GSL FAQ up

[sinecure]

Also, I noticed in the FAQ Wizards is going to be using product line as a legal term, so it appears as if any product line in its entirety is either under a GSL or not.

This is far more reaching than what I had thought, but it could backfire if gaming companies refuse to legally define their products into GSL defined "lines". Meaning each book or product is particularized into its own entity, if only to allow themselves double publishing rights for a particular world or entity they hold.

Truthfully that would be difficult though as even if a Mutants & Masterminds was marketed against a GSL Mutants & Masterbrains, the two lines could never have books which related to each other. And the fact each may have some setting similarities could also cause copyright infringement as one line of the company's is infringing upon the other (the other being GSL and not wholly theirs without restriction).

 

[hong]

No.

The issue isn't that I'd like to do something WotC would be opposed to, but rather that I'd like to do something without them having any right to tell me not to. I just don't want to depend on their good graces. I have full, complete, total confidnece that they would not exploit their rights to hinder me. I still don't want them to have these rights. I want to create and post without being beholden to anyone. It's a purely emotional state.

Stop thinking too hard about fantasy law.

 

[Shades of Green]

<deleted>

 

[Lizard]

Do you honestly think WOTC would ask you to remove your site with your homebrewed campaign world and alternate rules if they decided to revoke the GSL?

Cheers

TSR did.

Are the people currently at WOTC that dim? Probably not. Are the people who run Hasbro, who might see Gleemax not doing as well as it might and blame 'free competition' that dim? Very possibly.

It's obvious WOTC put a lot of eggs into Gleemax. It's not obvious why I'd give up ENWorld and RPG.NET to go there. (My time is limited; I can't keep up with more than two gaming sites.)

 

[WhatGravitas]

TSR did.

WotC is not TSR-stupid. If you really think Hasbro-suits are a) that stupid AND b) have such an influence on WotC decisions, we wouldn't have a GSL at all.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lizard]

WotC is not TSR-stupid. If you really think Hasbro-suits are a) that stupid AND b) have such an influence on WotC decisions, we wouldn't have a GSL at all.

Cheers, LT.

Time will tell.

TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Time will tell.

TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.

Just like they have a motive to go after Transformers and G.I. Joe fansites.

Wait, they don't. Fansite = free advertising.

 

[Lizard]

Just like they have a motive to go after Transformers and G.I. Joe fansites.

Wait, they don't. Fansite = free advertising.

I must have missed where Hasbro's marketing plan for Transformers included a 15/month subscription to Transformers.com.

(And, actually, as a former active Transformers fan, I can tell you the relationship between Hasbro and fandom has been....rocky, including things like them throwing a hissy fit over the art show at BotCon, for example. It really depends on who's in charge at the moment and what the current bug up their butt is -- relationships with fan communities can go from friendly to hostile in seconds. You might also wish to look at the history of Star Trek and X-Files fan sites, or the current JK Rowling lawsuit, where she's suing someone for publishing the contents of a web site she'd previously singled out as excellent, and so on.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Time will tell.

TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.

Hasbro is not losing money to fan sites, either. Rules from fan-sites are rarely accepted in gamer groups. They might serve as an inspiration, but it's also likely that the sentence "I've got these rules from the internet" leads to a cruel and bloody human sacrifice.


I think one of the big differences to then and today is that people gauge the internet a little bit better these days.

If you begin telling your fans they can't put up fan material for other fans, they will tell everyone about it, and quickly you either have enraged fans or simply ex-fans.

Stuff like the OGL/GSL problems might be something many fans don't care that much about. But acting like a prick over your fans? That causes hurt feelings among all fans.

Whatever happened to Amigo, the (first) German Publisher for 3e D&D? They wrote our webmaster an email that we should remove or rename a Prestige Class called "Rage Mage" because a class with its name and general was published in some Dragon magazine (probably none of us - especially not me, the creator of the class - ever read up to that point). As far as I know, we weren't the only one emailed about such matters.
Amigo is no longer publishing 3E in Germany. (There is another publisher now. But I never picked up any of the German books.)
A similar thing happened (before my time) with either FASA or TSR (or both). I hope that the businesses that are still around have learned how to handle this.

 

[Shades of Green]

Shutting down fan pages and, more importantly, censuring fan forums kills the community, and thus most of the market. TSR did that. TSR died.

I fear that WotC or their bosses at Hasbro might be temped to outlaw sites providing fan-created character classes and options that don't exist in PHB I but do exist in PHB II or III. Say, if I make my own Druid from scratch after getting PHB I, I fear WotC ordering me to remove it from the 'net once PHB II comes out, even though it is my class created from my imagination and having no relationship whatsoever to the PHB II class except for the name ("Druid") and the core concept (nature-priest).