Hope I'm not scooped on this, but I ran across it on EN World and have copied the link here. Some pretty interesting speculation to consider.

http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/02/open-gaming-licenses-past-present-and.html

QuoteSaturday, February 02, 2008
Open Gaming Licenses: Past, Present, and Future
Warning: This post has a lot of talk about RPGs, business, and licensing and thus may be baffling and/or tedious for some of you. If this type of thing is not of interest, you probably want to just skip it.

These are interesting times for companies that make use of the Open Game License. While many games have now been released under the OGL, the big one has always been Dungeons & Dragons. I had been pretty sure that WotC would just close off 4th edition, but was surprised to hear in August that they intended to release it under the OGL. Their specific plan was murky until last month, when they announced a two-stage rollout. Companies could publish starting in August if they bought a development kit for $5,000. Otherwise, no publishing for 4E by third parties until January of next year. The actual details of the new OGL remained unknown though. Green Ronin and many other companies signed NDAs and waited for WotC to deliver the new license for review.

That wait continues, but an interesting fact came out this week. This new license is not going to be called the Open Game License, but rather the Game System License. From previous discussions with WotC, it had already become clear that the new license would be more restrictive than the old one. This move confirms it. It sounds like the new license will not be the next iteration of the OGL but a completely new license. This makes it clear that WotC had some issues with the previous OGL and is trying to learn from previous experience. So what are those issues?

1. Stand Alone Games Don't Help WotC
In the early days of the OGL, everyone used the d20 logo and that prevented the creation of stand-alone products. If you wanted to use the d20 logo, you had to point back to the D&D Player's Handbook (or later, other WotC core books). At the time publishers thought you had to have the logo to make a successful product. Then variant games like Mutants & Masterminds and True20 Adventure Roleplaying began to appear. These games built off the SRD but became games in their own right. One of the stated goals of the OGL was to help WotC sell core rulebooks. If people are buying stand-alone games, that doesn't help to sell WotC's books. We've already heard that the new license won't allow such games any more, though it cannot prevent the continuation of games already on the market. This is an understandable move on their part, though one could argue that some of the most innovative design work of the d20 era happened in those very games and that GSL restrictions may not lead to the same advancement of the state of the art.

2. The License Should Be About D&D Support
When Ryan Dancey was selling the idea of the OGL at WotC in 1999, one of his points that was third party publishers could provide support for D&D in areas that WotC itself had difficulty doing so profitably (most notably adventures). There was indeed a wave of adventure products, led by Death in Freeport and Three Days to Kill. Soon third party companies started taking on bigger projects and expanding out into sourcebook territory. Then they ranged farther still, into genres that had little to do with swords and sorcery. Several years later Charles Ryan, then in charge of the D&D brand, said that WotC was going to start doing more adventures because the third party companies weren't providing the type of support WotC had originally envisioned. The GSL will thus be more explicitly about supporting D&D. There may be limits on the types of products allowed, similar to the "no miniatures" provision of the old d20 STL.

3. Strip Mining is Bad for the Environment
With the original OGL WotC put up something called the System Reference Document, which contained most of the rules for D&D. It could be copied or modified by use of the OGL. People asked if it could be republished as is, and in a FAQ WotC replied that those who thought they could make money doing so were welcome to try. I doubt anyone really thought that people would but naturally this is exactly what happened. There were "pocket" and various PDF versions of D&D core books published by other companies, and some companies saw their own books re-released by other publishers as well. An ex-Guardians of Order employee recently noted, for example, that "within days of d20 Mecha coming out and being released on SRD, other companies were selling clones of the product, sometimes with better production values..."

Another thing that happened was that some open game content was taken from its original products and given away for free on various websites. This is legal under the original OGL but it was a development that many publishers weren't so happy about. They were, of course, trying to make money from their work and someone else giving it away for nothing was not considered helpful. One example of this that has cropped up a lot in recent conversation is what happened with GR's True20 game. The True20 rules originally appeared in the Blue Rose game and we eventually decided to release them on their own as a more generic rule set. Before the True20 core book was even released, we were queried by someone who had taken all the rules out of Blue Rose and wanted to give them away on his website as a True20 SRD. We answered that if we wanted there to be a True20 SRD, we'd do one ourselves. With our core book not even out, we really were not hot on the rules being given out for free. He agreed not to make the site public for a year but since then the rules have indeed been available. We took no hostile action in this case. We were asked a question and we gave our opinion. We did not try to impede the effort, we sent no cease and desist letter, we didn't pillory the guy on the internet. Nonetheless, other folks have accused of all sorts of things, from working against "the spirit of open gaming" to being big bullies to benefiting from the OGL without giving back. One designer (ironically enough, a WotC employee) even accused us of using "ignorant and deceitful tactics". This despite the reams of OGC we've released, the sharing of content between us and other publishers, and the entire M&M Superlink program that lets companies publish branded material compatible with our best selling game for nothing.

I don't think it's too surprising then to hear that WotC has some different plans this time around. The SRD will more of a reference guide that lets you know what's open without putting text files of the rules up. They have said that the new license will be designed to encourage creative extensions of D&D rather than the wholesale reprinting of OGC. I will be curious to see if the GSL also has something to say about the giving away of open content on the internet.

4. Did We Say Perpetuity?
The original OGL is forever. It can be updated but it can't be revoked. I'm sure this is a big reason why the Game System License will be released as a brand new thing, rather than an update of the existing OGL. What sounds good now maybe doesn't sound so good 8 years down the line.

The thing I'm really interested to find out is whether the GSL will have a clause that forbids its use with the OGL. I think this is entirely possible. It would the mean that you couldn't take previously released OGC and use it in a book released under the GSL. A book like the already announced Tome of Horrors 4th edition would not be possible under this restriction. This would make things clean and easy for WotC, but would probably cause a lot of chaos in the world of third party publishing.


Clearly many changes are in the wind. Until we see the Game System License we won't know all of them for sure. No matter what I'm positive publishing under the original OGL will continue (that's how we'll do M&M and True20, for example). A year from now the publishing landscape will likely be quite different though. I think the big question is whether any of the prominent third party publishers will decide to just skip 4E and the GSL and continue to publish 3.5 material. I think Paizo is best positioned to pull this off but it would be a gamble for sure. As for WotC I guess I continue to be surprised they are making this attempt at all. I seriously wouldn't blame them for saying, "This is a huge headache with few tangible benefits for us, so 4E will not support 3rd party publishing."

So far 2008 has been nothing if not interesting in the world of RPG publishing.

by Chris Pramas

I see some... interesting thinking in that.

It almost seems like sycophantic support... interesting for a company that made their big dough in exactly the ways the new game license is meant to prevent.

Then again, I may be biased against the pram....

I believe parts of it have been quoted in another thread. But not the whole thing.

What a fat load of shit.  Rampant self-aggrandizement, product name dropping, and baseless speculation.  This is about the most worthless piece written about 4e I've ever seen.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhat a fat load of shit.  Rampant self-aggrandizement, product name dropping, and baseless speculation.  This is about the most worthless piece written about 4e I've ever seen.

Yeah, I haven't bothered to check RPGPundit's blog either. :pundit:

QuoteAs for WotC I guess I continue to be surprised they are making this attempt at all. I seriously wouldn't blame them for saying, "This is a huge headache with few tangible benefits for us, so 4E will not support 3rd party publishing."

It seems pretty obvious to me why WotC would. If they don't entice the more popular 3rd party items forward to 4e then those 3rd party books and companies will be actively working against customer migration 4e.

Quote from: blakkieIt seems pretty obvious to me why WotC would. If they don't entice the more popular 3rd party items forward to 4e then those 3rd party books and companies will be actively working against customer migration 4e.

Gah... I chose discretion over valor and edited out my comment about short sighted... now I can't elude to it when I make this post!

The thing about all those other guys putting out your stuff? Sure you don't make any (much?) money from them, but it does add greatly to brand recognition.  That adds customers. While the OGL may have been too wide open (and that's an 'if' statement) this pean to the new one seems to be in utter ignorance of the value... particularly to the smaller remora companies like  Green Ronin... of third party guys grunting out supplements and modules that you can't or won't put out.

Quote from: jeff37923Hope I'm not scooped on this, but I ran across it on EN World and have copied the link here. Some pretty interesting speculation to consider.

http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/02/open-gaming-licenses-past-present-and.html

I totally scooped you on this.

BTW -- he's talking about John Kim and Mike Mearls.  This post is largely in response to this one on John's blog:  http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/67263.html

Quote from: StuartI totally scooped you on this.

Curses! Scooped again!

This now just looks like some blogosphere snarkiness between these three guys.

Let's play a little what-if.

What-if WoTC released D&D 3.X without an open license. What would be the gaming industry be like today?

My opinion is that the vast majority of people we see making products would not be even on the radar. That much of the team the later 3.5 products and behind 4th Edition wouldn't even be doing what they are doing now, particularly Mike Mearls.

I feel that the SRD wasn't solely or even largely responsible for 3.X success. However where it had a clear impact was in the pool of D&D designer WoTC could draw on. It funneled some of the energy that would have gone into making alternative RPGs into making D&D compatible. It also gave opportunities for people who would have never gotten into the RPG industry to make a mark.

With no SRD, I don't think that WOTC's quality of output would have been that different. However the ease and cost of finding better designers considerably dropped as with the SRD there is a large pool of people with experience making D&D products.

The a way to examine my theory is look at the old WoTC staff, the staff throughout 3.0 and 3.5 run and the current staff and see how many of them originated in writing OGL products.

If I am right then the OGL has had more benefits beyond the initial goals of Ryan Dancey.  That a more restrictive license may hurt WoTC by shrinking the pool of people developing for current version of D&D.  While the goals outlined for a more restrictive license may SEEM like common sense. There are other side effects of the OGL that are beneficial for WoTC that they don't consider.

Plus when you look at the 4th Edition team it seems odd that they would advocate a more restrictive license, maybe even a bit unethical.

"Oh I benefited from the OGL by making my cool products. Now that I have in with Wizards I am just close it up so you can't benefit like I did from the next edition."

I find it funny that for the last two years I've been telling people that WotC would close off 4e a lot more and  a bunch of people called me an idiot.

Quote from: estarIf I am right then the OGL has had more benefits beyond the initial goals of Ryan Dancey.  That a more restrictive license may hurt WoTC by shrinking the pool of people developing for current version of D&D.  While the goals outlined for a more restrictive license may SEEM like common sense. There are other side effects of the OGL that are beneficial for WoTC that they don't consider.

I suspect you're right.  The aim of the GSL seems to be to capture as much as possible of the existing RPG market by preventing competition.  That's a zero-sum approach.  But the RPG market is tiny.  Enhancing the quality and range of offerings and support could grow the entire market, benefiting everybody - especially WoTC.  I wouldn't be surprised if the OGL had this effect, but that it's hard to measure so has been discounted by those who run the numbers.

I'm sure some folks here will disagree with me, saying that the volume of low quality me-too products dragged everyone down.  They could be right:  maybe bad experiences put off potential gamers, maybe the homogeneity of the system (which I don't really like) has been bad for gaming, or maybe the pain caused by the boom and subsequent bust was too great.  My impression, however, is that these were growing pains unlikely to be repeated, and there have since been quite a few excellent OGL games.

Addendum:  I see evidence that the OGL could benefit the market as a whole in an anecdote in Chris Pramas's article:  "within days of d20 Mecha coming out and being released on SRD, other companies were selling clones of the product, sometimes with better production values...".  That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me - even for WoTC.

Quote from: estarPlus when you look at the 4th Edition team it seems odd that they would advocate a more restrictive license, maybe even a bit unethical.
 
"Oh I benefited from the OGL by making my cool products. Now that I have in with Wizards I am just close it up so you can't benefit like I did from the next edition."

That's assuming that the designers and the license writers are the same people, which they're probably not.  
 
One possible interpretation of the new license is "When we bought WOTC, we didn't realize the extent that Dancey screwed us.  The intended and actual effects of the license were quite different.  We're going to be more careful this time."

I suspect that at least part of this is Chris Pramas jockying to try keep his old business model as much intact as he can and also influence the conditions that his business operates under. Just like any other business owner. Since the GSL is not completed yet.

The name of the person that is working on the GSL has been given although I don't remember it and I forget his job position at WotC. Plus there is probably is at least one attorny that vets it.

Quote from: blakkieI suspect that at least part of this is Chris Pramas jockying to try keep his old business model as much intact as he can and also influence the conditions that his business operates under.

I don't know about that.  Pramas has been taking GR more in the direction of standalone OGL games that aren't dependent on the d20/D&D brand, ever since the 3.5 release shitstorm.  I don't think a more restrictive GSL really affects that one way or the other.

KoOS