# NEWS: OGL and SRD dates/info announced



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

New article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Behind cut, for those with the meh issues.

[sblock]D&D 4th Edition System Reference Document and OGL Designer’s Kit
Wizards of the Coast has developed a new, two-phased release structure for the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition System Reference Document (SRD) and Open Gaming License (OGL). 

Phase One
The first phase of the 4th Edition developer materials release will be marked by the January 2008 availability of the OGL Designer’s Kit. This kit is designed for independent publishers looking to obtain early access to 4th Edition rules in order to develop compatible products to release just after the 4th Edition launch. These publishers will pay a one-time fee of $5,000.00 USD for access to the OGL Designer’s Kit, which includes first looks at the 4th Edition rulebooks, the SRD, final galleys and more.

The OGL Designer’s kit includes: 

Pre-publication versions of the 4th Edition rulebooks: 
4th Edition Player’s Handbook 
4th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide 
4th Edition Monster Manual 
Pre-publication version of the System Reference Document (SRD) 
Open Gaming License (OGL) 
License Guide 
FAQ 
Registration Card 
Updated documents as the rules are finessed and finalized 
Final galleys including typeset text and artwork 
Advanced copies of the finished core rulebooks 
Developers purchasing the OGL Designer’s Kit will receive updated pre-publication versions of the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons core rules through the time of launch. They will also receive the right to publish OGL products on August 1, 2008, one month earlier than the general public.

Parties interested in the OGL Designer’s Kit must possess a business license and execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to contract communications.

Phase Two
Wizards of the Coast will release the second phase of the developer materials on June 6th, 2008 with the free, public availability of the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition SRD and OGL. The SRD will be live immediately upon release. The OGL will go-live on January 1, 2009.

For further information contact linae.foster@wizards.com.

FAQ
Q: Why are you charging for the OGL Designer’s Kit?
A: We want to encourage publishers who are serious about the business of OGL publishing to create compelling, quality products to complement the hard work we’ve put into creating 4th Edition material.

In that spirit, the OGL Designer’s Kit helps to establish a minimum bar for early entry into the OGL publishing world. We feel that publishers and developers with a proven track record of creating quality products will be able to cover the cost of the OGL Designer’s Kit and continue to create new material for 4th Edition.

Q: What about new publishers that can’t afford to pay for the kit? Won’t they be left out?
A: All of the material included in the OGL Designer’s Kit will be available for free starting on June 6, 2008. Parties who find the cost prohibitive can begin developing their products at that time. 

Q: Can anyone purchase an OGL Designer’s Kit?
A: Interested parties are required to possess a business license. Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to limit participation in this program as appropriate to the business.

Q: When can I start publishing OGL products?
A: Purchasers of the OGL Designer’s Kit can begin publishing their OGL products on August 1, 2008. Other publishers may begin publishing their OGL products on January 01, 2009.

Q: Why do I have to pay to publish an OGL product for 4th Edition?
A: You don’t. Starting in June, the core rulebooks will be available on shelves everywhere, and you can use those books to craft your OGL product for sale on January 01, 2009.

Q. What about the d20 license? Will that still exist in 4th Edition?
A: We are making the OGL stronger by better defining it. We’re rolling certain elements that used to be in the d20 license into the OGL, things like community standards and other tangible elements of the d20 license.[/sblock]


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Edited the title, and a bump.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 8, 2008)

Never mind , they fixed it.

Ken


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

Wow, interesting.  Particularly the limits on when publishing can begin...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 8, 2008)

Interesting about the January 1, 2009 thing. It's going to be a long year for the smaller 3rd party publishers. Hopefully they can consolidate into coalitions big enough to pay the $5k up front.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Wow, interesting.  Particularly the limits on when publishing can begin...



Too soon for your adoring fans to ask how you feel about this?


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

It just makes me wonder why.  It would be nice if there were a lot of 3rd party support right out of the gate.  Not that it actually affects me...


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 8, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> In the body of the text, they indicate that people who buy the OGL devkit get the right to publish one month earlier than the general public.  Later on, in the question and answer sections, it is 5 months earlier.
> 
> Which one is correct?   And why can't WoTC employ a proofreader on such an important communication?
> 
> Ken



It's been caught and updated. Hit refresh


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

I was part of the conference call. My writeup is in the news item here.


----------



## Grymar (Jan 8, 2008)

The 5k fee seems too small for WotC to actually plan on it being a revenue source, more likely it is a "keep the little boys out of the first wave" plan.  Is this a good thing though?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jan 8, 2008)

I have a question

i saw this line



> "The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. *Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.*"




does this mean I could be in phase one, sign the nda but not pay the fee and get a ogl?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> The 5k fee seems too small for WotC to actually plan on it being a revenue source, more likely it is a "keep the little boys out of the first wave" plan.  Is this a good thing though?



More likely, it's a "Keep crappy products out of the first wave" plan.

Yes, there were some great, great 3.0 products from 3rd party people. But there was also a _glut_ of awful, awful stuff, some of which wasn't even _right_, rules wise. And I think that a lot of FLGSes got burned on 3rd party stuff because they picked up too much crap from the getgo.

The 5K thing is pretty much "If you're going to publish right out of the gate, we're expecting you to be committed to putting out something worth your 5K investment."


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> does this mean I could be in phase one, sign the nda but not pay the fee and get a ogl?




From the FAQ: 



> Q: Can anyone purchase an OGL Designer’s Kit?
> A: Interested parties are required to possess a business license. Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to limit participation in this program as appropriate to the business.



If you have a business liscence, I guess you could.


----------



## grimslade (Jan 8, 2008)

5k up front eats a lot of profit. Not that 3.X stuff is selling like blazes, but still. 5k for a 5 month head start? Can Expeditious Retreat swing that? ENWorld publishing? Both are solid producers of quality material but are small.

I like that the Tool kit keeps the publishers in the design loop with updates in real time. The proof is in the pudding, though. 

Will WotC IP be opened up for the 5k license? Could we see Green Ronin illithid adventures in 4E? Or Paizo Yuan-Ti stuff? That would be an ongoing advantage after the head start. 
I am glad that the SRD will go live with the release of the rules. It might sway some fence sitters to pick up the core.

EDIT: I should have refreshed before posting some questions answered by Mr Kulp's report.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Ok, lets get this straight, to publish for 4E befor NEXT year, it is $5000 out of pocket for a company?

That means about $15K more in cost for the print consumer who supports the FLGS since it is $5K to the company, 10K at distributor level and 15K at FLGS level.

 Great...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 8, 2008)

It sounds like the SRD is going to be very different than it was in 3e.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I have a question
> 
> i saw this line
> 
> ...




To be safe, I would direct that question to the email link provided.

My guess:

Sign the NDA, read the OGL, then if you decide you do not like the wording of the license, and no longer wish to support 4e, you can opt not to purchase the advanced package. No harm no foul.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Ok, lets get this straight, to publish for 4E befor NEXT year, it is $5000 out of pocket for a company?
> 
> That means about $15K more in cost for the print consumer who supports the FLGS since it is $5K to the company, 10K at distributor level and 15K at FLGS level.
> 
> Great...




It costs you nothing to publish next year (2009). It costs you $5000 to publish from August this year (2008).

I wonder about European licensing, any info?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

I ask this because I don't honestly know:

Will small publishers really be hurt by having to wait 5 months?

Companies like Paizo, Necromancer, WW's d20 branch, etc - they are full time publishers; that's what they do. They need to get the money ASAP to pay their full-time employees, so getting out of the gate would be in their best interest.

Small companies, at least to what I can tell, are hobbyists and gaming enthusiasts who do it as a side job, an "on the weekend and after work" project. Would waiting five months hurt them in any financial matter?


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 8, 2008)

Isn't $5,000 a LOT of money for third party publishers?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 8, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> does this mean I could be in phase one, sign the nda but not pay the fee and get a ogl?




Read this line too:

Access to the kit requires *a legitimate business license*, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee.

What a "legitimate business license" is is up to interpretation... by WotC. So I don't think everyone and their brother is going to be able to get an early copy of the SRD. 

I'm not a publisher, but I like what WotC is doing here. It looks like they've learned and listened from the 3e OGL experience of the past seven years.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Isn't $5,000 a LOT of money for third party publishers?



Yes it is. Selling a book at a FLGS for $30 tends to bring 10$ back to the company, before thier own costs kick in.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 8, 2008)

> The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.






> The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.




What exactly does this imply?  I'm reading it as saying that there won't be a complete set of rules in the SRD, to force the purchase of the books instead of being able to play bare-bones D&D using the SRD.  This brings up two issues right away.  First, there are the camp who have been saying "I'll wait until I see the SRD, try it out a bit, and then decide whether to start investing money in 4E books."  Second, if the rules in the SRD are incomplete, what is missing, and how will it affect the ability of 3rd party publishers to design products that are compatible with the rules that they have no access to?  Or is that what is supposed to be covered by the OGL designers kit?

This disturbs me a bit, as a regular user of d20srd.org.  If I can't have a hypertext version of the rules, instead having to use the official WotC PDF I unlock with the code in the back of the book, I'm going to be pretty ticked off.  Of course, I'll just write my own damn hypertext version, but I don't see why I should need to go to all that trouble.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

It appears that the new iteration of the liscense will require all roducts to utilise the PHB; i.e. no printing of the entire rules in one book (like Conan for instance)


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> > The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does this imply?.



It means no complete games can be published. You have to have the PHB at every game.

Iron heroes, True 20, Mutants and masterminds and other stand alones could not have been pubished if 3e/d20 had those restrictions.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 8, 2008)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I wonder about European licensing, any info?




Yeah; I presume they're flexible on that sort of thing.  Were I to some up with the $5K, for example, I wouldn't be able to produce a "business license".


----------



## Thanee (Jan 8, 2008)

> Q: Why do I have to pay to publish an OGL product for 4th Edition?
> A: You don’t. Starting in June, the core rulebooks will be available on shelves everywhere, and you can use those books to craft your OGL product for sale on January 01, 2009.




Apparantly, WotC thinks that publishers should steal the books. 

j/k

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 8, 2008)

If only this had happened in a couple of years, I'd be free of this research nonsense and open to risking $5k on being a publisher


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 8, 2008)

How it is supposed to work: a select group of publishers come out with  compatible, quality products, at the same time as 4th ed. Marginal and poor products are excluded until a time when they may not be able to make much of an impact on the market. 

It if it does work, this is probably good for WotC, for retailers, and for consumers. Everyone wins from the 4thed _Tome of Horrors _ at Gencon. 

Well, almost everyone. $5000 is clearly chosen to not be a lot of money to WotC, but a lot of money to the other guys. 

But overall, I am happy with this so far. Because I know think I will own a 4th ed _Tome of Horrors_ in August.


----------



## beholdsa (Jan 8, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeah; I presume they're flexible on that sort of thing.  Were I to some up with the $5K, for example, I wouldn't be able to produce a "business license".




At least with the dollar being currently weak you Europeans effectively won't have to pay as much as you otherwise would.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 8, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> It appears that the new iteration of the liscense will require all roducts to utilise the PHB; i.e. no printing of the entire rules in one book (like Conan for instance)




This is more, interesting. 

One point of this whole OGL thing was to reduce bulkanisation in mechanics across different kinds of games. Not sure how the 4th ed version will make that happen.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> It means no complete games can be published. You have to have the PHB at every game.
> 
> Iron heroes, True 20, Mutants and masterminds and other stand alones could not have been pubished if 3e/d20 had those restrictions.



Well, that was explicitly stated, not implied.  I'm asking about the effects of this on basic D&D 3rd-party publishing, and on SRD users like myself.  Most importantly, if the SRD does not contain a playable set of rules, how can it be used to write a playable supplement before the core books are released?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

I hope this at least puts some fears to rest.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

Whats truly interesting is that since the PHB is now required, how will this affect complete games whose fans want them to 4e? Conan, MnM, Mignight, etc.


----------



## ashockney (Jan 8, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeah; I presume they're flexible on that sort of thing.  Were I to some up with the $5K, for example, I wouldn't be able to produce a "business license".




Coming up with a business license shouldn't be difficult at all.  I work in the insurance industry, and we have to apply for business licenses in each state we choose to operate (nice way for them to generate $$$), and so it costs a couple hundred dollars, and you have to go through some bureaucratic BS, but it's not that bad.  I take it you guys don't have to pay taxes, what with being all "internety" and stuff.  That's cool.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, that was explicitly stated, not implied.  I'm asking about the effects of this on basic D&D 3rd-party publishing, and on SRD users like myself.  Most importantly, if the SRD does not contain a playable set of rules, how can it be used to write a playable supplement before the core books are released?




The advanced package contains a pre-release copy of the rule books.

My guess is the SRD will this time around just refference sections that are OGL...

Like Page 4 of MM: All material considered OGL except for paragraphs 2, 6, and 8.

Or something like that.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 8, 2008)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Coming up with a business license shouldn't be difficult at all.




He's in the UK.


----------



## withak (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> What exactly does this imply?  I'm reading it as saying that there won't be a complete set of rules in the SRD, to force the purchase of the books instead of being able to play bare-bones D&D using the SRD.




This could simply be the same way that the 3.5 SRD is incomplete -- in that there are two key pieces of information missing: how to generate ability scores, and experience tables.

I'm probably just being overly optimistic, though.  :\


----------



## SteveC (Jan 8, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> The 5k fee seems too small for WotC to actually plan on it being a revenue source, more likely it is a "keep the little boys out of the first wave" plan.  Is this a good thing though?



That's a good point. However, the actions really don't make any sense. WotC isn't required to give the SRD to anyone, so if they want to restrict it to only the companies they feel can make a good first impression, they certainly can.

The $5000 means a lot more to the company that's giving it to WotC than WotC itself. Color me confused.

--Steve


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, that was explicitly stated, not implied.  I'm asking about the effects of this on basic D&D 3rd-party publishing, and on SRD users like myself.  Most importantly, if the SRD does not contain a playable set of rules, how can it be used to write a playable supplement before the core books are released?




the srd will contain rules.  

It will have the complete game *system* required to run the game. 

However, it will not have fluff; it may not have certain classes or their abilities, it may not have certain paragon/epic paths, certain types of maneuvers, etc etc. 

So basically, it could have say, a couple of classes as examples, some of their talents/tree's to again serve as examples of how classes and trees are made; it could have 1-2 paragon/epic paths to serve as...examples of how these paths are made, etc etc.

Using these examples 3rd parties will have to creatively make up their own stuff instead of copy pasting. They hwill have a working skeleton but will have to come up with the rest. 

I believe Dragon lords of Melnibone d20 to be the sole reason of all these changes.


----------



## ashockney (Jan 8, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> He's in the UK.




I'm assuming that there is a US business partner, and you could license in their home state.  PCat indicated he was on the call, for example.  Alternately, you could pick a favorable state to complete the licensing (ie, one in which an ENworlder happens to work in the Dept of Finance), and have them "expedite" your request.


----------



## Delta (Jan 8, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Interesting about the January 1, 2009 thing. It's going to be a long year for the smaller 3rd party publishers...




I agree, that's the biggest thing that jumped out at me. In fact, the first thing I said was "how can that be enforced?". But I guess it has to be baked into the new "OGL" along with all the other restrictions on this go-round.

I agree with Morrus that what we have is not really another OGL, it's a different license with a similar name. Now I wonder if the concept of "Open Gaming Content" will even be used at all in this version.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jan 8, 2008)

Well, I kinda suspected something like this would happen, but not that Wizards would cut out the "mid-size to minor" publishers like Dreamscarred Press (us) for a year (6 months from release). Because 5000 dollars is ALOT of money to invest. :-(


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Isn't $5,000 a LOT of money for third party publishers?




I would think so - as another poster noted it's not much from WoTC's standpoint.  The only reason they'd be doing it is to limit the "small-fry" and try to encourage the best possible 3rd party products right out the door.  

Paying it does give a 3rd party company a benefit - they get the chance to stake a claim on the 4E gold rush right off the bat.  Whether that claim pays out is another question entirely.

I'd guess Paizo, Necromancer (since they're working together these days would they have to pay twice?), Mongoose, and White Wolf are the likeliest candidates to pony up.  I'll be interested in hearing who does.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 8, 2008)

Half a year, actually. Both for access and for release dates.

Access to the rules at June instead of January.
Release at January'09 instead of August.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

Honestly speaking, $5000 is not really a lot of money. i mean seriously,  any company that has more than 1 employee on its payroll should be able to afford that!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'd guess Paizo, Necromancer (since they're working together these days would they have to pay twice?), Mongoose, and White Wolf are the likeliest candidates to pony up.  I'll be interested in hearing who does.




Goodman Games for sure. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a killer brand.


----------



## ashockney (Jan 8, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I was part of the conference call. My writeup is in the news item here.




PCat - thanks for the exellent and timely synopsis.  This is a big hurdle for the 4e release!

Let me go on record now by saying, I would be happy to shell out $100+ to help support a third party publisher in acquiring the license.  The only thing I would ask for in return would be access to the info released (so that I could begin developing and writing early), and the willingness to at least share a passing "glance" at anything I developed.   To be clear: NO EXPECTATION OF BEING REQUIRED TO PUBLISH ANY OF MY STUFF.  

Hit me out of thread if you are interested in putting together such an amalgam of rogue 3rd parties, in an effort to get to it early.  (ie, 50 freelancers/developers x $100 = $5000)  I would love the opportunity to get to it early, to prepare my Origins/Gen Con modules to be run in 4E, and to put myself into the pool of folks who have an affiliation with someone that I "could" get published with in 2008.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 8, 2008)

...

Wow.

Guess I'm glad we already started looking into other non-D&D rulesets.  Sorry to our customers who want our rules for 4E... not much we can do.

Sorry, I'm just very disappointed in WotC's decision in this.  It very much strikes me as a "the rich get richer" thing, since big publisher's are far from immune from producing crap products.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Jan 8, 2008)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> Well, I kinda suspected something like this would happen, but not that Wizards would cut out the "mid-size to minor" publishers like Dreamscarred Press (us) for a year (6 months from release). Because 5000 dollars is ALOT of money to invest. :-(




Likely, we will have to become an imprint of one of the big boys to survive. I'm okay with that; it's much better than not existing for 5 months. =]

BD


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Goodman Games for sure. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a killer brand.




Of course!  I completely forgot them.  I think my purchasing of OGL/d20 product had tailed off by the time they really took off, so I don't think of them in the top tier, although they clearly are.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 8, 2008)

Here's what I find weird.

WOTC says that companies can form partnerships and pay a single fee. What's preventing 5-10 of the smaller companies from forming a partnership and paying the single fee?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> WOTC says that companies can form partnerships and pay a single fee. What's preventing 5-10 of the smaller companies from forming a partnership and paying the single fee?



Nothing, I assume. But that's worth emailing them about.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Let me go on record now by saying, I would be happy to shell out $100+ to help support a third party publisher in acquiring the license.  The only thing I would ask for in return would be access to the info released (so that I could begin developing and writing early), and the willingness to at least share a passing "glance" at anything I developed.   To be clear: NO EXPECTATION OF BEING REQUIRED TO PUBLISH ANY OF MY STUFF.




I'm guessing WoTC would be looking askance at this sort of method of getting around the barrier...  Perhaps I'm wrong.

EDIT: Looks like I may be wrong!


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

Let's round up 5000 ENW members and have them chip in $1 apiece.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Here's what I find weird.
> 
> WOTC says that companies can form partnerships and pay a single fee. What's preventing 5-10 of the smaller companies from forming a partnership and paying the single fee?




On the other hand, if this is the case, maybe I am wrong!


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Honestly speaking, $5000 is not really a lot of money. i mean seriously,  any company that has more than 1 employee on its payroll should be able to afford that!



That is a lot of money once it gets passed onto the consumer at the FLGS. That 5k more in profit needed by the company becomes 10k once the product is moved to the distributor and 15K once the FLGS has to price it for the consumer.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Let's round up 5000 ENW members and have them chip in $1 apiece.




Hell, put me down for five and I'll get copies for everyone in my group.


----------



## ashockney (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Let's round up 5000 ENW members and have them chip in $1 apiece.




HELLZZZ  YEAH!!!  I'm in for that too!


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

It also sounds like the days of us being able to just find a fully-fleshed SRD online might be a thing of the past.  If their SRD is more 'guidelines' than the actual rules, that's pretty different than what we've gotten used to in the 3.X era.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Here's what I find weird.
> 
> WOTC says that companies can form partnerships and pay a single fee. What's preventing 5-10 of the smaller companies from forming a partnership and paying the single fee?



Absolutely nothing, as far as I know. I personally think that's a great idea. 5000 members couldn't chip in $1 a piece, though -- that's why WotC is limiting it to legitimate businesses, and why there's a NDA.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that there is a US business partner, and you could license in their home state.  PCat indicated he was on the call, for example.



Note that I was there as an EN World newsguy, and not as a member of EN Publishing (I have no formal ties with the publishing wing of the site.) I'm happy to answer any questions, though -- I took a whole lot of notes. That's where that Q&A comes from in the news item.

Incidentally, it bothers me that games like Spycraft couldn't be created in 4e because the PHB must be referenced. I'm wondering if innovative design might compensate, though. Can you picture a western game where the gunfighter came from a rogue, just using substitution levels?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 8, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> the srd will contain rules.




Not according to the advanced-notice conference call yesterday.   

They specifically said that the SRD would not be a stripped-down version of the rules like it is now, because they want to prevent what they called "copy-and-paste" publishing, and players using the SRD instead of buying the PHB.

From what I could tell, the new SRD will function more as an index to material in the core rulebooks, declaring what passages are open, etc.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

GMS is correct. As far as we know, the SRD will be many guidelines about what is open and what isn't.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Not according to the advanced-notice conference call yesterday.
> 
> They specifically said that the SRD would not be a stripped-down version of the rules like it is now, because they want to prevent what they called "copy-and-paste" publishing, and players using the SRD instead of buying the PHB.
> 
> From what I could tell, the new SRD will function more as an index to material in the core rulebooks, declaring what passages are open, etc.



1) How can they possibly make rules if publishers don't see the rules right there in their face?

2) When we talk about the SRD in this manner, do we mean what the PUBLISHERS get, or what goes live in June?


----------



## ashockney (Jan 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Here's what I find weird.
> 
> WOTC says that companies can form partnerships and pay a single fee. What's preventing 5-10 of the smaller companies from forming a partnership and paying the single fee?




What prevents this from happening is that only one company is king.  

Your business license.  Your enforcement.  Your name.  If everyoe who had done small pdf publishing and hangs out here got together to do this, it would work fine.  But whoever's NAME this goes under, is RESPONSIBLE for everyone under them.  If they're going to publish, they would have to publish under this imprint.

They discussed something like this in the 4e seminars at Gen Con, and I wondered how they would pull this off.  They said they wanted a means for the good, more professional third parties to act as stewards for the third party community.  Voila.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Not according to the advanced-notice conference call yesterday.
> 
> They specifically said that the SRD would not be a stripped-down version of the rules like it is now, because they want to prevent what they called "copy-and-paste" publishing, and players using the SRD instead of buying the PHB.
> 
> From what I could tell, the new SRD will function more as an index to material in the core rulebooks, declaring what passages are open, etc.




Err... But if they're open, what prevents them from being published?

So confused.


----------



## Grazzt (Jan 8, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> It if it does work, this is probably good for WotC, for retailers, and for consumers. Everyone wins from the 4thed _Tome of Horrors _ at Gencon.




good point



> Because I know think I will own a 4th ed _Tome of Horrors_ in August.


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

Hmmm ... thinking this through ... if it tells what sections are open, then there really isn't much to stop someone from compiling and publishing the open sections ... so maybe it won't be long before a reasonably useful free compilation is available.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Jan 8, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> What a "legitimate business license" is is up to interpretation... by WotC. So I don't think everyone and their brother is going to be able to get an early copy of the SRD.



What a "legitimate business license" means is that you have a license to do business in your relevant local political unit (city, county/parish, state/province, nation-state). In other words, they want to make sure that people aren't signing up for this just to get an early copy of the SRD.


----------



## tenkar (Jan 8, 2008)

I think some publishers could cover this cost my issuing non-voting shares in shares in their companies.  What gamer wouldn't want to be able to say they own part of a gaming company, even if all they get is a snazzy certificate and maybe a product sent to them once a year


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jan 8, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Honestly speaking, $5000 is not really a lot of money. i mean seriously,  any company that has more than 1 employee on its payroll should be able to afford that!



Sitara, I'm guessing you are not in the small press/PDF business? I think that $5K is a LOT of money to a majority of the companies putting out OGL products. I was a partner at Silven Publishing, at we could have never paid up that kind of cash even in our best period.

If this is WotC's means of controlling the goldrush by limiting output to the larger publishers I for one have no problem with that. Technically, you're really just delaying the onslaught until after Christmas (which could be a secondary goal by WotC as well; more gift money goes to fewer companies).

I do have problems with what seem to be new restrictions on the type of content a 3rd party can produce and the actual content of the SRD. The SRD problem is more from a player's perspective though; I am a big-time user of d20srd.org, and I am not confident that the utility that the site provides me will be duplicated in the DDI.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It also sounds like the days of us being able to just find a fully-fleshed SRD online might be a thing of the past.  If their SRD is more 'guidelines' than the actual rules, that's pretty different than what we've gotten used to in the 3.X era.



I wonder what it actually can mean? If they are guidelines, does this mean they contain more the "art of D&D 4 design" then the actual implementation? Does it contain concepts why certain abilities work the way they are? 

Well, access to the rules seems easy - just buy them. But access to the underlying assumptions and guidelines might be worth a lot to many publishers, since it means they can actually create rule subsystems and new spells, rituals or feats that will work on these assumptions.

Or it's a load of crap. I don't know.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 8, 2008)

I wonder how man small and mid size publishers this will outright kill?  If they can't afford to pay the $5K, the probably can't afford to go 4 to 6 months without selling anything while everyone plays 4E and therefore stops buying d20 supplements.  And, on top of it, they'll be so far behind the competition that could pay it might not even be worth the effort.

Also: I wonder what the new restrictions are going to be like.  Is WotC going to try and block 3rd parties from beating them to the punch on druids, gnomes, monks and all the rest of the stuff that won't be in the initial core?


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

So...they could reference some barebones rules, but say, keep out the combat system. So therefore, when playing the game the players will needa copy of the PhB so they can refernce the combat system, since the 4E combat system will not be Oopen Game content?


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

My assumption, and I could well be wrong, is that the "small publishers" are chiefly people for whom publishing is a secondary calling, not a primary source of income.  They have a "day job" and they also publish as a sideline.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, access to the rules seems easy - just buy them. But access to the underlying assumptions and guidelines might be worth a lot to many publishers, since it means they can actually create rule subsystems and new spells, rituals or feats that will work on these assumptions.




Any publisher that actually cared about the underlying design subsystems would already have taken the time to grok them before publishing.

Publishers that didn't care just shoveled crap out the door as fast as they could shovel.

I wouldn't expect that to change...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> It means no complete games can be published. You have to have the PHB at every game.
> 
> Iron heroes, True 20, Mutants and masterminds and other stand alones could not have been pubished if 3e/d20 had those restrictions.




I don't know about True20 or M&M, but Iron Heroes was not a stand-alone game system. If you had never played D&D before you would still need the Players' Handbook to understand character creation and game basics that were not covered in the SRD.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jan 8, 2008)

I'd say the 5k ante to get into the game is designed to curb the junk products that flew out of the starting gates when 3.0 hit. I've got some real stinkers sitting on my shelf that I bought in the first 6 months, some of which I've never even finished reading they were so bad.

What I'm most concerned about is that fact that new new OGL is going to be tied to the 4th means a that a lot of good ideas are going to be off the table again.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Also: I wonder what the new restrictions are going to be like.  Is WotC going to try and block 3rd parties from beating them to the punch on druids, gnomes, monks and all the rest of the stuff that won't be in the initial core?



That's a damn good bet.


----------



## Delta (Jan 8, 2008)

I hate to say it, but having thought about it some more, I see either lawsuits or legal clampdowns (cease & desist orders) on the horizon, over whether someone is making work that extends the 3E SRD fairly, or ripping off the 4E rules against the new restrictions. I could even see stuff like OSRIC coming under fire in the future now.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> I'd say the 5k ante to get into the game is designed to curb the junk products that flew out of the starting gates when 3.0 hit. I've got some real stinkers sitting on my shelf that I bought in the first 6 months, some of which I've never even finished reading they were so bad.




Without naming names, if you ran down the spine on those "stinkers" for publisher names, how many of those publishers do you think could have ponied up 5k? 

My impression is that most of the "glut" came from companies who were well positioned in the distribution system to take advantage of the gold rush. I never saw a whole lot of "Mom and Pop" d20 stuff in my local store. Just a few recognizable names.

EDIT: I'll give you a start: If the book has a hardcover, 5k wouldn't have stopped them.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jan 8, 2008)

I think people are forgetting that many (most?) of the junk products that came out of the gate at the dawn of 3e were actually often from the larger, more established game companies. I say this as the still-pissed owner of the sucktastic "Dragonlords of Melnibone." 

And some of the better products were from tiny, completely new companies and designers.

So I'm not sure that a $5k license would have dramatically changed the flood of third party materials in the wake of 3e, except maybe to have killed off some of the more interesting and inovative participants.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 1) How can they possibly make rules if publishers don't see the rules right there in their face?
> 
> 2) When we talk about the SRD in this manner, do we mean what the PUBLISHERS get, or what goes live in June?



Rechan, best to think about it in terms of Phase One and Phase Two publishers.

Phase One (folks who pay the $5K) get hard copies of all the rules, complete. They also get the SRD that says what they can use from them, and what they can't. The SRD doesn't actually contain the rules themselves. These people can start developing product immediately, and can start selling on Aug 1.

Phase Two folks get access to the rules when they buy the core rulebooks at a store in June. They will then have access to the above SRD online, which tells them what part of those books they can use. They start writing product, and are allowed to publish it on Jan 1, 2009.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Sitara, I'm guessing you are not in the small press/PDF business? I think that $5K is a LOT of money to a majority of the companies putting out OGL products. I was a partner at Silven Publishing, at we could have never paid up that kind of cash even in our best period.




Yes but most people do this stuff in their free tie/as a hobby/second job right? Which means they must have a full time job other than this and thus may beable to afford it using the cash from that?

Because if you are doing this as a full time job (only bread earner)and yet cannot afford a $5000 expense (that happened once in 8 years) I find it hard to believe you are earning enough to survive and make enough money to earn a living. (I am assuming usa living standards and expenses just for references sake )

(Didn't mean to sound rude or offend any publishers ofcourse.)

Ofcourse the companies mentioned could easily pay for this (most pay around $0.12 per word to freelance writers which amounts to around $1000-2000per article per freelancer...and thats for minor articles not major written products)


----------



## Bacris (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: I'll give you a start: If the book has a hardcover, 5k wouldn't have stopped them.




Yup.

Sure, not all d20 PDFs are perfect (or even good), but the "glut" of bad d20 products wasn't only small companies.  This fee strikes me as punitive to the small press publishers, without making a noticable impact on the big publishers, who might still, or have previously, produced shoddy products.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Err... But if they're open, what prevents them from being published?




That was my question, too.  

I can't believe that there is enough open content to make publishing 3rd party supplements even remotely viable without there being enough to reverse-engineer something like the current SRD.  Just opening the basic mechanics (DCs, AC, BAB, damage, etc.) would be enough to open it up to a Spycraft or Iron Heroes.

I suppose there could be clauses that effectively add up to "You can't include your own advancement/level/xp mechanics and ours aren't open/re-printable."  That would seem like it would just preclude sticking the equivalent of the "d20/OGL" logo on the main Spycraft book.  It would seem that there are other ways of signaling "Hey, you already know how to play this game."


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> What I'm most concerned about is that fact that new new OGL is going to be tied to the 4th means a that a lot of good ideas are going to be off the table again.



This bothers me too, although 3.5 is still fine for publishers to base innovative games on.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I think people are forgetting that many (most?) of the junk products that came out of the gate at the dawn of 3e were actually often from the larger, more established game companies. I say this as the still-pissed owner of the sucktastic "Dragonlords of Melnibone."
> 
> And some of the better products were from tiny, completely new companies and designers.
> 
> So I'm not sure that a $5k license would have dramatically changed the flood of third party materials in the wake of 3e, except maybe to have killed off some of the more interesting and inovative participants.




That's my take. 

Magical Medieval Society _would not exist_ if it were attempted today, for 4e.


----------



## EnglishScribe (Jan 8, 2008)

*Genre Integration*

I think that this also has a very serious affect on publishers attempting to leverage the revised d20 mechanics into other genres. WOTC attempts at this have been discrete not-quite compatible rule systems for different genres.

It also effectively leaves D20 Modern effectively unsupportable by anyone for two years between theD20 license being withdrawn until (and if) WOTC revise D20 Modern as suggested in 2009.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jan 8, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> More likely, it's a "Keep crappy products out of the first wave" plan.
> 
> Yes, there were some great, great 3.0 products from 3rd party people. But there was also a _glut_ of awful, awful stuff, some of which wasn't even _right_, rules wise. And I think that a lot of FLGSes got burned on 3rd party stuff because they picked up too much crap from the getgo.




If you're wondering where that glut of awful stuff came from I'll point out that much of it came in a red hardcover -- red hardcovers you can still see clogging up the shelves of too-trusting game stores.  FFE could have easily afforded the 5k and I'll bet they're far more responsible for bad-d20-glut that the occasional tiny d20 company that managed to get a Foundation: A World in Black and White, into the distribution chain.

And compare that to what are the biggest successes of d20:  Necromancer, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and Mongoose -- all of which started out as 2 person operations.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My impression is that most of the "glut" came from companies who were well positioned in the distribution system to take advantage of the gold rush. I never saw a whole lot of "Mom and Pop" d20 stuff in my local store. Just a few recognizable names.




Yeah, it is kind of ironic.  I remember two specific companies with more money than talent who just released glossy, hardcover crap at an amazing rate.  One of them actually seemed to have open disdain for the concept of the D20 STL and Wizard's PI.

It's a little disappointing, as a consumer, that it really feels like the first few months of 4E are going to be sparse as far as the choice of different stuff available.  Hopefully Goodman Games will bring the DCC line to 4E in 2008.  As good as the WotC adventures may be, it would be nice to have some other choices as far as adventures are concerned.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jan 8, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm just very disappointed in WotC's decision in this.  It very much strikes me as a "the rich get richer" thing, since big publisher's are far from immune from producing crap products.




Quite true. In fact, this new arrangement does nothing to impede the biggest contributor to the d20 glut: Mongoose. If they start crapping out a ton of new d20 stuff, that'll defeat the seeming purpose of this new scheme.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> My assumption, and I could well be wrong, is that the "small publishers" are chiefly people for whom publishing is a secondary calling, not a primary source of income.  They have a "day job" and they also publish as a sideline.




Not true.   There are small publishers (like me, for example), for whom this is a full-time job.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I wonder how man small and mid size publishers this will outright kill?




A very good question, since not paying the $5K means sitting for 5 months with almost no sales, while everybody spends money on "the new hotness" that is 4th Edition.



			
				Sitara said:
			
		

> Because if you are doing this as a full time job (only bread earner)and yet cannot afford a $5000 expense (that happened once in 8 years) I find it hard to believe you are earning enough to survive and make enough money to earn a living.




Think of it this way -- are YOU able to take an entire months' income and pay it up front, on demand?  How about 2 months?     Leaving nothing else for rent, food, utilities... much less freelancers or production costs?


----------



## mhensley (Jan 8, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> And compare that to what are the biggest successes of d20:  Necromancer, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and Mongoose -- all of which started out as 2 person operations.




Add Goodman Games to that group as well.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Phase Two folks get access to the rules when they buy the core rulebooks at a store in June. They will then have access to the above SRD online, which tells them what part of those books they can use. They start writing product, and are allowed to publish it on Jan 1, 2009.



So after June, Joe Gamer who wants to see if 4e D&D is worth his time by clicking on the SRD, or Stan Diceroller, D&D gamer online, won't be able to read the fluffless rules online?

That's going to bite. Simply because I run a lot of online games, and having the d20SRD at my fingertips when I need to look up a quick rule is so _convenient_.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jan 8, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Add Goodman Games to that group as well.




Sorry!  And most definitely!


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 8, 2008)

Well this is where D&DI comes in -- if you care to pay the monthly fee (plus a little more for each book you buy? Can't remember if that's the case) you get access to an e-version of your paper product.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

As I have no intention of converting to 4e, I will remind publishers that 3e will still have a market for the foreseeable future.

RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Think of it this way -- are YOU able to take an entire months' income and pay it up front, on demand?  How about 2 months?     Leaving nothing else for rent, food, utilities... much less freelancers or production costs?




If you really loved the game, you'd sell a kidney to come up with the fee.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

They could do something as simple as making it so you can't publish the combat resolution chapter under 4e. Similarly, they could make the power design Open, but the powers themselves closed. That way, nobody can republish the rules that are unique to the PHB. Referencing the rules may be fine, but publishing them probably isn't.

You can come up with your own powers, your own classes, your own feats, and your own talent trees, but under this theory it would be impossible to reprint all the rules in the PHB.

For example, I don't actually _need_ a PHB when I'm playing an _Iron Heroes_ or _Arcana Evolved_ game. All the rules for combat resolution and the like are 

That would require someone to have the 4e PHB.

I'd also like to point out that if it weren't for the "I'll just wait until they publish the free SRD" crowd, WotC might not have had to take this step.

I imagine various larger companies might pony up the dough and draft smaller parties to write content. Necromancer, Green Ronin, White Wolf, and Paizo, for example, might be interested in that. Maybe even a company as small as Fiery Dragon (who publishes _Iron Heroes_ for Adam) would be interested.

So Wulf, what does this mean for you?


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 8, 2008)

Has anyone any info how the new OGL will interact with the current OGL? Can material that is released under the current OGL be used with material from/under the new OGL? I assume that it's not possible vice-versa.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you really loved the game, you'd sell a kidney to come up with the fee.




Or you could just wait until it's available for free on June 6th. 

This time next year, nobody will have to pay any kind of fee - other than to buy the first few books.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Not true.   There are small publishers (like me, for example), for whom this is a full-time job.
> A very good question, since not paying the $5K means sitting for 5 months with almost no sales, while everybody spends money on "the new hotness" that is 4th Edition.
> Think of it this way -- are YOU able to take an entire months' income and pay it up front, on demand?  How about 2 months?     Leaving nothing else for rent, food, utilities... much less freelancers or production costs?




I think you risk sounding unprofessional coming here and repeatedly bashing WotC's decision. Your time could probably be better spent thinking of a way to partner with other small publishers to reduce the burn of this new investment. It seems to me that you think you would best profit from being in the Phase 1 group and thus the anger that flows into yours posts here. A foundation of small publishers would also benefit from shared resources and contacts, thus giving you more clout with distributors and the industry at large than you could achieve going it alone. If this really is your sole means of livlihood maybe you should look at how to make this investment work for you.


----------



## Storminator (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Let's round up 5000 ENW members and have them chip in $1 apiece.




And you and your 4,999 friends get access to... 3 copies of rules.  I call dibs on March 12th, from 8:15 AM to 1:30 PM!

 

PS


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I think you risk sounding unprofessional coming here and repeatedly bashing WotC's decision. Your time could probably be better spent thinking of a way to partner with other small publishers to reduce the burn of this new investment. It seems to me that you think you would best profit from being in the Phase 1 group and thus the anger that flows into yours posts here. A foundation of small publishers would also benefit from shared resources and contacts, thus giving you more clout with distributors and the industry at large than you could achieve going it alone. If this really is your sole means of livlihood maybe you should look at how to make this investment work for you.



Let's not hijack the thread by telling other people what they should or shouldn't be doing, please.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Think of it this way -- are YOU able to take an entire months' income and pay it up front, on demand?  How about 2 months?     Leaving nothing else for rent, food, utilities... much less freelancers or production costs?




On the other hand - are you willing to pay it in order to get a cleared playing field, in which your company's name is mentioned right alongside the big boys?  I think it's a big risk, but someone (I have no idea who) will step up and take the chance and become one of the big boys, in which case that $5000 will be paid back in spades.  Several others might crash and burn spectacularly...


----------



## tenkar (Jan 8, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So after June, Joe Gamer who wants to see if 4e D&D is worth his time by clicking on the SRD, or Stan Diceroller, D&D gamer online, won't be able to read the fluffless rules online?
> 
> That's going to bite. Simply because I run a lot of online games, and having the d20SRD at my fingertips when I need to look up a quick rule is so _convenient_.




It might bite, but I fail to see why WoTC should distribute what is basically a free version of their rules and IP.  I know gamers that never bought 3.5 as the 3.0 and the SRD was all they needed.  From a business sense that is lost money.

That being said, I will miss having a 4e online rules set for free (or negligible cost for some of the PDF versions of 3.5 out there) but I can understand why WoTC is avoiding doing so this time around.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 8, 2008)

Mulling over the possibility that the SRD will be very bare, not enough to run a game from let's say, I can see a surge in new systems being created. I like indie RPGs, novel mechanics and so forth, so as a consumer, I don't think I'll lose out. WotC might be risking a 'd20 isn't everything' attitude in those first 5 months.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 8, 2008)

tenkar said:
			
		

> It might bite, but I fail to see why WoTC should distribute what is basically a free version of their rules and IP.  I know gamers that never bought 3.5 as the 3.0 and the SRD was all they needed.  From a business sense that is lost money.
> 
> That being said, I will miss having a 4e online rules set for free (or negligible cost for some of the PDF versions of 3.5 out there) but I can understand why WoTC is avoiding doing so this time around.




I think one reason they're doing it is to drive those folks looking for an easy, online rules lookup (which I do extensively) to the D&D Insider.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 8, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well this is where D&DI comes in -- if you care to pay the monthly fee (plus a little more for each book you buy? Can't remember if that's the case) you get access to an e-version of your paper product.



But will it be a hyperlinked, searchable e-version?  That's what I want to know.

EDIT: to elaborate, http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html has been a godsend to me as a DM, and to a lesser extent as a player, and I am positive I am not alone in that respect.  It's fast, easy to read, easy to navigate, and ridiculously convenient even if I happen to have the books nearby.  PDF images of a book (even if OCR'd) don't work because (a) text formatted for a printed page is not easily readable on the screen, and (b) all the uneccessary images slow down your ability to navigate.

I hope WOTC does the right thing by the e-versions.  Charging money for anything less will not endear me as a customer.


----------



## Tewligan (Jan 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Magical Medieval Society _would not exist_ if it were attempted today, for 4e.



Wouldn't it just exist 6 months later?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 8, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I think you risk sounding unprofessional coming here and repeatedly bashing WotC's decision.




You seriously misunderstand me if you think I'm "bashing" anything.   

I'm not bashing the decision at all.   I just answered people's questions.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 8, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Incidentally, it bothers me that games like Spycraft couldn't be created in 4e because the PHB must be referenced. I'm wondering if innovative design might compensate, though. Can you picture a western game where the gunfighter came from a rogue, just using substitution levels?




Why couldn't you make Spycraft? Spycraft 1e was a d20 game and required the PHB to play. It worked out just fine. Spycraft 2.0 could easily have been a d20 game as well. Strip out the XP chart and BAM! d20 compatible!

I don't know if the 4e OGL will work the same way, but if it does, then no problem.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 8, 2008)

The reason that fans won't band together to raise the 5k is simple, and its not the fact that you only get 3 copies of the book.

Its the same reason that will stop too many smaller publishers from banding together and paying the cost as a group.

Its because the NDA will undoubtedly include a penalty clause, and will make whoever has the license responsible for the penalty no matter which company or person in the partnership violates it.

Between real businesses, a quick contract can be established to handle that sort of thing, and to reduce the risk borne by whoever is holding the license.  Between a bunch of random fans, or "dude in a basement" publishers, there won't be a sufficient level of trust, or verifiable commitment.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 8, 2008)

tenkar said:
			
		

> It might bite, but I fail to see why WoTC should distribute what is basically a free version of their rules and IP.  I know gamers that never bought 3.5 as the 3.0 and the SRD was all they needed.  From a business sense that is lost money.
> 
> That being said, I will miss having a 4e online rules set for free (or negligible cost for some of the PDF versions of 3.5 out there) but I can understand why WoTC is avoiding doing so this time around.



 On the plus side, my productivity might go up if I don't have access to the 4e rules from my work computer.

On second thought, as long as EN World is around, it won't matter.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

What they are doing is making sure that everyone who plays a d20 game has access to or read the PHB!! (i.e. knows about WOTC and its products!)

Anyhow, to all smaller publishers here; why don't you guy's spend the time until Jun 2008 working on the fluff for your new/future 4E products? heck that usually half the work, if not more. So once you get the rules, you will have the fluff done and can work on the integrating the rules according to the SRD and OGL.

And then publish by 2009.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 8, 2008)

tenkar said:
			
		

> It might bite, but I fail to see why WoTC should distribute what is basically a free version of their rules and IP.  I know gamers that never bought 3.5 as the 3.0 and the SRD was all they needed.  From a business sense that is lost money.



Regardless of what WOTC does, their printed works are going to end up online for free.  People that committed to not paying for stuff would probably just have download the rules from somewhere else if the SRD websites never existed.  Or would have just not played 3e at all.  It's a fallacy to assume that because someone liked a product when it was free, that they'd care enough to pay for it if it no longer was.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 8, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You seriously misunderstand me if you think I'm "bashing" anything.
> 
> I'm not bashing the decision at all.   I just answered people's questions.




I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions and offering advice in a public forum. I really want to see small publishers suceed, especially those with worthwhile products.

Piratecat - I apologize, my intent was to offer advice in relation to the annoucement, not to tell others what to do. I will try to understand the difference and refrain from telling other what to do in the future.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 8, 2008)

The no full rules in the srd will be a stumbling block to me switching to 4e. Its giving me pause.

I didn't buy any of the core 3.5 books but I bought a bunch of 3.5 WotC supplements after switching to 3.5 after using the srd. I use the srd to play D&D all the time. I don't plan on getting DDI right now. If I can't use the 4e srd to play 4e and I can use the 3.5 srds to play 3.5 along with my tons of pdfs, I have a big incentive to keep playing 3.5 and not switch. 

I can't imagine running my pbp and email games right now without the easy access to the srd that I have.


----------



## Toryx (Jan 8, 2008)

I agree with those who have said that the new limitations to the SRD is designed to turn attention from something like the hypertext srd to the DI. It makes perfect business sense to do so, and that actually is the first good reason they've given me to consider paying for DI.

But as someone else also mentioned, the true value of the hypertext srd was as a reference while at the table. I've bought all the books I've needed for play and for creating the characters I've wanted to play, and I've liked having the books to read, flip through, and refer to on a regular basis. But I've gotten into the habit of having my laptop at the gaming table, the hypertext srd up, and all the information I need regarding spells, items, special combat rules (grapple!) in my browser tabs. It was much easier to refer to that way than flipping through the books over and over again.

If DI goes that way, that'll be great. If they're going to limit the information to pdfs or some other rigid program structure, then I'll be seriously disappointed.


----------



## Traycor (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, that was explicitly stated, not implied.  I'm asking about the effects of this on basic D&D 3rd-party publishing, and on SRD users like myself.  Most importantly, if the SRD does not contain a playable set of rules, how can it be used to write a playable supplement before the core books are released?



Because they are giving copies of the core books to the publishers. Apparently the SRD is a guideline on how to use the rules from the books, as opposed to a being an independant collection of rules seperate from the books.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Piratecat - I apologize, my intent was to offer advice in relation to the annoucement, not to tell others what to do. I will try to understand the difference and refrain from telling other what to do in the future.



It's cool, and probably wouldn't have been a problem in its own thread -- but it had the chance to sidetrack this one, which I wanted to avoid. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Why couldn't you make Spycraft? Spycraft 1e was a d20 game and required the PHB to play. It worked out just fine.



Did it? I must be misremembering. I know I've never needed to refer to the PHB while playing Spycraft, which is why it sticks in my mind.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 8, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Did it? I must be misremembering. I know I've never needed to refer to the PHB while playing Spycraft, which is why it sticks in my mind.




Spycraft 1e was pretty much a complete game, requiring only the XP chart from the PHB to make it complete (per the d20 STL).


----------



## davethegame (Jan 8, 2008)

Was there any discussion in the conference call about the definition of "publishing" in their eyes? My big worry is that I won't be able to post house rules online until 2009 without risking... something... from WotC.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 8, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> Was there any discussion in the conference call about the definition of "publishing" in their eyes? My big worry is that I won't be able to post house rules online until 2009 without risking... something... from WotC.



If your house rules were fair use before now, they'll be fair use after now.  You can't be bound by an agreement to which you are not a party.  You will be facing the standard copyright laws you've always faced.


----------



## Spinachcat (Jan 8, 2008)

I am very glad that small and micro publishers will be given the opportunity to publish in 2009.   The first 6 months after the 4e release will be players testing out the new rules and new PoL setting with a total focus on the cores.  After that, players will be looking about for what else to do.

I am SO glad that the 4e OGL / SRD will be free to use.  I was fearing that the Phase I option was going to be the ONLY option given by WotC.


----------



## davethegame (Jan 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If your house rules were fair use before now, they'll be fair use after now.  You can't be bound by an agreement to which you are not a party.  You will be facing the standard copyright laws you've always faced.




I guess I should be more specific. If I start to run fourth edition, and want to change a few rules and post them on my campaign website or blog, I'm wondering if that's kosher.

As I understand it now under 3e, I just have to post the license, and designate it as open content, and all that good stuff.


----------



## Orcus (Jan 8, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> And compare that to what are the biggest successes of d20:  Necromancer, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and Mongoose -- all of which started out as 2 person operations.




Amen, brother!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I think one reason they're doing it is to drive those folks looking for an easy, online rules lookup (which I do extensively) to the D&D Insider.




I think it is very likely that you are correct.

However, if you go through the threads where folks don't like the flavour WotC is including in 4e, the saving grace (as it were) was always that 3rd parties would almost instantly step in with material to aid you in changing the flavour to something you _do_ like.

(1)  This move is going to be putting off those potential flavour changes for 6 months +.

(2)  This move might limit how that flavour can be changed.  For example, if WotC wants you to use official gnomes and half-orcs only, then they might stipulate that third parties cannot develop these things using the 4e OGL.  This list might include other elements of older versions of the game as well, including (but not limited to) monsters that haven't yet been updated, classes that haven't yet been updated, spells that haven't yet been updated, etc.  It might also prevent alternate versions of core classes.

Without the terms of the license being available before the release, when you buy those 4e books, you have no way of knowing just how much you are hooked into future WotC products.

Just saying.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> I guess I should be more specific. If I start to run fourth edition, and want to change a few rules and post them on my campaign website or blog, I'm wondering if that's kosher.
> 
> As I understand it now under 3e, I just have to post the license, and designate it as open content, and all that good stuff.




Well, under the Gleemax rules, you can post to your Gleemax blog, but WotC gains the rights to use your material in perpetuity.

Happy gaming!

RC


EDIT:  As a side note, since they are operating Gleemax, and since the OGL will no longer allow you to post specific types of information, how will that affect sites like EN World (I am thinking about forums like House Rules and Creature Catalog, specifically)?


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As a side note, since they are operating Gleemax, and since the OGL will no longer allow you to post specific types of information, how will that affect sites like EN World (I am thinking about forums like House Rules and Creature Catalog, specifically)?



Legally? They may have be closed to fan made 4e content until january 2009.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Legally? They may have be closed to fan made 4e content until january 2009.




And possibly far, far beyond, depending upon the terms of the SRD-called-OGL.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2008)

> (1) This move is going to be putting off those potential flavour changes for 6 months +.
> 
> (2) This move might limit how that flavour can be changed. For example, if WotC wants you to use official gnomes and half-orcs only, then they might stipulate that third parties cannot develop these things using the 4e OGL. This list might include other elements of older versions of the game as well, including (but not limited to) monsters that haven't yet been updated, classes that haven't yet been updated, spells that haven't yet been updated, etc. It might also prevent alternate versions of core classes.




#1 is kind of a bigger problem to me. Because #2 falls into the "you can't really copyright mechanics" model. WotC can make a druid, I can make an unofficially compatible druid, and they can't really stop me, if that's what I really want to do. 

But #1 might put off my purchase of 4e by those 6 months +. I might just wait for the first wave of 3rd party books before I chuck any money WotC's way. Depends on if the core books are nearly universally loved or not, I guess.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> #1 is kind of a bigger problem to me. Because #2 falls into the "you can't really copyright mechanics" model. WotC can make a druid, I can make an unofficially compatible druid, and they can't really stop me, if that's what I really want to do.




I think you forget the "using this material means that, as a condition of use, you agree to/not to...." model.

RC


----------



## Traycor (Jan 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, under the Gleemax rules, you can post to your Gleemax blog, but WotC gains the rights to use your material in perpetuity.



WotC has stated very specifically that they aren't going to be 'stealing' folks material off Gleemax. They are simply protecting themselves from lawsuits.

Somewhere buried among the 1000's of Gleemax blogs might be an idea similar to one they publish, and they don't need that person claiming that WotC ripped them off (when WotC most likely had no clue it was even there).


----------



## Bardsandsages (Jan 8, 2008)

For the folks who think $5,000 is no big deal...you have never ran a business.

I have worked in accounting and payroll for a variety of small businesses.  I can tell you plainly that if there was a sudden $5,000 expense, it would be a struggle for the typical company to come up with the money.  I currently work for a multinational corporation.  You would think $5,000 would be a drop in the bucket.  But If we need a new copier or printer or piece of equipment, we need approvals from three different managers and then have to fill out a requisition request that goes to purchasing.  It can take two to three weeks for a major corpoation to decide to spend $5,000.  It is not a drop in the bucket for ANY company.  We are constantly looking for ways to save money, because there are a host of static expenses that must be covered.  A sudden $5,000 expense is something you don't just shrug you shoulders and pay, regardless of how much money you have.  That is, not if you want to be profitable.


----------



## Traycor (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Legally? They may have be closed to fan made 4e content until january 2009.



Surely fan content (non profit, non published) would be just fine. I expect to see this sort of material on Gleemax the day 4E is released.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 8, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> But I've gotten into the habit of having my laptop at the gaming table, the hypertext srd up, and all the information I need regarding spells, items, special combat rules (grapple!) in my browser tabs. It was much easier to refer to that way than flipping through the books over and over again.



QFT.

I am a big fan of www.d20srd.org and its fired up at the start of every session I DM.  The lack of online ruleset will suck, but if the DDI has a good, hyperlinked, easily searchable ruleset for subscribers, then it will be OK.  It needs to be as good or better than what we already have, though.


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2008)

Because mechanics aren't covered by copyright, and because so much is already Open under the existing OGL, couldn't something like 90% of the products a company _might_ want to develop be developed under the existing OGL, which will remain in force?

So, really, how enforceable is this "you can't publish until 2009" restriction for Phase 2 publishers?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2008)

> I think you forget the "using this material means that, as a condition of use, you agree to/not to...." model.




But you can use the material (the mechanics) without agreeing to jack, because the mechanics cannot be protected as WotC-exclusive stuff.

"Using this material" actually means using the WotC-penned expression of those mechanics.

If you don't touch that with a 10-foot pole (creating your own expression), you're pretty golden as far as the law so far has seemed concerned.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2008)

> I am a big fan of www.d20srd.org and its fired up at the start of every session I DM. The lack of online ruleset will suck, but if the DDI has a good, hyperlinked, easily searchable ruleset for subscribers, then it will be OK. It needs to be as good or better than what we already have, though.




This is also a concern for me. My laptop is my DM screen, and I need something I can run offline, too. I'm a little concerned about the DDI's ability to handle what I need.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 8, 2008)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> I have worked in accounting and payroll for a variety of small businesses.  I can tell you plainly that if there was a sudden $5,000 expense, it would be a struggle for the typical company to come up with the money.  I currently work for a multinational corporation.  You would think $5,000 would be a drop in the bucket.  But If we need a new copier or printer or piece of equipment, we need approvals from three different managers and then have to fill out a requisition request that goes to purchasing.  It can take two to three weeks for a major corpoation to decide to spend $5,000.  It is not a drop in the bucket for ANY company.  We are constantly looking for ways to save money, because there are a host of static expenses that must be covered.  A sudden $5,000 expense is something you don't just shrug you shoulders and pay, regardless of how much money you have.  That is, not if you want to be profitable.



But sometimes, the process of getting the $5000 through the bureaucracy of a larger company is even more painful than a smaller company.  Also, no matter what the industry, if the $5000 was so that they can continue to do business at a pace with the rest of the industry, then it's a no brainer -- especially for a larger company.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 8, 2008)

What's that sound? I believe it's the sound of the RPG market fracturing again.

The OGL gaming movement was fun while it lasted, wasn't it?

--Steve


----------



## Delta (Jan 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And possibly far, far beyond, depending upon the terms of the SRD-called-OGL.




I think I prefer the phrase "d20-STL-called-OGL".


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 8, 2008)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> For the folks who think $5,000 is no big deal...you have never ran a business.




$5000 for resources to publish material for a game they haven't even seen yet!  I hope Goodman and Green Ronin get on board since they're two of my favorite companies, but I certainly wouldn't blame them if they said "no thanks" to the Dev Kit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2008)

Traycor said:
			
		

> WotC has stated very specifically that they aren't going to be 'stealing' folks material off Gleemax.




The also stated very specifically that there would be an OGL and no tiered STL, but it looks like what they are calling an "OGL" is really a tiered STL.

So, buyer beware.

RC


----------



## Maggan (Jan 8, 2008)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> For the folks who think $5,000 is no big deal...you have never ran a business.




It's really not that simple. I myself do run a business, and while $5,000 is not a trivial sum of money, to put it in perspective I need to raise $70, 000 every month to pay for wages, and another $3,000 to pay for rent, and then sundry expenses on top of that. So considering that we have to take in close to $75,000 each month, raising $5,000 more is not an impossible task. We would need for everyone to bill on average 6 or 7 hours extra that month to cover that expense.

I do understand that it's not done at the drop of a hat, but I do also know from my own experience that it is possible, and for some companies not even a big deal, to raise that kind of money, would it be deemed strategically important enough.

It should be noted that I'm not in the business of publishing roleplaying games, since then I would not be at all confident of even raising $5,000 in a month to pay for wages.

/M


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The also stated very specifically that there would be an OGL and no tiered STL, but it looks like what they are calling an "OGL" is really a tiered STL.
> 
> So, buyer beware.
> 
> RC




Yes, look at this Q&A



> Q. What about the d20 license? Will that still exist in 4th Edition?
> A: We are making the OGL stronger by better defining it. We’re rolling certain elements that used to be in the d20 license into the OGL, things like community standards and other tangible elements of the d20 license.




I am particularly concerned about "community standards" and how that can/will be enforced. The OGL worked in part because WotC didn't have to look at or enforce anything that fit under the OGL but not the d20 License. Now it would seem that WotC will have enforcement authority of its interpretation of "community standards" of everything done under the new OGL from printed books to websites. This paragraph seems to be imply the exact opposite of what an OGL is and is instead a no-cost restricted license.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 8, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> I am a big fan of www.d20srd.org and its fired up at the start of every session I DM.  The lack of online ruleset will suck, but if the DDI has a good, hyperlinked, easily searchable ruleset for subscribers, then it will be OK.  It needs to be as good or better than what we already have, though.




I'm not very confident that the folks that brought us the WotC website and Gleemax are going to be able to produce what you're asking for above. I'm sure it will have a lot of pictures and a trillion links to other WotC products, though.

Something akin to the current online d20 SRD would be acceptable . . . but I'd rather have something like the hypertext d20 SRD.

I'm not a huge fan of searchable PDF's. I've never seen one that worked very well.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 8, 2008)

> 7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?
> 
> The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
> 
> Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.




So does the above also mean that any 3rd party 4E material MUST include Tieflings and Dragonborn as racial options for players?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 9, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of www.d20srd.org and its fired up at the start of every session I DM.  The lack of online ruleset will suck, but if the DDI has a good, hyperlinked, easily searchable ruleset for subscribers, then it will be OK.  It needs to be as good or better than what we already have, though.



_Obviously_ 4E will be so smooth and easy that you won't need to look up stuff during game time, at least thats what the devs are saying! mmmm......
BOT: it is a worrying development, the restricting of the SRD/OGL, but I really hope that (although they are not a charity) WotC leave it flexible enough for the continual indie development of the game. Until I can see a copy of said docs or, more importantly, until the indie publishers *react* to the docs it really is a wait and see


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 9, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> _Obviously_ 4E will be so smooth and easy that you won't need to look up stuff during game time, at least thats what the devs are saying! mmmm......



Citation?


----------



## Gundark (Jan 9, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So does the above also mean that any 3rd party 4E material MUST include Tieflings and Dragonborn as racial options for players?




I think this is the extreme case senario. Hopefully it isn't the case. My favourite setting the Iron Kingdoms would be up the proverbial creek as far as 4e is concerned. 

I think you're allowed to deviate from the core ules (adding races, omiting races for example).  



> Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.



 What I think this means is that the core books have to be the foundation (meaning you need the core books to play), however you can deviate add new classes/races/feats etc. If it wasn't the case, why would you have the OGL in the first place?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> the srd will contain rules.
> 
> It will have the complete game *system* required to run the game.
> 
> ...



Where are you getting this from?  Citation?


----------



## Ander00 (Jan 9, 2008)

As another one of those DMs/players who finds www.d20srd.org invaluable, I was afraid of such a development, because they haven't exactly made it easy to be optimistic about the DDI, so far. It would be a shame if for all the streamlining of the rules they say they are doing, the process of looking them up would become more cumbersome.


cheers


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> This could simply be the same way that the 3.5 SRD is incomplete -- in that there are two key pieces of information missing: how to generate ability scores, and experience tables.
> 
> I'm probably just being overly optimistic, though.  :\



Yeah, it sounds to me like they're planning on leaving key items out.  Perhaps they're planning to leave in things like names for classes, and names of powers, but not what they do.  That way you'd be allowed to reference them because they're in the SRD, but you couldn't use the SRD as a standalone game document without also having the PHB for the parts you need for play.

Consider all the rules that aren't present in a 3.5 statblock.  You don't need to include those rules in the SRD, if the purpose of the SRD is to provide a document allowing compliance with the system.  The statblock will say something like "Feats: Toughness, Power Attack, Dodge".  You don't need to have permission to reprint those feats, only to name them.  I get the impression that this is the way they're taking the SRD.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I find it particularly amusing that, way back when 4e was announced, and some of us were concerned about whether or not it would be OGL, a loud group of folks said "of course WotC will make 4e OGL".  When we were concerned about the type of content, the same group said "Of course WotC is listening to its consumer base".  When I express concerns about what the Gleemax terms actually mean -- and what WotC intends to do about rival sites like EN World and www.d20srd.org -- the response is (predictably) "Of course WotC wouldn't use your material posted to Gleemax" (despite their setting up the language to allow themselves to do just that, even though it is demonstrably true that they could protect their IP legally without resorting to such language).

From the Unofficial 4e Info Page:

D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse has confiirmed unequivocably that there will be no d20 System Trademark License for 4th edition. "There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear." Note that the Open Gaming License will still be around (which allows for third party products) - the d20 STL deals with the logo usage only. Scott adds that "We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."​
Yet what we are getting is a tiered STL _*called*_ an OGL.    

And some folks still think "Just Trust 'Em" is the best policy......  

No 4e for me, thank you.  I'd rather continue with a vibrant, healthy community of 3e-ers, even if that community becomes necessarily smaller.    


RC


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 9, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Citation?



The first part was just a joke towards the emphasis that is on streamlining and reducing complexity (e.g. monster stats)...should have put  at the end, sorry 
I really can't see that happening at all
Edit: s'pose it must have been a rubbish joke if I had to explain it


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> From the Unofficial 4e Info Page:
> 
> D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse has confiirmed unequivocably that there will be no d20 System Trademark License for 4th edition. "There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear." Note that the Open Gaming License will still be around (which allows for third party products) - the d20 STL deals with the logo usage only. Scott adds that "We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."​
> Yet what we are getting is a tiered STL _*called*_ an OGL.




No. What we're getting is an OGL. And a developers' kit that will be available early to publishers who are serious enough about their business to pay a nominal fee of $5,000. Developers who don't have that kind of ready cash, but want to "play with the big boys" and think they have a potentially hit product idea could get a business loan to cover the cost. The person who can't afford it is the guy in his basement who wants to develop RPG product as a hobby. Or the guy who's not sure he's got a hit on his hands and isn't willing to take the risk.

You know what they say - "Fortune favors the bold."

By this time next year, there won't be any difference in the rules. WotC _could_ have decided to just hold the OGL back from anyone until June. Instead, they're offering an option for those who want to get in on 4e development early.

It seems to me that the restriction on publication date is to provide some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000.

You may not agree with their strategy, but it's certainly not a tiered license. But hey, if you don't want to play 4e, nobody's gonna hold a gun to your head.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> No. What we're getting is an OGL.




  This must be some strange new meaning of the term "OGL" that I'm not familiar with.  



> And a developers' kit that will be available early to publishers who are serious enough about their business to pay a nominal fee of $5,000.




Let's see.  From http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11618.html:

When Wizards of the Coast introduced the OGL in 2000, WotC also inaugurated a program that provided a separate license--the d20 System Trademark License (STL)--that allowed third party publishers to use some of WotC's trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to identify these products (see "d20 and the Open Gaming System Explained").  All d20 STL products were required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and were also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.​
Now we seem to have a license with terms that can be used (but which is not, unlike the OGL, actually open), that requires distinctive wording and/or graphics (which sounds alot like a distinctive logo, even if that isn't what they want to call it), are required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and are also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.

That sounds strangely like the STL to me.

And, if you pay $5,000 you get to do things you don't get to do if you do not.  That sounds strangely like a tiered system to me.

Whether you call it an OGL or an STL, the "L" stands for "license".  "Tiered license" is jargon for a license according to separate, incrementally distinct quality.  "Providing some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000" _*makes it*_ a tiered license, whether you believe it to be so or not.

Go back to

Wizards of the Coast will use a 'three tier' system for licenses. The d20 System logo will be - it seems - a traditional WotC trademark licensed just to some big publishers (Mongoose, Paizo, Green Ronin) while other, smaller publisher will have to ask for some support from a bigger publisher that will 'guarantee' that the smaller publishers publish 'quality' books. It seems that the main reasons for this are avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales.​
and we can see that "big publishers" (those who can afford the $5,000 fee) are being favoured over from other, smaller publishers (those who cannot afford the $5,000 fee) [EDIT:  If the fee isn't for WotC to make cash, then this is the only reason for it] and that the 4e "OGL" will include language clearly aimed at "avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales" (i.e., the "community standards" clause).

Once more, denied information turns out to have more than a grain of truth.


RC


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> No. What we're getting is an OGL.



Actually since the new license will have restrictions, plus it will allow ti indicate compatibility with D&D it really looks much closer to the old d20 STL than to the old OGL.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 9, 2008)

No 3.0 style OGL?  So the useless license is gone?  The disingenuous attempt by WotC to brainwash gamers into ignoring the court rulings that you can't copyright game mechanics?  

Good Riddance to bad legal precedent.  The only purpose it served was letting people cut and paste legally.  All the innovative games are basically different enough that they are not using WotC's verbiage.  They could still be published.  Heck, a lot of them are about as close to 4e as they are to 3e.


----------



## booboo (Jan 9, 2008)

I hope third party developers: 

1. read the rules

2. playtest the game as is 

3. place allot of thought into their first product

But writers being as many of them are are not prone to take criticism well.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If your house rules were fair use before now, they'll be fair use after now.  You can't be bound by an agreement to which you are not a party.  You will be facing the standard copyright laws you've always faced.



Right, but WotC could choose to start enforcing those copyright laws.  TSR did it before.  WotC had a policy allowing fan sites and the like.  Now they're trying to move those fansites to Gleemax.  It'd make sense to enforce copyright on rogue fan websites.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Surely fan content (non profit, non published) would be just fine. I expect to see this sort of material on Gleemax the day 4E is released.



Exactly.  Gleemax - owned by WotC.  EN World - not owned by WotC.  WotC would be within their legal rights to demand that EN World not make available/publish 4e derivative material without an OGL, at all.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well this is where D&DI comes in -- if you care to pay the monthly fee (plus a little more for each book you buy? Can't remember if that's the case) you get access to an e-version of your paper product.



It won't be a hypertext e-version.  They're saying so far that it's a PDF.  The point of having an electronic version is convenience.  The formatting, hyperlinking, and copy-paste facility of hypertext documents are superior to PDFs when it comes to quick use at a game table.  I want functionality identical to d20srd.org, and I don't care whether it comes from WotC or a 3rd party.  The amount of use I get from that site on a game-to-game basis is phenomenal, and I shudder at the idea of running a game in which I have to spend time searching through myriad PDFs in order to find the rule I need.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And some folks still think "Just Trust 'Em" is the best policy......



I'll admit; I was one of the optimists.

Not anymore.

 
Nell.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> But will it be a hyperlinked, searchable e-version?  That's what I want to know.
> 
> EDIT: to elaborate, http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html has been a godsend to me as a DM, and to a lesser extent as a player, and I am positive I am not alone in that respect.  It's fast, easy to read, easy to navigate, and ridiculously convenient even if I happen to have the books nearby.  PDF images of a book (even if OCR'd) don't work because (a) text formatted for a printed page is not easily readable on the screen, and (b) all the uneccessary images slow down your ability to navigate.
> 
> I hope WOTC does the right thing by the e-versions.  Charging money for anything less will not endear me as a customer.



You know, I figure that if there is any legal barrier to generating a hypertext version of the 4E rules, there will be illegal versions coasting around on the P2P networks within a few weeks of the release of the core books anyway.  Partly as a way of flipping the bird at the lockdown, and partly because thousands of us depend on HTML SRDs.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> By this time next year, there won't be any difference in the rules.




Really?  Are you sure?  What's stopping them from putting a 6-month (I'd do 12, actually) stoppage on any new "open" material from WotC, except for the "early-adopters"?

PH1 releases in June 08; you can use it in 1/09.
PH2 releases in June 09; you can use it in 1/10.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 9, 2008)

> No 3.0 style OGL? So the useless license is gone? The disingenuous attempt by WotC to brainwash gamers into ignoring the court rulings that you can't copyright game mechanics?
> 
> Good Riddance to bad legal precedent. The only purpose it served was letting people cut and paste legally. All the innovative games are basically different enough that they are not using WotC's verbiage. They could still be published. Heck, a lot of them are about as close to 4e as they are to 3e.




This really hasn't been tested yet in a court of law.  There is precedent for BOARD GAMES to not be copyrightable.  

However, I would probably argue that the nature of an RPG, be it computer or tabletop, which has tons of text and has more copyrightable and trademarkable items, (or code in the case of computer games), WoTC and other game publisher might have a case.  All it will take is for one person to get Hasbro so angry they'll sue.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This must be some strange new meaning of the term "OGL" that I'm not familiar with.



And a strange new meaning of the word "nominal."


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 9, 2008)

It's definitely tiered - in terms of timing, but not content. There's no real question about that in my mind.

I don't see that as necessarily bad, although I personally think the five month lag is too long.


----------



## Silvergriffon (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It won't be a hypertext e-version.  They're saying so far that it's a PDF.  The point of having an electronic version is convenience.  The formatting, hyperlinking, and copy-paste facility of hypertext documents are superior to PDFs when it comes to quick use at a game table.  I want functionality identical to d20srd.org, and I don't care whether it comes from WotC or a 3rd party.  The amount of use I get from that site on a game-to-game basis is phenomenal, and I shudder at the idea of running a game in which I have to spend time searching through myriad PDFs in order to find the rule I need.



Not that I am sure that the e-versions we get will be this way, but PDf files can have hyperlinks, bookmarks, other documents, audio, video, and even scripts embedded in them. So, even if they are just PDFs (which hasn't been confirmed yet as far as I can tell) they could conceivably have as much or more ease of use as a hypertext version. Well, its possible anyway.


----------



## Henry (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> And a strange new meaning of the word "nominal."




When you get down to it, "nominal" just means "nameable."  _(cue a half dozen posters dragging out definition #2 from dictionary.com....)_

But I am curious if this will supposedly be an extension of "The Open Gaming License", or a different license entirely. I'm assuming the latter, because the Open Gaming License allows you to use any authorized version of itself to publish content that's been designated as open content under a later version, which would defeat the purpose of all the additional community standards clauses, etc.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 9, 2008)

They're probably not worried thought because 4e has really change the rules, and none of those rules have been released as Open Game Content.  In other words, all the cool new features of the new game system have never been released.  

That's also why I think they've spent so much time "changing the fluff", because the new 4e default settings will not reflect anything Wizards made Open Content.  While I don't think it's the main reason, I'm sure it's a reason for doing this.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> But I am curious if this will supposedly be an extension of "The Open Gaming License", or a different license entirely. I'm assuming the latter, because the Open Gaming License allows you to use any authorized version of itself to publish content that's been designated as open content under a later version, which would defeat the purpose of all the additional community standards clauses, etc.




I've been all over today, and may be repeating myself in this thread, but I said elsewhere, I don't think that's necessarily the case. 

It's certainly possible for the new OGL to contain enticements (trademark compatibility being a huge one) to encourage its use over a prior version of the license. As long as the new version of the license is actually a net gain, nobody will want to use the prior version. It's a win-win.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now we seem to have a license with terms that can be used (but which is not, unlike the OGL, actually open), that requires distinctive wording and/or graphics (which sounds alot like a distinctive logo, even if that isn't what they want to call it), are required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and are also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.
> 
> That sounds strangely like the STL to me.




So you're complaining because the license has restrictions? Yes, it's more restrictive than the old OGL. And I personally have no problem with WotC wanting to avoid people using the SRD (which is intended for game developers) as a way to get a free copy of the rules.

Or for WotC to want to prevent 30 "variant player's handbooks." This restriction is one that the publishing community brought on itself. In some cases, the big companies are the ones who are losing the most products.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, if you pay $5,000 you get to do things you don't get to do if you do not.  That sounds strangely like a tiered system to me.
> 
> Whether you call it an OGL or an STL, the "L" stands for "license".  "Tiered license" is jargon for a license according to separate, incrementally distinct quality.  "Providing some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000" _*makes it*_ a tiered license, whether you believe it to be so or not.




For 12 months. Yup. But I still say it's not a tiered license. Because everyone will play by the same rules. Everyone has the option of paying for the developers kit. There's no ability for White Wolf to sell product on the strength of their brand that doesn't say "compatible with 4th Edition D&D." That's the same language that EN Publishing or Bad Axe or a brand new startup could use. There's no distinction. All this does is separate serious publishers from dabblers.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> and we can see that "big publishers" (those who can afford the $5,000 fee) are being favoured over from other, smaller publishers (those who cannot afford the $5,000 fee) [EDIT:  If the fee isn't for WotC to make cash, then this is the only reason for it] and that the 4e "OGL" will include language clearly aimed at "avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales" (i.e., the "community standards" clause).




Any company _can_ afford the $5,000 fee. Whether they choose to is a separate issue. If they're serious about being a big player in the 4e market, they will find a way to pay for it. If I had a track record in the business, I know exactly how easy it would be to get a business loan to pay for it. Hell, for anyone with a decent credit rating, you could pay for it  with a business line of credit.

Of course, you'd have to be pretty sure that you could sell, oh, maybe 1000 copies. I believe that's about 0.1% of the D&D market. That doesn't exactly require a runaway "smash hit."

As far as "community standards," since all the products will reference D&D, I think WotC has a right to protect its brand perception.

If WotC had chosen to sign a special agreement with the big companies, and just not released the license until June, that would have been a license without tiers. In fact, that's exactly how 3e worked - some companies got access to the rules before the license was officially released. Instead, they're making it _possible_ for a small outfit to get in on the action. That's actually far more fair to small companies than just shutting them out until June.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> No. What we're getting is an OGL. And a developers' kit that will be available early to publishers who are serious enough about their business to pay a nominal fee of $5,000. Developers who don't have that kind of ready cash, but want to "play with the big boys" and think they have a potentially hit product idea could get a business loan to cover the cost. The person who can't afford it is the guy in his basement who wants to develop RPG product as a hobby. Or the guy who's not sure he's got a hit on his hands and isn't willing to take the risk.
> 
> You know what they say - "Fortune favors the bold."
> 
> ...




$5,000 is not a "nominal" amount.  It may be a neccessary expense for a large company that is run full time and only makes money on d20 products.  But it is not "nominal" nor is it something worth going into debt over.  I could throw that on my platinum card...but it would not be a smart business decision.  Only 30% of my business is RPG PDFs.  The majority of my company's income comes from our fiction products and other projects.  If I have to decide between giving WoTC $5,000 or putting that money into more cost-effective projects that will have a higher return on investment, it's a no-brainer.  I'm not going to run up debt for a five month head start on a system that won't even be fully rolling until the end of the year anyway.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And I personally have no problem with WotC wanting to avoid people using the SRD (which is intended for game developers) as a way to get a free copy of the rules.





For myself, I want the SRD as a way to avoid carrying around a whole bunch of hardcover books that (a) I have little space to open more than one of at the table, and (b) become rather weighty in aggregate. I can open a half-dozen tabs in Firefox, and flip between them easier than I can flip between a half-dozen places in 3 or more books.

I buy the books anyways, because they're easier to read in most respects, and I like 'em. But the SRD is, for me, a handier reference.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 9, 2008)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> For myself, I want the SRD as a way to avoid carrying around a whole bunch of hardcover books that (a) I have little space to open more than one of at the table, and (b) become rather weighty in aggregate. I can open a half-dozen tabs in Firefox, and flip between them easier than I can flip between a half-dozen places in 3 or more books..



Remember, for a "nominal fee" (probably between $1-$2 per book), you'll have access to electronic copies of the books. 

Buy your core books and spend the ~$5 to get the electronic versions.  You even get the errata corrections in the book once the errata is released. It may not be quite as convenient as an HTML set of rules, but it will be as portable (IIRC).


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Remember, for a "nominal fee" (probably between $1-$2 per book), you'll have access to electronic copies of the books.
> 
> Buy your core books and spend the ~$5 to get the electronic versions.  You even get the errata corrections in the book once the errata is released. It may not be quite as convenient as an HTML set of rules, but it will be as portable (IIRC).




Exactly. For people who want electronic versions, there'll be e-copies of every book WotC sells. That takes care of portability.

The people who are out of luck are those who are unwilling to pay to get a 4 month lead on their competition. So be it. That's a business decision every company has to make for themselves.

Five companies who could afford $1000 each could go in together on a license. The lead company would just have to trust the others not to blow it.

I still don't see it as a significant barrier to entry if people are serious.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 9, 2008)

It appears to me that with all the strictures in place, the large early bird fees, and the new restrictions, WotC seems determined to provoke people into publishing unauthorized compatible products. The game rules themselves aren't copyrighted and few of the concepts are patentable at this point; what the license has offered up to this point is the ability to refer to, use, and imitate copyrighted expressions of the text and tables and WotC's trademarks. AFAIK, and IANAL, the courts have come down pretty strongly in the favor of allowing people to produce compatible products and identify them as such, and I can't imagine the pen and paper RPG market would would be judged any differently. 

True, someone can always sue, and resisting a determined plaintiff can be expensive, but I don't perceive a lot of actual, real liability in telling WotC to shove off and publishing compatible works without their blessing.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It appears to me that with all the strictures in place, the large early bird fees, and the new restrictions, WotC seems determined to provoke people into publishing unauthorized compatible products. The game rules themselves aren't copyrighted and few of the concepts are patentable at this point; what the license has offered up to this point is the ability to refer to, use, and imitate copyrighted expressions of the text and tables and WotC's trademarks. AFAIK, and IANAL, the courts have come down pretty strongly in the favor of allowing people to produce compatible products and identify them as such, and I can't imagine the pen and paper RPG market would would be judged any differently.
> 
> True, someone can always sue, and resisting a determined plaintiff can be expensive, but I don't perceive a lot of actual, real liability in telling WotC to shove off and publishing compatible works without their blessing.




True. But then WotC might sue and you'd have to defend your actions in court. Which could get very expensive. I am not a lawyer either, but I have some idea what lawyers cost, and defending your actions in a trial would probably cost a whole lot more than five grand.

It's a much smarter business decision just to wait the 5 months and abide by their very nominal restrictions.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Five companies who could afford $1000 each could go in together on a license. The lead company would just have to trust the others not to blow it.




Actually, that may not be the case and is currently being investigated for its validity.

And simply saying that it's a business decision on whether a company spends 5k is inaccurate.  For some, it's not a decision; it's simply not an option.  A non-option does not a decision make   The decision was made for the company.

Now, I can say that some smaller press publishers are looking into imprinting under larger publishers, but I'm not sure I like that option.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 9, 2008)

The more I think about this, I think that the $5K for the right to publish early isn't so much to keep the riff raff out or kill the small companies (though it may well do one or both of those things) as it is another marketting maneuver by WotC.  Think about these facts for a moment:

1) 4E is contentious, as we can all attest to.  Even if the majority of people move on to 4E, any customer attrition in such a niche industry is a bad thing.  WotC is going to want to retain as much of their customer base as possible (hence the initial marketting to existing customers, such as posts by designers and developers on this very forum).

2) Any 3rd part company that is in a position to pay the $5K is a successful company, which means that it is a company with an existing, dedicated fanbase.

3) Said 3rd party companies want to remain successful, and they know as well as everyone else that most D&D players are going to be going to 4E, so they are powerfully motivated to publish 4E products.

4) WotC knows this.

Combine all these things and you get a situation where the desire to remain successful by the 3rd part copanies ends up serving as a statement of support for 4E for those fencesitters and anti-4Eers that are fans of those companies.  When Necromancer and Goodman and Paizo sign up and announce that they'll be there for roll out, the fans of those companies and then motivated to buy 4E to continue to enjoy the products of the companies that they love.  Moreover, they are told, even if tangentially, that 4E is in fact a good thing -- otherwise their favorite company wouldn't be signing on.  In every way, it is a win for WotC, even if the costs of providing the 3rd party companies with all the necessary materials and support ends up costing more than $5K.

To use another analogy: the big, popular clubs in NY and LA are always comping celebrities.  Why?  because they want celebrities in their club, because celebrities draw in the paying crowds -- people want to be seen at the same club as P Diddy, or want a *chance* to see or talk to Paris.  By taking the loss of a few bottle of Crystal, the clubs are getting hundreds or thousands in the door.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 9, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Now, I can say that some smaller press publishers are looking into imprinting under larger publishers, but I'm not sure I like that option.




Consolidation is pretty much the death of innovation.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> True. But then WotC might sue and you'd have to defend your actions in court. Which could get very expensive. I am not a lawyer either, but I have some idea what lawyers cost, and defending your actions in a trial would probably cost a whole lot more than five grand.
> 
> It's a much smarter business decision just to wait the 5 months and abide by their very nominal restrictions.




I'll bet I could match or approximate 70% of the 4e mechanics from OGC sources that already exist, either via mechanics that already exist or logical extensions of mechanics that already exist.  At least 70%.  And a good chunk of the changes seem to be predicated on game analysis, which anyone can do without a license.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Or for WotC to want to prevent 30 "variant player's handbooks." This restriction is one that the publishing community brought on itself.



Yeah, that's why Necromancer's #2 product is a "variant player handbook".  The Advanced Player's Guide (working title), to be exact.

I love variant player's handbooks.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Actually, that may not be the case and is currently being investigated for its validity.
> 
> And simply saying that it's a business decision on whether a company spends 5k is inaccurate.  For some, it's not a decision; it's simply not an option.  A non-option does not a decision make   The decision was made for the company.
> 
> Now, I can say that some smaller press publishers are looking into imprinting under larger publishers, but I'm not sure I like that option.




I guess I just have a different perspective. I too run a business. I'm in charge of an independent cable television provider, so I've been in the position of having to negotiate with companies MUCH larger than I am.

I know what it means to have a large company put you over a barrel and ask for what you can't possibly deliver. But when I'm negotiating with the Disney corporation, I can't choose to avoid their fee by waiting 6 months to launch the product. So by my standards, WotC's license fee is pretty reasonable.

For a small company that's not making a lot of money, it's not going to be a reasonable investment. But that is a choice you're making. If someone really thought it was worth it, they could probably get a loan to pay for it. Obviously, not everyone is willing to make that kind of commitment.

WotC wants the first publishers for 4e to be people who are.

Think of it this way: when 3e came out, there was no SRD available to the small companies for 6 months. So this is basically the same deal for a small outfit.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> True. But then WotC might sue and you'd have to defend your actions in court. Which could get very expensive. I am not a lawyer either, but I have some idea what lawyers cost, and defending your actions in a trial would probably cost a whole lot more than five grand.




On the other hand, offering a settlement and destroying "infringing product" in the manner of disabling a download link would be simple. WotC obviously would not spend thousands pursuing an infringer who instantly folds. 

WotC can only be victorious in this scenario ultimately by doggedly pursuing an infringer into court and winning a judgment. The result would send a message to other publishers, but would be hugely costly to WotC. 

It's kind of an open secret, I think, that such a case is very likely to just lose. Furthermore, the sued parties are unlikely to be able to make any major financial restitution.



> It's a much smarter business decision just to wait the 5 months and abide by their very nominal restrictions.




If the "nominal" restrictions make your product possible. The new license emphasizes a "heavy reliance" on the 4e book. _Iron Heroes_ would be a nonstarter. _M&M_ would be a non-starter. At least as I am reading it; perhaps original systems as in M&M would be okay and alternative PHB's like Arcana Evolved would not, I can't be sure, obviously.

These chicken games were played out in the 1980s, and they never went to court. Palladium did bomb The Primal Order (by WotC) out of orbit with legal threats, however. TSR went to the brink with the Judge's Guild before the issue was finessed. So I guess it's an open question.

But I know you can print a strategy guide to any video game you like. Surely you can print a strategy guide to D&D, as well. Just as a for instance.

As near as I can tell, the only thing you have to fear are companies hot enough to pursue a supposed infringement case to the bitter end, against the advice of most lawyers.


----------



## Warbringer (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> They're probably not worried thought because 4e has really change the rules, and none of those rules have been released as Open Game Content.  In other words, all the cool new features of the new game system have never been released.




Except where they can be derived from the exisiting OGL.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The more I think about this, I think that the $5K for the right to publish early isn't so much to keep the riff raff out or kill the small companies (though it may well do one or both of those things) as it is another marketting maneuver by WotC.  Think about these facts for a moment:
> 
> 1) 4E is contentious, as we can all attest to.  Even if the majority of people move on to 4E, any customer attrition in such a niche industry is a bad thing.  WotC is going to want to retain as much of their customer base as possible (hence the initial marketting to existing customers, such as posts by designers and developers on this very forum).
> 
> ...




Quoted for Troof.

The situation between 3e and 4e is really very different.  At the tail end of 2e, D&D was dying.  TSR had been bought out by a company with no real RPG track record and a fairly loud group of fans decried them as "Magic'izing" D&D with 3e.  

WOTC needed to get as much product on the shelves as fast as possible for market penetration.  But, they didn't have the deep pockets to do it.  So, they open up the OGL and let everyone and their brother push D&D stuff onto the shelves.  Suddenly, an entirely new game looks like a mature RPG with loads of supplements, rather than a complete newbie to the hobby.

And it worked.  Even though people got burned by the 3e glut and there was loads of crap out there, it still worked.  D&D became popular again, brought back lots of lapsed players and brought in new blood.  Fantastic.

This time around, though, it's different.  3e isn't dying.  It might be showing its age a bit, but, lots of people are still playing 3e.  We're not bleeding players into loads of other RPG's because our mechanics are showing their age.  Sure, 3e might not be as profitable now, but, it's still chugging along nicely.

WOTC doesn't need help with market penetration in the same way.  3e is a strong brand with a large following.  4e will draw on that, unlike 3e which really had much less to draw on from the 2e brand.  

So, we get six months of WOTC and a handful of the established big boys showing their stuff.

On another note, I truly hate the idea of losing the d20 hypertext srd.  That was such a godsend.  Not enough that i'm going to pony up 120 bucks a year for it, but, I'll certainly miss it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If the "nominal" restrictions make your product possible. The new license emphasizes a "heavy reliance" on the 4e book. _Iron Heroes_ would be a nonstarter. _M&M_ would be a non-starter. At least as I am reading it; perhaps original systems as in M&M would be okay and alternative PHB's like Arcana Evolved would not, I can't be sure, obviously.




_Iron Heroes_ would only be a nonstarter if it insisted on including complete character creation rules and complete rules for play.

Eliminate the chapter covering ability score bonuses, or the chapter covering, say, combat, and you couldn't run the game without a PHB. You could still have variant classes, new feats, variant races, and special subsystems for skills, challenges, stunts, handling damage, and so forth.

There's plenty of variants of that kind in _Thieves' World, The Black Company, Midnight_ and a hundred other products that were d20-compatible. And I'm sure anything that could be published under the d20-STL will be able to be published under the 4e license.

Some companies in the 3e era thought they could make products that would sell better by using the looser OGL rather than the d20-STL, and they succeeded, but I imagine that releases like _Spycraft, True 20, Castles & Crusades_ and _Arcana Evolved_ are precisely why the license has changed.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> _Iron Heroes_ would only be a nonstarter if it insisted on including complete character creation rules and complete rules for play.
> 
> Eliminate the chapter covering ability score bonuses, or the chapter covering, say, combat, and you couldn't run the game without a PHB. You could still have variant classes, new feats, variant races, and special subsystems for skills, challenges, stunts, handling damage, and so forth.
> 
> ...




Here are the issues I see with derivative games under the proposed 4e OGL.


 If you cannot include seperate character creation or advancement rules within material that uses the 4e OGL it becomes impossible to publish a game like Mutants and Masterminds that fundamentally changes the way characters are created and advanced.
 It creates problematic referencing issues. If I'm playing Spycraft 3.0 I don't want to have to puzzle out when I need to look up a rule in the 4e PHB and when I need to look up a rule in the Spycraft 3.0 rulebook or possibly have to parse through both books, I just want to look it up in the Spycraft book.


----------



## BarakO (Jan 9, 2008)

> "The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee."




So, why in the world are they keeping the OGL itself secret?  It's obviously done...

Seems to me that it must contain language that is going to upset many people, so they're keeping it under wraps so as to not affect their initial sales (and those that do get to see it are going to be under an NDA).

This doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence that I'm going to like what I find there.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 9, 2008)

It all sounds like good business sense, to me.

And, if I'm even reading it right, the SRD makes better sense this way too. Personally, I don't much like how the SRD currently is 

Too many people by far have proclaimed loudly and often how they run their games using only the free rules available online, without even having to buy a single book, blah blah blah. This is not cool. WotC publishes a game system at great cost, and people effectively leech off them, when that is totally unnecessary? Yeah, great. :\

I think the new approach to the SRD is better. You want to use the rules from a RPG book? Buy the book.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Quoted for Troof.
> 
> The situation between 3e and 4e is really very different.  At the tail end of 2e, D&D was dying.  TSR had been bought out by a company with no real RPG track record and a fairly loud group of fans decried them as "Magic'izing" D&D with 3e.
> 
> WOTC needed to get as much product on the shelves as fast as possible for market penetration.  But, they didn't have the deep pockets to do it.



They didn't have the deep pockets? WotC was making tons of money from Magic and Pokemon when 3e was released.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'll admit; I was one of the optimists.
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> ...




Best Hope:  Enough folks complain, and keep complaining, and WotC realizes that "STL as OGL" will cost them more money than "OGL as OGL".  I think it is very likely that there is a strong reason why this so-called OGL comes with a NDA.    :\ 

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I guess I just have a different perspective. I too run a business. I'm in charge of an independent cable television provider, so I've been in the position of having to negotiate with companies MUCH larger than I am.




I view this from a consumer standpoint; if WotC wants my money, they have to provide products that I am interested in.  They intentionally made changes to the base "fluff" of the game that I am not interested in.  It is to their benefit to have 3rd parties willing and able to provide the original fluff material as soon as 4e is released.  The Necromancer announcement is the first thing that has made me even consider changing.

Again, from a consumer standpoint, if WotC wants my money, they have to provide products that I am interested in.  They intentionally made changes to the base rules of the game that I do not believe that I am interested in.  I am not going to buy three hardcovers to find out whether I am interested or not.  If there is an SRD that can settle that question, then if the rules are something I am interested in, I am likely to buy the books because (like nearly every other RPGer I have ever met) I _like_ physical product.  It is to their benefit to have an online SRD that accomplishes this function.

Now, with 3.5, they might feel burned by having an online SRD, because not everyone jumped ship from 3.0.  Cry me a river, though.  IMHO, 3.5 made some good changes, and some really boneheaded ones.  YMMV.  I know that there are people out there -- perhaps even a majority -- who prefer 3.5 to 3.0 100%.

IMHO, WotC is going to need 3rd-party partners and an online SRD to sell the game.  Certainly they will need it to sell to DI.  The DI might sell well on the basis of "added value".  I predict it won't do so well on the basis of "We restricted your access compared to what you were used to unless you fork over the cash monthly, and you can pay more for these value added features if you want".  I'm just not seeing that happen.

What really hurt WotC, IMHO, is that third parties produced the books they should have produced, earlier and better (and often using the same group of writers).  Now, I see that they are restricting the license, presumably in part to prevent exactly that, and it makes me wonder exactly how much they intend to stifle innovation.

See, the game I am playing...my home campaign....belongs to _*me*_ in my mind.  It might use IP that belongs to WotC (although it should be noted that the eminant Col Pladoh has put some of that into question, suggesting for instance that Mind Flayers were his IP, not transferred to TSR, and thus not transferred to WotC, and has declared that he made them Open) and to other companies, but that's not what I come to the table for.  I don't say, "What's the best WotC IP I can use?"  I say, "What's the best tool to make the best possible game (according to my own criteria)?"

TSR got a lot of flack for trying to restrict end-user expression of creativity in the old days, for the very same "valid business concerns" that are being trotted out now to defend WotC's actions.  And where did it get TSR?


RC


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 9, 2008)

> See, the game I am playing...my home campaign....belongs to me in my mind. It might use IP that belongs to WotC (although it should be noted that the eminant Col Pladoh has put some of that into question, suggesting for instance that Mind Flayers were his IP, not transferred to TSR, and thus not transferred to WotC, and has declared that he made them Open) and to other companies, but that's not what I come to the table for. I don't say, "What's the best WotC IP I can use?" I say, "What's the best tool to make the best possible game (according to my own criteria)?"




I'm not sure that's an accurate quote?  Can you provide a source?  

I know that Gary's gone on record saying the OGL was a "really stupid idea", and that Wizards should have instead just licensed it out to major players rather that give a license that Wizards would have more control of to a half-dozen players.  

The new OGL doesn't really restrict freedom.  Honestly, most people, if they like the new D&D, will buy Wizards products and Third Party products that show creativity.  I find the people who will refuse to buy because it's "not open" to be a vocal minority.  I doubt it's gonna be a significant indent.

If they don't like the game, they have the benefit of the "more free" license.

And this will encourage third-parties to consider making brand new systems rather than copying or modifying the core D20 ruleset, it will make a "wider diversity" of systems which can help improve things.  There's been a trend towards this already.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 9, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> It all sounds like good business sense, to me.
> 
> And, if I'm even reading it right, the SRD makes better sense this way too. Personally, I don't much like how the SRD currently is
> 
> ...



I've not seen anyone here saying they run their games using _only_ the free rules available online, but that they find that access _in addition to their books_ extremely useful. We _do_ buy the books - and we find the openess the SRD brings to be great. Those things are not incompatible, you know.

Moreover, your post is backwards thinking. The SRD helped WotC making 3e great. The rules will be found online anyway for those with that inclination, so restricting it will only hurt their honest customers. Maybe RIAA is running the show at WotC now...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The more I think about this, I think that the $5K for the right to publish early isn't so much to keep the riff raff out or kill the small companies (though it may well do one or both of those things) as it is another marketting maneuver by WotC.




You would have to be an idiot to think that the 5k fee is going to forestall another gold rush/glut of products of questionable quality.

WOTC are not idiots.

In fact, I think it's more likely than not that some publishers will feel pressured to "re-hash'' some of their 3e stuff and push it out the door as quickly as possible to make some hay in the first 5 months of their limited market they bought with their 5k.

I think your post is pretty much right on.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 9, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> The rules will be found online anyway for those with that inclination, so restricting it will only hurt their honest customers. Maybe RIAA is running the show at WotC now...




This is a great point.  It's the same as DRM on PDFs - it punishes the honest customer far more than it punishes the dishonest customer.

Hell, I have a copy of Hyperconscious: Explorations in Psionics that I bought that came with DRM.  Since then, I've upgraded my computer, so I can't use my legit copy of it anymore - glad I printed it out, or I'd have to buy it again, and while I really, really like Hyperconscious, I'm not going to pay for it twice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

double post


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's an accurate quote?  Can you provide a source?




Look in the Col Pladoh thread.  I have it my subscriptions, but that isn't helping me so much right now.    

RC


----------



## Delta (Jan 9, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It appears to me that with all the strictures in place, the large early bird fees, and the new restrictions, WotC seems determined to provoke people into publishing unauthorized compatible products. The game rules themselves aren't copyrighted and few of the concepts are patentable at this point; what the license has offered up to this point is the ability to refer to, use, and imitate copyrighted expressions of the text and tables and WotC's trademarks. AFAIK, and IANAL, the courts have come down pretty strongly in the favor of allowing people to produce compatible products and identify them as such, and I can't imagine the pen and paper RPG market would would be judged any differently.
> 
> True, someone can always sue, and resisting a determined plaintiff can be expensive, but I don't perceive a lot of actual, real liability in telling WotC to shove off and publishing compatible works without their blessing.




I think it's possibly a keen observation that "WotC seems determined to provoke people into publishing unauthorized compatible products", but I'm not so optimistic with the rest of it. Generally civil court cases go to the better-funded lawyer, regardless of law, and in the history RPGs to date no one has ever had enough money to even _afford_ a lawyer to send against the owners of D&D.

It's also suspicious how they're apparently mangling the terminology of the OGL/OGC and putting in restriction that OGL v1.0 Section 9 says shouldn't be enforcable.

My nightmare scenario is that they're planning to provoke a court case against a weak defendant that winds up invalidating the OGL v1.0. (A lot like the infamous GPL SCO-vs-IBM case, except in that case it was the big, mega-lawyered company that was pro-GPL.)


----------



## Bacris (Jan 9, 2008)

In the Information Age, I'd hate to see the fallout from such an occurrence.


----------



## Yair (Jan 9, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Too many people by far have proclaimed loudly and often how they run their games using only the free rules available online, without even having to buy a single book, blah blah blah. This is not cool. WotC publishes a game system at great cost, and people effectively leech off them, when that is totally unnecessary? Yeah, great. :\



First of all, it is cool. WotC spent a lot of time and effort into developing a great game and allows people to easily and freely legally access it (rather than illegally) and build on it - that's just cool.

Secondly, the idea was that having the rules free and easily available for modification - from the creation of the hypertext SRD to widely varied systems such as True20 - helped WotC sales at the end by increasing the people playing and creatively working on material compatible with their products. I do believe that this is correct, that the SRD/OGL helped WotC more than a closed license - like the new STL - ever would have. But without hard data, this is a matter of opinion of course.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Best Hope:  Enough folks complain, and keep complaining, and WotC realizes that "STL as OGL" will cost them more money than "OGL as OGL".  I think it is very likely that there is a strong reason why this so-called OGL comes with a NDA.    :\
> 
> RC



Won't happen. I very much doubt anything but a massive transfer of folks into a "Like 4e, Only Open" system or staying with 3e because it is open will scratch Wizard's attention, and I don't see any of those happening despite what a few loud internet folks say.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 9, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I hate to say it, but having thought about it some more, I see either lawsuits or legal clampdowns (cease & desist orders) on the horizon, over whether someone is making work that extends the 3E SRD fairly, or ripping off the 4E rules against the new restrictions. I could even see stuff like OSRIC coming under fire in the future now.




I think it's much too late to bolt that stable door... the horse is already galloping over the horizon!

I'll continue to use the OGL v1.0a for future OSRIC core rules updates, and I don't expect to face any legal challenge in respect of this.  As far as I'm concerned, the sky is definitely not falling.  

I do feel for people who're trying to market material to fans who intend to remain with the current edition.  These are difficult times for those small publishers, and I fear not all will weather the storm.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 9, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Consolidation is pretty much the death of innovation.




How does the whole imprinting thing even work? I've heard of it before, but have no clue as to how one goes about doing it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> In the Information Age, I'd hate to see the fallout from such an occurrence.




I fully believe that there will be a great many folks calling it "WotC's right" and "a valid business move".

 

RC


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 9, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> First of all, it is cool. WotC spent a lot of time and effort into developing a great game and allows people to easily and freely legally access it (rather than illegally) and build on it - that's just cool.



You think and feel differently about it - I respect that. _That's_ cool, regardless. 




> Secondly, the idea was that having the rules free and easily available for modification - from the creation of the hypertext SRD to widely varied systems such as True20 - helped WotC sales at the end by increasing the people playing and creatively working on material compatible with their products. I do believe that this is correct, that the SRD/OGL helped WotC more than a closed license - like the new STL - ever would have. But without hard data, this is a matter of opinion of course.



I suspect that the people with the best hard data are in fact those folks at WotC. And this is the decision they made, after much consideration of all the available facts, no doubt. After all, it is a business to them, and they don't want to go making rash decisions that might lose them money. So, well, it's unlikely they'll go doing that.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 9, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I've not seen anyone here saying they run their games using _only_ the free rules available online, but that they find that access _in addition to their books_ extremely useful. We _do_ buy the books - and we find the openess the SRD brings to be great. Those things are not incompatible, you know.
> 
> Moreover, your post is backwards thinking. The SRD helped WotC making 3e great. The rules will be found online anyway for those with that inclination, so restricting it will only hurt their honest customers. Maybe RIAA is running the show at WotC now...




The hypertext SRD is great for (a) looking up spells for which I don't have the spells memorized, (b) weird rules that don't come into play very often and (c) random bits of numbers trivia, like the bread DC for a pair of manacles.

If WotC produced a hypertext version of the rules similar to or better than the hypertext d20 and kept it well updated, I would gladly pay the monthly subscription fee for the DI.

The problem with pdf's in my experience is that even if they're searchable and even hypertexted, they're still essentially formated as if they're going to be printed. What I want is an online rules index where everything is formatted to fit on my screen so that I don't have to constantly scrolls up and down the screen.


----------



## Delta (Jan 9, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think it's much too late to bolt that stable door... the horse is already galloping over the horizon!
> 
> I'll continue to use the OGL v1.0a for future OSRIC core rules updates, and I don't expect to face any legal challenge in respect of this.  As far as I'm concerned, the sky is definitely not falling.




I don't know if they're intentionally or unintentionally confusing/reinterpreting the wording of the OGL at this time, so that's definitely not a bet I would share in at this time.

I hope you're right, but if forced to I'd bet on the opposite.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 9, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I don't know if they're intentionally or unintentionally confusing/reinterpreting the wording of the OGL at this time, so that's definitely not a bet I would share in at this time.




I feel that by the usual standards of legal documents, the OGL v1.0a is very clear indeed.  I think it's extremely hard to confuse.

I think the legal position will be that the OGL v1.0a continues to stand exactly as Ryan Dancey intended.  I don't think any other result is legally possible.

I expect to see a new license come out, with some significant differences in the wording.  I think that document will apply to 4e and other games going forward.  I expect that this new license will also be called an "Open Gaming License" or something very similar, and I think WOTC will do little to dispel any resulting confusion.

But I certainly don't expect to receive contact from WOTC's lawyers over OSRIC's use of the OGL v1.0a.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What really hurt WotC, IMHO, is that third parties produced the books they should have produced, earlier and better (and often using the same group of writers).  Now, I see that they are restricting the license, presumably in part to prevent exactly that, and it makes me wonder exactly how much they intend to stifle innovation.



You know, all of this is bringing to my mind those early comments about the coming clouds of 4th edition and how we mortals are powerless to stop them.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The hypertext SRD is great for (a) looking up spells for which I don't have the spells memorized, (b) weird rules that don't come into play very often and (c) random bits of numbers trivia, like the bread DC for a pair of manacles.



Would you roll Profession (baker) against that DC?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Would you roll Profession (baker) against that DC?



Nah, that's a Craft check.


----------



## Delta (Jan 9, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> But I certainly don't expect to receive contact from WOTC's lawyers over OSRIC's use of the OGL v1.0a.




I hear you. Not a bet I would share in at this time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, all of this is bringing to my mind those early comments about the coming clouds of 4th edition and how we mortals are powerless to stop them.




Yup.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 9, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I've not seen anyone here saying they run their games using _only_ the free rules available online,




Granted I've not been keeping track, however I have seen different people here on these forums talk about people at their table who have never bought a book and simply use the SRD

On another topic- The OGL is that covered by a NDA? Or will they release that at some point in the near future?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 9, 2008)

Gundark said:
			
		

> The OGL is that covered by a NDA?




Phase One has to sign an NDA because they are getting the rules before they will be published.  It's no different than playtesters having to sign an NDA.


----------



## Kevin Brennan (Jan 9, 2008)

Gundark said:
			
		

> The OGL is that covered by a NDA? Or will they release that at some point in the near future?




WotC has stated that the text of the "new OGL" will be under NDA until June. Not just the SRD, but the license as well.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 9, 2008)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Granted I've not been keeping track, however I have seen different people here on these forums talk about people at their table who have never bought a book and simply use the SRD



I have people at my gaming table who have never bought a book and simply use mine.  I don't see a big difference there.

My players actually prefer to use the PHB to look things up.  I prefer to use the SRD.  I own most (all, these days) of the books in my gaming groups.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 14, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeah; I presume they're flexible on that sort of thing.  Were I to some up with the $5K, for example, I wouldn't be able to produce a "business license".




You're out of luck, then.  WOTC just told me that "The current wording in the new license firmly states that we absolutely require a business license."


So, if you're from a jurisdiction that doesn't require them (for example, my current home state), looks like you're out of luck, unless you want to jump through an entirely unnecessary hoop, and register somewhere, just for the purpose of having a slip of paper to show WOTC. 

Another staggeringly brilliant decision from WOTC Legal.


I've been told that if it changes, they'll "let me know."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You're out of luck, then.  WOTC just told me that "The current wording in the new license firmly states that we absolutely require a business license."





Is that just for early release?  Or does it apply if, say, you want to post your homebrew materials to a site other than Gleemax? 


RC


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 14, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is that just for early release?  Or does it apply if, say, you want to post your homebrew materials to a site other than Gleemax?




No idea.  We were speaking specifically about the so-called "OGL" for 4th Edition, which they've already stated (on the conference call) would feature registration cards and termination clauses, so I'm not even sure if the new "OGL" even applies to non-publishers at all.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 14, 2008)

You know, WotC may in fact be promoting the use of the 1.0a OGL more than they realize with this.

I don't have a "business" license, either.  I have a Federal Tax ID, a state tax certificate, and a doing-business-as receipt.

If the 4E license itself requires a business license, then I don't meet the criteria.  Although I suppose I could just use the 1.0a OGL and not reference any of the 4E material...  Not sure that's what they're going for, though.  And not sure if that's feasible or not, but hey, OSRIC managed with the 1.0a OGL...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No idea.  We were speaking specifically about the so-called "OGL" for 4th Edition, which they've already stated (on the conference call) would feature registration cards and termination clauses, so I'm not even sure if the new "OGL" even applies to non-publishers at all.





Well, one has to wonder if there will be tiered licenses then for those who intend to make money, and those who intend to distribute for free.  Because, from what I am hearing of the 4e SRD-they're-calling-an-OGL it sounds as though they could come after places like EN World if they thought they were too much competition for Gleemax and the DI (should places like EN World allow posts of 4e-based material).

Given that WotC has stepped up to the plate to squelch rumours that were wrong in the past (even if they were later proved to be mostly right), their silence on this issue seems ominous to me.

RC


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No idea.  We were speaking specifically about the so-called "OGL" for 4th Edition, which they've already stated (on the conference call) would feature registration cards and termination clauses, so I'm not even sure if the new "OGL" even applies to non-publishers at all.



You mean fansites and blogs? Now that's a question that needs to be asked to Scott Rouse.

So, the OGL is replacing the _d20_STL and becomes less generic.

The SRD is replacing the Trademark Usage Guide (or TUG) and becomes less copy-and-paste material.

It's like _Oriental Adventures_ and _Rokugan_ all over again.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 14, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's like _Oriental Adventures_ and _Rokugan_ all over again.



I don't get the comparison.  Other than the fact that AEG messed up the Section 15, what's wrong with Rokugan?


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 15, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I've been told that if it changes, they'll "let me know."



And I followed up that statement by saying, "Hopefully it will!"


----------



## Delta (Jan 15, 2008)

Um... wow.


----------



## Yair (Jan 15, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Um... wow.



QFT


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 15, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I don't get the comparison.  Other than the fact that AEG messed up the Section 15, what's wrong with Rokugan?



Nothing to do with AEG. I disagreed with WotC's business decision to include _Rokugan_ into the new _OA._ AEG would have done it without WotC's help.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2008)

"The new OGL will be better than the old OGL in every way.  When you see the new OGL (after signing a NDA and presenting your business license) you will wonder how you could ever have used the old OGL.  The new OGL is faster and more fun.  The use of the term _OGL_ should not be taken to mean that any part of the license is open."


----------



## Delta (Jan 15, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> And I followed up that statement by saying, "Hopefully it will!"




I must say that, back when I worked at a few computer game companies, a statement like this was code for "We have no plans to do this, but we'll be diplomatic and express empathy with the players' desires."

So I'll ask this: Are there actually legal discussions planned or taking place to change that language in the new license?


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 15, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with AEG. I disagreed with WotC's business decision to include _Rokugan_ into the new _OA._ AEG would have done it without WotC's help.




Ah, you're talking about Rokugan the setting, not _Rokugan_ the book.  OK.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 15, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> I must say that, back when I worked at a few computer game companies, a statement like this was code for "We have no plans to do this, but we'll be diplomatic and express empathy with the players' desires."




I doubt Linae would bother to post here if it weren't true.


----------



## Delta (Jan 15, 2008)

I agree. Until they officially announce that the license has been changed, comments like that aren't worth anything.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 15, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> So I'll ask this: Are there actually legal discussions planned or taking place to change that language in the new license?




Absolutely. 

When I say I'm looking into finding a solution I mean it. When the answer is "no" I say so. If I cannot respond or provide comment I express the limitations of my participation. 

I'm a face-value gal. Don't read anything into what I write other than the words on the screen. What you see is what you get with me


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> When I say I'm looking into finding a solution I mean it. When the answer is "no" I say so. If I cannot respond or provide comment I express the limitations of my participation.
> 
> I'm a face-value gal. Don't read anything into what I write other than the words on the screen. What you see is what you get with me





Please answer this question:  How will this new license affect sites like EN World?

RC


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please answer this question:  How will this new license affect sites like EN World?



We value EN World and other sites like it. It's good for the community to have a neutral site to express their opinions. It's also a great place for us to get a pulse on the community. I cannot share the various aspects of the license until June 6th (I'm under NDA) but I do not foresee any major impacts.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2008)

Thank you for your response.  That's a load off my mind.

RC


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 15, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> We value EN World and other sites like it. It's good for the community to have a neutral site to express their opinions. It's also a great place for us to get a pulse on the community. I cannot share the various aspects of the license until June 6th (I'm under NDA) but I do not foresee any major impacts.



Does that means fan-brewed 4e material posted on sites like *EN World* or their own fansites *can go live* beginning June 2008?

A "Yes" or "No" answer would be sufficed.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 15, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Does that means fan-brewed 4e material posted on sites like *EN World* or their own fansites *can go live* beginning June 2008?
> 
> A "Yes" or "No" answer would be sufficed.




If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 16, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?



 If someone gets their hands on a book on the morning of June 1st I guarantee they'll post a house rule within 5 hours  Now how well thought out said rule is will be another story entirely.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 16, 2008)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> If someone gets their hands on a book on the morning of June 1st I guarantee they'll post a house rule within 5 hours  Now how well thought out said rule is will be another story entirely.



True, dat!


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 16, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?



Alot of fans, myself included, have a fair amount of material that can be converted from 3e to 4e - particularly player races and monsters.  I'll almost certainly be toying around with converting material after the first few days, just to get a feel for the rules.  Converting and writing material is how alot of people become familiar with the mechanics.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Jan 16, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?




You underestimate the desire of some folks to prove 4e is broken and how readily they can..eh hem..."fix" it.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jan 16, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Alot of fans, myself included, have a fair amount of material that can be converted from 3e to 4e - particularly player races and monsters.  I'll almost certainly be toying around with converting material after the first few days, just to get a feel for the rules.  Converting and writing material is how alot of people become familiar with the mechanics.



Bingo. Converting 1e and OD&D materials taught me a tremendous amount about 3e monster design.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 16, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?




Internet, distributed intelligence network, 20-30 years of experience per grognard...

One weekend wouldn't be unreasonable.


----------



## Delta (Jan 16, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> I'm a face-value gal. Don't read anything into what I write other than the words on the screen. What you see is what you get with me




I appreciate your reading this forum and answering a few questions. 

Linae, what's the official interpretation of OGL v1.0 Section 9? ("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.") Some people interpret that to mean that anything made available under an OGL v2.0 license can be immediately re-published under the original v1.0 ("any authorized version"). What's WOTC's position on that?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> If it's not for sale you should be good. Of course, if it's fan-brewed I don't imagine there will be much to post in June, right? I mean, won't it take some time to get to know the rules and then come up with materials after the June 6th release?



Well, I didn't actually say "*good* fan-brewed material." Poster's risk.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 17, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, I didn't actually say "*good* fan-brewed material." Poster's risk.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Delta (Jan 21, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Linae, what's the official interpretation of OGL v1.0 Section 9? ("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.") Some people interpret that to mean that anything made available under an OGL v2.0 license can be immediately re-published under the original v1.0 ("any authorized version"). What's WOTC's position on that?




Bumping this -- Linae, still reading this thread from last week?


----------



## lurkinglidda (Jan 21, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Linae, what's the official interpretation of OGL v1.0 Section 9? ("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.") Some people interpret that to mean that anything made available under an OGL v2.0 license can be immediately re-published under the original v1.0 ("any authorized version"). What's WOTC's position on that?



I hesitated to respond to the question because I really can't comment on this yet. I know you were hoping for a better answer than that, but I just can't say a whole lot at this time.


----------



## Delta (Jan 22, 2008)

Yeah, thank you for checking in.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 1, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> I hesitated to respond to the question because I really can't comment on this yet. I know you were hoping for a better answer than that, but I just can't say a whole lot at this time.




Can we get a comment from you now with the news that 4e will be released under a new GSL and not the OGL?

Does the GSL bypass (by specific intent or otherwise) Section 9 of the OGL?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 1, 2008)

> Does the GSL bypass (by specific intent or otherwise) Section 9 of the OGL?




I'm pretty sure a brand new license means that any requirements of the OGL no longer applies.  It's not a revision of the OGL, it's a completely new method of licensing the content.


----------



## Delta (Feb 1, 2008)

My question to Linnae today would be this -- Can you confirm that OGL Section 9 was part of the discussion that led to switching to the Gaming System License?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 1, 2008)

Y'know, I wouldn't put pressure on Linnae to answer the "Section 9" question.  It puts a lot of pressure on something that really isn't our business to know.  Who really cares "why" they changed the license?

Plus, the fact is we may not see the license until 2009.  

And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first.  The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 1, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.




Such a thing doesn't require a lawsuit, nor legal protection, and it certainly doesn't need help.


----------



## Delta (Feb 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first.  The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.




To assert that the licensing manager doesn't know to talk to the lawyers may be the meanest thing I've heard anyone say about WOTC in months. I'd think about apologizing.


----------



## RPGRealms (Feb 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first.  The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.




That's amusing...


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Plus, the fact is we may not see the license until 2009.



Um, no, I think it was pretty clear we'll see the license around June.



> The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.



What is it with you, dude?  I swear, screwing the little guy seems to be some kind of personal crusade for you.  I thought you might be a WotC shill for awhile, but the people at Wizards are a lot less hostile.  Were you attacked by a pile of Creature Catalogs when you were a baby?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 2, 2008)

> What is it with you, dude? I swear, screwing the little guy seems to be some kind of personal crusade for you. I thought you might be a WotC shill for awhile, but the people at Wizards are a lot less hostile. Were you attacked by a pile of Creature Catalogs when you were a baby?




My issue in arguing this points is that in recent years has become "politically incorrect" to support copyright, trademarks, patents, and other forms of IP, to condemn illegal trade of books and electronic content, to even support the rights of authors, to accept compromise over things like protecting content, etc.  It's becoming a cliche' of the "big evil company" screwing over the "poor defenseless little individual".  I'm starting to see an attitude of making the entertainment industry a kleptocracy by its consumers without thinking of the consequences.  

Keep in mind I see abuses of copyright, trademark, patents, content restrictions, etc.  It doesn't mean I don't think they are still good things, I'm not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  The sole individual is served by such protections as well as the multinational conglomerate.  

People seem to think the change in the license is the end of the world.  It's not.  Maybe it will actually encourage people to create.  It might actually have some benefits.  Maybe there will be provisions to allow full use of Wizards Product Identity.  Maybe they'll allow better definition of the publishers PI so that you can create complementary products, but still control it so you don't get what I like to call "ripping"--that is wholesale cut and paste.  The OGL was an experiment, now I guess we'll see if they've worked out the negatives of that particular license.

And it surprises me that instead of asking questions like this--what benefits will the license give to small publishers, what controls will we have--the biggest concern is that "Section 9".


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Maybe it will actually encourage people to create.




What do you think of M&M, True20, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed? 

You are more concerned about the ability to shut down some pissant websites who are "ripping" content wholesale than in 3rd party publishers' ability to _actually create._



> Maybe they'll ... control it so you don't get what I like to call "ripping"--that is wholesale cut and paste.




Wholesale ripping comes in two forms:

1) Reissuing text from the SRD verbatim, by a 3rd party publisher, in a derivative work. This is a GOOD thing. That is the entire ing purpose of the SRD-- to standardize the language and the ruleset, and to propagate the d20 system. Good lord.

2) Pissant websites "ripping" OGC and posting it up. This is a risk that every publisher of OGC accepts, and short of occasionally whining, "Gee, I wish folks wouldn't do that..." it is irrelevant.

There was no epidemic of publishers having their content "ripped off" by another publisher.

You are concerned about a problem that simply doesn't exist.

The same goes for your constant belly-aching about a "glut." The so-called glut was caused by what you like to refer to as the "professional" publishers. You know, the ones who actually had inroads to print distribution. Mongoose, Sword and Sorcery, Fantasy Flight, Green Ronin, AEG, Atlas, Bastion, Paradigm, Privateer, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, and please forgive whoever else I am forgetting. 

ALL professional publishers. ALL producing quality product. ALL competing for shelf space with Wizards of the Coast.

THERE is your glut.

And if you think for a moment that any one of those companies isn't able to pony up 5k and cause the exact same glut, you're kidding yourself.

The "glut" was not caused by hordes of "unprofessional" publishers. This is a complete canard, and if you'd like to refute it, by all means provide examples instead of repeating the same myth ad nauseam.

And don't say Fast Forward Entertainment. 



> And it surprises me that instead of asking questions like this--what benefits will the license give to small publishers, what controls will we have--the biggest concern is that "Section 9".




Come back when you understand the license and are willing to put your money and your hard work on the line, and we'll see what you find relevant or not.

Otherwise, you've achieved troll-dom.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What do you think of M&M, True20, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed?
> 
> You are more concerned about the ability to shut down some pissant websites who are "ripping" content wholesale than in 3rd party publishers' ability to _actually create._




No, because I have a feeling those creators will still be able to create games, under the new GSL.  And we might get variations on the game system.  The OGL as written is not necessary for this type of relationship to occur.

I respect WoTC right to change the license they use for a new game.  The people I've been targeting are not the people who right for the 3e OGL, or people willing to accept the OGL, but the few individual who want to reverse engineer the 4e rules under the 3e OGL.  I support a publishers and individual's right to control their content and choose whatever license/franchise/agreement they see fit, just like I support the individual user's right to either choose to agree and go with an agreement or to not and do without.  

And as far as creating goes...I'm sorry, but there are "levels" of creation.  Creating an entirely new game system from scratch is a lot harder than adapting an existing one, just like sampling is not as creative as creating the music from scratch, or "riffing/snarking" on a movie is not as creative as making an existing movie, or writing a program in ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails is as creative as creating a new computer language.  By that analogy, I think Arcana Evolved is less creative than a new game Monte Cook would create, and I think he'd agree with that.  (AE is more valuable for setting differences IMO).  That was my point.



> 2) Pissant websites "ripping" OGC and posting it up. This is a risk that every publisher of OGC accepts, and short of occasionally whining, "Gee, I wish folks wouldn't do that..." it is irrelevant.




Well, maybe a new license will remove that risk.  I hope it does.



> Come back when you understand the license and are willing to put your money and your hard work on the line, and we'll see what you find relevant or not.
> 
> Otherwise, you've achieved troll-dom.




I understand the license just fine.  I done some work for OGL and non-OGL games.  I, however, am of the opinion that WoTC gave a little too much away with this license, which is probably one of the reasons why the license is being changed now.  You're also passing judgment on the GSL sight unseen.  

And the glut was caused by too much competition, regardless of quality, just like TSR dug their own grave with too much competition in the D&D campaign setting market.  If I was WoTC, I would have only allowed a select few publishers to use the game system, and another license allowing gamers to publish their own content in a non-profit manner without fear of violating copyright, simply because I could see the tragedy of the commons that happened.  I don't think I ever said the glut was solely caused by "bad" publishers.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> My issue in arguing this points is that in recent years has become "politically incorrect" to support copyright, trademarks, patents, and other forms of IP, to condemn illegal trade of books and electronic content, to even support the rights of authors, to accept compromise over things like protecting content, etc.



It's not that it's "politically incorrect" - it's just that people are starting to see the horrible mess that copyright, trademarks, patents, and other forms of monopolies has brought us and fighting for a change. And it will come.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I'm starting to see an attitude of making the entertainment industry a kleptocracy by its consumers without thinking of the consequences.



I see the entertainment industry as a kleptocracy all from its own efforts. More and more people are seeing the same.

But the discussion was about the inherent goodness or badness of the OGL and I would say that it was the strongest move any game company ever made. It's pity if WotC will un-make it now. We'll be right back in TSR land again.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> No, because I have a feeling those creators will still be able to create games, under the new GSL.



You think Green Ronin Publishing can create a new _Mutants & Masterminds_ under the new GSL? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Unless there is a IF-THEN clause in the new GSL, such as "If you wish to use compatibility claim language, then..." they might, but all the restrictions that are carried over from the soon-to-be defunct _d20_STL seems mandatory, as in you HAVE to claim compatibility, not go off the track and make a new standalone rules based on the SRD template.


----------

