OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[2WS-Steve]

How many companies regularly used another companies product? Paizo seems to be the only one to do it regularly, though I thought that Goodman Games used some ToH in some DCCs (not sure which ones though).

A bunch of companies support M&M via both OGL and more formally through Superlink. Adamant dual-stats VIA OGL to Spirit of the Century. Fiery Dragon and Mystic Eye supported Arcana Unearthed. I used a few elements from 3rd party folks in my books.

 

[Lizard]

How many companies regularly used another companies product? Paizo seems to be the only one to do it regularly, though I thought that Goodman Games used some ToH in some DCCs (not sure which ones though).

I used (with permission and help) the underwater combat rules from "Against The Tide Of Years" (Atlas) in the work I did for FFG (Seafarer's Handbook), and I've seen, in turn, Seafarer's Handbook (with it's reference to ATTOY) cited in many S15s of books which dealt with the same topic.

The S15 for the B5 RPG cites, among other things, Deadlands D20.

Reuse is more common than you might think. It's often just not very blatant, and the chain of derivation is easily lost. Forex, suppose someone wanted to use, oh, a feat from Seafarer's Handbook. That feat has nothing to do with ATTOY, but the S15 of the new book must include the full S15 from SFH.

 

[Lizard]

So, having to flip through a book you're expected to own is worse than paying money to buy the same content twice because a publisher wants a "complete" game that only contains a small percentage of new content? I don't think so. God forbid I have to flip through the PHB I already own instead of getting the combat chapter repeated, word for word, from some lazy developer.

Ah, but what happens when, say, 10-20% of the chapter is different? 30%? 50%?

Let's say I want to do a dark&grim Sword & Sorcery setting for 4e. I want to make some changes to combat to reflect the kind of world I want to model, one where there's sudden death for even the greatest of heroes, and where a horde of faceless minions can overrun the mighty. I don't need all-new combat rules; I need to tweak them in a lot of different places.

Which works better:

a) "In paragraph 3, change sentence 2 to read "Unless surrounded by three or more opponents".
b) Reprinting paragraph 3, changing the sentence as needed in the context of a full chapter on combat, with proper flavor text and examples to fit the new setting.

Multiply by a few dozen pages of rules.

Since rules can't be copyrighted, the whole VALUE of the OGL was in the ability to reuse text. Remove that, and what have you got? Damn little of worth.

If WOTC didn't want to continue the OGL, they had a chance to say so -- in August, when they said, contrary to the current facts, that they WOULD be continuing it. Changing things now makes them look as bad as people speculated they were when the OGL was first announced and "WOTC will STEAL your GAMES!" was the cry from the suspicious.

 

[Psion]

I predict a lot nerd rage with this thread.

I think the rage on this issue has already been spent. We already knew the license was not so open as it claimed.

What this does do is alleviate the head scratching about how they could legally do this. Plus give me bragging rights for predicting this is what they would (need to) do.

Oh, yeah, I guess this will give someone some ammo to say they "lied" when they said they still intend to support the OGL with 4e.

 

[Lizard]

Oh, yeah, I guess this will give someone some ammo to say they "lied" when they said they still intend to support the OGL with 4e.

What term do you use to describe someone saying they'll do something and then not doing it?

Best excuse I can make for them is that the people saying "We will use the OGL" meant it when they said it, and higher-ups then changed policy.

 

[Psion]

How many companies regularly used another companies product? Paizo seems to be the only one to do it regularly, though I thought that Goodman Games used some ToH in some DCCs (not sure which ones though).

Discounting all the companies using WotC's SRD?

Yeah, not so many... at least in the D20 heyday. The big effect of the OGL was really "plug into D&D".

Many authors are just in it to make their own extensions to d20. Still, some of the better ones (IMO) always did. Some did so extensively. Bret Boyd's books like Temporality and Dread Codex. Lots of folks reused Tome of Horrors material. Dreamscarred Press plugs into the excellent Hyperconscious by Malhavoc.

 

[Psion]

What term do you use to describe someone saying they'll do something and then not doing it?

I didn't say it was entirely unjustified. But unless they knew it was wrong when they said it, I think of it more as "breaking their word" than "lying".

I can't read their minds about that, but when confronted about the technical problems with "closing" the OGL, they seemed surprised. I don't get the idea that the current staff really got the technicalities of the license that their predecessors wrote.

 

[Pale]

Which works better:

a) "In paragraph 3, change sentence 2 to read "Unless surrounded by three or more opponents".
b) Reprinting paragraph 3, changing the sentence as needed in the context of a full chapter on combat, with proper flavor text and examples to fit the new setting.

or
c) "Follow standard combat rules with the following exceptions." Then write what you want with the assumption that your reader is familiar with the core combat rules and you don't have to waste space reprinting them.

A much better presentation of your option 'A', I admit, but it doesn't need to read like a technical manual to work well under the new licensing.

 

[Darrin Drader]

We liked to use a liberal amount of other company's OGC with Bastion's Oathbound line. Just check out the section 15 in Wildwood.

What term do you use to describe someone saying they'll do something and then not doing it?

Best excuse I can make for them is that the people saying "We will use the OGL" meant it when they said it, and higher-ups then changed policy.

How can you expect consistency in policy from a company that has had a revolving door of higher ups over the past eight years? The people who created that policy aren't around anymore and the new people in charge are being a little more aggressive in not giving away everything they spent so much money developing. I think its a completely reasonable thing to do from a business point of view. WotC only makes money if the players have to use their products. If not, they just turned over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of manpower on research and development to their competition.

 

[Lizard]

How can you expect consistency in policy from a company that has had a revolving door of higher ups over the past eight years?

Yes, but we're talking about statements made in August of 2007 by people who are still there and still in charge of 4e, with no evidence such statments were made without authorization.