Revised GSL TODAY!

mxyzplk · Mar 4, 2009

Orcus said:
The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.

Point of order, those more-unpleasant clauses in the d20 STL *were* exercised.

I don't know if I'd say "screw," but it was used:
1. To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
2. To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)

So yes, that morals clause COULD come bite you, and yes, eventually this GSL WILL pass and you'll have to burn your existing stock.

Let others debate whether that's a "screw" or not... (Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs! Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)

carmachu · Mar 4, 2009

In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:

At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.

We're launching the PF RPG this August, and it's just not good business sense for us to try to support other games at this time. Furthermore, the 4th edition rules are dramatically different than the 3.5/Pathfinder RPG rules. None of us here at Paizo are overly familiar with the 4th edition rules, and I, as Editor-in-Chief, am one of the least familiar with those rules of all of us simply because I've not really had time to tear away from Pathfinder-related stuff to branch out into playing other games, be they 4th edition D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, or whatever. (Although I do try to make exceptions now and then for Call of Cthulhu!)
The point is, though, no one at Paizo is an expert at the 4th edition rules, and in order to become experts at the rules so that we could produce products we wouldn't be embarrassed to see in print for all the errors, we'd have to invest a LOT of time getting up to speed. Time that would take away from producing the Pathfinder/3.5 products we're already short on time with, but that we do well and that are financially successful. Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.

Honestly, at this point, something relatively catastrophic would have to happen before Paizo considered switching over to 4th edition.
Pathfinder RPG (and by extension due to its compatibility, 3.5) is the game we'll be producing content for.

They dont have the time or resources to devote to 4e with PFRPG coming out. And they dont think the 4e flavor is a good fit for them. Pretty much whats already been said here by some folks.

Then he goes on further:

In order to tell the stories we want to tell... we need to be able to reinvision things like goblins to fit our world. The GSL wouldn't let us do that, since "goblin" is already defined in the game.

Also, our products ARE more mature content; several of the things we produce would probably butt heads with the section of the GSL that prohibits pushing the PG-13 envelope. And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.

I'd rather not have to tiptoe around worries about redefining monsters and pushing maturity levels when doing a product. Those aren't things that someone who converts a Pathfinder adventure to 4th edition for his own home game has to worry about. But it's something that a publisher of an adventure DOES have to concern themselves with.

I'm pretty sure that Skinsaw Murders (with its mature content and with its classical take on lamias, as opposed to the bug women lamias of 4th edition) would not fly under the GSL, and that's reason enough for me to not want anything to do with the GSL. Especially since that's one of the bestselling products Paizo has ever done.

Mature content in RPGs has served Chaosium and White Wolf quite well. It's serving Paizo quite well too. I want to be the one who decides on what's in good taste and what's not... I don't want to leave those decisions to someone else.

mxyzplk · Mar 4, 2009

Halivar said:
Wait a second... in the same product? Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?

Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible. The GSL FAQ says:

"Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)"

So you're not prevented from using GSL and OGL in the same product per se - you just can't use anything OGL that is also defined in 4e, like say any race or class or anything, as a 3.5e cleric's stat block would not be congruent with all the GSL definitions thereof. So IMO it's practically impossible and this is a bit of a false hope.

ThirdWizard · Mar 4, 2009

mxyzplk said:
Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible.

There's more to the OGL than the SRD.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 4, 2009

carmachu said:
In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:

They dont have the time or resources to devote to 4e with PFRPG coming out. And they dont think the 4e flavor is a good fit for them. Pretty much whats already been said here by some folks.

Then he goes on further:

The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought.

I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.

carmachu · Mar 4, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought.

I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.

Thats kinda the point thought. Wotc, given the history and tone of the GSL, has pulled in the reins so to speak. Given Piazo's much more mature content, it is a concern they need to look at.

dmccoy1693 · Mar 4, 2009

Orcus said:
Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves (though Scott liked it).

Somewhere in my mind, there is a squirrel writing down this idea, placing it inside an acorn shaped storage container, and burying it to preserve it for a later date and making a map to the exact location. This is brilliant.

Glyfair · Mar 4, 2009

ThirdWizard said:
There's more to the OGL than the SRD.

But the quoted portion asks about having an adventure that's both 4E and 3.5. Given the quoted text, that will be a huge hurdle, since you can't have 3.5 stats for anything in the 4E SRD.

CharlesRyan · Mar 4, 2009

mxyzplk said:
1. To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
2. To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)

Let's just put this in context, though:

1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.
2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of every licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.

(Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs! Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)

How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.

Bardsandsages · Mar 4, 2009

CharlesRyan said:
2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of every licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.

How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.

It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license. And even if you don't accept the terms, you have to destroy everything you already invested time, money and effort in if you refuse.

This is still not a good license. At the very least, any pre-existing product before a license change should be excempt from the license change. When DC licenses off Batman for movies, I doubt Warner Bros. accept a clause that let DC change the licensing terms at any time and forces them to destroy the film after the fact if they refuse to take the changes.