Answers on the GSL!

I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:

Classes
Powers
Equipment
Fluff

I create classes like Gunslinger, Commander, Sneak, and Con-Man. I add rules for guns. I create appropriate exploits. I write a lot of modern fluff.

I do not include any forbidden rules. Since I probably won't be able to reproduce large blocks of text, I write my combat rules to integrate as smoothly as possible with the 4e rules, including additional material as needed. Ditto feats and skills. While it won't be as elegant as having all the rules (except chargen/XP) in one volume, it's still functional, since almost all of my target audience will have the 4e PHB anyway.

I can always add a worldwide mystical conspiract headed by, I dunno, a dragon or something, and say "It's a game of fantasy espionage adventures".

I'm not trying to "break the rules" -- I'm trying to show the rules aren't (at this point) making a whole lot of sense. I am really nervous about any attempt to define something as slippery as "fantasy" in a legal document. I think it will cause publishers to self-censor, reining in their imaginations so as not to stray too far from where the current consensus places "fantasy".

I'm pretty sure its what you take your base from.

You can either license the 4e D&D game, or you can license the upcoming 4e d20 Modern game.

(For all we know, they may not be compatible with each other--which would make a big difference. I don't think Wizards sees D&D/d20 as a "universal RPG system" anymore).

Since all the rules are changed, if you have a complex existing rule system that mixes the genres, you're going to have to change everything around anyway, so you can either use D&D or D20 as the base. So if you have a Mecha setting with spellcasters, it's more likely to come under the d20 Modern license. If you have a fantasy setting with a space colony that crashed on the planet, it would count as fantasy.

And since you need Wizards permission and have terms, it is likely they have a definition of what defines "fantasy" in the new GSL.

(And if your setting is truly different, like say M&M, why bother converting when you can use the OGL and the 3e set--why rebuild the rules from scratch, which is pretty much what any 3e publisher has to do with those things if they want to use them)

JohnRTroy said:

You can either license the 4e D&D game, or you can license the upcoming 4e d20 Modern game.

Click to expand...

I agree. It probably would have been better for WotC to simply say:

4e D&D GSL allows you to use the 4e D&D rules.
4e Modern GSL allows you to use the 4e Modern rules.

Simple as that.

No need to even deal with "fantasy" or "non-fantasy" seeing as the former has built-in fantasy premises and the latter has built in "non-fantasy" premises.

Of course this does open up the door for some publishers to use the 4e D&D rules for fantasy-based space opera, but the fantasy is so built into D&D it would still feel fantasy-based even if you moved it to outerspace.

I am also intested in answers to question 8. I am also interesed how it relates to the FAQ on the WotC site that states

Q. Can anyone participate?
A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008

Click to expand...

Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?

Brown Jenkin said:

Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?

Click to expand...

Before the Q&A, Scott had said "yes" to this.

I don't think it's a good idea to sign one and send one in however. And it begs a lot of additional questions - "So can I not have 3.5e stuff on my random Web site any more either?"

So the Q&A results is "better than feared, worse than it could have been." It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it.

The remaining issues:

1. They're not releasing the actual GSL until June 6, so there's a lot of "take our word for it" going on; also the definitions of "product line", "fantasy", etc.

2. The "non-fantasy" GSL that is supposed to cover other genres (modern, supers, scifi, etc.) won't be coming out even then. And the definition of "fantasy" vs "other" is going to be a difficult point.

3. How "product line" is defined is hazy. When looking at Wizards vs. Paizo, it's hard to believe they will really allow them to publish any 4e material while still publishing Pathfinder. Will they say that "your fantasy products" is the definition of a product line? Does "product line" have a legal definition? "What RPG publishers generally consider it o be" and what a judge would think are two entirely different things.

4. It's still of questionable legality, of course. All legal precedent indicates that someone is legally able to produce D&D supplements and say "For use with Dungeons & Dragons" on them without entering into any agreement with WotC at all (cf. Hasbro vs. RADGames re: Monopoly, http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm); and entering into this agreement (though it gets you the ability to use their D&D compatibility logo) gives up those rights and gets you "on the hook" with them. Remember, back in the day when TSR sued Mayfair for putting out D&D supplements, they didn't get them on any IP points - they got them on violation of a specific license they had signed with WotC. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

5. It's a huge step back from open licensing. WotC's up front about this at least, this license and the ones to come are all proprietary change/revoke at will licenses. If they decide they don't like you personally or want to change the terms, then you're screwed. People truly looking at open gaming should move to Creative Commons or other open licenses. But at least they are only killing open gaming for themselves and not trying to kill it for everyone else, which is "within their rights"... Sad and stupid, but that's big business for you.

Lizard said:

I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:

Classes
Powers
Equipment
Fluff

I create classes like Gunslinger, Commander, Sneak, and Con-Man. I add rules for guns. I create appropriate exploits. I write a lot of modern fluff.

I do not include any forbidden rules. Since I probably won't be able to reproduce large blocks of text, I write my combat rules to integrate as smoothly as possible with the 4e rules, including additional material as needed. Ditto feats and skills. While it won't be as elegant as having all the rules (except chargen/XP) in one volume, it's still functional, since almost all of my target audience will have the 4e PHB anyway.

I can always add a worldwide mystical conspiract headed by, I dunno, a dragon or something, and say "It's a game of fantasy espionage adventures".

I'm not trying to "break the rules" -- I'm trying to show the rules aren't (at this point) making a whole lot of sense. I am really nervous about any attempt to define something as slippery as "fantasy" in a legal document. I think it will cause publishers to self-censor, reining in their imaginations so as not to stray too far from where the current consensus places "fantasy".

Click to expand...

I don't know about the stand alone games, but as far as 'fantasy' vs. 'modern'-- from the FAQ it sounded like the publisher would just pick the license that best suited the product. It didn't seem like a WotC enforcement issue.

Here's the relevant FAQ again:

Enworld Front Page said:

Q. Does the so-called "poison pill" non-compete clause apply to ALL OGL, or only D&D-based fantasy? (i.e. what if it's based on d20 Modern, d20 Future, or a non-d20 source?)

A. It’s not a “poison pill.” It’s a conversion clause. The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products. The d20 GSL, which will come out at an undetermined point in the near future, will be for non-fantasy genres such as Modern, Future, etc. Publishers will be able to decide on a product line by product line basis which license will work best for them.

Click to expand...

Again, we lay folk won't know for sure till June. But I have a feeling it's not necessarily all that tricky.

AD

JVisgaitis said:

I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?

Click to expand...

Good question: Answer, probably yes, as True20 is an OGL product.

But once those OGL copies are taken off the market, your fanbase is going to dry up and if you don't convert to true20 4e, then you're sunk anyhow.

But I don't think True20 CAN go 4e anyhow. Unless I'm mistaken, the new GSL is going to be very tight in terms of character creation rules in 3pp products, which invalidates a true20 game system.

It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it.

Click to expand...

Or they never were going to be as "hostile" as you thought they would be.

As for turning their back, can you name any other company who's done as much?

JVisgaitis said:

I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?

Click to expand...

I realize this is just an example, but let me just say first that this isn't something we're going to do. WotC has been clear that stand-alone games won't be allowed under the GSL. True20 is its own game and will stay that way. If GR does 4E stuff, it won't be by updating True20 or M&M.

As for the question, it really depends on Trademark issues. True20 was released under the OGL. This has always meant that people could design compatible product with it, but use of our Trademark requires permission. We have a new trademark license that allows it, so if that were still in force people could use it in conjunction with the OGL, just not on a line that was using the GSL.