General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.
Point of order, those more-unpleasant clauses in the d20 STL *were* exercised.
I don't know if I'd say "screw," but it was used:
1. To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
2. To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)
So yes, that morals clause COULD come bite you, and yes, eventually this GSL WILL pass and you'll have to burn your existing stock.
Let others debate whether that's a "screw" or not... (Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs! Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)
In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:
Quote:
At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.
We're launching the PF RPG this August, and it's just not good business sense for us to try to support other games at this time. Furthermore, the 4th edition rules are dramatically different than the 3.5/Pathfinder RPG rules. None of us here at Paizo are overly familiar with the 4th edition rules, and I, as Editor-in-Chief, am one of the least familiar with those rules of all of us simply because I've not really had time to tear away from Pathfinder-related stuff to branch out into playing other games, be they 4th edition D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, or whatever. (Although I do try to make exceptions now and then for Call of Cthulhu!)
The point is, though, no one at Paizo is an expert at the 4th edition rules, and in order to become experts at the rules so that we could produce products we wouldn't be embarrassed to see in print for all the errors, we'd have to invest a LOT of time getting up to speed. Time that would take away from producing the Pathfinder/3.5 products we're already short on time with, but that we do well and that are financially successful. Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.
Honestly, at this point, something relatively catastrophic would have to happen before Paizo considered switching over to 4th edition.
Pathfinder RPG (and by extension due to its compatibility, 3.5) is the game we'll be producing content for.
They dont have the time or resources to devote to 4e with PFRPG coming out. And they dont think the 4e flavor is a good fit for them. Pretty much whats already been said here by some folks.
Then he goes on further:
Quote:
In order to tell the stories we want to tell... we need to be able to reinvision things like goblins to fit our world. The GSL wouldn't let us do that, since "goblin" is already defined in the game.
Also, our products ARE more mature content; several of the things we produce would probably butt heads with the section of the GSL that prohibits pushing the PG-13 envelope. And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.
I'd rather not have to tiptoe around worries about redefining monsters and pushing maturity levels when doing a product. Those aren't things that someone who converts a Pathfinder adventure to 4th edition for his own home game has to worry about. But it's something that a publisher of an adventure DOES have to concern themselves with.
I'm pretty sure that Skinsaw Murders (with its mature content and with its classical take on lamias, as opposed to the bug women lamias of 4th edition) would not fly under the GSL, and that's reason enough for me to not want anything to do with the GSL. Especially since that's one of the bestselling products Paizo has ever done.
Mature content in RPGs has served Chaosium and White Wolf quite well. It's serving Paizo quite well too. I want to be the one who decides on what's in good taste and what's not... I don't want to leave those decisions to someone else.
Last edited by carmachu; 4th March 2009 at 02:24 PM..
Wait a second... in the same product? Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?
Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible. The GSL FAQ says:
"Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)"
So you're not prevented from using GSL and OGL in the same product per se - you just can't use anything OGL that is also defined in 4e, like say any race or class or anything, as a 3.5e cleric's stat block would not be congruent with all the GSL definitions thereof. So IMO it's practically impossible and this is a bit of a false hope.
Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible.
There's more to the OGL than the SRD.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:
They dont have the time or resources to devote to 4e with PFRPG coming out. And they dont think the 4e flavor is a good fit for them. Pretty much whats already been said here by some folks.
Then he goes on further:
The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought.
I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought.
I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.
Thats kinda the point thought. Wotc, given the history and tone of the GSL, has pulled in the reins so to speak. Given Piazo's much more mature content, it is a concern they need to look at.
Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves (though Scott liked it).
Somewhere in my mind, there is a squirrel writing down this idea, placing it inside an acorn shaped storage container, and burying it to preserve it for a later date and making a map to the exact location. This is brilliant.
__________________
Jon Brazer Enterprises- Bringing You the Future
Players, put faith in your Pathfinder character with Book of the Faithful: Power of Prayer available at DriveThruRPG.com.
But the quoted portion asks about having an adventure that's both 4E and 3.5. Given the quoted text, that will be a huge hurdle, since you can't have 3.5 stats for anything in the 4E SRD.
__________________ David A. Blizzard
"The only constant I am sure of is this accelerating rate of change" - Downside Up by Peter Gabriel
1. To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
2. To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)
Let's just put this in context, though:
1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.
2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of every licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.
Quote:
(Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs! Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)
How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.
2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of every licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.
How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.
It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license. And even if you don't accept the terms, you have to destroy everything you already invested time, money and effort in if you refuse.
This is still not a good license. At the very least, any pre-existing product before a license change should be excempt from the license change. When DC licenses off Batman for movies, I doubt Warner Bros. accept a clause that let DC change the licensing terms at any time and forces them to destroy the film after the fact if they refuse to take the changes.
__________________ Bards and Sages Home of the Karma Roleplaying System
First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same.
Really, you should compare the d20 STL to the GSL. And they are basically very much the same. The OGL let you use the SRD without the restrictions or the benefits of the d20 STL. The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.
<snip>
I agree that you can't really compare the OGL and the GSL. Apples and Oranges.
However, one distiction (at least in my mind) is that under the D20 STL that was purely a license for a logo and not the content. The content was governed under a different agreement. If wizards changed the D20STL and I didn't like it or I was in violation of the D20STL or they simply rescinded the license then you didn't have to worry about if you could still sell your product. You had a short term "what do I do with current product" but you could release the exact same product without the D20STL info and logo. Today if the GSL get's revoked (I don't buy into the evil corp out to screw you stuff), you terminate, or you are in violation. Then you can't keep selling that exact product like you could previously by just removing the logo. I don't see this as good or bad, just a term of the license. This shouldn't be a problem unless there wasn't a whole lot of creativness going on with the product. You should be able to adapt your IP to a new system.
This is where a 3PP's business savvy would need to come into play to determine if that was acceptable. I don't publish so I don't know what would be acceptable but from the look of things it does seem acceptable with more 3PP's now.
My personal opinion of the license is that it is much improved and much easier to use. If I were to get into the game I'd develop under it. I think the best thing to do if you want to publish under it is to forget that the OGL and D20STL ever exsisted and move forward. The GSL and the OGL/D20STL are for two different properties and the terms of one shouldn't be used to throw stones at the terms for the other.
gil
__________________ "If life gives you lemons go find someone with vodka and make a party!" --Antilles
1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.
It wasn't just one title.
There were other books of a similar nature that also couldn't exist under the d20 STL, and can't exist under the GSL now, from Mongoose's Encyclopedia Arcane: Nymphology and Quintessential Temptress to Skortched Urf' Studios Black Tokyo to Fantastic Gallery's Sisters of Rapture.
And that's just dealing with products that have a sexual focus. Ones that could be considered to have "excessive graphic violence and gore" also fall under this prohibition. Blackdirge Publishing's None So Vile line of products was OGL rather than d20 because of the similar prohibition in the d20 STL. And as has been said, a lot of Paizo's products could fall under either, or both, of these particular clauses (though usually the latter, most likely).
It seems pretty clear that the "quality and content standards" aren't the minor points that some people seem to think they are.
__________________ Need an informed review of a product? No problem! Check out my RPGnow Staff Reviews!
It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license.
To be fair though, it is also a royalty-free licensing contract.
It stands to reason that the criteria for deciding what constitutes "reasonable" contract terms are probably slightly different when comparing a royalty-free contract to one where the licensee is actually paying money for the licensing rights (such as in your Batman example).
Those books can still exsist. It's only a issue if the publisher is wantingn to use the logo's which requires using the license. you could still release a line that was compatible with 4e, several publishers are doing this and still getting across that it's for DnD 4E without infringing.
Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate. Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property.
gil
__________________ "If life gives you lemons go find someone with vodka and make a party!" --Antilles
Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.
Quote:
Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate.
They are not "appropriate" in any sense of the word. Restrictions that vague and undefined are harmful, not helpful, in that they leave companies unsure if their products would leave them in an actionable position or not. James Jacobs even said this outright regarding Pathfinder, if you tried to apply it to this particular litmus test in the GSL.
Quote:
Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property.
The GSL doesn't give anyone "complete and unfettered access" to the D&D IP anyway, so I don't see why you're mentioning that. The point here is that those nebulous "community standards" clauses are another problematic stumbling block in the GSL.
__________________ Need an informed review of a product? No problem! Check out my RPGnow Staff Reviews!
When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?
Short version: When we compile sufficient material to warrant such a treatment.
Longer version: Our plan is to release a steady but not overwhelming stream of Shroud-related products through the rest of the year. We have a couple of products in the pipeline, a location-based supplement and an adventure. At some point, when we reach critical mass, we will collate the material add additional necessary material and a few bennies, and we will set it up for print-on-demand and some sort of low-handling print version for sale through IPR and the retail market.
Unrelated Note: We should have some news to report very soon about a different setting we'll be releasing that will make some people very happy.
Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.
They are not "appropriate" in any sense of the word. Restrictions that vague and undefined are harmful, not helpful, in that they leave companies unsure if their products would leave them in an actionable position or not. James Jacobs even said this outright regarding Pathfinder, if you tried to apply it to this particular litmus test in the GSL.
The GSL doesn't give anyone "complete and unfettered access" to the D&D IP anyway, so I don't see why you're mentioning that. The point here is that those nebulous "community standards" clauses are another problematic stumbling block in the GSL.
I mention it because it seems people are crying foul on WOTC for not allowing certain things to be published under this brand or even giving them the same amount of freedom that was had under the OGL. The license is so you can play in their pool not the other way around.
The restrictions are there to protect the brands image. How is that inappropriate. This is a subjective condition but it I would imagine it is in most contracts that deal with a third party representing a company or their brands/IP/whatever. This restriction is a condition subject to WOTC satisfaction. I don't think this issue is a strict as people want to make especially considering there was a hell of a lot of publishing going on under similar conditions in the D20STL
Gil
__________________ "If life gives you lemons go find someone with vodka and make a party!" --Antilles
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I wonder if this "decency" clause thing is not also a Hasbro specific issue?
I know little about their policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if a toy company tries to keep a "clean" image.
Well My Little Ponies and Dragons just wont work as a game. Even the Judeo-Christian attempt at D&D where the players are good, and anything they fight is evil, and you dont fight other good things has the idea founded in it that you are killing other creatures. Even the PHB has one creature beheading another. That right there throws "decency" out of the window in many contexts.
Just because the heavily Christian influence and morals within Chronicles of Narnia had people being killed.
Leaving the idea of religion alone but just as a book and what is decent to have in print, because I am not trying to start a religion discussion, but rather to show what would be the height of allowed decency in modern society....anything in The Bible is decent enough for print to most people, so it should be decent enough for D&D. Sorry, I don't know the Torah, Koran, etc to compare the things printed in them. But if it is decent enough to be printed in ANY religions holy scripture, then a game focused on "killing things and taking their stuff" would be silly to not consider them decent.
I know they are trying to avoid porn books and such, but decent doesn't totally remove everything that could get close, and mature need not include porn and excessive gore.
If HASBRO wants to make kiddy games, they can continue to print CandyLand for that audience and demographic, and need to understand that those games fade out, and there needs to be more than kiddy games, and family games. There are other demographics of which D&D and other RPGs and games gave those people something to do and spend their money on.
I think the idea is sound to protect IP form certain types of things, but they went mother hen and pecking the life out of anything that may contain a buzzword that might set some random person in [insert state or country here] into a hissy fit. Or just their lawyers in this law suit crazed country.
I think recent action has caused D&D to take a turn back to the late 90's and TSR is back in control, or at least the LW mentality. C&D's to fans that help promote the game? Well we all know what happened to TSR, and that is my final words on recent events and D&D.
The GSL will not help the gamers, the game, or the game makers still as it is. It will only keep around those people who are devoted to the company and will play anything that company makes. Plus some people that actually like the game. But the "brand" has been dilluted by WotC and the GSL and other thing that was worse than could have happened form any confusion OGL products or the like could have done.
Anyway. the whole HASBRO poking around making D&D some kid-ified game is just dumb. Lead me to the Rugby and Hockey versions of D&D, rather than the flag tag football version.
I agree with Paizo, that redefining public domain terms is still overkill and overboard.
The whole point about the ecosystem comments I made earlier was just because I think people see gaming in limited terms (D&D), without looking at the whole pie. (All of genre gaming).
The one reason I prefer the GSL to the OGL, is, while it's great for the licensees, I felt the OGL as presented threatened to turn D&D from a product to a commodity, and commoditization of a product makes limited economic sense. While I don't agree with the direction of it, it seems the goal with D&D is to strengthen the brand, the GSL (instead of an OGL) and it seems to be working.
As far as the morals clause goes--well, it's okay to cry about censorship and freedom when its your own neck on the line, but if your creating a product that is "spun off" or using somebody's else's creation, you shouldn't drag them into a fight they might not want to have.
__________________
Forum FYI:
Kask is not the famous Tim Kask of the early days of TSR
I am that weird guy you see buried deep down in the credits section on many of EGGs later products.
(though Scott liked it).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
