GSL vs. no GSL Forked From: Where are all of the campaign settings?

[Lord Xtheth]

Forked from: Where are all of the campaign settings?

Goodman has non GSL 4e modules set in their Known Worlds setting.

If Freeport counts as a setting from the 1st Freeport module that came out day 1 then Known Worlds counts for the DCC modules.

I don't know if the XRP 4e books are set in a specific setting or not.

Now I've noticed this mentioned a few times, and being new to the entire "I want to publish somthing" game I didn't realize this was somthing that can legaly be done.
I would love to produce and publish a campaign I had developed near the end of 3.5 as a 4E product, and I honestly think it has the potential to sell well. The things I don't like are the rules of the GSL, but I don't know the legality of producing somthing for 4E while NOT using the GSL. Can anyone enlighten me on the rules?

I would also like to discuss other peoples thoughts on companys going "outside" the GSL and what they think of it.

In my personal opinion it kinda feels like blatant stealing. Some other company made a list of rules and system tidbits that are decent and playable as a good game. Then others come along and take those rules and just use them.

This might not have come out the way I thought it might have, I haven't slept in 2 days, so I may not be thinking/wrighting straight.

 

[The Little Raven]

The things I don't like are the rules of the GSL, but I don't know the legality of producing somthing for 4E while NOT using the GSL.

What, exactly, are your problems and how would they negatively affect your potential product?

I would also like to discuss other peoples thoughts on companys going "outside" the GSL and what they think of it.

I'd take a look at what Kenzer & Co is doing for an example of a company going outside the GSL and still claiming direct compatibility.

In my personal opinion it kinda feels like blatant stealing. Some other company made a list of rules and system tidbits that are decent and playable as a good game. Then others come along and take those rules and just use them.

The only way I'd view it as stealing is if someone simply took 4e and reprinted it to make money directly off WotC's work. Making a derivative work (like a campaign setting) that doesn't reprint rules, but references and utilizes them, is entirely different.

If you want to release a campaign setting that uses the 4e system, without using the GSL, then you can. Kenzer did it with Kingdoms of Kalamar. However, keep in mind that there are certain pieces of intellectual property that the SRD allows you to use, which will not be available to you if you do not use the GSL.

Before proceeding on any work that will cost you money or time, I'd consult with a lawyer.

 

[Jack99]

Forked from: Where are all of the campaign settings?

Now I've noticed this mentioned a few times, and being new to the entire "I want to publish somthing" game I didn't realize this was somthing that can legaly be done.
I would love to produce and publish a campaign I had developed near the end of 3.5 as a 4E product, and I honestly think it has the potential to sell well. The things I don't like are the rules of the GSL, but I don't know the legality of producing somthing for 4E while NOT using the GSL. Can anyone enlighten me on the rules?

I would also like to discuss other peoples thoughts on companys going "outside" the GSL and what they think of it.

In my personal opinion it kinda feels like blatant stealing. Some other company made a list of rules and system tidbits that are decent and playable as a good game. Then others come along and take those rules and just use them.

This might not have come out the way I thought it might have, I haven't slept in 2 days, so I may not be thinking/wrighting straight.

As Mourn said, it's definitely possible to go outside the GSL. I won't discuss the morality of doing so, but I will note two things.
- If you do it, get a good lawyer first, who knows what he is doing. Also note that one of the Kenzer owners is an IP lawyer.
- Most non-GSL stuff I have seen has not been very good. Or rather, the non-GSL parts have annoyed the hell out of me and made certain that I will probably never use the product, nor buy other products made by the same company, unless they switch to the GSL. This is a 100% personal opinion of course, and maybe everyone feels different about it. I just know it's annoying when half the key-words (could be anything, just an example) has been changed because they are afraid of stepping over that magic line that will acquaint them in a not so funny way with WotC's lawyers.

 

[CaptainChaos]

What Green Ronin did was make the Pirates Guide to Freeport system neutral. It's just a big, cool setting book and it doesn't have game stats for any game system (they are available for some systems in the form of companion books, though not for 4E yet). It's a neat approach and is certainly not stealing from anybody.

 

[smug]

What Green Ronin did was make the Pirates Guide to Freeport system neutral. It's just a big, cool setting book and it doesn't have game stats for any game system (they are available for some systems in the form of companion books, though not for 4E yet). It's a neat approach and is certainly not stealing from anybody.

Given that GR are going to keep their 3.5 material on sale as 3rd Era and that presumably includes the former d20-branded supplement to Freeport, I guess they couldn't do that and produce a GSL 4e supplement under the terms of the GSL requiring you ditch forever all OGL support for the same product line. So they'd have to go outside the GSL if there's to be 4e Freeport and them keep their 3.5/OGL support in place (and, for that matter, True20, because that's OGL too, right?).

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

What Green Ronin did was make the Pirates Guide to Freeport system neutral. It's just a big, cool setting book and it doesn't have game stats for any game system (they are available for some systems in the form of companion books, though not for 4E yet). It's a neat approach and is certainly not stealing from anybody.

That's really a great approach. One of my favorite campaign books, 'Titan – The World of Fighting Fantasy', was written as a lot of background information that can easily be used with any game system.

It has its own problems, as you get no new prestige classes, no regional feats, no dragonmark powers or any other crunchy stuff from the various settings published during the days of 3rd edition.

You lose on game options for a single system, but there is also a gain in versatility; each group can choose which one suits them better: 3E, 4E, GURPS or Burning Wheel.

Cheers,

 

[Voadam]

I would also like to discuss other peoples thoughts on companys going "outside" the GSL and what they think of it.

In my personal opinion it kinda feels like blatant stealing. Some other company made a list of rules and system tidbits that are decent and playable as a good game. Then others come along and take those rules and just use them.

I don't consider rules proprietary. I don't consider people who see my house rules and "take those rules and just use them" as stealing from me. Building off of work I did sure, but not stealing with any negative connotations.

I wish more companies would go the non-GSL route, I don't like how the GSL tries to kill OGL products. I am interested in OGL products being available in the future, I play 3e and not 4e. I don't want the 3e Scarred Lands pdfs to go away when the first 4e book comes out, though I expect there is a good chance they will.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't consider people who see my house rules and "take those rules and just use them" as stealing from me. Building off of work I did sure, but not stealing with any negative connotations.

There's a difference between "I like your houserule for butterflies, and I'm going to use it." and "I like your game system, so I am going to reprint it under my name and attempt to profit from your work."

 

[Voadam]

There's a difference between "I like your houserule for butterflies, and I'm going to use it." and "I like your game system, so I am going to reprint it under my name and attempt to profit from your work."

And there is a difference between "I like your game system, so I am going to reprint it under my name." and "I like your game system, I'm going to make a module/monster book/campaign setting/sourcebook that is compatible with it."

 

[The Little Raven]

And there is a difference between "I like your game system, so I am going to reprint it under my name." and "I like your game system, I'm going to make a module/monster book/campaign setting/sourcebook that is compatible with it."

Indeed, which is why I pointed that out to the original poster.

The only way I'd view it as stealing is if someone simply took 4e and reprinted it to make money directly off WotC's work. Making a derivative work (like a campaign setting) that doesn't reprint rules, but references and utilizes them, is entirely different.