4e D&D GSL Live

[AstroCat]

No stat blocks will kill 3rd party modules. Without these forget it, what a waste. Totally sucks for good companies such as Goodman Games. Sad, really... And I really like 4E a lot but this sucks.

 

[nothing to see here]

So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.

What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.

Calling something "Dungeons and Dragons" compatible doesn't do anything for you?

 

[Drkfathr1]

Can't wait to see the explanations/clarifications/apologies from Scott on all of this.

 

[WhatGravitas]

These made up the vast majority of the statblocks I found. My understanding is that all of these (or their equivalent) would still be allowed under the GSL.

Because you can only list the full statblock for new monsters. I've not said "impossible", I've said "useful". 4E's push is towards less cross-referencing - that's why they put all the meat into the statblock.

But in 4E, if you just take a monster, you cannot include it at all besides the reference. If you take a modified monster or a classed NPC, you cannot reprint the powers, including the powers of the monster. If you do an advanced Eye of Gruumsh, you have to leave out the powers, you can only plug in the reference.

Unless you go to do a completely new monster with all-new powers. On the one hand, that's probably good, as adventures will always be "new" - no orc will be similar to another one, but it makes producing good products harder for not that much gain: If you "just take" a monster from the MM, you have familiarity and a playtested monster.

Instead, they now push all-new monsters, which may be qualitatively worse, especially if they're just written up for a specific adventure.

Furthermore, you do *not* have that disadvantage with WotC products, which means they can make more accessible adventures, due to their ability to reprint.

Cheers, LT.

 

[nothing to see here]

No Mordenkainen, No Tenser, No Beholders, No Yuan-ti.

And no Succubi? Seriously?

I'd hoped that this sort of silliness would end. It doesn't do any favors for WotC--It encourages 3rd party books to diverge more from WotC's assumed world--And that probably draws customers away from WotC's splatbooks.

Interesingly, it seems like the gods are almost up for grabs. You can't reference their names, but you can reference their alignments and areas of influence, as listed on page 62.

So your product could talk about "The evil god of war and conquest", or "The unaligned goddess of law and civilization".

Obviously WOTC believes that there is value in that IP -- and the case law is pretty explicit that IP has to be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.

Whether or not this IP actually originated from within TSR/WOTC is the more debatable point.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Calling something "Dungeons and Dragons" compatible doesn't do anything for you?

Not when its so crippled.

 

[DaveMage]

Can't wait to see the explanations/clarifications/apologies from Scott on all of this.

Any responses may have to be vetted by WotC legal...which could take days or weeks (unless the answers are already available in a released FAQ).

 

[nothing to see here]

The funny thing is that there's actually less reason for WotC to keep demons, devils, Tarrasques, Yuan ti and such out of the SRD this time around.

Nothing released under the 4e SRD is open content. At any time they can simply revoke an individual license or an entire product line, so they can always pull it back later. They retain complete control over all this material -- they're just letting others play with it a little.

Very good point, actually.

 

[nothing to see here]

Right. WoTC had at least 2 options: issue this GSL; or issue none at all. Clearly the latter is the easier option in terms of money and time spent. So if their desire was to kill 3PPs the only reason they would go down the route that they have is if they thought that they could set a trap into which 3PPs would step. If no 3PPs step into the trap, then WoTC could have got the same result (ie no 3PPs publishing under the GSL) far more cheaply by just not issuing the licence.

I think that the trap hypothesis is far-fetched. Therefore, I infer that WoTC do not want to kill 3PPs - but obviously do want 3PPs to operate very much on WoTC's own terms.

Well said. Compared to anything *OTHER* than the OGL, this is quite permissive. Wizards wants third parties to use 4e rules to SUPPORT D&D, they don't want 3rd parties to COMPETE with D&D. They are letting you use the D&D logo for goodness sake!

They're giving 3pp their toys on the condition that all of the toys stay in their sandbox. There is no rational reason to trot out any conspiracy theories other than that.

 

[nothing to see here]

I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.

Why would that surprise?

You don't think people want to make money by hopping on the gravy chain of the world's most marketable RPG brand?