4e D&D GSL Live

[Voadam]

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?

With a revocable at any time for any reason clause that requires destruction of all 4e stock it is a risky money making endeavor.

I expect there will be 4e products made to dip into the market, but 3rd parties cannot realistically substantially invest themselves economically in doing so.

I expect there will be a number of pdfs made, but nowhere near the number of 3rd party print books there were under 3e.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

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.

For the US jurisdiction is easy. Section 19 limits all court cases to the state or federal courts based in King County, Washington State with no jury option available. Internationally though things get more complicated since even if the King County courts rule in favor of WotC (even by no-show of the 3pp) WotC would then have to enforce its ruling in the other countries by way of foreign courts which may or may not agree with the US ruling on the legality of the contract.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Section 19 limits all court cases to the state or federal courts based in King County, Washington State with no jury option available.

Should have read past 16 then, I was so disgusted I quit. But if that's what's in 19 you're borked.

Internationally though things get more complicated since even if the King County courts rule in favor of WotC (even by no-show of the 3pp) WotC would then have to enforce its ruling in the other countries by way of foreign courts which may or may not agree with the US ruling on the legality of the contract.

Which is the major impediment, and one I would like to see them stub their toes on just for the sake of vindictiveness.

 

[webrunner]

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.

There are clauses in contracts and agreements that cannot be inforced, and are ruled illegal, all the time. For example, clauses like "you cannot sue us for any reason", are included in a lot of contracts, but you still retain the right to sue even if you agree with them. There are certain rights that cannot be given away in agreeing to a licence, even if the license says you are.

If it wasn't possible for part of the agreement to be illegal, there wouldn't be a clause that specifies what happens if part of the agreement is deemed to be illegal.

I'm not exactly sure which ones are in US law, but in Canadian law, for instance, the act dealing with consumer agreements with corporations (say: cellphone planes) says "The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary." - a cellphone company for instance cannot charge you the early cancellation fee if you terminate the agreement as per the consumer protection act- because the act specifies that a termination under the act occurs 'as if they never existed', even though the agreement made with the cellphone company says that you agree to pay the cancellation fee if you terminate for any reason.

 

[jgerman]

There are clauses in contracts and agreements that cannot be inforced, and are ruled illegal, all the time. For example, clauses like "you cannot sue us for any reason", are included in a lot of contracts, but you still retain the right to sue even if you agree with them. There are certain rights that cannot be given away in agreeing to a licence, even if the license says you are.

If it wasn't possible for part of the agreement to be illegal, there wouldn't be a clause that specifies what happens if part of the agreement is deemed to be illegal.

I'm not exactly sure which ones are in US law, but in Canadian law, for instance, the act dealing with consumer agreements with corporations (say: cellphone planes) says "The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary." - a cellphone company for instance cannot charge you the early cancellation fee if you terminate the agreement as per the consumer protection act- because the act specifies that a termination under the act occurs 'as if they never existed', even though the agreement made with the cellphone company says that you agree to pay the cancellation fee if you terminate for any reason.

Yup. And IIRC that particular clause ("you pay our legal fees") is not enforceable. I'm too lazy to dig up a reference however.

Additionally even if it were enforceable they'd have to sue you to get that money as well. And then they'd have to sue you to get the money they used to sue your for the money they were suing you with. And then they'd have to sue your for the money they were suing you with for what they were suing you for. And then...

 

[TheWyrd]

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

Or when you seek damages from WotC you ask for Money equal to Lost Business + Your Legal Fees + WotCs Legal Fees + Pain and Suffering.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

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. 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.

Don't misinterpret me, I don't think of WotC as a malevolent behemoth. Malevolence has nothing to do with profit, and by negating the validity of pre-exisiting 3pp products they would be trying to assert their GSL rights and capitalize on their products instead of turning customers to other companies.

Even if we put aside the idea of eliminating pre-existing products, we are still left with the quandry of dealilng with other 3pp products that come out after there is an original creature entry from ABC company and a newer SRD creature from WotC. Even if XYZ company explicityly states that it is using the creature entry from ABC, WotC can tell them they are in breach of the GSL because that creature now exists in the SRD.

To use another metaphor (ugh), they may not be able to stop the fire from starting, but they can prevent it from spreading.

 

[BryonD]

I read it differenty. It's not a question of competing.

I replied to the below. (all caps portion in your original)

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!

 

[nothing to see here]

Don't misinterpret me, I don't think of WotC as a malevolent behemoth. Malevolence has nothing to do with profit, and by negating the validity of pre-exisiting 3pp products they would be trying to assert their GSL rights and capitalize on their products instead of turning customers to other companies.

Even if we put aside the idea of eliminating pre-existing products, we are still left with the quandry of dealilng with other 3pp products that come out after there is an original creature entry from ABC company and a newer SRD creature from WotC. Even if XYZ company explicityly states that it is using the creature entry from ABC, WotC can tell them they are in breach of the GSL because that creature now exists in the SRD.

To use another metaphor (ugh), they may not be able to stop the fire from starting, but they can prevent it from spreading.

But it's WOTC starting the fire?

IF I was WOTC management and IF I was secretly infuriated by the OGL, I would not even mess with the GSL. I would contact a half-dozen reputatl third parties and offer them exclusive licences and invite other interested publishers apply for one-off licences as well. That would lead to a system that is closed while at the same time lookin accessible to third parties.

I think WOTC sincerely wants to see third parties experiment with 4e, just not in a way that jeopradizes core book sales.

 

[nothing to see here]

I replied to the below. (all caps portion in your original)

I suppose my word choice between posts could have been more clear.

QUESTION: What, in reality, does Wizards fear from third parties...

ANSWER: Anything that compromises sales of core rule books?

To me it is as simple as that. Using 4e design elements that complement the core rule books is not seen as competition. Building a wider network from that hub, actually helps drive core sales.

Using 4e design elements in a way that competes with Core Book sales, on the other hand, is unacceptable to them. An OGL-style licence opens up just that threat -- and past experience proves these fears well founded.

Now there is a that a third party will release a supplement that directly competes with a Wizards supplement. There is a much smaller chance that this supplement will direclty eat into Wizards sales of this product. And I will concede, that under the licence as written, Wizards could move to squash the competition.

But, given the considerations above, such a move (which would, at the first instance perpetually ivalidate the GSL) would be akin to biting off your nose to spite your face.