Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[pemerton]

I'm curious about what "clarifications" Clark wants, and what difference they could make in regards to his decision not to use the GSL. Some of the legalese is rather opaque, I agree, but I'd think he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License.

I think he wants clarifications at least on the meaning of some of the language in clause 6, such as "any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL," "same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents".

These seem to be the issues that most need settling to understand the implications of no backwards conversion, and the implications for JG IP that he is concerned about.

From other posts he has made I also think that Clark is curious about the implicaitons of 11.1, and in particular the extent to which it permits unilateral termination against a single party without the grounds specified in clauses 1, 5.4 and 6.3 having to be made out.

I also don't understand why you think that clarifications would not be adequate. Are you a lawyer or expressing some other sort of professional opinion? If you are, then I'm happy to defer to it (though I'd like to hear more about why you think Mistwell is wrong). But my intuitions run the other way. I don't know quite where the US stands in respect of the parol evidence rule, but I would have thought that evidence of mutual understanding of key terms could be led in any suit for breach of contract, or in any attempt by NG to set up the contract as a defence against an IP suit. And depending on the nature of any clarification and NG's reliance upon it, it could also set up an estoppel against WoTC.

Depending on the details of any clarifications made, any going back on them might also have legal implications in the areas of misleading conduct or negligent mis-statement. But that is getting far more speculative, especially given that my limited knowledge of these areas of law pertains to Australia and not the US.

 

[Stormtower]

Me.

My parents bought me the basic set in 1980, but they had never played the game. They probably thought their 10-year old would like a game with dragons in it.

They were right.

Man, that sounds like me. I got the Moldvay version of the Basic Set (purple box) in 1982 when I was 8... but I got it by begging my Mom after I noticed the cool "Gateway to Adventure" display at Kaybee Toys in the mall.

*Ahem* On topic - I'm really sorry to hear how Clark and NG have been squeezed into a difficult position here. I agree with others in the thread who've suggested that perhaps this was the intent of the GSL all along: to stymie 3PP efforts for capitalization on 4E. I'd like to think otherwise, but the writing is on the wall. It feels like a shortsighted corporate decision to me.

I'll certainly support Necromancer if they make good 3.5-compatible stuff for Pathfinder thru Paizo, though. Hope you (NG) can keep afloat till then.

Rappan Athuk Reloaded #74

 

[Alzrius]

The fact that they went out of their way to invite the 3rd parties to a meeting to reassure they were part of the plan last GenCon shows a completely different approach than the final GSL has.

I don't know if that's how I'd characterize it. I was at that meeting, and it was pretty clear once it got started that WotC didn't have a policy regarding Open Gaming (or anything similar) for 4E, and wanted input from publishers and fans (it was a public meeting) in that regard. It was basically just a brainstorming session, along with a bit of taking people's temperatures, and that was it.

I also don't understand why you think that clarifications would not be adequate. Are you a lawyer or expressing some other sort of professional opinion? If you are, then I'm happy to defer to it (though I'd like to hear more about why you think Mistwell is wrong). But my intuitions run the other way.

Apparently, your intuition is just to be snarky and asinine.

I never said I thought Mistwell was wrong; unlike yourself, I don't go around commenting on the validity of other people's opinions. Defer to that.

I also don't think clarification is adequate because the GSL is a bad license, and that'll remain true no matter how clear or obscure it is. Clarification is useful, but won't eliminate the various provisions that make it so unattractive, such as how you must pay WotC's legal fees, or how various restrictions survive in perpetuity.

 

[pemerton]

Is anyone aware of what some potential problems could be with the Advanced Player's book for example?

I think it could be the meaning of "define", "redefine", or "alter the definition" as these words and phrases occur in clause 4.1, and also "definitions of any 4E References" as that phrase occurs in clause 5.6.

Until one has a clear sense of what these mean - which has to be worked out in relation to other language like "Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference" - then it is not clear what is permissible in relation to a book trying to introduce old D&D notions which WoTC may itself later try to add to the SRD.

There are also complications, I imagine, from the fact the Necromancer will have published OGL products containing reference to Bards, Barbarians, Illusionists etc, and that the Advanced Players Guide may therefore constitute a conversion of that OGL material, thus bringing clause 6 into play.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hussar wrote:
Color me a sad panda.

Black and white and blue all over?

Apologies for whimsical non seqitur.

On topic: Well my opinion isn't worth much in terms of market analysis since I only own 3 D20 books of which 1 is Necromancer. (Dead Man's Chest.) But I think it's a great book. It's inspired 2 campaign settings. Since I'm not going 4e I can hope that Necromancer will keep supporting 3e. But since I buy so few D20 books they better not be relying on me too much.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

To help clairify my point, is there anybody in this forum or on this site that started playing D&D and had not been introduced to it by someone that already played it?

Me, but I don't at all disagree with your overall point. (I started playing D&D, having somehow never even heard of it, as a kid in '81 or so who found the Expert Set rulebook on a schoolbus.) I've never known of anyone else who started playing D&D without having been introduced to it first.

And, expanding on this, I know of very few players who play the game, but aren't interested enough to have been exposed to, e.g., Paizo, if only via the Internet. And of the two I do know, neither owns a single D&D product, so it's not like there's an issue of who's getting their gaming dollars. Paizo, Necromancer, and Green Ronin won't get their money ... but neither will (or has) WotC. In short, I think many people -- some of them even Pathfinder supporters -- are seriously underestimating just how much Pathfinder can penetrate the market.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm really torn here. There are some good posts here, and the possibility of good discussion. There's also a pretty interesting hijack. On the other hand, there are several (actually more than several) very problematic posts that are definitely straying across the edition-wars line.

Please be nice to your moderators and limit discussion to the effect of losing Clark and Necro's influence on 4E. No more warnings here. (And don't bring other editions to the table for this thread, thanks.)

 

[pemerton]

IApparently, your intuition is just to be snarky and asinine.

I never said I thought Mistwell was wrong; unlike yourself, I don't go around commenting on the validity of other people's opinions. Defer to that.

I also don't think clarification is adequate because the GSL is a bad license, and that'll remain true no matter how clear or obscure it is. Clarification is useful, but won't eliminate the various provisions that make it so unattractive, such as how you must pay WotC's legal fees, or how various restrictions survive in perpetuity.

Clark has said in the past that he wants clarifications. He's said in respect of which words and clauses he wants them. He's reiterated these (by implication) in the announcement of non-takeup of the GSL.

You suggested that he would want changes and that clarifications would be inadequate. Clark has never said this that I'm aware of. In particular, to the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned the legal fees issue as a problem, nor the enduring obligations per se (except for how it interacts with the concept of product lines and content thereof).

As to the validity of opinions - are you a lawyer? If not, why should I not query the validity of your opinon on techanical legal matters. If so, what is the reason for thinking that clarifications are not sufficient?

 

[Korgoth]

I was actually surprised by this, because if there was one person who I would have said would have been willing to risk the family farm just to go along with WOTC it was Clark. On the other hand, I'm not utterly surprised since Clark's obviously a smart and diligent individual and so I'm sure he can easily see what a thermonuclear enema the GSL is. So I guess I'd say I'm surprised, but not too surprised.

It's unfortunate that some are disappointed. For myself, as an old schooler, I'm somewhat happy about it. Products produced for 3.x can still be useful to me because they're generally not impossible to convert. I don't see how a 4E product can be converted to say, 1E or Classic without basically just rewriting the whole thing. You know, the spells aren't even the same, etc. So for anybody who is interested in taking 3.x material and converting into older systems, this is basically a win (and it's obviously a win for anybody who is sticking with 3E/Pathfinder, or "Dragons and Dungeons" as they probably should rename it).

 

[Alzrius]

Clark has said in the past that he wants clarifications. He's said in respect of which words and clauses he wants them. He's reiterated these (by implication) in the announcement of non-takeup of the GSL.

You're rehashing things that no one is challenging.

You suggested that he would want changes and that clarifications would be inadequate.

I never "suggested" that he would want changes - he flat-out said he wants changes.

Right now, in my view, the GSL needs some major reworking or clarification to be usable.

Emphasis mine. I did, however, say that I didn't think clarifications would be enough.

Clark has never said this that I'm aware of.

See the above post.

In particular, to the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned the legal fees issue as a problem, nor the enduring obligations per se (except for how it interacts with the concept of product lines and content thereof).

No kidding, that isn't what he said. That's what I said when expressing my own opinion, something you seem to be quite miffed over.

As to the validity of opinions - are you a lawyer? If not, why should I not query the validity of your opinon on techanical legal matters. If so, what is the reason for thinking that clarifications are not sufficient?

I'm not a lawyer, not that it has anything to do what we're talking about. By your logic, anyone who isn't a lawyer apparently has no right to discuss what they think about the GSL, which is tragically misguided of you. You need to learn the difference between someone giving legal advice, and stating what they think - opinions don't need validation, they're just opinions.