A Clarification on the two new GSLs

[buzz]

Guys, I suspect the two different licenses are based on the fact that there's a new D20 modern (or whatever it will be called) coming out. Since we have no details on that, my guess is that you will choose the license based on what original base game you take it from. We don't yet know how compatible both rulesets will be--it's possible the new d20 modern will be different from D&D 4e in some significant mechanical ways.

Exactly what I was thinking.

It seems like one's basically a "make stuff for D&D" license, and the other is a "make stuff that's not for D&D" license. It's seems obvious to me there's no "Is it fantasy?" issue. Still, we'll see when the actual license is released.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

My bad on the wrong forum post...

I'm not trying to write a legal opinion nor base one on the press release, merely point out that the release was "inadequate". (cap't obvious). Also wanted to solicit opinions on what I thought were potential issues. I guess this is what other people here thought to be a "legal opinion". But I never portrayed the post as anything other than a random internet forum post. Others read into it as me trying to say more than I actually was, I think.

I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that.

I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever...

And my comment about WOTC hiring a good IP firm....well I was being a little sarcastic. I mean I hope that hiring a good firm is plainly obvious. I also hope that they spend a good deal of time working it out. It just seems to me that since the license scheme is still changing (for no apparent reason other than the fact that final goals/intentions are still not set in stone) there is the possibility that inadequate effort is being given to such an important item. I would think that something as core as the license for the content (and the inherent goals and purposes of the content as determined by the license) would be a foundation on which the final content was devised, not the other way around. I suppose I'm griping about what appears to be a recurrent theme - haphazard work. But I hope all works out in the end. I am happy that the game is going to be open and I don't want to denigrate WOTC yet again. But I'm scared by what I see. This is not how I would do things. But, who am I? Just a schmo.

Cheers!

 

[JohnRTroy]

I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that.

The OGL can't be revoked, true. However, keep in mind the following:

1) WoTC never made the D&D game OGL. They have the rights to all the content. Thus, they are allowed to go to the "source well" and reinvent the game without violating the OGL.

2) The SRD of the game doesn't have a lot of descriptive information--no monster background or "what is a fighter". Most of it is rules--stat blocks, etc. The "fluff" was reserved by Wizards.

3) D&D is being Significantly changed in many ways. 3e and 4e are not compatible. For instance, the Pit Fiend in 4e has different powers, rules, attack ranges, etc. You won't really be able to use 3e monsters from the OGL itself. For balance purposes, you're really going to have to take them from the 4e versions.

 

[Morrus]

If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL.

It wasn't released under the OGL.

I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever...

I'm fairly sure they won't actually care about the fantasy/modern fluff/flavour - it'll simply be to do with the compatibility statement/access to branding. You'd choose whichever you felt best for you product. But without seeing the licencse, that's just an educated guess. I very much doubt the word "fantasy" will appear in either license.

 

[jezter6]

I think the need for a new license is just to differentiate between D&D and NOT D&D. Why would someone pick up a book with a D&D logo that is for a NOT D&D product. It's a problem the d20 logo had - is that it indicated compatibility with too many game systems that ended up not being compatible at all. D&D classes are not compatible with d20 Modern classes - but the d20 logo said they were, which was a huge mistake.

The great thing is that this doesn't seem to indicate anything like the masses thought that say no more Spycraft or True20.

While I love True20 as is, I would probably check out a True20: d20GSL version.

 

[lurkinglidda]

I hope you don't mind me taking this POV, but this statement:

I also hope that they spend a good deal of time working it out.

Is not congruent with this one:

<snip> ...there is the possibility that inadequate effort is being given to such an important item.

We've spent quite a bit of time contemplating the licenses, working out the corner cases, and identifying any possible legal concerns.

 

[Ourph]

We've spent quite a bit of time contemplating the licenses, working out the corner cases, and identifying any possible legal concerns.

Linae, will there be any significant differences in the rights or restrictions granted by the two separate licenses (ala the differences between the OGL and d20 STL), or will the main difference just be the ruleset the author is allowed to reference?

 

[lurkinglidda]

double post.

 

[lurkinglidda]

Linae, will there be any significant differences in the rights or restrictions granted by the two separate licenses (ala the differences between the OGL and d20 STL), or will the main difference just be the ruleset the author is allowed to reference?

I'm at a Con right now and don't have the actual documents right in front of me. IIRC the main differences lie in the ruleset being used. Both GSLs incorporate many aspects of the OGL and d20STL.

One is for D&D and the other is for non D&D. Say, if you want to do a d20 game called Supermarkets & Housewives, or Paparazzi & Heiresses you'd use the genre-free license.

 

[Nellisir]

While I love True20 as is, I would probably check out a True20: d20GSL version.

I'm not sure how True20 would work with no character creation and no advancement.