4e D&D GSL Live

[razorwise]

Hello!

Savage Worlds is a closed system that requires licensing. I've been a licensee of SW since '04. My company is also licensed with True20 and M&M Superlink and we've released like products for multiple systems as part of our business model. I have been following news of 4e for some time and got 4e upon its release, with a possible eye towards development (as well as general gamer curiousity.) I side with the consensus that the GSL is a bit too nebulous presently and have yet to decide how best to proceed into the 4e marketplace. I find certain clauses disconcerting as well. Maybe I'll be further illuminated at Origins next week, but I seriously doubt it. I am looking forward to seeing firsthand how this fallout will impact sales for alternate systems in the wake of both the recent 4e release and the GSL.

Take care,

Sean

 

[BryonD]

This doesn't worry me. While I don't know the folks in management or at the corporate level, I personally know, and have worked with, most of the folks in the design and development departments at WotC. I like them, I trust them, and I do not believe they would ever deliberately steal someone else's work.

Now, if WotC were to come up with a similar concept on their own--one that, when going into the SRD, invalidated mine, due to the name or something similar--that's an entirely different story, and one that I do worry about.

But whatever else has, is, or will be said about this, I have nothing but trust for the creative staff at WotC.

I don't think the creative staff are the ones that would screw you. If everyone at WotC were in the same mindset you are describing, then this conversation would not be happening in the first place.

Did the creative staff develop the GSL?

 

[Klaus]

Well, I guess you could always argue third party stuff is a teapot (I dont happen to feel that way but some do).

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 here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?

If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?

 

[BryonD]

Clarifications are meaningless. Since WotC can unilaterally change the GSL without notice, any "potential problem" that the "fix" today, then can break again tomorrow. That fact that you are instantly in violation when the web page is updated doesn't help.

Yeah, that is certainly really scary.
The hook is set for life, but they can change any and all of the benefits at their whim, tomorrow, the next day, or both.

I'd like to offer anyone a similar deal. You give me $10,000 today and I'll give you $10 a day for the rest of your life. Your $10,000 is completely non-refundable. I can change the terms of this agreement at my sole discretion at any time with the new terms going into effect immediately. Takers?

 

[BryonD]

But here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?

If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=231754&page=2&pp=15

See post 25.

 

[Orcus]

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.

Its not insane. Its a license. This is hardly the worlds most restrictive license, for goodness sake. The discussion is about what it does, what it doesnt do, what it allows and what it doesnt allow. And whether those meet our respective needs. But its not "insane" or all these other things. YOu might like it or not, but its hardly that crazy or restrictive of a license. I dont like the "survive termination" clauses and the no OGL even after termination stuff, but that doesnt make the license insane. A lot of people are chiming in here who have no clue, apparently, as to what you normally see in licenses. I do. This one doesnt do what I want it to, but it isnt like it is totally crazy.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

I think you SHOULD be worried, precisely because of the way that the GSL story has unfolded.

I will absolutely accept that the creative folks have no interest in stealing your ideas, and in fact I'd give them credit for trying not to even ACCIDENTALLY create something similar to your idea.

But as was evident with the customer-focused Rouse and Lidda being trumped by the larger business/legal teams, I think that it is absolutely conceivable...possibly even LIKELY, that should you come up with an idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.

The creative folks would be disgusted, and feel that they have no power, while the business groups took this unethical step.

Your trust in the creative group is likely merited, and is definitely admirable - you're just incorrectly acting under the assumption that they would have any say in such a decision.

Bizman: "Hey, that Rumpledrugger's Castle is a million seller - - it's ours now!"

CreativeDood: "But that's horrible, and I have all these great new ideas of my own!"

Bizman: "Not worth risking the capital on the untested - we'll take the proven product."

We had these same worries with the OGL when it first came out.

I just dont see this as an issue.

Clark

 

[BryonD]

A lot of people are chiming in here who have no clue, apparently, as to what you normally see in licenses. I do. This one doesnt do what I want it to, but it isnt like it is totally crazy.

Clark

Raises hand: I have no clue.

Is it normal for one party to be able to change all the terms at will in a contract and the other party to be stuck with eternal commitment to their end regardless of what or when other changes are made?

 

[Orcus]

But here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?

If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?

Because he agreed.

 

[Lizard]

We had these same worries with the OGL when it first came out.

I just dont see this as an issue.

Clark

If anything, I think WOTC missed the boat by NOT using good 3rd party content.

IAE, "Oh noes! They be steelin' my ideas!" is pretty much a non-issue, for more reasons than I care to articulate right now. The two real problems I see are:
a)New "unredefinable terms" being added to the GSL, with no grandfather clause. To be safe, publishers will need to use obscure terms -- for example, I wouldn't take a chance on a "Soldier", "Swashbuckler" or "Samurai" class.

b)The "full commitment" clause, which basically ties any product released under the GSL to the GSL, forever.