4e D&D GSL Live

[Friadoc]

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.

I think a lot of us would like some clarity, that's for sure. WotC is definitely going to need a FAQ for their GSL, since it is not as clear for the layman; heck, some folks needed help with the OGL, which was fairly clear and simply, in my opinion.

On a kneejerk level; the GSL is fairly lead fisted, they took the silk glove that was the OGL off and then "Hulk Smash"ed it.

 

[Orcus]

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?

I'm not willing.

I am probably going to draw a bright line: anything for 4E will be brand new and wont refer to the core IP that I want to make sure I will be able to use forever and all time. That means no Rappan Athuk 4E, no Bards' Gate, no Tomb of Abysthor, etc. I just dont want to lose the control over that stuff. AND until I get clarification, no referencing that stuff in 4E products either. I dont know how much "content" from an old product in a new 4E products means that new product is a conversion. That, to me, is one of the biggest unresolved issues out there.

So bright line rule for me: 4E stuff not connected to 3E stuff.

Clark

 

[carmachu]

First, thanks scott and lisa for finally getting it out here.


But unfortunately, I have to say: It sucks. I think you(wotc) just shoved more folks backwards into the arms of 3.5 with this then folwards to 4e.

 

[occam]

No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable. I wouldnt be so enthusiastic in believing that 5E will have a GSL since there seems to be a corporate trend away from openness and frankly I think that Wizards would have killed the GSL had they been willing to take the PR hit and had their not been true heroes of third party support like Scott and Linae. So given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.

But isn't this the case with pretty much any non-open license? And didn't we know the GSL wouldn't really be open? I mean, let's say the license to Thieves' World or A Song of Ice and Fire were revoked, or the Conan or Babylon 5 licenses pulled. I very much doubt the license terms would allow Green Ronin or Mongoose to continue publishing products based on those licenses, whether as OGC or not. I don't see that these terms make the GSL worse than any other intellectual property license, the whole point of which is to enable others to make IP-supporting products that the originator might not, while still retaining sufficient control over the IP.

Sure, the GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, probably even the d20 STL, but didn't we know that would be the case?

 

[Mouseferatu]

But isn't this the case with pretty much any non-open license? And didn't we know the GSL wouldn't really be open? I mean, let's say the license to Thieves' World or A Song of Ice and Fire were revoked, or the Conan or Babylon 5 licenses pulled. I very much doubt the license terms would allow Green Ronin or Mongoose to continue publishing products based on those licenses, whether as OGC or not. I don't see that these terms make the GSL worse than any other intellectual property license, the whole point of which is to enable others to make IP-supporting products that the originator might not, while still retaining sufficient control over the IP.

Sure, the GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, probably even the d20 STL, but didn't we know that would be the case?

I think Clark's objection...

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. My objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do anything with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

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."

Now for the important question. Are you willing to shoot first?

 

[joela]

pulled

--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

And not even pulled. If they like your stuff enough to put it in the SRD...!

 

[jaldaen]

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. My objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do anything with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

This is the one thing that makes me hesitate to release any campaign setting... I'd be fine with a lose the GSL and never come back to it, but lose the GSL and never go back to OGL is a tough pill to swallow...

Not to mention how does my IP interact with 4e References, ect...

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.

I agree... I just wish WotC did too...

 

[Friadoc]

I think Clark's objection...

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. My objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do anything with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.

Exactly, it is an ad hoc clause with respect toward what someone can do with their individual intellectual property without compensation; it's just insane.

I mean, it'd be like creating something for a fansite and signing away all rights to it, be it derivative, movie, electronic, or what not. It's just not right, nor would I recommend anyone do it, unless it is just a "throw away" idea.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Yes, I would have gotten into publishing for 3e. Probably in a different manner, and taking it more seriously than I did, but I would have found others to work with and published a few products.

My point is that publishing is both not easy and too easy. Too often, people step into the role of publisher when they're not fully prepared. I was not prepared. An entrance fee would help with this.

While I agree with you that pdf publishing is both not easy and too easy, and that what IS much too easy is to get into it without being prepared, I don't follow how an entrance fee (which reduces the all-too-often limited start-up budget of a beginner to begin with) would be helpful. It would be off-putting (and in some peoples' cases, permanently undoable. I know I myself couldn't raise $5,000 in my lifetime that my wife would let me spend in that manner without removing something very dear to me in collateral).

Now what would be helpful would be somewhere were established publishers hung around, and could answer the myriad idiotic beginners questions that all beginning publishers should be asking before they start. I've seen a few places now and again that claim to be that, but I'm not aware of any that actually Are that. Experienced advice trumps "Can you come up with the Ante?" any day, IMO.