WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[drjones]

I would not be involved in dnd were it not for the OGL and I would lose a lot of interest in 4e if I knew WOTC was going to be the only source of content.

BUT I think you are going off less than half cocked. If you want to cancel your preorder that is perfectly fine but for all you (or anyone else not privy to WOTCs bigwigs) know "We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." means they have a robust, totally awesome new from of OGL that they have teams of lawyers looking over night and day for any lack of awesomesauce.

We really don't know and this message does not change that at all. But more importantly I doubt highly that they are going to make all the money they plan on making from 4th in the first month. They want this to be a milkable cash cow for years and years so if they come out with some neutered/crappy OGL then stop buying their junk then, it will hurt them just as much.

 

[Mistwell]

Do you think I care if they notice? I think it's an appropriate response so it's the one I take and they can bite me if they think their notice, opinion, or anything else matters to me more than the bug I stepped on this morning.

What is the purpose of a boycott that is not intended to get the thing you are boycotting to notice the boycott?

It seems you don't mean boycott. Boycott is intended as a form of communication, to express dissatisfaction or demand for change from something. If the goal is not to actually communicate something to Hasbro, then why does it matter to you? Why even post about it?

 

[Delta]

No. There's an internal discussion happening at Wizards of the Coast. Being owned by another company doesn't mean they constantly stick their nose in your business. WotC is the most successful RPG company in history, and Hasbro isn't going to mess with that. Hasbro bought Wizards because they were a successful, money-making company that knew how to handle themselves in a risky market.

Hey, you just pushed a bit of a button with me. All my friends and I have worked in the game industry (computer games, specifically), where there's very rapid startup-buyout-closure cycles.

One thing that we've learned very keenly is that at the time of buyout, parent companies always *say* exactly this, that they'll "leave the subsidiary alone and not mess with it". That's standard PR when a company is bought (helps keep staff & customers from fleeing) -- but they always *do* mess with it, because they think they can make it run more profitably than what they bought it for.

It happens every time. My friends and I all laugh when we hear that now, it's almost like a drinking game for us. Same with my bank -- any time my bank gets bought I know to immediately run to a smaller independent bank now.

The level of frustration and hands-tying that we're hearing from WOTC spokespeople actually sounds a lot like you've got either (a) the new WOTC management or (b) Hasbro lawyers gumming up the works at the moment, actually. It seems pretty familiar to me.

 

[Mistwell]

Since that annoucement the OGL forum has suddenly gone silent in terms of hard info and all official WoTC statements seem to be treading a very careful line with GSL, not even wanting to confirm or deny its existance. Why would this be the case if the they are just ironing out the details?

Something profound is going on; some internal debate at Hasbro.

It's possible, but not the most likely scenario.

I'll tell you, as a lawyer who worked almost his entire career as in-house counsel for companies, here is the most likely scenario: A lawyer drafts a change to the new licensing document. It's sent to another lawyer, who changes the change, and sends it back. They do this 5-6 timed, always trying to get the document out of their office and into someone else's. Eventually, it's sent to a third and fourth lawyer, who make changes, and send it back to the first lawyer to start that process again. And each section of the document is done this way, between lawyers who may have never met each other, and may not even be in the same part of the country.

These changes being discussed will seem mostly irrelevant to gamers. They will involve things like "can we bind people under Australian law with this particular clause that says this about a copyright that isn't filed in Australia? No? OK, someone get on a list of countries where we need to separately file copyright, while another group works on trying to rework the clause to be more broad and have an alternate clause in case a particular jurisdiction rejects that clause".

This goes on for months, until a non-lawyer gets involved and yells at the lawyers to quit messing around with drafts and finish it. Then, the lawyers stay up for two days straight on conference calls and get it done.

They celebrate, then the non-lawyers look at the "final" draft, make a huge fundamental change now that they see the draft (though the non-lawyers do not think of it as a huge change but just a minor one), and send it back to the lawyers. The lawyers cry, and start everything over again.

That is a more likely scenario than some actual profound internal debate about the entire theory of an OGL or GSL whatever you want to call it now.

I think as gamers we tend to be gamer-focused when it comes to things like this. But, usually delays (in anything) are not about fundamental issues, but minutia and passing the buck and people being overworked.

 

[Delta]

What is the purpose of a boycott that is not intended to get the thing you are boycotting to notice the boycott?

It seems you don't mean boycott. Boycott is intended as a form of communication, to express dissatisfaction or demand for change from something. If the goal is not to actually communicate something to Hasbro, then why does it matter to you? Why even post about it?

Note: The person you're responding to, HeavenShallBurn, has never used or implied the word "boycott" in this entire thread. All he said was that he personally wouldn't be buying. So your rant is at least a bit mis-directed.

 

[Mistwell]

Sora; you misunderstand me; the boycott I was advocating was purely temporary. I would fully expect most people to play 4E in the end. I was just suggesting that we should delay buying or cancel pre-orders and couple this with some kind of protest letter to WoTC to advocate some sort of OGL.

But as someone has already pointed out; this was not likely to work. I am new to these boards but did realise this was the likely outcome; yet I would have kicked myself If I had stood by and done nothing.

Now I can subside into impotent fury with a clear conscience.

I didn't realize you were new. Welcome to the boards! Your posts have been thought provoking, and I hope I get the opportunity to read them for years to come.

 

[Delta]

It's possible, but not the most likely scenario.

I'll tell you, as a lawyer who worked almost his entire career as in-house counsel for companies, here is the most likely scenario: A lawyer drafts a change to the new licensing document...

I think as gamers we tend to be gamer-focused when it comes to things like this. But, usually delays (in anything) are not about fundamental issues, but minutia and passing the buck and people being overworked.

I'll say that as someone who worked 6 years in the computer game industry before teaching (and having most of my friends work at various different game companies), I think that a significant strategic change actually is the most likely scenario at this point. There aren't that many lawyers involved in game companies the size of WOTC (the income stream simply won't support them). Recent backpedaling, change to name, delays, and recent management switchover are clues to a strategic change regarding OGL/GSL. Could be wrong, but that's the way I'd bet in my game-industry experience.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

For the prosperity of the rpg hobby, fans and publishers should become less fanatics for D&D and stronger followers of tabletop rpgs interests. I am not convinced that another round of OGL that at this point will mostly serve to reupdate old stuff for the sake of compatibility is a good idea. Wotc is making a new game and intends to support it. IMO there should be others doing the same. The hobby needs more games and more support of these new games.

I agree with this. I think that the OGL stank largely because it resulted in everything becoming a clone of one set of rules, and becoming a huge mass of flavorless, indistinguishable goo. The existence of multiple sets of rules, rather than variants of one hyper-generic one, seems like a good thing to me. You can tailor the rules to the setting and mood more that way.

For example, take the d20 version of Fading Suns. The classes in it are just the PHB classes with different names -- and they even added a completely new one lest they miss out on the druid! I took one look at it and thought, "Why didn't I just rename the PHB classes and stat up a couple of guns, and run it that way, instead of paying for a bland clone of a generic game system?"

Down with the OGL and the GSL, IMO. Let there be more systems again -- maybe everything won't end up looking like grey cardboard cutouts.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Something I found interesting yesterday was that WotC had a job notice up for an inhouse attorney position. I just checked and it's been taken down though.

Hyrum.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not sure this is true. I shure hope it is. But, for instance, they havent offered me such a license. And I am historically their best and closest third party publisher (other than Paizo). They licensed Tome conetnt to me, etc. And I think over the years we have proven to be excellent partners and caretakers of that content. So if I'm worried, you all should be too.

I think assuming that, if you are worried, everyone else should be too, is not a very open minded way to look at things.

Of course you are not SURE it is true (until it is), and hence as an executive who really needs it to be true you are worried. If there is a 1% chance it's not true, as a person in your position you should be worried. But for most people, that would be an awful reason to be actually worried.

For example, let's apply the "I am worried, therefore you should be to" to another company. I run a clothing manufacturing company. Right now, the odds of a customs/duty increase on Chinese made clothing products has gone up from about 10% to a 15% chance. This has me worried. And you wear clothing. So, under your way of looking at things, you should be worried to. But you're not - and really, you shouldn't be. A 5% increase in the chance that some select products of something you like (clothing made in China) will cost more in the future is not something anyone other than clothing manufacturers and sellers should really be worried about right now.

You're in a nearly unique position to worry about this sort of thing. Your livelihood and the livelihood of people employed by your company is at stake, so any threat to that (even a minor one odds-wise) is a reason for perhaps major concern. But I think the reality of the situation is that the odds are very much against the thing you are worried about actually coming to pass, and the vast majority of gamers should not be scared into worry and panic at this point.

So, let's not all worry based on speculation. Some folks have reason to, but not most people.