OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[Nellisir]

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."

I defined the phrase you found confusing. Other than that, I don't think it needs much defending.

If you want to define something, lets define the argument here. On one hand, we've got an optimistic view that WotC (who have stated they want to end the cut-and-paste SRD) can't or won't effectively end the cut-n-paste SRD. They'll just outsource it to geeks on the internet who want to Put It To The Man.
On the other hand, we've got pessimists like me, who think WotC's legal team might actually be able to put something together that does prevent a cut-n-paste SRD. I took one stab at a possible restriction (not a "solution"; I think it'd suck). You seem intent on tearing it down, but I'm not really sure why. Do you really think WotC is just going to handwave away someone ripping the SRD out of the core books? Or do you think they're going to enforce it some other way? If so, how?

Believe me, I'm not going to be happy about restrictions on GSC content, but I also think they'll be there. I'd rather be wrong than right, but I'd also rather be prepared.

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.

That's silly; that's like saying if you can't plan out a house you can't hire an architect to do it for you. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to play make-believe and spout gibberish any more than I'd waste my time trying to engineer a truss system for the next house I build. I wasn't writing a license; I was voicing a possible restriction on freely replicating GSC, a restriction based (at least conceptually) on one already extant in the d20 license.

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

I don't know what WotC is trying to prevent. I know they're trying to steer people towards their actual books and away from SRDs, which I assume (at my own risk) includes 3rd-party for-profit SRDs. I know that because they've said so. Beyond that, I prefer not to speculate much about their motives and ultimate goals (but I do anyways, and in this very post!)

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?

Actually, my "solution" (which isn't a solution), makes free SRDs more likely than for-profit SRDs. However, it also introduces a barrier to casual reproduction that your "solution" doesn't eliminate. Your solution surmounts the barrier, but you expend effort in doing so. It in no way eliminates or bypasses the barrier.

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.

That's a valid point. WotC wants to keep people referring to their books, so it not unreasonable to guess that eliminating stand-alone games is a goal. I don't think all stand-alone games "easily" have more original material than copied, but some do. So the restriction will probably be more onerous, not less.

Then again, I did say "x"%. 50% was an example. Maybe it'll be 90% original material. Mutants & Masterminds is the only game I can think of offhand that has a likelyhood of hitting that mark.

Maybe a "starting point" restriction rather than an "end-point" restriction; no more than 5% of the GSC in the PH, DMG, or MM can be reproduced in a single work. You could still make 20 free partial SRDs, so that's probably not the right answer either, but it does allow for just-core traps and monsters in a 3rd-party product.

Or maybe they'll define GSC in inviolate "units"; a spell; a feat; a race; a class; a trap; a monster; and tightly restrict how many units you can copy per product, and not allow changes to the units. That'd establish a single standard for D&D rules and go a long way towards feeding things back into the core rules. Again, there is a precedent for this in the d20 STL.

Or they could just define what types of products are allowed; I don't know exactly how they'd say it (see above for IANAL speech), but maybe they'll just limit the license to splat books, monster books, and adventures.

 

[Nellisir]

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

Which probably makes my first restriction alone unlikely. It could be pared with something else, though -- see my other post (up one or tw) for more pessimistic scenarios. Come up with your own! Share them with your friends!

 

[Nellisir]

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.

Right. We have that "rather large number" because d20 established a rather large pool for them to grow in. Those people, however, are going to retire out of the industry (Roger Moore), or form their own company (Chris Pramas, Monte Cook), or switch to video game design (Sean K Reynolds). The large pool of amateur talent (and by amateur I mean mostly unpaid, not freelancers) is made possible by the large d20 sphere. A smaller sphere will cut off some of that talent as they defect or lose interest in a more defined ruleset with fewer outlets for public review (translation: smaller 3rd-party product market). I'm sure Lizard remembers the days when Dragon was the only place for an amateur to get published; that's a pretty damned small pool by todays standards.

Right now, d20 design is a 10-lane superhighway, and there's a pretty good number of people on it. It's got lots of exits, but it's also got alot of on-ramps. It looks like WotC is going to choke that down to a 6-lane, or maybe even a 4-lane highway. Some of the people on the highway now are going to look for exits, or alternate routes. Transit time will slow down as there's less room to maneuver, design-wise (I know I'm mixing metaphors a bit, but you can't learn from Iron Heros if no one writes IH in the first place). And ultimately, there will just be fewer people on the road for WotC to choose from.

 

[smetzger]

I hate to say it, because I don't want this to happen, the easiest way to prevent a cut-and-paste SRD on the internet is to require a fee for use of the license and a right to refuse the license.

A $1k - $5 k license fee will keep individuals out of this game. Of course then people will band together in non-profit orgs and raise the money. But if WOTC has a fee and review process it will greatly decrease the amount of policing they have to do.

With no fee and no review process. Anyone can post anything on the web and it becomes very difficult to reign in.

I really hope WOTC doesn't do this. I would like to keep supplying my little game aids.

 

[Nellisir]

I hate to say it, because I don't want this to happen, the easiest way to prevent a cut-and-paste SRD on the internet is to require a fee for use of the license and a right to refuse the license.

A $1k - $5 k license fee will keep individuals out of this game. Of course then people will band together in non-profit orgs and raise the money. But if WOTC has a fee and review process it will greatly decrease the amount of policing they have to do.

I think WotC will keep the $5000 buy-in program, adding incentives to get new companies to sign up over time.

 

[Lizard]

I think WotC will keep the $5000 buy-in program, adding incentives to get new companies to sign up over time.

Which would be interesting in light of the fact they've announced they won't -- of course, this was before the license went back for retooling, so who knows? They might find the only way to "save" the license is to make it purely commercial, so that while it will be *possible* to put out a "free" SRD, the only people legally capable of doing so would be those who shelled out 5K, and thus would have very little motive to do so.

OTOH, if I thought I could earn money via google ads if I paid 5K for the rights and was the only person with a legal "free" SRD online...well...

 

[Nellisir]

Which would be interesting in light of the fact they've announced they won't -- of course, this was before the license went back for retooling, so who knows?

Do you have a quote on that? I remember the outlined benefits of the 5k stopped around Dec 31, since anyone could publish under the GSL after that time, but I don't recall anything actually saying they would stop it. Implied, maybe, but not "announced". Giving the 5k companies a permanent 6 (or 12) month lead on new GSC would be a pretty simple incentive to start with.

And like you said, who knows? They also announced they weren't working on 4e and that the 4e they weren't working on would use the OGL, not the d20STL. :\