Third party publishing and Essentials

[Scurvy_Platypus]

One does have to wonder really about GSL though, does it REALLY create any significant problems for 3PPs? Maybe if you're going to come out with a rules expansion, but you can certainly do a setting, adventures, and even a lot of rules supplements without any problem. I mean look at what Goodman etc have produced. The game is still YOUNG. It isn't quite the free-for-all that 3e d20 under the OGL turned into, but really I think the whole license thing has been a bit overblown. It is really no harder to make a 4e adventure than a 3e one.

Opinions vary. You're not alone, in that there were a bunch of people who basically said, "Suck it up and quit whining."

The GSL debate was never about the difficulty of making adventures. It was about the ability to do _anything_ other than make adventures. If it was only about making adventures, WotC would have been thrilled because that's all they ever wanted the 3rd Party Publishers to do.

The original GSL created significant problems, but the updates made to it, at least in my eyes, removed most if not all of the initial concerns 3PPs may have had.

On the other hand, the GSL, or rather the lack of certain references in the SRD make things kind of silly. For example (unless this changed since I last looked), I can't publish an adventure with an NPC warden because "warden" is not in the SRD. Similarly, I couldn't make warden powers or feats either.

But frankly, the real killer in my eyes for 3PP that isn't an adventure is the CB. And when you're already trying to eke out a buck in a niche market against veritable "titans" within the market, that's just another nail in the coffin for the viability of being a successful 3PP.

Yeah, a lot of the eventual fixes to the GSL finally made it into a mostly reasonable document.

What a lot of people seem to miss even now (probably because they see "GSL" and think "limited OGL") is that the "GSL" is basically a reworked version of the d20 STL (which no longer exists). A lot of the clauses are the same between them and under the old license, WotC was perfectly able to do what a lot of people suddenly found disturbing in the new license.

The bit about not being able to redefine/change already existing material is a new twist and one that makes some content creators a bit nervous. Afterall, if WotC suddenly decides to create something, does that mean that they'll be in violation if WotC names it the same as theirs?

In ability to redefine/modify already existing stuff is also another reason that 3rd party publishers aren't doing much, since an awful lot of stuff in the old days was based on messing around with different mechanics.

At the end of the day, yes the Character Builder is the single greatest obstacle the 3rd Party Publishers have. And it's one they can't beat.

Too many people aren't interested in trying to add 3rd party content to the CB. No matter where I go, I'm constantly seeing people saying things like, "The CB isn't required, but I can't imagine running/playing the game without it." Most people's attitude is also that, "yeah it might sorta suck that WotC provides such crappy support for non-Wotc stuff, but hey... you can't blame them. It's their tool, why should they be expected to support non-WotC stuff? Besides, there's nothing you can do about it if you don't like it. And you can add 3rd party or homebrew stuff, it's just not as convienent."

In other words, not very many people really care in the first place and of those that might care, trying to do something about it is simply going to require more effort than they're interested in expending.

At the end of the day, most 4E folks don't really seem to care about 3rd party stuff. Using it overall requires more effort than many are interested in, there's a distinct difficulty in 3rd party materials being able to change/"fix" things, and most people seem to feel that there's no real _need_ for 3rd party stuff.

Except for adventures. Yeah, lots of people seem to think that the 3rd party folks need to focus on producing adventures.

Me? *shrug* It doesn't matter to me. I refuse to use DDI, so I don't have that issue. On the whole, I don't see 3rd parties offering anything I consider exciting. I certainly don't blame them for not wanting to return to things being mostly the way they were in the AD&D days ("we'll let you publish an adventure, but don't even think about touching our rules") and I think it's a step backwards. Not for the company (WotC), no they seem to be doing fine. No, I think it's a step backwards for the industry. Doing their best to monopolise things and the fan base not being concerned about it simply means... well... either you believe monopolies are bad for everyone (expect perhaps for the monopolising company) or you don't. No real middle ground there.

As far as the _hobby_ is concerned, I don't think it matters. I couldn't care less if they go out of business or not, I'll still be able to run and play my games without them. So, industry-wise I think it's bad, but hobby-wise I don't care.

Edit: And I note that WotC still hasn't bothered doing the "fan site policy" that they originally talked about. At least, I'm not aware of things having changed from these 2 interesting (to me at least) thoughts about it:

http://critical-hits.com/2009/10/15/statement-from-wizards-of-the-coast-regarding-fansite-toolkit/

http://community.wizards.com/the_jester/blog/2010/05/31/the_srd,_gsl_and_fan_site_policy

 

[pemerton]

I think it's a step backwards for the industry. Doing their best to monopolise things and the fan base not being concerned about it simply means... well... either you believe monopolies are bad for everyone (expect perhaps for the monopolising company) or you don't.

Apologies in advance if this produces a train-wreck of a thread - but in what way is WoTC a monopoly? They don't monopolise the provision of games, RPGs, fantasy RPGs, or fantasy RPGs that are more-or-less D&D (see Pathfinder). They don't monopolise the provision of dice, maps, miniatures, novels or any thing else that they produce. The only monopoly they exercise is the same one that every trademark or copyright holder exercises ie the monopoly of owning certain texts/images, and using them for the purposes of trading.

I think most economists would regard some system of trademark laws as helpful, rather than burdening, on a free market, as they facilitate the acquisition of information by consumers that is necessary for efficiency in the market.

Copyright law is generally more controversial than trademark law. But I'm not sure it's the sort of monopoly that produces inefficiency in a market. Especially when the texts and images in question are the sorts of texts that WotC produces.

Some evidence in favour of the last paragraph: Given the repeated speculation that WotC is going broke and/or going to cancel or offload D&D as unprofitable, it hardly seems that D&D is earning them monopoly profits.

And I note that WotC still hasn't bothered doing the "fan site policy" that they originally talked about.

It's here.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Apologies in advance if this produces a train-wreck of a thread - but in what way is WoTC a monopoly? They don't monopolise the provision of games, RPGs, fantasy RPGs, or fantasy RPGs that are more-or-less D&D (see Pathfinder). They don't monopolise the provision of dice, maps, miniatures, novels or any thing else that they produce. The only monopoly they exercise is the same one that every trademark or copyright holder exercises ie the monopoly of owning certain texts/images, and using them for the purposes of trading.

I won't argue it with you.

It's here.

Errrr.... Did you actually bother to check the posts I linked to? They kinda address the problem that this "fan site kit" (no policy) has. If you did and you feel the fan site kit addresses all the issues, then I guess that's groovy for you. I know I personally would have hoped for something.....more.

 

[pemerton]

I think the posts you linked to are worried about nothing.

Here's why.

As to images, they are included in the WotC kit. And, following a conversation between a poster here (Gloombunny, I think) and WotC which was the subject of a recent thread, it seems that Darksun will soon be added to the images.

As to text, as long as no one (i) actually reproduces WotC text verbatim, (ii) retells WotC stories, or (iii) attempts to use WotC trademarks in the course of trade (presumably not an issue for a fan site), then there is (as far as I can see) no violation of WotC's IP rights. (I wouldn't be hosting any advertisements on my fan site, however, given (iii) above.)

Of course, the actual determination would have to be made in respect of each fan site. But in this respect, a fan site policy from WotC wouldn't help. In the absence of a fan site policy dealing with non-image IP issues and authorisation, fans who receive a cease and desist notice will (if they are rational) comply. In the presence of a fan site policy dealing with non-image IP issues and authorisation, fans who receive a cease and desist notice will (if they are rational) comply.

The protection that some people seem to believe they would get from explicit authorisations to duplicate elements of WotC's copyrighted texts is entirely illusory, because if WotC decided to challenge someone's usage as non-authorised, what fan would go to the trouble of hiring a lawyer to contest the case?

EDIT: The GSL is concerned overwhelmingly with trademark and similar issues, and in particular with licensing the use in the course of trade, by parties other than WotC, of WotC's trademarks and similar items of IP. By definition this should be a non-issue for fan sites (subject to the non-hosting of advertising - but whether or not mere webhosting of advertising counts as trade I'll leave up to the experts in IP law).

And if anyone thinks that WotC is going to license the fans of its games to use its copyrights - eg by reposting its texts verbatim, or by posting variations on novels, module plots, gameworld descriptions etc - then they are dreaming. I can't imagine any publishing house doing this. Fans are going to have to rely on fair use/fair dealing doctrines, together with the common sense of WotC. (It is also unreaslistic to expect WotC to indicate what it regards as fair use of its texts. WotC is not in the business of giving legal advice to its fans, and it doesn't want to be estopped in the event that there is use that it regards as misuse.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wonder who has the rights to "Arduin Grimoire?" Since WotC is putting out the retro Red Box, it'd be amusing to see some 3PP put out retro-Arduin. Not that I'd buy it anymore than I bought the original, it'd just be amusing...