JohnRTroy said:
Well, 4e GSL is definitely not the OGL, so much so that most of the 3pp ended their relationships with WoTC by not going 4e. I think others will agree that the GSL is not an "open" license by any means. Licensing has ALWAYS existed, since Judges Guild licensed D&D. But there were always limits, much more like the typical licensing rights. So, no, WoTC is not supporting "open gaming" as a philosophy anymore. And that's the primary chunk of its use.
They support other people making books for 4e with the GSL. In effect, that's what the OGL did for 3e. It's not as open as it could be, but, again, WotC was always reluctant to embrace the OGL. They added psionics and Unearthed Arcana, which was certainly something, but 90% of the books were still closed. I think it's something of a judgement call, but I don't think think WotC really supported "open gaming" as a philosophy, ever. They just saw a way to maybe sell more PHB's and outsource adventure-writing.
The GSL certainly wasn't necessary from WotC, but it was still derived (late and restrictive as it is) as a way to help maybe sell more PHB's and outsource stuff WotC doesn't want to do that there's still demand for. Which was the same strategy that the OGL had from WotC's point of view. It was never a fully embraced philosophy.
JohnRTroy said:
If the #2 publisher is Paizo (I thought it was either Games Workshop or White Wolf), then you missed my statement about those "dependent on the 3e edition ruleset". By rights, any ruleset derived from the 3rd Edition has to be OGL--the publishers have no real choice in the matter. And Pathfinder proves to me that the value of the OGL was not based on its openness, but on the relationship to D&D. It's true that the OGL helped Paizo, but Paizo's existance in table top RPGs right now is to continue the game system that WoTC abandoned.
Yes, but certainly the fact that the #2 game in the industry uses OGL extensively means that the thing is hardly a blip or a failure, regardless of the fact that its success is based on an old edition of D&D. Whatever its origins, it's still going quite strong.
And that also ignores several of the other games that have gone OGL that aren't D&D-based. They're minor, but, then, almost every game that's not D&D is pretty minor in this industry.
JohnRTroy said:
If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it. I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.
Pfft. That's kind of like saying if Open Source software was a great force, then every major computer manufacturer would have adopted it. Apple and Windows certainly speak against that idea.
I don't think the OGL needs to be omnipresent to be significant. I think being hinted at in the #1 game in the industry (GSL) and being embraced by the #2 game in the industry (OGL) is quite a significant thing for an idea that is essentially radically different from what the standard model of game publishing had been up to that point. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I don't know how someone could look at Pathfinder and 4e with a straight face and say that the OGL was a minor blip and a failure and a doomed heresey.
It's here, it works, and it's sticking around for the forseeable future. It's not the second coming of Gutenberg, but it doesn't need to be in order to be a notable presence.