It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
What happens if something I make gets added to the SRD? For Scott or Linae
So, here is the current fear sweeping the Paizo boards, and I'm kind of hoping to get some clarification.
Say that I print a book under the GSL, folllowing all the rules and guidelines to the letter.
In that book, I create a new base class, the Monk. The Monk currently doesn't exist in 4th edition. It's not part of the SRD at the time i print my book, and we're not worried about IP or copywrite here because mine is a whole new creation, it just uses a class common name. A similair example woudl be making a new monster based on a mythological creature you guys have not yet used.
But in two years, when say the Players Handbook 3 come out with a bunch of Ki based classes and the offical Monk base gets printed, what happenes when you guys add the word Monk as a reference to the SRD?
Am I now suddenly in violation of the GSL, because my book details a Monk class, even though they are obviously not the same class? Will I be able to continue printing my book, because I did not redefine the term Monk because mine was printed first?
Obviously the two classes won't be the same. Mine will have powers I made up, a different skill list, and probaly completely different class powers. But a lot of people have taken a very draconian reading of the GSL and begiun saying that at any time you guys coudl print a monster/race/class, add the name ot the SRD and put somebody who already made up that monster/race/class in violation.
What will happen in this situation, where something new is created whole cloth, and then the name gets folded into the SRD later due to Wizards creating a different version?
Like with everything else, WotC can terminate your license whether you did something wrong or not, whether you did it in good faith or bad.
Probably what will happen though is simply you need to stop releasing new supplements for your race/class/thingy unless you rename it.
If you don't want that, you will simply have to yield all possible "generic fantasy terms" (like Monk, obviously) for WotC's future use. Call them Yogi War Monks or something instead.
It isn't fair that WotC can assume ownership of all the generic names, but then you don't have to play in the D&D yard if you don't like WotC's terms...
I'll go on record betting that "Yes, you'll be in violation" is the answer.
I would suggest you NEVER publsh just a "Monk" class. The "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" might be a safer bet. You'd be wise to equip yourself with a crystal ball to forsee WotC's future publications.
__________________ Want to see some interesting spells? A great magic system in action?
Visit The Net Wizard's Grimoire wiki for a host of great Ars Magica spells!
I'll go on record betting that "Yes, you'll be in violation" is the answer.
I would suggest you NEVER publsh just a "Monk" class. The "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" might be a safer bet. You'd be wise to equip yourself with a crystal ball to forsee WotC's future publications.
What if WotC decides to make their own "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" then?
__________________ (\_/) Searching the web for campaign settings? (Ovo) HOMEBREW WORLDS <(..)> The Wiki Campaign Settings' URLs page
Isn't there something where there is a review of your product?
I would imagine that if WoTC had plans for a monk, and saw that you were publishing one, they would tell you not to do that.
If there _isn't_ a review process, then perhaps it would be wise for a publisher to submit planned products early on in the cycle, to prevent this sort of problem.
Also, my read of the "intent" of the GSL (__mind reading__ here) is that they don't really want you to produce new "core" type material.
I think they want you to make new monsters with combinations of the existing kewl powers, or by applying templates, or create adventures using the existing GSL material by reference.
What if WotC decides to make their own "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" then?
Then you should get a refund on that crystal ball, and use the money to reprint it as "Striding Sangha of Central Asia, of the Greater Naerthian Empire in Kolloth", and pray WotC doesn't step on THAT.
__________________ Want to see some interesting spells? A great magic system in action?
Visit The Net Wizard's Grimoire wiki for a host of great Ars Magica spells!
Also, my read of the "intent" of the GSL (__mind reading__ here) is that they don't really want you to produce new "core" type material.
Given that the SRD includes permission to use the race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, power, feat, ritual and monster templates from the 4e books, I don't think there is any doubt that the GSL expressly contemplates the production of new "core" type material.
There is a difference between a new race and a new core race, and new class and a new core class. Making new races and classes is not the same as making new core races and new core classes.
Druid, monk, barbarian, those are core classes; Aspiring Fist of the East Wind is not.
I see a "core class" as a class archetype that will get it's proportional share of players, and that helps to define the core play of the game. I think that WoTC wants to control the feel of core classes, and wants to control the pace at which they are released to their customers. I think that the new license is easiest to understand as being prescriptive: Licensees are given very specific instructions on what to do with the licensed material. I don't think WoTC wants the licensees to go much beyond what is prescribed.
Something to think about as far as these issues (WotC adding content to the SRD and invalidating products) ... from what everyone tells me, about 95% of all sales for OGL/D20 books happens in the first three months. There are some notable exceptions (M&M coming to mind) but most of the time the sales drop to a crawl.
So why not use that you your advantage? Sure WotC will come out with a monk, an druid ... and by that point you will have made your book and will be on to other projects. Just a thought, from a sort of "Law of Unintended Consequences" perspective.
--Steve
__________________ Be a rebel...order your coffee in one of these three radical sizes: small, medium or large.
"Sure as I know anything, I know this. I aim to misbehave."
--Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
"Speak 'What' again! Thou cur, cry 'What' again!
I dare thee utter 'What' again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but 'What',
Of Marsellus Wallace!"
--I:2 .
There is a difference between a new race and a new core race, and new class and a new core class. Making new races and classes is not the same as making new core races and new core classes.
This difference does not exist as far as the GSL and the 4e SRD are concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti
There I see a "core class" as a class archetype that will get it's proportional share of players, and that helps to define the core play of the game. I think that WoTC wants to control the feel of core classes, and wants to control the pace at which they are released to their customers.
This may or may not be true, but the GSL and the 4e SRD do not say anything about such an intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti
I think that the new license is easiest to understand as being prescriptive: Licensees are given very specific instructions on what to do with the licensed material. I don't think WoTC wants the licensees to go much beyond what is prescribed.
What instructions do you have in mind? There is a prohibition on redefinition of 4e References - which is the prohibition that gave rise to the original post in this thread - but there is no prohibition on attempting to establish some concept as "core" in your sense, nor any direction to do, or to refrain from doing, some such thing.
Something to think about as far as these issues (WotC adding content to the SRD and invalidating products) ... from what everyone tells me, about 95% of all sales for OGL/D20 books happens in the first three months. There are some notable exceptions (M&M coming to mind) but most of the time the sales drop to a crawl.
So why not use that you your advantage? Sure WotC will come out with a monk, an druid ... and by that point you will have made your book and will be on to other projects. Just a thought, from a sort of "Law of Unintended Consequences" perspective.
--Steve
I am not sure this is also true for PDF publishers. I think Monte Cook is still selling (not only offering) his 3.x PDFs. Not a lot, but seemingly consistent. I wouldn't be surprised if 4E has changed this, but that's how it was.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
This difference does not exist as far as the GSL and the 4e SRD are concerned.
This may or may not be true, but the GSL and the 4e SRD do not say anything about such an intention.
What instructions do you have in mind? There is a prohibition on redefinition of 4e References - which is the prohibition that gave rise to the original post in this thread - but there is no prohibition on attempting to establish some concept as "core" in your sense, nor any direction to do, or to refrain from doing, some such thing.
Hence the "mind reading" in one of my prior posts. I know that the GSL doesn't say any of this. I'm trying to figure out how WoTC wants the GSL to be used. I see heavy requirements to use references, to not redefine existing terms, and to place new content in a very specific format.
They can't, without getting a license from you to do so. You created it first, it's your IP and copyright.
The GSL is *not* a viral open license. The original stuff you create is yours, and they can;t use it without your permission.
a)How can you prove they didn't think of it simulataneously? The license says "You won't sue us if something we come up with looks like something you came up with."
b)You can't copyright a name.
c)You can trademark it, but, odds are, you probably didn't, and even if you did, see 'a'.
While I do not think it is at all likely that WOTC would 'shut down' competition by hastily adding to defined terms solely to put a book in breach, the terms of the contract DO allow it and there is no option for the other publisher to make editorial changes. Of course, why bother with such folderol? WOTC can just say "License not yours! Can not have!" to any company they wish, whenver they wish.
Hence the "mind reading" in one of my prior posts. I know that the GSL doesn't say any of this. I'm trying to figure out how WoTC wants the GSL to be used. I see heavy requirements to use references, to not redefine existing terms, and to place new content in a very specific format.
There is no requirement to use the templates. These are additional permissions, to use the templates without having to wonder whether or not doing so would infringe on WoTC's rights in respect of its trademarks etc.
Linear Mode
