downloads online, and it's exciting to try and support ourselves in the new era when everyone can publish and get access.

I agree, labels can be restrictive. But also keep in mind for every success there are a few dozen failures, and the labels eat that cost. Basically, my argument is that is your choice. Others choose to be part of labels. I'm against saying people shouldn't get paid or royalties for music.

And I'll definitely be sticking exclusively with 3E. It was specifically Open Gaming that brought me back to the D&D game in 2000, and if WOTC doesn't support it anymore, then the future value of their products isn't enough for me to bother with.

Cool! I am not hostile to people who choose third edition. You still respect that WoTC is the controller of D&D. If enough people think like you that will send a message, and you have the moral high ground.