Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
General RPG DiscussionFor discussion of RPG topics in general, GM/player issues, and topics which don't belong in a specific game forum below.
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
Any conversions can't define or redefine any existing terms in the GSL SRD.
Also there's nothing in the GSL itself that actually talks about the OGL, so it doesn't seem like there's anything to prevent you from still publishing your existing OGL stuff right? Or am I missing something?
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.
Also there's nothing in the GSL itself that actually talks about the OGL, so it doesn't seem like there's anything to prevent you from still publishing your existing OGL stuff right? Or am I missing something?
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
I for one appreciate your "non-legal" observations.
It's nice to develop some sort of concensus on something before spending the money on legal advice, which I plan to do anyhow.
I am a bit concerned about them possibly trying to compete directly with 3pp such as myself, though. Not that there's anyhting I can do about it except not sign.
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
Writer/RPG Game Designer
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
Last edited by joethelawyer; 3rd March 2009 at 01:33 AM..
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
Writer/RPG Game Designer
Recent News
Linear Mode
