4e D&D GSL Live

[Knightfall]

Yah -- but I'm concerned they just mean the numerical part of the stat block -- so attack bonuses or changes to hit points.

After all, if I can print the whole stat block by bumping the hit points by one, then why not allow printing the whole stat block to begin with?

Actually, I don't think you can only change a stats block by 1 hit point and publish it. I think you have to make "significant changes" to the stats block by adding levels to it or applying a template to it.

 

[helium3]

I just want to know why d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 are listed in the SRD.

Ummm . . . how exactly am I gonna redefine those terms?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I don't think that's likely. Yes, WotC got burned by the Castles and Crusades/Conan/M&M/Trued20 that popped up. However, WotC would benefit greatly from 3rd party companies making complimentary products (campaign settings, adventures, etc), because anyone who wants to Make or Play them has to have the Core Books. WotC would sell more books that way.

Yes but the operational question is whether the legal department and the upper management have internalized this? Because they'll be coming from a different market and different management models. So they may not fully understand the way RPG market works and be applying a model from another market to it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The SRD seems to suggest that if you make some sort of mechanical change, you can print the stat block.

So I guess we're going to see a lot of monsters with class levels, templates, and/or advanced natural Hit Dice in third-party products (or they'll just change their weapons and armor and say that's enough).

It is a day long foretold: The Day of Blackdirge!

 

[Terramotus]

I'm looking at it and I wonder if they specifically created it to drive 3rd parties away. Because what I'm seeing are things that would make more than a few people say their license isn't worth it and pass it up.

Well, I'm putting together quite a few rituals to add to my campaign, and was seriously considering writing them up in a format suitable for distribution by PDF. But now don't think that's going to be feasible, because if any name I use happens to get used by WotC, I'll have to change the PDF. Not only that, but I couldn't even make a ritual that, for instance, allows work to be continued if interrupted, even if it makes sense to do so (such as in the construction of a standing stone or something), because the Rituals chapter states that you can't resume an interrupted ritual.

I'm still hoping that this is just poorly worded and that they'll update the FAQ with limitations that aren't quite as severe - I still have some faith in them. But if not... I'm having trouble seeing why they didn't just disallow everything but modules anyway, if they were going to make things this difficult.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Well, I'm putting together quite a few rituals to add to my campaign, and was seriously considering writing them up in a format suitable for distribution by PDF. But now don't think that's going to be feasible, because if any name I use happens to get used by WotC, I'll have to change the PDF. Not only that, but I couldn't even make a ritual that, for instance, allows work to be continued if interrupted, even if it makes sense to do so (such as in the construction of a standing stone or something), because the Rituals chapter states that you can't resume an interrupted ritual.

I think people are looking at this through cynical eye-glasses. Sure, the GSL is restrictive, but honestly, do you think WotC would approve a license that forced 3pps to modify their published works if WotC happens to use something similar, or similarly named? That's counter-intuitive to their aims. Setting ground rules is fine, but setting up loopsholes to screw 3pps? Thats nonsense. I'm sure this will be clarified.

As for the ritual thing, invent a new category of rituals, but don't call it rituals, and don't use the text from the player's handbook. Or make a feat that gives access to these kinds of rituals and allows them to be resumed after being interrupted, since as the PHB says, feats are exceptions to the rules, and specific rules overrule vague ones.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.

 

[Knightfall]

Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.

I definitely agree with you, Darrin. Leaving out the demons and devils will kill several OGL products and settings that could go 4E. And, in my opinion, I think that is the point. In order for those products/settings to be revised under the GSL, they will have to be redesigned with new demons and devils that aren't based on WotC's IP.

 

[seskis281]

Setting ground rules is fine, but setting up loopsholes to screw 3pps? Thats nonsense. I'm sure this will be clarified.

LOL, no it's not nonsense, it's called trying to eliminate competition and corner the market, not new to any product-based industry.

The OGL can't be undone. HASBRO would love to do so now. So, they go for the next best approach... limit the licensing of the #1 market (the D&D brand name) and use that GSL to force 3pps to make a choice, especially as many are small and carry, often, a single or very limited number of "product lines." It is designed, pretty clearly, to roll back any publishers trying to produce conversions for several systems... like Goodman Games for instance. It forces a choice, and the implicit threat is "you'll be left behind in profitability as we dominate the market."

This doesn't make them evil, or shady or anything... just following a standard of ruthlessness in the business world - a striving for monopoly (and I don't mean the game!). The OGL was a unique, utterly different business model that gave us a great surge in the RPG industry, but then burned it out due to over-production. At this point, the glut of d20 has been washed out and the market is more or less coalesced around a limited number of publishers, some with their own systems, some very much d20. The GSL is clearly designed to squeeze the remaining 3pps into 4e affiliate status. Paizo didn't bite, and it won't affect TLG (C&C) or Green Ronin (M&M, True20) - although it will make it even more difficult for other systems to find their own 3pps.

In the end WotC might actually help 3pps with this development, especially given the number of disaffected consumers out there.

 

[Rechan]

I have a hard time believing WotC would want to really, really bugger 3pps, because bad PR would not help them.

On the other hand, WotC could be banking on the fact that 95% of D&D players know jack about 3pps and the GSL, and it wouldn't effect their sales too much.