WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Orcus]

If WotC does decide not to make a GSL[/B] this late in the game, I encourage ALL 3rd party publishers to use the 3.X OGL to make and support a "4E OSRIC".

I can tell you now, I would never do that. I have massive issues with the whole OSRIC thing. But I dont want to get into that.

Deciding this late in the game to take away the GSL would be the last straw for many people I expect.

I agree with that. I dont know if Wizards understands that.

I cant tell you how many emails I have gotten over the life of Necro that say: "I had no interest in 3E. The stuff I saw from Wizards with spikey bits and their version of the rules just didnt appeal to me. It didnt feel like the D&D I wanted. Then I downloaded your Wizards Amulet. Now I am hardcore into 3E!" Or "I wasnt that into 3E. I didnt even buy the books. But then I saw Tomb of Abysthor/Tome of Horrors on teh shelf at the store and I picked it up, and I said 'hey, someone is making D&D stuff the way I think it should be made.' Now I play 3E. Thanks Necro!" Seriously, it is amazing how many of those emails I get. Heck, I still get one occasionally!

Not only are there current players who would not want to see their favorite companies not be allowed to support 4E, and make choices based on that. There are also tons of people who may have fallen away from D&D and are looking at whether or not to come back. And they want to see if the new rules let them play the D&D they want to play. I speak to those people. The people that I speak to with my products are NOT the people that the core 4E marketing will hit. Which makes my role in the transition from 3E to 4E all the more valuable.

Clark

 

[arscott]

p.s. Did anyone ever ask SJG/Palladium why they never went with an OGL of their own?

SJG seems to do really well with the sort of weird niche products that the WotC was trying to farm out to third parties with the OGL--heck, they've published a GURPS supplement based on a webcomic . Palladium... Well, the company never struck me as being business savvy as such.

Hmm guess they didn't. So used to seeing it included in everyone else's product. I think WotC doesn't have to list it b/c they are the originating publisher. Not entirely sure how that one works.

Well, the core books were never actually covered by the license. Instead, WotC released The SRD as a parallel, open content version of their ruleset. Obviously, they're not planning on doing that this time around, but I'm sure whatever their solution it won't take up a spare page at the back of the book.

Does this mean you now resume your state of being a lawyer?

Shh. I'm trying to use HTMLomancy to get myself a better job. Don't alert the powers that be to my plan.

And this would the whole story but for one thing - the 3.x SRD.

Which makes the task of creating a 4e compatible product both easier and harder. Easier in that you can use the bits that follow logically from 3e, but harder in that by entering into the OGL, you limit your rights to publish Product Identity (which can be interpreted so broadly that it includes quite a bit of rules content) and indicate compatibility.

But, in the history of RPGs no one has had the money to fight a court battle with TSR/WOTC when and if they send a cease & desist letter over something they don't like. So in theory it's allowed, in practice no one's been able to do it to date.

But when the Copyright office talks about Game Rules, they're talking about things like the rules to Monopoly or Scrabble. If the issue ever actually made it to court, it's conceivable that the judge will rule that RPG rulebooks don't actually count as 'game rules' for the purposes of copyright.

 

[Henry]

...And they want to see if the new rules let them play the D&D they want to play. I speak to those people. The people that I speak to with my products are NOT the people that the core 4E marketing will hit. Which makes my role in the transition from 3E to 4E all the more valuable.

I'm kind of one of them. If anyone has gotten me interested in 4e over the past few months, it's been you and Ari (and Ari's enthusiasm).

 

[Orcus]

Clark, I admire your optimism in times like this. I honestly hope that it all works out for you!

Thanks!

I am still optimistic (though concerned). I am optimistic because Wizards has good people like Scott and Linae who I KNOW FOR A FACT understand open gaming and its value and the value of third parties like Necro to the continued success of D&D and I know they are fighting to get things done. I cant tell you how much respect and admiration I have for them. (even when Linae is cruely teasing me about how she is going to her 4E playtest group, knowing I am dying to play). My optimism is based on the good people who I know are involved here and their dedication.

Clark

 

[xechnao]

I'm unsure how to state it more simply, but the theory is that all roads lead back to D&D. The shorter those roads, are, the more frequent the pilgrims make the return trip. The OGL is a way to make those roads shorter.

Personally, I don't think that having a market full of systems with hit points, hits to kill, persistence points, toughness points, strength points, etc. all to mean the same thing is beneficial, nor 40 systems that have 30 different dice mechanics to create the same effect, and the OGL has been one way that cut down on some of those. Heck, just looking at the Warhammer RPG, designed by Chris Pramas and company, incorporated some d20 rules intentionally or unintentionally, and it turned out to be for the better for that game (Half Actions and full actions are the first that come to mind, as are cyclic initiative.)

I also think there's enough evidence among independent games over the years from 1980 to 2000 that building games from the ground up creates unnecessary reinventions, often for the poorer. There's probably scores, maybe hundreds, of different ways to figure initiative in a combat alone, and most of them really create lots of extra work for the end result of "who goes first." I'm all for innovation, but innovation should also allow for people finding a rule mechanic among someone else's game that works REALLY well, and then being able to pull it whole cloth into their own game without having to figure out how to avoid copyright violations, because having to stop just so you can reenvision the wheel to avoid lawsuit can be counterproductive.

I disagree with what you are saying here. I am sick that most RPGs still base their systems on the 6 same defined attributes . And the fact that some systems may replace strength to power or dexterity to agility but still be based on the same structure of concepts is not considered an innovation in the industry. These "innovations" are doomed to failure.

 

[Roland55]

I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.

BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!

Rethinking the GSL could lead to a decision to simply release 4E under the OGL.

So I dont want people to go all gloom and doom. Yes, I am concerned. I am concerned at the twists this has taken. The initial meeting with the publishers was awesome. It was well done, professional, and clearly a part of a well-integrated plan. Then upper management got involved and it got yanked. Then, silence. We knew the GSL was intended to be more restrictive. Frankly, I was ok with that. There were thinigs that didnt make sense for Wizards in the OGL if the d20 STL was not used, which it didnt have to be because the d20 logo lost all value and meaning. Now they are back to the drawing boards. There are three options:

1. Use the GSL, or a version of it, as planned. With some of the restrictions from the STL and Guide built into the GSL itself. I'd be fine with that.

2. Swing to one extreme and say there is no license for 4E at all.

3. Swing to the other side and say 4E can be used under the existing OGL (with a stripped down SRD).

Until last week, it seemed clear that option (1) was in play and we were told that things were proceeding along with option 1. Now, it is clear that option (1) is not the only option in play and that higher ups are considering option (2). Which means they may also be considering option (3).

Clark

Or ... even an Option 4 that hasn't been mentioned here.

I, too, do NOT want to incite any 'doom and gloom.' It's far too soon for that, since nothing we consider 'bad' may ever happen.

Unfortunately, the key matter is this: on what basis was the new director hired? What ground rule or rules was he given as the basis for that hiring? This is something none of us know now ... nor will we ever know it. It is unlikely that the new director will pay any attention to fans/customers at this stage of the corporate game. He is very likely to pay attention to well-regarded subordinates, unless the expressed opinions of those subordinates disagree with the basis of hire.

It's a pain to be given charge of a new organization just before a major product appears. It is such a sensitive time that any decision you make will likely have unintended consequences. Unfortunately, it is NOT an option to simply sit back and do nothing. Right now, the new director is working very hard to decide which subordinate or subordinates deserve his trust, which people are his 'key' people. It is these people who will actually help him develop his governing strategy and the policies that will mark his tenure.

With just a little luck, those 'key' people will be skilled gamers who understand the community as well as the business. All will then be well.

Only after these early stages are complete can a new director afford to reach out past his employees to explore other possibilities. The exploration stage will probably not be reached until after 4E is released, much to the chagrin of well-respected industry professionals such as Clark.

Or, I could be wrong. But I don't think so. You see, I've been there ... several times.

 

[Greg K]

I am with the let the OGL die camp.
I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times.
What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity
(N
Sure, there were occasional gems in the d20 midden heap: Iron Heros and Ptolus certainly, Midnight and its attendant material, some Pazio stuff, and I have been told Necro adventures were good for the folks who are into their style.

Well, I personally wouldn't call Iron Heroes a gem, but that aside, WOTC has, imo, produced more than it's fair sharre of rubbish (I consider very few non-core rules supplements from WOTC to not be sub par and the info regarding 4e has not convinced me that this is about to change). It has been the third party companies with their variant material (e.g., EN Publishing's Elements of Magic, Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might, and Green Ronin's Master Class books) that have kept me playing DND and, thus, purchasing the few WOTC books I do consider worth buying (e.g., Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Fiend Folio, Heroes of Horror, and the dedicated monster books). The same is true with regards to d20Modern.

 

[AZRogue]

I think you are exactly right. That is what is going on.

BUT THERE IS A POSSIBLE -POSITIVE- OUTCOME HERE TOO!

Rethinking the GSL could lead to a decision to simply release 4E under the OGL.

So I dont want people to go all gloom and doom. Yes, I am concerned. I am concerned at the twists this has taken. The initial meeting with the publishers was awesome. It was well done, professional, and clearly a part of a well-integrated plan. Then upper management got involved and it got yanked. Then, silence. We knew the GSL was intended to be more restrictive. Frankly, I was ok with that. There were thinigs that didnt make sense for Wizards in the OGL if the d20 STL was not used, which it didnt have to be because the d20 logo lost all value and meaning. Now they are back to the drawing boards. There are three options:

1. Use the GSL, or a version of it, as planned. With some of the restrictions from the STL and Guide built into the GSL itself. I'd be fine with that.

2. Swing to one extreme and say there is no license for 4E at all.

3. Swing to the other side and say 4E can be used under the existing OGL (with a stripped down SRD).

Until last week, it seemed clear that option (1) was in play and we were told that things were proceeding along with option 1. Now, it is clear that option (1) is not the only option in play and that higher ups are considering option (2). Which means they may also be considering option (3).

Clark

Clark, you have a fantastic way of hoping for the best. Great post.


I'll hold off on saying anything further, for now. I hope those guys at WotC who are supporters of Open Gaming manage to talk some kind of sense to whoever is fighting the idea. I wish Scott and Linae much luck. Scott! It's time to go al Sūn Zǐ Bīng Fǎ on 'em!

 

[Greg K]

Azgulor,
I may not have purchased all the games that you listed, but you pretty much summed up my experience. Third party products fixing D&Disms that drove me nuts to showing me what could be done with with the system.

While that is your experience, it's the polar opposite of mine. 3rd-party products brought me back to D&D b/c they showed me how easy it was to modify the d20 engine to suit the interests of GMs, players, and the needs of any given campaign setting. I have significantly more 3rd-party product than WotC product. And in many cases with 3.x, 3rd-party products did "fix" the D&Disms that drive me nuts. Products like Grim Tales (grittier games, toolkit approach), Conan (classic swords-n-sorcery rather than D&D-Fantasy superheo), Game of Thrones (political games, grittier combat), and Thieves' World & True Sorcery (non-Vancian magic). Whether you call them fixes or options, they added to the game in ways WotC would never have done. That's as valid a support model as 3rd-party adventures which coincidentally compete with WotC's adventures. The only difference there is that WotC doesn't care about that level of competition as they view them as table scraps anyway.

Bottom line, open gaming and continued ability for 3rd-party is a BIG deal for a lot of people.

 

[Sora Justice]

I am still optimistic (though concerned). I am optimistic because Wizards has good people like Scott and Linae who I KNOW FOR A FACT understand open gaming and its value and the value of third parties like Necro to the continued success of D&D and I know they are fighting to get things done.

Clark, I have some advice to you. I know, from having read your material, that you're one of the best third-party publishers, and I know, from having read your posts, that you're a smart man. I believe that the people behind this decision know exactly how third parties can boost sales.

Which is why my advice to you is to take the foot out of your mouth and shut up. Shut up and look at the incredible deal you might well be getting for a second: a perpetual exclusive period in which to produce supplements with Fourth Edition rules and that First Edition feel, for what, exactly? The same price you were, as you yourself have repeatedly noted, willing to pay for a mere early look at the rules and a six month exclusive period?

And what else will you gain? The elimination of the majority of your competition, mostly fly-by-night outfits who released product with no quality control whatsoever. There will be no more "d20 glut" for you to struggle against, and your products will have an air of legitimacy that they never had in the Third Edition days.

What will WotC gain from this? Simple, a tighter control over their intellectual property and actual, honest-to-G-d quality control. In exchange they will... lose a few sales from butthurt fanboys who don't understand how this benefits them and their favorite third parties instead of hurting them, and they'll lose "support" from fly-by-night affairs - quoted as it was historically mostly comprised of barely-edited houserules and mongoloid interpretations of the d20 System, not anything an honest critic could call support.

So stay optimistic, Clark, but stop provoking fanboys into a tizzy and just watch yourself win big. Please?