4e D&D GSL Live

[Nellisir]

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.

I'll give it 18 months. Or Pathfinder might rebrand itself as less of a "3e clone" and more of a 3e successor. There's alot of good stuff in 4e, and some great design theory. I'd buy a book just discussing the evolution of the design and decisions (like WotC is going to give that away...).

This license doesn't suprise me at all. In fact, the only suprising thing is how close I was. I mean, I didn't -really- expect WotC to go near-nuclear on everything, but I couldn't think of a reason for them not too. WotC wants 3pp support, but they do not care about it.

There's no conspiracy theory. WotC wants 3pp to support D&D. End story. They don't really care how many (and I'll guarantee a number will), so long as it directly supports D&D. The OGL & OGL-SRD are like...a tree, with the SRD at the base. Products kept growing further and further away from the SRD and core rules. The GSL keeps everything close and tight - there's no independant game creation; everything springs directly from the core rules or not at all.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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

Not even that. They'll just terminate your license, which means you are out of the 4E business and sit on a stack of to-be-destroyed books.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Not even that. They'll just terminate your license, which means you are out of the 4E business and sit on a stack of to-be-destroyed books.

Cheers, LT.

Or I go to court, and they lose.

Cheers!

 

[HyrumOWC]

Or I go to court, and they lose.

Cheers!

And then you pay their legal fees. Look at section 11.4. It doesn't matter if you win, lose, or draw, you pay WotC's legal fees.

Hyrum.

 

[webrunner]

And then you pay their legal fees. Look at section 11.4. It doesn't matter if you win, lose, or draw, you pay WotC's legal fees.

Hyrum.

I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause. I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal

 

[nothing to see here]

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.

I read it differenty. It's not a question of competing. It's a question of ensuring that 4e concepts do not become completely unregulaged OGL-style open-content. Standard IP law will dictate what concepts White Wolf and Wizards can or cannot use in common -- that's the way it's always been and the GSL does not need to address that. The OGL is a special case.

Listen...I will fully accept and understand that someone with a philosophical attachment to open-systems theory will be peeved at this as a step back.

The OGL was revolutionary, though, considering that the commerical benefits of open-systems are not proven, that's not necessarily a good thing.

You can hate the GSL on philosophical grounds. But it is hyperbolic to assume that, because of that opposition, that there is no viable models for third party publishers, or that the entire motive behidn the GSL is some sort of nefarious scheme.

 

[nothing to see here]

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.)

We'll leave the obvious and (and still unanswered) question of "why would WOTC ever bother/consider doing such a thing?" as it's certainly your right to assume the absolute worst about their motives.

Even if you assume the worse (and I do not) -- my understanding of the game industry (which I stand to be corrected on) is that it has a front-loaded sales model.

Publishers rely on initial orders from distributors because the vast majority of book sales come in the first couple of months.

There is a longer tale to PDFs I'll grant you that, but there is also a much lower start-up cost and barrier to entry.

If you want to consider WOTC a maleveolent behemoth, fine -- just remember that most publishers would have made their money on a product by the time that behemoth gets around to swatting them.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause. I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal

Depends in some US jurisdictions it would be though that varies. Doesn't even begin to address the problems they'd run into trying to enforce the license in other nations. Which could be a lot larger.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause. I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal

No, it's a contract. It isn't illegal. No one has to use the license, WOTC does not have a monopoly on RPGs. Using that license means you use the whole license.

 

[nothing to see here]

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.

You're right I apologize. I'm not a lawyer. I am a marketing guy who has spent far-too much time sitting around boardroom tables with IP and copyright lawyers. Butting heads with them has led me to trivialize the legally significant differences in the terms they use.