The New GSL--What we want.

[Andre]

...since the smaller publishers need incentives to publish, giving them the ability to dictate terms of their own creations to other third parties might give them more incentives to use the license.

And why should WOTC want to encourage more companies to use the license? What is the specific, bottom-line benefit to them in having more competitors for D&D products, not fewer?

 

[JohnRTroy]

And why should WOTC want to encourage more companies to use the license? What is the specific, bottom-line benefit to them in having more competitors for D&D products, not fewer?

Using your argument, if that's the way they felt, they wouldn't have ANY license, now would they. They obviously see the value in the license.

Since WoTC is being more restrictive this time, it is likely they understand the need to have some control over content. So they can sell the license like this, it makes the license much more attractive to the licensee's. Sort of a trade-off from losing the openness.

So they could go to a partner and say--want to create a book of feats? With the OGL, it can be taken from anybody and put for free on-line. They can't do that with this new license, plus you get to use 4th Edition Rules.

 

[Andre]

Using your argument, if that's the way they felt, they wouldn't have ANY license, now would they. They obviously see the value in the license.

Just my guess, but I suspect the only reason they are releasing the GSL is due to concerns about the outcry from a very vocal minority in the hobby if they didn't. The original purpose of the OGL as explained by Ryan Dancy wasn't met - WOTC was expecting third party companies to produce the material WOTC didn't want to produce, while WOTC focused on the most lucrative offerings.

Since WoTC is being more restrictive this time, it is likely they understand the need to have some control over content.

Exactly. As near as I can tell based on what little we know so far, WOTC has determined that the current OGL has significant flaws from their point of view and hope to fix some of those problems with the new GSL.

One problem is the proliferation of game systems derived from the SRD which do not require the purchase of any WOTC material. They've apparently addressed that via the new SRD "reference" format.

Another issue was the avalanche of dreck released under the OGL. They're trying to address that via the restrictions on when material can be produced.

Lastly, they have the problem of other companies producing material that competes directly with WOTC material, such as splat books and alternate PHB's. I don't see how encouraging other publishers to produce more of this material is to WOTC's benefit.

If one starts with the assumption that WOTC wants to encourage other companies to make wide use of the license, then your ideas may have some merit. I'm guessing that assumption is flawed, so I doubt WOTC will consider the changes you're suggesting (assuming the GSL hasn't already been finalized).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The New GSL--What we want.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Because if "we" means "the 3rd party community," I don't really think you're speaking for all of them. So, y'know, don't.

 

[pawsplay]

Anybody else have any ideas or considerations?

Sure. It's very nice you have your own thread now, but I don't think you're going to get too many more people to join you in solidarity. If your stated opinion is correct, they have absolutely no need of feedback from you or anyone as to what to do with their license.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm not sure why there's hostility. Despite my feelings about the OGL being flawed, I still think it's a good idea to have a license for the fans and for the developers. The OGL was nice for the developers and the fans, but I can see WoTC's perspective.

This isn't "my topic", I just figured instead of griping about how the license change is bad, we can let WoTC know what we'd consider to be good in whatever new license they decide to use. They may not have made final plans. The reason I said "we" is that feel free to state what you would like--other than accepting the OGL as is--with the assumption they may listen and consider opinions. It's kind of defeatist to say "well, they won't listen to us".

 

[kunadam]

And why should WOTC want to encourage more companies to use the license? What is the specific, bottom-line benefit to them in having more competitors for D&D products, not fewer?

As Monte Cook explained some year(s) ago there is no such thing as a competitor to WotC and D&D. They perceived alternate d20 systems as a form of competition, and rewrote the OGL to forbid that.

And the argument that WotC don't want splatbook sor whatnot from 3rd party publishers is not so sound (IMHO). They want you to buy the PHB+MM+DMG and find the kind of game you want. If it the ones WotC sell it is the better for them. If you want a book on spiked chain, then WotC won't do that, but that need can be fulfilled by a 3rd party publisher.
There are myriad of styles/setting/adventure/whatnot that gamers would need, but all of it cannot be produced by WotC alone. The license definitely benefited WotC in the beginning. As for lately I do not know.

 

[Ranger REG]

One problem is the proliferation of game systems derived from the SRD which do not require the purchase of any WOTC material. They've apparently addressed that via the new SRD "reference" format.

It's understandable. The equivalent of having to scan your PHB yoursefl rather than have someone else offer an electronic PDF version of the PHB.

Though I'm sure at least one person out in the world would be crazy enough to twist their head and neck back-n-forth between the SRD and the referred books to manually transcribe the material designated as "open content" and provide a cut-n-paste toolkit.

Another issue was the avalanche of dreck released under the OGL. They're trying to address that via the restrictions on when material can be produced.

Sorry, WotC can no more filter out their own drecks, let alone drecks from hundreds or even thousands of third-party publisher -- major or small print presses.

This is something the customers have to be smart about. The label does not ensure good quality, unless WotC is going to assign manpower to review products, something they're not capable of doing for the entire d20 publishing industry.

Lastly, they have the problem of other companies producing material that competes directly with WOTC material, such as splat books and alternate PHB's. I don't see how encouraging other publishers to produce more of this material is to WOTC's benefit.

So, basically the GSL is going to limit to publishing adventure modules, which WotC themselves know it's not even profitable for them.

If one starts with the assumption that WOTC wants to encourage other companies to make wide use of the license, then your ideas may have some merit. I'm guessing that assumption is flawed, so I doubt WOTC will consider the changes you're suggesting (assuming the GSL hasn't already been finalized).

I agree. I think ... no, I expect WotC could come up with a better way to go about this to make the GSL more appealing. Right now, there is no great incentive other than WotC following the same TSR's misguided notion that label is everything (although TSR thought that "TSR" is a bigger label than their "D&D" brand).

Right now, a writer can reverse-engineer the concepts that 4e is going to have with the SRD & MSRD with the OGLv1. One may lose the big D&D label -- as well as the coattail to ride on -- but then one would have greater freedom.

 

[jezter6]

Though I'm sure at least one person out in the world would be crazy enough to twist their head and neck back-n-forth between the SRD and the referred books to manually transcribe the material designated as "open content" and provide a cut-n-paste toolkit.

You're assuming that you'll be allowed to use the 'actual content' that this new SRD links to. My guess is that the ONLY thing you'll be allowed to do is use the name of the feat/spell/etc and point with book & page reference back to core, and NOT be able to reprint the entire feat/spell. If the SRD they create doesn't have the whole text available for you to freely copy from them, I highly doubt the license would be set up that someone else could create a full text SRD out of those links legally.

As for the OP and locking down Open Content, I'm not buying it. Open Conent was supposed to be the big end-all to reinventing the wheel. You need a 'wheel' feet, you found it somewhere and put it into your book and cited the original. However, we've seen that (with minor exceptions) most of the major publishers are reinventing the wheel for each product they write. How many 'wheel' splatbooks are necessary to rewrite the same material over and over and over? It was a good idea to open it up, but in practice, just hasn't happened.

As for things like Spycraft and True20, I'm not sure the changes in license are specific to prevent those situations, but things like other OGL games which reprint the entire SRD in each and every book (Mongoose, I'm looking at you). While True20, Spycraft, and the like are doing something similar by reprinting/reusing a lot of rules, I think that they're derivative enough that WotC isn't losing out on sales due to them. However, one copy of a full OGL game, and you never need to buy a PHB ever.

 

[Ranger REG]

You're assuming that you'll be allowed to use the 'actual content' that this new SRD links to.

Well, yeah, if the GSL retains the same legal definition of "Use" printed in OGLv1 [Section 1(g)], that includes Using actual "open content" to make "Derivative Material" [OGLv1, Section 1(b)].