WotC bans OGL use (merged thread)

[Noir-Neko]

Just reading Slashdot and this caught my eye:

D&D 4th Ed vs. Open Gaming

Basically, they're saying "If you wish to continue using OGL to make 3.5 products, fine, no problem, but if you want to make 4e compatible products, you have to DISCONTINUE any and all use of OGL, stop creating 3.5e/d20 compatible content and sign up for our "New and Improved" 4e Game System Licence. You got up to June 6th to decide."

When asked "Why?", the answer is "We invested several million $ into 4e and we want YOU to create 4e compatible content, so that you boost our sales (like what you did with 3e, thank you very much), and not create "backwards" content."

Incredible.

[RukiTanuki]

I saw the discussion going on at ENworld, and noticed that no one had yet been talking about it here. I also figured I had a rant built up. :)

There's several posts in Saturday's news about 4e third-party publisher licensing. It appears that the 4th Edition license will prevent publishers from releasing any additional 3rd Edition content.

From the post here:

In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.

It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice. It is not "well, this product will be 4E using the GSL but the next one will be for 3E under the OGL."

In other words, Necro cant do 3 books for 4E then decide to go back and do a 3E book.

Or, along the same lines, if Paizo wants to do Pathfinder 3E, it cant do 4E products. If it does, it can no longer do 3E ones.

I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.

Once you are in for 4E, you are in, and cant go back (well, you could but you would presumably lose the right to use the GSL from that point forward).

I have to clarify if I will be able to do 3E stats as seperate downloads for 4E books. My guess is that I will not be allowed to do that under the GSL. But I havent asked that direct question.

A request/warning: Please don't even bother posting if your contribution is something to the effect of "greedy corporation" or "obviously they'd do that." I'd like a meaningful discussion.

Now, here's my perceptions.

---

One thing seems clear: Wizards is switching over to 4th Edition, one hundred percent. The third-party publishing community has been great for 3rd Edition, and Wizards would probably like them to come along. They can't force anyone to switch; however, they do need to look at whether they should provide incentives to switch, especially if the publishing choices third-party publishers make directly influences 4th Edition's success.

Making 4e/3e an either/or proposition is risky, for Wizards (I suspect) as much as anyone else. I didn't bother trying to project my own thoughts into their brains, or guess their intentions. That wouldn't get me anywhere. Instead, I tried comparing the market in both cases: one where third-parties pick one side or the other, and one where third parties were free to use both.

Free to use both:
The reactions I've seen about 4e seem to hint that third-party publishers are nervous. Most talk regarding 3rd-to-4th conversions has ended with "just start over from scratch." We may see large-scale adoption of 4th Edition, but 3rd has a very large install base right now (and the books aren't going anywhere).

I know that I'd be tempted to play both sides of the field. The most attractive option would seem to be a combination 3e/4e book. Early on, I'd probably make 3rd Edition content like I normally did, with a 4th Edition conversion guide. Likely, I'd wait to see what market 4th Edition had before committing to 4e-focused content. (This is just the decisions I feel I'd make if I had to look my friends and coworkers in the eye and make the choice that determines whether they continue to get paid.)

If most publishers did that, the 4th Edition content would probably not be taking the spotlight. It'd be valuable for companies to "double-up" their content and release 4e and 3e versions. As such, the content likely wouldn't be tailor-made to either product (and if so, it'd tend toward the more-familiar 3e, at least to start). Two sets of rules will need to be produced, tested, and made to fit well with the flavor and style of the material. With a lack of focus (not only in design, but in production, with teams either splitting or working on more content), the product would be likely to suffer. Both 3rd and 4th Edition would have products that spent a little less time and love on making them work as well as possible for their specific setting.

One or the other:
Forcing a choice, however, makes each company make the difficult decision Wizards has made. Which install base will provide the most potential: the new 4e users craving content, or the existing 3e base craving something new?

Maybe the publisher thinks that 4e is a product that will catch on. If they sign on for 4e, they're going to (by necessity) be whole-hog about it. They will only produce for 4th Edition, so (hard workers they are) they'll produce the best content possible. Their success will hinge not only on their own efforts, but on whether 4th Edition succeeds.

Conversely, they may feel it's too risky to abandon the license they know well. Some may stick with 3rd Edition. Any players that make the same choice will want quality material. The market may even open up more as other publishers join the 4e lineup. Their success depends on their own efforts as well as a reduced or delayed adoption of 4e. However, if they're wrong (if, say, the 3e market starts shifting towards, say, the AD&D adventure market of today), they may find themselves running in the red for however long it takes for them to adopt a better strategy (whether it be creating a new system, signing on to 4e, etc.) If they do switch later on, they'll be behind relative to other publishers who signed up early.

Wizards themselves got a pretty good eyeful about what low-quality third-party d20 content could do to the perception of the brand. They want publishers to join 4e, sure, but they'd also like those companies to put forth their best effort in creating 4th Edition content. The question is how much prodding is appropriate. It looks like Wizards is asking companies to decide whether they'll bet better off with 4e, or without.

The whole thing's a gamble. Personally, I'm okay with that. I've been enjoying the shakeup 4e has had in general; it's challenging some of the ideas the gaming community has about what parts of our hobby are impermeable, unchangeable. I don't like the idea of people gambling their livelihoods on the matter, but I will watch with great interest as the everyone uses their knowledge of game design, marketing, and what their customer base wants, and make a significant decision about what they believe will be the best for themselves and for gaming.

It's going to be an interesting few months.

---

P.S. As stated before, please contribute meaningfully. If you find yourself saying something negative about someone (as opposed to saying , for example, that you don't agree with their decision), please hit Backspace a few times and try again.

[RukiTanuki]

Shoot, I thought I could get away with not checking for the last few minutes I spent typing my post on the same subject. I got the news at Enworld, which got it a bit more correctly than Slashdot seems to have done.

I have a long list of thoughts (and the link to Enworld, including the publisher's post) over here.

[Terraspaz]

At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)

[Jasdoif]

OK, I can't check the linked article/thread (it's blocked here), so I have to ask: What exactly does this license entail for the publisher? Do they have to buy a license? And what's the penalty if they publish under the OGL after acquiring/using this "GSL"? How's the whole thing work?

If it's a term like "releasing under the OGL after this date forbids you from using the GSL ever again", and it doesn't take any/much money, it's actually a clever move. Everyone who's interested can try 4E stuff, and if it doesn't work out for them they can revert to OGL terms at that point. Setting a date is a way to get everyone who might be sufficiently interested on board with it at one point, meaning there will be a lot to choose from in the initial months. The odds of having getting something good out there is increased with the number of people making the attempt.

[EvilElitest]

Hmmmmm, i highly highly disagree if this is true, but i have to admit WotC is quite clever, because from a business perspective this is a good idea


Why are they doing this? What do they gain
As with all edition changes, there are always people who don't want to make the switch and still stubbornly refuse to play the new edition. Many people still play second edition. THe different between this switch and the 2E/3E switch is the ratio, a lot more people are playing the game now

Lets say out of 100 gamers who played 2E, 10 of them refuse to play 3E, and 5 stop playing all together and go off to "graduate" to white wolf. ten more make the switch, but still play 2E on a regular basis and know the rules, and are only some what enthusiastic. 5 people "update" or "fix" 2E, but as they lack a real publishers, only one of them is actually able to make their change public, and only a few people are interested. The rest play 3E without any regrets.

this time however the scale is larger and the 3E people ahve companies on their side. Companies that want to appeal to both kinds of people, 3E supporters and 4E fans, as well as those who play both. The 2E fans were not large enough to really threaten their business, but they were content to play their own stuff

However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E. And so WotC, a business after all, wants to make sure that any company that sells 3E material, can't also provide 4E material. As 4E is the newest thing, most business are going to take 4E instead of 3E, because they don't want to be left behind. So a "fixed' 3E game to get published and able to act as a rival to the new and still untested 4E is now not likely. Any company that makes 3E material, will suffer losses.

Cunning.

however WotC takes a risk, if more companies don't want to be bullied by wotC and choose not to publish 3E, however i really doubt this will happen. I imagine paizo might become pro 4E


What i actually think, fitting in with the OP's request, i really don't like this idea. It effectivly ruins the "you play your improved game, i play mine" and basically destroys the hope of anyone who didn't want to play 4E but wanted a fix. That being said, it is WotC's right, and a cunning move, and so unless lots of people protest openly, it isn't going to change
from
EE

[potatocubed]

It's an interesting decision, if you can call it that. I mean, the GSL isn't final yet. Wizards sent their senior brand manager to GAMA (big trade show in case you didn't know) without any concrete answers. They're still very much fumbling around with this one.

If the GSL stays the same? Things get complex for your third-party publishers. I'm pretty certain none of the big ones are going to bother switching. Most of the survivors of the initial d20 boom have jumped to other games entirely by now and might as well keep selling their back catalogue of 3.5 stuff rather than lose it for the uncertain 4e market.

The question for smaller companies is difficult - do they trust that those aforementioned back catalogues will keep the 3.5 market alive and stick with that, or do they try to ride the 4e wave in the knowledge that the 'big boys' aren't competing? It's tricky, alright. Especially since many of the biggest 3.5-based lines can be licenced for free in their own right - True20, MnM, Spycraft, and so on. You could conceivably switch all your 3.5 products over to Tru20 with next to no work and just keep on trucking.

However, there is another option. The directors of a gaming company can simply incorporate a second legal entity for dealing with 4e material. You can sublicence any intellectual property from one to the other if you feel like it (tricky but workable under US law, easier in other countries) and that's the end of that.

I don't think anything will be final until the day 4e is released, and possibly not even then. Wizards have handled this affair with all the grace and skill of an epileptic hippo and they've already changed plan once in the face of overwhelming lack of support (the plan to sell 'advance licences' for $5000 each, abandoned when everyone said "no thanks"). My opinion on how this will unfold? I reckon they'll back down and/or 'clarify'.

[Jayabalard]

I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

[Talya]

I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

This.

Plus the two entities would have the same corporate parent, who cannot be legally held responsible for what it's separately incorporated subsidiaries are doing.

[RukiTanuki]

OK, I can't check the linked article/thread (it's blocked here), so I have to ask: What exactly does this license entail for the publisher? Do they have to buy a license? And what's the penalty if they publish under the OGL after acquiring/using this "GSL"? How's the whole thing work?

Here's my understanding: There's the 3rd Edition OGL (which lets you use content in the SRD), the 3rd Edition STL (which lets you publish with the d20 logo), and the 4th Edition GSL (which lets you publish 4th Edition content). There is no OGL for 4th Edition. Ergoe, if you sign up for the GSL, you stop publishing OGL content.

Things are up in the air. This is a quote from a publisher who had a phone call about it. There are still details that aren't set in stone, and obviously, Wizards hasn't come out and put everything on the table.

However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E.

I will give you that; 3rd Edition does compete with 4th Edition. That's part of why I'd be tempted to get the best of both worlds and sell content for both. By the same token, I understand why Wizards would like to discourage that. If nothing else, they'd probably like 4e to be judged on whether it's a better system, and they'd like publishers to decide that for themselves.

I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

It's a thought. The complications are pretty visible: You'll split up your employees, making it very visible that you're spending less resources on each piece of content. It does block "works in both versions" products as well, which is the one part of this whole thing that I'll be sad to see disappear. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how far one could get away with that plan, either. Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

[Reinboom]

I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

This. (as well)

It has already been discussed by a couple of the company leads on the enworld thread in question.


OR, because the companies have already announced "nah nah nah, we can just split to get around your silly agreement!", wizards may just wise up and remove the 'useless' clause.

It's a thought. The complications are pretty visible: You'll split up your employees, making it very visible that you're spending less resources on each piece of content. It does block "works in both versions" products as well, which is the one part of this whole thing that I'll be sad to see disappear. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how far one could get away with that plan, either. Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

Not usually. You can be hired in to two companies simultaneously while just under the payroll of one.

[AslanCross]

Having been a WotC consumer for over a decade now (I began with Magic: The Gathering back when I was 12 years old), I'm not really surprised at this. They are a gaming business, and they have the right to do what is profitable to them, even if they ended up alienating some of their clientele in doing so. (Many of my friends used to play Magic, but their complaint about getting back into it now is "there are too many rules, I don't want to have to learn them." However, the main difference between D&D and Magic is that Magic is far more backwards-compatible without second- or third-party improvisation.) Churning out content for free isn't a good way to survive in the capitalist world. The gaming industry is a business, not charity. The OGL was a very good move for them, and I'm sure it did contribute a lot to WotC's profits.

However, with this development, the clients lose out either way. I was pretty optimistic about being able to handle both 3.5 and 4E games when 4E does come out, but this seems to be strangling the third party publishers. (Magic never had third party publishers, so it doesn't seem to have the same problem.) The 3PPs are faced with a dilemma: Do they stick to 3.5 to support the base they've built already, or do they take a leap in the dark, abandon all their old content (and fans who would rather not use the new edition) to support the new one?

I find it weird, since the GSL seems to be treating the 3PPs more as competition than allies.

[Tura]

I won't comment yet, just adding some info and questions, for now.

Paizo has declared that future Pathfinder books will be based on 3.5 SRD. They also say, and I quote:

Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products. We know our fans are a creative bunch, though, so we fully expect to see our community create 4th Edition conversion notes for our Pathfinder products—in fact, some of our fans have already started working on 4E conversions of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, as well as one of our first standalone modules.

... which kind of confuses me, because it doesn't make clear if publishing 4E products will forbid them from publishing 3.5 again. Are we sure this is on a publisher by publisher case, and not on a project by project or something? Or maybe Paizo (or anyone for that matter) could simply make a subsidiary company and publish 4E material from there. Hmmm....

Another question I have is what happens with non-commercial uses of the SRD. I find this even more important for the moment, since it affects not only easy access to 3.5 content for all, via non-commercial sites, but potentially our right to refer to crunch information even in sites like this forum. And play 3.5 PbP, come to think of it.

Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

[Draz74]

OR, because the companies have already announced "nah nah nah, we can just split to get around your silly agreement!", wizards may just wise up and remove the 'useless' clause.

I doubt it. I think Wizards still wants this clause, if only to keep any company (no matter how it splits) from releasing an official 3e/4e hybrid system.

Which is too bad, because that's exactly what I, in an unofficial and amateur capacity, would like to do. Take the best things from both systems (and homebrew) and mix them up.

[adanedhel9]

At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)

Except that there's no legal definition of "homebrewing". If I jot a spell down on the back of a napkin and pass it to my friend, legally speaking, I'm publishing that feat. If I were to put a 3e spell on one side of the napkin and a 4e spell on the other, Wizards could take action against me. Not that they would, of course: I'm small fry.

But it would still make some people uncomfortable. Prolific homebrewers might find themselves on the line; maybe warranting a Cease & Desist if they break the rules.

The 3e/4e choice doesn't really bother me that much. What bothers me is the implication that publishers would have to abandon all OGL use, even if the publisher applied the OGL to a completely original work. This could put a publisher in a position to choose between supporting the strongest brand and supporting their own creations. I don't envy that choice.

[mikeejimbo]

I have but one thing to say on this subject: Aw darn. :(

[Renegade Paladin]

At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)

They can't effectively limit homebrewing even if they wanted to. It's not like they get to come search the houses of every DM in the world to make sure he's not deviating from the published material.

[potatocubed]

Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

I'd say the short answer is 'no'. Wizards are attempting to force people to pick sides - specifically, their side - because it's in their best interest to get everyone off 3.x and onto 4e. However, it's in the best interest of third-party publishers to hedge their bets and work with both until a clear leader emerges. Less risk that way.

Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

You'll be lucky. There is no information. Not even inside Wizards itself. That's part of the problem. I figure just hold on and wait for the storm to break. Until there's a signed and sealed official document, everything's really just guesswork.

[Reinboom]

I won't comment yet, just adding some info and questions, for now.

Paizo has declared that future Pathfinder books will be based on 3.5 SRD. They also say, and I quote:

... which kind of confuses me, because it doesn't make clear if publishing 4E products will forbid them from publishing 3.5 again. Are we sure this is on a publisher by publisher case, and not on a project by project or something? Or maybe Paizo (or anyone for that matter) could simply make a subsidiary company and publish 4E material from there. Hmmm....

Another question I have is what happens with non-commercial uses of the SRD. I find this even more important for the moment, since it affects not only easy access to 3.5 content for all, via non-commercial sites, but potentially our right to refer to crunch information even in sites like this forum. And play 3.5 PbP, come to think of it.

Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

This information mostly comes in combinations between Scott Rouse (Senior Brand Manager for WotC), and Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games who asked for the info specifically.

I doubt it. I think Wizards still wants this clause, if only to keep any company (no matter how it splits) from releasing an official 3e/4e hybrid system.

Which is too bad, because that's exactly what I, in an unofficial and amateur capacity, would like to do. Take the best things from both systems (and homebrew) and mix them up.

I believe this was part of the goal as well. However, a simple product to product based clauses could handle that.


My own speculation, giving light to wizards:
They have mentioned before that they will be expanding what 'core' means. They have also mentioned there will be a new PHB, DMG, and MM every year, expanding on to more options.
Perhaps, though the chance may be slim, that these new 'cores' will actually be core in that they will be thrown in to an ever expanding SRD.

Of course, restricting this SRD to make damn sure it never sees 3.x light would be a goal, otherwise they may just be back playing in to an old market.

[Jayngfet]

well it looks like the giant has to stay 3.5 with his articles now.

[Hawriel]

Homebrewing is well just playing the game. At what point does the GM using rule 0 and the player rollplaying become 'homebrewing'? Also when does 'homebrewing' become a legal term? If I deside to run off and kill Drizzt because the character just needs to die, does wizards opon finding out get to sue me for ilegal homebrewing? Or if I make my own world to play in and use 4th ed crunch rules, does my 'homebrewed' world now belong to Wizards?

In short now it doesnt. Thats like Ford taking legal action agaist me for putting a racing stripe on my mustange of my own desine.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I don't like the Computer comparison in there. Yes Linux is "Open Source" but it doesn't belong to Microsoft.

The OGL is "Open" but in a very specific way that means it still belongs to WotC.

All they are saying is either you never touch Vista, or you never get to touch XP again.

And that's perfectly fair, and nothing against open gaming, hell they are releasing the 4E mechanics as "Open" material. That's pretty much the opposite.

Will it be a tough decision for some people? Sure. Is it a risky business move? Yes. Is it motivated by Business concerns? Of course. Is it unreasonable or even unexpected? No.

[Lokey]

Except that there's no legal definition of "homebrewing". If I jot a spell down on the back of a napkin and pass it to my friend, legally speaking, I'm publishing that feat. If I were to put a 3e spell on one side of the napkin and a 4e spell on the other, Wizards could take action against me. Not that they would, of course: I'm small fry.

But it would still make some people uncomfortable. Prolific homebrewers might find themselves on the line; maybe warranting a Cease & Desist if they break the rules.

The 3e/4e choice doesn't really bother me that much. What bothers me is the implication that publishers would have to abandon all OGL use, even if the publisher applied the OGL to a completely original work. This could put a publisher in a position to choose between supporting the strongest brand and supporting their own creations. I don't envy that choice.

No. Even if you charge your single friend money I don't think that flies as publishing. It's important but not relevant.

You as an individual (and probably Giant's or Sean Reynolds' freely distributed rules articles) aren't under a publishing agreement with WotC or their parent/subsidiary...(5 pages of legalese). It just doesn't apply in this case, the only ones it matters to are companies like Paizo that publish DnD 3rd party products.

[Gorbash]

My hopes rest with Paizo/Pathfinder... I do hope they don't abandon OGL...

[sikyon]

They can't effectively limit homebrewing even if they wanted to. It's not like they get to come search the houses of every DM in the world to make sure he's not deviating from the published material.

They could get witnesses saying you've done it and then get the police to obtain a search warrant for your house and seize the evidence.

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

No. Even if you charge your single friend money I don't think that flies as publishing. It's important but not relevant.

Legally, distribution is publishing; his example is perfectly valid.

[AmberVael]

They could get witnesses saying you've done it and then get the police to obtain a search warrant for your house and seize the evidence.

Yes, technically... but the point was that they are hardly capable of doing that to everyone, or even a moderately large group for extended periods of time. It's like catching people downloading illegal files- sure, you can be charged for that, but it's not like anyone really has the resources or time to devote to catching you.

[Mando Knight]

I don't see any official notice that corporations cannot use both OGL and GSL, and the first page of the ENWorld thread so often linked to doesn't confirm such a notion either. Rather, it seems that the idea came from one of the posters on that forum and then the Internet happened to it.

It makes sense to me that a certain book can be published under either OGL or GSL but not both at the same time, since the two are based on somewhat different game systems.

I haven't seen the terms of the new license, so I will not assume that accepting the GSL forbids you from using the OGL.

This is all apocalyptic speculation, and should be taken with a graintruckof salt until the GSL is actually released/fully leaked.

[vivi]

wtf! All this does, is make us 3.5ers screwed over!

[RS14]

From the comments of that Slashdot article, I'm somewhat skeptical. And as this poster says it better than I could hope to...

Sure sounds terrible, doesn't it. Of course, Wizards of the Coast did NOT make the announcement Mxyzplk claims they did.

Instead, a publisher posted on one of the www.enworld.org forums that he had had a conversation with someone at WotC and that this was his understanding of what the new license does. The individuals at WotC who responded did make comments that suggest that such a policy may be part of their new GSL, however there have also been indications that they are backing away from that position. Of course, since no one has actually seen the new license, no one knows precisely what is permitted and prohibited.

An announcement is expected today, which should clarify the issue.

Of course, if anyone cares to show me that I'm wrong, I'll be all too ready to run in circles screaming.

Oh, also, wasn't there some 2E clone that existed solely as a brand 3rd party publishers could market their products as compatible to? Or did I just imagine this?