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.
I think that it's a strong step in the direction of regaining some of the goodwill that has been lost. It still doesn't allow the freedom that the OGL had, but good business sense should tell you that the OGL was too good. It was open to the point where it had the potential to hurt WotC's business interests. Also, many licenses that you would pay many thousands of dollars for have a clause in there allowing them to kill your line at will. I think that if your goal is to support D&D, then this is good. If your goal is to do something out in left field, then it's not so good, leaving the 3.x mechanics and OGL the preferred choice. For instance, it looks doubtful that someone like me could take the parts of 4E that I like and splice them together with the excised counterparts from 3.x.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Freelance Writer/Game Designer
Previously posting as Whisperfoot
So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?
For me its not a matter being happy with it or not. I don't really care. I have Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and access to more gaming supplements than I could use in 87 lifetimes. I personally don't use or like 4e, but that's not really an issue because it doesn't change my Friday game night in the least.
Heck, I don't even need 4e to attract new gamers. My brother, with whom I have been gaming with for 25 years, just had triplets last year, and his 3 yr old already knows that Red Dragons breath fire and are bad guys. The 3 yr. old already has a set of dice! His father's original set, in red, his favorite color.
I just pointed out as objectively as I could the potential risks in the new GSL for businesses who want to use it. It's up to those businesses to get a real legal opinion on the matter, examine the risks, and weight the risks vs. the rewards of signing the GSL and making 4e compatible products. Some will sign it, some won't. Simple as that.
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
Hum, I have not found a mention of this anywhere. Perhaps this will be cleared up as more people read and interpret it.
It's a holdover from the first version of the GSL, section 4.1.
You cannot define or redefine any term in the SRD, which means you cannot reprint monster statblocks verbatim. period.
You may make variations on them ( the monsters, classes, races), but you cannot reprint any powers either.
This clause can be tricky, because it prohibits you to make, say, an adventure with fully statted creatures from the MM, or NPCs with powers in the Players handbook.
While this version is certainly more permissive than the last if I were to want to create a system ala True d20 or M&M I would much rather clone the system and alter my Frankenstein's Monster to my preference instead of signing on to this.
So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?
For me it isn't a question of being happy or not. I think the 4E licensing is definitely in a state that I would find its use acceptable if I were wanting to make 4E compatible game products. It's a success in that regard, and I have to give credit to Scott Rouse and everyone else at WotC who made that possible.
On the other hand I still prefer 3.x, Pathfinder, True20, Modern20, and C&C as game systems. In other words, this only affects me in the abstract kind of way where I can say that WotC is once again acting like a responsible steward of the hobby game industry.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Freelance Writer/Game Designer
Previously posting as Whisperfoot
How about the "No reposting monster statblocks in your adventure"?
Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're yusing one of the standards you can still only refference it.
Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?
Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're using one of the standards you can still only refference it.
Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?
I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?
So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?
It doesn't appear that anyone here is saying that it's not a vast improvement over the original. That doesn't mean it cures cancer and makes perfect panini sandwiches. There's always room for criticism.
I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?
Then you run into issues.
I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
It's not even remotely a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're yusing one of the standards you can still only refference it.
Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?
Don't quote me on this, but I don't think the problem is with using standard monsters from the MM. The problem is as I read it you cannot reprint ANY of the powers from either the PH or MM in an adventure you write. What I think will end up happening is that 3pp will have to create new powers or the DM will have to print out the powers himself if he wants to quickly reference them without have to go into any manuals.
Thanks to Scott for his hard work in getting the GSL out.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
It doesn't appear that anyone here is saying that it's not a vast improvement over the original. That doesn't mean it cures cancer and makes perfect panini sandwiches. There's always room for criticism.
I'm not saying that.
It's just the impression I get is "This is a great improvement, it's fixed lots of problems! But you won't catch me signing it because it's not good enough."
I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?
Then you run into issues.
Well... NPC is a mechanical effect right? (I think thats one of the examples it has if I remember)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouseferatu
I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
I think I didn't explain what I meant as well as I should have...
I didn't mean to say instead of an orc use ike the Goober Monster or soemthing... Just instead of an Orc Eye of Gruumsh, you could make your own Orc Fire Shamman or soemthing... All you're "really" doing is changing the powers it has. The stats themselves are generated using the monster class stuff...
If worse comes to worse just drop or raise it a level? The mechanical change comes into play...
I agree it's not as simple as just being able to use the stats wholesale... But not really as big a stumbling block I think then it first appeared before we knew much about the system? (Because changing monsters seems more routine then just picking monster X out of the book...)
I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
It's not even remotely a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.
I understand why they did it.
They want to see creative development from 3rd party publishers.
You_can_apply the mathematical values for powers without reprinting the power verbatim, but some powers need to be reprinted to be fully understood. Those, you'll still have to refer to.
here's a sample statblock I_think_is going to be just fine for my upcoming book: Scarrport, City of secrets.
---------------
Talfordinate Wicking, Thunder Priest of Velun Level 16 Controller (Leader) Medium Humanoid (Human) XP 1,400 Initiative +8 Senses: Perception +11 Aura of the Sky God Aura 5; all enemies in the aura gain vulnerable 5
thunder. HP 131; Bloodied 66 AC 28; Fortitude 28, Reflex 28, Will 33 Resist 10 thunder Speed 6 Action Points 1
m Mace (standard; at-will) +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6 r Holy Thunder (standard; at-will) * Thunder
Range 5; +27 vs. Reflex; 1d6 + 12 thunder damage and the target is pushed 5 squares. R Plague of Doom (standard; encounter) Range 10; +27 vs. Fortitude; 3d8 + 12 damage; (Level 13 Cleric Encounter Attack Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook); -3
R Thunderbreak (standard; encounter) * Thunder
Range 10; +27 vs. Will; 2d8 + 12 thunder damage, and the target is
deafened and dazed until the end of Wicking's next turn.
A Purifying Lightning (standard; daily) * Lightning
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 3d10 + 12 lightning damage and
ongoing 10 lightning (save ends)(See the D&D 4E Player's Handbook.).
A Thunder Cloud (standard; daily) * Thunder
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 2d10 + 12 thunder damage and
ongoing 5 thunder (save ends); Miss: half damage.
Divine Fortune (free; encounter)
(Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook)
C Healing Word (minor; twice per encounter)
Close Burst 10; (Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook); +4d6
C Mass Cure Light Wounds (standard; daily)
Close Burst 5; (Level 10 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E
Player's Handbook); +3
M Cure Serious Wounds (standard; daily)
Melee touch; (Level 6 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook)
Alignment Good
Skills Religion +15, Insight +18, Diplomacy +16, History +15
Str 14 (+10) Dex 11 (+8) Wis 21 (+13)
Con 14 (+10) Int 14 (+10) Cha 16 (+11)
Equipment robe of thunderbolts +4, symbol of the storm +6
Just took a quickie look at it, and please don't take this as legal advice, just observations:
They can cancel the GSL at any time.
They can change the GSL and/or SRD at any time.
Therefore, anything people didn't like from the first version that was taken out can be put back in.
Plus, if there are any legally questionable claims of right WOTC makes in the GSL (9.1), you can't fight it if you sign the GSL.
Also, it looks like they can put out stuff similar to yours and compete against you.
Not something I would feel comfortable making long-term business decisions with.
If you are a guy who wants to put out a supplement once a year or so for 4e, and make a hundred bucks here and there, no major loss.
If you're a guy basing a business and livelihood around 4e products, seems risky to me. Your livelihood is in the hands of the Hasbro corporate executive of the month in charge over there.
I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket if I were a 3pp. develop your business broadly, support Pathfinder, C&C, etc., in order to have options if Goober the future new VP of WOTC who never rolled dice before has a brain fart and screws over all 3pp's.
Just my gut take on it from a fast read. Again, not legal advice, so don't take it as such. Consult a lawyer who specializes in IP and/or business contracts. I do not work in those areas.
Joe
That is terrible advice.
Everyone please disregard it.
The revised GSL is a huge improvement and includes many of the changes and suggestions that I specifically, and I am sure others as well, have been calling for for a long time.
One of the biggest changes is the "opt out" clause which the old GSL didnt have. In other words, if they change something you are bound by it. Now, if they change something you can opt out. Can they still change things? Sure, but that is the nature of just about any license and it was the nature of the d20 license that we all used for many years.
Plus, think about this. As I told Scott--wouldnt it be cool if the first revsion was an expansion that allowed us to do more with more freedoms and more content? what would the naysayers say then? Shure, they "could" make it more restrictive, but look what they have done.
This is a big WIN for all involved.
Clark
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
The 3 yr. old already has a set of dice! His father's original set, in red, his favorite color. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
