What happens if something I make gets added to the SRD? For Scott or Linae

[Teiran]

So, here is the current fear sweeping the Paizo boards, and I'm kind of hoping to get some clarification.

Say that I print a book under the GSL, folllowing all the rules and guidelines to the letter.

In that book, I create a new base class, the Monk. The Monk currently doesn't exist in 4th edition. It's not part of the SRD at the time i print my book, and we're not worried about IP or copywrite here because mine is a whole new creation, it just uses a class common name. A similair example woudl be making a new monster based on a mythological creature you guys have not yet used.

But in two years, when say the Players Handbook 3 come out with a bunch of Ki based classes and the offical Monk base gets printed, what happenes when you guys add the word Monk as a reference to the SRD?

Am I now suddenly in violation of the GSL, because my book details a Monk class, even though they are obviously not the same class? Will I be able to continue printing my book, because I did not redefine the term Monk because mine was printed first?

Obviously the two classes won't be the same. Mine will have powers I made up, a different skill list, and probaly completely different class powers. But a lot of people have taken a very draconian reading of the GSL and begiun saying that at any time you guys coudl print a monster/race/class, add the name ot the SRD and put somebody who already made up that monster/race/class in violation.

What will happen in this situation, where something new is created whole cloth, and then the name gets folded into the SRD later due to Wizards creating a different version?

 

[CapnZapp]

Like with everything else, WotC can terminate your license whether you did something wrong or not, whether you did it in good faith or bad.

Probably what will happen though is simply you need to stop releasing new supplements for your race/class/thingy unless you rename it.

If you don't want that, you will simply have to yield all possible "generic fantasy terms" (like Monk, obviously) for WotC's future use. Call them Yogi War Monks or something instead.

It isn't fair that WotC can assume ownership of all the generic names, but then you don't have to play in the D&D yard if you don't like WotC's terms...

 

[Yair]

I'll go on record betting that "Yes, you'll be in violation" is the answer.

I would suggest you NEVER publsh just a "Monk" class. The "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" might be a safer bet. You'd be wise to equip yourself with a crystal ball to forsee WotC's future publications.

 

[Turanil]

I'll go on record betting that "Yes, you'll be in violation" is the answer.

I would suggest you NEVER publsh just a "Monk" class. The "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" might be a safer bet. You'd be wise to equip yourself with a crystal ball to forsee WotC's future publications.

What if WotC decides to make their own "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" then?

 

[CapnZapp]

If WotC decides to create Yogi War Monk class yours is screwed.

Sure, you can sue them. But if that doesn't make WotC yank your license, nothing will.

It all boils down to the fact: don't enter the GSL if you don't trust WotC to play nice.

 

[tomBitonti]

Isn't there something where there is a review of your product?

I would imagine that if WoTC had plans for a monk, and saw that you were publishing one, they would tell you not to do that.

If there _isn't_ a review process, then perhaps it would be wise for a publisher to submit planned products early on in the cycle, to prevent this sort of problem.

Also, my read of the "intent" of the GSL (__mind reading__ here) is that they don't really want you to produce new "core" type material.

I think they want you to make new monsters with combinations of the existing kewl powers, or by applying templates, or create adventures using the existing GSL material by reference.

 

[Yair]

What if WotC decides to make their own "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" then?

Then you should get a refund on that crystal ball, and use the money to reprint it as "Striding Sangha of Central Asia, of the Greater Naerthian Empire in Kolloth", and pray WotC doesn't step on THAT.

 

[pemerton]

Also, my read of the "intent" of the GSL (__mind reading__ here) is that they don't really want you to produce new "core" type material.

Given that the SRD includes permission to use the race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, power, feat, ritual and monster templates from the 4e books, I don't think there is any doubt that the GSL expressly contemplates the production of new "core" type material.

 

[tomBitonti]

There is a difference between a new race and a new core race, and new class and a new core class. Making new races and classes is not the same as making new core races and new core classes.

Druid, monk, barbarian, those are core classes; Aspiring Fist of the East Wind is not.

I see a "core class" as a class archetype that will get it's proportional share of players, and that helps to define the core play of the game. I think that WoTC wants to control the feel of core classes, and wants to control the pace at which they are released to their customers. I think that the new license is easiest to understand as being prescriptive: Licensees are given very specific instructions on what to do with the licensed material. I don't think WoTC wants the licensees to go much beyond what is prescribed.

 

[CapnZapp]

But have we got a clear definition of what's core?

In 2011, that is?