GSL, Published Worlds and your game

[xechnao]

how would I be in violation?

You wouldn't. At least that's my take.

 

[Filcher]

You are wrong. That they are not in the SRD means that you simply can't add to or build something on these monsters. This does not mean that they do not exist.

We might have to agree to disagree.

Because they aren't in the System Reference Document, I believe you cannot reference them. I cannot tell you how cool beholders are in my campaign world, I can't reference them, I can't use them.

This is just like the old OGL. Why isn't there a Pazio adventure with beholders? Because they aren't open content under the OGL. Why won't you see 4E beholders from third party publishers? Because they aren't open content under the GSL.

 

[GreyWizard77]

I saw this on the GSL FAQ from the Wizards website. Perhaps it will help shed some light on the issue on whether things can be excluded or not:

"Q: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL."

I'm no lawyer, or even a publisher/author, but to me that says that books can excluded parts of the SRD if it doesn't make sense for the setting. Dragonborn aren't required, for example.

Again, that's my two coppers.

 

[xechnao]

We might have to agree to disagree.

Because they aren't in the System Reference Document, I believe you cannot reference them. I cannot tell you how cool beholders are in my campaign world, I can't reference them, I can't use them.

This is just like the old OGL. Why isn't there a Pazio adventure with beholders? Because they aren't open content under the OGL. Why won't you see 4E beholders from third party publishers? Because they aren't open content under the GSL.

You are correct here: you can't reference them. But I don't think you got what I am trying to tell you above. Because YOU can't reference them it does not mean that GMs cannot use them. YOU are compatible with the core, not the other way around. Can you understand the difference?

 

[Filcher]

You wouldn't. At least that's my take.

I agree. Omission isn't illegal.

 

[xechnao]

I saw this on the GSL FAQ from the Wizards website. Perhaps it will help shed some light on the issue on whether things can be excluded or not:

"Q: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL."

I'm no lawyer, or even a publisher/author, but to me that says that books can excluded parts of the SRD if it doesn't make sense for the setting. Dragonborn aren't required, for example.

Again, that's my two coppers.

Not using something is different than saying it does not exist. If you do not want to use it you must not reference it at all. If you say it does not exist you are already referencing it. That is my logic's take.

 

[Filcher]

You are correct here: you can't reference them. But I don't think you got what I am trying to tell you above. Because YOU can't reference them it does not mean that GMs cannot use them. YOU are compatible with the core, not the other way around. Can you understand the difference?

Yes. My misunderstanding stemmed from:

Things exist by definition. So logically you can't exclude them.

I mistakenly thought you were making a case that every 3rd party world had to include all core material (specifically monsters).

 

[xechnao]

Yes. My misunderstanding stemmed from:



I mistakenly thought you were making a case that every 3rd party world had to include all core material (specifically monsters).

You can't exclude them but you can omit them. And I say again that this is my take.

 

[Filcher]

You can't exclude them but you can omit them. And I say again that this is my take.

A very subtle difference ... which I now appreciate.

(In defense of my red face, I did use "omission" in my original reply.)

 

[xechnao]

A very subtle difference ... which I now appreciate.

(In defense of my red face, I did use "omission" in my original reply.)

I am not excluding the possibility though that some publishers omit this difference and do exclude things. If Wotc will omit this or exclude the publishers from the license, I do not know.