This is Mike Lescault's interview on EnWorld about the polemical GSL clause that prevented 3PPs from publishing for GSL and OGL at the same time.
The good news: Publishers will be able to make products for D&D 4E GSL and OGL at the same time, as long as they keep separate product lines for each license.
The not so good news: The GSL will be revocable, as already expected.
For who who can't access it:
A. It’s not a “poison pill.” It’s a conversion clause. The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products. The d20 GSL, which will come out at an undetermined point in the near future, will be for non-fantasy genres such as Modern, Future, etc. Publishers will be able to decide on a product line by product line basis which license will work best for them.
Q. Does the GSL contain provisions to prevent a secondary, sister or subsidiary company being created in order to distribute products under the OGL?
A. There are no restrictions prohibiting the formation of partnerships or subsidiaries, however companies will be bound by the product line declaration under the Game System License.
Q. How much of WotC's IP is made available via the GSL? Creatures such as beholders and illithids were not available under the old licensing structure. Will they be available under the new structure?
A. All of those details will be released when the license becomes available on June 6.
Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?
A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I’m guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publishers to make Adventures, “Fluff,” Campaign settings, Alternate Classes, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products.
Q. What are WotC’s main goals regarding the GSL? Do you believe that third-party products will drive sales of the D&D core rulebooks?
A. The goals with the GSL include supporting our product line, growing the industry, and supplying consumers with a rich offering of RPG products meant to be used with the 4th Edition of D&D . And, of course, we want to drive sales of the D&D core rulebooks.
On behalf of Russell Morrissey and all of EN World, thank you for the opportunity to hold this interview.
Q) Many questions have been raised since the announcement last week. I think the one question everyone wants to know is: is the limitation the GSL places on publication of OGL based products limited on a "per company" basis or a "per product" basis? That is, is the effect merely to limit re-issuing the same product, or is a company that publishes a GSL product thereafter limited in their ability to publish any OGL products?
A. The restriction is on a per product line basis.
Q) How does this pertain to a company's catalog of existing OGL-based products? For example, if Necromancer Games publishes a Tome of Horrors 4e, would they have to stop selling their existing 3e OGL products via RPGnow?
A. Publishers will be able to continue to sell their backlist under the OGL. If those products had the d20 system logo on them there will be a 6-month sell off period after which they will not be able to use the d20 system logo.
Q) Can existing OGL products be updated to the GSL and what are the restrictions, if any?
A. Existing OGL products can absolutely be converted to 4e GSL products, so long as they adhere to the terms of the GSL. In fact, we want to see publishers update their popular product lines to 4e.
Q) What branding opportunities does the GSL offer publishers? Does it allow use of the new d20 logo; or does it allow access to Dungeons & Dragons specific branding?
A. There will be a compatibility logo. Embedded in this logo is a version of the new D&D logo and copy stating compatibility. This compatibility logo is permissible for use on product and marketing materials. There will be restrictions on placement and maximum size allowed.
Q) A six-month "sell-off" period has been mentioned with reference to stock carrying the old d20 logo. Is the d20 STL actually going away, or does this sell-off period apply only to those who adopt the GSL?
A. The d20 STL will be terminated. There will be a sell-off period of six months for products produced under the d20 STL. This is true for both pdf and print products. We’re estimating our own backlist stock to be sold through within 3 to 4 months, so allowing six months to other publishers feels fair. Allowing 6 months for pdfs is really pretty generous and we are already in conversations with publishers and PDF sellers like DrivethruRPG.com and RPGNow on how they can make these changes as easy as possible.
Q) Is the new GSL an open license?
A. We are not classifying the GSL as “open” as defined under the open source movement. It is a royalty-free license for permissible usage of specific D&D 4th Edition content including terms, tables, and templates. There is a significant amount of “openness” to the license and we wanted to provide ease of use and low barriers to entry while still maintaining control over things like the D&D Trademark. The GSL is designed to work with the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?
A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.
Q) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL? For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not. Does the GSL contain these restrictions? Are any other types of product restricted?
A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June.
Q) Are products required to adhere to any 'community standards' clause, or anything similar?
A.. Yes. The community standards that were in the d20 STL are now wrapped up into the GSL’s.
Q) Is the GSL a perpetual license, or is it revocable by WotC for reasons other than violation?
A. The Game System License Is revocable as it is tied to the D&D trademark and other intellectual property. Because of this Wizards needs to maintain control of the license.
Q) Why is October 1st the selected date for release of third-party materials, as opposed to, say, GenCon, which would be a far more useful launch date?
A. Our initial intention was to have third-party materials ready for release at GenCon, however there is no way that anyone could develop a true quality product in the short time between now and GenCon. We think that October 1st is more reasonable, and will also allow publishers to take advantage of holiday sales.
Q) Will any third-party publishers be permitted to release product under the GSL prior to October 1st?
A. No. October 1st is the permissible on-sale date for all third party publishers.
Q) Is there anything that you wished we’d asked that we haven’t?
A. You didn’t ask about my 4E character.
The good news: Publishers will be able to make products for D&D 4E GSL and OGL at the same time, as long as they keep separate product lines for each license.The not so good news: The GSL will be revocable, as already expected.
For who who can't access it:
Product line, Pathfinder could be considered a product line. Or if I take it to a higher level, all Paizo's fantasy output could be considered a product line. I'd wait for that GSL.
I really hope this turns out to be true. Given that the GSL (like the d20 STL) was expected to be revocable, this is about as good as Paizo could hope for. They can build Pathfinder as their long-term, flagship brand, and they can still dip their toe into 4e.
The question then will be: can they (or will they) develop a 4e line that's just as rich as their Pathfinder offerings?
I hope so, because there's a limit to how much converting I can do on my own.
Yeah, it's still clear as mud - what a shock.
However, maybe Paizo and others have finally received the GSL, so they know what's going on better than we do.
The question then will be: can they (or will they) develop a 4e line that's just as rich as their Pathfinder offerings?
The way I read it, they can't produce any products targeting 4e without giving up the right to publish Pathfinder RPG since it's an OGL product. The interesting question is if it would keep them from partnering with Necromancer Games to produce 4e material. We'll have to wait for the GSL to be released to find out.
The question then will be: can they (or will they) develop a 4e line that's just as rich as their Pathfinder offerings?The way I read it, they can't produce any products targeting 4e without giving up the right to publish Pathfinder RPG since it's an OGL product. The interesting question is if it would keep them from partnering with Necromancer Games to produce 4e material. We'll have to wait for the GSL to be released to find out.
How did you arrive to that conclusion?
Q) Many questions have been raised since the announcement last week. I think the one question everyone wants to know is: is the limitation the GSL places on publication of OGL based products limited on a "per company" basis or a "per product" basis? That is, is the effect merely to limit re-issuing the same product, or is a company that publishes a GSL product thereafter limited in their ability to publish any OGL products?
A. The restriction is on a per product line basis.
I've tried reading it differently, but that seems to clearly state that they can make Pathfinder OGL stuff and Product X 4E stuff. Am I missing something? They can't make Pathfinder 4E stuff, unless they want to stop making the OGL stuff, but we already knew that ...
Cheers! :)
It seems hat WotC put a GSL FAQ on its website.
For those who can't read it:
Q. Will there be a fee to participate? Do we still have to pay $5,000?
A. The Game System Licenses are royalty-free licenses and there is no developer’s kit fee associated with them.
Q. Can anyone participate?
A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008.
Q. When can we start publishing GSL products?
A. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications is set for October 1, 2008. The timing for the d20 GSL has not yet been determined.
Q. Is the new license finished yet? Can you provide a firm timeline?
A. The D&D 4e GSL will be released when we launch Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition on June 6, 2008.
Q. What are the specific details of the license?
A. The specific details will be available to the public upon the release of the licenses.
Q. How will the GSL interact with the OGL?
A. The two GSLs are new licenses, separate from the OGL. They are designed for companies that wish to publish 4th edition compatible products.
Q. Can companies still produce 3.x products under the OGL?
A. Yes, but we anticipate that interest in the 4e GSLs will be greater.
Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
Q. Will there be a different license for other lines, such as d20 Modern?
A. The d20 GSL will allow for other genres of roleplaying games.
Q. Why are there two different licenses?
A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for non-fantasy genres. Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set.
Q. Do I have to give up my right to publish 3.5 OGL products in order to publish 4e compatible products?
A. No. Publishers are free to print product lines under either the OGL or 4E GSL. We would love to see our industry colleagues convert their entire product offerings to 4E, as we are doing, but we do not expect or require entire companies to convert to the new edition.
Q. Can publishers update their previous publications from older editions to the D&D 4th Edition rules?
A. Yes. Publishers participating in the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition GSL will be allowed, and encouraged, to convert their publications from earlier editions to the 4th Edition rules.
Emphasis on this part:
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.Q. Do I have to give up my right to publish 3.5 OGL products in order to publish 4e compatible products?
A. No. Publishers are free to print product lines under either the OGL or 4E GSL. We would love to see our industry colleagues convert their entire product offerings to 4E, as we are doing, but we do not expect or require entire companies to convert to the new edition.
So, as David Marks pointed out, Paizo could technicall publish its OGL Pathfinder and a 4E "Waylocator", but not a 4E Pathfinder.
Excellent, excellent news. I realize it doesn't solve the problems that Sinister and Kobold Quarterly would like fixed, but I least now, it doesn't come across as a punitive arrangement.
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best....
This should be workable enough for most publishers to be able to stay competitive in both 3.5 and 4e markets. Not perfect, but good enough.
Interestingly, this contradicts what they flatly told Clark Peterson. Which means, I think, that they went back and changed the GSL in the last couple of weeks because of the outrage over the so called poison pill.
I suspect other publishers beginning to follow Paizo's lead made them suddenly realize their support network would be weakened...
This kind of behavior is typical of big corporate attitude. It never starts with "What's the right and smart thing to do?", but rather "What can we get away with and still make a buck?"
Looks like they found the limit. :)
I think there is a decent possibility that people within WotC mostly sympathetic with the OGL have been putting in a lot of effort to cut as good a deal as possible for the gaming community. The vocal negative reaction to the harsh exclusivity concept provided them with something that could be dropped on someone's desk, and the ability to say "this will be bad for business."
Just a speculation, of course, but if it is the case (and I think based on Clark's comment that Scott Rouse had been working hard for the license, it is at least possible), good on them.
Just a speculation, of course, but if it is the case (and I think based on Clark's comment that Scott Rouse had been working hard for the license, it is at least possible), good on them.
It would be great to find out exactly who the stand-up guys were that twisted the appropriate arms to make this happen. We could send them something nice... in addition to part of our gaming budget :)
Not yet!Yeah, it's still clear as mud - what a shock.
However, maybe Paizo and others have finally received the GSL, so they know what's going on better than we do.
Probably because the ink ain't dry and someone just took the cap off another red pen... I would not be surprised if the pubs did not get the final until immediately before the general population.
Methinks one could cut the anticipatory tension in the ether with a dagger :)
Not yet!Yeah, it's still clear as mud - what a shock.
However, maybe Paizo and others have finally received the GSL, so they know what's going on better than we do.
Interesting.
Thanks for the update!
Q. Is the new license finished yet? Can you provide a firm timeline?
A. The D&D 4e GSL will be released when we launch Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition on June 6, 2008.
So... That means publishers won't get it until then too?
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
Aw damnit. That means no Pathfinder Modules for the 4th Edition crowd... Paizo will have to come up with a whole new line for the 4th Edition stuff...
Might I suggest Roadblock? ;-) [/sarcasm]
If Paizo produces 4E material I may check it out after all.
I could be completely wrong about this, but the way I took the "different" lines aspect was not that you could put out "Pathfinder" as 3.5 and "Gamemastery" as 4e, but that if you have multiple lines of OGL products based on different aspects of the OGL, you don't have to discontinue all of them in different genres.
For example, if my interpretation is right (and I've no reason but gut instinct to think it is), if Green Ronin wanted to put out Freeport as 4e, they could, under the "Fantasy" GSL, but they wouldn't have to quit making Mutants and Masterminds, a "modern" OGL game, because its under a different "line." But the "fantasy" line would all have to be under the GSL with no OGL products.
I suspect this is to entice people that might have more profitable and successful modern lines (like Crafty Games with Spycraft or Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds) to quit competing with 4e using older rules under the OGL, without telling them to give up their main cash cows.
But I could be way off here. Its just the "read" I got from it.
|
After all the misinformation caused by the Scott and Linae postings and direct conflict between statements then and now, I think its just not worth worrying about until the ink is on paper and the paper is in the hands. This could either be the original intent of the GSL, an updated GSL plan due to the backlash caused, or it could be an attempt to "spin" the issue in a positive light, or something else entirely. Regardless, at this point we are no more in the know than we were before the interview.
All I have to say is that I am beginning to lose faith in WotC. I don't know if it is an issue of mismanagement, lack of understanding, or what, but on so many levels they've managed to break good faith with me, and every action they take, while maybe necessary, seems to widen the gulf of "consumer dissatisfaction" between me and them.
I think there is a decent possibility that people within WotC mostly sympathetic with the OGL have been putting in a lot of effort to cut as good a deal as possible for the gaming community. The vocal negative reaction to the harsh exclusivity concept provided them with something that could be dropped on someone's desk, and the ability to say "this will be bad for business."
Just a speculation, of course, but if it is the case (and I think based on Clark's comment that Scott Rouse had been working hard for the license, it is at least possible), good on them.
I'd pay that. I find it hard to beleave to a company with so many gamers on staff hasn't turned around and said (even quitely): "Y'know, the community may not like this" about some of the things WotC have announced over the months leading up to 4e.
I'm not in the business and have no real authority to base this on, but in my mind D&D and RPGs in general are a community based market that relies on the core fanbase to continue sales. If you piss off the fans, you start losing sales. Thankfully Hasbro might finally be starting to learn that (I think WotC has known it all along but were drowned out by presure from the top).
|
My only concern is this one:
Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.
So that would seem to indicate that each product, whether a campaign sourcebook, adventure module, or rules supplement can only be 3.x or 4E, not both.
That could make decisions tricky for publishers trying to court both crowds.
|
*LOL*
You do realize the RPG side is pocket change to WOTC right?
Their book divsion absolutely swamps the revenue generated by RPG sales, their DDM slice of the collectible miniature market is bigger than the ENTIRE RPG industry (not just D&D) and let's not even get into paper crack...
WOTC really doesn't need the GSL or D&D (the RPG)
Collectable Card Games aside, I wonder if you are really right. You are, in fact, assuming that the WotC Novel Market and Miniature Market is unrelated to the WotC RPG Market. But I would assume just the opposite. That the Novel Market is basically identical to the RPG Market except in that RPGers are more likely to buy 2-4 novels a month for personal reading than they are to buy 2-4 game modules a month for gaming.
Likewise the miniature market is at least in part driven by the RPG market. Those roleplayers are more likely to want 10-20 orc miniatures than they are to want 10-20 orc supplements.
BUT... (and this is where I think you miss the mark)
If you kill the RPG market, you drive away at least a portion of your novel and miniature market.
|
*LOL*
You do realize the RPG side is pocket change to WOTC right?
Their book divsion absolutely swamps the revenue generated by RPG sales, their DDM slice of the collectible miniature market is bigger than the ENTIRE RPG industry (not just D&D) and let's not even get into paper crack...
WOTC really doesn't need the GSL or D&D (the RPG)
If they really did not need it they would just shut it down.
Hasbro is not a company that would indulge a vanity product line.While people at WotC who support RPGs may still be fighting a losing battle to prove that the RPG is not simply a vanity product line, but is actually something producing a worthwhile return for Hasbro, it is definitely not something casually dismissable as pocket change, or something they do not really need.