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 only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filcher
Give the kobolds box cutters and an airline ticket and they will bring down the U.S.
Being interested in publishing material, and having read through the new GSL and SRD I can say that it is definately better than the first version.
HOWEVER, for me the parts that scared me away are still looming there.
Section 6a, (Excesive violence or gore) What exactly do you consider excessive? Will my product be forced off the shelves because an npc got a paper-cut? My plan was to write a horror/survival peice... but I don't think I can set the right mood with a (for instance) PG-13 restriction on it.
Section 17 scares the hell out of me. Wizards has full rights to make somthing that looks similar or even exactly like what I wrote, and I can't do anything about it. Especially when you look at
Section 18 Waiving my rights to a jury trial of despute. If wizards does take my stuff, and I think its not right, I have to ask them politely to fix it and hope for the best.
However, Section 9.2 seems to say that wizards agrees that what you wright is your IP. But it doesn't go on to say that if they wright the same thing if it stays your IP or not.
The FAQ does state that wizards does not want to kill me and take my stuff... but if they so happen to accidently kill me and my stuff just so happens to fall into their pockets... there's nothing I can do about it.
Despite all of this negativity, however, I am still considering signing the agreement (Where as before I didn't even think twice as to saying "no") and that is a vast improvement.
At least this time, if they change somthing that I can no longer agree to, I'm not forced to retroactively have already agreed to it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse
"You called Master?"
Amateur Writer trying to break into the RPG buisness.
Works in progress:
Level 1-30 D&D 4E campaign
D&D 4E Campaign setting
Other minor works
Last edited by Lord Xtheth; 3rd March 2009 at 03:29 PM..
So WotC offers every single person on earth the right to profit by publishing materials based on their IP, but only on their terms, and that's comparable to kicking people in the teeth?
Time for a reality check.
He's not the only one.
They are not letting people use their IP out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it because they see (correctly) that it is in their best business interest to do so. Having a vibrant partner community increases overall interest in gaming and D&D in particular, and it gives people product to use with these corebooks that Wizards would never get around to publishing themselves. None of this is charity.
In the commission of setting up an allegedly free, community-wide license to promote this business goal, they decided to issue one that was totally and, yes, unfairly stacked in Wizards' direction, and that allowed for little benefit/high risk to those partners. It *didn't* adequately let partners profit while doing work to promote Wizards. So it got a big vote of no confidence. Whether that's a "kick in the teeth" is based on your own private metaphor engine. But its terms were so unacceptable few would uptake it. And I think it's fair to be insulted when anyone hands you a contract that is ridiculously stacked in one party's favor. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for your stake in the partnership.
They have revised it - it is still a deck strongly stacked in their favor, but it's at least able to be considered by a smart company. Will it be enough? It still has a lot of clauses of concern. Again, whether it's a "kick in the shins" is between you and your bard. It's certainly not as friendly to a licensee as licenses some other companies are using - the OGL, especially.
Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly. It establishes a business relationship; in this case a relationship between them and potentially most of us, in one way or another. So everyone has standing to complain about the terms in it that are unfair, not competitive with what is found otherwise in the marketplace, etc.
At least this time, if they change somthing that I can no longer agree to, I'm not forced to retroactively have already agreed to it.
Aren't you?
The GSL can still be changed at will, without notification; I don't see anything in there stating that should such a change occur, you're exempt from the new terms. Yes, you have the right to opt out of the GSL now (with six months to sell off your GSL materials), but they can change whatever they want, including the opt out option - unless you can divine beforehand any forthcoming changes and cancel your entry with the GSL prior to their release, it seems like you'll be subject to whatever changes they make (which could include killing the opt out option).
__________________ Need an informed review of a product? No problem! Check out my RPGnow Staff Reviews!
Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly. It establishes a business relationship; in this case a relationship between them and potentially most of us, in one way or another. So everyone has standing to complain about the terms in it that are unfair, not competitive with what is found otherwise in the marketplace, etc.
It is charity. How many 3PP's have been making good money since Wotc went to 4e, aside from Pathfinder and GR?
For all but a few, the money is where WotC goes.
At least that's the impression I get - I could be totally wrong of course and the 3PP marked for OGL products has been booming since last summer.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
It is charity. How many 3PP's have been making good money since Wotc went to 4e, aside from Pathfinder and GR?
For all but a few, the money is where WotC goes.
At least that's the impression I get - I could be totally wrong of course and the 3PP marked for OGL products has been booming since last summer.
In any corporate partner relationship, you *want* your partners to profit. Mutual profit is indeed what all such relationships are built upon. People who think that a partner profiting is charity, or worse, that it diminishes the other partner, should never be let closer to real business than working the counter of something in a strip mall.
The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.
I don't want to sound dismissive, because this is a legitimate concern. But there's also a juicy irony to this.
In the OGL era, adventures were specifically one of the categories of product that WotC wanted to see the 3PPs pursue. The 3PPs, in general, concluded that they didn't want to be stuck in such a loser business, and instead flooded the market with splatbooks. Seeing a hole in the market, WotC returned to the adventure business. And now there's an outcry that the GSL isn't friendly enough to adventure publishers. I love it!
(Note: I say "the 3PPs as a whole," fully aware that there are exceptions--companies that didn't view adventures as "WotC's table scraps," but rather as an unserved market need. I'll note that those companies have a much higher survival rate into the current day than the overall field of d20 publishers.)
Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly.
Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
The GSL can still be changed at will, without notification; I don't see anything in there stating that should such a change occur, you're exempt from the new terms. Yes, you have the right to opt out of the GSL now (with six months to sell off your GSL materials), but they can change whatever they want, including the opt out option - unless you can divine beforehand any forthcoming changes and cancel your entry with the GSL prior to their release, it seems like you'll be subject to whatever changes they make (which could include killing the opt out option).
As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse
"You called Master?"
Amateur Writer trying to break into the RPG buisness.
Works in progress:
Level 1-30 D&D 4E campaign
D&D 4E Campaign setting
Other minor works
The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.
I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time. Or print pages from my Monster Manual.
I was worried about this, too, at first. Having done this a few times now, it works fine.
If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind
I meant the 3PP's who didn't join the 4e bandwagon because they didn't like the old GSL - sorry, I thought it was obvious. I have been following your numbers, but frankly, I have no idea if they are crap, medium or great. I hope they are great, because I love your work.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time. Or print pages from my Monster Manual.
I was worried about this, too, at first. Having done this a few times now, it works fine.
-O
The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with. Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once. Its a silly restriction.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with. Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once. Its a silly restriction.
Not silly, annoying. There are perfectly fine reasons explaining why WotC thinks iti s a good idea to do it this way. But it doesn't change in the slightest that the comfort of having an entire encounter complete with stat blocks on one double page won't be possible in 3pp adventures.
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?>
Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?
Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly. Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money. In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.
As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.
Sections 9 through 20 survive the termination of the GSL, true, but I don't think it's a question of it surviving termination.
If they make a change to the GSL, you've effectively agreed to it before you can even exercise the option of opting out, as per Section 2.
Now, to be fair, Section 2 does say that you can opt out if you do not accept the changes (per 10.1), and in doing so, that termination will survive any further changes that are made (with exceptions for the surviving clauses - and I wonder if there could be some sort of retroactive language put in future revisions, but I have no idea about that).
The problem with the above is that, as defined by Section 2, it seems to be very difficult to not "accept" new GSL revisions.
The second-to-last sentence of Section 2 notes that any company that continues to publish and/or distribute GSL materials after a revision is posted has automatically accepted any new GSL changes. For PDF publishers, this means that if they post a revised GSL - which you might not even know about, since they don't have to tell you - then if you keep selling your PDFs after they do so, you've effectively agreed to the new GSL, despite not knowing about it. That effectively undermines your ability to opt out of a revised GSL, in the event that you don't accept whatever changes they make.
__________________ Need an informed review of a product? No problem! Check out my RPGnow Staff Reviews!
I am very happy that the GSL has improved to the point that Necromancer Games (and others) can support it.
I am grateful to Scott Rouse personally for his yeoman's work in making this happen.
But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.
The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.
To use a purely natural example, I fear the GSL is equivalent to taking a thriving woodlands and diverting one of its primary water sources to a dune plain which lacks mineral soils - neither the woodlands nor the plain will thrive under this scenario. I really, really hope that Wizards is not replacing one Central Valley with two Dust Bowls.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
