vance's page

Well if we're going to take points of light as an ownable phrase, doesn't that mean President GHW Bush coined it?

Actually it was his dad, wasn't it? I remember it being an 'end to the cold war' thing...

I can't remember who wrote the articles, but Paizo published them and edited them (IIRC), so its not just WotC that has done this kind of thing before. And I'm not trying to defend WotC, I'm just saying that even the best companies (like Paizo) can make mistakes at times and they can't please everybody.

Paizo published them under WotC's rules and edicts... so..

Vance, do you have a source on this?

Just conversation with the smattering of people that I still know at Hasbro. (Oddly enough, the ones I know are largely in legal.. most the rest moved on years ago). It's no secret, I'm sure that anyone at Hasbro would say the same thing - as a subsidary, WotC's primary marching orders are 'make us money'!

Those are valid criticisms, assuming the ahh... coloful... comments were about legal quality instead of content. Given the mix, I'd bet some were unhappy for personal reasons in addition to professional ones.

It was an interesting mix. One of them was a WotC fanboi of the worst sort, but even he agreed that I shouldn't sign on to the GSL. The most ... colorful response is decidedly not a gamer, though, but a commodoties broker expert that I knew in high school.

Bastage could buy WotC OUTRIGHT if he wanted. Granted, he wouldn't know what to do with it.

In general, it's a good idea to watch Sebastian, he's subtle sometimes in a whole other level. Doesn't mean he's always right, but he's fairly perceptive and knows how to craft an argument when he wants to.

I think he wanted to 'win', too much. I guess some habits are hard to break, nae? :)

BTW, Vance, consider this a very belated "Welcome to the Boards." It's been a pleasure discussing this with you.

A pleasure. I'm happy, and surprised, at how civil all of this mostly has been. It's allowed me to explore this much more fully than I had been able to until now.

Maybe, but out of curiosity just how many of those lawyers were actual gamers? I'd imagine some of the terms we use, and commonly understand, as gamers might appear to some non-gamer lawyers as confusing as "legalize" looks to non-lawyers. Additionally, did they see it or rely on a representation of what the terms were. If the first, then thats fine. If the second, they might never want to do that again without upping malpractice insurance...

They were about half gamers, half not.. roughly? A couple I'm not sure about, of course. Most of their complaints, though, had more to do with organization, unclear sections, etc. They ranged from 'needs another pass' to phrasing I can't repeat here.

1st, was the "freshprince said" intentional?

Yes, but it's just me annoyed with block quoting here, not your name really.

2nd, I'd say which version of the OGL is also moot because they would all be affected by the use/acceptance of the GSL. Besides, as Sebastian pointed out, there is a specific definition in the GSL. So this part of our discussion is also moot.

Yep, he wins that one. :) I didn't remember it being defined.

I'll agree that some of the phrasing is problematic, but I still have to disagree with your point about the use of such terms and the quality of their lawyers.

I dunno... a lot of lawyers I've talked to were amazed by how badly written it was. Granted, it's a matter purely of opinion, but I can't believe that something that took eight months came out like this.

As for terms, I'll try to look up the "interactive product" reference later and chime back in. But for "OGL," what possible interpetation could you give those three letters that would make sense in the context they are used other than Open Game License? That one I'm afraid is less than ambigious.

Well, you could argue OGL versions, or even WHICH OGL , since there's more than one now. If you want to be completely snarky, OGL also refers to some graphic rendering engines...

Not that Sebastian needs any help, but even a basic review of contract law can reveals that using industry related terms in a contract is not fatal to the contract.

Not fatal, just problematic at points, particularly when a term can have multiple meanings within the industry, such as 'interactive product' or even 'OGL'. Again, it's WotC that gets to define the terms used, though.

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like they can't literally claim "silence" as acceptance.

Again, it's the point I've been trying to make. Wotc can claim whatever they like. The burden is on the licensor, which means legal fees, and all that bit. The point isn't that WotC is RIGHT in the suit, but that most 3PP can't afford to fight it.

For printed books, I wonder if there's a legal definition of "publication" and "distribution" that would apply, and how easy those activities are to stop on a dime.

I can't imagine that they could demand 'yesterday' as fair for a breach. But, again, they could claim it, and you would have to fight it. That's really what WotC seems to be banking on with this.

The cycle is complete.

That said, look at a drider. Not in stats--but in terms of art. They are beautiful, powerful creatures. I like the idea of that being spun into a kind of evil divine champion character. Certainly do not take that that I don't like vile curses or that I try to turn everything into happy sunshine or a nice combat bennie. I LOVE dark awful...

The art's never matched what a Drider is described as. (And, again, cite the sourcebooks for Menzorbaranzan, etc, for what I'm talking about). And, sure, it's your perview as a DM to rewrite the background to make the Drider a 'chosen one' or something...

But, really, that's not the issue. The issue is 'playing to cool stats', which makes me ill. The guys wouldn't care WHAT the backstory is, because they're only interested in the hacky-slashy value.

what do you think?

Looks more 'raw' than 'previewy'... there's stuff missing, not filled out, etc. So it likely hasn't gotten it's final pass yet.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Well, the art on the other aspects are muchly improved.

The DDIC is an article lookup, which isn't a bad idea (and, certainly, something many people clamoured for). Useful at the gaming table, but you gotta have your laptop for that. :)

I don't see that here. I doubt that anyone here is naive enough to believe that wizards cares about their fans. Some of the authors, maybe. Maybe even all of them. I don't know. I do know that the company as a whole doesn't.

I don't know, I've seen a lot more fanboi defense of 4E and the GSL's shortcomings than I thought were possible. It's actually one reason I came out to look around here, to see if the support had more traction than fanboism.

To be fair, there has been a lot more 'real' support for 4E here than I expected. The GSL... well, no... no one can really defend that. :P

How can you use a safe word with a ball gag in your mouth?

And once again I learn more about my fellow gamers than I ever really wished!

Sebastian wrote:

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Please quit.

Bet you miss me as your arch-nemesis.

Well, keep in mind that, as a lawyer, he's only right 50 percent of the time on average. :)

Silence is only acceptance in very very very limited circumtances. I can't just say "vance, if you don't respond negatively, you owe me $500 for my thoughts on the GSL."

But they can claim it, and you are forced into a legal situation as described above. Whether or not they should win a court case is moot, since, again, most 3PP can't afford to go to Washington State to aribtrate this anyway - something I'm sure that they were fully aware of.

You are completely wrong. The GSL is a very well drafted legal document which obviously used a serious amount of legal reasoning. It is a high quality piece of legal work and is designed to allow WotC to amend it within the confines of the law.

If you mean it as 'it was written by weasels', I might agree with you.

But there are too many blatant contradictions, too many 'game-community' specific phrases, too many examples just outright-wrong language (interactive products?!) used, that I just can't believe that it was really vetted by a responsible attorney. Nevermind how it works when combined with the SoA and the new SRD.

Of course, that's purely a matter of opinion.

I had a wonderfully brilliant post here that seems to have not made it. Really, it was so brilliant that all of you would be in awe of my greatness. But, sadly, it's gone.

Suffice to say, my chief objection was the idea that the 'stats were so cool it's worth it' while simultaneously ignoring the actual RP effects within the setting. It's a trend of Dungeons and Dragons play that I really think hurts the industry as a whole, reducing it to a numbers urinal game.

It's like Phoenix Wright: RPG Attorney.

Objection!

*draws a little circle around Karui*

Yes. They can. But you can choose to cease publication and not be bound by them. Period.

Except for their claim on material you had under GSL not being transferrable (currently listed on only OGL work, which is a bit laughable in definition anyway). That's the real lingering issue.

In most cases, we seem to be in agreement, but you seem to be arguing semantics in order to argue semantics. I'm merely stating what was explained to me in my own words - from my own experience. I'm not speaking as a laywer, since I'm clearly not one.

You fail to appreciate the scope of what I am discussing. The fact that you need consent to form a contract is not some murky backwater of common law, it is a fundamental aspect of contract law.

Again, the problem is that WotC has defined consent for you, with the 'statement of acceptance'. I don't know Washington's contract laws to know if that's enough, though I do know that in Indiana that you really can't have a 'statement of acceptance' that's seperate from the contract you're accepting, for obvious reasons...

At the end of the day, I still stand by my original assessment of this GSL, that it was vetted mostly by marketing and barely saw a legal review over it. Indeed, it seems to be a marketing guru's wet dream, but an insanely bad contract and legal document.

On a side note I know very little about copyright law (well law in general) But I did run this past a friend of mine who is training to be a lawyer (taking the bar exam in a couple of months) and he agreed with most of the points that Sebastian has made.

Well, I've not only run this by my own attorneys, but also WotC's. Yes, I went that far, in order to learn intent with this license. WotC is pretty convinced that they can, indeed, rewrite terms at any time and it's up to the licensor to keep up.

The point that Sebastian consistantly ignores is that the contract stands as is until it's legally challenged somehow. And, you've already agreed to sign off the challenge to anything but arbitration in the State of Washington, WotC's preferred turf. So, you have to challenge, paying court costs and legal fees, on WotC's field advantage.

And, despite Sebastian's assertions, civil law isn't all that clear cut. Even though there is much about this GSL that I wouldn't think stand (particularly once it's amended), I couldn't guarantee it, and nor could he. It's up to whatever the arbitrator would consider 'reasonable', and WotC can and fill farm for one that is likely to side with them.

Try actually reading what I have said about the GSL, both in my post just above this and in the earlier pages of this thread. You are as incorrect in your characterization of my position as you are in your characterization of the law.

Well, at least you admitted that the GSL is a bad license, which is some progress. But, yes, you do seem to want to have a lot both ways legally on it - which I'll take as proof that you passed the bar. :)

But, I'll easily take my slightly more 'paranoid' interpretation of this contract and what it implies, knowing full well that the majority of people who are being asked to sign it cannot afford the court costs invovled to defend themsleves, then proceed on 'faith' on how things are 'supposed' to work.

I've seen the spirit of the law fail far too many times in my life.

Vance - you showed up on these messageboards just a few days ago and you have almost 70 posts now. From what I understand, you are currently writing for (or are employed by) wotc? Also, it is appearing like you might be angry with wotc and hostile toward Sebastian and others who defend wotc.

It's a bad license, but I don't have MUCH personal stake in it as does quite a few people I know (and this does effect some of my projects, yes). Unfortunately I cannot get into specifics for things I'm doing for people using 4E and the GSL. For my own part, I'm just going to another OGL form and having done with.

But Sebastian is trying to the reading of the GSL both ways, which annoys me, yes. That's really it. In my view, he's, at best, trying to spin the GSL as something that's a good idea for people to sign onto, while simultaneously saying 'don't worry about the questionable parts, they can't hurt you'.

Since Sebastian is so 'in the tank' for WotC, I question his motives for his reading of the GSL and the 'advice' that he gives.

Sebastian, you're the one trying to have it both ways.

The GSL says things, which you say are 'right and good' one the one hand, then promptly say 'it can't be enforceable' when it's pointed out that the terms of the GSL can screw you over.

So, which is it? Is the GSL remotely enforceable, or not?

I actually suspect 'not', but that the majority of 3PP will not be able to pay for the civil court costs.

This is all pure speculation on my part. But having gone to the trouble of drawing up that GSL, the only options I see left in the minds of the Hasbro executives are to cave in and offer a slightly more liberal GSL, so that they can at least try to regulate these publishers, or to go to court.

Again, according to Hasbro, this is pretty much all WotC's doing. Hasbro's only edict was that WotC get to profitability.

You started with the statement that a contract for sexual slavery was enforceable. I corrected you.

You're still wrong, as has been pointed out. Largely because the concept of 'sexual slavery' isn't the same as true slavery as defined in the Constitution.

You then stated that only contracts that required the violation of criminal laws were unenforceable.

No, remove the word 'only'. But if there's a civil agreement where all parties go in knowingly, it's pretty difficult to break unless something truly egregious happened. And, in that case, it's in the courts and - as I said - most 3PP will not have the funds to go to compete.

Remind me again which bar you passed?

I didn't. But I did hire people specifically for this issue for my own purposes. I have much more reason to trust an actual contract attorney than someone online who claims to be one, but seems a lot more interested in siding with WotC above all else.

Again, you're wrong. Contracts require mutual agreement, and an amendment to a contract is itself a contract.

You're right, except that you're wrong. WotC wrote in a clause that allowed them to make changes at will, and apply them retroactively to stock that's already existed. You can be found in violation as a grandfather clause. That's explicit in the GSL.

And, keep in mind, the terms of acceptance is a seperate form, and is not, at all, dependant on any actual use of the GSL's covered properties. Your acceptance is explicit by signature, not if you're putting out GSL product or not.

Uh...yeah...I know the difference between criminal and civil law, thanks. And you're still wrong. Contracts that are against public policy are unenforceable.

And 'public policy' is a pretty debatable point, isn't it? There's no such legal beast that I'm aware of. At any rate, lack of enforcement is not proof of law, and you honestly should know better than to try to make that claim.

And criminal law cannot and does not trump the Constitution.

I don't believe I ever said that. Rather odd that you read into it. The idea being that you cannot have a civil contract be enforceable that requires a criminal act. Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Cause, at that point, I would like to know where you passed the bar. :P

That's not how bad faith works and that's not the effect bad faith has on the enforcement of a contract. And, if they amend the GSL, as I already pointed out, you can choose not to accept that amendment by not selling any further GSL products.

Except that the GSL's 'opt-out' clause is questionable, and can apply retroactively, as explicitly stated. Is it defensible in court? Perhaps not. Will most 3PP be able to afford finding out? No.

There's an interesting question here, but a little difficult to answer because the INTENT of the question is a little vague.

Would 4E been as accepted if it hadn't been NAMED "Dungeons and Dragons"? The answer to that is, of course, no. There's been a number of other fantasy games out there that, while arguably superior, never achived the sucees due to the name.

Is 4E divergenet enough that it's no longer the D&D game that it once was? The answer could be argued 'yes' here, since many of the core concepts and mechanics to the game have been radically altered. It is, as WotC admitted, a different and non-compatible game.

Uh...no they don't. A contract to be a sexual slave is uneforceable due to the 13th Amendment.

If there's actual criminal content, then, no, criminal law actually trumps that. (And, I believe the case I'm thinking of specifically addressed that issue). But Copyright and Trademark law are not criminal law, but civil... so long as the contract itself, of course, doesn't contain or require criminal acts, you're pretty much screwed.

If they revised it to say that by selling a product using their IP, you thereby surrender your home, your future income, and your pet cocker spaniel, Checkers, they're going to have a really hard time convincing a court to go along with that change.

At that point there's a case for 'bad faith' which could nullify the intent of the contract, of course. But, at this point, them saying 'you agreed that game X was going to be GSL only... we simply rewrote the terms to say that more explicitly', and they've got the issue on their side, because it's 'fairly reasonable' and not much of a logical extension of the existing GSL.

Maybe an individual drow might not like to lose their sanity, free will and intelligence, but it sounds like a perfect minion for Lolth, and a prized member of any Drow household to me.

Well, the houses and Lolth DO use them as minions. Again, do you guys not actually read the source material. Seriously, there's a few novels on the subject... you may have heard of them.

But the argument here is "I'm a better twink in combat, why is this a bad thing" I find repugnant. I'm sorry if you're offended, but I'm offended by the constant 'dumbing down' of role-playing background into nothing more than an endless series of combat advantages.

The fact that several people would see, for their own characters, becoming a Drider as a GOOD THING because 'now I can kick more ass!' very much proves my point and also gets no sympathy from me.

As others have pointed out, however, it is very difficult to actually sign away your rights.

That's what a contract DOES, guy. And, yes, even those 'sexual slave' contracts hold up in court if there was fair consent to begin with. If you know full well what you're getting into with such a contract, and you sign it anyway, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes around to bite you.

I give up though, seems like the whole counter-argument really is 'But it's WOTC! They would never DO that! They love us! We're their FANS! The GSL cannot be as bad as lawyers and other companies say it is!"

It just proves my point, fanbois make the worst businessmen.

True, but if you already have a successful line in another non-OGL system, you can convert it to 4E. If they don't like you still selling in your other system they'll deny/revoke your license at some point, but you can still continue to sell your own material in your own system, as far as I can tell.

Until such time as they tell you that you can't... and they don't even have to inform you of such a change... and they can apply 'damages' retroactively to when you signed on the GSL.

Exactly! From the beginning I wondered how this could be seen as a curse!

You know, some of you guys really do scare me. Do you REALLY think that losing most of your intelligence, most of your instict, and your very soul is a fair trade to be turned into a slightly more efficient killing machine?

Gods, some of you remind me of why I so dislike so many D&D players... Seriously it's the only game where such a curse would be thought of as POSITIVE character development.

The joys of non-lawyers debating law. I think Teiren's right on his point, but have no way to back him up. Try pulling a lawyer in here to settle the dispute.

Lawyers here have ALREADY commented on the GSL, and it's been resoundingly negative. Again, the issue is that WotC is free to change any terms they want and apply them retroactively, including the redress they can claim if they find you in breach.

As it stands at this moment, they can simply prevent you from ever producing your material in any OGL format. But they can also expand that restriction at their leisure, and again apply that retroactively. So, for instance, they can ban a 'GURPS' version at a future date, and retroactively punish anyone who moved on to GURPS. (As an example).

And, by signing on the dotted line, you've agreed to it.

No, dude, they can not! That is not at all what the GSL says. They do not gain control over what you publish or do not publish outside of the GSL and OGL.

Yes, they bloody well can. You sign away your rights to abritration to anything but a judge on WotC's court. They get to declare, at their leisure what is a violation and also what the remedies are. They can change the terms at any time, without your consent as well, so even if it doesn't explicitly say it now, it definately can.. again, at WotC's leisure.

That's why so many people hitched thier wagon to the OGL, and why many are going to do the same with the GSL.

Actually, judging from nearly every single post from people who actually ARE going to publish, the GSL seems to be a death kneel. Even Necromancer games is only going to put up 'second tier' material for it.

I understand that you're a huge fan of 4E and of WotC... but that's got no bearing on whether or not this agreement makes sense to sign on to. In point of fact, considering the miniscule benefit you get from it, and the draconian one-sided measures for WotC's favor you sign on to, it's one of the most rediculous contracts to have ever been peened.

That's not what I call a punishment. I still say the best punishment would be turning th drow into a normal looking elf.

At the cost of their sanity, their willpower, and their Drowness? She reduces them to beasts.

Again, do you guys not read the source material?

As Grimcleaver mentioned, why would a punishment be to make the victim MORE like herself.

Lolth is an angry b##!*-goddess, explicitly so. She does not consider her 'drider' physical form perfection at all, but a terror to cause fear with dissenters. Her preferred form is that of an ageless beautiful Drow matron.

Seriously, you guys not read the background material?

No, you simply can't produce that IP under the OGL. That's all it says. Not "you can never print something with this IP again." Just that you agree not use the OGL. And guess what? Most roleplaying books are not produced under the OGL.

But you're missing a big point. WotC can later turn around and say that - no - you can't publish that game as a d6 version, or your own 'house' system either. And they can apply to just you, because you've given them that right.

Will they do it? Tough to say. But, you don't think for a minute that WotC wouldn't delight at the chance to permanenly kill Vampire, Shadowrun, et al, by abusing the power of the GSL?

vance wrote:

Nope. Drow predates WotC and TSR by hundreds of years. Now, the specific spider-worshipping dominatrix-queen ... thing.. they've got going on? Yeah, those are WotC now.

Except for the ones that aren't...WotC, that is.

Meaning that you can't use the exact Forgotten Realms version of Drow, of course, with all their references and everything intact. But, Drows as evil elves with dark skin, etc, most certainly is allowable.

Well, I was doing it anyway in 3.5 - what does that make me?

Algebraically challenged. :)

That said, I do prefer the idea of driders being elite drow, I really liked it when the idea was presented in Eberron.

And I wonder why more people aren't thinking on that...

And, on the other side, people buy books they never use in a game, RPGs they never play. I know I have.

I never play GURPS, but I've got a ton of the books because they're great background material. So how I would fit in that final group? I wouldn't. I think there's a lot of 2-5K groups out there with a couple of products' of overlap between them.. but not 5K total.

In a world where a diagonal equals '1' then a cone is no longer cone shaped, if it was then then when you cast your cone of cold it would go further along its edges then straight ahead.

This is -not- a selling point for the mechanics, you know. the 'diagonal equals one' rule is a laughable example of rules determined by 'marketing' who thinks that players are stupid...

Razz wrote:

4E truly is just another "hype" that will die down as quickly as Pokemon did.

William Pall wrote:

Uh, Razz... the popularity of Pokémon is still striving and hasn't died down in the slightest.

Then I guess Razz is probably right :)

Yeah.. Pokemon is just as popular as it was in 2000...

Man, I wish I was you guys' used car dealer. There's no way that you can even PRETEND that Pokemon is as powerful as a brand as it once was.

Remember, you're entitled to your own opinons, but NOT your own facts.

HEya, Urza.. long time no see.. remember LON? :P

Anyway, yeah, does sound like the '4E/OGL' crowd is already firing shots across the bow. I expected this, honestly, and surprised that WotC didn't think it was going to be possible, or that many people wouldn't think it was a BETTER idea than to sign on the GSL and only get a small logo box on the back of your book.

Which works better? A small 'd20 System' logo in black on yellow at 1/2' high on the back of the book, or saying '4E' in any frickin' way you want to?

I'm happy I could help on at least one subject. =)

And it's appreciated. :) I'll likely wait until Monday to do another pass and see what more I can accomplish. The sudden 'wall' that I ran into took a lot of my creative drive right out of me.

Actually, having been two weeks now, I would be surprised if somewhere out there, a basement session is, at this very moment, wrapping up its 30 level campaign...

"Make a ranged attack against the target, ignoring cover; additionally, make a ranged attack against every creature that would provide cover to the target."

That's actually not a bad idea, and sticks to the GSL, which suits my purposes. So that's one down. :)

Not really. Handling all kinds of area of effect by a videogame is trivial.

Yes, but we're talking about the DDI. Remember, these are the same guys that bragged about 3D models which would embarass the SNES not too long ago, and are nearly a full year late in producing a character generator. I can fully believe that it's past their ability to map a cone over a tile-based map.

The ones who have difficulty with it are people. Maybe making everything "bursts", "blasts" and "walls" were an oversimplification, but with them, you will never discuss with your DM if an target is within an area of effect or not.

I'm not so sure that 'close burst' is any more or less mentally visual as 'cone' or , for heavens' sake, 'line'. Honestly, is it THAT hard to use a string or the edge of a piece of paper? :)

There are spells which last for the entire encounter or 5 minutes. I like the ongoing effect system because it makes combat more unpredictable, rather than "Forget that guy, I stunned him for 7 rounds".

How is it unpredictable if it's always the same effect and will guaranteed last until the end of the encounter?

Oooh. You might want to sit down for this: TSR acquired the Role Aids IP from Mayfair, so that means that Wizards owns it now. Sorry....

The 'Role Aids' trade-mark hasn't been used in ages... I don't see why someone couldn't start up a NEW line, since TSR simply let it die well before WotC even took it over. It's true that they own the old books... but the brand is long dead, legally.

Use ranged attacks, or multiple ranged atacks.

A seperate ranged attack for every single square/target between 'caster' and 'end target'? There's got to be a better way to handle that...

I do appreciate the help. I'm just really trying to hash this out.

a. Cone Effects: Close Blast X

The problem is that a lot of the cone effects I'm looking at have LONG ranges. Close Blast 20 ... doesn't work.

c. Ongoing x (save ends, after first save x happens, after second save y happens)

Unfortunately, that requires a new mechanic. And we're not seeing any new ones until August, I'm guessing.

Anyway, on your first point, I have serious doubts that cones were dropped due to DDI.

While you're right that this should be easy to program, from what I've seen of the DDI, I can see why it's not working. The engine is completely based on a 'square by square' mindset.. cones, and lines, and other things which 'break the square' just aren't possible in it by it's current design.

Sadly, this news was confirmed to me twice over by people who do very much know. (And, yes, it's sad, I worked on video games myself awhile back... cones are not tough concepts, even mapping cones to tiles.)

On the last, a fixed duration conflicts directly with their desire to have encounter-duration spells. Actually, that is an answer you could use to substitute for a duration - until end of encounter.

True, and that'll have to do for some effects. Just feels like an 'RP breaker', though. And what about 'buffs' that are cast BEFORE the encounter? I'm still stuck there.

(Fixed quote attributes)

Hasbro probably dedicates a whole couple of executives to watchdogging it, I'd guess. Of course, that's just my guess.

It's more a matter of scale. They may have an exec and a lawyer for certain cases, but when the Indiana Jones Monopoly game BY ITSELF pushes at WotC's numbers... you gotta think WotC's not mattering a whole lot to them in the big picture. Certainly not enough for Hasbro execs to dictate the GSL.