GSL news.

[Disconzi]

This seems like very good news. One can only know for certain, though, when the GLS actually comes to light.

I myself am a bit concerned -- even though I'm thrilled about a good number of 4e's innovations (static defenses and the unified 1/2 level progression mainly), there's a lot I'm not crazy about (slots, AC, classes, way magic is handled and so forth).

I wonder if the GLS will make products like True20 or Blue Rose possible -- which is what I'm playing at the moment, just love how classes and magic and handled. The only books from Hasbro I ever bought were the 3 core books and Eberron books (only because of the setting itself) -- other than that, I only buy 3rd party products (alternate stand-alones such as True20, Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved among my favorites). Well, it won't hurt to wait a few more weeks to decide whether to shift to 4e or not -- if alternatives to the rules I dislike aren't a possibility, it's better to stick to 3.X.

 

[HeinorNY]

I wonder if the GLS will make products like True20 or Blue Rose possible -- which is what I'm playing at the moment, just love how classes and magic and handled. The only books from Hasbro I ever bought were the 3 core books and Eberron books (only because of the setting itself) -- other than that, I only buy 3rd party products (alternate stand-alones such as True20, Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved among my favorites). Well, it won't hurt to wait a few more weeks to decide whether to shift to 4e or not -- if alternatives to the rules I dislike aren't a possibility, it's better to stick to 3.X.

The answer is no. No stand alone products under the GSL.
From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15649982&postcount=40

Does the D&D 4e GSL allow standalone games (Iron Heroes style) or not? By my reading, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

If not, is there any way that a designer could make a 4e-d20 based standalone fantasy game?

The answer to both questions is no. The GSL will not allow for products that have character creation (applying ability scores) or character advancement (applying XP).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

so thats how they are going to do it...

 

[Lizard]

I will admit this is better than what I expected, but I still want to see the exact terms of the license before I start celebrating. Things like "fantasy games only" is a very odd clause with some hard-to-define legal aspects.

And as I've noted before, Spycraft 1.0, Broncosaurus Rex, Sidewinder 1.0, and quite a few other non-D&D games WERE published under the STL. The "rules for character creation" and "rules for applying levels of experience" don't really need to be reprinted to make a near-standalone game. (Also, it's hard to imagine someone buying a 4e non-fantasy game who isn't already a 4e D&D player.)

I actually think a lot of the 4e concepts work better in non-fantasy settings, especially those already pulpy and cinematic. WOTC owns the rights to Iron Lords Of Jupiter; I'd be happy to do a 4e version for them. Now THERE'S a genre that calls for mowing down mooks by the dozens...

 

[HeinorNY]

Things like "fantasy games only" is a very odd clause with some hard-to-define legal aspects.

That's not quite accurate.
From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15647512&postcount=34

Out of curiosity, what does this mean for the D20 Modern or Star Wars systems? Will WotC be updating those systems to be 4.0 compliant? Or will these systems be phased out with the 3.5 material?

And if these systems will be updated, why is the GSL only protecting the "fantasy" portion of the system and not the "modern" or "future" systems?

Just out of curiosity, mind you.

Star Wars will not change (but will likely evolve) as the system is already very close to 4e. d20 Modern and/or Urban Arcana are highly likely to get a 4e update (there will be something but don't know what we'll call it).

There are 2 licenses the D&D 4e GSL and the d20 GSL. The d20 GSL is designed for games like d20 Modern and Urban Arcana so publishers can do modern style products.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

It makes sense, though. This way, you can use the stuff that WotC worked on and paid money to develop, but the end product must tie back to D&D.

I never understood why WotC allowed 3pp to make a product that was 90% D&D and toss the OGL in the back and sell it as a competitor to their flagship rpg product. The only thing I can think is that it was an oversight in the development of the OGL.

 

[Lizard]

It makes sense, though. This way, you can use the stuff that WotC worked on and paid money to develop, but the end product must tie back to D&D.

I never understood why WotC allowed 3pp to make a product that was 90% D&D and toss the OGL in the back and sell it as a competitor to their flagship rpg product. The only thing I can think is that it was an oversight in the development of the OGL.

Yes, it was a terrible, horrible, oversight. They apparently never bothered to READ THE FAQ ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?

A: Sure.

Q: Could I publish the whole thing?

A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

They "allowed" it because a large part of the purpose of the OGL was to standardize gaming on a single system, which would help WOTC by keeping gamers in the same system space and also keep the from leaving the hobby due to an inability to find people playing a system they knew. The idea was to prevent the ongoing fragmentation of the hobby into "White Wolf games", "GURPS gamers", "D&D Gamers", and so on.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Yes, it was a terrible, horrible, oversight. They apparently never bothered to READ THE FAQ ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE.
.

Easy there, killer.

There is no need for that sort of vitriol. I had an opinion and apparently not read the SRD FAQ. There are other (and better) ways of letting me know that this question was answered in a WotC document.

Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.

 

[Lizard]

Easy there, killer.

There is no need for that sort of vitriol. I had an opinion and apparently not read the SRD FAQ. There are other (and better) ways of letting me know that this question was answered in a WotC document.

Anyway, back onto the the ignore list for you.

It's just that this KEEPS COMING UP. It's the meme that will not die. "WOTC never expected this!" "The OGL wasn't intended to be used like that!" "This isn't the way things were supposed to go!" People keep repeating this like it's absolute fact, when it very clearly isn't and never was. The funny thing is, the Big Why We Hate WOTC movement of 2000 was "They're trying to take over the industry and make all games into D20!" Now this has been forgotten and somehow mutated into "Poor, innocent WOTC was duped and tricked by those evil third parties into releasing a flawed license and letting them abuse their IP!"

Die, pernicious meme! Die!

 

[Aezoc]

That's not quite accurate.
From this post http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15647512&postcount=34

I don't really see anything in that post to contradict Lizard's point. So far I don't think anything stated about the GSL really prevents you from making a separate game. Not technically standalone since you can't have creation/advancement rules, but otherwise distinct from D&D. I'm also very curious about the fantasy clause. Unless they have a specific blacklist of subjects that can't be covered, "fantasy" is wide open to interpretation.

For instance, I'd call Star Wars fantasy. Is it sci-fi? If so, what about about steampunk settings? Etc... obviously WotC might have a perfectly black-and-white definition all ready to go, but I'm kind of surprised that they'd mention the licensing restrictions at all without at least some rudimentary details.