GSL A call to would-be 4E publishers (if it wasn’t for the GSL).

[FormerlyDickensC]

I saw this thread talking about a “free 4E” http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-legalities-ogf-4egsl-d20stl/232923-free-d-d-4th-edition-post4345293.html

…basically a community attempt to create 4E-surrogate system under OGL (and partially derived from OGL sources) for publishing content that players and dm’s could use to drop into their traditional 4E games. So a publisher publishes new material for this 4E-like OGL surrogate system and thereby allows players to use this material in the traditional 4E manner without the publisher having to buy-into the GSL. The game terms will be different, but the mechanics will be the same.

I think there is a lot of potential here, and pitfalls. But if done correctly, could be invaluable for the community. I would really urge some would-be 4E publishers to unite on the work entailed in such a project.

Now, this is not to say that the publishing company should formally back the project. I’m just saying that developers and writers should somehow figure a way to work together on making a drop-in replacement for 4E under OGL terms. I know there are legal issues, but most of these have already been identified leaving only the question of how to overcome them in terms of making the new game system. This is why I call on all the otherwise would-be 4E publishers to get on the ball…it is you who have the ability to make this happen.

Maybe such a system would not be great for for-profit endeavors, but it would be good for the community. And after time, after establishing itself, the surrogate system could allow for for-profit endeavors. At the very least, a basic model outlying how such a surrogate system would be sculpted would provide a great resource to those wishing to create content. I hope some of you can contribute ideas on the matter.

Thank you. Please share your thoughts.

[Ruis]

I have already started. I need alot of help though. I need help with how the best way this would be executed without treading on others intellectual property and also help with keeping it compatible with the standard 4e. I have tried getting in touch with Ranger wickett through email but haven't gotten any response.

if anyone genuinely has some good ideas they wish to contribute, or knowledge about intellectual property and copyright please get in touch with me. I need some good advice and possibly some help ;p

[FormerlyDickensC]

Originally Posted by Ruis

if anyone genuinely has some good ideas they wish to contribute, or knowledge about intellectual property and copyright please get in touch with me. I need some good advice and possibly some help ;p

The main issue is simply staying away from text identified as intellectual property of WotC (i.e. copyrighted). Some terms are more obvious than others; and some fall into grey areas. The hard part is re-explaining the rules without using WotC language and creating new terms to act as surrogates for the WotC language.

1. When there is a question of whether a term is WotC IP, assume that it is WotC IP and create a surrogate word to represent it in the surrogate system....great care needs to be taken with this so that the represented word or intention is clear without crossing the line by copying the original.
2. And no string of text (as opposed to a simple term) should be repeated from a 4E book under any circumstance.

Following these two simple rules, you should be mostly good, barring a few odd cases here and there that will require greater effort and slyness to deal with (which none I can think of atm).

[Angellis_ater]

My suggestion would be to use the communal approach of Paizo, utilizing the "communal creativity" that is available. Post all problems in a forum thread, like this one, and let people work it out together.

For example, in the Free 4E thread, there was a question on how to relate towards "shift, pull & push" - are these generic enough to be used or does alternates need to be posted?

Second of all, how does a finished product "spread"? Should it be published via PDF? Wiki? Website?

[FormerlyDickensC]

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

For example, in the Free 4E thread, there was a question on how to relate towards "shift, pull & push" - are these generic enough to be used or does alternates need to be posted?

I would argue that since there is a question, go ahead and use the suggested surrogates in the other thread. And come up with more where needed.

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Second of all, how does a finished product "spread"? Should it be published via PDF? Wiki? Website?

Lets start by hashing out ideas in this (or another) forum thread, then after ideas begin taking shape throw them up on a wiki in some sort of ordered logical format. I recommend the wiki be open access to allow anyone to make changes. I doubt vandalism would be an issue and openness much more important and effective. If the wiki needs to be closed to members, you can then make folks register and block as necessary, or whathaveyou. Ongoing discussion can take place in the thread after the wiki starts to take shape, and save the pdf for much later down the road.

EDIT: lets hammer out a basic framework consisting of surrogate terms and phrases for the 4E items...this means for anything that is or might be WotC owned words (mechanics terms, proper nouns, power names, and so on), and is where you designers come in....then worry about the wiki. We're not really designing much, just translating the language into OGL material. It shouldn't actually be too difficult.

[Ruis]

Thanks for the info. I'm going to keep working on this. I am using the ogl for terms that already exist such as ac and stuff, and for words that are very common and exist in other game systems, I am keeping the same if no other logical word exist. I am reworking all the words that are not derivatives of 3.5, like almost all the powers and masterwork armors, some of the races and classes.

dragonborn become halfdragon

warlord becomes knight

here are armors i came up with

Armor

FullPlate Armor
-Dwarven FullPlate
-Adamantine FullPlate

When i make changes i try to strive for a lower magic feel.

(made some edits)

[Angellis_ater]

These are analogues to the requested rulesterms:
Push = Move
Pull = Draw
Shift = Transfer

Granted, I'm not sure that you couldn't just merge Push/Pull into a Move. Anyone more fluent in 4E mechanics that can help out?

And I do believe that a Minor action exists within the Fantasy Concepts release by Samarand Press, can someone confirm/deny?

Ruis - if anything do not move towards ANY kind of "feel". If we focus on the most basic of things, we should be "home clear". Not EVERYTHING needs to be translated, just the mechanics. So no need to "translate" armor names, for example.

[Ruis]

the armor seems like a mechanic of sorts. could you explain more? why would names for things like push need to be changed, but not things like item names?

also going by "feel" is not what i am going by for a final release, just what i should work on first, and then I can get feedback. Just working on what seems like the biggest liabilities first. so no worries.

also push=move could get confusing with normal move

[FormerlyDickensC]

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Ruis - Not EVERYTHING needs to be translated, just the mechanics. So no need to "translate" armor names, for example.

Ruis, I think what he's saying is that some things like basic items are not a necessity when creating analogues/surrogates since they are pretty basic and general.

This kind of applies to power and feats, tho it would be nice to have surrogates for those in the end. Mostly, its the rule mechanics that we need to be able to describe in terms other than those used in the 4E books.

I agree that the push=move could be confusing, how about push=shove or push=press....Or something else that seems to fit nicely, a thesaurus is helpful in these situations.

[Ruis]

I have been using a thesaurus alot. at times its useful and other times less then useful.

here are a list of terms I would like others to comment on if it needs changed or not.


Feat bonus

Item bonus

Vulnerability, deafened, marked, restrained, insubstantial, weakened, surprised, ongoing damage, Combat advantage, phasing

basic attack

healing surge

Second wind

Power, exploits

minor action

tier, heroic, paragon (path), epic (path)

Dragon born
Eladrin

Warlock
Warlord

All stat block templates and their relative definitions (like special effect)

all class power names/paragon names, all monster names, Items, race powers and abilities.

I don't want to touch magic items or monsters yet. This is pretty overwhelming as it is ;p


I am sure I am missing some, but this is my to do list at the moment, although right now i am concentrating on rewriting the rules in my own words or using the srd as replacement.

Originally Posted by FormerlyDickensC

Ruis, I think what he's saying is that some things like basic items are not a necessity when creating analogues/surrogates since they are pretty basic and general.

i agree with you with most of the items, but the masterwork armor is pretty specific (like godplate armor and elderhide armor).

[FormerlyDickensC]

Originally Posted by Ruis

here are a list of terms I would like others to comment on if it needs changed or not.

All the stuff that is definitely under OGL (like feats and item bonus) do not need to be changed.

Everything that has only just appeared in 4E (like healing surge, second wind) definitely DOES need to be changed.

Again, this is where game designers need to give their input bc they are the subject matter experts on the material involved. They know what language has and has not appeared and where.

[Alzrius]

I recommend making "dragonborn" be "dragonfolk" instead.

"Half-dragon" already has a specific meaning. Likewise, just splitting up the word to be "dragon born" is too close to the original. "Dragonfolk" seems to get the point across nicely.

[Ruis]

Dragonfolk sounds good to me

anyone have thoughts on tier? I came up with possible names for the different tiers but no the name of tier itself

Heroic=Adventurer
Paragon=Luminary (class)
epic=Legendary or just epic (class)

basic attack=simple attack

healing surge=stamina (point)

Second wind=determination

Power=ability

exploits=maneuvers

minor action=quick action

Dragon born=Dragonfolk
Eladrin=Eluina

Warlock=sorcerer
Warlord=knight

Vulnerability=weakness
marked/mark=Salient
restrained=bound or pinned
insubstantial=incorporable
weakened=fatigued
surprised=flat footed
Ongoing damage=persistent damage
Combat advantage=tactical advantage
phasing? is their any other word that describes this effect?

Also I like name for the conversion someone came up with: 4Esque
is it ok if i use this name?

[Angellis_ater]

Heroic=Adventurer
Paragon=Luminary (class)
epic=Legendary or just epic (class)

I would suggest Heroic, Legendary, Epic - Heroic and Epic are already in the game, although not as definite mechanics for "Heroic".

basic attack=simple attack

Why not just keep "basic attack" or standard attack from D20?

healing surge=stamina (point)

This works really well. Or you can just shorten it to "Healing".

Second wind=determination

Isn't this available already somewhere? BoXM (Book of Experimental Might) has "Breather" and I do believe that Fantasy Concepts might have Second Wind as OGL. If anything, BoXM might be THE place to go for swiping mechanics and names from the OGL which meshes well with 4E.

Power=ability

I think we can retain this. Power is used extensively in D20, for psionic abilities, for example.

exploits=maneuvers

Yup, works really well.

minor action=quick action

We might just keep with the swift action here. No need to overdo it.

Dragon born=Dragonfolk
Eladrin=Eluina

I'd go with Dragonblood and Elfins

Warlock=sorcerer
Warlord=knight

Warlock is a common enough name with a common enough connection to magic, that we should be able to keep it without problems. There are several other Warlock classes in existance (Obsidian Warlock by LPJ or the Warlock path in World of Warcraft RPG).

[Ruis]

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

I would suggest Heroic, Legendary, Epic - Heroic and Epic are already in the game, although not as definite mechanics for "Heroic".

could you show me where Heroic shows up in the 3.5 srd, because i don't think it does?
I like Heroic, Legendary, Epic as well. if i can use Heroic, that would be great.

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Why not just keep "basic attack" or standard attack from D20?

because I am paranoid ;p. I was wondering if basic attack needed to change as it doesn't show up in the srd 3.5, Standard attack works better though if i cant use basic attack.

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Isn't this available already somewhere? BoXM (Book of Experimental Might) has "Breather" and I do believe that Fantasy Concepts might have Second Wind as OGL. If anything, BoXM might be THE place to go for swiping mechanics and names from the OGL which meshes well with 4E.

I need to look up those two books. right now I'm just going on the 3.5 srd and my imagination, with knowledge that defenses are covered someplace (i forgot where) so i didn't bring them up.

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

I think we can retain this. Power is used extensively in D20, for psionic abilities, for example.

But is it using it in a context that would suggest its use in 4e is a derivative of 3.5? If so I would like to use the word powers, otherwise i think ablities works well, so well in fact that ability scores directly power abilities, it seems like a good name, but powers would be ideal

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

We might just keep with the swift action here. No need to overdo it.

swift action sounds fine. I got confused if it was in 4e or not.

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

I'd go with Dragonblood and Elfins

later I will put it to a vote, but i like dragonfolk, because dragonblood sounds like someone who is human with a dragonbloodline from unearthed arcana ;p

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Warlock is a common enough name with a common enough connection to magic, that we should be able to keep it without problems. There are several other Warlock classes in existance (Obsidian Warlock by LPJ or the Warlock path in World of Warcraft RPG).

you may be right, although using sorcerer is a safer word i think. What are other peoples view on the topic? is warlock so generic that it can be used?

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by Ruis

you may be right, although using sorcerer is a safer word i think. What are other peoples view on the topic? is warlock so generic that it can be used?

Warlock is more than generic enough, and replacing it with Sorcerer will only confuse things with the 3.5 Sorcerer and the upcoming 4E Sorcerer (either WotC or 3PP).

[CapnZapp]

Originally Posted by FormerlyDickensC

The hard part is re-explaining the rules without using WotC language and creating new terms to act as surrogates for the WotC language.

Actually, you don't need to do that great a job on the explaining bit.

Remember that the intended customers can be assumed to have the real 4E books.

The sole reason for this initiative is to be able to publish for-profit books for 4E without having to sign away that IP to Wizards through the GSL.

So, the resulting document would only be read by lawyers... Everyone else should just be able to jump right in, being surrounded by eerily familiar (but not identical) stats and descriptions.

The idea is to create a d20 (sorry, OGL) system that just happens to be very close to 4E "by accident"...

[Ourph]

Just a note to those working on this project. This entire thread (as well as the other, related thread) could easily be presented in court as proof that you are intentionally creating a derivative work.

[Ruis]

To be clear, The project I am working on (i cannot speak for others) it to create a derivatives of 3.5 that can be played with 4e. To do that i need to discuss what parts of 4e are derivatives of 3.5 and what parts are not, so i can use more 3.5 sources and take the project in a fork from 3.5 while still being playable with 4e. Thank you for your concern though.

[Ourph]

Originally Posted by Ruis

To be clear, The project I am working on (i cannot speak for others) it to create a derivatives of 3.5 that can be played with 4e. To do that i need to discuss what parts of 4e are derivatives of 3.5 and what parts are not, so i can use more 3.5 sources and take the project in a fork from 3.5 while still being playable with 4e. Thank you for your concern though.

You can phrase the goal of the project any way you like, but just be aware that you've got two threads where the main subject is "How can we take these terms and concepts from 4e and rework them into another game that gets around WotC's copyrights" which would be a nice, juicy piece of evidence for WotC's lawyers to set before a judge to prove that the end product is derivative of 4e.