OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[kenmarable]

I suspect there'll be a mechanism to prevent that. It might be as simply as requiring any GSL product to have X% of new/original Game System Content. It'll might be tough to pull together an "official" SRD if you have to provide an equal amount of new content.

Personally, I think that would solve a lot of problems without being too onerous or vague of a restriction. (Of course, there would still be debate surrounding it, but I think it's something that the industry could reasonably work with.) I could quite happily live with WotC including a clause like that in the GSL (hint hint if any of you are reading this).

 

[Lizard]

I suspect there'll be a mechanism to prevent that. It might be as simply as requiring any GSL product to have X% of new/original Game System Content. It'll might be tough to pull together an "official" SRD if you have to provide an equal amount of new content.

Define "new and original" content.

Here's 200 pages of "extracted" 4e rule in ASCII format.
Here's 200 pages of random names, with tables associated with them (making them "gaming content" -- hey, you can roll on them!)

Presto! Exactly as much "original gaming content" as there is extracted material.

The more you try to define things like "original content", the more convoluted the license becomes. And we're, what, some 30+ days beyond the original announcement of the terms for the license? A month of development time is pretty severe if GenCon is the goal, and if you can't make GenCon, you might as well not shell out $5000.00. And if you don't, you won't make new products until Jan 2009, which means the 4e launch will be a bit sad and empty compared to the 3e launch, with no new crunch books until October.

I don't know what the cutoff will be for developers who want quality products for Gencon, but let's assume a month for production (checking bluelines, last minute corrections, printing, shipping), so that means finished by mid-July. If WOTC releases the license today, that's roughly 5 months to:
a)Review the licenses, do sales projections, and decide if you can make back 5K on top of all your other costs and still turn a bigger profit than you could be allocating your resources elsewhere.
b)Learn the 4e rules well enough to write quality product for them.
c)Write a product, playtest it, assign art for it, lay it out, etc.

This isn't impossible, but it's tight, and getting tighter. I don't know what the 'drop dead' date will be for a lot of companies, but I'd be guessing if it's not here by early March, there will be few takers for early adopter status. (And a lot depends on the terms of the new license, as well. Some envisioned products might not be possible.)

My prediction? Most of the larger companies will either not go 4e or wait until January. Necromancer, by virtue of their close relationship with WOTC, will become the "Judges Guild" of 4e, producing the bulk of third-party D&D-compatible products. (And this isn't a dig at Necromancer; I think they'd agree that being called "the new Judges Guild" is high praise from a grognard like me. At the least, it's SUPPOSED to be high praise, so I do not wish anyone to take offense at it.)

 

[ssampier]

It's a concern for sure, how "open" the GSL will be.

I care for several reasons: My favorite publisher, Necromancer Games (working with Paizo), will continue to produce good stuff; I can legally publish campaign bits online; I can legally "borrow" bits from others for my own use and publish any changes.

 

[kenmarable]

Define "new and original" content.

Here's 200 pages of "extracted" 4e rule in ASCII format.
Here's 200 pages of random names, with tables associated with them (making them "gaming content" -- hey, you can roll on them!)

Presto! Exactly as much "original gaming content" as there is extracted material.

But if WotC includes a revocation clause in the GSL, then they can define "new and original" however they want after the fact with their lawyers. I'm certainly not saying that's ideal, but blatant attempts to bypass a requirement like that with junk can be prevented.

I don't want to argue that WotC should have a revocation clause in the GSL since that's some scary power and further makes it a license to use WotC material and not material between 3rd parties. But it is something they could easily throw in there if they feel it's necessary.

With or without a revocation clause, I still think that a "X% original content" clause would be more helpful than not. No matter what terms you come up with, there will be loopholes. But that policy seems to be one that is clear and easy to follow and enforce.

 

[Hussar]

I keep asking myself one question: Would D&D and the state of table-top RPGs be better today if WotC hadn't released the OGL?
I absolutely do not think so. The d20 sphere around D&D has made it a better game, and the designers & developers better designers & developers.

That's what it comes down to, IMO.

I think a better question would be, Would D&D and the state of table-top RPG's be better or worse today if WOTC had released only the STL?

It appears that's what 4e is going to look like, IMO. The license will allow you to make D&D products, pretty much exclusively. If you want to make anything else, you're on your own. Now, that's just speculation of course, and I could be totally wrong.

But, in my mind, a lot of the "new" d20 games came out after the bubble burst. Your Spycraft, Mutant's and Masterminds, Mongoose licensed products, are all the results of d20 publishers frantically trying to distance themselves from reliance on D&D for their bread and butter after the switch to 3.5. Under the original OGL, many of the products released were STL. It wasn't until pretty late in the game that everyone abandoned the STL.

If there was no OGL, and only the STL, would it have made any difference in the first three or four years of 3e? I don't think so.

What's going to suck hard for the d20 publishers now though is they won't be able to use the 4e SRD (in whatever form) to create that distance. They won't have the OGL to fall back on if 4.5 edition hits in a few years.

 

[Nellisir]

Define "new and original" content.

Oh, goodie. We're finally at the part of the show where I use common English terms, and someone picks them apart as not "legal" enough, or clear enough (in the general context of the OGL and licenses in general, which part of "new" is unclear?), or points out a "loophole" - fairly irrelevant, since I'm actually -not- writing the GSL (you're shocked, I know).

So, "new and original" content? Any content that you hold the copyright on AND have the right to distribute as defined under section 1 of this license.

Here's 200 pages of "extracted" 4e rule in ASCII format.
Here's 200 pages of random names, with tables associated with them (making them "gaming content" -- hey, you can roll on them!)
Presto! Exactly as much "original gaming content" as there is extracted material.

Congratulations! You have not won anything. This is not a real loophole. It's still 200 pages of new content. Cheap, kinda crummy content, but new and original nonetheless. Yay you! (I won't buy it.)

And moving on to other things...yeah, WotC needs to get the license out or everyone is going to go home. I'd be pretty irked right now if I was Paizo, Necromancer, or anyone else really hoping to get in at the ground floor. But I'm impatient.

 

[Nellisir]

But, in my mind, a lot of the "new" d20 games came out after the bubble burst. Your Spycraft, Mutant's and Masterminds, Mongoose licensed products, are all the results of d20 publishers frantically trying to distance themselves from reliance on D&D for their bread and butter after the switch to 3.5. Under the original OGL, many of the products released were STL. It wasn't until pretty late in the game that everyone abandoned the STL.

I don't think Mutants & Masterminds was ever STL/d20. Other than that, your point stands. The GSL will still provide some "sphere-ness" around D&D, just smaller and tighter.

I guess I was thinking primarily about designers, and how, with a smaller "sphere" around D&D, you'll probably have fewer freelancers drawn into it and fewer avenues to design in. Alot of todays designers and developers made their rep in the d20 market, and WotC is reaping the benefit of their experience without having to support their education on the way up.

 

[Lizard]

Oh, goodie. We're finally at the part of the show where I use common English terms, and someone picks them apart as not "legal" enough, or clear enough (in the general context of the OGL and licenses in general, which part of "new" is unclear?), or points out a "loophole" - fairly irrelevant, since I'm actually -not- writing the GSL (you're shocked, I know).

Yup. If you're going to propose a solution to a problem, you'd better be prepared to defend it better than "Let the lawyers work it out; my work here is done."

We use legalese because 'plain English' doesn't cut it. If you can't define it in legalese, it can't be defined in a way that's useful.

Congratulations! You have not won anything. This is not a real loophole. It's still 200 pages of new content. Cheap, kinda crummy content, but new and original nonetheless. Yay you! (I won't buy it.)

You don't need to buy it. It's free on the net. THAT'S what WOTC is trying to prevent, right?

So your solution to the problem of free SRDs, by your own admission, doesn't actually keep anyone from putting up a free SRD. So...uh...what's the point?

To prevent spinoff games like Spycraft, et al? They will easily have more original material than copied if they're going to be worth buying at all, so that's a non-problem, too.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think Mutants & Masterminds was ever STL/d20. Other than that, your point stands. The GSL will still provide some "sphere-ness" around D&D, just smaller and tighter.

I guess I was thinking primarily about designers, and how, with a smaller "sphere" around D&D, you'll probably have fewer freelancers drawn into it and fewer avenues to design in. Alot of todays designers and developers made their rep in the d20 market, and WotC is reaping the benefit of their experience without having to support their education on the way up.

My bad about Mutants and Masterminds. Sigh, too much crap to keep track of. Never post late at night.

But, there is a difference to be aware of now as well. There is such a large pool of talent already in existence from 3e, do they really need to expand that pool at all? When 3e came out, the pool wasn't much more than a puddle. But, seven or eight years down the road, we have a rather large number of people who are doing this professionally, full time, and a swath (is that an actual measurement) of part time and amateur talent around the bend.

 

[Voadam]

I suspect there'll be a mechanism to prevent that. It might be as simply as requiring any GSL product to have X% of new/original Game System Content. It'll might be tough to pull together an "official" SRD if you have to provide an equal amount of new content.

So then no modules that use only core rules monsters, traps/hazards, and magic items.