4e D&D GSL Live

[Dias Ex Machina]

I have a hunch that the only way you are going to get help is via an official FAQ (that's vetted by WotC legal) or through use of your own legal counsel.

My own?

I have faith ENWorld will have answers soon enough...

 

[JohnRTroy]

They got a FAQ up now, but I'm sure by Friday they'll have updates based on message board feedback.

 

[jmucchiello]

No specific demons or devils are listed; is this intentional? So no one can include a pit fiend or a succubus in an adventure?

More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.

 

[jmucchiello]

I can find nothing in the GSL which specifically limits GSL products to "fantasy". Would I be in violation if I created a "Gunslinger" class and added gunpowder weapons?

Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.

Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.

joe b.

 

[DanMcS]

More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.

That seems like an oversight, because the thing seems intended to allow you to create NPCs.

 

[Nellisir]

Regarding Section 6.1 OGL Conversion.

Here's my example situation: I've licensed Sword & Sorcery and products released for 3.X edition under the Sword & Sorcery banner by White Wolf. I'm going to release 4E versions of Creature Collection, Relics & Rituals and the Scarred Lands Campaign Setting through my company, Fiery Dragon Productions.

So... does White Wolf have to kill all of their 3.X Sword & Sorcery releases... or do they not fall under section 6.1 because they are not the licensee for the GSL in this case?

I'm not WotC, and I only skimmed the license, but I believe it says if you enter into an agreement to update OGL content to 4e, you are considered the licensee for said content - which is a long way of saying, yes, WW would have to kill their pdf sales. That (white wolf's pdf) content would be considered your content, and you can't have the same content be both OGL and GSL simultaneously.

 

[DanMcS]

I am not one for legalese but does this mean they are prohibiting you from modifying any named class in the SRD (like Cleric) or race (like elf). Meaning you have to use their elf and could not make your own.

You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf. You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from. You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.

This seems to indicate you could. If the first passage is to be taken as gospel, I must follow it with another questions: Can you simply delete? Can you create a setting where you say, "No Clerics" or must the entire SRD apply? I hope someone can help us with this.

Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything. Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.

 

[Henry]

Actually, the no viral content has a benefit now. It encourages publishers to create stuff and not worry about people ripping their products for free.

I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.

But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that?

Only in John's imagination.