4e D&D GSL Live

[Scribble]

Sure. That is said in the FAQ too. I am not forced to include a 4e Reference. But I can't exclude it either, only omit it in the description and hope that players don't try to use the classes.

Wait, I'm confuzzled... Where in the faq does it say I cannoy exclude a reference?

I see where it says I don't have to include them, and I see where it says I still ahve to include the legal blurb... But nothing about not excluding stuff?

Where does it say I cannot say: There are no clerics in Montgomeryburnesia?

 

[TimeOut]

Where does it say I cannot say: There are no clerics in Montgomeryburnesia?

It doesn't say so directly. But by excluding a class you are essentially changing the 4e Reference of that class, as far as I understand it. That is not allowed.

 

[JohnRTroy]

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.

Not the LOGO, but the word.

You can say your product is Microsoft Windows compatible, but you can't stamp a logo on the box without following Microsoft's licensing guidelines.

You might be able to say your product is Dungeons and Dragons(R) compatible. But you CAN'T use any stylized logo that says so. Fair use of Trademark does not mean you can use the unique graphic logo in a product. That would truly cause "confusion".

 

[Tao]

It doesn't say so directly. But by excluding a class you are essentially changing the 4e Reference of that class, as far as I understand it. That is not allowed.

This is incorrect. You can exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.

For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead". One is exclusion (allowed) the other is redefinition (not allowed). You could, however, make a "Holy Man" class that has the flavor of the cleric (or even grants access to precisely their power list) with different class features.

Additionally, you cannot remove a power from a class's list, as that would fall under redefinition of a class.

If you use a specific reference from the SRD it has to be exactly as stated (all or nothing). Otherwise, do not reference it at all.

 

[TimeOut]

This is incorrect. You can exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.

For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead".

Thanks. So at least that part of my setting is saved.

 

[xechnao]

This is incorrect. You can exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.

For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead". One is exclusion (allowed) the other is redefinition (not allowed). You could, however, make a "Holy Man" class that has the flavor of the cleric (or even grants access to precisely their power list) with different class features.

If you use a specific reference from the SRD it has to be exactly as stated (all or nothing). Otherwise, do not reference it at all.

So could I exclude attributes, skills, combat, classes, actions and introduce my rules such as abilities, talents, conflict, careers, tasks?
Are you sure about what you are saying?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Are either of you lawyers?

I suspect that most US jurisdictions have a doctrine about the non-enforcement of excessive contractual penalties (this is certainly part of Australian contract law) but unless you are familiar with that law I think you have to be cautious in saying, of any particular clause, that it would be unenforceable.

And, by the way, unenforcability does not entail illegality.

 

[Harr]

I am not a lawyer and I am not a publisher, I am a mere DM with some players, but I will say that the GSL is right in line with WotC's recent attitude of "Let's go ahead and see just how far we can push 'em before they start pushing back", seen in many little ways like the pricing of their preview books, DDI, KotS and its print quality, the treatment of Dungeon and Dragon, etc, etc, etc.

I'm noone to be criticizing, and I love 4e as a game, but just saying, camel's back's gotta break sometime. At least it will be interesting to watch.

 

[Tao]

So could I exclude attributes, skills, combat, classes, actions and introduce my rules such as abilities, talents, conflict, careers, tasks?
Are you sure about what you are saying?

I just added something to the above quote for clarity, but I'll clarify here as well. If you reference something from the SRD, you get ALL of it, with all baggage attached. If you don't reference, or specifically say you don't want it, then you don't get any of it.


As for the ramifications of what you are implying... well... to be honest... I know what I am saying, but have no idea what you are saying...

If you wanted to do that, it would technically be allowed so long as the rules in question were different enough. But the removal of those specific mechanics would require that both the combat and noncombat mechanics be rewritten to fit your new phrasing (which you can't legally do). So... at that point you would be making a completely different game. It would be less effort (for both you and your consumer) to simply start from scratch than try to rebuild to that extent.

So could you legally make alternate names for things? Sure. But you cannot say that "attributes = abilities" (would fall under redefinition if you spelled it out that clearly), nor can you rewrite the other mechanics to fit your new wording. So, would replacing mechanics things accomplish anything? Nope. In fact, it just doesn't work in practice.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I suspect that most US jurisdictions have a doctrine about the non-enforcement of excessive contractual penalties (this is certainly part of Australian contract law) but unless you are familiar with that law I think you have to be cautious in saying, of any particular clause, that it would be unenforceable.

And, by the way, unenforcability does not entail illegality.

That jurisdiction thing is the main issue in the US. Unlike a centralized system we're Federal, so each State will have a different and often conflicting set of laws. One of the reasons each State has a bar, the laws are different in each. In some States there are laws that would make that clause about paying WoTC's legal fees unenforceable. In others it would fly. And even then it could be appealed ad-nausea up the chain looking for a favorable ruling. Similarly clause 19 would stipulate that the case must be held by particular courts, but not every state would necessarily honor that clause.