4e D&D GSL Live

[nothing to see here]

Oh, here's two I missed. I don't see Dungeons & Dragons as a reference, unless I'm just not seeing it. So how do we refer to the game itself? We are allowed to say D&D in citations, but I didn't see it as a reference itself. Importantly, how to we refer to it:

1) in the text. Eventually, you need to refer to the game you are playing by some sort of name.

2) On the front cover. Can we?

3) In marketing text on the back.

4) In marketing text in general.

5) In titles in product listings. I don't want to use D&D in a title itself, but if I'm listing products, it's good to be able to toss on an indicator of the game compatibility, especially in a download store. Like Critical Matters (D&D) or Critical Matters (GSL), as opposed to Character Background Generator (HERO System).

Same for DM or Dungeon Master. Are we allowed to use the term.

Oh, a third thing. Do we have actual size requirements for the logo, or should we just trust photoshop to size it right? Essentially, how big is it supposed to be?

The GSL itself features "Dungeons and Dragons" in a rather bold font. I'm a little bummed about the licence relegating the words to the back cover (thank you Valar Project) but it still is a powerful asset.

 

[SteveC]

I'll second those predictions.
I'll add another: within a year, a major publisher will release a major OGL-lincesed game based on 4e ideas, but sufficiently different (in his opinion) to not be derivative. I, for one, am looking forward to it.

Once again, I feel prompted to say "quoted for truth."

To say that I am disappointed in the GSL that was actually released is a remarkable understatement. It gives me hope, however, because it opens the door for another company to give us a "4E compatible" game that is open. I'm enjoying 4E, but I'll enjoy the open version a lot more, thankyouverymuch.

--Steve

 

[BryonD]

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.

Should the GSL also ban 3PPs from free-lancing for White Wolf? Or does the lack of any mention of White Wolf mean that they are endorsing White wolf products? If they want to deny the option for competing, then they should deny the option of competing across the board.

It is about doing the best they can to out the OGL genie back in the bottle and it is a real turd in the punch bowl.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

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.

Problem is, if I bring a toy to play in the Wizards sandbox, and later Wizards makes the same toy with a different setup, they can tell me at any time that my toy is no longer valid and doesn't belong in the sandbox, it has to go. That's not conspiricy, it's a very real possibility (and a bizarre metaphor for me to explain it.)

 

[Aria Silverhands]

I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.

Exactly.

Just like they can't prevent you from using the following:
Asmodeus
Baphomet
Orcus
Demogorgon
Bahamut
Tiamat

You can't use WOTC's description of them, but nothing prevents you from making your own version of.

 

[The Sigil]

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.

Not true. And I wish people would stop using the "shorthand" of IP (Intellectual Property) to cover (a) copyright, (b) patents, and (c) trademarks, as it leads to much confusion. Here you are conflating trademarks with copyright.

Case law is explicit that TRADEMARKS must be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.

COPYRIGHTED WORKS and PATENTS do NOT have to be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.

As I can't recall seeing trademarks on Beholders, Mind Flayers, Yuan-Ti etc. (I could be wrong), they do not need to be vigorously protected. One could argue, however, that they are trademark-ish. Angels and demons... far less trademark-ish for the obvious reason that many of them were sucked out of the public domain.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

Baseless, blanket ad hominem attacks FTW!

I don't think it's all that hard to create your own stat blocks for goblins or troglodytes or kobolds. Just use the NPC rules and create your own monsters. If you use them throughout the module, you won't have to do too much. I think it's quite doable.

 

[Psion]

I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.

Some folks seem to think this is copyright law. It's not. It's a contractual agreement. Not saying this is the implication of the GSL, but if you agree not to do something by a licensing agreement, and then do it, you can be hit with the consequences of breaching that contract.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Exactly.

Just like they can't prevent you from using the following:
Asmodeus
Baphomet
Orcus
Demogorgon
Bahamut
Tiamat

You can't use WOTC's description of them, but nothing prevents you from making your own version of.

Legality isn't the issue here. Your ability to pay your (and WotC's) court costs are.

Do you have a lawyer on staff and the legal budget of Hasbro? Are you willing to take on a company that does?

Hyrum.