4e D&D GSL Live

[BryonD]

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

fair enough.

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

ANSWER: Anything that compromises sales of core rule books?

I completely respect WotC's right to do what they think is in their best interest.

In a market of the nature of recreation, I think respecting your customers is a big part of that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if so then so be it.

I think trying to harm the OGL is a harm against their fans at large.
I think trying to make people (both buyers and 3PPs) embrace a new system is much better done by selling the merits of that system and that poison pills are purely negative. I think everyone, including WotC, loses in the long run as a result of this kind of move.

I also respect my own right to do what is in my best interest. That includes both voting with my wallet and giving myself an illusion of significance through expressing my opinon on messageboards.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'm seeing a few posts about a "4e OSRIC" in this thread, and I'd just like to ask you all please not to, if you wouldn't mind.

OSRIC is specifically a mechanism for releasing products compatible with the non-copyrightable parts of first edition, and that's all it is or will be.

Having read the GSL, I dissociate myself from 4e entirely; it doesn't exist for me. I certainly don't intend to create anything resembling 4e. I don't condone any attempt anyone else might make to do a thing like that, and I really don't want the name of my product associated with the idea, please.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm seeing a few posts about a "4e OSRIC" in this thread, and I'd just like to ask you all please not to, if you wouldn't mind.

OSRIC is specifically a mechanism for releasing products compatible with the non-copyrightable parts of first edition, and that's all it is or will be.

Having read the GSL, I dissociate myself from 4e entirely; it doesn't exist for me. I certainly don't intend to create anything resembling 4e. I don't condone any attempt anyone else might make to do a thing like that, and I really don't want the name of my product associated with the idea, please.

I don't think anyone's going to call their work "4E OSRIC" or anything like that. They're referencing your work because it's the best (and indeed, the only) example of taking the existing OGL materials and (legally) altering them to the point where they resemble a different game entirely. It opened up a lot of new possibilities in peoples' minds, and set a new precedent.

I think it's inevitable that someone will attempt to do the same with materials released under the OGL to make them resemble the 4E game mechanics. In essence doing what OSRIC did, but for a different sytem. Once that has a name, people will stop calling it "4E OSRIC," though that'll still be an apt descriptor.

No one's trying to make trouble for you or your work, but I think that this sort of thinking is an unavoidable byproduct of it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think it's inevitable that someone will attempt to do the same with materials released under the OGL to make them resemble the 4E game mechanics.

I agree. And when that happens, I want to be on record as having said clearly and publicly that I do not condone any attempt to do this!

 

[Yair]

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.

While the GSL may be altered at WotC's whim, it is a fairly certain bet that it won't be drastically altered for years, and that adhering to it and working with WotC will allow you to reference their books, publish compatible products, and advertise them as such - all great advantages.

Now, I THINK you can do all of that under Fair Use too. But it's more risky. So the advantages I see in the GSL, for a publisher, are:

A) It allows you to publish D&D-compatible products in relative legal safety.
B) It allows you to use WotC's formats, which will assist making your products appealing to the readership.

The disadvantages are:
A) In case the safe-haven fails, WotC can punish you much more severely, with claims over their legal costs, the requirement to destroy your stock, and so on.
B) By publishing content under the GSL, you are restricting your ability to later publish it under the OGL even if you or WotC terminate the GSL.
C) By changing the SRD (e.g. adding "Druid" to it), WotC may make currently compatible products incompatible. Unlike changes to the licesne itself, this I reckon to be more common and likely, a more relevant concern.
D) You are limited in the range of products you can publish - you better stay away from any setting involving the real world, you may not publish a MM where Demons are founded on the Christian or Mesopotemian mythology, you can't make software products, and so on.
E) When the GSL will be terminated, you will be forced to destroy your current stock and stop selling any and all GSL products. This is "when", since eventually it will.

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.

I hope you are right.

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.

I thought a jury be peers was an inalienable right. Shows how much I know about law...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

While the GSL may be altered at WotC's whim, it is a fairly certain bet that it won't be drastically altered for years, and that adhering to it and working with WotC will allow you to reference their books, publish compatible products, and advertise them as such - all great advantages.

Now, I THINK you can do all of that under Fair Use too. But it's more risky. So the advantages I see in the GSL, for a publisher, are:

A) It allows you to publish D&D-compatible products in relative legal safety.
B) It allows you to use WotC's formats, which will assist making your products appealing to the readership.

What? No mention of that insignificant little advantage of putting the actual DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS logo on your product?

 

[TimeOut]

TimeOut - I'd love to see your reasoning on your claims about monsters. I mean, you keep saying "I'm not a lawyer" and then making strong, unqualified claims about what the GSL means. It seems a bit misleading to me.

Those "claims" are based on my honest understanding of the GSL. It is how I read the text and the intent of both the GSL document and the SRD guidelines. If my interpretion is wrong, that is good. I am rather more restrictive in my interpretion, because the GSL seems to be restrictive in its intent.

It seems that if "change" a monster you created a new monster unless you specifically say that it's based on the previous monster. I don't see any sane reason why you couldn't publish it's entire stat-block.

I mean, is a new kind of Orc Skirmisher a "changed" version of the old Orc Skirmisher, or a new creature? Seems to me that it's inevitably the latter.

I don't know. Is a changed (leveled, rewritten, whatever) Orc truly a complete new creature? It seems to me that if you give the Orc the ability "Warrior's Surge", you are not allowed to list it in the new statblock.

Of course you can write everything out that has changed, but I would assume that unchanged properties must be referenced.

What about Elves or Humans, say? By your logic you couldn't print their full stats and abilities, ever, because they have certain racial traits. I don't actually think WotC are that maliciously stupid. If they are, then it's clear their sole intention is to discourage anyone from producing 4E products, even adventures, which means that I won't be support them any further.

Of course you can create Elves and Humans. But I think that any description of their racial powers must be referenced (like the orc ability above).

I don't think it is good, and I really hope that I'm too restrictive in my interpretation, but that is something that needs clear clarification from WotC.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't know. Is a changed (leveled, rewritten, whatever) Orc truly a complete new creature? It seems to me that if you give the Orc the ability "Warrior's Surge", you are not allowed to list it in the new statblock.

Is "Warrior's Surge" listed in the SRD? I'd say if it is, you can't include it. If it isn't, then it's subsumed under "Orc", and if you update any part of "Orc", you can reprint the entirety of the reference.

 

[TimeOut]

Is "Warrior's Surge" listed in the SRD? I'd say if it is, you can't include it. If it isn't, then it's subsumed under "Orc", and if you update any part of "Orc", you can reprint the entirety of the reference.

It is listed as an 4e Reference.

 

[Yair]

What? No mention of that insignificant little advantage of putting the actual DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS logo on your product?

It is my understanding that you can do so without the GSL. The use of the logo, or something close to it, doesn't constitute a violation of trademark law IF it only indicates compatability. So, you can say that your program works with Microsoft Windows, without needing Microsoft's permission. If the use can mislead the customer to think that the product IS a D&D product (or is a Microsoft program or so on) than this is a breach of trademark; but trademark law does NOT prohibit the use of your trademarks by others, only its use to identify their products as part of your brand or so on.

If I'm mistaken in this, then certainly it's a big advantage. But if I'm right, the advantage lies more in the ability to do so under relatively clear guidelines in a legal safe haven, which is why I listed it within it.

Edit:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
"To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods."
However,
"the owner of a mark can bring an action against any use of that mark that dilutes the distinctive quality of that mark, either through "blurring" or "tarnishment" of that mark; unlike an infringement claim, likelihood of confusion is not necessary. "
I doubt the latter would hold for this case, though, except maybe for BoEF or so on.
Finally,
"Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product."
I believe identifying your product as compatible with THAT product falls under this protection. But of course, IANAL.