OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[Alzrius]

Fans will by the D&D game regardless of the license used.

I'm not sure if you mean in general, or 4E D&D specifically. If you mean in general, then I disagree; we've certainly heard from a lot of people, both here on EN World and in the magazines, that say they stopped playing the game when it became Second Edition. I also believe that there's some people for whom the third-party products are more enjoyable than the D&D game itself, so the license used does make a difference.

The people who even give a damn about the OGL aspect of it are a very vocal minority.

That's very hard to say for certain, since "the OGL aspect" could be understood to mean just people who are debating the nature of open gaming the way we are, or it could be understood to mean everyone who uses/cares about third-party compatible products. If it's the latter, then I don't think that it's that much of a minority - it's hard to say for certain, since I don't know how integrated third-party products are as far as casual gamers go.

The OGL doesn't affect fans of D&D, so I'm not sure how supporting the OGL supports the fans.

The OGL does affect fans of D&D, because it allows for there to be products that work with the game they enjoy. Being a fan of D&D does not, by definition, exclude being a fan of third-party material.

So I don't see how the OGL "helps" the fans at all. I support the fans. I don't support the "rippers", who could arguably be fans but don't seem to care enough about the health of the publishers or freelancers.

As for how the OGL helps fans, see above. WotC said, very early after the 4E announcement, that the third-party community is important, and that's why they're still having 4E be open in some fashion (forgive me for not having a specific source to cite).

As for the "rippers," if you mean people who illegal distribute products online, then I doubt anyone in the industry, be it fans or publishers, supports them. Beyond, plenty of fans, and businesses, care a lot about the health of publishers and freelancers. I'm just also mentioning the fans who also care about what's available for the other fans.

 

[Emil]

I'll preface this post by saying I'm not sure what exactly the GSL will entail when it's finalized.

It is my understanding that the original mission of the OGL and d20 STL was to allow creators to develop settings and splatbooks without the need to pay WotC a license fee or ask permission. This was meant to foster exactly the kind of glut that occurred with a multitude of publishers making a whole lot of content that was all compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition.

It seems to me that the GSL is being drafted to work in a similar way. Publishers are allowed to develop all sorts of content that is compatible with 4E.

What I thought was a "noble mistake" in the original OGL was the concept of Open Game Content, especially in the instance of releasing all the basic game rules as OGC (in the System Reference Document). Now, legally speaking, intellectual property laws do not cover game rules. Text can be copyrighted, but the game system itself can't be copyrighted or patented. Why not get around the legal complexities and release the text under a license that allows re-publication? The intention, I believe, was to keep publishers from rewriting all of the rule text in a slightly different fashion so that it could be used as-needed to clarify new content that is developed by 3rd-party publishers.

While, I don't think it really turned out all that bad, I think that WotC feels that the spirit of the license has been damaged. I think it's great that a number of creators have been able to reuse and expand on each other's creations, making the d20 system much richer than it was at the outset. On the other hand, there have been a large amount of "broken" or "pigeon-holed" products brought to market. I don't think that these less-than-stellar productions have really harmed the market all that much, honestly.

In my mind, the crowning achievement of the OGL was the ability for publishers to create whole new games inspired by the d20 system. Unfortunately, due to the licensing restrictions on the d20 STL, not all of these games are able to carry the d20 logo and advertise their similarity or near-compatibility.

The thing is, there's no way any revision to the OGL, or releasing D&D 4E with a different license entirely can keep anyone from creating a new game that uses the basic d20 mechanic. In fact D&D 4E still uses the major elements of d20. I'm pretty sure that the new GSL will still allow publishers to create settings and splatbooks that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. Also, the original OGL already paved the way for derivative (though closely related) game systems that will continue to produce supplements.

I know a lot of people that play Dungeons & Dragons don't care about the impact of the d20 system itself, but it's definitely made quite a mark, and I don't think WotC really has much power over the proliferation of the system (even if publishers aren't allowed to call their products by that name). Sure, 4th Edition is changing classes, changing level progressions, introducing some mechanics, but they're not really changing the basic elements of d20: 6 Ability scores (and their bonuses), hit points, a basic defense score (AC), a scaled bonus to attack (BAB), level-based advancement, skill lists, and the combination of the stat bonuses with a single roll of a 20-sided-die against either a set difficulty or another roll. People that know how to play D&D3e won't really have to learn a new rule system for 4e, just some style changes. That is the whole idea behind the d20 system to begin with.

In my mind, D&D 3E, D&D 4E, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Conan OGL, etc are all d20 games. The D&D 3E SRD exists and isn't going anywhere. It will always remain as a template from which to develop these games. And even if the D&D 4E SRD does not include a license for free use (to create variant game systems and character creation rules), I can't imagine that it can be so different from 3E's SRD to consider it a separate game system.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the GSL will not invalidate the current OGL. d20 games will continue to be made. Even if they can't use the new elements of D&D4E verbatim, 4E will certainly have an impact on future products (even the ones that don't "require" the Player's Handbook to play).

 

[Vigilance]

Who do you think are working on 4E? Do you think that Mike or Ari (and others) would be working on 4E if the OGL hadn't existed? The same rules apply for the OGL as for the GPL, the usual production methods don't allow for maximum profit, you need to change them. Already society is changing, it's moving from an information based society (copyrights and patents) to a service based society.


Are you naive, or willfully overlooking the fact that people are already posting closed licence material online. It might not be legal in a lot of countries, but that doesn't stop the majority of the population. Slavery might seem something of the past, but we're all wage-slaves, unable to live in this world withouth selling ourselves to someone else for money. While many kids think that content is free, a lot of the 30+ crowd thinks that information should be free and not owned by 'immortal' corporations...

Many years ago there was no copyright or patent and Michael Angelo could make a living, every one is now using his ideas, because there's no copyright or patent on them. Shouldn't those rights then not also be protected (for his heirs)? How about the Bible, the church sure could probably use the extra income. There are many artists that have a subsidy from the state, Wolfgang Baur creates material through patronage, surely there are other ways to provide for creators of content?

I think you're confusing two separate issues here.

One being whether or not artists should get paid for their work. There might have been no copyright in Michaelangelo's time, but he was well paid for his work while he was doing it.

Contrast this with Cervantes, who wrote a wildly popular novel (Don Quixote) but was almost penniless because of all the pirated copies out there.

So clearly some art forms need some reasonable copyright protection so that the author of the work can receive his just due, or at least something close to that.

But you're confusing this issue, which I think most people agree with, with the notion that copyrights, trademarks and other protections should be used to allow a bunch of lawyers and corporations (often not the creators) to keep work closed and propietary *forever*.

For example, even if Time Warner loses their legan wranglings to keep Superman out of the public domain, they have already slapped so many trademarks on him that it doesn't matter much. Meanwhile the creators and their children don't have access to it.

One is reasonable, one isn't.

I myself think the OGL leans closer to the former than the latter, but there is an important distinction.

You seemed to be arguing that creators should have to depend on patronage, rather than being able to just release their books into the market and make money that way.

 

[pawsplay]

The rationale for the OGL: to create a "safe harbor" for people to use and expand on the D&D game. That is, to avoid a repeat of the Judges Guild/Roleaids/Usenet type debacles. The rationale: game mechanics can be patented but not copyrighted anyway, and there is already a strong precedent for people producing books about other people's games. The reason: to preserve a unified gaming market and enthuse players.

Problems with the new situation (not a lawyer, IMHO, etc):
- Essentially, WotC cannot prevent anyone from using their game mechanics. They may enjoy the fantasy that they "own" a game system, but this is simply not respected by copyright.
- They have some strong trademarks. Strength as the name of an ability score? Not so much. Anything that is merely descriptive--or that refers to WotC's text specifically-- is fair game. I can't reprint Awesome Blow without some kind of permission, but I can include the name Awesome Blow on pretty much anything I want as long as I am referencing their work and not presenting it as my own.
- There is already an OGL industry out there. Some of it is parasitic, but some of it is very dedicated and creative. Are they going to take their toys and go home? Many feel that promises have been broken.
- The industry now faces a divide. 4e will be in competition with OGL material. It's a lopsided competition, but it's something that didn't exist before. It also means that third party design also faces a divide.

We already have generic drugs, generic turn signal bulbs, generic vacuum cleaner bags. Does WotC think they are somehow immune to antitrust legislation? Didn't we already see Microsoft vs. third party add ons?

I keep coming back to one central hypothesis: that WotC management does not understand intellectual property except in a pragmatic "cease and desist" sort of way. I am really mystified what they are trying to do... do they want to have to sue people? No rational business wants to sue people.

The "safe harbor" offered by the OGL minimized the chances of needing to sue someone while maximizing the argument they were protecting their IP and still owned it.

 

[Nellisir]

As the materials in 4E do not fall under the OGL, using the 3.5E SRD to recreate them falls into a very dangerous spot, legally. The system IS in fact so substantially different that to make the tortuous gyrations with 3.5E to make it work like 4E would be looked upon with an unkind eye by any judge who has to deal with such a situation.

Are you a judge? As others have already pointed out, this exact situation already exists with OSRIC and 1e. Furthermore, many of the "innovations" in 4e were first presented in 3e OGL works by 3rd-edition publishers. I find it interesting certain people are so quick to accuse 3rd-party publishers of "low morals" or "low ethics" for recognizing when WotC has a good idea, while simultaneously assuming no one at Wizards - not even Mearls, possibly the most prolific OGL freelancer -- ever learned or borrowed a concept or idea from outside WotC products. The exchange of ideas has gone both ways; WotC just doesn't acknowledge it.

 

[Nellisir]

No other major publisher has adopted a similar method for their created game systems--White Wolf hasn't opened the Storyteller System, Steve Jackson hasn't opened GURPS, etc. If the concept of open gaming is so great, wouldn't other publishers have followed suit?

Mongoose was under no obligation to open up Runequest, but they have. Frankly, that's a big incentive to me to explore that system.

Trying to "reverse engineer" 4e is just going to prove some hypocrisies. It's Wizards choice to use a different license system. I don't think there would be an ethical way to "reverse engineer" it.

It's not "reverse engineering"; it'd be parallel evolution. Basically what you're saying is that no one should try to build a 4e-like game out of 3e, -whether it's better or not-, or -whether it's legal or not-, or really, -whether they thought of it first or not-, because you'd find it ethically questionable.

Honestly, what I think will happen is that instead of trying to make 4e compatible cames, you'll see more game companies come up with truly original ideas and not try to make many minor variations of the same ruleset. Those that make major changes could just as well create their own new games. Why make a knockoff of D&D when you can create your own game?

If you have to ask....

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That's called common sense. If there are a set of rules out there that would work in part or in whole for your game, and are already familiar to millions of people, you'd have to be an idiot not to use them. Just because something is derived from something else doesn't mean it's automatically bad. It certainly makes things easier on the consumer, who doesn't have to invest as much time and energy learning a new ruleset that he or she may not like at the end.

With the d20 glut, I have a feeling people would rather get a totally new thing than another umpteeth edition of D&D.

And yet, out of all the gamers in my gaming circle, almost none own anything other than d20/D&D (I think a few radicals might have old Vampire books). No GURPS, no Rifts, no Shadowrun, no new World of Darkness, no Warhammer, no Blue Planet. Heck, I'm the only one out of 20 or so that bought Dragon magazine.

And, we'll see more creative games.

Unfortunately, creative does not equal good.

 

[Nellisir]

...I am interested how this could affect Necromancer's ability to put out a revised "Tome of Horrors" type product for 4e; the 3e book was produced under a special legal agreement, and it remains to be seen if the 4e GSL will allow Necro to transfer its contents to the new edition. Scary.

I've wondered the same. We don't know the exact agreement between WotC & Necromancer; it might allow for different editions and updates. Or it might be restricted to "original" Necromancer material from TOH 2&3, though I hope not. A 4e TOH would probably be more valuable than the last one, since there will likely be a much longer interval before WotC publishes the "older" monsters (vs stuff from MM2-5).

 

[Nellisir]

And some people would berate people like Monte Cook for releasing what they called "Crippled OGL", since sometimes he'd keep certain monster names and other items from being reused.

The phrase is crippled OGC, not crippled OGL, and if that (sometimes...certain monster names...) was all there was to it, there wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, it's more complex than that.

So, basically, the OGL in my opinion is flawed because of this viral nature. It's a virus all right, it's like a contagion. I fully suspect the new license is designed to be complementary to people allowing the secondary publishers to protect themselves from behavior like this.

And we'll be back at square one. IMO, people and publishers were finally starting to learn how to work with the OGL and how to "properly" reuse OGC. Now, we're back to every Tom, Dick, and Harry reinventing the ranger, except this time it'll be mandated. Under the OGL, if you invented a Dread Pirate prestige class, other people could use it if it was really good. Now, in your theory, everyone has to invent their own Dread Pirate Paragon Path, irregardless of whether or not it should be reinvented. Choke off the OGL just as it was starting to work.

 

[Emil]

As far as I know, nothing is keeping a creator from publishing a splat (class, feat, item, path, spell, whatever) that would work with 4E as Open Game Content. If you write it, you own it and can apply whatever licensing or lack thereof you want.

There's nothing keeping the creator of the Dread Pirate Prestige Class from publishing a conversion addendum to adapt it as a Paragon Path.

In fact, I think it might be a good idea for some creators that end up developing Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies for use with 4E to include an optional version as a 3E Prestige Class.

UPDATE: If there is some strange language to the GSL discouraging content intended for 4E from using the OGL, just use a Creative Commons license.

 

[pawsplay]

Here's a question: is WotC planning on revoking the d20 license and demanding a "cure" at some point?