WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Ydars]

Baka no Hentai (Ogenkidesuka? Hajimashite. Dozo yorishiku)

Scott Rouse has already confirmed that the GSL is MORE restrictive than the OGL. Specifically, he has stated on these forums that GSL will NOT allow 3PPs to produce d20 standalone games that do not require use of the 4E PHB, MM and DMG.

I have to say that I am fine with this. I see no reason for WoTC giving their IP away carte blance. I merely want to ensure that they continue to support the community of D&D gamers through an OGL-like licence that allows production of adventures and also of campaign worlds. People say nothing good ever came out of the community;

I say what about FORGOTTEN REALMS!!! It came out before OGL but that world is essentially the creation of a member of the D&D community. How many other FRs are there out there?

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.

Also, many D&D gamers will probably continue playing RPGs because of Paizo and other 3PPs because they HATE the direction of 4E. I disagree with them but these disaffected may very well come back to D&D one day rather than disappearing forever. So I think 3PPs may have a very large role to play in retaining gamers who have lost interest in the current incarnation; 4E. I also feel that they will only bring these faithful D&D players back if the 3PPs are allowed to contribute to 4E.

So I want a GSL that keeps the community together because only when lots of people are playing one game does this hobby have any kind of viability, and that game has got to be D&D because it is the only one with the profile. I want a healthy D&D because this is required for new gamers to enter the hobby.

And I want a GSL that allows 3PPs to present visions of D&D that suit all styles of gaming, not just WoTCs. I DO NOT want 3PPs to be able to make deriative games that siphon off players from D&D. I want them to be able to help bring as many new players and retain as many old players as possible.

I want this because I fear for the end of PnP RPGs in these days of WoW and other online games.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Plus, you know, almost everyone on the boycott list will end up playing 4e D&D anyway because it's a great game. QQ all you want now, we won't hate you. We'll be waiting on DDI in June with open arms. <3

Speak for yourself, when I say something I mean it. I already dislike 4e enough not to play or DM it anyway. I sat out 2e I can sit out another edition just as well. If they dump open gaming it just means I go up the chain a step and extend my non-purchasing to Hasbro too not that I bought much from them before. Paizo can have that money instead, I've always liked their products.

 

[SSquirrel]

Probem with that theory is if there's suddenly thousands of cancellations it's far more likely people assume Pathfinder is behind it. To prevent another Pathfinder a decade down the road (about 2020 ad., the year where we all will be cyberpunk ) they may decide to squelch any ogl initiative.

It's useless to send signals without a clear and unified message to go along with them. So first set up a small website with a "save the ogl or we boycott" signature, present it to WotC after you have enough support to form a credible player in the field, and hope that by then you wouldn't have wasted your time because the decision has been announced already.

pathfinder won't be out for more than a year after 4E is released. Why on EARTH would they assume it was Pathfinder. Some of the Pathfinder fans are giving it way too much credit.

 

[Ydars]

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.

 

[arscott]

The books have already gone to the printers, any GSL/OGL information will already be pinned down and in the books. Nothing is public yet at this time however. So a boycott will solve nothing as they already have this information decided otherwise they couldn't include the info in the books.

Wizards didn't include the OGL information in their 3e books. Why must they include any in their 4e books?

One of the things I always considered was that OGL was a simple way of licensing something that people may have already been able to do.

There are only two laws that protect this sort of stuff: copyright and trademark law.

As long as you don't directly reprint material from a book, you can talk all about it, right?

Why couldn't someone make a compatible product without ever even talking about the original?

Considering that the core of d20 is used in 4e, couldn't you just base your material off of the original d20 but using more 4e-style stuff?

As long as I don't reprint material falling under standard copyright law, can't I write something close?

I don't think you can copyright "roll 1d20, add a modifier, match it against a difficulty check".

Maybe I'm wrong. Can someone explain the laws of this to me?

<I am not a lawyer>
Trademark is largely irrelevant to the situation, because you are allowed to use a trademark belonging to another company as long as your use doesn't cause the customer to confuse your product with the trademarked version.

In general, Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Specifically, game rules are not copyrightable but the wording used to describe them is.

The thing is, there's a middle ground between concept and specific expression. Let's say someone writes a book about a young orphan who attends a boarding school for wizards. I'd certaily be allowed to write my own book about a magical orphan at a British boarding school. But if that boy's parents were killed on Halloween when he was one year old, or if that boarding school divided it's students into houses based on the recommendations of a talking hat, then I'd probably get sued. Even If i never actually used any of the same prose that J.K. Rowling did, I still copied enough of her specific version of a general Idea that I'm guilty of infringement.

So you're free to write rules that are inspired by the things you see in 4e. But when you cross the line from inspiration to imitation, then you might be treading a little to close to 4e's specific expression to be entirely safe. And that's especially true if your product uses the same terminology as 4e does (reflex defense, encounter power, etc.)--something you'd obviously want to do if the product was intended to be used in a 4e game
</I am not a lawyer>

 

[AllisterH]

I personally think the OGL would be a good thing and WOTC should seriously consider it.

That said, I'm somewhat disappointed that fans are threatening a boycott over something that pre-3E NEVER existed until WOTC took a chance.

I mean, it seems like people believe WOTC is obligated to have an OGL even though it was WOTC itself that created it in the first place. If any company has the right to say "to hell this with policy", it's the company that created this policy in the first place.

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

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

*SNIP*

Point is though, without OGL folks who had resources and drive to produce the product of the quality of, say, Midnight would have done so anyway under a different system. Product would still be as good, possibly better for not having to conform to the basic system made for a different game. Chaff that needs other people's brand to thrive would be separated from the wheat and RPGs would have been richer for it.

Of course, creating a completely new system, balancing it appropriately, etc is a long, involved and in many cases, a failed task. If you already have a core system to look at, tweak and bend to go w/what you have in mind, it is much faster and chances are, better balanced. I think products like Arcana Evolved and Mutants & Masterminds were both very innovative, yet at their core they are just d20. Why is this such a bad thing?

Wizards didn't include the OGL information in their 3e books. Why must they include any in their 4e books?

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.

Scott Rouse has already confirmed that the GSL is MORE restrictive than the OGL. Specifically, he has stated on these forums that GSL will NOT allow 3PPs to produce d20 standalone games that do not require use of the 4E PHB, MM and DMG.

I have to say that I am fine with this. I see no reason for WoTC giving their IP away carte blance. I merely want to ensure that they continue to support the community of D&D gamers through an OGL-like licence that allows production of adventures and also of campaign worlds. People say nothing good ever came out of the community;

With the above statement, Rouse has said that things like alternative PHBs (ala Arcana Evolved) won't work under the GSL. Adventures and campaign settings are fine as they still drive sales of the core rulebooks. So if the GSL continues in this fashion, which I see no reason it won't, we will see plenty of 3rd party adventures and campaign settings. They will all just refer back to the 4E PHB/DMG/MM as needed like many early OGL games did.

 

[Thaumaturge]

</I am not a lawyer>

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

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ydars]

The idea that 3PPs did nothing for D&D in general is nonsense; Mike Mearls and many other 4E designers cut their teeth in 3rd party companies. The world might have been very different if the 3PPs had not been around to provide a reservoir of talent to write new games. You might not buy 3PP games/products but you are ALL heavily invested in a game designed by alot of people who might not be the industry except for the 3PPs.

The idea that OGL does not benefit WoTC is crazy; it means that most game systems are compatible with theirs and ultimately makes their product more stable because gamers can easily migrate back if they become dissatified.

Other companies can still make unrelated gaming systems. Many (like Mongoose) have continued with Runequest and have released it under an OGL. They intend to do the same with Traveller. So other companies do recognise the value of OGL.

AllisterH; I am just asking that WoTC HONOR the promise they made to us at the launch of 4E. If they had said then "there will be no OGL" then I would not be having this conversation. I would never have considered playing 4E. I would also not be disappointed and feel betrayed. They said there would be an OGL and so there should be one. If they didn't want one then they should have stated this from the outset.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

You got that from "vetting our final policy"?

No, you just used an excuse to go off the handle.