4e D&D GSL Live

[Dias Ex Machina]

This assumes, to paraphrase myself earlier, that WOTC is basically a James Bond villain. Might as well call them "Spectre" and have them dealing nukes. This would leave Linae to be that awesome femme fatale with a coy double entendre name.

No, I don't believe WOTC is doing this to systematically destroy all competition. They are simply closing up certain holes they feel people took advantage of with the previous edition. I think many of the major legitimate companies out there could still use 4ED. I am not one of those big names...but its looking like it’s our choice, regardless of its popularity on these posts in the past few days.

"We here at WOTC have made modifications with the GSL to correct an issue where third party companies could actually make money with it."



Like I said...its doubtful that was their intent.

 

[Orcus]

To those about the 'poison pill', it's exactly what we were told it was going to be: product-by-product, possibly product-line-by-product-line depending on how product line is determined, but not company-by-company as the poison pill was supposed to be.

I disagree. I dont think we were ever told that --after the termination of the license and the end of 4E-- that you could never go back and do an OGL version of your product. That, to me, is new and is significant.

I dont mind this restriction so long as 4E is in play and I can make 4E products. But once the license is terminated, why would they want to control what I did with my content?

There are two options: 1. the GSL expires on or after the date that 4E itself ends, or 2. the GSL will be revoked before 4E ends.

If (1), who cares if I go back to the OGL, since 5E will be so different from 3E that losing my content to 3E hardly seems relevant and any 3E market at the end of 4E would likely be minimal? If (2) then maybe I should be more worried than I am. Problem is, the only real reason to inlcude 6.2 is because of (2), not (1). That worries me.

Clark

 

[JohnRTroy]

Clark's right.

The OGL might get an A, the GSL a B-.

But it's not like a contract with Satan where you get a D-.

Keep in mind, most IP licenses are pretty restrictive. If this was a license with a major property like Disney Characters, Star Wars, GI-Joe, etc., you could get a lot more restrictions. That's pretty much part for the course.

OGL was a very very liberal license. It's not considered an industry norm.

It does suck to go down from that freedom, but if your goal is simply to publish D&D 4e compatible products (and take the logical risk you'd get with any typical product you don't own yourself), it's not so bad.

 

[Orcus]

Here is my question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??

That's one way to read it, and as you can imagine I want some clarification on this.

 

[Orcus]

Pathfinder probably exists only because of the long delays in getting the GSL out...

If WOTC had followed the path of the original OGL, publishers would have been working on conversions/new products for most of 2008, and there would have been a flood of support for 4e now, with promises of everyone's favorite 3e settings, etc, coming soon -- reducing the incentive to stay with the 3e, and encouraging players to buy the 4e books so they could use all the Cool New 4e stuff. If the 4e SRD was placed under the OGL, publishers could 'mix and match' the rules, to create D&D variants which could find the right niche between those tired of the flaws of 3e but leery of the radical changes of 4e. Instead, WOTCs "all or nothing" approach, as well as the way the 4e GSL is written to minimize the creation of variant systems or subsystems, means that rather than encouraging system evolution and diversification, they are focusing on "compatibility", telling, in effect, all those who like part, but not all, of 4e to "go back to 3x" -- since 3x, thanks to the OGL, *can* evolve, mutate, and diversify, but 4e cannot.

As someone said in another thread, it's a very 20th century attitude.

That, without a doubt, would have been the ideal situation for both Wizards and third party publishers. Why we are on the other side of that spectrum is mind bogglingly crazy, IMHO. Corporate fear and lack of overall vision is the only answer. (note: I said "overall," since I know for a fact that some or maybe many over there get it).

 

[Admiral Caine]

Insulting to who? I plan on using the license. Maybe not for everything. But I sure intend to use it. I must not be that far on the evolutionary scale My wife might agree...

Clark

But getting back on topic, here is something of a fluff question. Something to muse over.

How willing are you to really invest in a 4E product now, in comparison to before you saw the GSL. Example: after looking at the GSL, you no longer felt willing to write the 4E Tome of Horrors. Presumably because you knew that it's lifespan would always be measured by how long you had access to the license.

Okay, that's the Tome of Horrors.

Today on a whim, I went to RPGNow, and I looked at the PDF version of City of Brass. A product I never knew existed before, and gosh it looks swell.

How willing are you to do anything like that for 4E?

If you can't answer today, I'll respect that, but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you can.

You see, even if you are low evolutionary enough to use the license (to play on the previous post), what sort of products would you risk publishing under it?

 

[BryonD]

Clark's right.

The OGL might get an A, the GSL a B-.

But it's not like a contract with Satan where you get a D-.

If you have no OGL products and zero interest in them now or ever in the future, then this is a fair assessment.

If you do have interest in the OGL, then it fails miserably.

Keep in mind, most IP licenses are pretty restrictive. If this was a license with a major property like Disney Characters, Star Wars, GI-Joe, etc., you could get a lot more restrictions. That's pretty much part for the course.

OGL was a very very liberal license. It's not considered an industry norm.

It does suck to go down from that freedom, but if your goal is simply to publish D&D 4e compatible products (and take the logical risk you'd get with any typical product you don't own yourself), it's not so bad.

Moving 4E freedom down from the level of freedom that 3E had sucks as you have described. But you are completely missing the point on the attack on the existence and continuation of the OGL community as a whole.

Everything you have said ONLY applies if one looks at 4E publishing in a vacuum and completely neglects all other considerations. From that POV, the GSL is fairly decent. But only if you stick to that myopic view.

 

[DaveMage]

Cant we just skip right to D&D Wars Epsiode VI : Return of the OGL?

I believe "It's a trap!" is the motto that has been established for the GSL.

 

[Orcus]

This means that if Necromancer games ever publishes a 4E version of even a single monster from ANY of the ToH books, then the entire line of products now falls under the purview of section 6.1, disallowing them from selling the existing OGL versions forever.

Talk about restrictive. :\

I dont agree with your "one monster means a conversion" reading from a practical standpoint BUT this is clearly something I want some clarity on.

 

[Orcus]

Meh, Ive seen this before....

As soon as Darth Hasbro realizes that Luke Paizowalker, Pramas Leia, Han Necro and the rest of the Third Party Rebellion is stronger than they thought, the better.

Cant we just skip right to D&D Wars Epsiode VI : Return of the OGL?

Meh. Spike tv reruns all over again.

I'm just glad I get to be Harrison Ford. Han Solo has always been my favorite.

Lidda: "I love Necromancer Games products!"
Han Necro: "I know."