Game System License

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Game System License arrived on the 17th of June, 2008, with the promise of opening up Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition to the wider world of tabletop publishing. Wizards of the Coast, the company behind D&D, released it to the public as the official gateway for any third-party publisher who wanted to create compatible products. Within weeks, the reaction from that very same publishing community ranged from cautious interest to outright rejection. Clark Peterson, co-founder of Necromancer Games, called it nothing less than "an unmitigated disaster." What went so wrong, so fast? And how does a licensing document become the center of a war that would reshape the entire roleplaying game industry?

• 2. The License Before

  ›

  To understand the Game System License, it helps to know what it replaced. The 3rd edition of D&D had been released with a System Reference Document licensed under the Open Game License, known as the OGL. The OGL was a copyright license that allowed publishers to take copyrighted text from the rules and reprint it in their own products. Alongside it came the d20 System Trademark License, which let publishers use a logo to signal compatibility with the D&D system. This combination gave third-party publishers broad freedom. They could reprint rules text for clarity, build on the existing legal framework, and trust that the terms would not shift beneath them. Thousands of products appeared under that arrangement. By the time 4th edition was being prepared, an entire ecosystem had grown up around the assumption that open licensing was simply how D&D worked.

• 3. What the GSL Actually Said

  ›

  The Game System License took a narrower path. Rather than granting access to the rules themselves, it granted access to the 4th Edition System Reference Document, which listed trademarks, words, and short phrases that could be used to refer to D&D 4th edition materials. The document contained no actual rules. Publishers using the license also received a logo that had to appear on their products to indicate compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. Two provisions drew particular attention. First, Wizards of the Coast reserved the right to update the license at any time, and any update would automatically bind every publisher who had already signed on. Second, if litigation ever arose, the licensees would be responsible for paying Wizards of the Coast's legal costs. Fred Hicks, representing the publisher One Bad Egg, described his initial reaction as "crushing disappointment" and called these clauses the poison pill provisions. The most damaging of those clauses effectively prevented any publisher using the GSL from also publishing material compatible with 3rd edition under the older license, forcing a choice between the old system and the new one.

• 4. Publishers Draw Lines

  ›

  By August 2008, the trade publication ICv2 was reporting that the reaction to the 4th Edition GSL was "mixed at best." The lines drawn by publishers were concrete and public. Mongoose and Goodman Games decided to work with the new license. Green Ronin and Necromancer Games did not. Chris Pramas, founder of Green Ronin, stated plainly that the license did not "feel that this license treats third-party publishers as valued partners." One Bad Egg took an unusual middle path. Fred Hicks wanted to fill what he described as the "vacuum" left by so many publishers turning away from 4th edition. To protect his main company, Evil Hat Productions, from the poison pill clauses, he set up One Bad Egg as a completely separate legal entity. That way Evil Hat could continue publishing under the OGL while One Bad Egg worked within the GSL without either side contaminating the other. Prior to Gen Con 2008, Wizards of the Coast acknowledged the concerns by announcing that the GSL was being revised. Shortly after the convention ended, a number of positions at Wizards of the Coast were eliminated, among them the Licensing Manager role held by Linae Foster.

• 5. Inside the Decision

  ›

  Andy Collins, a designer who held the title of Design and Development Manager around the time 4th edition launched, later spoke candidly about the internal debate. Collins said he argued "pretty hard" to keep something like the open license that Wizards had created for 3rd edition, warning that dropping the OGL risked leaving behind customers who viewed an open license as a standard part of D&D. Looking back, Collins reflected that it might simply have been better to let the OGL expire entirely rather than, in his own words, "guilting the company into crafting a Frankenstein's monster of an open license that ended up pleasing basically nobody." That phrase, "Frankenstein's monster," captures the assessment that the GSL was not a principled alternative but an awkward compromise that satisfied neither those who wanted openness nor those who wanted a fully proprietary system.

• 6. The Edition Wars and Pathfinder

  ›

  Writing for Tor.com in 2012, Mordicai Knode pointed to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as the central figure in what the community called the edition wars. Pathfinder was built on the older license, the OGL, and was published by Paizo. Knode observed that Paizo never officially took sides in the dispute, yet the very existence of Pathfinder gave those who found 4th edition lacking a banner to gather under. The GSL's poison pill clause made the divide structural. Any publisher who signed on for 4th edition had to stop supporting 3rd edition content. Wizards of the Coast eventually removed much of the most restrictive language from the license, but Knode noted that "the damage was done." In 2014, academics Benoit Demil and Xavier Lecocq, writing in the economic journal Revue d'economie industrielle, traced the broader effect: because the GSL was incompatible with the OGL in ways many publishers saw as a direct attack on a license that Wizards could not legally revoke, publishers who had previously supported the d20 system began developing their own rule sets and publishing under the OGL instead.

• 7. Legacy and Disuse

  ›

  Bob Byrne, writing for Black Gate in 2015, delivered a frank verdict: the GSL "drove out nearly all third party producers" for 4th edition. Of the publishers who did sign on, Goodman Games and Mongoose Publishing made the attempt, though Byrne noted it brought neither of them much benefit. Necromancer Games effectively stopped operating. Paizo built Pathfinder, which went on to compete directly with D&D. When Wizards of the Coast released the 5th edition of D&D in 2014, they also released an SRD for that edition under the older Open Game License. The GSL fell into disuse almost immediately. It remains, however, the only license covering 4th edition material, and any publisher who still wants to produce compatible products for that edition must work within its terms. The departure from one open standard, and the flawed attempt to replace it, proved to be a case study that academics, designers, and publishers would analyze for years.