What benefit is there for a smart/careful 3pp to use the GSL?

[guivre]

Just a pondering is there anything stopping a publisher producing a splat saying on the cover back or front,

"From the company who gave you Tome of Horrors, a new selection of [whatever you like] in the form of Home of Terrors!"

for example, as your not converting an old line across your just making the consumer aware.

I assume you're talking about a publisher using the GSL:

Nothing is stopping them from trying, but it's pointless to try and find loopholes in the GSL. They can be closed at any time and you're subject to the new GSL.

The situation you describe is already covered by the GSL. WotC determines if a product is part of a product line or not.

 

[Ginnel]

I assume you're talking about a publisher using the GSL:

Nothing is stopping them from trying, but it's pointless to try and find loopholes in the GSL. They can be closed at any time and you're subject to the new GSL.

The situation you describe is already covered by the GSL. WotC determines if a product is part of a product line or not.

Fair enough, there won't be any loopholes because Wizards can just close them, so they can cover Rules as Intended with Rules as Written anytime they like, basically they can errata or indeed create a 3.5 edition

 

[JohnRTroy]

To be perfectly honest, I predict the following.

WoTC probably won't care about publishers making generic adventures as long as their trademarks aren't violated, and as long as they don't delve into ripping off the IP "fluff"--no Forgotten Realms adventures, no use of the monsters they consider "Unique PI". Etc.

WoTC also won't care if some publishers stick with 3.5 and the GSL.

I think Wizards has a specific problem with the OGL combined with 4e, and doesn't not want any of the 4e game being "reverse-engineered" and simultaneously released under an OGL license. I'm not sure why--maybe the "safe harbour" clause actually hurts them because they want the right to reserve shutting down a problematic publisher (not from a greed standpoint, but from a QA or ethical standpoint), and a safe harbour clause might interfere. Maybe they specifically don't like the "viral" clause, which sort of makes it hard to revoke objectionable material. I can only speculate.

I have a feeling the first person, publisher, or consortium who attempts to create a version of 4e under the OGL will be sued, regardless of how small they are. I believe the OGL is the key objection WoTC has, not the creation of generic products that are compatible with 4e, nor the continued use of 3.5 OGL rules.

So, my best guess is that publishers will be safer if they do the following.

Use the legal means compatible systems have been published before, don't reference specific WoTC creations, use more common mythological creatures, make sure the stat blocks are "different enough", and don't advertise using the trademarks.

As far as benefits using the GSL go--well, you get the benefit of using the official "Dungeons and Dragons" trademark, and it seems fans care more about that than radical game changes, and with the d20 glut hurting stores, a /good/ product with the D&D logo might sell better than those without. And even if the GSL is later shelved, certain product might be recycled--you can't use the OGL, but that doesn't mean you can't reserve your copyright, strip out game references, and either create your own system or use a non-OGL system.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Allot of folks here seem to think that the GSL as written won't be changed. While there is a provision currently that only prevents not using IP in the OGL what is to say that the GSL won't be changed to prevent IP from being used for anything else. The GSL can be changed at will by WotC and once a publisher signs it they are bound for life. I don't care what short term benefits a company may derive from using the Logo the bound for life by document that can be changed to anything in the future doesn't sound like a good trade off. The only way I see it being useful is for dispossable product from a dispossable company.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Allot of folks here seem to think that the GSL as written won't be changed. While there is a provision currently that only prevents not using IP in the OGL what is to say that the GSL won't be changed to prevent IP from being used for anything else. The GSL can be changed at will by WotC and once a publisher signs it they are bound for life. I don't care what short term benefits a company may derive from using the Logo the bound for life by document that can be changed to anything in the future doesn't sound like a good trade off. The only way I see it being useful is for dispossable product from a dispossable company.

A producer is bound for life to not using the OGL with his product line/PI.
This is a problem if:
- The publisher actually has any IP that would constitute a kind of brand he wants to re-use in other contexts.
- The context he wants to re-use it is the OGL.

There are a lot of games that can live fine without the OGL. The moment you don't need the SRD and create your own rule system, you can do whatever you want.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

A producer is bound for life to not using the OGL with his product line/PI.
This is a problem if:
- The publisher actually has any IP that would constitute a kind of brand he wants to re-use in other contexts.
- The context he wants to re-use it is the OGL.

There are a lot of games that can live fine without the OGL. The moment you don't need the SRD and create your own rule system, you can do whatever you want.

As I said, that is how it stands now. However the GSL is subject to change based only on the desires of WotC. WotC can change the GSL at any time to not only preclude using IP with the OGL, but with any other system it decides to in the future. WotC could conceivably change the GSL to preclude the use of any IP in any product line from being reused in any way (other systems or system neutral) if they so chose.

 

[Fifth Element]

Poison pill thy name is GSL.

Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of takeover.

/digression

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once again, the wishes of present day WotC are no longer relevant. They can't offer people the proverbial crap sandwich and expect them to choose that over the nice buffet at the other table. Threats may work against small entities who fold before the first nastygram, but it is pretty damn certain Kenzer&Co (a company run by a skilled IP lawyer) and others will not go so easily.

Once more, Ryan Dancey made something really impressive and smart back then; he invited people to play in his backyard, and they did even though they did not have to.

Exactly so.


RC

 

[Scribble]

So if you get terminated from 4e, and cant go back to OGL......what WILL you do with your IP exactly?

Whatever you want. You're just not allowed to enter into the OGL license with WoTC anymore.

Benefits of the GSL for third party companies:

1. You gain the ability to put the D&D logo on your product. Not just a symbol that says it's compatible with the base system D&D is built on. The actual D&D logo.

2. Your books get to use the same templates, names, and general "look" of the main books.

3. Your books get to use the future templates, names, and general look that come out down the line.

WoTC is trying to grow the market. If they succeed, having the look and feel of the offical game products is a big benefit. More people in the market see your product which looks just like the main books, plus has a big ol D&D logo on it. More chance that they will buy it. More sales for you. Woohoo you! people on enworld tend to be a bit more then the average "gamer." They know more about the industry, and how things work. But the general gamer... If it looks like a duck, and tastes like a duck...

If you don't think the above wil be beneficial... Don't enter the GSL. That's a business choice you make.

If you're worried that you can't enter the same product into the OGL after you've entered it into the GSL... You can choose not to use the GSL. (But then you don't gain the above benefits... so thats another business choice to make.)

But my question is: What's the problem?

Ok if you want to just support more games then D&D. Cool, I can understand that. Yeah it sucks you can't support both D&D and an OGL game with the same product... But do you really NEED to? Can't you make two seperate products? They're not going to be exactly the same anway, and you're a creative feller (I mean you're a game designer right?) so make a line of products supporting D&D and one supporting others...

Ok you have a product that is popular and OGL, and you want to update it to make it support D&D, but also support other OGL games... I can understand the issue. But again.. You're creative. I liked your stuff in the past. Make something new for D&D. I'm guessing if I liked your old stuff I'l like your new stuff. Plus I get annoyed when it feels like all the new stuff is just updates. Give me some new stuff.

If you just want an escape route to thumb your nose at WoTC after they say your product is harming their brand in some way. Sorry... you're out of luck. (To a degree, as yeah there are other options, but then again, you don't gain the benefits of the above.)

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Scribble, the problem is that the GSL is designed to help kill off the OGL by not allowing 3pps to go back. Killing off the OGL is a thing for fans who have been loyal WoTC customers and still love 3.5/OGL games and an unforunate position to put 3pps into. There isn't one 3pp who wouldn't happily create 4e products if there wasn't the threat of the GSL being revoked or changed any time. MOre 3pps creating adventures and settings for 4e makes for more 4e customers.

I can see the GSL not allowing 3pps to create entire games off the 4e rules as happend with the SRD under the OGL. NO one is asking WoTC to help create its own competition. However there is a difference between that and attemting to kill off the OGL altogether by not even allowing 3pps to make supplements that support 4e and 3.5e (or whatever d20 game system one chooses). I think it is anti-gaming community to attempt to put the OGL genie back in the bottle and sad that WoTC, the company that created the OGL, is attempting to orchestrate its death.

And you ask "Why not just create some other IP?" Easier said than done my friend. Creating a major release such as a flagship setting is very hard work. Its fun but its difficult. Its hard in regards to time input and in terms of creative energy. Of course one could create some adventures for 4e because they are just one-offs but major IP release under the GSL is IMO an unwise move.

I'm not saying that it isn't within WoTC's rights to create a restrictive GSL but it is equally within the bounds of copyright law for 3pps to legally skirt the GSL so long as they don't tread on WoTC's IP in a way that goes beyond that allowed by law.

Thumb my nose at WoTC???

No, maintain control of my hard work despite the whims of a corporation that, naturally, doesn't have my best interest in mind. You are going to get people thumbing their nose at WoTC BECAUSE of the GSL because it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many who would have otherwise supported 4e.



Wyrmshadows