4e D&D GSL Live

[Orcus]

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?

Only when one side has all the bargaining power

No, its not that normal in the way they did it, leaving it as open as they did (but that is actually a good thing, in a wierd way). But updates and revisions are, and a continuing use signifying an agreement to those changes isnt that wierd.

 

[Friadoc]

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 doesn't do, what it allows and what it doesn't 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 don't like the "survive termination" clauses and the no OGL even after termination stuff, but that doesn't 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 doesn't do what I want it to, but it isn't like it is totally crazy.

Clark

Well, I'll default to your experience, but I will add the caveat that it is one of the more insane ones that I have seen, although it is not as bad as the contract from my last job.

Now that one sucked, big time.

As for the GSL; I just don't like it, maybe it's because I don't feel comfortable with granting another party that much control over something like that.

My only comparison is with the previous OGL, as well as a few freer open source licenses, which obviously is lacking when compared to some real and in-depth contracts.

 

[BryonD]

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

I just dont see this as an issue.

Clark

I agree with you here. Mostly.

But last time there was no threat that if you named your "druid" Healing Tree-hugger-man, they could expressly replicate the name and toss your product out the window.

And, no, I don't think at all they would do that. "Druid" yeah, I think at this point they will cheerfully kick you in the teeth for even thinking about stealing their thunder. But if you come up with an off the wall name they will leave you alone.

But just because you know they won't throw the switch doesn't mean it is comfortable to be told to put your head in a guillotine. Because at the end of the day, any name you choose could still become verbotten simply based on WotC's good-will or lack thereof. You are surrendering all control and trusting them to at least wait a few years before they screw you.

 

[BryonD]

Only when one side has all the bargaining power

No, its not that normal in the way they did it, leaving it as open as they did (but that is actually a good thing, in a wierd way). But updates and revisions are, and a continuing use signifying an agreement to those changes isnt that wierd.

I guess that says to me that the GSL is not remotely insane. But anyone who agrees to it probably is.

 

[2WS-Steve]

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

There's a simple reason for this -- because if they did use open content then they would have to release under the hated OGL.

 

[Urza]

Most of the GSL isn't a surprise to me.

It should have been obvious to everyone from the start that WOTC didn't want anyone coming up with alternative rule sets and republishing the rules as their own (I'm talking about you; Conan, Arcana Unearth, Battlestar Galactica, Pathfinder, and Pocket PHB!)

The no software deal was obvious the moment they started DDI. They don't want use using better virtual tables tops and character generators that we make that perform better, get updated sooner, and/or have more features (like being compatible with 3rd party product!)

It shouldn't have been a surprise to find out that you can't do 3e and 4e versions of product. Although the wording for post-GSL is a little awkward and leaves a lot of questions what happens to the IP when the GSL ends.

What is surprising is how unfriendly it is to making products they want publishers to make. Like say someone wants a Tarrasque in an adventure, that's cool. But you can't tell players what page number it's on. The index in the back is almost useless because you can't tell players the level of the tarrasque... so they can't find it if they don't know what level it is, because the index is in level order, not alphabetical order. AND not to be over the top about this, the Tarrasque isn't even in the "T" section of the book... so you won't find it when you flip to the "Ts."

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

I don't believe that the folks at the management/corporate level who created this license pay attention to the rules of the game--certainly not mechanics other companies produce. They might notice that a book sells well (though honestly, I doubt any 3rd party book would sell well enough to be a blip on their radar), but even if they did, I doubt they have the market-savvy to say "I bet that book is selling because of Game Rule X. Let's steal it."

So when I say I'm not worried about WotC deliberately stealing my idea, it's because I trust the creative folks--and I don't believe the management folks would ever be exposed to said idea.

As I said, there's plenty about the license that does worry me. I just don't count "deliberate theft on WotC's part" on the list.

 

[Yair]

Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?

I was. I think I'm not the only one.
I didn't even know it was possible to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...

 

[Yair]

By saying that if you use the GSL to publish your Occam's Razor fantasy world, you will no longer be able to use your original IP to produce anything using the OGL, which is unusually (and overbearingly) restrictive for a game system license.

Isn't the restriction only on books released under the GSL? So you can release a system-neutral version of Occam's Razor fantasy world, followed by a GSL one (perhaps the precise same one, only now with stats/mechanics). When the GSL is terminated, you revert to using material from your system-neutral product, which the GSL doesn't forbid.

Unless it is "reasonably determined by Wizards" that the OGL product is part of the same product line... hmmm.... [Edit: or even that the SYSTEMLESS product is part of the same product line... wow!]

 

[Yair]

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

But what about the NEXT Rappan Athuk? If you've got a great idea for a D&D setting/locale, isn't putting it through the GSL just as risky as putting your already-great idea into it? In other words, the only thing you can safely publish under the GSL is substandard dribble you wouldn't mind never using again.