# Answers on the GSL!



## Piratecat (May 2, 2008)

From the front page:

[d]gf[/d]WotC's Mike Lescault has just sent me the response to the interview questions we provided to them a couple of weeks ago.  Short version: it's "per product line", not "per company"!

The first five questions are exclusive to EN World; the remainder will also be posted on WotC's own website.
[bq]*Q. Does the so-called "poison pill" non-compete clause apply to ALL OGL, or only D&D-based fantasy?   (i.e. what if it's based on d20 Modern, d20 Future, or a non-d20 source?)*

A. It’s not a “poison pill.” It’s a conversion clause. The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products. The d20 GSL, which will come out at an undetermined point in the near future, will be for non-fantasy genres such as Modern, Future, etc. Publishers will be able to decide on a product line by product line basis which license will work best for them.

*Q. Does the GSL contain provisions to prevent a secondary, sister or subsidiary company being created in order to distribute products under the OGL?*

A. There are no restrictions prohibiting the formation of partnerships or subsidiaries, however companies will be bound by the product line declaration under the Game System License. 

*Q. How much of WotC's IP is made available via the GSL?  Creatures such as beholders and illithids were not available under the old licensing structure. Will they be available under the new structure?*

A. All of those details will be released when the license becomes available on June 6. 

*Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?*

A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I’m guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publishers to make Adventures, “Fluff,” Campaign settings, Alternate Classes, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products.  
*
Q. What are WotC’s main goals regarding the GSL?  Do you believe that third-party products will drive sales of the D&D core rulebooks? * 

A. The goals with the GSL include supporting our product line, growing the industry, and supplying consumers with a rich offering of RPG products meant to be used with the 4th Edition of D&D . And, of course, we want to drive sales of the D&D core rulebooks.

On behalf of Russell Morrissey and all of EN World, thank you for the opportunity to hold this interview. 

*Q)  Many questions have been raised since the announcement last week. I think the one question everyone wants to know is: is the limitation the GSL places on publication of OGL based products limited on a "per company" basis or a "per product" basis? That is, is the effect merely to limit re-issuing the same product, or is a company that publishes a GSL product thereafter limited in their ability to publish any OGL products?*

A. The restriction is on a per product line basis.

*Q) How does this pertain to a company's catalog of existing OGL-based products? For example, if Necromancer Games publishes a Tome of Horrors 4e, would they have to stop selling their existing 3e OGL products via RPGnow?*

A. Publishers will be able to continue to sell their backlist under the OGL. If those products had the d20 system logo on them there will be a 6-month sell off period after which they will not be able to use the d20 system logo. 

*Q) Can existing OGL products be updated to the GSL and what are the restrictions, if any?*

A. Existing OGL products can absolutely be converted to 4e GSL products, so long as they adhere to the terms of the GSL. In fact, we want to see publishers update their popular product lines to 4e.

*Q) What branding opportunities does the GSL offer publishers?  Does it allow use of the new d20 logo; or does it allow access to Dungeons & Dragons specific branding?*

A. There will be a compatibility logo. Embedded in this logo is a version of the new D&D logo and copy stating compatibility. This compatibility logo is permissible for use on product and marketing materials. There will be restrictions on placement and maximum size allowed. 

*Q) A six-month "sell-off" period has been mentioned with reference to stock carrying the old d20 logo.  Is the d20 STL actually going away, or does this sell-off period apply only to those who adopt the GSL?*

A. The d20 STL will be terminated. There will be a sell-off period of six months for products produced under the d20 STL. This is true for both pdf and print products. We’re estimating our own backlist stock to be sold through within 3 to 4 months, so allowing six months to other publishers feels fair. Allowing 6 months for pdfs is really pretty generous and we are already in conversations with publishers and PDF sellers like DrivethruRPG.com and RPGNow on how they can make these changes as easy as possible.

*Q) Is the new GSL an open license?  * 

A. We are not classifying the GSL as “open” as defined under the open source movement. It is a royalty-free license for permissible usage of specific D&D 4th Edition content including terms, tables, and templates. There is a significant amount of “openness” to the license and we wanted to provide ease of use and low barriers to entry while still maintaining control over things like the D&D Trademark. The GSL is designed to work with the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. 

*Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?*

A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.

*Q) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL?  For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not.  Does the GSL contain these restrictions?  Are any other types of product restricted?*

A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June. 

*Q) Are products required to adhere to any 'community standards' clause, or anything similar? * 

A.. Yes. The community standards that were in the d20 STL are now wrapped up into the GSL’s.
*
Q) Is the GSL a perpetual license, or is it revocable by WotC for reasons other than violation?*

A. The Game System License Is revocable as it is tied to the D&D trademark and other intellectual property. Because of this Wizards needs to maintain control of the license. 

*Q) Why is October 1st the selected date for release of third-party materials, as opposed to, say, GenCon, which would be a far more useful launch date?*

A. Our initial intention was to have third-party materials ready for release at GenCon, however there is no way that anyone could develop a true quality product in the short time between now and GenCon. We think that October 1st is more reasonable, and will also allow publishers to take advantage of holiday sales. 

*Q) Will any third-party publishers be permitted to release product under the GSL prior to October 1st?*

A. No. October 1st is the permissible on-sale date for all third party publishers.

*Q) Is there anything that you wished we’d asked that we haven’t?*

A. You didn’t ask about my 4E character. 
[/bq]


----------



## Goobermunch (May 2, 2008)

Man, and just as I was getting nervous that we wouldn't see anything this week.

Thanks Mike!

--G


----------



## crazy_cat (May 2, 2008)

I'll be interested to see how these two clauses work together - I'm guessing the devil is going to be in the detail of what the GSL actually says.

'The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products.'

'There are no restrictions prohibiting the formation of partnerships or subsidiaries, however companies will be bound by the product line declaration under the Game System License.'


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 2, 2008)

For those interested in the sblock is the list of original questions. 

[sblock]


> 1)  Many questions have been raised since the announcement last week. I think the one question everyone wants to know is: is the limitation the GSL places on publication of OGL based products limited on a "per company" basis or a "per product" basis? That is, is the effect merely to limit re-issuing the same product, or is a company that publishes a GSL product thereafter limited in their ability to publish any OGL products?
> 
> 2) Does the so-called "poison pill" non-compete clause apply to ALL OGL, or only D&D-based fantasy?   (i.e. what if it's based on d20 Modern, d20 Future, or a non-d20 source?)
> 
> ...



[/sblock]

I noticed a few questions were not answered that I would have liked to see answers to.

7) Is the new GSL an open license?  Will it allow publishers to use each others' content under the provisions of the license?  [y] The first part was answered the second not.[/y]

8) How does the new licensing policy affect fan created works?  What is WotC's current policy on such works?  

8a)  Will utilities similar to d20SRD.com be prevented from existing under the GSL? 

8b) Is WoTC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?

11) A major criticism of the old licensing structure is that it caused a product-bloat due to the low bar to accessibility; it is common wisdom that the d20 logo lost its value because of this.  Will the GSL address this problem?

13) What mistakes do you feel were made regarding the old licensing structure (the OGL and d20 STL)?  What has prompted the shift in policy?  Specifically, what about it is undesirable now that was desirable when it was adopted?

13a) What are WotC main goals regarding the GSL?  Do you believe that third-party products will drive sales of the D&D core rulebooks? 

15) Why was the GSL developed in secret, and what is the reason for the confidentiality surrounding it?  

15a) Why did development of the GSL take so long?  Was this time period the reason the $5000 fee was dropped?

16) Will future D&D products from WotC be added to the list of material made available via the GSL?  

17) Will WotC continue to sell its own d20 PDFs (D20 Modern, 3.5 D&D, 3.5 Eberron, 3.5 Forgotten Realms, etc.) after the d20STL expiration date, or will those d20 products be retired or expired?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 2, 2008)

Well, before this gets ugly--there's no reason it _should_, but these threads always do--I'd like to thank Scott and WotC not just for answering, but for providing an answer that should sooth a lot of the other publishers' fears.

And thus, albeit I'm sure this wasn't their intention, ensuring that I'll continue to have multiple potential employers.


----------



## TerraDave (May 2, 2008)

So, lets just take a hypothetical:

Paizo Pathfinder is a product line. It can be 3E/OGL, or 4E, but not both. When a 4E comes out, no more 3E pathfinder.

But, you could have 3E pathfinder and a 4E line of products called, say Paizo Paragon, that could support 4E. As long as it is seperate from Pathfinder. 

Sound correct?


----------



## rkwoodard (May 2, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> So, lets just take a hypothetical:
> 
> Paizo Pathfinder is a product line. It can be 3E/OGL, or 4E, but not both. When a 4E comes out, no more 3E pathfinder.
> 
> ...




Sounds right.  And Paizo will be interesting to watch.  I assume that Pathfinder is a safe bet to stay 3E/OGL, but what about the stand alone Game Mastery Line, and if Game Mastery Line stays OGL, I wonder if Paizo will come up with a new product line.

Anyway, good good news. I am excited to see the adventure path and monster book from Necro.

RK


----------



## Pinotage (May 2, 2008)

Goods news! No doubt most publishers will still like to see the actualy license, but this goes a long way to making the GSL work. No OGL and GSL on the same product line (whatever that means), and existing OGL can be converted without problems. Sounds like it's all good them. Good job, Scott, Mike and WotC!

Pinotage


----------



## Piratecat (May 2, 2008)

Sounds correct, Dave.

Brown Jenkin, note that question 8b in your list was answered - you may have just missed it. The answer was no.


----------



## Alzrius (May 2, 2008)

"Per product line"? So if I produce the same book for 3.5E and 4E, I just need to make sure they aren't both under the "Super New Rules Supplement" header of products (and presumably can't have the same title) and it's okay?

For example, if I had a 3.5 line of creature books under the OGL called "Wicked Monsters" and the first book in the series was titled "Volume I: A through E," I could produce the same book with 4E rules under the GSL, if I made it the first in a product line called "Evil Creatures" and titled the book "Book 1: A to E," then I wouldn't be in violation of the GSL?


----------



## Zaister (May 2, 2008)

The GameMastery line contains only supporting products like flip-mats, map tiles, cards, and other game aids from now on. The GameMastery modules are being rebranded Pathfinder modules with the next one to be released, and I don't think different product lines would apply to two lines that are both set in Golarion anyway.


----------



## DaveMage (May 2, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> So, lets just take a hypothetical:
> 
> Paizo Pathfinder is a product line. It can be 3E/OGL, or 4E, but not both. When a 4E comes out, no more 3E pathfinder.
> 
> ...




That could be correct.

Or it could be that if you have a fantasy product line that uses the GSL, you are not allowed to have another fantasy product line that uses the OGL, but you could have a Supers product line that uses the OGL and a Fantasy product line that uses the GSL.

You still may not be able to have both a GSL and OGL fantasy product line.  The answer is unclear.

Looks like we won't really have our answers until June 6.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 2, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> "Per product line"? So if I produce the same book for 3.5E and 4E, I just need to make sure they aren't both under the "Super New Rules Supplement" header of products (and presumably can't have the same title) and it's okay?




A) My guess is that no, a book probably automatically qualifies as being part of the same product line as _itself_.

B) What's with the constant efforts to find ways around the restrictions--restrictions which have consistently proven lighter than anticipated?


----------



## Scipio202 (May 2, 2008)

My guess is the easiest way to separate product lines is by the Proprietary Content that the OGL (and presumably the GSL) lets you carve out.  If two products share the same PI, then perhaps they'll be considered part of the "same" product line.  E.g. Ptolus is PI, so if two products both use the name Ptolus in their text, they'd be considered part of the same product line.


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And thus, albeit I'm sure this wasn't their intention, ensuring that I'll continue to have multiple potential employers.





Speaking of you and your jobs. Ari, do you know if 


> Q) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL? For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not. Does the GSL contain these restrictions? Are any other types of product restricted?
> 
> A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June.



 means that the Advanced Player's Guide that you wrote for NG won't be able to be published, or does this prohibition only relate to the classes created by WoTC?

Oh, and thanks to WoTC for giving us, what looks to me, a fair and decent G


----------



## Pinotage (May 2, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> You still may not be able to have both a GSL and OGL fantasy product line.  The answer is unclear.
> 
> Looks like we won't really have our answers until June 6.




Yip. I think the term product line is very vague. I assume on June 6th it'll be defined clearly, if it can be at all. Sounds like a bit of a 'loophole' for those that want to publish similar products for both systems. Although I assume WotC have found a way to define product line correctly.

Pinotage


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 2, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Speaking of you and your jobs. Ari, do you know if
> means that the Advanced Player's Guide that you wrote for NG won't be able to be published, or does this prohibition only relate to the classes created by WoTC?




I can't imagine why it would. The restriction in the old D20 License had to do with character _creation_--point-buy, 4d6 and drop the lowest, etc.--and rules for applying experience to leveling up. It had no restriction on new classes--in fact, new classes were incredibly common--as long as you still needed the PHB to know how to create the character.

If the GSL works similarly, as they've implied it does, there should be nothing at all in the APG that even comes close to _resembling_ a violation.


----------



## Zaister (May 2, 2008)

I can't really imagine that the GSL will allow you to publish stuff that effectively pre-empts Wizards' own upcoming books like _Player's Handbook II_ by publishing your own versions of druids, bards, and gnomes, for example.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 2, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Sounds correct, Dave.
> 
> Brown Jenkin, note that question 8b in your list was answered - you may have just missed it. The answer was no.




Sorry. Tried to fix it. (My edit page shows it gone but the actual post isn't refreshing).


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I can't imagine why it would. The restriction in the old D20 License had to do with character _creation_--point-buy, 4d6 and drop the lowest, etc.--and rules for applying experience to leveling up. It had no restriction on new classes--in fact, new classes were incredibly common--as long as you still needed the PHB to know how to create the character.
> 
> If the GSL works similarly, as they've implied it does, there should be nothing at all in the APG that even comes close to _resembling_ a violation.




Awesome. This was what I was hoping for (obviously), but I thought to ask first, since I don't know much about the old licenses.

Cheers


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 2, 2008)

Zaister said:
			
		

> I can't really imagine that the GSL will allow you to publish stuff that effectively pre-empts Wizards' own upcoming books like _Player's Handbook II_ by publishing your own versions of druids, bards, and gnomes, for example.




WotC has never particularly cared what sort of content other companies publish, so long as it meets their community standards. They know full well that no book published by a third-party company is going to have more than the tiniest impact on their own sales, if that.

I suppose they _could_ try to restrict what sorts of materials other companies publish as you suggest, but it would require a level of oversight they've never shown an interest in maintaining, and it would require them to _constantly_ provide third-parties a list of what future material they planned to release. I don't see it as remotely likely.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 2, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For those interested in the sblock is the list of original questions.
> 7) Is the new GSL an open license?  Will it allow publishers to use each others' content under the provisions of the license?  [y] The first part was answered the second not.[/y]
> 
> 8) How does the new licensing policy affect fan created works?  What is WotC's current policy on such works?
> ...




Regarding #7, part 2, my gut tells me the license is no longer "viral", since it is no longer fitting the "open license" standard, and is now a contract solely between WoTC and the Licensee.   My guess is any arrangements to share content from one publisher to another would have to be on a publisher by publisher basis, as well as the third party also having a GSL.

I hope we get an official answer to #8, since that is very important for the fan base.

Numbers 11, 13, and 15--I don't think they'll ever answer these questions.  These pretty much involve us poking our curious noses into how WoTC makes their decisions, and like I said in the other thread from their perspective, it's probably not considered any of our business by WoTC management.

Number 16 will be interesting.  I guess this all depends on if they are licensing everything, or if they've decided to "hold stuff back" for exclusivity reasons, similar to how certain monsters were under the original OGL.

As for Number 17, why should they?  They don't have to follow the same standards they ask their licensees to.  I think that will all depend on whether they continue to offer legacy products like PDF downloads.  I hope they don't give this up, from a collector's standpoint.


----------



## Urizen (May 2, 2008)

Maybe I missed it, but, what about Castles and Crusades, M&M, true20, etc?

I didn't see a definitive answer for those types of products.. or did I, and not recognize it?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 2, 2008)

Zaister said:
			
		

> I can't really imagine that the GSL will allow you to publish stuff that effectively pre-empts Wizards' own upcoming books like _Player's Handbook II_ by publishing your own versions of druids, bards, and gnomes, for example.



Why not? Sure anyone so "desperate" to get his gnome/bard/druid fix to get the first third party supplement covering it will also be interested in WotC solution to the classes.

And note that the examples specifically list new classes as a possible option. (emphasis mine)


> Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?
> 
> A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I’m guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publishers to make Adventures, “Fluff,” Campaign settings,* Alternate Classes*, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products.




Have you trouble in believing WotC answer?


----------



## lkj (May 2, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Speaking of you and your jobs. Ari, do you know if
> means that the Advanced Player's Guide that you wrote for NG won't be able to be published, or does this prohibition only relate to the classes created by WoTC?
> 
> Oh, and thanks to WoTC for giving us, what looks to me, a fair and decent G





Seems like this--

Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?

A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I’m guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publi)shers to make Adventures, “Fluff,” Campaign settings, Alternate Classes, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products. 


-- suggests that it's ok to make other classes. And it's kind of hard to see them restricting it to classes they aren't making in the future.  At worst, maybe you'd have to change the name of the class. But I'd guess that's not the case. But who knows?

AD

(Seems I was too slow   )


----------



## Zaister (May 2, 2008)

Who knows what they mean by "Alternate Classes". Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 2, 2008)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed it, but, what about Castles and Crusades, M&M, true20, etc?
> 
> I didn't see a definitive answer for those types of products.. or did I, and not recognize it?



What about them? As far as I can see, these products need no GSL. They don't exist to support D&D 3rd or 4E directly, do they? They are mostly game systems that work on their own.


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

lkj said:
			
		

> Seems like this--
> 
> Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?
> 
> ...




While you might have been slow   , it definitely appears that I was too quick >< I can't believe I missed a whole question and answer reading through that post.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Cheers


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What about them? As far as I can see, these products need no GSL. They don't exist to support D&D 3rd or 4E directly, do they? They are mostly game systems that work on their own.




I am no expert, but at least M&M should fall under the non-fantasy clause, right?


----------



## Delta (May 2, 2008)

(a) Why do they insist on releasing these blurbs on Friday night, just as everybody goes incommunicado for the weekend?

(b) Frankly, without the precise definition of what counts as a "product line", the answers to the first two most important questions are practically content-free. It could be a particular branded imprint, or every fantasy-based product by a given company, or anything in between.


----------



## Urizen (May 2, 2008)

I have my answer, and am very, very Relieved, and *grateful* to Scott and Linae for this.

My lack of trust has been proven unfounded.


----------



## lkj (May 2, 2008)

The FAQ is up at Wizards. And the questions and answers aren't exactly the same (not contradictory, just a bit different info I think). Also has a little intro blurb from the Rouse.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502

AD


----------



## Nellisir (May 2, 2008)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed it, but, what about Castles and Crusades, M&M, true20, etc?
> I didn't see a definitive answer for those types of products.. or did I, and not recognize it?



I don't see anything that explicitly prevents them; certainly not M&M and probably not True20.  Each, IMO, constitutes a "product line" that could continue using the OGL.  *IF* product line is determined by genre, and not actual branding, then Castles & Crusades would have an issue, assuming TLG wanted to go GSL for some reason.  True20 -might- have an issue, but probably not, since it's a universal engine.

It's not entirely clear where the "product line" actually falls; I think releasing the same product under different product names is a bit cheesy and won't fly, but it's not clear (at least after my first reading) if Paizo could have two fantasy worlds and keep one OGL and the other GSL (ie, Forgotten Realms & Greyhawk).


----------



## lkj (May 2, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> (a) Why do they insist on releasing these blurbs on Friday night, just as everybody goes incommunicado for the weekend?
> 
> (b) Frankly, without the precise definition of what counts as a "product line", the answers to the first two most important questions are practically content-free. It could be a particular branded imprint, or every fantasy-based product by a given company, or anything in between.





I guess technically you're right. They could come out with a very broad definition of product line. But that seems pretty unlikely to me. This is an FAQ for the general public (presumably those early contact print publishers are still getting the actual GSL early), and a natural assumption for someone in the public reading that is that 'product line' equals something like 'Pathfinder' or 'Dungeon Crawl Classics'.  Not that it means 'all products that might be considered fantasy products'. 

Like I said, you're right, you can't tell for sure without a detailed definition of 'product line' from the GSL itself-- but I think it would require WotC to be intentionally misleading. If you wanted to say, "If you use the GSL, you can't publish other fantasy products under the OGL", I think they'd just say that. 

All that said, I'm sure there will be details in the definition of 'product line' that will cause annoyances. I just have a feeling that if Paizo wants to publish 4E stuff, they aren't going to have to give up Pathfinder OGL. 

We'll see.

AD


----------



## Gryffyn (May 2, 2008)

Awesome.  The FAQ is MUCH clearer.  Rock on -- the "poison pill" is not.  Hey Clark, thanks for fighting the good fight!


----------



## lkj (May 2, 2008)

Edit: Nevermind. Wasn't reading clearly when I wrote this post. Ignore.


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

lkj said:
			
		

> I just have a feeling that if Paizo wants to publish 4E stuff, they aren't going to have to give up Pathfinder OGL.
> 
> We'll see.
> 
> AD




This makes no sense. Why use the term like product line, if you really mean any product? Seems fairly obvious that Paizo will be able to put out 3.5 Pathfinder product line, while publishing 4e GameMastery adventurers (GM is just an example, they could also just as easily make a new line for their 4e products).

But yeah, I guess we will see


----------



## lkj (May 2, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> This makes no sense. Why use the term like product line, if you really mean any product? Seems fairly obvious that Paizo will be able to put out 3.5 Pathfinder product line, while publishing 4e GameMastery adventurers (GM is just an example, they could also just as easily make a new line for their 4e products).
> 
> But yeah, I guess we will see





My friend, re-read my post. We are agreeing. I'm saying exactly the same thing. I said they _won't_  have to stop publishing Pathfinder to use the GSL. That was the point of my post. 

AD


----------



## Jack99 (May 2, 2008)

lkj said:
			
		

> My friend, re-read my post. We are agreeing. I'm saying exactly the same thing. I said they _won't_  have to stop publishing Pathfinder to use the GSL. That was the point of my post.
> 
> AD




LOL.

I am going to bed now, since I obviously can't read a post correctly ATM.

Cheers


----------



## Emryys (May 2, 2008)

WOTC FAQ said:
			
		

> Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
> A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.




This will make for some interesting decisions...


----------



## GMSkarka (May 3, 2008)

I keep seeing gamers going on about how the term "product line" is confusing and/or vague.

Buh?   Not sure why that particular meme is growing.


"Product Line" is a very specific term for publishers.   The response here is quite clear....and far, far better than the rumored "poison pill."


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2008)

Zaister said:
			
		

> I can't really imagine that the GSL will allow you to publish stuff that effectively pre-empts Wizards' own upcoming books like _Player's Handbook II_ by publishing your own versions of druids, bards, and gnomes, for example.




I've thought about that, and those terms are currently OGC and hence forbidden until WotC offers GSL version.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I've thought about that, and those terms are currently OGC and hence forbidden until WotC offers GSL version.




The _specifics_ of the classes are OGC. The _words_ "druid," "bard," "monk," and "barbarian" are common English words, and are quite usable in any context.

We're no more forbidden from using terms like "druid" than we are from using terms like "attack."


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2008)

Good news, all in all.

And for just about everyone, I imagine. 

Hurrah!


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster (May 3, 2008)

This sounds like very good news. The new presentation of the GSL seems reasonable and I'm heartened that Wizards isn't going through with the more restricted terms seemingly included in the prior presentation of the license. I'll be visiting the Compleat Strategist in NYC in the morning to re-instate a pre-order of the gift set. 

Kudos to Wizards!

-peter


----------



## Alzrius (May 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> A) My guess is that no, a book probably automatically qualifies as being part of the same product line as _itself_.




But if the title is different, and the listed product line is different, calling the book "itself" doesn't really apply now does it? 



> _B) What's with the constant efforts to find ways around the restrictions--restrictions which have consistently proven lighter than anticipated?_




Why should the fact that they're lighter than anticipated mean that restrictions should be happily accepted? 

I'm personally very happy that WotC killed the "poison pill" clause. That said, I consider Open Gaming to be something to aspire to, and so far, the OGL is the best representation we've seen of that. The GSL is, in that regard, still a step backwards - it's just now a small step instead of a giant leap (and yes, I know the GSL has provisions that the OGL doesn't, such as using "mind flayer" and "displacer beast" etc. It's still less Open than the OGL).

I completely understand why WotC is doing this. I'm also glad 4E will be as accessible as it is. But this is still a regression from what the gaming community had before, and as such I, personally, want to keep looking for ways of working with the GSL that allow OGL-levels of Openness.

As it stands now, from the prospective of Open Gaming, the GSL is better than it could have been. But that doesn't mean it's as good as it could be.


----------



## Arrond Hess (May 3, 2008)

Well, it's good to see that companies will be able to produce products for both OGL/3.x and 4.0.


----------



## BSF (May 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> B) What's with the constant efforts to find ways around the restrictions--restrictions which have consistently proven lighter than anticipated?




I don't think people are trying to find ways to maliciously subvert the license.  It is more an attempt at understanding exactly what the license entails and trying to anticipate some of the ripple effects.  The problem is that we don't have enough information to understand the details because we haven't seen the specific wording of the GSL.  Sure, there may be people that want to subvert the license just to see if they can do it.  But the majority of us would just want to understand better.  

Speculation and debate will remain until the GSL is finally published in June.  Though I think the FAQ definitely helps.


----------



## BSF (May 3, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I keep seeing gamers going on about how the term "product line" is confusing and/or vague.
> 
> Buh?   Not sure why that particular meme is growing.
> 
> ...




Can you elucidate?  I have been out of the book trade for a while (over 11 years), but when I hear product line, I think in somewhat broad terms.  

For example, Fantasy Flight Games had the Legends & Lairs product line.  As a hypothetical example, they could choose to remove the d20 branding from the current PDF products and release them as OGL products.  But in the future, if they wanted to release a new GSL compliant product under the Legends & Lairs product line, it looks like they would need to remove all the previous OGL products from the market.  

Based on what we have been told about the GSL, am I interpreting that correctly?

This next question can probably be answered much better by Clark Peterson, but I will toss it out there as well.

From what I can tell, the Tome of Horrors products could be considered a product line.  So, if Necromancer Games wanted to release a new version, call it Tome of Horrors 4, under the GSL, they would need to remove the previous versions from distribution?  In a like manner, if they decided to update the Tome of Horrors (Revised Edition) to something like Tome of Horrors (4.0), they would need to remove the previous versions of the Tome of Horrors "product line" from distribution.  

Am I understanding that correctly?  

Seriously, I know this is more relevant to publishers.  I'm not trying to be obtuse, and you bring up a valid point.  Those of us that are not publishers are more likely to misinterpret, and then rumormonger, based on our misunderstanding.  So if any of the publishers would like to explain in a little more detail, I would certainly appreciate it.

Thanks!


----------



## MatthewJHanson (May 3, 2008)

This is better than I expected, though I would still like to see something that allowed a magazine (Kobold Quarterly) to publish articles using both the OGL and GSL. (I don't suppose articles in the same mag could be a different product line?)


----------



## BSF (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> But if the title is different, and the listed product line is different, calling the book "itself" doesn't really apply now does it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, some of us are idealists.   I agree, this is a step back grom Open Gaming.  But it does continue easily licensed third party support.  



			
				Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> Well, it's good to see that companies will be able to produce products for both OGL/3.x and 4.0.




And for this I am happy.  I suspect there will terms in the GSL that I will be less than thrilled with, but I can accept that WotC probably should have more restrictive licensing.  Hopefully the GSL will help establish a healthy marketplace while allowing some of the companies to venture more into Open Gaming waters for certain product lines.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Why should the fact that they're lighter than anticipated mean that restrictions should be happily accepted?




Because the best way to piss someone off when they're being generous--far more so than they have to be--is to demand even more?

Because WotC is letting people play with their toys already, when there was no reason they had to?

Because the restrictions they've put in place are neither unreasonable nor immoral by any widely accepted definition?

Because it was apparently a fight to get things even this open, and the last thing we want is to give WotC's lawyers reason to regret it?

Because both business sense and common courtesy should encourage us to work _with_ WotC on this, not against them? (And if neither of those is enough, consider WotC's legal budget.)

I think trying to use the letter of the law to violate the spirit of it is the best way to ensure it'll _never_ be more open than it is now.


----------



## Gundark (May 3, 2008)

I agree mouse...some people just don't want to see the silver lining. Some people will nitpick something obscure about this announcement and this thread will go on for pages and pages like the old one


----------



## see (May 3, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> From the front page:
> *Q) Can existing OGL products be updated to the GSL and what are the restrictions, if any?*
> 
> A. Existing OGL products can absolutely be converted to 4e GSL products, so long as they adhere to the terms of the GSL. In fact, we want to see publishers update their popular product lines to 4e.




That's, erm, _interesting_.

Under normal copyright law and the terms of the OGL 1.0a, if your current OGL product contains Open Game Content written by someone other than yourself or WotC, there is no way you can legally release it under the GSL without getting permission of that non-WotC party.

So, taken perfectly literally, that answer suggests WotC is going to issue a new version of the OGL that specifically authorizes redistribution of Open Game Content under the GSL.


----------



## Alzrius (May 3, 2008)

Wow. Ari, I really think you're taking my previous posts a little too seriously. I'm not trying to bash WotC, nor say that these revisions aren't a good thing. I'm just saying that I think more Openness is a good thing, and that in that context the GSL isn't up to the OGL, which makes it a net loss in that regard.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Because the best way to piss someone off when they're being generous--far more so than they have to be--is to demand even more?




Well, I don't recall "demanding" anything. I'm saying that they were more generous before, and are less so now, and I personally prefer the level of generosity we saw with the OGL, and not the lesser amount here.



> _Because WotC is letting people play with their toys already, when there was no reason they had to?_




No one's talking about why they "had" to do anything. But on that note, there are reasons for why it's in their own best interests to make a royalty-free license generaly available. Doing so helps them, ultimately.



> _Because the restrictions they've put in place are neither unreasonable nor immoral by any widely accepted definition?_




Well, I don't recall anyone discussing the morality of the GSL in this thread. As for unreasonable, I don't think they are. I'm just pointing out that the OGL was also not unreasonable, and afforded more Openness than the GSL.



> _Because it was apparently a fight to get things even this open, and the last thing we want is to give WotC's lawyers reason to regret it?_




Hm, yes, I can see WotC's entire legal division frothing at the mouth over this thread. "Damn that Alzrius! We made the GSL more accessible for everyone, and this is the thanks this person we've never heard of gives us! Quickly, let's go back and make it more closed before its release just to spite him!"



> _Because both business sense and common courtesy should encourage us to work with WotC on this, not against them? (And if neither of those is enough, consider WotC's legal budget.)_




Business sense also entails that a company should do what's best for their sales, which means fighting or circumventing restrictions that could possibly curtail the production of products that'd sell well (e.g. 3.5 and 4E versions of the same book, to hit the widest marketshare). Likewise, it'd also be courteous to - in lieu of business sense - not add restrictions to a public license in order to maximize your own sales at the expense of the companies that use the license.



> _I think trying to use the letter of the law to violate the spirit of it is the best way to ensure it'll never be more open than it is now._




Hey, tell me what will definitely make it more Open than it is now, and we'll talk. In the meantime, we have to do what we can with what we have.


----------



## Vigilance (May 3, 2008)

Urizen said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed it, but, what about Castles and Crusades, M&M, true20, etc?
> 
> I didn't see a definitive answer for those types of products.. or did I, and not recognize it?




Those are OGL product lines.

So you could continue to publish True 20 books, and GSL books, you just couldnt make the same book under both licenses.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> No one's talking about why they "had" to do anything. But on that note, there are reasons for why it's in their own best interests to make a royalty-free license generaly available. Doing so helps them, ultimately.




I've yet to see an argument that convinced me an entirely open license is better for them than one like the GSL, which is "mostly" open, but requires the use of their own material.



> I'm just pointing out that the OGL was also not unreasonable, and afforded more Openness than the GSL.




Obviously it was, by at least some legal or business standard, or there'd be no reason not to go that route again.



> Hm, yes, I can see WotC's entire legal division frothing at the mouth over this thread. "Damn that Alzrius! We made the GSL more accessible for everyone, and this is the thanks this person we've never heard of gives us! Quickly, let's go back and make it more closed before its release just to spite him!"




Funny. But I was talking about people doing what you suggest, not the suggestion itself.

(Although I'd also point out that we do know that people from WotC read this thread.)



> Business sense also entails that a company should do what's best for their sales, which means fighting or circumventing restrictions that could possibly curtail the production of products that'd sell well (e.g. 3.5 and 4E versions of the same book, to hit the widest marketshare).




Not when doing so means pissing off or harming (however minorly) the company that gave them the tools to make said sales in the first place.



> Hey, tell me what will definitely make it more Open than it is now, and we'll talk. In the meantime, we have to do what we can with what we have.




"Hey, until I have a way to solve the problem, let me risk making it worse for no real apparent gain."


----------



## Goobermunch (May 3, 2008)

see said:
			
		

> That's, erm, _interesting_.
> 
> Under normal copyright law and the terms of the OGL 1.0a, if your current OGL product contains Open Game Content written by someone other than yourself or WotC, there is no way you can legally release it under the GSL without getting permission of that non-WotC party.
> 
> So, taken perfectly literally, that answer suggests WotC is going to issue a new version of the OGL that specifically authorizes redistribution of Open Game Content under the GSL.




Except they can't do that (and I don't see where you get the idea that they would do that--the only time it will crop up is if a publisher is using someone else's OGC).

Because products are produced under certain versions of the OGL.  If my product is released under version 1.0a of the OGL, and WotC releases a version 1.0b that says WotC owns the copyright to everything published under the OGL, it doesn't magically transfer my copyright to WotC.  I licensed my product for other people to use under the terms of version 1.0a, and those are the terms that govern the use of my property.

What WotC is saying is that they'd like publishers to move existing lines into 4e compatibility.  For most product released under the OGL, this won't be a problem.  Most of the product released under the OGL cannot effectively make the transition to 4e anyway.  The rules are sufficiently different that the mechanics will have to be rewritten.  The question, then, is whether the fluff can be ported.

Anything that was PI shouldn't be in other people's products, so that's not a problem.  The issue you run into is what do you do when you've borrowed someone else's PI?  Well, since PI is not open, you're going to have to go back to the original rights holders and get a new license to use it.  But you would have had to do that anyway, because if you were using someone else's PI, it wasn't open in the first place.

I suppose it's possible that some mechanical elements will be transferable.  However, if that's the case, then you'll need to do the same thing for the mechanics that you need to do when using someone else's PI--get permission.

Remember that the OGL doesn't prevent you from using your own product however you want.  It simply allows other people to use it under certain conditions (the OGL).

--G


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 3, 2008)

> I agree mouse...some people just don't want to see the silver lining. Some people will nitpick something obscure about this announcement and this thread will go on for pages and pages like the old one




I think it's more that those who believe in the concept of open gaming as an ideal will be disappointed that the major game that supports it, the version of D&D SRD under the OGL, is no longer endorsed by the parent.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the movement.  Are there enough people who follow the ideal strictly, or was it's strength in this decade influenced by the fact that it was the D&D game.  If it's a true future movement, it will thrive, but if more people care about having the best and latest official D&D game, it might die or be nothing more than a niche.  We'll see.



> Under normal copyright law and the terms of the OGL 1.0a, if your current OGL product contains Open Game Content written by someone other than yourself or WotC, there is no way you can legally release it under the GSL without getting permission of that non-WotC party.




My assumption is that the GSL will only work from the assumption that all the content in the product conversion is stuff you wrote or derived directly from the SRD.  

I don't think this will be a problem for many publishers.  From what I've seen in major products I've purchased (Malhavoc, Green Ronin, Sword and Sorcerery, Necromancer), you don't get a lot of content reuse from other parties.  (Referencing it alone makes it dependent on other products you may not have, reproducing it in detail makes your product less unique).  If as a writer you grab instead of create, I can see converting products to be more problematic.

Also, it's important to mention that the rules have completely changed so any new rules have to be rewritten significantly anyway.  So, if I had a 3e campaign setting that used a magic system from a 3rd party, you have to rewrite the rules anyway and you don't know if those rules will work with the new system, so I suspect referencing other rules and creations is less likely.  We don't know if it's worth converting rules until we understand 4e.  You may not need a prestige class anymore to do something, for instance.


----------



## Alzrius (May 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I've yet to see an argument that convinced me an entirely open license is better for them than one like the GSL, which is "mostly" open, but requires the use of their own material.




That may be so, but I'm not concerned with what's necessarily best for WotC; rather, I'm most concerned with what's best for the gaming community as a whole. Having a royalty-free license of some sort out there is better for WotC, I believe; that said, one with more restrictions is better for WotC, while one with less restrictions is better for everyone else.

Ultimately, I find myself more concerned with what's better for everyone else. Partially this is because I think it's more worthwhile to focus on the health of the community overall. However, I also think that adding restrictions to everyone else to in turn give themselves a slightly larger sales profit is discourteous. It's good business sense, but it's discourteous nonetheless. We've heard before that WotC is the 800 lb. gorilla in the industry, that they're so large that they really don't have any true competing companies. Taking that as a truism, adding in restrictions on the license that everyone will use for the purpose of driving up their hypothetical 66% control of the market up to 67% may help drive up profits, but it just seems discourteous to whack everyone else for such a small return.

It's nice to give people a gift - as WotC did with the OGL - even if you expect something in return (as WotC did; increased sales). However, later announcing that what you got in return wasn't sufficient, and so your new gift (the GSL) will include restrictions to make damn sure you give back what they consider to be a sufficient gift in return, is discourteous. Gifts aren't meant to be given because of what you expect to be given back; they're given to be gifts.



> _Obviously it was, by at least some legal or business standard, or there'd be no reason not to go that route again._




That's not obvious, nor assumed. There's nothing to say that the OGL was either legally or financially unreasonable, it just didn't maximize profits as much as WotC wanted. It wasn't a question of the type of license breaking the company or not - they just wanted more money, and are seeking it by restricting the license.

That's fine; that's their perogative as a business. However, that doesn't mean that people who are not part of that business should necessarily be grateful for that.



> _Funny. But I was talking about people doing what you suggest, not the suggestion itself.
> 
> (Although I'd also point out that we do know that people from WotC read this thread.)_




I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just stating my opinion. And we don't know that anyone from the legal team that created the GSL is reading this thread.



> _Not when doing so means pissing off or harming (however minorly) the company that gave them the tools to make said sales in the first place._




Strictly speaking, each competing product sold ends up harming (and by extension, pissing off) the company that gave them those tools. But again, if WotC is so massive that they don't even feel the loss, it doesn't seem like that should be worth them getting riled up over it.



> _"Hey, until I have a way to solve the problem, let me risk making it worse for no real apparent gain." _




If you think my respectfully saying that I don't care much for the GSL is making it worse, then I think your view of the situation is unrealistically dire.

As it so happens, I have a way to solve what I see as a problem; just don't introduce any restrictions into the GSL.


----------



## JVisgaitis (May 3, 2008)

Sounds good. I am assuming this is on company by company basis. Example, if Green Ronin makes True20 4e, that doesn't mean we can't support True20 then, right?


----------



## Vigilance (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> That may be so, but I'm not concerned with what's necessarily best for WotC; rather, I'm most concerned with what's best for the gaming community as a whole. Having a royalty-free license of some sort out there is better for WotC, I believe; that said, one with more restrictions is better for WotC, while one with less restrictions is better for everyone else.




You speak like there was a chance for another OGL/ an extension of the OGL, which in fact was never on the table.

So yes, the GSL is the best option we were going to get in this actual real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you're discussing.

Since the options were no license, or one with some more restrictions, then the GSL is the best option we actually had a chance to get in reality.

Hence, it's a great thing, a huge win, and another show of Wizards' generosity with their content. 

Chuck


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Sounds good. I am assuming this is on company by company basis. Example, if Green Ronin makes True20 4e, that doesn't mean we can't support True20 then, right?



I thought something like that (should it ever come to be) would have to be published under the d20 GSL, not the D&D ('4e') GSL. So you couldn't really have True20 4e in the first place, and also there would really be no point simply re-releasing True20 under a new - possibly retractable - license, while not changing anything else.

Unless I'm misreading things, which is of course entirely possible.


----------



## Alzrius (May 3, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> You speak like there was a chance for another OGL/ an extension of the OGL, which in fact was never on the table.
> 
> So yes, the GSL is the best option we were going to get in this actual real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you're discussing.




No, Chuck, you've simply decided that I was discussing a "fantasy world." Look back at my original post in this thread, and you'll see that I'm very much talking about the real world - specifically, exactly what the term "product line" constitutes (and, by extension, how to dance around that particular restriction).

And just because the GSL (as it's been explained to us now) is the best option WotC is willing to give us now, doesn't mean that anyone who finds fault with it is necessarily wrong, or dreaming of some "fantasy world" like you're accusing. 



> _Since the options were no license, or one with some more restrictions, then the GSL is the best option we actually had a chance to get in reality._




No, the options were whatever WotC wanted them to be. They simply didn't want them to be anything as Open as they were before. This is the best of what they were willing to give us.



> _Hence, it's a great thing, a huge win, and another show of Wizards' generosity with their content. _




That's your opinion. Don't lash out at me with childish "you're dreaming of a fantasy world" statements because I don't share it.

Is Wizards being generous? Sure. Just not as generous as they were before.


----------



## lkj (May 3, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I keep seeing gamers going on about how the term "product line" is confusing and/or vague.
> 
> Buh?   Not sure why that particular meme is growing.
> 
> ...




That's probably because most of us aren't publishers and don't know any better. I had a feeling that it had a specific meaning that WotC was tapping into. But I wasn't really knowledgeable enough to say.

Glad to have you say it though.

AD


----------



## GAAAHHH (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> .... It's good business sense, but it's discourteous nonetheless. We've heard before that WotC is the 800 lb. gorilla in the industry, that they're so large that they really don't have any true competing companies.




It isn't polite to talk about WotC's weight.  Maybe their OGL diet didn't work as well as they wanted, so now they are trying the GSL diet.


----------



## Yair (May 3, 2008)

I'm disappointed they haven't answered question 8 - their fan site policy. 

I think the poison pill is not particularly poisonous. I do wonder how it would apply in practice to succesful lines, though. Let's say Green Ronin decides to make a 3e "Guide to Freeport" and support products, published under its "The Freeport Setting" line. Supposedly, they couldn't publish a "Guide to Freeport" using 4e rules; but what about a "Freeport Guide" with the same content, under the "Pirates & Mayham" line? What if it contained 50% of the content? 10%? What if it was published by a subsidiary? What if another company wanted to license the IP and publish a 4e line of Freeport products? Forbidding the use of the same IP in 4e seems impossible to me, at least without the very supervision Wizards wishes to avoid. 

I hope the new license will lead to better reference and use of Wizard's IP. I think that it's likely companies would be able to reference, say, Mind Flayers - as that won't jepordize Wizard's version of them, and it would be easy to add the reference to the new SRD.

For myself, since the license is revocable it won't answer my desires, so I expect to move away from 4e in about a year or so. But I'm not a publisher, and am certainly the least of Wizard's concerns.


----------



## The Dude (May 3, 2008)

I also wish that the GSL was as open as the OGL.

However, I do not think my belief in openness, or anyone else's belief, justifies any one of us imposing that belief on others.  We definitely should not force our beliefs on openness on a license-holder granting others access to their property (in any degree).  Its their product and they are entitled to have their beliefs on how open it should be, and none of us have any right to force their product to be more open than they wish it to be.

This is especially important when we are talking about "openness".  Openness is a fancy way of saying that some folks have access to someone else's product.  When you take someone's product without their permission, that is stealing.  It is still stealing if they let you take it for one purpose and duration, but you intentionally misuse it.  For example, if I lend you my car to go to the store and you instead drive to Paraguay, you have stolen my car.  It doesn't matter whether I have let you drive my car to Paraguay before, so you think I should let you do it again.  If I don't give you permission to take my car like that, you have stolen my car.

Now, when I say "stealing", I am talking about stealing in a moral sense, not a legal one.  It may be that clever abuses of the new GSL will be able to force greater openness on publisher's products without being busted legally for any violations of contract or law.  Since we haven't seen the license, we don't know yet.  However, just because a person can get away with something legally doesn't mean that the act is not morally wrong.  If you force other people to "share" their product in a way they do not intend, you are taking and distributing their products without their permission- in other words, stealing.  Illegal or not, it is wrong for any of us to consider forcing greater "openness" upon WotC or anyone else just because we believe it is a better idea.  None of us has any right to make that decision for anyone else.


----------



## xechnao (May 3, 2008)

I wonder if this had been planned all along.
Plan A: If the total of 5000 submissions surpasses possible loss due to competition from launch till GenCon then announce GSL right away.
Plan B: If the submissions are too low drag the GSL announcement to "reasonably" exclude competition.

To me, it sounds far more believable from a seven figure business perspective than last week "fights" that people have been suggesting around here. If they were able to do it this week they could have been able to do it months ago too.


----------



## Vigilance (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> That's your opinion. Don't lash out at me with childish "you're dreaming of a fantasy world" statements because I don't share it.




I can guarantee you this my friend, the first time I accuse you of anything you will bloody well know it.


----------



## AZRogue (May 3, 2008)

I'm very happy with the clarification. A product line by product line basis is more than fair and much better than the rumored company wide restriction. That's enough freedom for me to get the products I want made under the GSL so I'm content. I hope the people over at Wizards who fought for this realize how much it's appreciated.


----------



## see (May 3, 2008)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Because products are produced under certain versions of the OGL.  If my product is released under version 1.0a of the OGL, and WotC releases a version 1.0b that says WotC owns the copyright to everything published under the OGL, it doesn't magically transfer my copyright to WotC.  I licensed my product for other people to use under the terms of version 1.0a, and those are the terms that govern the use of my property.




Yes, but let's look at those terms, shall we?  The OGL 1.0a says:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

So, under the term OGL 1.0a's Section 9, I may use your Open Game Content under _any_ version of the OGL.  You, by licensing your content under the OGL 1.0a, have specifically given me permission to use your content under the terms of any version of the OGL Wizards chooses to write.  So I take your OGL 1.0a content, and using the OGL 1.0a's Section 9, I use the content under a hypothetical OGL 1.0b — as the license specifically authorizes me to.

Now, let's imagine that our hypothetical OGL 1.0b says:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.  Additionally, you may copy, modify, and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License under any version of the Game System License published by Wizards or its designated Agents.

Okay, so, we've established that the OGL 1.0a lets me use your Open Game Content under the terms of the OGL 1.0b.  I then use it under the GSL, based on the provision of the OGL 1.0b that gives me permission to do that.  Your Open Game Content is now in a GSL product.  If you complain, I point out that when you licensed it to me under the OGL 1.0a, you specifically gave me permission to use it under the terms of the OGL 1.0b instead, and the OGL 1.0b specifically gave me permission to use it under the terms of the GSL.


----------



## BadMojo (May 3, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> No, Chuck, you've simply decided that I was discussing a "fantasy world." Look back at my original post in this thread, and you'll see that I'm very much talking about the real world - specifically, exactly what the term "product line" constitutes (and, by extension, how to dance around that particular restriction).




Why would you want to "dance around" something like that?  That's like poking a sleeping bear with a stick just to see when it'll bite your hand off.  Mind you, the sleeping bear just gave you a cookie, yet you still want to poke at it.

I don't know about publishing, but product line has a very specific definition in business in general or manufacturing specifically.  It comes us in pretty much any intro to business course you'll ever take.

Wizards wants publishers to support their new game.  They don't want companies releasing the same damn product with a new cover and name on it just to "dance around" their license.  There's no way that can be considered a fair interpretation of the GSL.  It's just not, in any way, a logical and fair interpretation of the words "product lines".

If Wizards doesn't answer your question informally, I'm sure their lawyers will gladly send you a little letter to clear things up.

Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the restriction isn't on a company-wide basis.  Definitely good news.


----------



## TheRaven (May 3, 2008)

*No SRD as we know it*



> Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?
> 
> A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.



I'm wondering why no one yet offered their thoughts on this particular answer. The new SRD seems to be some kind of glossary and template framework rather than the rules as we know them from the 3.5 SRD. Makes perfect sense from the point of view of WotC, however, for the fans that have worked with the SRD in the past, how few there were, this is rather discouraging. The GSL seems to be tailored specifically to create new content as in powers, feats, classes and the like but clearly prohibits rule alterations similar to house rules. If, for example, I'd like to change the way spells are casted to a spellpoint based system, then this seems to be a nogo. Can anyone, with the informations currently available, confirm this?

Furthermore, answering rule questions by quoting the rule text isn't possible anymore unless you copy it by keyboard from the books. Yes, a minor thing but none the less it diminishes the ability to help people in need of support. Ok, as a webmaster of a SRD site I'm surely biased as what to think of this, so other trains of thought would be much appreciated.


----------



## Tao (May 3, 2008)

Honestly, this is about as good as its going to get... and in a lot of ways may prove more useful to the majority of publishers.  While something like True20 won't work under this license, the tighter control means that more leeway can be given on allowing 3pp to reference future products.  In a world of PHB 2s and 3s, this is absolutely essential to keep 3pps current and up to date.

This license will accomplish exactly what it needs to: It gives the people who want to work with WotC to develop for 4e the ability to do so, and forces companies who want to develop their own systems to do so on their own dime and not using WotC's work as a starting point.



			
				TheRaven said:
			
		

> The GSL seems to be tailored specifically to create new content as in powers, feats, classes and the like but clearly prohibits rule alterations similar to house rules. If, for example, I'd like to change the way spells are casted to a spellpoint based system, then this seems to be a nogo. Can anyone, with the informations currently available, confirm this?



My guess would be that it would require crafty wording and a framework within their already existing system.  For example, simply ruling that spells are cast from a spellpoint system might not work, but creating a class that casts spells using spellpoints or a feat that grants spellpoints used to cast certain spells would.  Again, its too early to say anything conclusive, but just about everything short of plagiarism will still be an option under the GSL, as long as you can figure out how to implement it within the system.


----------



## JVisgaitis (May 3, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Unless I'm misreading things, which is of course entirely possible.




I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?


----------



## Nellisir (May 3, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?



I don't think it means that, no.  You and Green Ronin are separate companies.  Assuming they leave their True20 license in place, you can publish support for it, irregardless of what GR does - though you'd have to make it clear your products were for "Classic True20", not "True20 4e".

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, 4e is a license for fantasy games.  The d20GSL is for non-fantasy games.  -If- True20 were updated to a new license, I think d20GSL makes more sense than 4eGSL, and the OGL makes more sense than either of them.  True20 is meant to be a complete ruleset, not an add-on to another ruleset, which is what it'd have to turn into under the 4eGSL and probably the d20GSL.


----------



## Flynn (May 3, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?




If you want my guess, and it's only a guess, I would say that you could support the True20 3E rules simply because they are OGL. You will forever be able to do so, simply because the OGL is forever. If True20 were to go 4E, then the True20 license would change, and you would have to abide by the new True20 license in order to claim product compatibility by name. The most likely outcome would probably thus be: you could use the 3E rules in a 3E product based on True20, but the changes in the True20 license would prevent you from claiming product compatibility, and you'd have to resort to some weird kind of verbage like "A Product Supporting the True Romance System Reference Document" or some such thing.

But that's just a guess, and as I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't tell you just how realistic that guess would be.

However, truth be told, do you really think that True20 4E is a viable product for Green Ronin in the foreseeable future? It would simply be a streamlined set of three classes (maybe four, if they went with one class per role), and a mish-mash of powers slung together by role. Doable, but is it appealing to the general gaming public? Not likely, not this early in the whole 4E experience. Give it a year or two for people to start getting tired of the class structure and ever-expanding list of powers, etc.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## webrunner (May 3, 2008)

About the d20/d&d d20 split, what about products that are designed for d20 as a whole that include D&D-specific rules?  Several d20 sourcebooks i've read have had instructions/concepts for both fantasy and modern products: D20 Mecha for instance, has rules for magic robots and rules for converting mecha costs in GP.

Which license is that?


----------



## Alzrius (May 3, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you this my friend, the first time I accuse you of anything you will bloody well know it.




I think so too, which is why I called you on it.   



			
				BadMojo said:
			
		

> Why would you want to "dance around" something like that? That's like poking a sleeping bear with a stick just to see when it'll bite your hand off. Mind you, the sleeping bear just gave you a cookie, yet you still want to poke at it.[/i]




The analogy isn't quite correct. I'm not talking about for the purpose of spiting WotC. I'm talking about that since it'd allow companies to publish the same product for 3.5 and 4E, maximizing their sales potential for it, which is a good thing. That may not be what WotC wanted them to do, but it's what's best for those third-party companies.



> _I don't know about publishing, but product line has a very specific definition in business in general or manufacturing specifically. It comes us in pretty much any intro to business course you'll ever take._




I'm quite counting on it, since a specific definition defines it rigidly, and one can then look for ways around it.



> _Wizards wants publishers to support their new game._




How nice for Wizards; I'm more interested in what those other publishers want, personally. Some people take a different stance, and that's fine. 



> _ They don't want companies releasing the same damn product with a new cover and name on it just to "dance around" their license. There's no way that can be considered a fair interpretation of the GSL. It's just not, in any way, a logical and fair interpretation of the words "product lines"._




Since we don't yet have a clear definition (publishers seem to, but said definition hasn't been explained to us yet - in this thread, at least) it's hard to way what a "logical" or "fair" interpretation would be. 

Bare in mind that the same thing could be said about companies who released products directly under the OGL to circumvent the d20 STL's restrictions, and make competing products. That's hardly "fair" to WotC either, but it was ultimately a good thing for many companies that did it, and for fans who bought those products and liked them.



> _If Wizards doesn't answer your question informally, I'm sure their lawyers will gladly send you a little letter to clear things up._




Wow, posting on a forum warrants a letter from WotC's lawyers? EN World really has hit the big time! 



> _Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the restriction isn't on a company-wide basis. Definitely good news._




It is good news. I'm just mentioning that it could still be better for everyone else.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:

Classes
Powers
Equipment
Fluff

I create classes like Gunslinger, Commander, Sneak, and Con-Man. I add rules for guns. I create appropriate exploits. I write a lot of modern fluff.

I do not include any forbidden rules. Since I probably won't be able to reproduce large blocks of text, I write my combat rules to integrate as smoothly as possible with the 4e rules, including additional material as needed. Ditto feats and skills. While it won't be as elegant as having all the rules (except chargen/XP) in one volume, it's still functional, since almost all of my target audience will have the 4e PHB anyway.

I can always add a worldwide mystical conspiract headed by, I dunno, a dragon or something, and say "It's a game of fantasy espionage adventures". 

I'm not trying to "break the rules" -- I'm trying to show the rules aren't (at this point) making a whole lot of sense. I am really nervous about any attempt to define something as slippery as "fantasy" in a legal document. I think it will cause publishers to self-censor, reining in their imaginations so as not to stray too far from where the current consensus places "fantasy".


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 3, 2008)

I'm pretty sure its what you take your base from.

You can either license the 4e D&D game, or you can license the upcoming 4e d20 Modern game.  

(For all we know, they may not be compatible with each other--which would make a big difference.  I don't think Wizards sees D&D/d20 as a "universal RPG system" anymore).

Since all the rules are changed, if you have a complex existing rule system that mixes the genres, _you're going to have to change everything around anyway_, so you can either use D&D or D20 as the base.  So if you have a Mecha setting with spellcasters, it's more likely to come under the d20 Modern license.  If you have a fantasy setting with a space colony that crashed on the planet, it would count as fantasy.

And since you need Wizards permission and have terms, it is likely they have a definition of what defines "fantasy" in the new GSL.

(And if your setting is truly different, like say M&M, why bother converting when you can use the OGL and the 3e set--why rebuild the rules from scratch, which is pretty much what any 3e publisher has to do with those things if they want to use them)


----------



## jaldaen (May 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You can either license the 4e D&D game, or you can license the upcoming 4e d20 Modern game.




I agree. It probably would have been better for WotC to simply say:

4e D&D GSL allows you to use the 4e D&D rules.
4e Modern GSL allows you to use the 4e Modern rules.

Simple as that.

No need to even deal with "fantasy" or "non-fantasy" seeing as the former has built-in fantasy premises and the latter has built in "non-fantasy" premises.

Of course this does open up the door for some publishers to use the 4e D&D rules for fantasy-based space opera, but the fantasy is so built into D&D it would still feel fantasy-based even if you moved it to outerspace.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 3, 2008)

I am also intested in answers to question 8. I am also interesed how it relates to the FAQ on the WotC site that states



> Q. Can anyone participate?
> A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008




Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?




Before the Q&A, Scott had said "yes" to this.

I don't think it's a good idea to sign one and send one in however.  And it begs a lot of additional questions - "So can I not have 3.5e stuff on my random Web site any more either?"


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

So the Q&A results is "better than feared, worse than it could have been."  It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it.

The remaining issues:

1.  They're not releasing the actual GSL until June 6, so there's a lot of "take our word for it" going on; also the definitions of "product line", "fantasy", etc.  

2.  The "non-fantasy" GSL that is supposed to cover other genres (modern, supers, scifi, etc.) won't be coming out even then.  And the definition of "fantasy" vs "other" is going to be a difficult point. 

3.  How "product line" is defined is hazy. When looking at Wizards vs. Paizo, it's hard to believe they will really allow them to publish any 4e material while still publishing Pathfinder. Will they say that "your fantasy products" is the definition of a product line?  Does "product line" have a legal definition?  "What RPG publishers generally consider it o be" and what a judge would think are two entirely different things.

4.  It's still of questionable legality, of course.  All legal precedent indicates that someone is legally able to produce D&D supplements and say "For use with Dungeons & Dragons" on them without entering into any agreement with WotC at all (cf. Hasbro vs. RADGames re: Monopoly, http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm); and entering into this agreement (though it gets you the ability to use their D&D compatibility logo) gives up those rights and gets you "on the hook" with them.  Remember, back in the day when TSR sued Mayfair for putting out D&D supplements, they didn't get them on any IP points - they got them on violation of a specific license they had signed with WotC.   http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

5.  It's a huge step back from open licensing.  WotC's up front about this at least, this license and the ones to come are all proprietary change/revoke at will licenses.  If they decide they don't like you personally or want to change the terms, then you're screwed.  People truly looking at open gaming should move to Creative Commons or other open licenses.  But at least they are only killing open gaming for themselves and not trying to kill it for everyone else, which is "within their rights"...  Sad and stupid, but that's big business for you.


----------



## lkj (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:
> 
> Classes
> Powers
> ...




I don't know about the stand alone games, but as far as 'fantasy' vs. 'modern'-- from the FAQ it sounded like the publisher would just pick the license that best suited the product. It didn't seem like a WotC enforcement issue. 

Here's the relevant FAQ again: 



			
				Enworld Front Page said:
			
		

> Q. Does the so-called "poison pill" non-compete clause apply to ALL OGL, or only D&D-based fantasy? (i.e. what if it's based on d20 Modern, d20 Future, or a non-d20 source?)
> 
> A. It’s not a “poison pill.” It’s a conversion clause. The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products. The d20 GSL, which will come out at an undetermined point in the near future, will be for non-fantasy genres such as Modern, Future, etc. Publishers will be able to decide on a product line by product line basis which license will work best for them.




Again, we lay folk won't know for sure till June. But I have a feeling it's not necessarily all that tricky. 

AD


----------



## Urizen (May 3, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?




Good question: Answer, probably yes, as True20 is an OGL product.

But once those OGL copies are taken off the market, your fanbase is going to dry up and if you don't convert to true20 4e, then you're sunk anyhow.

But I don't think True20 CAN go 4e anyhow. Unless I'm mistaken, the new GSL is going to be very tight in terms of character creation rules in 3pp products, which invalidates a true20 game system.


----------



## Green Knight (May 3, 2008)

> It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it.




Or they never were going to be as "hostile" as you thought they would be. 

As for turning their back, can you name any other company who's done as much?


----------



## Pramas (May 3, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I guess I should rephrase my question. If Green Ronin decides to release True20 as a 4e product, does that mean I can no longer support True20 as a 3e product?




I realize this is just an example, but let me just say first that this isn't something we're going to do. WotC has been clear that stand-alone games won't be allowed under the GSL. True20 is its own game and will stay that way. If GR does 4E stuff, it won't be by updating True20 or M&M. 

As for the question, it really depends on Trademark issues. True20 was released under the OGL. This has always meant that people could design compatible product with it, but use of our Trademark requires permission. We have a new trademark license that allows it, so if that were still in force people could use it in conjunction with the OGL, just not on a line that was using the GSL.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 3, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> (a) Why do they insist on releasing these blurbs on Friday night, just as everybody goes incommunicado for the weekend?



We really don't like to release info on Fridays for just this reason, but we didn't want folks to have to wait until Monday to get the info. Scott & I spend quite a bit of time in the internets over the weekends so hopefully we'll be able to keep up with the comments and major concerns.


----------



## Vigilance (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm honestly not sure how they think they can define "fantasy" or prevent just-about-stand-alone games, like Spycraft 1.0. I mean, really, the difference between a 'fantasy' game and a 'modern' game is:
> 
> Classes
> Powers
> ...




As I read the announcement, the d20 GSL is specifically designed to allow things like a 4e Spycraft. It's a modern game that would require the 4e PHB.


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> As for turning their back, can you name any other company who's done as much?




? Is this a trick question?  All the other companies who have released their games/content as open, which is a large number of them nowadays.   From whole games (Action!, Spirit of the Century, RuneQuest, True20, Mongoose Traveller, Pathfinder, etc.) to their content for other games (like most people who have done D&D OGL stuff), there are many other entities and people who have given what they have into the open community.  Many have given as much into open gaming as Wizards; obviously their contribitions' merit varies to you if you're a "WotC only D&D boi" as many proudly are, but that doesn't take away from their openness.

Wizards is now turning their back on what they've done, going full closed, and trying to undo openness in the marketplace as well.   Whether it's at the company, product line, or product level - that's a matter of degree, not of the nature what they're doing.


----------



## Green Knight (May 3, 2008)

Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?


----------



## crazy_cat (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?



I know Traveller and Runequest aren't spinoffs from WOTC IP.


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

You either didn't read or didn't understand my last post.

There are many games that companies have put out that are openly licensed and are not d20/D&D-based.  I listed them, but will do so again.

RuneQuest, a venerable percentile-based system that shares its roots with Call of Cthulhu.  http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/runequest.php

Spirit of the Century, whose FATE engine is a FUDGE variant.
http://evilhat.wikidot.com/fate-v3

Traveller, which is a science fiction ruleset also originating back in the day.  
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=51 
http://www.travellerrpg.com/

Action!, which is a new modern-focused 3d6-based game system.  http://www.action-system.com/

There are more, as well as others put out under other licenses like Creative Commons.

May I suggest http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/ if you'd like to find out more.

No, Palladium et al. have not done anything for open gaming.  Palladium is the worst of the crowd, with their anti-fan site doctrine.  But none of these other companies have ever tried (that I know of) to try to get other companies to sign agreements that require them to *not* produce open games.


----------



## JoeCrow (May 3, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I realize this is just an example, but let me just say first that this isn't something we're going to do. WotC has been clear that stand-alone games won't be allowed under the GSL. True20 is its own game and will stay that way. If GR does 4E stuff, it won't be by updating True20 or M&M.
> 
> As for the question, it really depends on Trademark issues. True20 was released under the OGL. This has always meant that people could design compatible product with it, but use of our Trademark requires permission. We have a new trademark license that allows it, so if that were still in force people could use it in conjunction with the OGL, just not on a line that was using the GSL.




See, what I'm wondering is whether the GSL allows for a 4E Freeport Guide. Since the new Freeport line is explicitly system free, you guys might be able to do one, but because there is already an OGL/d20 Freeport Guide, maybe not. The content would be different, because most of the stuff in the Freeport Guides is system-specific stat block stuff, meant to supplement the content of the Pirate's Guide to Freeport. Since the d20 license is going poof, then you're gonna hafta sell through the existing stock of d20 Freeport Guides anyway, but does the True20 Freeport Guide come close enough to keep you from doing a 4E/GSL Freeport Guide?

I dunno.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?




Please tell me how the following systems are spinoffs of D&D:
Action!
FUDGE
Runequest
Traveller
FATE

Lemme see, how can I put this in terms that won't get me banned? I strongly recommend you research the topic further before continuing to post on it.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?



I don't think the makers of True20, Mutants&Masterminds, Conan, et al, appreciate your attitude of their efforts just being "spinoffs of WotC's IP".

It seems WotC fanbois will take any crap with the same inane argument "well, WotC are the nicest since they gave us the d20 SRD". Wake up, WotC is not the same company anymore. They have distanced themselves from Open Gaming and gone back to being a closed shop.

Maybe the WotC fanbois need to look up the meaning of BOHICA.

_Piratecat here. This post is a problem for a couple of reasons, primarily the manner in which you manage to insult vast numbers of people with your "WotC fanbois" line. Here's the deal: if you're going to discuss it, don't sink to cheap shots and insults. If you can't do that, *don't post.*

That goes for everyone.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me. My email is in the Meta forum.

- Piratecat_


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 3, 2008)

Look both camps have their points.

The Open Gaming camp has their point that Open Gaming is not limited to the OGL or its use.  FUDGE didn't use the OGL when it was first released (don't know if they adopted it or not).  It is being used for a couple Mongoose games, some use other licenses, etc.  So it's not solely for D&D, nor was the OGL the first attempt to do it.  They also like the advantages of the viral license and certain legal benefits.

But the other camp has their point as well.  If Open Gaming was a true paradigm shift you would have seen other big companies like White Wolf or Games Workshop use it.  Instead, they didn't.  WoTC was the odd "big guy" in the open gaming camp--before it was limited to less popular games.  People who used the OGL may or may not have been fans of "Open Gaming" in particular--it was just the only license you could get from Wizards, you'd have to ask them individually.  Those other games listed are minor--RuneQuest and Traveller are "big names" but they lost a lot of market share over the years and I think the primary reason they are going OGL is to get more third party support--and AFAIK the OGL versions are only one version of a system that has multiple versions.

Open Gaming may or may not be the "wave of the future".  It all depends on what happens and how the market reacts.

Keep in mind too that the majority of players probably don't give a darn if the game is open or not.  So making appeals to WoTC "closing the system" will probably get a lot of people who say "So?".  Open Gaming has its advantages--but in the bigger scheme of things it doesn't have a big effect on the player base.  We've always been able to tinker and use all rulesets as we see fit--we just don't have the right to publish.  As a consumer I never saw it as fulfilling a specific need for me as a consumer.  

Let's all try to avoid attacking the person.  We can be friends with people who hold different religious and political views, we should be able to be friendly with people who like, dislike, or are indifferent to open gaming.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 3, 2008)

JoeCrow said:
			
		

> See, what I'm wondering is whether the GSL allows for a 4E Freeport Guide. Since the new Freeport line is explicitly system free, you guys might be able to do one, but because there is already an OGL/d20 Freeport Guide, maybe not. The content would be different, because most of the stuff in the Freeport Guides is system-specific stat block stuff, meant to supplement the content of the Pirate's Guide to Freeport. Since the d20 license is going poof, then you're gonna hafta sell through the existing stock of d20 Freeport Guides anyway, but does the True20 Freeport Guide come close enough to keep you from doing a 4E/GSL Freeport Guide?
> 
> I dunno.



It is system-free, right? Why does it need any system-specific license? Or do you mean a 4E Freeport Guide would contain rules material? If the (system-free) Freeport line is under the OGL, it seems impossible to use the GSL in this case.


----------



## Nellisir (May 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It is system-free, right? Why does it need any system-specific license? Or do you mean a 4E Freeport Guide would contain rules material? If the (system-free) Freeport line is under the OGL, it seems impossible to use the GSL in this case.




Freeport has gone system-free, but Green Ronin has done 3 versions (that I know of) of the Freeport Companion: a True20 version, a d20 version, and a Savage Worlds version.  The GSL would appear to prohibit a 4e Freeport Companion unless at least the d20 Freeport Companion is no longer offered, and possibly the other two.


----------



## Flynn (May 3, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Freeport has gone system-free, but Green Ronin has done 3 versions (that I know of) of the Freeport Companion: a True20 version, a d20 version, and a Savage Worlds version.  The GSL would appear to prohibit a 4e Freeport Companion unless at least the d20 Freeport Companion is no longer offered, and possibly the other two.




The Savage Worlds companion, *Savage Freeport*, is a licensed Savage Worlds product, which is neither D20 System-based nor OGL, and thus, as I understand it, would not be a problem for future GSL publications. As both the D20 and True20 versions are OGL and D20 System-based, I can see the potential need for the removal of at least the D20 version, if not the True20 version as well, before moving forward with a GSL version.

Just An Attempt To Help Clarify,
Flynn


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> But the other camp has their point as well.  If Open Gaming was a true paradigm shift you would have seen other big companies like White Wolf or Games Workshop use it.  Instead, they didn't.




Well, that's a bit of a fallacy.  Microsoft hasn't moved to open source, but that doesn't mean open source isn't a paradigm shift in the market.  By its nature smaller, younger companies tend to adopt its tenets in order to compete with the bigger, closed beasts.

Not that it wouldn't be great for other RPG publishers to go open - not sure SJG's RPG sales make them count as one of the big ones any more, GW only does RPGs on and off, and Palladium/Kevin Siembieda would only do it over his dead body, but it is certainly true that more could.  I think venerable lines like Runequest and Traveller going open is a big statement though.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 4, 2008)

Well, I'll admit to a lot of unnecessary pessimism. (Although I scored on the Q&A not being answered before May 1.) I'm still disappointed I can't make a Joe's Book of Enchantment 4e. Maybe Mucchiello's Manual of Mentalism.... Yeah, that rolls off the tongue.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> So yes, the GSL is the best option we were going to get in this actual real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you're discussing.



Yes, but Alz was licensing his complaint with the GSL under the GSL so he has to keep his discussion in the fantasy world or violate the license. When we get more info on the modern GSL he can take it to the real world. 

And where's JV's wedding photos?

People don't know how to hijack threads any more.


----------



## Greylock (May 4, 2008)

I would be appreciative if one of our known publishers hanging about here would give me an idea of how they define "product line". I can imagine several interpretations of the phrase, but it was stated earlier in this thread that "product line" has a specific meaning to any publisher. Please share, someone?


----------



## Greg K (May 4, 2008)

Chuck,
So, what are RPGObjects plans with the "Blood and [x]" books. Modern High, etc.?  I remember  in the podcast you giving three possible actions that WOTC could take- two of which would involve  RPGO not supporting 4e (although at the moment I can't remember what they were). Personally, I would love to continue supporting RPGObjects as they are one of my two favorite companies along with Green Ronin, but for this to happen  RPGO will need to continue supporting the current version of d20M,  True20, or both.  Personally, I would love to see RPGO's current d20M products done for True20 as one of the main things holding me back from switching entirely to True20 is RPGObjects products for d20M.


----------



## Vigilance (May 4, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Chuck,
> So, what are RPGObjects plans with the "Blood and [x]" books. Modern High, etc.?  I remember  in the podcast you giving three possible actions that WOTC could take- two of which would involve  RPGO not supporting 4e (although at the moment I can't remember what they were). Personally, I would love to continue supporting RPGObjects as they are one of my two favorite companies along with Green Ronin, but for this to happen  RPGO will need to continue supporting the current version of d20M,  True20, or both.  Personally, I would love to see RPGO's current d20M products done for True20 as one of the main things holding me back from switching entirely to True20 is RPGObjects products for d20M.




I dont think you'll notice a ton of dramatic changes from us, at least not right away.

Our plans to support Modern20 and Darwin's World are unchanged. After a silence brought about by me taking a couple of freelance gigs, I'm about to start work on a few Modern20 books.

We will also continue to support True 20, though I'm not sure any more conversions are in the works for us.

We did have some fantasy plans that were put on hold, pending the GSL, and there's a possibility that we might update the Legends books to 4e, but that's about it for us.

Our core lines won't be going anywhere, people seem to be happy with them right where they are.


----------



## joela (May 4, 2008)

*3pp Srd*



			
				mxyzplk said:
			
		

> ? Is this a trick question?  All the other companies who have released their games/content as open, which is a large number of them nowadays.   From whole games (Action!, Spirit of the Century, RuneQuest, True20, Mongoose Traveller, Pathfinder, etc.) to their content for other games (like most people who have done D&D OGL stuff), there are many other entities and people who have given what they have into the open community.  Many have given as much into open gaming as Wizards;




I've been meaning to ask, but why haven't such companies released SRDs of their system on the Internet like WotC to the point where we can create PCs w/o having to purchase their books?

Edit: Please ignore. Found a couple (at least FATE)!


----------



## mxyzplk (May 4, 2008)

Here's a bunch more:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/

Some have odd names to avoid trademark issues (True SRD = True20, Action-Oriented SRD = Action!, Runic SRD = RuneQuest, etc.)


----------



## Alzrius (May 4, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Yes, but Alz was licensing his complaint with the GSL under the GSL so he has to keep his discussion in the fantasy world or violate the license. When we get more info on the modern GSL he can take it to the real world.




Au contraire, my complaint was unlicensed, which apparently means I'll be getting a letter from WotC's lawyers sometime soon.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2008)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Here's a bunch more:
> 
> http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/
> 
> Some have odd names to avoid trademark issues (True SRD = True20, Action-Oriented SRD = Action!, Runic SRD = RuneQuest, etc.)



Thank you.  Excellent.


----------



## joela (May 4, 2008)

*yeah*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Excellent.




Ditto. Thanks, mxyzplk!


----------



## BadMojo (May 4, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Wow, posting on a forum warrants a letter from WotC's lawyers? EN World really has hit the big time!




The licensing and brand managers for WotC post here, and if we're to believe what Clark has said, they worked very hard to get the GSL out.  I'm sure they're ecstatic to see that someone's already trying to "work around" the GSL despite the Q&A that already said Wizards doesn't want the same product published under the GSL and OGL.

I certainly hope you're not actually affiliated with EnWorld Publishing, since the attitude of trying to pull one over on Wizards, work around, dance around, whatever is incredibly unprofessional.

BTW, you're certainly not as daft as you make yourself out to be in the quote above.  WotC was pretty restrained with putting the legal smack down on publishers at the beginning of 3.X, but with the apparent changes in their corporate culture I wouldn't be shocked at all to see them take action against "publishers" who try to dance around the GSL.


----------



## kenmarable (May 4, 2008)

Although my ideal is to dual stat and let the fans use whatever they want, I am still very thankful that WotC decided to go with a per product line rather than per company restriction. That single thing moved from being utterly uninterested in publishing for 4e to dusting off my ideas to see which ones to get rolling on as a 4e product line!

Thank you!!!


----------



## Alzrius (May 4, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> The licensing and brand managers for WotC post here, and if we're to believe what Clark has said, they worked very hard to get the GSL out.  I'm sure they're ecstatic to see that someone's already trying to "work around" the GSL despite the Q&A that already said Wizards doesn't want the same product published under the GSL and OGL.




Considering that they're said to be strong advocates of Open Gaming, who fought hard to make the GSL less restrictive, I'm sure they're ecstatic about that too. 

And just because WotC doesn't want other companies to do that, doesn't mean other companies should avoid a move that could be more profitable for themselves. WotC has made it clear they don't want companies to publish the same product under both systems, despite how that'd be more profitable for other companies; other companies, however, are certainly not to be faulted for doing what's best for themselves.



> _I certainly hope you're not actually affiliated with EnWorld Publishing, since the attitude of trying to pull one over on Wizards, work around, dance around, whatever is incredibly unprofessional._




I've never claimed to be affiliated with EN Publishing. I've freelanced for them in the past, and that's all.



> _BTW, you're certainly not as daft as you make yourself out to be in the quote above._




Actually, the quote above is me poking fun at the implied threat of legal action just because I posted about how to theoretically sidestep that particular GSL restriction. Because really, just musing about doing that on a public forums isn't even close to being actionable in a courtroom.



> _WotC was pretty restrained with putting the legal smack down on publishers at the beginning of 3.X, but with the apparent changes in their corporate culture I wouldn't be shocked at all to see them take action against "publishers" who try to dance around the GSL._




Well, I can't speak for what WotC would do in that regard, and neither would you, but I'd be surprised if they did try to do that, and even more surprised if their stance in this extremely hypothetical instance was anything other than trying to win by attrition, since they have deep pockets. 

However, such a "publisher" who tried to "dance" around the "GSL" could possibly get a "ruling" wherein they "weren't" found to be "in" violation of the "restrictions," "thus" setting precedent "that" other "publishers" could follow.

""


----------



## Bacris (May 4, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> News from WotC on the GSL




Man, you go out of town for a nice long weekend, come back and find this.

Absolutely fantastic news.

Dreamscarred Press is on board for supporting 4E psionics (more details to come as we sort things out... and probably not really going to say more until the GSL is out in June).


----------



## BSF (May 4, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Easy to do so when you're just making spinoffs of WotC's IP. I'm talking about companies who've made their own rules sets, though. White Wolf, Palladium, Hero System, Steve Jackson, etc. Have any of them done as much as WotC?




In the back of my mind, there was something bothering me.  I let it sit so I could ponder it a bit.  Now, I think I can contribute to the conversation without being incendiary.

There are a number of games that dropped their systems in favor of adopting d20/OGL.  This wasn't because they couldn't exist without the d20 ruleset.  Nor would it be accurate to say that these companies felt their systems were mechanically inferior.  

It would probably be fair to say these games wanted to tap into the ease of the learning curve by borrowing from the most popular RPG out there.  

When you pick up a new game/setting, there are a few things that often need to be learned.  There are setting specific aspects that need to be learned.  Like if you pick up a sci-fi game, you need to learn the setting races, planets, technologies, etc.  This is something you need to learn anyway to enjoy playing the game setting.  

But you also need to learn the mechanics.  Regardless of what the mechanics are, and how they model the game reality, you need to learn them.  

By adopting the mechanics for the most popular system out there, you are able to cut down the learning curve for a new setting.  Mechanics are boring, when you get right down to it.  Though, there are times when mechanics model a particular aspect of a setting in a very creative manner.  Nevertheless, the learning curve for mechanics means you spend less time playing the game.  If you cut down the learning curve for mechanics, you speed up the time it takes for a given group to get to game play.  

This is not to say that a game couldn't have existed without access to the d20 ruleset.  Many, many games could have reinvented the wheel and created their own mechanics.  However, with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is safe to say that in some way, shape or form, an open gaming license, using some sort of mechanics would have eventually existed.  If for no other reason, than Ryan Dancey would have created the interest, somehow, after he left WotC.  

However, by having multiple companies adopt the d20 ruleset, WotC gained quite a bit.  To be sure, other companies gained as well.  By making it easier to adopt their game system, since it built upon d20, they were able to appeal to a wider audience.  But WotC kept more people discussing and developing around d20 for a much longer period of time as well.  There was a feedback loop, as predicted, with the OGL.  To be sure, there is a splintering effect as well.  Games that became significant enough to build a rich customer base have been able to carve out their own niche.  However, it is disingenuous to presume that these games can only exist because of the OGL.  They may have been more successful because of the OGL structure.  It might be that something about the OGL structure served as inspiration as a development jumping off point.  But it could also be that some of these games adopted the OGL simply because it serves the gaming market well.  

I think games such as Traveller and Runequest are strong examples of this.  Both certainly existed long before the OGL.  They had devoted fan communities that helped push fan based development even when companies were having difficulty maintaining success.  Why would these games adopt the OGL?

I am sure there are a number of reasons, but one of those reasons is because the OGL facilitates continued development, even if a corporate entity has difficulties for whatever reason.  Another reason, at least for the ones that have adopted a significant portion of the d20 mechanics, is to decrease the learning curve for some gamers.  

Despite the number of gamers out there, this is still a relatively niche market.  One way to help it grow is to adopt a solid set of mechanics and devote more time toward developing customers rather than new ways of modelling gaming realities.  

WotC did quite a bit with the OGL to improve the gaming market.  This is certainly true!  And if you believe in the benefits of the Open Gaming movement, than WotC has certainly been one of the biggest contributors.  But I beleive it was a visionary mindset, driven largely by Ryan Dancey, along with the recognition that information models were drastically changing, for example, the adoption of the internet, that made the creation of the OGL much less risky when D&D 3.0 was released.  

WotC was certainly aware of the bad blood generated by the cease and desist orders TSR threw at fan sites.  WotC was also aware that a significant portion of the market was hesitant to see what they would do with the D&D brand/property.  After all, a lot of gamers perceived that Magic did a lot of harm to the RPG market.  Anecdotally, I can share my own stories.  The D20STL and the OGL were tools used to combat these fears and help gamers feel better about adopting the new system.  So yes, the OGL was generous.  But I think it served WotC's interests quite admirably.  Now WotC wants to step back from that.  Obviously, they have other interests that they feel will be better served by the GSL now.  

But please, just because a certain game adopted the OGL and used d20 mechanics, don't assume that game couldn't exist without WotC's generosity.


----------



## JVisgaitis (May 5, 2008)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I realize this is just an example...




Right. I understand this won't be possible, I'm just curious and True20 was the best example I could think of.



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> As for the question, it really depends on Trademark issues. True20 was released under the OGL. This has always meant that people could design compatible product with it, but use of our Trademark requires permission. We have a new trademark license that allows it, so if that were still in force people could use it in conjunction with the OGL, just not on a line that was using the GSL.




Makes sense, thanks for responding.


----------



## Voadam (May 5, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I'm still disappointed I can't make a Joe's Book of Enchantment 4e. Maybe Mucchiello's Manual of Mentalism.... Yeah, that rolls off the tongue.




Poaching Spencer's Schtick? 

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=17701&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=434


----------



## jmucchiello (May 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Poaching Spencer's Schtick?



No, I can't spare the feat in order to multiclass into English major to get his vocabulary.


----------



## DaveMage (May 5, 2008)

Something's odd here...

A poster is missing.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 5, 2008)

Nothing to see Dave all posters are posting, you are just imagining someone is not posting.


----------



## Jack99 (May 5, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Something's odd here...
> 
> A poster is missing.




Yes, slightly odd...


----------



## Yair (May 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> And just because WotC doesn't want other companies to do that, doesn't mean other companies should avoid a move that could be more profitable for themselves. WotC has made it clear they don't want companies to publish the same product under both systems, despite how that'd be more profitable for other companies; other companies, however, are certainly not to be faulted for doing what's best for themselves.



Since WotC can arbitrarily amend the GSL, they can amend it to cease any such practices that emerge. It would be very unwise to publish products that WotC disapproves of; this runs the very big risk of instigating a license change that would make selling these products untenable, creating large losses. Unlike the d20STL, the publisher does not have the OGL to fall back to.


----------



## Alzrius (May 5, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> Since WotC can arbitrarily amend the GSL, they can amend it to cease any such practices that emerge. It would be very unwise to publish products that WotC disapproves of; this runs the very big risk of instigating a license change that would make selling these products untenable, creating large losses. Unlike the d20STL, the publisher does not have the OGL to fall back to.




That risk exists already though, particularly since only one publisher would need to do that for all publishers to be affected by it; hence, I wonder how much of a disincentive that really is.

And a publisher does have the OGL to fall back to, since that license can't be truly revoked.


----------



## SavageRobby (May 5, 2008)

Well, this isn't as good as it could be, but its better than I'd hoped. My concern was that my favorite game companies would have to make a horrid choice (that would affect their long term viability as companies): support OGL products or GSL products, but not be able to support both. Based on the answers in the QA, it _appears_ that isn't the case, and while the solutions offered ain't perfect, they're better than thought prior to the announcement, and certainly better than none. It will be interesting to see exactly how the GSL defines a product line, however. 


And as much as it pains me to say something nice, it was definitely a good move to release that info ASAP, too, even if it was on a Friday.


----------



## kenmarable (May 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> That risk exists already though, particularly since only one publisher would need to do that for all publishers to be affected by it; hence, I wonder how much of a disincentive that really is.



Remember this is a small industry. When the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out and the "community standards" clause was added at a rather coincidental time, on industry mailing lists there was some serious dragging of Anthony Valterra (I think I spelled that close) over the coals with plenty of "peeing the pool" references from a very wide array of publishers big and small. I'm not sure how much made it into public circles, but on at least the industry lists I was on, it was some heated debate and a lot of annoyance at the BoEF. So if one publisher does try to exploit a loophole or cause license trouble and then the rest of the industry is affected by it, you can certainly bet that they will have a lot of very annoyed publishers thinking twice about ever working with them again. In such a small industry, ill-will from the other publishers can be painful.

So, given that example, I would think there's plenty of disincentive for a smart publisher flagrantly try to exploit a loophole. I'm sure there will be minor pushing the boundaries and testing the limits, but if we are talking about an outright exploit against the spirit of the license, then "well, if someone does it then we'll all suffer, and I'm sure someone will do it eventually, so I might as well" is not a wise move.


----------



## Alzrius (May 5, 2008)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Remember this is a small industry. When the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out and the "community standards" clause was added at a rather coincidental time, on industry mailing lists there was some serious dragging of Anthony Valterra (I think I spelled that close) over the coals with plenty of "peeing the pool" references from a very wide array of publishers big and small. I'm not sure how much made it into public circles, but on at least the industry lists I was on, it was some heated debate and a lot of annoyance at the BoEF. So if one publisher does try to exploit a loophole or cause license trouble and then the rest of the industry is affected by it, you can certainly bet that they will have a lot of very annoyed publishers thinking twice about ever working with them again. In such a small industry, ill-will from the other publishers can be painful.




As an aside, WotC and (IIRC) Anthony Valterra have always held that the community standards clause being added to the d20STL at that time was largely a coincidence. I'm not sure how true that necessarily is, but that's the line that everyone seems to stick to.

That said, I'm not sure how much publishers "work with each other" as it stands now. Collaborations between companies seem somewhat rare. And besides, adding clarifying language regarding what constitutes a "product line" probably won't affect most publishers who aren't trying to dodge that restriction anyway, just like the community standards clause didn't affect anyone who wasn't producing BoEF-style material.



> _So, given that example, I would think there's plenty of disincentive for a smart publisher flagrantly try to exploit a loophole. I'm sure there will be minor pushing the boundaries and testing the limits, but if we are talking about an outright exploit against the spirit of the license, then "well, if someone does it then we'll all suffer, and I'm sure someone will do it eventually, so I might as well" is not a wise move. _




The spirit of the GSL is "make books that sell WotC books." Given that, I don't see any particular reason not to try and use the text of the license while ignoring the spirit of it. Publishers should be able to produce whatever books will sell to the widest possible audience, and if that means publishing the same book in 3.5 and 4E stats, then I think they should go for it if they find a way to do so.


----------



## TerraDave (May 5, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Something's odd here...
> 
> A poster is missing.




The similar thread in the 4E forum seems to have diverted a couple of the main "posters" on this. (ie Orcus posted over there).


----------



## kenmarable (May 6, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> As an aside, WotC and (IIRC) Anthony Valterra have always held that the community standards clause being added to the d20STL at that time was largely a coincidence. I'm not sure how true that necessarily is, but that's the line that everyone seems to stick to.



I suppose I could have worded it clearer, but, yep I was aware of that and believe it as well. But at the time there was a very strong perception among publishers that the timing was far too coincidental. (My guess is that it wasn't coincidental, but it was a matter of Valterra trying to get a product like that out with a d20 logo on it BEFORE the changes came down so that the logo could still help sales before he had to remove it, but wasn't fast enough. But that's just my guess.)



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> That said, I'm not sure how much publishers "work with each other" as it stands now. Collaborations between companies seem somewhat rare.



There's not a lot of direct cooperation, but there is plenty of backroom communication. An offhand comment during a casual conversation with their freelancers (who may very well be your freelancers as well) or even with distributors or retailers at GTS can hurt. Plus many of these publishers carry a lot of weight on messageboards. If I were to say that someone was acting like a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, it wouldn't really matter. But if Clark Peterson or Erik Mona came around and said that someone was a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, you can bet that person would lose customers. It's a blend of "relying on them for inside/expert information" with a dash of "cult of personality" throw in.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And besides, adding clarifying language regarding what constitutes a "product line" probably won't affect most publishers who aren't trying to dodge that restriction anyway, just like the community standards clause didn't affect anyone who wasn't producing BoEF-style material.



I fully expect/hope there to be clarifying language on what a "product line" is. I also don't expect to see it until June 7th (WotC servers will crash on the 6th, but by the 7th someone will re-post it here at EN World, that's my prediction). 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The spirit of the GSL is "make books that sell WotC books." Given that, I don't see any particular reason not to try and use the text of the license while ignoring the spirit of it. Publishers should be able to produce whatever books will sell to the widest possible audience, and if that means publishing the same book in 3.5 and 4E stats, then I think they should go for it if they find a way to do so.



I think that's fair enough since these are businesses, but I also know that a lot of this relies on playing nice. That doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to accept anything WotC wants, but I'm just saying flagrant, thumbing your nose at everyone, sort of loophole exploits are bad for everyone, especially the company doing it. Subtler and "that's so wide open, I'd call that a feature not a loophole" sort of things are fine by me (and I will be looking for them, too). I'm just saying "Do it at any cost" would probably wind up costing more than its worth.

I guess it sounds like I mostly disagree with where to draw the line, not disagreeing that we shouldn't push limits if feasible.


----------



## The Sigil (May 7, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> No, I can't spare the feat in order to multiclass into English major to get his vocabulary.



 Multiclassing?  Amusingly enough, my degree is in Astrophysics.  I never took so much as a single English course at the college level.  Of course, I am an absolutely voracious reader, so that helps my vocabulary substantially.

On topic: The "poison pill" clause doesn't sound as bad as first feared; on the other hand, the answers feel - to me, anyway - very "political" and can generally be boiled down to "calm down, the sky is not falling - on the other hand, we will not give you much in the way of details (possibly because even if we've decided on the concept, we haven't hammered out the verbiage yet?) until June 6th."

So... I will continue to play Wait-and-See.


----------



## freyar (May 7, 2008)

I haven't gone through the 4e forum GSL thread (to see if anyone has posted this), but here's something interesting from Erik Mona's LiveJournal (5th bullet point down):



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Witnessed about three different iterations of the 4th edition D&D Game System License from Wizards of the Coast (the current is my favorite, by a wide margin).




So maybe the WotC lawyers were re-writing based on the comments here, who knows?


----------



## Nellisir (May 7, 2008)

freyar said:
			
		

> I haven't gone through the 4e forum GSL thread (to see if anyone has posted this), but here's something interesting from Erik Mona's LiveJournal (5th bullet point down):
> 
> So maybe the WotC lawyers were re-writing based on the comments here, who knows?



While it's possible he's actually seen 3 versions, I think it's more likely he's taking about the interpretations that have been floating around the message boards.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> While it's possible he's actually seen 3 versions, I think it's more likely he's taking about the interpretations that have been floating around the message boards.



No one outside of WotC has seen the license.


----------



## smetzger (May 8, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Jenkin
Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?



			
				mxyzplk said:
			
		

> Before the Q&A, Scott had said "yes" to this.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to sign one and send one in however.  And it begs a lot of additional questions - "So can I not have 3.5e stuff on my random Web site any more either?"




Scott also, strongly suggested that the "No Interractive program" clause from the d20 license would remain in the GSL.  So, if your site contains any interactive code you could not blanket the site with the GSL.  

So, you could release certain pages, but not ones that were 'interactive' and you would have to make sure that you don't have OGL 3.0/3.5 stuff that would be considered in the same product line as your GSL.

Since the OGC appears to have been removed from the GSL I wouldn't bother with the GSL for a fansite.  Either add a clause saying people can re-use the content if they credit you or they must contact you first if they want to re-use/re-publish your content.

The lack of OGC is going to make it a lot more difficult to cross-polinate ideas.

The lack of being able to do interactive program is going to stifle any innovation on the electronic publishing side of the business.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 8, 2008)

I'm pretty sure we can get away with posting things without the GSL registration. While WotC could make a case in court, it would only bring up the very bad press from the TSR days when they sued fansites. I would prefer working under the safe haven of the OGL, but if the GSL is as restrictive as I think I would rather take my chances under fair use (and hope WotC doesn't want to sue fansites) than be caught up in contract law by registering. I ask because it would be good to know what WotC policy is going to be towards fansites.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 8, 2008)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Multiclassing?  Amusingly enough, my degree is in Astrophysics.  I never took so much as a single English course at the college level.  Of course, I am an absolutely voracious reader, so that helps my vocabulary substantially.



Ah, well Astrophysics is over my head and I don't actually eat books. Maybe that's how one improves one's vocabulary.


> So... I will continue to play Wait-and-See.



Wait-and-See -- No dice to roll, no decisions. Just wait and you'll see who wins -- it's like Candyland but you don't even have to draw the cards for it to play itself. (Sorry, I was just reading boardgamegeek.)

On-Topic: If I had the time, I'd be designing a 4e character class from the preview material. I think there's almost enough there to do it and not be too far off the power scale.


----------



## BSF (May 9, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure we can get away with posting things without the GSL registration. While WotC could make a case in court, it would only bring up the very bad press from the TSR days when they sued fansites. I would prefer working under the safe haven of the OGL, but if the GSL is as restrictive as I think I would rather take my chances under fair use (and hope WotC doesn't want to sue fansites) than be caught up in contract law by registering. I ask because it would be good to know what WotC policy is going to be towards fansites.




This is one of the big steps backward that is really bothersome.  

Sure, WotC would be "stupid" to go after fan sites.  That is the conventional wisdom.  It is probably even safe to assume that they won't.  

But the fact of the matter is that they could.  With the OGL, there was a way to safely publish your thoughts and ideas on the web for your game group, or whatever.  

All it takes is a shift in policy to change and WotC could go after fan sites.  Sure, it might foster bad relations.  But there is nothing stopping them from trying that.


----------



## InkwellIdeas (May 9, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> The lack of OGC is going to make it a lot more difficult to cross-polinate ideas.




Borrowing ideas is almost never a problem.  Happens all the time in many media, regardless of a license or not. Unless an idea is so novel it was patented (which admittedly that may happen in cases where it shouldn't) you're free to use an idea and build on it.  Copyright might prevent you from copying the text of an idea word for word, but there are prior cases that have been mentioned here lately that support borrowing or using other's rules, assuming you don't copy text.  Even copying is ok to a limited degree in certain circumstances.  Ask a lawyer (I'm not) first, or course.


----------



## smetzger (May 11, 2008)

indyjoe said:
			
		

> Borrowing ideas is almost never a problem.  Happens all the time in many media, regardless of a license or not. Unless an idea is so novel it was patented (which admittedly that may happen in cases where it shouldn't) you're free to use an idea and build on it.  Copyright might prevent you from copying the text of an idea word for word, but there are prior cases that have been mentioned here lately that support borrowing or using other's rules, assuming you don't copy text.  Even copying is ok to a limited degree in certain circumstances.  Ask a lawyer (I'm not) first, or course.




Yes, thats true.  

But it used to be very easy to lift a feat, spell, class or whatever from another publication.  Now its not so easy.  Thats my point.  Not that it can't be done.  Just that the fence is higher now, and people are lazy so they may just not re-use but will re-invent.

We will have to see the license.  But maybe the 3PP group can come up with an addendum that won't violate the license, but will allow re-use.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Can't help but notice that this thread has averaged about 16 posts per day, while the previous rampant-doomsaying-speculation thread had about 66 per day.


----------



## Vigilance (May 11, 2008)

BSF said:
			
		

> This is one of the big steps backward that is really bothersome.
> 
> Sure, WotC would be "stupid" to go after fan sites.  That is the conventional wisdom.  It is probably even safe to assume that they won't.
> 
> ...




Technically under the OGL, Wizards could go after everyone who posts on ENW who posts rules without appending an appropriate license to their post.

Including a complete Section 15 for everyone's work cited in their post!

All it takes is a shift in policy and Wizards could start going after these poor souls tomorrow.

I for one am really concerned about this.

Oi freaking vey

Chuck


----------



## DaveMage (May 11, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Can't help but notice that this thread has averaged about 16 posts per day, while the previous rampant-doomsaying-speculation thread had about 66 per day.




Oh, don't worry - I'm sure that when June 6 comes around there will be plenty of doomsaying posts - it just won't be speculation anymore.


----------



## smetzger (May 13, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Technically under the OGL, Wizards could go after everyone who posts on ENW who posts rules without appending an appropriate license to their post.
> 
> Including a complete Section 15 for everyone's work cited in their post!
> 
> ...




eh, very much agree that they will not go after a forum.

But what about a site that posts all the open content, or whatever its going to be called?
What about a site that creates a random NPC generator that is way better than WOTCs, and everyone uses it?
What if someone creates something better than the the digital initiative and WOTC gaming table?

What is a fan site?  Is EN World a fansite?  Or is EN world a publishing company?

IMO, if you post articles or rules on your site and its possible to use the GSL for those articles or rules you might as well use it.

Unfortunately, there are lots of interesting and community useful things that will probably not be allowed under the GSL.  
What will WOTC do about character generators and other programs online?  What if WOTCs electronic stuff is good(and they want to charge $10/month) but your is comparable and you offer it for free?
What about conversions of previous D&D edition material?

What if 100 people get together and decide to convert Eberon and they don't want to use WOTCs DDI to post here information (which would give WOTC rights to everything they posted)?  What if tis conversion is really good, freely available, and ready  months before the WOTC book?

Just a lot of what ifs,  and potential for WOTC and fans to have rift since WOTC has not supplied specific guidelines.


----------



## Piratecat (May 13, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> What is a fan site?  Is EN World a fansite?  Or is EN world a publishing company?



EN World is a fan site. EN Publishing, a separate entity, is a publishing company.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 13, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> EN World is a fan site. EN Publishing, a separate entity, is a publishing company.



That distinction is not as crystal clear as you guys try to make it out to be. I (me, myself) know you run them separately and all that. But it's not really obvious from the outside. Where is the ENPublishing website? With separate trade dress and product announcements? Ever other publisher announces new products on their website _and_ in ENWorld press releases. ENPub gets automatic special new placement on the homepage (and that article always looks suspiciously like what a product page on any other pub's website would look like).

Look at the announcement for book 3 of Ascension on the homepage. Compare it to Friday's news item about CMG's Small Keep. If ENWorld and ENPub were truly separate, the news item for Ascensions would have been:
[bq]EN Publishing released {link}Ascension{/link} the third and final novel in Aeryn "Blackdirge" Rudel's Metamorphosis: From Dretch to Demon Lord trilogy.[/bq]
And the link would point to the ENPub homepage.

There's nothing wrong with ENPub getting special privilige on ENWorld's news page. But it blurs the separaion between the two entities.


----------



## Voadam (May 14, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> EN World is a fan site. EN Publishing, a separate entity, is a publishing company.




I think he was referring to whether some stuff on EN World would make it a publishing company instead of just a fansite exclusively, such as the 3e house rules stuff, the 4e original creations stuff, the 4e rules document, the 4e original monster booklet, etc.

If someone created a 4e Eberron conversion document on ENWorld and created 4e versions of things like dragon marks or artificers or shifters would that push things differently?


----------



## smetzger (May 15, 2008)

Actually my point is that unlike the GSL (from what we know) has lots of areas that are not covered (unlike the OGL) thus producing uncertainty.

There is not clear definition of a 'fan site' so it cannot afford special protection.

My biggest complaints are...
No interactive software
No built in license for others to use the stuff you create (e.g. OGC).  Hopefully the license will not be written in such a way that precludes allowing this.


----------



## DanMcS (May 15, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Technically under the OGL, Wizards could go after everyone who posts on ENW who posts rules without appending an appropriate license to their post.




No, they can't.  Quoting from a copyrighted work can be fair use.  RPGs are (obviously) copyrighted works.

From that link, you can see that the four main factors for determining whether copying some copyrighted work is fair use are:
a) whether the copying is commercial
b) whether you are copying facts or creative work
c) the amount of copying compared to the size of the work
d) the effect of the copying on sale of the work

Quoting a rule for purposes of discussion is noncommercial.
A rule is a fact (and rules themselves are not copyrightable anyway, only the expression of the rule is).
A single rule is a tiny fraction of the whole work.
And, particularly when quoting from the SRD, it can't hurt the sale of the work, because the work is free from the original publisher.

Further, the following uses have been recognized at various times as fair use:
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

Discussing the rules of a game arguably falls under several of those.  Whether discussing it is a parody depends on how bad the original game was, I suppose.

Discussing a game online, including quoting rules from it, is fair use, whether that came is licensed under the OGL, the GSL, or not available for license at all.


----------



## Yair (May 15, 2008)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Discussing a game online, including quoting rules from it, is fair use, whether that came is licensed under the OGL, the GSL, or not available for license at all.



And would you be willing to go to court over it?

The issue is murky, and will remain so until a judgment is made on such a case (or a few). What you say is true, but it's also true that judges tend more to side with the big money in recent years, and abide by strict WTO restrictions. 

Would the courts decide a post quoting a single rule and a thread discussing it isn't fair-use? I'd be willing to bet "no". Will the courts find the entirety of the ENWorld site, with its close links with ENPublishing, commercial-profits from advertisements, and comprehensive (overall) quotation or restatement of the rules in violation? I'm far less certain. Even taking the themes of 4e, such as pulsihiing a campaign with the dragon-born warriors with the race's specific history, could be a violation of copyright (since authors "enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works." per the WTO). 

The point of the OGL isn't to give you more rights - you may very well be right, perhaps none of these things will get you sued succesffuly. It is to provide a safe haven. With the OGL, the judge is very likely to throw the suit out of court - there isn't even a prima facia case. Suing someone that uses the OGL is just not practical. This is just not the case with the murky depths of copyright law.


----------

