# 4e D&D GSL Live



## Scott_Rouse (Jun 18, 2008)

We have posted the 4e D&D GSL here and it is now live.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Jesus


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 18, 2008)

Woot!


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 18, 2008)

Can't wait till Necromancer Games and some of my other favs get squared away and start releasing some 4E stuff!

Good times.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

Damnit. There's little else for us to complain about waiting on.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Damnit. There's little else for us to complain about waiting on.




Except, of course, pretty much every feature of DDI except the mags.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 18, 2008)

Aww, the license prevents websites that just have all the rules. No 4e d20srd.org, though I suppose we already knew that wasn't going to be available.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Interesting. It is exactly as limited as the previous licenses as far as I understand the legalese. No interactive products, no character creation tools, only written stuff.

And the clause about web pages is very irritating. It seems that most content and citations here on ENWorld is "your use of any Wizards of the Coast intellectual property is considered unauthorized and not under license". :/

And you can't change or modify references listed in the SRD. So it is really, really restrictive.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2008)

/cheer


----------



## MatrexsVigil (Jun 18, 2008)

Yeah, my understanding of legal-speak is very, very limited.  Can anyone post what this allows to be published in normal talk?  Please?

-P.C.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 18, 2008)

No beholders, apparently.

And no making derivative games. So Mongoose couldn't, for instance, make a new edition of Conan that uses the 4e style of powers and class progression. But I think they could make up their own game that hews pretty close. I mean, if you're not trying to make your book compatible with WotC's D&D products, you don't need to use this license, and you could probably be legally justified to adopt a lot of their ideas, while still using the old OGL.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 18, 2008)

What's with all the @ signs in SRD.pdf?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

Where's the psionics stuff?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

MatrexsVigil said:
			
		

> Yeah, my understanding of legal-speak is very, very limited.  Can anyone post what this allows to be published in normal talk?  Please?-P.C.




First, IANAL.



			
				GSL2080617 said:
			
		

> 3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”).
> _*snip*_
> For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).




So...
You can create a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format, or anything else what does not fall under those terms:

No websites, interactive products, miniatures, character creators
Don't describe how to create a character or how to level it up
Don't use "Core Rules", "Core Rulebook" or something like it on your cover
Don't refer to and use artwork from the corebooks
Don't reprint stuff from the core books
Don't include your work in magazines or other publications that are not licensed under the GSL (*This includes websites, so don't publish on your website?!*)


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 18, 2008)

It looks like you can't use any of the existing paragon paths or epic destinies. I find that rather odd.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

I noticed that all the demons, devils, slaad, beholders, and yuan-ti, plus the tarrasque, are not available under the GSL.  Let the bitching begin!


----------



## MatrexsVigil (Jun 18, 2008)

But can I say, make up a completely new race?  

Can I give say, Dwarves, different stats?

Could I change the powers available to say, Fighters?

Could I change a specific power's statblock?

I'm looking for what I am allowed to write/change for publishing.  =)

-P.C.


----------



## Family (Jun 18, 2008)

Pelor


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where's the psionics stuff?




There isn't any to refer to.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> There isn't any to refer to.



But Scott mentioned they were holding the GSL back so they could add that stuff in.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I noticed that all the demons, devils, slaad, beholders, and yuan-ti, plus the tarrasque, are not available under the GSL.



The 3e SRD doesn't have: Yaun-ti, displacer beasts, carrion crawlers, beholders, mind flayers, slaad, or umber hulks.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 18, 2008)

> 11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.




Ouch!

Otherwise, about what I expected. Big thanks to Scott, Linae, and everyone else who worked so hard to bring this about. Now you guys can open the champagne bottles...


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

MatrexsVigil said:
			
		

> But can I say, make up a completely new race?



seems like it.



> Can I give say, Dwarves, different stats?



For all dwarves seemingly no. Specific dwarves  as individual NPCS yes.



> Could I change the powers available to say, Fighters?



probably not.



> Could I change a specific power's statblock?



no


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

*Please note, this is only my current understanding of the license upon reading it a few times and crossreferencing the introductory section of the SRD and the FAQ. I might be totally wrong.*



			
				MatrexsVigil said:
			
		

> But can I say, make up a completely new race?






			
				GSL FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I define a new class?
> A: Yes.




I would say this applies to races too.



> Can I give say, Dwarves, different stats?



No, unless they are called something else. Reasons:


			
				GSL FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I extend the definition of a Defined Term?
> A: No. You cannot change the substance or the meaning of the definition.






> Could I change the powers available to say, Fighters?



You could add more powers, but not change or remove existing ones.


			
				GSL20080617 said:
			
		

> not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.






> Could I change a specific power's statblock?



No, same reason as above.


----------



## MatrexsVigil (Jun 18, 2008)

Hmm.  Okay.  That just means if I want a fighter-like class in my setting book, I should call it anything but a Fighter, so I can work with it as I see fit.  Thanks. =)

-P.C.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

My question is if someone can add and define new rules such as new character options like relationships and responsibilities, mass combat rules and the like.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> But Scott mentioned they were holding the GSL back so they could add that stuff in.




It's not there.  It's just be a list of words and phrases anyway no stats.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The 3e SRD doesn't have: Yaun-ti, displacer beasts, carrion crawlers, beholders, mind flayers, slaad, or umber hulks.




Yep, I know, I was just listing the obvious things removed from the SRD on a quick glance.  However, removing all of the existing demons, devils, and the tarrasque is definitely new.

Also, if you cannot change the definition of a 4e term, does that mean no demon succubi even though the succubi is not part of the SRD? IANAL, but my reading says that you couldn't redefine the succubi.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> It's not there.  It's just be a list of words and phrases anyway no stats.



That's fine with me. Theyd' be naming the classes and their roles.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Also if someone does not want to use attributes for PCs or make new ones, or even new skills -can he do this?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

MatrexsVigil said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Okay.  That just means if I want a fighter-like class in my setting book, I should call it anything but a Fighter, so I can work with it as I see fit.  Thanks. =)
> 
> -P.C.




Yes, but you need to rewrite all powers from scratch. I assume you can't say "Howling Sword Dance" works like "Brute Strike" (examples), because the latter is a 4e Reference. Since it is a Fighter Attack power, you couldn't change it to a MyFighter Attack power.

And you can't reprint it, just with a new name... As long as I understand this correctly:


			
				GSL20080617 said:
			
		

> Reprinting. Licensee will not publish or reprint (a) the contents of the SRD in their entirety; or (b) definitions of any 4E References, whether or not similar to those listed in any product published by Wizards.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Jun 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Yep, I know, I was just listing the obvious things removed from the SRD on a quick glance.  However, removing all of the existing demons, devils, and the tarrasque is definitely new.




The actual terms Demon and Devil are listed, just no specific monsters underneath them. Does this mean you can create new demons and devils but you can't use the old ones?


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> The actual terms Demon and Devil are listed, just no specific monsters underneath them. Does this mean you can create new demons and devils but you can't use the old ones?




That would be my interpretation.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Also if someone does not want to use attributes for PCs or make new ones, or even new skills -can he do this?




If you can pull this off, without describing the process of generating a character... Then maybe. But I don't think so. See FAQ:



			
				GSL FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I define a different method of determining ability scores?
> A. Applying ability scores is a pivotal part of character creation and describing character creation is prohibited under the GSL. The GSL also prevents third party publishers from redefining terms.




Edit: New skills should be fine, as long as they don't change existing ones or take away their functionality.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> If you can pull this off, without describing the process of generating a character... Then maybe. But I don't think so. See FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: New skills should be fine, as long as they don't change existing ones or take away their functionality.




Woot, woot...bring on the gazillion versions of the Craft and Profession skill I'm bound to see on October 1st!


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 18, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> The actual terms Demon and Devil are listed, just no specific monsters underneath them. Does this mean you can create new demons and devils but you can't use the old ones?




That would seem reasonable...no 3rd party demon and devil support would be a 4E deal breaker for me since fiends are a pretty central aspect of my homebrew setting.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> That would seem reasonable...no 3rd party demon and devil support would be a 4E deal breaker for me since fiends are a pretty central aspect of my homebrew setting.




They'd have to be created with no reference to any of the core books demons and devils.


----------



## Siberys (Jun 18, 2008)

Soooooo...

Say I didn't like the 4e falling rules (just an example).

Could I make up a whole new set of rules that worked differently, and then call them "plummeting"?

Could I say "Disregard Falling (see the D&D 4E Dungeon Master's Guide)"?

Variant rules was something I was big on. If I can't pull that off, I'll not be happy.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't think that variant rules work as described. You can't change the rules of a Defined Term (falling is one), so you can't say "it doesn't exist anymore use xyz instead".

But of course you could create new rules for "plummeting". I just have no idea how to integrate them with falling.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Siberys said:
			
		

> Soooooo...
> 
> Say I didn't like the 4e falling rules (just an example).
> 
> ...




That's my question too.



			
				xechnao said:
			
		

> My question is if someone can add and define new rules such as new character options like relationships and responsibilities, mass combat rules and the like.




Another possible example is actions in combat (standard, shift and the like). Say I want to add another type of action named "orientation" and add gaming rules regarding it.

Will these stuff be possible?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Damnit. There's little else for us to complain about waiting on.




Come now, we're gamers...I'm sure SOMEBODY will find SOMETHING to complain about...


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 18, 2008)

Siberys said:
			
		

> Soooooo...
> 
> Say I didn't like the 4e falling rules (just an example).
> 
> ...




I hate to say it, but I think the main thing they were going for was to keep people from creating near replacement versions of D&D that went by different names so that people were no longer getting hyped to play D&D...they were getting hyped to play Iron Heroes or some such.  It looks like they succeeded in making this licence closer to the original 3.0 intent...to get people to make adventures to drive sales of the core rules.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Another possible example is actions in combat (standard, shift and the like). Say I want to add another type of action named "orientation" and add gaming rules regarding it.
> 
> Will these stuff be possible?




Again...



			
				GSL20080617 said:
			
		

> not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.




You can't change existing actions. But you might add new ones, as long as they don't change anything else.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 18, 2008)

I noticed that the OGL Bottle Genie is not in the SRD. 

Was that intentional?



--Erik


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> You can't change existing actions. But you might add new ones, as long as they don't change anything else.




So I guess I could add rules for henchmen, mass combat, summoning and controlling summoned creatures and the like, right?


----------



## Siberys (Jun 18, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> I hate to say it, but I think the main thing they were going for was to keep people from creating near replacement versions of D&D that went by different names so that people were no longer getting hyped to play D&D...they were getting hyped to play Iron Heroes or some such.  It looks like they succeeded in making this licence closer to the original 3.0 intent...to get people to make adventures to drive sales of the core rules.




See, I don't want a 4e IH. I want a 4e UA, and I'd like to make it myself, if I felt like it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with. 

Aside from that, I saw no mention of other publishers designating content as open for others to use. While there wasn't an overabundance of publishers using this in 3rd edition, it would still be nice to have a book or two of 3rd party monsters that could be used.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So I guess I could add rules for henchmen, mass combat, summoning and controlling summoned creatures and the like, right?



As long as nothing requires you to change *anything* that is defined in the SRD, I would say "yes".


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.




They don't own the tarrasque, either, but it doesn't stop them from claiming they do.

The displacer beast was ripped off from A.E. Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer," and that was verboten content for 3.5, so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.

--Erik


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.
> 
> Aside from that, I saw no mention of other publishers designating content as open for others to use. While there wasn't an overabundance of publishers using this in 3rd edition, it would still be nice to have a book or two of 3rd party monsters that could be used.




That's in Section 10.2


----------



## RSKennan (Jun 18, 2008)

Looks like 4e needs an Osric.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> As long as nothing requires you to change *anything* that is defined in the SRD, I would say "yes".




Ok. Thanks for your time. I am not as much interested in supporting 4e but I want to get a more or less clear idea for what to expect from the GSL.
Thank you


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Ok. Thanks for your time. I am not as much interested in supporting 4e but I want to get a more or less clear idea for what to expect from the GSL.
> Thank you




Sure.  But please note that my answers are only based on my understanding of the license. To be really sure you would either need an official answer, or a lawyer.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> As long as nothing requires you to change *anything* that is defined in the SRD, I would say "yes".



In other words:

You can only _add_ things to the existing rules. Any addition cannot disqualify an existing rule in the SRD or take its usefulness.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> That's in Section 10.2




Yeah, so if I'm reading it right, that means it's up to you to make arrangements with third party publishers to use their rules content?


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Yeah, so if I'm reading it right, that means it's up to you to make arrangements with third party publishers to use their rules content?




Yep. Its certainly against the spirit of Open Gaming, but this prevents lame PDF publishers from creating tons of compilation products. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Yeah, so if I'm reading it right, that means it's up to you to make arrangements with third party publishers to use their rules content?




IANAL, but that's how I'm reading it too.  The third party content has to be 4e GSL compliant too, since you act as the licensee in that relationship.


----------



## Siberys (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> In other words:
> 
> You can only _add_ things to the existing rules. Any addition cannot disqualify an existing rule in the SRD or take its usefulness.




So, are they neutering my idea for a third-party UA-esque book? Or _could_ I, so long as I didn't go out and say "Disregard this rule", or something to that effect, and hope that the readership understands that, in use, certain rules need to be deleted for it to work?


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

The clause I find interesting is that if you make a GSL product, you can never make that product an OGL product EVEN AFTER THE LICENSE TERMINATES.

This should be interesting.

Also, since Dungeon Crawl Classics is a product line, all 3.x DCCs must be off the market (including .pdfs) once Goodman creates its first 4E DCC.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 18, 2008)

I noticed there's nothing like the section 15 of the OGL. Does this mean I don't have to note my sources if I reuse stuff from another 3pp?


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm not a publisher, so I can take all of this with a grain of salt.  But if I *were* a publisher, especially a publisher who was accustomed to working under the earlier license, I would be wary.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> I noticed there's nothing like the section 15 of the OGL. Does this mean I don't have to note my sources if I reuse stuff from another 3pp?




See the comments about Section 10.2 above. You need to negotiate or license the 3pp stuff you want to use yourself.

If that includes that you have to note down your sources, you must do so.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Yep. Its certainly against the spirit of Open Gaming, but this prevents lame PDF publishers from creating tons of compilation products. I couldn't be happier.




I really didn't see much of this going on under the OGL, besides, publishers were always welcome to designate any portion of their new rules content closed anyway. What this does is make it so that every publisher that wants to open up their product has to come up with their own license. Lame.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> I hate to say it, but I think the main thing they were going for was to keep people from creating near replacement versions of D&D that went by different names so that people were no longer getting hyped to play D&D...they were getting hyped to play Iron Heroes or some such.  It looks like they succeeded in making this licence closer to the original 3.0 intent...to get people to make adventures to drive sales of the core rules.




I think that is the intent of the GSL... You can create new content that expands the game in accordance with the core rules. You can create adventures and modules, new classes, monsters and such stuff.

But you can't change the basic rule framework, or convert it with special rules.

Likely it is ment to provide a steady growth for the core 4e and to stop the creation of such things as Pathfinder.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> I noticed there's nothing like the section 15 of the OGL. Does this mean I don't have to note my sources if I reuse stuff from another 3pp?




It means you must comply with any other 3pp as they wish you to each and every case will be up to the originators of the material.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 18, 2008)

What about for publishing campaigns Vs. Character creation?
I can't put in my campaign book "use 30 point buy instead of normal point buy" for example just because it refers to a method of character creation?


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 18, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The clause I find interesting is that if you make a GSL product, you can never make that product an OGL product EVEN AFTER THE LICENSE TERMINATES.
> 
> This should be interesting.
> 
> Also, since Dungeon Crawl Classics is a product line, all 3.x DCCs must be off the market (including .pdfs) once Goodman creates its first 4E DCC.




Can they just start a new line of modules that's called something besides Dungeon Crawl Classics and still be safe?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2008)

The thing that concerns me is the issue of reprinting and the prohibition against it.  yes, i understand that they are trying to avoid a Pocket Player's Handbook type situation, but what does that mean for adventures?  Does that mean you can't actually print a whole stat block for a creature that is referenced in the SRD?  What about rules information for powers, skills, feats and the like?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> What about for publishing campaigns Vs. Character creation?
> I can't put in my campaign book "use 30 point buy instead of normal point buy" for example just because it refers to a method of character creation?




I would say, you can't. It changes the rules of a 4E Reference and mentions character creation.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> What about rules information for powers, skills, feats and the like?




You can't print the rules information for powers, skills, feat s and the like.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I really didn't see much of this going on under the OGL, besides, publishers were always welcome to designate any portion of their new rules content closed anyway. What this does is make it so that every publisher that wants to open up their product has to come up with their own license. Lame.




Then you haven't looked hard enough. How many SRD compilations are there for instance? An entire license? What's wrong with x, y, and z are copyright and/or trademark Inner Circle, LLC and are used with permission? Big deal.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The thing that concerns me is the issue of reprinting and the prohibition against it.  yes, i understand that they are trying to avoid a Pocket Player's Handbook type situation, but what does that mean for adventures?  Does that mean you can't actually print a whole stat block for a creature that is referenced in the SRD?  What about rules information for powers, skills, feats and the like?



If you want to use the statblock verbatim you must reference it. You are not allowed to repost it in this case. Same for all other rules information that is a 4E Reference. No reposting, only referencing.


----------



## Family (Jun 18, 2008)

Oh heck...why not (raise shields, initiate anti-troll authentication):
The SRD was an attempt to open up D&D and bring droves of new player's in. It was a costly experiment that bound WotC tightly. This time they are trying to open up the game by targeting a new demographic (but I don't feel left out either) and by making the ease of use and moments of glory more accessible. It is a toy; I wouldn't expect to see Barbie (Mattle) accessories for Mr. Potato Head (Hasbro). [Although Mr. Rouse uses Barbies in D&D play  ]

If they can control the content others make for their system that will mean they can sell more 1st party items, and secure the revenue that 3rd parties would otherwise make. Profitable company looks good to a guy like me who wants his hobby to stick around and get solid corporate support.

It's not like they aren’t letting other kids play on their team, the GSL didn't have to exist at all. Having read it, it does seem workable. It's just not handing over the keys this time around.

Let he who is without…*SMACK* ow…hey!


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> You can't print the rules information for powers, skills, feat s and the like.




Well, that pretty much kills the idea of a useful module, doesn't it.  I mean, it doesn't matter how awesome you adventure is, how well written, if you have to say, "See MM page XX for goblin stats."  So, you either have to create everything from scratch or just reference the Core?

I'm surprised.  I assumed that the one thing the GSL would do is support 3rd party adventures so more people would be playing the game.  If this is really the way the license works, they are begging for a 4E full craptastic class crunch books and monster manuals.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that pretty much kills the idea of a useful module, doesn't it.  I mean, it doesn't matter how awesome you adventure is, how well written, if you have to say, "See MM page XX for goblin stats."  So, you either have to create everything from scratch or just reference the Core?




Yes, you must reference the MM. No page reference either, that is not allowed under the GSL.

Edit: One example was given.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Monsters (see the D&D 4E MONSTER MANUAL):
> Bugbear Strangler, 2 Bugbear Warriors, and 3
> hobgoblin soldiers.
> Since the grimlocks have blindsight, you should
> ...






> I'm surprised.  I assumed that the one thing the GSL would do is support 3rd party adventures so more people would be playing the game.  If this is really the way the license works, they are begging for a 4E full craptastic class crunch books and monster manuals.




It still supports them. But you will need the core books to use supplements and adventures now.


----------



## Vascant (Jun 18, 2008)

I have to say, this is the worst possible situation...


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I mean, it doesn't matter how awesome you adventure is, how well written, if you have to say, "See MM page XX for goblin stats."



You can't even do that because page references are disallowed (admitted, with a good reason).

One concern I saw made is that WotC can yank the GSL and effectively kill a product line published under the GSL (since they can't later publish in under the OGL per the license).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Then you haven't looked hard enough. How many SRD compilations are there for instance? An entire license? What's wrong with x, y, and z are copyright and/or trademark Inner Circle, LLC and are used with permission? Big deal.




Sure, easy to use, but what about the guy who wants to create the product that is entirely open? What language can he use to designate all of a book's content as fair use for other third party publishers? Under the OGL it was as simple as a statement such as, "The entire contents of this book are designated as open game content." You can't do this under the current license, so now said publisher needs to get an attorney and create some custom thing that essentially does the same thing. Or, they might just scrap the idea because it's not worth the effort anymore.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 18, 2008)

> Looks like 4e needs an Osric.




I think your just asking for a lawsuit if you do that.  Unlike 1e, there is a reasonable license for this, so it's not like it's a "dead product".

Based on Ryan D's infamous "How Wizards can get rid of the OGL" on an Industry List, and considering how his other predictions came true, I fully expect somebody who tries that to be made an example of.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> Oh heck...why not (raise shields, initiate anti-troll authentication):
> The SRD was an attempt to open up D&D and bring droves of new player's in. It was a costly experiment that bound WotC tightly. This time they are trying to open up the game by targeting a new demographic (but I don't feel left out either) and by making the ease of use and moments of glory more accessible. It is a toy; I wouldn't expect to see Barbie (Mattle) accessories for Mr. Potato Head (Hasbro). [Although Mr. Rouse uses Barbies in D&D play  ]
> 
> If they can control the content others make for their system that will mean they can sell more 1st party items, and secure the revenue that 3rd parties would otherwise make. Profitable company looks good to a guy like me who wants his hobby to stick around and get solid corporate support.
> ...




I actually think that aside Wizards and D&D it will help the rest of the hobby. I expect more game support on systems other than D20 and this is most important for the long term health of the whole hobby. And this is what really counts in my book.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Or, they might just scrap the idea because it's not worth the effort anymore.



Which might exactly the thing WotC wants. But this is just speculation based on the assumption of "Companies are evil".


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Yes, you must reference the MM. No page reference either, that is not allowed under the GSL.





And if you want to level up your monsters by 3 levels? Reference the Monster Manual and then force the DM to make the necessary adjustments rather than just providing the modified stat block? I would absolutely hate that as a DM. In fact, it might even keep me from buying 3rd party adventures.


----------



## Siberys (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> "See MM page XX for goblin stats."




Actually, you'd have to say something like "2 Goblin Hexers (See the D&D 4E Monster Manual)". Even worse, due to lack of page references.

If variant rules aren't allowed, could I sidestep the License by not using it? Saying "Compatible with the newest version of the most popular RPG in the world!", and "Replace the Falling rules found on page xx of Rulebook II with the following"? What about "You may use this option is place of the Falling rules found on page xx of Rulebook II"?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> And if you want to level up your monsters by 3 levels? Reference the Monster Manual and then force the DM to make the necessary adjustments rather than just providing the modified stat block? I would absolutely hate that as a DM. In fact, it might even keep me from buying 3rd party adventures.



No, in that case you are allowed to post the new stat block, if you use the stat block template that is presented in the SRD.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> You may print the results of applied mechanics within the context of your Licensed Product. For example, you may not reprint the statistics of a kobold wyrmpriest or the lich template in a Licensed Product, nor may you define these 4E References. You may, however, print a kobold wyrmpriest lich that you create and that is relevant to your Licensed Product. Similarly, when you create an NPC, you may apply the NPC Magic Threshold (D&D 4E Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 187) rule to that NPC. You might also print the specific attack bonus and damage for an NPC’s paladin power, even though you cannot reprint the power text from the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 18, 2008)

Does the not refrencing or reusing of art from the core books also mean there won't be art galleries for 4E products?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> No, in that case you are allowed to post the new stat block, if you use the stat block that is presented in the SRD.




Ah, good. Much less lame.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Siberys said:
			
		

> If variant rules aren't allowed, could I sidestep the License by not using it? Saying "Compatible with the newest version of the most popular RPG in the world!", and "Replace the Falling rules found on page xx of Rulebook II with the following"?




I would not try such a thing without consulting a lawyer beforehand. :/


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> And if you want to level up your monsters by 3 levels? Reference the Monster Manual and then force the DM to make the necessary adjustments rather than just providing the modified stat block? I would absolutely hate that as a DM. In fact, it might even keep me from buying 3rd party adventures.



If you apply changes to the monster you can print the stat block: page 2 of SRD:







			
				for review purposes only said:
			
		

> Applied Mechanical Results
> You may print the results of applied mechanics within the context of your Licensed Product. For example, you may not reprint the statistics of a kobold wyrmpriest or the lich template in a Licensed Product, nor may you define these 4E References. You may, however, print a kobold wyrmpriest lich that you create and that is relevant to your Licensed Product. Similarly, when you create an NPC, you may apply the NPC Magic Threshold (D&D 4E Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 187) rule to that NPC. You might also print the specific attack bonus and damage for an NPC’s paladin power, even though you cannot reprint the power
> text from the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook.



So all monsters in modules will be somewhat unique I'm presuming just so the publisher can include all statblocks for DM convenience.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm wondering what the response from Goodman and Necromancer is going to be.  Paizo's Erik Mona already indicated that they made the right choice in sticking with the OGL:

From paizo's messageboards (Erik's responses to DudeMonkey):

"DudeMonkey wrote:

WotC is basically saying that they can yank the rug out from under you any time they want with this license. Is that how it reads to everyone else?


          Yes, that's my take.

DudeMonkey wrote:

I don't think I would publish under this license if I was in this industry, professionally speaking. 


          That's my take, too."


----------



## Talath (Jun 18, 2008)

So, where the psionics be? Has this question already been answered? I'd go wading the WotC forums for an answer but ... I'd rather not.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Talath said:
			
		

> So, where the psionics be? Has this question already been answered? I'd go wading the WotC forums for an answer but ... I'd rather not.



Seems they got cut.


----------



## tovokas (Jun 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that pretty much kills the idea of a useful module, doesn't it.  I mean, it doesn't matter how awesome you adventure is, how well written, if you have to say, "See MM page XX for goblin stats."  So, you either have to create everything from scratch or just reference the Core?




I agree, if this actually is the case. 

Keep on the Shadowfells' best feature  is that most encounters sit nicely in a two page spread - with pretty much all the info you need to run it right there. Previously, similar things were created using 3.5 stat blocks: it speeds up play dramatically, saves wear and tear on your books. 

It's difficult to imagine them expecting DM's to plow back and forth through all the source books during a fight... haven't had to do that in years. If true it would constitute a big step backwards.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

tovokas said:
			
		

> I agree, if this actually is the case.
> 
> Keep on the Shadowfells' best feature  is that most encounters sit nicely in a two page spread - with pretty much all the info you need to run it right there. Previously, similar things were created using 3.5 stat blocks: it speeds up play dramatically, saves wear and tear on your books.
> 
> It's difficult to imagine them expecting DM's to plow back and forth through all the source books during a fight... haven't had to do that in years. If true it would constitute a big step backwards.



I agree. However, as pointed out on the last page, if you make any modifications to a stat block (for instance, leveling it), then you can print it.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I agree. However, as pointed out on the last page, if you make any modifications to a stat block (for instance, leveling it), then you can print it.




just not the monster special ability descriptions, those aren't up for grabs.


----------



## Henry (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think your just asking for a lawsuit if you do that.  Unlike 1e, there is a reasonable license for this, so it's not like it's a "dead product".
> 
> Based on Ryan D's infamous "How Wizards can get rid of the OGL" on an Industry List, and considering how his other predictions came true, I fully expect somebody who tries that to be made an example of.




Funny enough, it could be done, I think, or at least to about 75% of the system, without legal consequence, because all the components needed are already Open Game Content, and as long as you were to go out of your way to avoid terminology from the GSL, or anything not based on an exact mathematical formula, you could do it. 

I'm not planning to do it, because I have no monetary or idealistic reason to do so, nor am I a gambling man, but looking back over the SRD, and various third party products that Mike Mearls has worked on, the core solutions that 4e provide are already in place.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think your just asking for a lawsuit if you do that.  Unlike 1e, there is a reasonable license for this, so it's not like it's a "dead product".
> 
> Based on Ryan D's infamous "How Wizards can get rid of the OGL" on an Industry List, and considering how his other predictions came true, I fully expect somebody who tries that to be made an example of.




I seriously doubt that. There's little to no chance that WotC would win such a suit; their only viable tactic would be trying to win by attrition (e.g. the other guy's money for legal fees dries up first). A ruling against WotC would leave rock-solid precedent for such material, and leave that door wide open.

There's a reason they never sent a cease & desist letter to the people who released OSRIC, despite them saying they'd take it down immediately if they ever received one.


----------



## gribble (Jun 18, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> So all monsters in modules will be somewhat unique I'm presuming just so the publisher can include all statblocks for DM convenience.



That was my take on it too. Rather than driving sales of the MM, I see this license as quickly invalidating it. If 90% of the modules on the market (i.e.: all those not written by WotC) use entirely unique monsters (or perhaps monsters compiled/published in a 3rd party product with more generous licensing terms), then what's the point of buying the MM?

Ditto for new Races/Classes - if you're not playing one of the ones defined in the PHB, you really won't need a copy of the PHB because everything you need to use that race/class (all powers, abilities, etc) will have to be in the 3rd party book! At least spellcasting classes still needed the 3.x PHB...


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 18, 2008)

Funny, Ryan also predicted that as well.  

And I didn't think you wouldn't win, but I think WoTC will fiercely protect themselves.

I noticed also in the GSL that they are working hard to prevent anybody from thinking people that this game is "derived" from the older versions.  The 3e OGL had references to it being based on the creation of Gygax and Arneson in the license, the 4e ignores all prior versions and just give credit to the new design team.  

I'll bet they argue that it's "not a derivative work" in any court proceedings.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Can they just start a new line of modules that's called something besides Dungeon Crawl Classics and still be safe?




Sure - but then they lose the name recognition of their DCC brand.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 18, 2008)

> I seriously doubt that. There's little to no chance that WotC would win such a suit; their only viable tactic would be trying to win by attrition (e.g. the other guy's money for legal fees dries up first). A ruling against WotC would leave rock-solid precedent for such material, and leave that door wide open.




True, but a ruling for WoTC would set precedent that games CAN be copyrighted, and also I don't believe they will let the OGL be used to rip off all their property if they decide not to use it anymore (as well as completely change the game system so it has little resemblance to the older game).



> There's a reason they never sent a cease & desist letter to the people who released OSRIC, despite them saying they'd take it down immediately if they ever received one.




I believe that the reason is not legal but "we don't care about the old forms of the games, we don't support it".  It's a bigger situation with 4e however.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 18, 2008)

Well, now that I've read the entire thing word for word, one part of the GSL kinda jumped out at me, especially after Wizards expressly forbids us stealing their intelectual property.



			
				GSL said:
			
		

> 18. Independent Development. Nothing in this License will impair Wizards’ right to acquire, license, develop, have others develop for it, market and/or distribute materials or products that contain concepts, storylines, or other content similar to, or otherwise compete with, Licensed Products.




Legalese to english translation:
Wizards may take your intelectual property you wrote using this liscence and use it themselves in part or in whole if they wish.

I mean, I still want to publish D&D material, but come on, if I write an epic adventure (Which I did) Wizards is stating that it can take the whole storyline I wrote and make their own exact copy if they want, and I can't do anything about it?


----------



## jgerman (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.





They don't own them, however, if you accept the GSL and publish under that license you'll have to act as if they do.


----------



## Henry (Jun 18, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Sure - but then they lose the name recognition of their DCC brand.




That doesn't seem like a huge worry -- they had to build the name recognition of Dungeon Crawl Classics in the first place.  Also, given the 3e / 4e divide that looks like it's shaping up, the people buying DCC are likely as not to be buying any 4e stuff from Goodman. I'd think they were better served selling to both crowds, but that's just me.



			
				Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I mean, I still want to publish D&D material, but come on, if I write an epic adventure (Which I did) Wizards is stating that it can take the whole storyline I wrote and make their own exact copy if they want, and I can't do anything about it?




To be fair, that's not really different from the OGL. Note "similar to" not "identical". I don't think WotC has ever had an interest in nabbing another person's idea whole cloth. I've seen parallel development, but frankly it's more likely to be a small person jumping THEIR ideas, not the other way around.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> True, but a ruling for WoTC would set precedent that games CAN be copyrighted, and also I don't believe they will let the OGL be used to rip off all their property if they decide not to use it anymore (as well as completely change the game system so it has little resemblance to the older game).




No such ruling would ever happen. It'd completely fly in the face of existing law and drastically alter existing copyright rules. And I do believe that WotC will let the OGL be used to create a compatible game, since (a) they can't stop someone from doing it, and (b) don't want a court decision defending peoples' right to do it.



> _I believe that the reason is not legal but "we don't care about the old forms of the games, we don't support it".  It's a bigger situation with 4e however._




That might be their stated reason. However, they still could have sent a cease and desist letter at any time, for virtually no cost, but never did. I think that'd be the same here. Either way, I think we'll likely soon find out.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.




I think Disney manage to do a decent job of mining the public domain for their movies and then inappropriately holding onto them under copyright law. I'm not going to attribute any motives to WotC but I suppose it's possible they're attempting something similar.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> Legalese to english translation:
> Wizards may take your intelectual property you wrote using this liscence and use it themselves in part or in whole if they wish.



That's not how I read it.  The "Nothing in this License will impair Wizards’ right..." seems to just be saying you don't get any additional protection from such things because of the license.  They aren't getting any additional rights, just asserting that nothing here is giving away any of those rights.

I think they are particularly protecting themselves from such things as Necromancer creating a 4E bard before WotC and trying to claim that WotC couldn't publish it (not that they would try to).


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I mean, I still want to publish D&D material, but come on, if I write an epic adventure (Which I did) Wizards is stating that it can take the whole storyline I wrote and make their own exact copy if they want, and I can't do anything about it?



I don't think so, actually.  They can "acquire" it, but not "seize.  I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain the license doesn't give them the unilateral right to take your concepts without giving something in return.  It does give them the right to function without the license, however.

And I just have to say, this is almost exactly what I was expecting.

Ironically, it'll make a 4e Tome of Horrors and similar products even more desirable and bigger competition for the Monster Manual if Clark does what I think he'll do, and add a seperate license permitting 4e 3rd party publishers to use material in his books at the cost of opening up your own product in a like manner.  That'd create an independant pool of 3rd party design material to draw upon, unconnected to WotC's proprietary pool.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 18, 2008)

Independent Development isn't meant for them to "(kill you and) take your stuff"

It's meant to protect them from somebody suing them for having a legitimate parallel idea.  This happens.  If they don't have this you'll get people claiming their "Book of the Undead" has concepts similar to the third party one published 2 months ago.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Independent Development isn't meant for them to "(kill you and) take your stuff"
> 
> It's meant to protect them from somebody suing them for having a legitimate parallel idea.  This happens.  If they don't have this you'll get people claiming their "Book of the Undead" has concepts similar to the third party one published 2 months ago.



Yes, I very much don't want to be killed, and my stuff to be taken. Well, off to the printer so I can sign the agreement, and start convering!


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 18, 2008)

One more general question. I didn't see it in the liscence, but if you're unsure about your contents "conformity" to the rules, do we have the ability to ask for a review?

(My campaign is a general horror based meat-grinder) I don't know if it's "too violent" for this GSL or not.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 18, 2008)

Vascant said:
			
		

> I have to say, this is the worst possible situation...



And it doesn't surpise me at all.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think your just asking for a lawsuit if you do that.  Unlike 1e, there is a reasonable license for this, so it's not like it's a "dead product"....Based on Ryan D's infamous "How Wizards can get rid of the OGL" on an Industry List, and considering how his other predictions came true, I fully expect somebody who tries that to be made an example of.



That's what this seems like it was intended to do.  Not that there aren't ways around it either.  If you handed it to someone in the right country to distribute they wouldn't even hear a case.  Just look at Russia for example which does not recognize foreign copyright law.  It isn't the only one.

EDIT:  Russia has apparently revised it's copyright law with a new version which went into effect a couple of months ago.  I'm wading through it now but this may close one door to any sort of OSRIC 4e attempt.


----------



## Obrysii (Jun 18, 2008)

So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.

What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 18, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Ironically, it'll make a 4e Tome of Horrors and similar products even more desirable and bigger competition for the Monster Manual if Clark does what I think he'll do, and add a seperate license permitting 4e 3rd party publishers to use material in his books at the cost of opening up your own product in a like manner.  That'd create an independant pool of 3rd party design material to draw upon, unconnected to WotC's proprietary pool.




Here's an interesting thought though. Let's say Necromancer does make the 4e Tome of Horrors and includes the flumph. They also make their own separate license as you've described above.

Fast forward to summer '09, and WotC puts their own "official" version of the flumph in MM2, which has a very different stat block. Wizards adds the flumph to the SRD. I come along and create an adventure using Necromancer's flumph, complete with the Necromancer special license.

*Question 1*: Can WotC then come after me for using the flumph, since I went against the GSL and used a different stat block?

*Question 2*: Could WotC retroactively tell Necromancer it cannot produce future products containing the flumph unless said products adhere to the new, "official" flumph SRD entry and the GSL? Could they even do something about the pre-wizards product (I doubt it but worth asking)


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.
> 
> What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.




This is a logic question that has an illogic answer regarding material itself: a 10cm2 circa surface which depicts 16 letters: "dungeons&dragons"


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 18, 2008)

I believe in people's IP rights. Nevertheless, I have no intention of being a contracted, occasionally paid snitch a la 10.3.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 18, 2008)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.
> 
> What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.



If you have the ability and resources to make a whole system that is good enough to not only make it past your friends, but into publishing, more power to you!
I've tried inventing my own systems before... and failed horribly. Using established rules sets created by professionals just makes things easy.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting thought though. Let's say Necromancer does make the 4e Tome of Horrors and includes the flumph. They also make their own separate license as you've described above.
> 
> Fast forward to summer '09, and WotC puts their own "official" version of the flumph in MM2, which has a very different stat block. Wizards adds the flumph to the SRD. I come along and create an adventure using Necromancer's flumph, complete with the Necromancer special license.
> 
> ...




There is a problem I think. Since, if I got this right they keep referring to no reprinting or redefining from core and they intend to produce each year a core line each GSL license might only be applicable for a year as the SRD will get renewed each year.

Of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> If you have the ability and resources to make a whole system that is good enough to not only make it past your friends, but into publishing, more power to you!
> I've tried inventing my own systems before... and failed horribly. Using established rules sets created by professionals just makes things easy.



 Creating a game system isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, in my experience, but you have a huge marketing advantage going with the D&D brand.


----------



## gribble (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> *Question 2*: Could WotC retroactively tell Necromancer it cannot produce future products containing the flumph unless said products adhere to the new, "official" flumph SRD entry and the GSL? Could they even do something about the pre-wizards product (I doubt it but worth asking)



I can't see anything preventing this, WotC's right to revoke a publishers right to use the GSL at any time notwithstanding (which they could certianly use in this situation to get rid of the pre-wizards product). By my reading, any published product must comply with the most recent version of the SRD or License, so if WotC defines something in one of their products and adds it to the SRD, any 3rd party product redefining that term is now in violation (even if they defined it first).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Funny enough, it could be done, I think, or at least to about 75% of the system, without legal consequence, because all the components needed are already Open Game Content, and as long as you were to go out of your way to avoid terminology from the GSL, or anything not based on an exact mathematical formula, you could do it... The core solutions that 4e provide are already in place.




Not all of them, but most of them.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 18, 2008)

gribble said:
			
		

> I can't see anything preventing this, WotC's right to revoke a publishers right to use the GSL at any time notwithstanding (which they could certianly use in this situation to get rid of the pre-wizards product). By my reading, any published product must comply with the most recent version of the SRD or License, so if WotC defines something in one of their products and adds it to the SRD, any 3rd party product redefining that term is now in violation (even if they defined it first).




If what you say turns out to be correct, then I can't see any publisher ever wanting to create anything for 4E, since the life expecancy of any product is essentially determined by the whims of WotC. You might have 5 years, you might have 5 weeks. Not worth the investment of time and money.


----------



## Zil (Jun 18, 2008)

Talath said:
			
		

> So, where the psionics be? Has this question already been answered? I'd go wading the WotC forums for an answer but ... I'd rather not.



If you search the SRD, you'll find a single reference to psionics (and just the word as a power source).


----------



## Hawke (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm really disappointed. I feel like the third party content just got castrated and now I'm faced with a restrictive choice - how much do I want to buy into wotc. I like 4E... but this really concerns me.


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So I guess I could add rules for henchmen, mass combat, summoning and controlling summoned creatures and the like, right?




What happens when WotC puts out a splatbook later on and adds its own version of these things, then SRD's them? Are you then forced to pull your product from shelves and burn unsold stock?


----------



## Kez Darksun (Jun 18, 2008)

After seeing the GSL & SRD and the discussion on it so far, my first reaction was to go download the Pathfinder RPG to check it out.  I'm still planning on taking a look at more of the 4th edition products from WotC, but I am extremely interested in seeing the reaction to the GSL from 3rd Part Publishers who had previously stated an interest in developing for 4th edition.  If I see some of them move away from 4th edition back to 3.5 based on how restrictive the GSL is, I may make that move with them.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Sure, easy to use, but what about the guy who wants to create the product that is entirely open? What language can he use to designate all of a book's content as fair use for other third party publishers? Under the OGL it was as simple as a statement such as, "The entire contents of this book are designated as open game content."




You create a similar statement that says something to the effect of: "The contents of this product can be redistributed as Third Party IP under the terms of the GSL." You have a lawyer check it over and you're done.

Again, its something simple that really isn't a big deal. The whole product designation piece was a major pain. I'm glad this has been cast to the four winds.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

arcady said:
			
		

> What happens when WotC puts out a splatbook later on and adds its own version of these things, then SRD's them? Are you then forced to pull your product from shelves and burn unsold stock?




Yep, sounds problematic.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> They don't own the tarrasque, either, but it doesn't stop them from claiming they do.
> 
> The displacer beast was ripped off from A.E. Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer," and that was verboten content for 3.5, so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.




I am reminded about when West End Games was contacted by Chevrolet over the use of the term "corvette".


----------



## Kichwas (Jun 18, 2008)

Kez Darksun said:
			
		

> After seeing the GSL & SRD and the discussion on it so far, my first reaction was to go download the Pathfinder RPG to check it out.
> . . .
> If I see some of them move away from 4th edition back to 3.5 based on how restrictive the GSL is, I may make that move with them.




Heavily dependent on Pathfinder getting it -right- from the fan's POV, and others joining in with them rather than competing.

One risk is that every single 3rd party house will put out its own 'Pathfinder' like version of 3.5, leaving fans with a thousand different games to choose from.

At that point, any sane fan will go with 4E even if they don't like it...


----------



## proto128 (Jun 18, 2008)

What kind of corrective action, or severity thereof, can/will WotC take for infractions? Like, can they revoke my use of the GSL if I leave out the ampersand when referencing the core books in one of my products, or is there 'wiggle room'? Is there a warning system, "three strikes you're out" or zero tolerance policy?

Also, how much of a monster's stat block needs to be change in order for it to be printable in a third-party product? If I outfit a band of orcs with falchions instead of greataxes, for instance, would that be printable?

Too many questions. I'm simultaneously excited and frightened by the GSL.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> If what you say turns out to be correct, then I can't see any publisher ever wanting to create anything for 4E, since the life expecancy of any product is essentially determined by the whims of WotC. You might have 5 years, you might have 5 weeks. Not worth the investment of time and money.




Quoted for truth. This goes double in cases of converting an OGL product to a GSL product. Doing so doesn't just mean that you stop selling the entire OGL product line - it means you stop selling the entire OGL product line forever, since that (and several other parts of the GSL) survive the termination of the License. For example:



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I believe in people's IP rights. Nevertheless, I have no intention of being a contracted, occasionally paid snitch a la 10.3.




This part would be true even after the GSL was terminated. Since 10.3 doesn't specify that it's only in relation to GSL-based items, you'd be forced to help protect WotC's IP rights forever.


----------



## jgerman (Jun 18, 2008)

proto128 said:
			
		

> What kind of corrective action, or severity thereof, can/will WotC take for infractions? Like, can they revoke my use of the GSL if I leave out the ampersand when referencing the core books in one of my products, or is there 'wiggle room'? Is there a warning system, "three strikes you're out" or zero tolerance policy?
> 
> Also, how much of a monster's stat block needs to be change in order for it to be printable in a third-party product? If I outfit a band of orcs with falchions instead of greataxes, for instance, would that be printable?
> 
> Too many questions. I'm simultaneously excited and frightened by the GSL.





They can do whatever they want. They don't have to be consistent either, they could revoke your license while allowing someone else to retain theirs for the same "offense". 

They don't even need a reason. Keep in mind, if you accept the GSL you are playing in their sandbox  Personally I'm not sure it's worth it. It should be an interesting week.


----------



## arscott (Jun 18, 2008)

No Mordenkainen, No Tenser, No Beholders, No Yuan-ti.

And no Succubi?  Seriously?

I'd hoped that this sort of silliness would end.  It doesn't do any favors for WotC--It encourages 3rd party books to diverge more from WotC's assumed world--And that probably draws customers away from WotC's splatbooks.

Interesingly, it seems like the gods are almost up for grabs.  You can't reference their names, but you can reference their alignments and areas of influence, as listed on page 62.

So your product could talk about "The evil god of war and conquest", or "The unaligned goddess of law and civilization".


----------



## Kez Darksun (Jun 18, 2008)

arcady said:
			
		

> Heavily dependent on Pathfinder getting it -right- from the fan's POV, and others joining in with them rather than competing.
> 
> One risk is that every single 3rd party house will put out its own 'Pathfinder' like version of 3.5, leaving fans with a thousand different games to choose from.
> 
> At that point, any sane fan will go with 4E even if they don't like it...



My point was, that upon seeing the restrictive nature of the GSL, my reaction was to go check out what new is being done under the OGL.  Paizo just happened to be in the process of an open, free, alpha of their Pathfinder RPG, which made it all the more interesting to me given my currently limited gaming budget after purchase of the 4th edition gift set.  

Whether or not Pathfinder is all that its supporters hope it will be, I don't know.  All I know is I am more likely to consider new products for 3.5 than I was before I saw how restrictive the GSL is.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

Other than the missing demons and devils, there is nothing in the GSL that we hadn't heard about before or were expecting (at least the big stuff, I guess the lack of full stat blocks for MM monsters is kind of surprising) so I'm not sure why some of us are acting so surprised.

In any case, the GSL seems to indicate a clear road-map for 3rd party publishers going forward.  Anything OGL that is still selling well, don't convert it and keep it completely separate from your GSL products.  Keep your print runs relatively small and then concentrate on .pdf sales; perhaps take your own IP and sell systemless supplements outside both the OGL and GSL.  Whatever you do, don't try to straight up convert older D&D IP that hasn't been published by WoTC yet; in fact, if you're going to remotely go down this path, borrow a concept from WoTC and use noun-noun names or use something really obscure (don't use bard, use awesome lutemaster or dread skald...).  If you don't want to follow these provisions, get a lawyer and try to get a separate, side agreement from WoTC.


----------



## Chibbell (Jun 18, 2008)

So what exactly does 5.5 mean about websites, minis and the like? 

Do they mean that you can't license a website, interactive product or minis? Or do they somehow mean you can't use a website, build an interactive product or sell minis that are associated with your licensed product?

I can't imagine that they would try to keep you from having a website. On the other hand, I can see them trying to keep publishers from playing in the online software and minis realm.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 18, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> And no making derivative games. So Mongoose couldn't, for instance, make a new edition of Conan that uses the 4e style of powers and class progression. .





Thank Crom for that!

jh


----------



## Kishin (Jun 18, 2008)

What's weird to me is that they included the languages as 4E References...


----------



## am181d (Jun 18, 2008)

Chibbell said:
			
		

> I can't imagine that they would try to keep you from having a website. On the other hand, I can see them trying to keep publishers from playing in the online software and minis realm.




You can't have a website that's a GSL product. This does not stop you from selling GSL products through a website.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 18, 2008)

What WotC Can Do: Anything they want to do, whenever they want to do it. And it's YOUR responsibility to keep informed of what they're doing to you.

What they have granted you the right do: What you can already do for free. They have essentially forbade you from copying anything copyrightable or trademarkable.  Whoop de doo.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 18, 2008)

arcady said:
			
		

> Heavily dependent on Pathfinder getting it -right- from the fan's POV, and others joining in with them rather than competing.
> 
> One risk is that every single 3rd party house will put out its own 'Pathfinder' like version of 3.5, leaving fans with a thousand different games to choose from.
> 
> At that point, any sane fan will go with 4E even if they don't like it...



Don't count on it. Then again, I'm not exactly, well...


----------



## Clueless (Jun 18, 2008)

Huh.
Ok - is the website restriction only for those under the GSL aka - the for profit companies? Do they even have the concept of a fanpage anymore?


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Other than the missing demons and devils, there is nothing in the GSL that we hadn't heard about before or were expecting (at least the big stuff, I guess the lack of full stat blocks for MM monsters is kind of surprising) so I'm not sure why some of us are acting so surprised.




One other small surprise -- you can't include a monster statblock like you see in Keep on the Shadowfell unless the monster is an original creation of yours. 

This will make 3PP modules inconvenient since you'll need to keep flipping Monster Manual pages to figure out what special abilities like a gnoll's Pack Attack mean.


----------



## Henry (Jun 18, 2008)

Clueless said:
			
		

> Huh.
> Ok - is the website restriction only for those under the GSL aka - the for profit companies? Do they even have the concept of a fanpage anymore?




Answer: The Fan Policy is forthcoming.

However, if I were you, I'd start trying to recontact your WotC rep if you haven't recently, and getting the channels open.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

Chibbell said:
			
		

> Do they mean that you can't license a website, interactive product or minis? Or do they somehow mean you can't use a website, build an interactive product or sell minis that are associated with your licensed product?



I can't imagine Wizards getting a bee up their ass every time someone creates a monster and posts it on the internet. That would be HUGE trouble on their part to stop anyone from posting anything they made with 4e on the internet. 

Not only would the Bad PR turn so many people away, but it'd be a legal death of a thousand cuts.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

Clueless said:
			
		

> Huh.
> Ok - is the website restriction only for those under the GSL aka - the for profit companies? Do they even have the concept of a fanpage anymore?




There's going to be a separate license for fansites that will be released later. So far as I know, the GSL is only for commercial products, and fansites don't need to worry about it.

EDIT: Henry beat me to it.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 18, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> One other small surprise -- you can't include a monster statblock like you see in Keep on the Shadowfell unless the monster is an original creation of yours.
> 
> This will make 3PP modules inconvenient since you'll need to keep flipping Monster Manual pages to figure out what special abilities like a gnoll's Pack Attack mean.




Yeah, that's what I meant.


----------



## pogre (Jun 18, 2008)

Vascant said:
			
		

> I have to say, this is the worst possible situation...



This is the most disappointing post I have seen for a long time. I really count on Vascant's products to prepare my campaign adventures...


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> One other small surprise -- you can't include a monster statblock like you see in Keep on the Shadowfell unless the monster is an original creation of yours.
> 
> This will make 3PP modules inconvenient since you'll need to keep flipping Monster Manual pages to figure out what special abilities like a gnoll's Pack Attack mean.




The SRD seems to suggest that if you make some sort of mechanical change, you can print the stat block.

So I guess we're going to see a lot of monsters with class levels, templates, and/or advanced natural Hit Dice in third-party products (or they'll just change their weapons and armor and say that's enough).


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 18, 2008)

The funny thing is that there's actually less reason for WotC to keep demons, devils, Tarrasques, Yuan ti and such out of the SRD this time around.

Nothing released under the 4e SRD is open content.  At any time they can simply revoke an individual license or an entire product line, so they can always pull it back later.  They retain complete control over all this material -- they're just letting others play with it a little.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The SRD seems to suggest that if you make some sort of mechanical change, you can print the stat block.




Yah -- but I'm concerned they just mean the numerical part of the stat block -- so attack bonuses or changes to hit points.

After all, if I can print the whole stat block by bumping the hit points by one, then why not allow printing the whole stat block to begin with?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What WotC Can Do: Anything they want to do, whenever they want to do it. And it's YOUR responsibility to keep informed of what they're doing to you.
> 
> What they have granted you the right do: What you can already do for free. They have essentially forbade you from copying anything copyrightable or trademarkable.  Whoop de doo.




Sounds like the only benefit is the logo. If you are willing to live without the logo then why not follow copyright law and release compatible stuff without it. It sounds alot safer leagally and ecconomicly (no destroying materials or worrying about past product lines).


----------



## shinmizu (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I can't imagine Wizards getting a bee up their ass every time someone creates a monster and posts it on the internet. That would be HUGE trouble on their part to stop anyone from posting anything they made with 4e on the internet.
> 
> Not only would the Bad PR turn so many people away, but it'd be a legal death of a thousand cuts.



That didn't stop TSR. However, I'd like to hope that history doesn't repeat itself.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Other than the missing demons and devils, there is nothing in the GSL that we hadn't heard about before or were expecting (at least the big stuff, I guess the lack of full stat blocks for MM monsters is kind of surprising) so I'm not sure why some of us are acting so surprised.



I dunno.  This is pretty bad.  While it doesn't explicitly state that the only thing you're allowed to build is modules, this line is the key:


> Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.



And it's not well defined.  Certainly any type of house rule seems prohibited, so Stalker0 is technically not allowed to distribute his wonderful solution to the horribly broken Skill Challenge system.

But it also looks like this line kills any sort of campaign setting uniqueness.  I don't want Star Pact Warlocks in the campaign?  Too bad, that's altering the definition of Warlock.  Healing magic is weaker, so all healing does -1 point?  Not allowed.  I want Raise Dead to be more difficult, and not available until higher levels, or to not have any cost, but rather a quest component?  Not allowed.  Want Eladrin to lose their teleportation ability in exchange for something else because the Feywild was destroyed in that campaign world?  Not allowed.

You know, in retrospect, maybe it's a good thing there's not much fluff in the books, particularly the Monster Manual, because I don't think the GSL allows deviation from even that.

Plus, there's the fact that if WotC produces anything with the same name as a new class or feat you've created, you potentially have to stop sales of your product and choose a different name, reprinting the books, in hopes that the new one doesn't get yoinked.  Great.

So, in short, it looks like the GSL=Modules Only.  That's extremely annoying.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

shinmizu said:
			
		

> That didn't stop TSR. However, I'd like to hope that history doesn't repeat itself.



TSR crumbled before the Internet _really_ took off. Also, information travels much faster now, and the internet gaming community is far more tight knit.

All it would take is a few dozen determined ex-fans to just continually post stuff anonymously to really tie the legal department in knots.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> You know, in retrospect, maybe it's a good thing there's not much fluff in the books, particularly the Monster Manual, because I don't think the GSL allows deviation from even that.



I'm looking at it and I wonder if they specifically created it to drive 3rd parties away.  Because what I'm seeing are things that would make more than a few people say their license isn't worth it and pass it up.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> TSR crumbled before the Internet _really_ took off. Also, information travels much faster now, and the internet gaming community is far more tight knit.
> 
> All it would take is a few dozen determined ex-fans to just continually post stuff anonymously to really tie the legal department in knots.



And the bad press of the attempt would create far too much ill will in exactly the people they count on buying their product.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I'm looking at it and I wonder if they specifically created it to drive 3rd parties away.  Because what I'm seeing are things that would make more than a few people say their license isn't worth it and pass it up.



I don't think that's likely. Yes, WotC got burned by the Castles and Crusades/Conan/M&M/Trued20 that popped up. However, WotC would benefit _greatly_ from 3rd party companies making complimentary products (campaign settings, adventures, etc), because anyone who wants to Make or Play them has to have the Core Books. WotC would sell more books that way.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 18, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Yah -- but I'm concerned they just mean the numerical part of the stat block -- so attack bonuses or changes to hit points.




Right.  If you change the Orc Berserker's weapon, you can say that he has the melee attack Falchion, and that it is +6, 1d8+4, and that he has the power Warrior's Surge... but you still can't say what Warrior's Surge _does_.  If all you've changed is the weapon, you probably can't list the Orc Berserker's Intelligence or his Speed, since those can be found in the D&D 4E _Monster Manual_.

What I'm also not sure about:
_... you can add functions to 4E References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E Reference._

So you can certainly add the Battleaxe attack to the Orc Berserker, but I don't know if you can take away the Greataxe attack, since that would involve redefining the 4E Reference...

-Hyp.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 18, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Yah -- but I'm concerned they just mean the numerical part of the stat block -- so attack bonuses or changes to hit points.
> 
> After all, if I can print the whole stat block by bumping the hit points by one, then why not allow printing the whole stat block to begin with?



Actually, I don't think you can only change a stats block by 1 hit point and publish it. I think you have to make "significant changes" to the stats block by adding levels to it or applying a template to it.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 18, 2008)

I just want to know why d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 are listed in the SRD.

Ummm . . . how exactly am I gonna redefine those terms?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't think that's likely. Yes, WotC got burned by the Castles and Crusades/Conan/M&M/Trued20 that popped up. However, WotC would benefit _greatly_ from 3rd party companies making complimentary products (campaign settings, adventures, etc), because anyone who wants to Make or Play them has to have the Core Books. WotC would sell more books that way.



Yes but the operational question is whether the legal department and the upper management have internalized this?  Because they'll be coming from a different market and different management models.  So they may not fully understand the way RPG market works and be applying a model from another market to it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The SRD seems to suggest that if you make some sort of mechanical change, you can print the stat block.
> 
> So I guess we're going to see a lot of monsters with class levels, templates, and/or advanced natural Hit Dice in third-party products (or they'll just change their weapons and armor and say that's enough).



It is a day long foretold: The Day of Blackdirge!


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 18, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I'm looking at it and I wonder if they specifically created it to drive 3rd parties away.  Because what I'm seeing are things that would make more than a few people say their license isn't worth it and pass it up.



Well, I'm putting together quite a few rituals to add to my campaign, and was seriously considering writing them up in a format suitable for distribution by PDF.  But now don't think that's going to be feasible, because if any name I use happens to get used by WotC, I'll have to change the PDF.  Not only that, but I couldn't even make a ritual that, for instance, allows work to be continued if interrupted, even if it makes sense to do so (such as in the construction of a standing stone or something), because the Rituals chapter states that you can't resume an interrupted ritual. 

I'm still hoping that this is just poorly worded and that they'll update the FAQ with limitations that aren't quite as severe - I still have some faith in them.  But if not...  I'm having trouble seeing why they didn't just disallow everything but modules anyway, if they were going to make things this difficult.


----------



## Talath (Jun 18, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> Well, I'm putting together quite a few rituals to add to my campaign, and was seriously considering writing them up in a format suitable for distribution by PDF.  But now don't think that's going to be feasible, because if any name I use happens to get used by WotC, I'll have to change the PDF.  Not only that, but I couldn't even make a ritual that, for instance, allows work to be continued if interrupted, even if it makes sense to do so (such as in the construction of a standing stone or something), because the Rituals chapter states that you can't resume an interrupted ritual.




I think people are looking at this through cynical eye-glasses. Sure, the GSL is restrictive, but honestly, do you think WotC would approve a license that forced 3pps to modify their published works if WotC happens to use something similar, or similarly named? That's counter-intuitive to their aims. Setting ground rules is fine, but setting up loopsholes to screw 3pps? Thats nonsense. I'm sure this will be clarified.

As for the ritual thing, invent a new category of rituals, but don't call it rituals, and don't use the text from the player's handbook. Or make a feat that gives access to these kinds of rituals and allows them to be resumed after being interrupted, since as the PHB says, feats are exceptions to the rules, and specific rules overrule vague ones.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.



I definitely agree with you, Darrin. Leaving out the demons and devils will kill several OGL products and settings that could go 4E. And, in my opinion, I think that is the point. In order for those products/settings to be revised under the GSL, they will have to be redesigned with new demons and devils that aren't based on WotC's IP.


----------



## seskis281 (Jun 18, 2008)

Talath said:
			
		

> Setting ground rules is fine, but setting up loopsholes to screw 3pps? Thats nonsense. I'm sure this will be clarified.




LOL, no it's not nonsense, it's called trying to eliminate competition and corner the market, not new to any product-based industry.

The OGL can't be undone. HASBRO would love to do so now. So, they go for the next best approach... limit the licensing of the #1 market (the D&D brand name) and use that GSL to force 3pps to make a choice, especially as many are small and carry, often, a single or very limited number of "product lines." It is designed, pretty clearly, to roll back any publishers trying to produce conversions for several systems... like Goodman Games for instance. It forces a choice, and the implicit threat is "you'll be left behind in profitability as we dominate the market."

This doesn't make them evil, or shady or anything... just following a standard of ruthlessness in the business world - a striving for monopoly (and I don't mean the game!). The OGL was a unique, utterly different business model that gave us a great surge in the RPG industry, but then burned it out due to over-production. At this point, the glut of d20 has been washed out and the market is more or less coalesced around a limited number of publishers, some with their own systems, some very much d20. The GSL is clearly designed to squeeze the remaining 3pps into 4e affiliate status.  Paizo didn't bite, and it won't affect TLG (C&C) or Green Ronin (M&M, True20) - although it will make it even more difficult for other systems to find their own 3pps.

In the end WotC might actually help 3pps with this development, especially given the number of disaffected consumers out there.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 18, 2008)

I have a hard time believing WotC would want to really, really bugger 3pps, because bad PR would not help them. 

On the other hand, WotC could be banking on the fact that 95% of D&D players know jack about 3pps and the GSL, and it wouldn't effect their sales too much.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 18, 2008)

Like I said in the 4E forum about this GSL if its as strong armed as it seems to be against 3rd party publishers then not only will I not DM 4E, I will not play it and ban it completely. Even 3rd party publishers who bow to the bully and publish under the GSL. WOTC will make me not only refuse DM the newest version of D&D, refuse to play 4E, but will also make me decide I will never play any version of D&D ever made by WOTC from now on.

So I hope the FAQ and future public dialogue shows the GSL is much nicer than it sounds, but if it is as controlling as it sounds, goodbye WOTC and all future versions of D&D made by them.

I'll stick with the nice and friendly comraderie and community of the current 3rd party publishers.

Come on WOTC, show you can be big and friendly, rather than so fearful that you become a control freak.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The SRD seems to suggest that if you make some sort of mechanical change, you can print the stat block.
> 
> So I guess we're going to see a lot of monsters with class levels, templates, and/or advanced natural Hit Dice in third-party products (or they'll just change their weapons and armor and say that's enough).




Or they'll just change the name of the critter.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 18, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It looks like you can't use any of the existing paragon paths or epic destinies. I find that rather odd.




Could be they're planning on adding it later, but only after they've put out their own Paragon and Epic adventures? (Thus keeping any 3pps from preemptively jumping on that bandwagon before they get there.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 18, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Could be they're planning on adding it later, but only after they've put out their own Paragon and Epic adventures? (Thus keeping any 3pps from preemptively jumping on that bandwagon before they get there.)



That's my guess.


----------



## shinmizu (Jun 18, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> And the bad press of the attempt would create far too much ill will in exactly the people they count on buying their product.



Again, that didn't stop TSR (hence the devlopment of such lovely names as "T$R" and "They Sue Regularly," and I can't name a single soul that's a fan of Lorraine Williams). Never underestimate the potential idiocy of any company's legal department, marketing department, or upper management (especially with Hasbro in the picture).



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing WotC would want to really, really bugger 3pps, because bad PR would not help them.
> 
> On the other hand, WotC could be banking on the fact that 95% of D&D players know jack about 3pps and the GSL, and it wouldn't effect their sales too much.



This is a very strong incentive for them to ignore potential bad press.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 18, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing WotC would want to really, really bugger 3pps, because bad PR would not help them.



I think the license says more than enough on that subject.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Come on WOTC, show you can be big and friendly, rather than so fearful that you become a control freak.



This is not the Peter Adkinson Wotc that Birthed 3E and the SRD & real OGL.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 18, 2008)

shinmizu said:
			
		

> Never underestimate the potential idiocy of any company's legal department, marketing department, or upper management (especially with Hasbro in the picture).




WotC seems to have a much better idea of how quickly information spreads these days (as opposed to TSR in the blossoming days of the online community), and in general does a better idea of taking that into account.

That said, you have a good point (re: Idiocy in upper management).


----------



## resistor (Jun 18, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The clause I find interesting is that if you make a GSL product, you can never make that product an OGL product EVEN AFTER THE LICENSE TERMINATES.




Actually, I don't think that's quite correct.  If you look at Section 6.3, the punishment for re-publishing something back under the OGL is having  your GSL license terminated.  So, in the case that your license was terminated for other reasons, they can't exactly re-terminate it to punish you. ;-)

Even if my reading is incorrect, a restraint against publication under the OGL after termination seems legally shaky to me.  The closest parallel I can think of is a non-compete clause in an employment contract.  The legality of those varies widely from state to state, but in general they require that the scope of the clause be geographically and/or temporally limited, and that it not bar the contractee from being able to earn a livelihood in their field.

It would be interesting to see if a court would agree with such an analogical argument.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 18, 2008)

resistor said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see if a court would agree with such an analogical argument.



Yes, but who has the money to actually take it to court?


----------



## argash (Jun 18, 2008)

After reading section 5.5 I can't help but think that WotC put that in there specifically because they know how badly they suck at software.  By limiting competition it will force everyone to use their craptacular software products even if they don't exist *cough* D&Di *cough*

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.



I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 18, 2008)

argash said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.



Most anything. Avoid the D&D trademarks and you're pretty safe.

BUT. The problem is can you afford to go to court if WotC sues you. Court fees? Discovery? Lawyer fees? How about the time? Do you have the time to spend defending this? Being right and being able to prove you are right are two different things.


----------



## resistor (Jun 18, 2008)

NOTE: I Am Not A Lawyer!



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> True, but a ruling for WoTC would set precedent that games CAN be copyrighted, and also I don't believe they will let the OGL be used to rip off all their property if they decide not to use it anymore (as well as completely change the game system so it has little resemblance to the older game).




Of course games can be copyrighted, but it only covers the text of the game books, not the underlying concepts.  Here's a relevant quote, taken from this ruling:



			
				10th Circuit US Court of Appeals said:
			
		

> [T]he idea/expression dichotomy ... denies copyright protection “to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in [a copyrighted] work.”  17 U.S.C. § 102(b).




The idea/expression dichotomy is central to US copyright and patent law.  Copyright applies to the expression of an idea, not to the idea itself.  A patent, by contrast, is defined as (taken from here :



			
				US Patent Office said:
			
		

> a property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.




US precedent has been very clear on the fact that patents cover inventions (more on the "idea" end of the spectrum), while copyrights cover expressions (at the "expression" end).

So where would that leave OSRIC 4e?  It should, in theory, be possible to create a ruleset that implements the same underlying rules, but does so without duplicating any of the actual expression of said rules from 4e.  One would want to be _very_ thorough about proofing it for "accidental" quoting.  Reproducing tables (like the class power progression) would be difficult, of course.  The simplest method might be to describe the underlying mathematical progressions textually, without quoting the tables.

An interesting possibility would be that an OSRIC4e SRD might describe the progression textually, and then works derivative from that could produce the progression tables as a parallel derivation to that in the 4e core books.  US precedent does recognize the possibility of independent creation (and separate copyright holding) of identical works.  See the quote below, from the same ruling as above:



> “if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats’s Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an ‘author,’ and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats.”  Sheldon, 81 F.2d at 54




In theory, one could argue that tables in a work derived from an OSRIC4e were a parallel creation of the same work, and it would be supported by the fact that the work would be a direct derivative work of the OSRIC4e rules, which would share no derivativity (as far as copyright goes) with the 4e rules.  This is, of course, speculative, and I wouldn't really recommend anyone try it.  But I'd definitely be interested in reading the rulings that resulted. 

-----

The other major consideration is patents.  WotC _does_ have a historical precedent of patenting game mechanics (on CCGs and CSGs), so it's not completely inconceivable that they could attempt to patent some critical element of 4e's mechanics, which would put a halt to anything like OSRIC4e.

The interesting question would be: what could they patent?  The core mechanics (roll a d20 and add modifers to hit a target number) are obviously not new inventions.  Even the "new" stuff with class powers was previously invented in Bo9S, and possibly other RPGs.

Then again, I have no plans to go make an OSRIC4e (woot for Pathfinder!), but logic games sure are fun.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut, that was a good series of posts.



			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> You can't change the rules of a Defined Term (falling is one), so you can't say "it doesn't exist anymore use xyz instead".



I'm not sure that this is true. Saying "When playing this game, disregard the rules for falling and instead use those for plummetting" is not defining, redefining or altering the definition of a 4E Reference.

You probably cannot say "When a character falls, disregard the rules for falling" - because the SRD states that "Differing forms of a 4E Reference, such as a plural form, are assumed to be part of that 4E Reference," and "falls" probably counts as a different form of "falling." So instead you'd have to say something like "If a character goes over the edge of a precipice, or Crashes, or does something similar, then disregard the rules for Falling and instead use those for Plumetting."



			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> in that case you are allowed to post the new stat block, if you use the stat block template that is presented in the SRD.



You are not obliged to use the template: all the words that occur in it are 4E References, I think, and the GSL permits you to use them whether or not they occur in the template.

The templates are simply an additional permission, to allow Licensees to produce material that is visually compatible with 4E. Hence the advice in the SRD Usage Guide to "Use the stat block templates identified and included in the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your own original content requiring such formatting. Since your content will resemble like content in the Core Rulebooks, it will be more readily usable."


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.



Most of the license is an insane minefield.  As someone who isn't a lawyer, but has studied some law, and supports (in a way) WotC's right to tighten their license, I found myself still saying "What is this crap?" while reading the license.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 18, 2008)

"It's a trap!"
[/Akbar]


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.




And yet the license expressly covers conversions of 3.x products. So, either they didn't think this all the way through, or they did think it through and they expect publishers to completely overhaul all of their IP to conform with the new license. Or maybe they just wanted to take a wrecking ball to existing IP. Right now I'm glad I'm not a publisher.


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm currently busy with many other things in my life, so it's not like I'm an active publisher at the moment (I don't think I've put anything new out in a couple of years).  That said, if I *were* still actively publishing, it is likely that I would not touch the GSL with someone else's ten foot pole.  The legal ramifications that have been discussed here are reason enough to give me pause.

But more importantly, I strongly believe in "Open Gaming" and "Open Source" and the like.  The GSL is the antithesis of this movement. As a matter of principle, I would support the "Open" option.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Or they'll just change the name of the critter.




I think you would have to list the monster like "MyNewMonsterName is equal to the Bugbear Strangler (see the D&D 4E MONSTER MANUAL)" in that case.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> TimeOut, that was a good series of posts.



Thanks 



> I'm not sure that this is true. Saying "When playing this game, disregard the rules for falling and instead use those for plummetting" is not defining, redefining or altering the definition of a 4E Reference.
> 
> You probably cannot say "When a character falls, disregard the rules for falling" - because the SRD states that "Differing forms of a 4E Reference, such as a plural form, are assumed to be part of that 4E Reference," and "falls" probably counts as a different form of "falling." So instead you'd have to say something like "If a character goes over the edge of a precipice, or Crashes, or does something similar, then disregard the rules for Falling and instead use those for Plumetting."




Well, according to the SRD, the whole chapter on "Falling" is a 4E Reference. I'm really unsure if your wording doesn't redefine the 4E Reference of "Falling". I think the same would apply if I wanted to dublicate effects of the Heal skill in another skill. You are adding something to the skill, but you are infringing on another skills usability and are changing it in that way.

But I think that this point isn't clearly worded in the SRD and GSL. :/



> You are not obliged to use the template: all the words that occur in it are 4E References, I think, and the GSL permits you to use them whether or not they occur in the template.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Use the stat block templates identified and included in the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your own original content requiring such formatting.




I don't see a "you may" or "if you wish" here. I think it is mandatory to use the provided templates.

Edit: And it is early in the morning... Of course they are just guidelines not mandatory constraints, it even says so directly in front of my eyes. Gah.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

resistor said:
			
		

> If you look at Section 6.3, the punishment for re-publishing something back under the OGL is having  your GSL license terminated.  So, in the case that your license was terminated for other reasons, they can't exactly re-terminate it to punish you.



But under various clauses you agree that WoTC are entitled to get an injunction against you, or specific performance, or other equitable remedies, to enforce your obligations under the licence. Termination is not the end point of remedies to WoTC for breach, it is the starting point.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.  If you change the Orc Berserker's weapon, you can say that he has the melee attack Falchion, and that it is +6, 1d8+4, and that he has the power Warrior's Surge... but you still can't say what Warrior's Surge _does_.  If all you've changed is the weapon, you probably can't list the Orc Berserker's Intelligence or his Speed, since those can be found in the D&D 4E _Monster Manual_.
> 
> What I'm also not sure about:
> _... you can add functions to 4E References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E Reference._
> ...



The relevant text in the GSL (clause 4.1) states that "Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence."

Probably the easiest way to do it would be along the lines of "The Orc Chopper has the same statistics as an Orc Beserker except that, in place of a Great Axe attack, he attacks with a Falchion: +6, 1d8+4."



			
				Talath said:
			
		

> the GSL is restrictive, but honestly, do you think WotC would approve a license that forced 3pps to modify their published works if WotC happens to use something similar, or similarly named?



The best way to do this would probably be as someone suggested upthread, namely, use names that WoTC cannot use without violating your copyright or infringing your trademark.



			
				argash said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.



I'm not an IP lawyer, but I would be surprised if the US laws of fair use permitted the reproduction or derivation of a work for commercial purposes (other than perhaps in the context of criticism, satire or review).



			
				resistor said:
			
		

> So where would that leave OSRIC 4e?  It should, in theory, be possible to create a ruleset that implements the same underlying rules, but does so without duplicating any of the actual expression of said rules from 4e.



I think that would likely be quite difficult (but not necessarily impossible). It would depend upon the relevant US law pertaining to "derivative works" - the work you are talking about would be, after all, highly derivative in a certain obvious if non-technical sense - and also upon the extent to which the work might be taken to involve trademark infringements or some other sort of passing off.

In this respect OSRIC has the significant advantage of using the OGL and, thereby, the d20 SRD. Its useage of WoTC intellectual property is therefore licenced.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Well, according to the SRD, the whole chapter on "Falling" is a 4E Reference. I'm really unsure if your wording doesn't redefine the 4E Reference of "Falling". I think the same would apply if I wanted to dublicate effects of the Heal skill in another skill. You are adding something to the skill, but you are infringing on another skills usability and are changing it in that way.



As I read the Licence, the 4E Reference is not the chapter on Falling but rather the word "Falling". The Licence permits you to use that word, but not to redefine it. Its definition is determined by the Players Handbook. My suggested rules is not changing that definition, it's just coining a new one. The only trickiness, I think, is that I can't use the word "falling" (or any other form of that word) when coining my new rule.

Incovenient, I'll grant you. But I don't think it's prohibited.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

seskis281 said:
			
		

> The OGL can't be undone. HASBRO would love to do so now. So, they go for the next best approach... limit the licensing of the #1 market (the D&D brand name) and use that GSL to force 3pps to make a choice.





			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> "It's a trap!"
> [/Akbar]



Right. WoTC had at least 2 options: issue this GSL; or issue none at all. Clearly the latter is the easier option in terms of money and time spent. So if their desire was to kill 3PPs the only reason they would go down the route that they have is if they thought that they could set a trap into which 3PPs would step. If no 3PPs step into the trap, then WoTC could have got the same result (ie no 3PPs publishing under the GSL) far more cheaply by just not issuing the licence.

I think that the trap hypothesis is far-fetched. Therefore, I infer that WoTC do not want to kill 3PPs - but obviously do want 3PPs to operate very much on WoTC's own terms.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

Chibbell said:
			
		

> So what exactly does 5.5 mean about websites, minis and the like?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can't imagine that they would try to keep you from having a website.



What it means is that you cannot produce a website under the licence. Therefore, if you want a 4e website, you have to do it in a way which respects WoTC's intellectual property (because they have not licensed you to use it).


----------



## argash (Jun 18, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> argash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry I should have specified that I was referring to someone who wants to say take an adventure they wrote for example and put it online and make it available for free, not for profit.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

argash said:
			
		

> Sorry I should have specified that I was referring to someone who wants to say take an adventure they wrote for example and put it online and make it available for free, not for profit.



I think that probably makes a difference.

Also, Orcus (who, unlike me, is a US lawyer) suggested on the other thread that fair use might be appicable here. I'm not entirely sure what he has in mind, however.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> As I read the Licence, the 4E Reference is not the chapter on Falling but rather the word "Falling". The Licence permits you to use that word, but not to redefine it. Its definition is determined by the Players Handbook. My suggested rules is not changing that definition, it's just coining a new one. The only trickiness, I think, is that I can't use the word "falling" (or any other form of that word) when coining my new rule.




But if the definition of falling includes all application where a character would fall, how do you apply your new rule?

If you define "plummeting" triggering on the same conditions as "falling", effectively replacing it (or creating rules ambiguity) you are changing the 4E Reference implementation of "falling" in my opinion. 



> Incovenient, I'll grant you. But I don't think it's prohibited.



I'm not sure. Better check with WotC and/or a lawyer, if you want to publish such rules.


----------



## defendi (Jun 18, 2008)

BTW, I agree with checking before writing the rules.  It occurs to me though that I didn't see a clause about removing or disregarding a definition.  For instance, I think you can write up a wood elf and then, at the very least, leave the normal elf out of your race list, removing it by omission.  You can probably do that with other rules as well, as long as they aren't a part of a larger definition (for instance you couldn't do it with a power that was part of a class, since that would be redefining the class with the deletion).


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

defendi said:
			
		

> BTW, I agree with checking before writing the rules.  It occurs to me though that I didn't see a clause about removing or disregarding a definition.  For instance, I think you can write up a wood elf and then, at the very least, leave the normal elf out of your race list, removing it by omission.  You can probably do that with other rules as well, as long as they aren't a part of a larger definition (for instance you couldn't do it with a power that was part of a class, since that would be redefining the class with the deletion).




Maybe, just maybe, that is handled under


> Q: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
> A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL.




But I think that omission and removing or disregarding definitions is not possible, because it would alter them.


----------



## neceros (Jun 18, 2008)

I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.




I predict that there will be some adopters, but it won't be the gold rush we saw with 3rd edition. I also predict that there will be a lot more 3rd party support for Pathfinder than people previously predicted. Finally, I predict that the general manner in which the GSL has been received will prompt a major revision to entice some of the publishers dragging their feet to adopt it.... or not, if it was really their intent to kick everyone out of their sandbox.


----------



## defendi (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut,

I read that Q and A as I don't have to use a defined term in the setting.  For instance, I could make a setting without warlocks.  But I did ask WotC about it, so we'll see how they respond.  Plus, I bet someone will be answering this thread in the morning.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

defendi said:
			
		

> TimeOut,
> 
> I read that Q and A as I don't have to use a defined term in the setting.  For instance, I could make a setting without warlocks.  But I did ask WotC about it, so we'll see how they respond.  Plus, I bet someone will be answering this thread in the morning.




Yeah, an official answer on that would be nice. If you can remove rules (without altering them), you can at least create settings without specific classes/races.


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2008)

Never fear, anyone who is willing to publish for ego bucks, as opposed to real bucks, is likely to continue doing so.


----------



## Thunhus (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I predict that there will be some adopters, but it won't be the gold rush we saw with 3rd edition. I also predict that there will be a lot more 3rd party support for Pathfinder than people previously predicted. Finally, I predict that the general manner in which the GSL has been received will prompt a major revision to entice some of the publishers dragging their feet to adopt it.... or not, if it was really their intent to kick everyone out of their sandbox.




I predict that new license users make far more money than Pathfinder and old OGL users from now on. People want new stuff for shiny 4th edition.

Thunhus


----------



## defendi (Jun 18, 2008)

Yeah.  The only thing that will cause me real issues with _*The Echoes of Heaven*_ is if I'm not allowed to disallow races.  I have one race that just doesn't fit the setting and two that I'd like to make minor changes to, and so I'd have to disallow the official version and make my own.  I can survive any of these changes, it just takes me adjusting setting elements which have a large body of canon behind them, and that kind of ret-conning will likely annoy my customers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

defendi said:
			
		

> Yeah.  The only thing that will cause me real issues with _*The Echoes of Heaven*_ is if I'm not allowed to disallow races.  I have one race that just doesn't fit the setting and two that I'd like to make minor changes to, and so I'd have to disallow the official version and make my own.  I can survive any of these changes, it just takes me adjusting setting elements which have a large body of canon behind them, and that kind of ret-conning will likely annoy my customers.



There is nothing that forbids you from saying something like
In the _Echoes of Heaven_ campaign world, regular humans are unknown. It is generally advised not to use humans as a race (I suspect it's not humans you worry about, but you get my gist). The closest to Humans are the Sebestians (no that is not a misspelling of Sebecean, but it was inspired by it), and you should probably refer a player interested in playing Humans to checking this race first. 

This way, it is generally understood by the reader that he's not expected to use the "undesired" race, but the race itself is not changed. You are not required to keep fluff or the PoL setting, after all.

In the end, you don't really have to care about how people abuse your setting at home.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> But it also looks like this line kills any sort of campaign setting uniqueness.  I don't want Star Pact Warlocks in the campaign?  Too bad, that's altering the definition of Warlock.  Healing magic is weaker, so all healing does -1 point?  Not allowed.  I want Raise Dead to be more difficult, and not available until higher levels, or to not have any cost, but rather a quest component?  Not allowed.  Want Eladrin to lose their teleportation ability in exchange for something else because the Feywild was destroyed in that campaign world?  Not allowed.




Are you sure? Can't you add to these definitions by history development in your campaign that parts from the core definitions?


----------



## defendi (Jun 18, 2008)

I would suspect you can do most of those things to make your setting unique.  For instance:

"I don't want Star Pact Warlocks in the campaign?"

How about creating your own warlock class, and not including it, then directing people to that class as per the suggestion on Humans above.

"Healing magic is weaker, so all healing does -1 point?"

Add a new effect, call it the bane of healing, have it add a -1 penalty to damage healed and apply it all the time.

"I want Raise Dead to be more difficult, and not available until higher levels, or to not have any cost, but rather a quest component?"

Same as with warlocks.

"Want Eladrin to lose their teleportation ability in exchange for something else because the Feywild was destroyed in that campaign world?"

Same as with warlocks.

The only part of this I think we actually need clarification on is the omission of the original reference so that your new creation can replace the old, if you need to swap out.

I might have to do that warlock one, by the way.  It's completely a flavor change, though, so maybe it will pass.  We'll have to see how they define fluff as it interacts with references.

Actually, now that I think about it, I just have to define what the stars actually are, which I don't think IS defined, so doing that is no change.

However, that's not really an immediate issue.


----------



## defendi (Jun 18, 2008)

Oh, here's two I missed.  I don't see Dungeons & Dragons as a reference, unless I'm just not seeing it.  So how do we refer to the game itself?  We are allowed to say D&D in citations, but I didn't see it as a reference itself.  Importantly, how to we refer to it:

1) in the text.  Eventually, you need to refer to the game you are playing by some sort of name.

2)  On the front cover.  Can we?

3)  In marketing text on the back.

4)  In marketing text in general.

5)  In titles in product listings.  I don't want to use D&D in a title itself, but if I'm listing products, it's good to be able to toss on an indicator of the game compatibility, especially in a download store.  Like Critical Matters (D&D) or Critical Matters (GSL), as opposed to Character Background Generator (HERO System).

Same for DM or Dungeon Master.  Are we allowed to use the term.

Oh, a third thing.  Do we have actual size requirements for the logo, or should we just trust photoshop to size it right?  Essentially, how big is it supposed to be?


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> What's weird to me is that they included the languages as 4E References...




yup and those cool alphabets in the PHB can't be used by 3pp in adventures since they aren't part of the GSL.


----------



## ashockney (Jun 18, 2008)

So...

Is Morrus's "fan creation of the week" compliant with the new GSL?

 

I haven't seen much discussion on what you CAN do, only what you CAN'T.

On 10/1 can you:
Release a classbook with DRUID, BARBARIAN, BARD, MONK, etc?

Release a standalone module for use by itself without reference?  What if EVERY creature I use has at least one +1 level to it?

Release a DUNGEON Magazine type product to compete with the online product from WOTC?

Release a class splatbook with all new powers you can use "instead" of the existing powers in the Core Rules (Daily, Encounter, At Will)?

Release a book of feats?

Release a book of magic items?

Release of book of "common" treasures?

Release a monster book with every monster statted out for every level? Goblin 1, Goblin 2, Goblin 3...Goblin 30

Is there a way you could do something similiar to Arcana Unearthed any longer?

Is there ANY way you could do something like Conan, simply without referencing the experience/advancement, but with all new classes, powers, abilities, feats, etc. (all low magic themed).

Can you do Star Wars?  (or Star Warriors to avoid OGL issues) or Spycraft, or Superheroes? 

Can you create rules content and support for things that don't exist?  How to handle large scale wars, empire building, running a kingdom, running a business, forming and leading an organization or guild, the game effects of a catastrophe?

Can you create new tools or new ways for characters to get powers beyond those from their race, class, feats, and magic items?  For example, visiting a static location, or as a benefit for being part of an organization, or for pledging allegiance to a diety...

What can you do within the context of the GSL?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 18, 2008)

ashockney said:
			
		

> So...
> 
> Is Morrus's "fan creation of the week" compliant with the new GSL?
> 
> ...



Looks like you can. Unclarity what happens when WotC later produces a class with that name. 



> Release a standalone module for use by itself without reference?  What if EVERY creature I use has at least one +1 level to it?



Interesting question. I was wondering that myself. It might actually be allowed, but I am unclear on that issue. The Kobold Wyrmpriest Lich seems to indicate you can describe him in his entirety, and it's just applying the rules. 



> Release a class splatbook with all new powers you can use "instead" of the existing powers in the Core Rules (Daily, Encounter, At Will)?
> 
> Release a book of feats?
> 
> ...



Yes.



> Release a monster book with every monster statted out for every level? Goblin 1, Goblin 2, Goblin 3...Goblin 30



If you don't reuse the existing monster, yes. 



> Is there a way you could do something similiar to Arcana Unearthed any longer?
> 
> Is there ANY way you could do something like Conan, simply without referencing the experience/advancement, but with all new classes, powers, abilities, feats, etc. (all low magic themed).



Core rule changes, no. But new classes, feats, powers, races, all that is possible. You just can't create an entirely new spell system or something like that...

Or maybe you can. But not without creating a strange class - no class powers (or rather - class powers without use) and then tacking on the entire subsystem in the class feature description. 

At least that's my assumption. I am not sure if it's actually required to use the power structure. 



> Can you do Star Wars?  (or Star Warriors to avoid OGL issues) or Spycraft, or Superheroes?



With some work, and staying within the framework, I think you can. 



> Can you create rules content and support for things that don't exist?  How to handle large scale wars, empire building, running a kingdom, running a business, forming and leading an organization or guild, the game effects of a catastrophe?



Yes, you can. There is no provision against creating new rules subystems. 



> Can you create new tools or new ways for characters to get powers beyond those from their race, class, feats, and magic items?  For example, visiting a static location, or as a benefit for being part of an organization, or for pledging allegiance to a diety...?



Yes, I think that would be possible.


----------



## argash (Jun 18, 2008)

ashockney said:
			
		

> So...
> 
> Is Morrus's "fan creation of the week" compliant with the new GSL?
> 
> ...




Right now it looks like on 10/1 we'll see alot of titles go on sale with really cool sounding names and when you open them you'll see 80 pages of pure white scratch paper for you to take notes on.  Of course some one will try to compete by using velum or some other crazy type of paper.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

ashockney said:
			
		

> On 10/1 can you:
> Release a classbook with DRUID, BARBARIAN, BARD, MONK, etc?



Yes. But if WotC adds those terms to the SRD in the future, your content would violate the GSL.



> Release a standalone module for use by itself without reference? What if EVERY creature I use has at least one +1 level to it?



I think you are only allowed to reprint the changed parts. So if all your creatures are +1 level, you may only post any changed stats that are a result of the level change.



> Release a DUNGEON Magazine type product to compete with the online product from WOTC?



As long as the complete magazine is licensed under the GSL and WotC doesn't terminate your license, I would say "yes".



> Release a class splatbook with all new powers you can use "instead" of the existing powers in the Core Rules (Daily, Encounter, At Will)?



Are those additional powers? If so, yes. If those are replacements or changes, no.



> Release a book of feats?



New feats: Sure. Changing old feats: No.
Same thing as point 1 applies here: If WotC adds something with the same name to the SRD that is different from your implementation, your product violates the GSL.



> Release a book of magic items?



I think so, same as feats.



> Release of book of "common" treasures?



What are common treasures?



> Release a monster book with every monster statted out for every level? Goblin 1, Goblin 2, Goblin 3...Goblin 30



See monster statblocks above. (No.)



> Is there a way you could do something similiar to Arcana Unearthed any longer?



No idea, don't know AU.



> Is there ANY way you could do something like Conan, simply without referencing the experience/advancement, but with all new classes, powers, abilities, feats, etc. (all low magic themed).



New stuff: Sure. But we don't know if you can remove or restrict the use of "old" stuff.



> Can you do Star Wars?  (or Star Warriors to avoid OGL issues) or Spycraft, or Superheroes?



If you have to change existing 4e References: No. If everything is possible by extending or generating new content: Yes.



> Can you create rules content and support for things that don't exist?  How to handle large scale wars, empire building, running a kingdom, running a business, forming and leading an organization or guild, the game effects of a catastrophe?



As long as nothing has an impact on existing 4e References: Yes.



> Can you create new tools or new ways for characters to get powers beyond those from their race, class, feats, and magic items?  For example, visiting a static location, or as a benefit for being part of an organization, or for pledging allegiance to a diety...



Same as the answer above.


----------



## Vascant (Jun 18, 2008)

pogre said:
			
		

> This is the most disappointing post I have seen for a long time. I really count on Vascant's products to prepare my campaign adventures...





I don't think I even need my lawyer to read this, software is out..


----------



## keterys (Jun 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Never fear, anyone who is willing to publish for ego bucks, as opposed to real bucks, is likely to continue doing so.




*ashamed* That's totally me. The profit margins in RPGs are lousy, but the payoff in warm fuzzies for making stuff people actually use is huge.


----------



## jaldaen (Jun 18, 2008)

So I noticed a lot of people are reading the SRD section headings as 4e Refrences in addition to being a section heading. My question to Scott and Linae is:

Are the section headings in the SRD also 4e References, which cannot be defined, redefined, or altered in any way?

So are Dwarf, Human, Fighter, Wizard, Demon, Devil, etc... 4e references or just intended to make it easier to use the SRD in conjunction with the Core Books?

This is a question I've asked in other threads, but I figure it deserves its own thread since this one difference in reading the SRD can make all the difference between a very restrictive SRD and a very open one.

Thanks for your response


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

resistor said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think that's quite correct.  If you look at Section 6.3, the punishment for re-publishing something back under the OGL is having  your GSL license terminated.  So, in the case that your license was terminated for other reasons, they can't exactly re-terminate it to punish you. ;-)




Clark Peterson came to the same conclusion I did:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=231754


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2008)

Although I'm generally quite forgiving of Wizards - and I do like 4e - I'm astonished at the levels of stupidity involved in the GSL. I don't think it's all intentional. For instance, I really don't expect they meant the license to mean a later publication of theirs to make a bunch of previous products illegal due to unintentional name duplication. However, they should have. They really should have.

Patrick Lawinger suggested that the license was really designed to only allow adventures to be written under the new system. Well, possibly. Unfortunately, by eliminating the ability to print the full stat-blocks of any monster or NPC that uses an ability from the core rulebooks, you really, really limit their usefulness.

Unbelievably stupid.

Clark Peterson has said that he's pretty sure that this license will kill dead his Tome of Horrors 4e (he's doing a full colour Pathfinder version? Cool!)

To be able to put Clark off-side with you is inventing new levels of stupidity that are beyond the dreams of wordsmiths in coming up with new terms to describe them!

Cheers!


----------



## EATherrian (Jun 18, 2008)

This is very disappointing.  I prefer 3rd party for Campaign Worlds and Adventures, and this effectively hamstrings them.  Maybe it's a way to ensure that only the Wizards sub-standard fare is all we get.  I guess I'm finally sure that I'm going Pathfinder, Golarian beats the 4E implied universe any day.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut - I'd love to see your reasoning on your claims about monsters. I mean, you keep saying "I'm not a lawyer" and then making strong, unqualified claims about what the GSL means. It seems a bit misleading to me.

It seems that if "change" a monster you created a new monster unless you specifically say that it's based on the previous monster. I don't see any sane reason why you couldn't publish it's entire stat-block.

I mean, is a new kind of Orc Skirmisher a "changed" version of the old Orc Skirmisher, or a new creature? Seems to me that it's inevitably the latter.

What about Elves or Humans, say? By your logic you couldn't print their full stats and abilities, ever, because they have certain racial traits. I don't actually think WotC are that maliciously stupid. If they are, then it's clear their sole intention is to discourage anyone from producing 4E products, even adventures, which means that I won't be support them any further.


----------



## Eytan Bernstein (Jun 18, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> I dunno.  This is pretty bad.  While it doesn't explicitly state that the only thing you're allowed to build is modules, this line is the key:
> 
> And it's not well defined.  Certainly any type of house rule seems prohibited, so Stalker0 is technically not allowed to distribute his wonderful solution to the horribly broken Skill Challenge system.
> 
> ...




I don't think this would prevent you from creating new pacts for the warlock or new builds for any class.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 18, 2008)

This.....this looks BAD.  Very Bad.

Like, shooting yourself in the foot multiple times, Bad.

If WotC wanted to kill off 3pp, they could at least be honest about it.  This is the worst thing I have seen WotC do.....well, just about EVER, I guess.  What are they thinking?  This isn't protecting their IP, it's knee-capping their 3pp support infrastructure.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jun 18, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> If you apply changes to the monster you can print the stat block: page 2 of SRD:So all monsters in modules will be somewhat unique I'm presuming just so the publisher can include all statblocks for DM convenience.



If so, that's not really a bad thing. No 'cookie cutter' monsters. In cases where players refuse to keep their noses out of the MM you can still suprise them.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 18, 2008)

Eytan Bernstein said:
			
		

> I don't think this would prevent you from creating new pacts for the warlock or new builds for any class.



From the looks: Yeah. Since useful adventures are close to impossible without good statblocks, the only thing that can be safely produced within the GSL are heaps of obscure splatbooks with concepts that will not be included in the SRD.

I don't think that's what they really want, but that's the most viable thing. Adventures withstatblocks and without huge lookup... I guess you'll only get that from WotC and Dungeon.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 18, 2008)

shinmizu said:
			
		

> Never underestimate the potential idiocy of any company's legal department, marketing department, or upper management (especially with Hasbro in the picture).



Baseless, blanket ad hominem attacks FTW!


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Baseless, blanket ad hominem attacks FTW!




Ad hominem doesn't even REMOTELY mean what you think it means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> From the looks: Yeah. Since useful adventures are close to impossible without good statblocks, the only thing that can be safely produced within the GSL are heaps of obscure splatbooks with concepts that will not be included in the SRD.
> 
> I don't think that's what they really want, but that's the most viable thing. Adventures withstatblocks and without huge lookup... I guess you'll only get that from WotC and Dungeon.




Actually, just looking at a few recent Dungeon issues... why does this stop people writing modules?

What I saw in those modules was:
- classed monsters: dwarf warrior 1, orc barbarian 5, hill giant fighter 5, etc
- advanced monsters: demons, aberrations, and whatnot with extra HD
- monsters with more than what's in the book: dragons with their spell lists filled out
- new monsters

These made up the vast majority of the statblocks I found. My understanding is that all of these (or their equivalent) would still be allowed under the GSL.


----------



## Yair (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> I predict that there will be some adopters, but it won't be the gold rush we saw with 3rd edition. I also predict that there will be a lot more 3rd party support for Pathfinder than people previously predicted. Finally, I predict that the general manner in which the GSL has been received will prompt a major revision to entice some of the publishers dragging their feet to adopt it.... or not, if it was really their intent to kick everyone out of their sandbox.



I'll second those predictions. 
I'll add another: within a year, a major publisher will release a major OGL-lincesed game based on 4e ideas, but sufficiently different (in his opinion) to not be derivative. I, for one, am looking forward to it.


----------



## AstroCat (Jun 18, 2008)

No stat blocks will kill 3rd party modules. Without these forget it, what a waste. Totally sucks for good companies such as Goodman Games. Sad, really... And I really like 4E a lot but this sucks.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.
> 
> What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.




Calling something "Dungeons and Dragons" compatible doesn't do anything for you?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Can't wait to see the explanations/clarifications/apologies from Scott on all of this.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> These made up the vast majority of the statblocks I found. My understanding is that all of these (or their equivalent) would still be allowed under the GSL.



Because you can only list the full statblock for new monsters. I've not said "impossible", I've said "useful". 4E's push is towards less cross-referencing - that's why they put all the meat into the statblock.

But in 4E, if you just take a monster, you cannot include it at all besides the reference. If you take a modified monster or a classed NPC, you cannot reprint the powers, including the powers of the monster. If you do an advanced Eye of Gruumsh, you have to leave out the powers, you can only plug in the reference.

Unless you go to do a completely new monster with all-new powers. On the one hand, that's probably good, as adventures will always be "new" - no orc will be similar to another one, but it makes producing good products harder for not that much gain: If you "just take" a monster from the MM, you have familiarity and a playtested monster.

Instead, they now push all-new monsters, which may be qualitatively worse, especially if they're just written up for a specific adventure.

Furthermore, you do *not* have that disadvantage with WotC products, which means they can make more accessible adventures, due to their ability to reprint.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> No Mordenkainen, No Tenser, No Beholders, No Yuan-ti.
> 
> And no Succubi?  Seriously?
> 
> ...




Obviously WOTC believes that there is value in that IP -- and the case law is pretty explicit that IP has to be vigorously defended in order to remain protected. 

Whether or not this IP actually originated from within TSR/WOTC is the more debatable point.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Calling something "Dungeons and Dragons" compatible doesn't do anything for you?




Not when its so crippled.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 18, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see the explanations/clarifications/apologies from Scott on all of this.




Any responses may have to be vetted by WotC legal...which could take days or weeks (unless the answers are already available in a released FAQ).


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that there's actually less reason for WotC to keep demons, devils, Tarrasques, Yuan ti and such out of the SRD this time around.
> 
> Nothing released under the 4e SRD is open content.  At any time they can simply revoke an individual license or an entire product line, so they can always pull it back later.  They retain complete control over all this material -- they're just letting others play with it a little.




Very good point, actually.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Right. WoTC had at least 2 options: issue this GSL; or issue none at all. Clearly the latter is the easier option in terms of money and time spent. So if their desire was to kill 3PPs the only reason they would go down the route that they have is if they thought that they could set a trap into which 3PPs would step. If no 3PPs step into the trap, then WoTC could have got the same result (ie no 3PPs publishing under the GSL) far more cheaply by just not issuing the licence.
> 
> I think that the trap hypothesis is far-fetched. Therefore, I infer that WoTC do not want to kill 3PPs - but obviously do want 3PPs to operate very much on WoTC's own terms.




Well said.  Compared to anything *OTHER* than the OGL, this is quite permissive.  Wizards wants third parties to use 4e rules to SUPPORT D&D, they don't want 3rd parties to COMPETE with D&D.  They are letting you use the D&D logo for goodness sake!  

They're giving 3pp their toys on the condition that all of the toys stay in their sandbox.  There is no rational reason to trot out any conspiracy theories other than that.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.




Why would that surprise?  

You don't think people want to make money by hopping on the gravy chain of the world's most marketable RPG brand?


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

defendi said:
			
		

> Oh, here's two I missed.  I don't see Dungeons & Dragons as a reference, unless I'm just not seeing it.  So how do we refer to the game itself?  We are allowed to say D&D in citations, but I didn't see it as a reference itself.  Importantly, how to we refer to it:
> 
> 1) in the text.  Eventually, you need to refer to the game you are playing by some sort of name.
> 
> ...




The GSL itself features "Dungeons and Dragons" in a rather bold font.  I'm a little bummed about the licence relegating the words to the back cover (thank you Valar Project) but it still is a powerful asset.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 18, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> I'll second those predictions.
> I'll add another: within a year, a major publisher will release a major OGL-lincesed game based on 4e ideas, but sufficiently different (in his opinion) to not be derivative. I, for one, am looking forward to it.



Once again, I feel prompted to say "quoted for truth."

To say that I am disappointed in the GSL that was actually released is a remarkable understatement. It gives me hope, however, because it opens the door for another company to give us a "4E compatible" game that is open. I'm enjoying 4E, but I'll enjoy the open version a lot more, thankyouverymuch.

--Steve


----------



## BryonD (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Well said.  Compared to anything *OTHER* than the OGL, this is quite permissive.  Wizards wants third parties to use 4e rules to SUPPORT D&D, they don't want 3rd parties to COMPETE with D&D.  They are letting you use the D&D logo for goodness sake!
> 
> They're giving 3pp their toys on the condition that all of the toys stay in their sandbox.  There is no rational reason to trot out any conspiracy theories other than that.



Should the GSL also ban 3PPs from free-lancing for White Wolf?  Or does the lack of any mention of White Wolf mean that they are endorsing White wolf products?  If they want to deny the option for competing, then they should deny the option of competing across the board.  

It is about doing the best they can to out the OGL genie back in the bottle and it is a real turd in the punch bowl.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> They're giving 3pp their toys on the condition that all of the toys stay in their sandbox.  There is no rational reason to trot out any conspiracy theories other than that.




Problem is, if I bring a toy to play in the Wizards sandbox, and later Wizards makes the same toy with a different setup, they can tell me at any time that my toy is no longer valid and doesn't belong in the sandbox, it has to go. That's not conspiricy, it's a very real possibility (and a bizarre metaphor for me to explain it.)


----------



## Aria Silverhands (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.




Exactly. 

Just like they can't prevent you from using the following: 
Asmodeus
Baphomet
Orcus
Demogorgon
Bahamut
Tiamat

You can't use WOTC's description of them, but nothing prevents you from making your own version of.


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Obviously WOTC believes that there is value in that IP -- and the case law is pretty explicit that IP has to be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.
> 
> Whether or not this IP actually originated from within TSR/WOTC is the more debatable point.



Not true.  And I wish people would stop using the "shorthand" of IP (Intellectual Property) to cover (a) copyright, (b) patents, and (c) trademarks, as it leads to much confusion.  Here you are conflating trademarks with copyright.

Case law is explicit that TRADEMARKS must be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.

COPYRIGHTED WORKS and PATENTS do NOT have to be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.

As I can't recall seeing trademarks on Beholders, Mind Flayers, Yuan-Ti etc. (I could be wrong), they do not need to be vigorously protected.  One could argue, however, that they are trademark-ish.  Angels and demons... far less trademark-ish for the obvious reason that many of them were sucked out of the public domain.


----------



## Eytan Bernstein (Jun 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Baseless, blanket ad hominem attacks FTW!




I don't think it's all that hard to create your own stat blocks for goblins or troglodytes or kobolds. Just use the NPC rules and create your own monsters. If you use them throughout the module, you won't have to do too much. I think it's quite doable.


----------



## Psion (Jun 18, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I don't see how they can attempt to forbid the use of a succubus in your rules, since that is a creature of mythology and their powers would be very similar regardless.




Some folks seem to think this is copyright law. It's not. It's a contractual agreement. Not saying this is the implication of the GSL, but if you agree not to do something by a licensing agreement, and then do it, you can be hit with the consequences of breaching that contract.


----------



## HyrumOWC (Jun 18, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Just like they can't prevent you from using the following:
> Asmodeus
> ...




Legality isn't the issue here. Your ability to pay your (and WotC's) court costs are.

Do you have a lawyer on staff and the legal budget of Hasbro? Are you willing to take on a company that does?

Hyrum.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 18, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> I'll second those predictions.
> I'll add another: within a year, a major publisher will release a major OGL-lincesed game based on 4e ideas, but sufficiently different (in his opinion) to not be derivative. I, for one, am looking forward to it.



I'll give it 18 months.  Or Pathfinder might rebrand itself as less of a "3e clone" and more of a 3e successor.  There's alot of good stuff in 4e, and some great design theory.  I'd buy a book just discussing the evolution of the design and decisions (like WotC is going to give that away...).

This license doesn't suprise me at all.  In fact, the only suprising thing is how close I was.  I mean, I didn't -really- expect WotC to go near-nuclear on everything, but I couldn't think of a reason for them not too.  WotC wants 3pp support, but they do not care about it.

There's no conspiracy theory.  WotC wants 3pp to support D&D.  End story. They don't really care how many (and I'll guarantee a number will), so long as it directly supports D&D.  The OGL & OGL-SRD are like...a tree, with the SRD at the base.  Products kept growing further and further away from the SRD and core rules.  The GSL keeps everything close and tight - there's no independant game creation; everything springs directly from the core rules or not at all.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 18, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> Do you have a lawyer on staff and the legal budget of Hasbro? Are you willing to take on a company that does?



Not even that. They'll just terminate your license, which means you are out of the 4E business and sit on a stack of to-be-destroyed books.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Not even that. They'll just terminate your license, which means you are out of the 4E business and sit on a stack of to-be-destroyed books.
> 
> Cheers, LT.





Or I go to court, and they lose. 

Cheers!


----------



## HyrumOWC (Jun 18, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Or I go to court, and they lose.
> 
> Cheers!




And then you pay their legal fees. Look at section 11.4. It doesn't matter if you win, lose, or draw, you pay WotC's legal fees. 

Hyrum.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 18, 2008)

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> And then you pay their legal fees. Look at section 11.4. It doesn't matter if you win, lose, or draw, you pay WotC's legal fees.
> 
> Hyrum.



I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause.  I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Should the GSL also ban 3PPs from free-lancing for White Wolf?  Or does the lack of any mention of White Wolf mean that they are endorsing White wolf products?  If they want to deny the option for competing, then they should deny the option of competing across the board.
> 
> It is about doing the best they can to out the OGL genie back in the bottle and it is a real turd in the punch bowl.




I read it differenty.  It's not a question of competing.  It's a question of ensuring that 4e concepts do not become completely unregulaged OGL-style open-content.  Standard IP law will dictate what concepts White Wolf and Wizards can or cannot use in common -- that's the way it's always been and the GSL does not need to address that.  The OGL is a special case.

Listen...I will fully accept and understand that someone with a philosophical attachment to open-systems theory will be peeved at this as a step back.  

The OGL was revolutionary, though, considering that the commerical benefits of open-systems are not proven, that's not necessarily a good thing.

You can hate the GSL on philosophical grounds.  But it is hyperbolic to assume that, because of that opposition, that there is no viable models for third party publishers, or that the entire motive behidn the GSL is some sort of nefarious scheme.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Problem is, if I bring a toy to play in the Wizards sandbox, and later Wizards makes the same toy with a different setup, they can tell me at any time that my toy is no longer valid and doesn't belong in the sandbox, it has to go. That's not conspiricy, it's a very real possibility (and a bizarre metaphor for me to explain it.)




We'll leave the obvious and (and still unanswered) question of "why would WOTC ever bother/consider doing such a thing?" as it's certainly your right to assume the absolute worst about their motives.

Even if you assume the worse (and I do not) -- my understanding of the game industry (which I stand to be corrected on) is that it has a front-loaded sales model.  

Publishers rely on initial orders from distributors because the vast majority of book sales come in the first couple of months.  

There is a longer tale to PDFs I'll grant you that, but there is also a much lower start-up cost and barrier to entry.  

If you want to consider WOTC a maleveolent behemoth, fine -- just remember that most publishers would have made their money on a product by the time that behemoth gets around to swatting them.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause.  I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal



Depends in some US jurisdictions it would be though that varies.  Doesn't even begin to address the problems they'd run into trying to enforce the license in other nations.  Which could be a lot larger.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jun 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause.  I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal





No, it's a contract.  It isn't illegal. No one has to use the license, WOTC does not have a monopoly on RPGs.    Using  that license means you use the whole license.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not true.  And I wish people would stop using the "shorthand" of IP (Intellectual Property) to cover (a) copyright, (b) patents, and (c) trademarks, as it leads to much confusion.  Here you are conflating trademarks with copyright.
> 
> Case law is explicit that TRADEMARKS must be vigorously defended in order to remain protected.
> 
> ...




You're right I apologize.  I'm not a lawyer.  I am a marketing guy who has spent far-too much time sitting around boardroom tables with IP and copyright lawyers.  Butting heads with them has led me to trivialize the legally significant differences in the terms they use.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Why would that surprise?
> 
> You don't think people want to make money by hopping on the gravy chain of the world's most marketable RPG brand?




With a revocable at any time for any reason clause that requires destruction of all 4e stock it is a risky money making endeavor.

I expect there will be 4e products made to dip into the market, but 3rd parties cannot realistically substantially invest themselves economically in doing so.

I expect there will be a number of pdfs made, but nowhere near the number of 3rd party print books there were under 3e.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 18, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Depends in some US jurisdictions it would be though that varies.  Doesn't even begin to address the problems they'd run into trying to enforce the license in other nations.  Which could be a lot larger.




For the US jurisdiction is easy. Section 19 limits all court cases to the state or federal courts based in King County, Washington State with no jury option available. Internationally though things get more complicated since even if the King County courts rule in favor of WotC (even by no-show of the 3pp) WotC would then have to enforce its ruling in the other countries by way of foreign courts which may or may not agree with the US ruling on the legality of the contract.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 18, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Section 19 limits all court cases to the state or federal courts based in King County, Washington State with no jury option available.



Should have read past 16 then, I was so disgusted I quit.  But if that's what's in 19 you're borked.



> Internationally though things get more complicated since even if the King County courts rule in favor of WotC (even by no-show of the 3pp) WotC would then have to enforce its ruling in the other countries by way of foreign courts which may or may not agree with the US ruling on the legality of the contract.



Which is the major impediment, and one I would like to see them stub their toes on just for the sake of vindictiveness.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 18, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> No, it's a contract.  It isn't illegal. No one has to use the license, WOTC does not have a monopoly on RPGs.    Using  that license means you use the whole license.




There are clauses in contracts and agreements that cannot be inforced, and are ruled illegal, all the time.  For example, clauses like "you cannot sue us for any reason", are included in a lot of contracts, but you still retain the right to sue even if you agree with them.  There are certain rights that cannot be given away in agreeing to a licence, even if the license says you are.

If it wasn't possible for part of the agreement to be illegal, there wouldn't be a clause that specifies what happens if part of the agreement is deemed to be illegal.

I'm not exactly sure which ones are in US law, but in Canadian law, for instance, the act dealing with consumer agreements with corporations (say: cellphone planes) says "The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary." - a cellphone company for instance cannot charge you the early cancellation fee if you terminate the agreement as per the consumer protection act- because the act specifies that a termination under the act occurs 'as if they never existed', even though the agreement made with the cellphone company says that you agree to pay the cancellation fee if you terminate for any reason.


----------



## jgerman (Jun 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> There are clauses in contracts and agreements that cannot be inforced, and are ruled illegal, all the time.  For example, clauses like "you cannot sue us for any reason", are included in a lot of contracts, but you still retain the right to sue even if you agree with them.  There are certain rights that cannot be given away in agreeing to a licence, even if the license says you are.
> 
> If it wasn't possible for part of the agreement to be illegal, there wouldn't be a clause that specifies what happens if part of the agreement is deemed to be illegal.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure which ones are in US law, but in Canadian law, for instance, the act dealing with consumer agreements with corporations (say: cellphone planes) says "The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary." - a cellphone company for instance cannot charge you the early cancellation fee if you terminate the agreement as per the consumer protection act- because the act specifies that a termination under the act occurs 'as if they never existed', even though the agreement made with the cellphone company says that you agree to pay the cancellation fee if you terminate for any reason.




Yup. And IIRC that particular clause ("you pay our legal fees") is not enforceable. I'm too lazy to dig up a reference however. 

Additionally even if it were enforceable they'd have to sue you to get that money as well. And then they'd have to sue you to get the money they used to sue your for the money they were suing you with. And then they'd have to sue your for the money they were suing you with for what they were suing you for. And then...


----------



## TheWyrd (Jun 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause.  I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal




Or when you seek damages from WotC you ask for Money equal to Lost Business + Your Legal Fees + WotCs Legal Fees + Pain and Suffering.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> We'll leave the obvious and (and still unanswered) question of "why would WOTC ever bother/consider doing such a thing?" as it's certainly your right to assume the absolute worst about their motives.
> 
> Even if you assume the worse (and I do not) -- my understanding of the game industry (which I stand to be corrected on) is that it has a front-loaded sales model.  If you want to consider WOTC a maleveolent behemoth, fine -- just remember that most publishers would have made their money on a product by the time that behemoth gets around to swatting them.




Don't misinterpret me, I don't think of WotC as a malevolent behemoth. Malevolence has nothing to do with profit, and by negating the validity of pre-exisiting 3pp products they would be trying to assert their GSL rights and capitalize on their products instead of turning customers to other companies.

Even if we put aside the idea of eliminating pre-existing products, we are still left with the quandry of dealilng with other 3pp products that come out after there is an original creature entry from ABC company and a newer SRD creature from WotC. Even if XYZ company explicityly states that it is using the creature entry from ABC, WotC can tell them they are in breach of the GSL because that creature now exists in the SRD. 

To use another metaphor (ugh), they may not be able to stop the fire from starting, but they can prevent it from spreading.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I read it differenty.  It's not a question of competing.




I replied to the below.  (all caps portion in your original)



			
				nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Well said. Compared to anything *OTHER* than the OGL, this is quite permissive. Wizards wants third parties to use 4e rules to SUPPORT D&D, they don't want 3rd parties to COMPETE with D&D. They are letting you use the D&D logo for goodness sake!


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Don't misinterpret me, I don't think of WotC as a malevolent behemoth. Malevolence has nothing to do with profit, and by negating the validity of pre-exisiting 3pp products they would be trying to assert their GSL rights and capitalize on their products instead of turning customers to other companies.
> 
> Even if we put aside the idea of eliminating pre-existing products, we are still left with the quandry of dealilng with other 3pp products that come out after there is an original creature entry from ABC company and a newer SRD creature from WotC. Even if XYZ company explicityly states that it is using the creature entry from ABC, WotC can tell them they are in breach of the GSL because that creature now exists in the SRD.
> 
> To use another metaphor (ugh), they may not be able to stop the fire from starting, but they can prevent it from spreading.




But it's WOTC starting the fire?  

IF I was WOTC management and IF I was secretly infuriated by the OGL, I would not even mess with the GSL.  I would contact a half-dozen reputatl third parties and offer them exclusive licences and invite other interested publishers apply for one-off licences as well.  That would lead to a system that is closed while at the same time lookin accessible to third parties.

I think WOTC sincerely wants to see third parties experiment with 4e, just not in a way that jeopradizes core book sales.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 18, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I replied to the below.  (all caps portion in your original)




I suppose my word choice between posts could have been more clear.  

QUESTION: What, in reality, does Wizards fear from third parties...

ANSWER: Anything that compromises sales of core rule books?

To me it is as simple as that.  Using 4e design elements that complement the core rule books is not seen as competition.  Building a wider network from that hub, actually helps drive core sales.

Using 4e design elements in a way that competes with Core Book sales, on the other hand, is unacceptable to them.  An OGL-style licence opens up just that threat -- and past experience proves these fears well founded.

Now there is a that a third party will release a supplement that directly competes with a Wizards supplement.  There is a much smaller chance that this supplement will direclty eat into Wizards sales of this product.  And I will concede, that under the licence as written, Wizards could move to squash the competition.  

But, given the considerations above, such a move (which would, at the first instance perpetually ivalidate the GSL) would be akin to biting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I suppose my word choice between posts could have been more clear.



fair enough.



> QUESTION: What, in reality, does Wizards fear from third parties...
> 
> ANSWER: Anything that compromises sales of core rule books?



I completely respect WotC's right to do what they think is in their best interest.  

In a market of the nature of recreation, I think respecting your customers is a big part of that.  Maybe I'm wrong, but if so then so be it.

I think trying to harm the OGL is a harm against their fans at large.
I think trying to make people (both buyers and 3PPs) embrace a new system is much better done by selling the merits of that system and that poison pills are purely negative.    I think everyone, including WotC, loses in the long run as a result of this kind of move.  

I also respect my own right to do what is in my best interest.  That includes both voting with my wallet and giving myself an illusion of significance through expressing my opinon on messageboards.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm seeing a few posts about a "4e OSRIC" in this thread, and I'd just like to ask you all please not to, if you wouldn't mind.

OSRIC is specifically a mechanism for releasing products compatible with the non-copyrightable parts of first edition, and that's all it is or will be.

Having read the GSL, I dissociate myself from 4e entirely; it doesn't exist for me.  I certainly don't intend to create anything resembling 4e.  I don't condone any attempt anyone else might make to do a thing like that, and I really don't want the name of my product associated with the idea, please.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 18, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a few posts about a "4e OSRIC" in this thread, and I'd just like to ask you all please not to, if you wouldn't mind.
> 
> OSRIC is specifically a mechanism for releasing products compatible with the non-copyrightable parts of first edition, and that's all it is or will be.
> 
> Having read the GSL, I dissociate myself from 4e entirely; it doesn't exist for me.  I certainly don't intend to create anything resembling 4e.  I don't condone any attempt anyone else might make to do a thing like that, and I really don't want the name of my product associated with the idea, please.




I don't think anyone's going to call their work "4E OSRIC" or anything like that. They're referencing your work because it's the best (and indeed, the only) example of taking the existing OGL materials and (legally) altering them to the point where they resemble a different game entirely. It opened up a lot of new possibilities in peoples' minds, and set a new precedent.

I think it's inevitable that someone will attempt to do the same with materials released under the OGL to make them resemble the 4E game mechanics. In essence doing what OSRIC did, but for a different sytem. Once that has a name, people will stop calling it "4E OSRIC," though that'll still be an apt descriptor.

No one's trying to make trouble for you or your work, but I think that this sort of thinking is an unavoidable byproduct of it.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 18, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I think it's inevitable that someone will attempt to do the same with materials released under the OGL to make them resemble the 4E game mechanics.




I agree.  And when that happens, I want to be on record as having said clearly and publicly that I do not condone any attempt to do this!


----------



## Yair (Jun 18, 2008)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.
> 
> What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.



While the GSL may be altered at WotC's whim, it is a fairly certain bet that it won't be drastically altered for years, and that adhering to it and working with WotC will allow you to reference their books, publish compatible products, and advertise them as such - all great advantages.

Now, I THINK you can do all of that under Fair Use too. But it's more risky. So the advantages I see in the GSL, for a publisher, are:

A) It allows you to publish D&D-compatible products in relative legal safety.
B) It allows you to use WotC's formats, which will assist making your products appealing to the readership.

The disadvantages are:
A) In case the safe-haven fails, WotC can punish you much more severely, with claims over their legal costs, the requirement to destroy your stock, and so on.
B) By publishing content under the GSL, you are restricting your ability to later publish it under the OGL even if you or WotC terminate the GSL.
C) By changing the SRD (e.g. adding "Druid" to it), WotC may make currently compatible products incompatible. Unlike changes to the licesne itself, this I reckon to be more common and likely, a more relevant concern.
D) You are limited in the range of products you can publish - you better stay away from any setting involving the real world, you may not publish a MM where Demons are founded on the Christian or Mesopotemian mythology, you can't make software products, and so on.
E) When the GSL will be terminated, you will be forced to destroy your current stock and stop selling any and all GSL products. This is "when", since eventually it will.



			
				Talath said:
			
		

> I think people are looking at this through cynical eye-glasses. Sure, the GSL is restrictive, but honestly, do you think WotC would approve a license that forced 3pps to modify their published works if WotC happens to use something similar, or similarly named? That's counter-intuitive to their aims. Setting ground rules is fine, but setting up loopsholes to screw 3pps? Thats nonsense. I'm sure this will be clarified.



I hope you are right.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For the US jurisdiction is easy. Section 19 limits all court cases to the state or federal courts based in King County, Washington State with no jury option available.



I thought a jury be peers was an inalienable right. Shows how much I know about law...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 18, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> While the GSL may be altered at WotC's whim, it is a fairly certain bet that it won't be drastically altered for years, and that adhering to it and working with WotC will allow you to reference their books, publish compatible products, and advertise them as such - all great advantages.
> 
> Now, I THINK you can do all of that under Fair Use too. But it's more risky. So the advantages I see in the GSL, for a publisher, are:
> 
> ...




What? No mention of that insignificant little advantage of putting the actual DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS logo on your product?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> TimeOut - I'd love to see your reasoning on your claims about monsters. I mean, you keep saying "I'm not a lawyer" and then making strong, unqualified claims about what the GSL means. It seems a bit misleading to me.




Those "claims" are based on my honest understanding of the GSL. It is how I read the text and the intent of both the GSL document and the SRD guidelines. If my interpretion is wrong, that is good. I am rather more restrictive in my interpretion, because the GSL seems to be restrictive in its intent.



> It seems that if "change" a monster you created a new monster unless you specifically say that it's based on the previous monster. I don't see any sane reason why you couldn't publish it's entire stat-block.
> 
> I mean, is a new kind of Orc Skirmisher a "changed" version of the old Orc Skirmisher, or a new creature? Seems to me that it's inevitably the latter.




I don't know. Is a changed (leveled, rewritten, whatever) Orc truly a complete new creature? It seems to me that if you give the Orc the ability "Warrior's Surge", you are not allowed to list it in the new statblock.

Of course you can write everything out that has changed, but I would assume that unchanged properties must be referenced.



> What about Elves or Humans, say? By your logic you couldn't print their full stats and abilities, ever, because they have certain racial traits. I don't actually think WotC are that maliciously stupid. If they are, then it's clear their sole intention is to discourage anyone from producing 4E products, even adventures, which means that I won't be support them any further.




Of course you can create Elves and Humans. But I think that any description of their racial powers must be referenced (like the orc ability above).

I don't think it is good, and I really hope that I'm too restrictive in my interpretation, but that is something that needs clear clarification from WotC.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> I don't know. Is a changed (leveled, rewritten, whatever) Orc truly a complete new creature? It seems to me that if you give the Orc the ability "Warrior's Surge", you are not allowed to list it in the new statblock.



Is "Warrior's Surge" listed in the SRD?  I'd say if it is, you can't include it.  If it isn't, then it's subsumed under "Orc", and if you update any part of "Orc", you can reprint the entirety of the reference.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Is "Warrior's Surge" listed in the SRD?  I'd say if it is, you can't include it.  If it isn't, then it's subsumed under "Orc", and if you update any part of "Orc", you can reprint the entirety of the reference.



It is listed as an 4e Reference.


----------



## Yair (Jun 18, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What? No mention of that insignificant little advantage of putting the actual DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS logo on your product?



It is my understanding that you can do so without the GSL. The use of the logo, or something close to it, doesn't constitute a violation of trademark law IF it only indicates compatability. So, you can say that your program works with Microsoft Windows, without needing Microsoft's permission. If the use can mislead the customer to think that the product IS a D&D product (or is a Microsoft program or so on) than this is a breach of trademark; but trademark law does NOT prohibit the use of your trademarks by others, only its use to identify their products as part of your brand or so on.

If I'm mistaken in this, then certainly it's a big advantage. But if I'm right, the advantage lies more in the ability to do so under relatively clear guidelines in a legal safe haven, which is why I listed it within it.

Edit:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
"To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods."
However,
"the owner of a mark can bring an action against any use of that mark that dilutes the distinctive quality of that mark, either through "blurring" or "tarnishment" of that mark; unlike an infringement claim, likelihood of confusion is not necessary. "
I doubt the latter would hold for this case, though, except maybe for BoEF or so on.
Finally,
"Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product."
I believe identifying your product as compatible with THAT product falls under _this_ protection. But of course, IANAL.


----------



## Tao (Jun 18, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Is "Warrior's Surge" listed in the SRD?  I'd say if it is, you can't include it.  If it isn't, then it's subsumed under "Orc", and if you update any part of "Orc", you can reprint the entirety of the reference.




It is my understanding that you could, in fact, include it regardless, due to the fact that the _applied mechanical results_ of racial traits for the individual races on pages 276-279 are permissible according to the SRD (pg 3).  

In other words, you could not write "Orcs have the following ability:", but you _could_ write "The orc crusher can..."


This is something I plan on asking for verification on before I publish, just to be sure... however, that is my interpretation of that phrasing.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 18, 2008)

defendi said:
			
		

> How about creating your own warlock class, and not including it, then directing people to that class as per the suggestion on Humans above.



That is utterly ridiculous.  I'm not going to design an entire new class from the ground up because I want one of its powers to work differently, or to not allow a certain group of powers.  And I couldn't copy any powers, or I'd violate the license in other ways.

No, I'm not going to invent a whole new race just because I want to change a minor aspect, or invent a whole new class if I want to change a minor aspect.  I'm just not going to participate.

I'm in love with the 4E rules, but this really sours me on the whole thing.  I'm not sure what I'll do at this point.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 18, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> That is utterly ridiculous.  I'm not going to design an entire new class from the ground up because I want one of its powers to work differently



Why would you need to do that?  If you want a power to work differently, write up the power the way you want it to work, give it a different name and stick it in your product as a new power for Warlocks.  Am I missing something?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Why would you need to do that?  If you want a power to work differently, write up the power the way you want it to work, give it a different name and stick it in your product as a new power for Warlocks.  Am I missing something?



Yes. What stops people from using the "old" power? Nothing, which seems to be the intent of the GSL.

My campaign world has no Gods, so no Divine power source. As far as I understand the GSL doesn't allow me to exclude these things.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Yes. What stops people from using the "old" power? Nothing, which seems to be the intent of the GSL.
> 
> My campaign world has no Gods, so no Divine power source. As far as I understand the GSL doesn't allow me to exclude these things.




In reading it over, I can see no reason why you could not simply mention the no gods aspect as an element of fluff and then never bring up clerics in the text. Same with dragonborn and tieflings.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 18, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> And the bad press of the attempt would create far too much ill will in exactly the people they count on buying their product.




Hagen Daiz versus Ben and Jerry's eh? (B & J won that one.)


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> In reading it over, I can see no reason why you could not simply mention the no gods aspect as an element of fluff and then never bring up clerics in the text. Same with dragonborn and tieflings.



Sure. That is said in the FAQ too. I am not forced to include a 4e Reference. But I can't exclude it either, only omit it in the description and hope that players don't try to use the classes.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 18, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see the explanations/clarifications/apologies from Scott on all of this.




Reading blogs from WotCers, the ideological justification seems to be that we were all Bad People who didn't just make adventures and critters to support the core rules like we were supposed to, so they had to take it away.

Y'know? So be it. They're not obligated to give away stuff. It's neither right nor wrong. What's wrong are the sections that appear to recruit third parties to rat on each other for possible IP violations and impinge on the kind of fair use I think is vital to a fan community.


----------



## Tao (Jun 18, 2008)

This is a pretty conclusive list, but the subsequent discussion had quite a bit of misinformation spattered in.  I'll respond to the best of my understanding.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Is Morrus's "fan creation of the week" compliant with the new GSL?



This will fall under the (to be released) fan site policy



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a classbook with DRUID, BARBARIAN, BARD, MONK, etc?



Yes.  If those terms are later added to the GSL, there would be a conflict and the product would likely have to be taken off of the shelves (Consult a lawyer for verification if you plan on doing this).



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a standalone module for use by itself without reference?  What if EVERY creature I use has at least one +1 level to it?



Yes.  



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a DUNGEON Magazine type product to compete with the online product from WOTC?



Yes, as long as it is a .PDF (this is actually my publishing plan).



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a class splatbook with all new powers you can use "instead" of the existing powers in the Core Rules (Daily, Encounter, At Will)?



Yes.  Including the use of the format used in official WotC products.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a book of feats?



Yes.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a book of magic items?



Yes.  Including the use of the format used in official WotC products.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release of book of "common" treasures?



Absolutely.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Release a monster book with every monster statted out for every level? Goblin 1, Goblin 2, Goblin 3...Goblin 30



Yes, provided you don't reproduce abilities not expressly permitted.  For any of the nonstandard races given in the back of the MM, you could do this with the appropriate racial traits included (without reference).  And a very cool idea at that.  



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Is there a way you could do something similiar to Arcana Unearthed any longer?



Somewhat tricky. This is one I would suggest talking to a lawyer about.  It would have to be done carefully to avoid "redefinition" issues, and you couldn't change or tweak the combat system.  Probably best to develop a new system for something this different or wait for the d20 SRD.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Is there ANY way you could do something like Conan, simply without referencing the experience/advancement, but with all new classes, powers, abilities, feats, etc. (all low magic themed).



Don't know if this is the best system for it, but I suppose you could.  Again, you couldn't change or tweak the combat system.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Can you do Star Wars?  (or Star Warriors to avoid OGL issues) or Spycraft, or Superheroes?



Star Wars Saga is actually better than any 4e conversion is likely to be.  For the others, you'll probably want to wait for the d20 SRD.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Can you create rules content and support for things that don't exist?  How to handle large scale wars, empire building, running a kingdom, running a business, forming and leading an organization or guild, the game effects of a catastrophe?



Yup.  Without a doubt.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Can you create new tools or new ways for characters to get powers beyond those from their race, class, feats, and magic items?  For example, visiting a static location, or as a benefit for being part of an organization, or for pledging allegiance to a diety...



Sure.  Obviously... watch for balance issues.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Why would you need to do that?  If you want a power to work differently, write up the power the way you want it to work, give it a different name and stick it in your product as a new power for Warlocks.  Am I missing something?




Apparently so. He wants to change a power, not add an alternative. That's against the terms of the GSL.

*Timeout* - Yep and I'm rather concerned that WotC's inclusionist attitude means even when the redo the old settings they'll force all that junk into them, no matter how inappropriate.

You really should be able to say "There are no Clerics in the world of X".


----------



## Scribble (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Sure. That is said in the FAQ too. I am not forced to include a 4e Reference. But I can't exclude it either, only omit it in the description and hope that players don't try to use the classes.




Wait, I'm confuzzled... Where in the faq does it say I cannoy exclude a reference?

I see where it says I don't have to include them, and I see where it says I still ahve to include the legal blurb... But nothing about not excluding stuff?

Where does it say I cannot say: There are no clerics in Montgomeryburnesia?


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Where does it say I cannot say: There are no clerics in Montgomeryburnesia?




It doesn't say so directly. But by excluding a class you are essentially changing the 4e Reference of that class, as far as I understand it. That is not allowed.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 18, 2008)

> It is my understanding that you can do so without the GSL. The use of the logo, or something close to it, doesn't constitute a violation of trademark law IF it only indicates compatability.




Not the LOGO, but the word.

You can say your product is Microsoft Windows compatible, but you can't stamp a logo on the box without following Microsoft's licensing guidelines.

You might be able to say your product is Dungeons and Dragons(R) compatible.  But you CAN'T use any stylized logo that says so.  Fair use of Trademark does not mean you can use the unique graphic logo in a product.  That would truly cause "confusion".


----------



## Tao (Jun 18, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> It doesn't say so directly. But by excluding a class you are essentially changing the 4e Reference of that class, as far as I understand it. That is not allowed.




This is incorrect.  You _can_ exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.  

For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead".  One is exclusion (allowed) the other is redefinition (not allowed).  You could, however, make a "Holy Man" class that has the flavor of the cleric (or even grants access to precisely their power list) with different class features.

Additionally, you cannot remove a power from a class's list, as that _would_ fall under redefinition of a class.

If you use a specific reference from the SRD it has to be exactly as stated (all or nothing).  Otherwise, do not reference it at all.


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 18, 2008)

Tao said:
			
		

> This is incorrect.  You _can_ exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.
> 
> For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead".




Thanks. So at least that part of my setting is saved.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 18, 2008)

Tao said:
			
		

> This is incorrect.  You _can_ exclude something, but you cannot selectively exclude certain aspects of something.
> 
> For example... you can say "there are no clerics" but you cannot say "clerics cannot turn undead".  One is exclusion (allowed) the other is redefinition (not allowed).  You could, however, make a "Holy Man" class that has the flavor of the cleric (or even grants access to precisely their power list) with different class features.
> 
> If you use a specific reference from the SRD it has to be exactly as stated (all or nothing).  Otherwise, do not reference it at all.




So could I exclude attributes, skills, combat, classes, actions and introduce my rules such as abilities, talents, conflict, careers, tasks?
Are you sure about what you are saying?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that's just a scare clause.  I would be amazingly surprised if such a claim ever held up in any court- I'd even hazard to say that it's blatantly illegal





			
				JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> No, it's a contract.  It isn't illegal. No one has to use the license, WOTC does not have a monopoly on RPGs.    Using  that license means you use the whole license.



Are either of you lawyers?

I suspect that most US jurisdictions have a doctrine about the non-enforcement of excessive contractual penalties (this is certainly part of Australian contract law) but unless you are familiar with that law I think you have to be cautious in saying, of any particular clause, that it would be unenforceable.

And, by the way, unenforcability does not entail illegality.


----------



## Harr (Jun 18, 2008)

I am not a lawyer and I am not a publisher, I am a mere DM with some players, but I will say that the GSL is right in line with WotC's recent attitude of _"Let's go ahead and see *just how far* we can push 'em before they start pushing back"_, seen in many little ways like the pricing of their preview books, DDI, KotS and its print quality, the treatment of Dungeon and Dragon, etc, etc, etc. 

I'm noone to be criticizing, and I love 4e as a game, but just saying, camel's back's gotta break sometime. At least it will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Tao (Jun 18, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> So could I exclude attributes, skills, combat, classes, actions and introduce my rules such as abilities, talents, conflict, careers, tasks?
> Are you sure about what you are saying?





I just added something to the above quote for clarity, but I'll clarify here as well. If you reference something from the SRD, you get ALL of it, with all baggage attached.  If you don't reference, or specifically say you don't want it, then you don't get _any_ of it.


As for the ramifications of what you are implying... well... to be honest... I know what I am saying, but have no idea what you are saying... 

If you wanted to do that, it would technically be allowed so long as the rules in question were different enough.  But the removal of those specific mechanics would require that both the combat and noncombat mechanics be rewritten to fit your new phrasing (which you can't legally do).  So... at that point you would be making a completely different game.  It would be less effort (for both you and your consumer) to simply start from scratch than try to rebuild to that extent.  

So could you legally make alternate names for things?  Sure.  But you cannot say that "attributes = abilities" (would fall under redefinition if you spelled it out that clearly), nor can you rewrite the other mechanics to fit your new wording.  So, would replacing mechanics things accomplish anything?  Nope.  In fact, it just doesn't work in practice.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 19, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I suspect that most US jurisdictions have a doctrine about the non-enforcement of excessive contractual penalties (this is certainly part of Australian contract law) but unless you are familiar with that law I think you have to be cautious in saying, of any particular clause, that it would be unenforceable.
> 
> And, by the way, unenforcability does not entail illegality.



That jurisdiction thing is the main issue in the US.  Unlike a centralized system we're Federal, so each State will have a different and often conflicting set of laws.  One of the reasons each State has a bar, the laws are different in each.  In some States there are laws that would make that clause about paying WoTC's legal fees unenforceable.  In others it would fly.  And even then it could be appealed ad-nausea up the chain looking for a favorable ruling.  Similarly clause 19 would stipulate that the case must be held by particular courts, but not every state would necessarily honor that clause.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 19, 2008)

Tao said:
			
		

> So, would renaming things be a practical solution to anything?



 You could license your material to other 3pp and it is OGL all over again by Wotc legal permission.
If what you said is truly correct which I am not sure it is.

That is I am not sure you can say "there are no clerics".


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 19, 2008)

Summation of the GSL:

WotC:  Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements _for_ D&D.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 19, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Summation of the GSL:
> 
> WotC:  Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements _for_ D&D.
> 
> Seems pretty reasonable to me.




I'll bet you serious money the GSL means fewer supplements _for_ the game that WOTC are now calling D&D.  (In a poll on this page, 43.26% of ENWorld respondents thought 4e wasn't really D&D any more.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 19, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> (In a poll on this page, 43.26% of ENWorld respondents thought 4e wasn't really D&D any more.)



A poll to which, what, about 600 self-selected people responded?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> A poll to which, what, about 600 self-selected people responded?




Yup.  Or fewer, some of whom may have found ways to vote several times.  It's hardly a scientific sample, I agree.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 19, 2008)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> LeaderDesslok said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess I shouldn't use metaphors.  I meant that WotC can't stop a 3pp from producing specific content that Wizards will later produce using the same name but differently defined, but it can prevent that 3pp and other 3pps from ever using the original 3pp content in the future.

(As a side note, it's amazing how fast these threads grow if you leave for work!)



> IF I was WOTC management and IF I was secretly infuriated by the OGL, I would not even mess with the GSL.  I would contact a half-dozen reputatl third parties and offer them exclusive licences and invite other interested publishers apply for one-off licences as well.  That would lead to a system that is closed while at the same time lookin accessible to third parties.
> 
> I think WOTC sincerely wants to see third parties experiment with 4e, just not in a way that jeopradizes core book sales.




I agree in principle. I am just unclear how they will deal with additions to the SRD in the future that may supercede pre-existing content with the same name from 3pps.


----------



## skinnydwarf (Jun 19, 2008)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> Well, now that I've read the entire thing word for word, one part of the GSL kinda jumped out at me, especially after Wizards expressly forbids us stealing their intelectual property.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No.  At least, I don't think so.  The important phrase in the quoted language is "*independent* development", ie they created it on their own.  As far as I can tell, WoTC is covering their behinds so if they make something similar to you, you can't turn around and claim they stole your idea.

In any event, they can steal your ideas, license or no license.  In terms of copyright protection, ideas are not protected.*  Only expression of a particular idea is protected.  To take a simple example, a particular picture of a demon (say the picture on the cover of Fiendish Codex I) is expression.  The idea of a demon is not, and the very idea of a demon can't be copyrighted.

I suspect this is why Reaper can make the Bathalian miniature which looks a whole heck of a lot like a Mind Flayer (which isn't open, right?) and not expect a letter from WoTC's lawyers.  Reaper's expression of the idea of a Tentacle headed monster is different enough from WoTC's images to be protected.

The distinction between ideas (not protected) and expression (protected) is somewhat vague, but certain things are known.  General ideas - the idea of a play about star-crossed lovers, are not protected.    Specific expression- eg, the exact text of Romeo and Juliet would be protected (if Shakespeare were still alive and his work were not in the public domain).  Essentially, the closer you get to copying specific expression, the more likely you are violating someone's copyright.

Regarding your example of WoTC making an exact copy of your adventure, you would likely have a case of copyright infringement against them.  They copied your expression, not just your ideas.  However, they might take the same general story (even consciously copy it), and so long as their expression is not too similar to yours, they would not violate their copyright.  Now, if they took the same characters, had a similar town, had really similar pictures, similar encounters in the same order, that would get closer to being the same expression.

Think about all the really similar stories you have read over the years, or similar TV shows.  They have really similar storylines, yes?  In other words, they have similar ideas.  But the expression of those ideas are different, so there is no copyright problem.

Disclaimer: I am almost a lawyer, (if I get off ENWorld and study for the bar) but this is not legal advice.

* I know, I may be using "idea" in a more technical way than others.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 19, 2008)

Excellent explanation, skinnydwarf.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 19, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Summation of the GSL:
> 
> WotC:  Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements _for_ D&D.




I doubt that.  

The revocable nature of the license, the pulping of licensed products upon termination, and the permanent 1 way product line conversion for OGL stuff means this is a less attractive license IMO for publishing D&D supplements than the OGL was.

4e has already lagged behind the number of D&D support books that came out day 1 of 3e. We'll see how they do on Oct. 1.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 19, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I doubt that.
> 
> The revocable nature of the license, the pulping of licensed products upon termination, and the permanent 1 way product line conversion for OGL stuff means this is a less attractive license IMO for publishing D&D supplements than the OGL was.
> 
> 4e has already lagged behind the number of D&D support books that came out day 1 of 3e. We'll see how they do on Oct. 1.




Hmm.  I meant it differently than people are taking it.  It was more along the lines of what WotC is trying to encourage people to do. 

To me, this GSL is essentially WotC saying to the 3PP, "Guys, stop making variant games based on D&D, and make more supplements that all D&D players can use."

I loved a lot of the stuff that was created under the OGL. But near the end, variant rulesets started to limit the interoperability of a lot of stuff.  People started making supplements not for the default version of D&D, but for their own specific variant of D&D.

The additive nature of the new GSL means that everything that is made, is made on top of the basic ruleset, and thus can be used with the basic ruleset.  If you have a variant system created by removing or redefining basic elements, stuff created for that variant system has a harder and harder time being used with other systems that didn't make the same removals and redefinitions.

The GSL allows you to use the Dungeons & Dragons logo, and the restrictions of the GSL are clearly intended to make sure that whatever you make is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons.  The GSL is not the new version of the OGL. The OGL is dead and gone. The GSL is a stronger version of the d20 license.


----------



## nothing to see here (Jun 19, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that you can do so without the GSL. The use of the logo, or something close to it, doesn't constitute a violation of trademark law IF it only indicates compatability. So, you can say that your program works with Microsoft Windows, without needing Microsoft's permission. If the use can mislead the customer to think that the product IS a D&D product (or is a Microsoft program or so on) than this is a breach of trademark; but trademark law does NOT prohibit the use of your trademarks by others, only its use to identify their products as part of your brand or so on.




I'd be prepared to wager that few decisions would get you acquainted with WOTC legal counsel as fast as sticking the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your trade dress in any way not expressly detailed in the GSL.


----------



## Yair (Jun 19, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Not the LOGO, but the word.
> 
> You can say your product is Microsoft Windows compatible, but you can't stamp a logo on the box without following Microsoft's licensing guidelines.
> 
> You might be able to say your product is Dungeons and Dragons(R) compatible.  But you CAN'T use any stylized logo that says so.  Fair use of Trademark does not mean you can use the unique graphic logo in a product.  That would truly cause "confusion".



Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be _as long_ as it is used in a manner that won't confuse. If I were to put the D&D name in letter reminiscent of the D&D-logo, say something like


> "This product is designed to be compatible with the [logo-like]Dungeons & Dragons[/logo-like](R) Fourth Edition game. ... [small-letters]This product is not validated or in any way affiliated with Wizards of the Coast (R), and is not part of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) game"[/small-letters]."



I can't see how that can be interpreted as leading to confusion in any _reasonable_ customer, which I think is the criterion. 

Of course, IANAL. If you are one, I'd defer to your wisdom.



			
				nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I'd be prepared to wager that few decisions would get you acquainted with WOTC legal counsel as fast as sticking the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your trade dress in any way not expressly detailed in the GSL.



I won't take that wager   As I said, the advantage of the GSL is that it provides a relatively safe harbor.

Still, there are venues with laws at least _intended_ to protect you from harassment litigation. If you are based in such a place, I'd consider taking even Hasbaro on, if you're a 3pp wanting to publish products for 4e.


----------



## Yair (Jun 19, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> To me, this GSL is essentially WotC saying to the 3PP, "Guys, stop making variant games based on D&D, and make more supplements that all D&D players can use."



I agree, and think it's cool. I don't think anyone is saying it isn't cool that WotC is allowing this.

What isn't cool is that WotC allows this in a way that poisons the content you create. If you write the Rapan Athuk adventure for 4e - great! but now you can't publish Rapan Athuk 3e, or True20, adventures - not so great, but acceptable. What's really got people in a tangle is that when 4e ends, and the GSL is hence revoked - you can't take Rapan Athuk and publish it under the OGL, under the Pathfinder Tenth Edition rules. You arguably can't even publish it under any other system, or into the public domain, as WotC is the sole judge of what's part of the same "product line", and may look at the content in deciding that. That's just has nothing to do with being allowed to make supplements rather than variant games, it goes way beyond that.

I also think it would have been even cooler if WotC had allowed some leeway in what's a "variant game". I don't think using an alternate "turn undead" mechanic (or "Druid" class, or what a "Demon" is) is an alternate game that should be blocked. The inability to present variant rules significantly limits the game IMHO.



> the restrictions of the GSL are clearly intended to make sure that whatever you make is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons.



The poison pill restriction has nothing to do with that.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 19, 2008)

If you don't like the GSL, why not produce your material for a system more in line with Ryan Dancey's vision?  OSRIC certainly has room for more writers and more publishers...


----------



## TimeOut (Jun 19, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Summation of the GSL:
> 
> WotC:  Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements _for_ D&D.
> 
> Seems pretty reasonable to me.




Sure, it is reasonable. The intent is clearly a good one for the D&D brand. But if you are too restricted to create even the basic supplements beyond "Feats and Powers splatbook #2003244-XA" then the license is wrong.

I would love to publish (for free) my campaign setting and all the stuff I have written for it in the past, after I finish converting it all to 4e. I can't do so, without removing some things from the core setting.

There are no gods, so no classes based on the divine power source. Arcane classes have a fundamentally other working, because arcane magic is not the default accessible magic on this world.

There are no Dragonborn, Halflings, Eladrin or Tieflings in the world. (Yes, it sounds restrictive at first, but actually it isn't.)

It is ok that I can't just modify the existing classes and I understand the reasons. But I need the right to exclude specific parts completely from my setting. This is not changing or altering them, just saying that class "x" from the D&D 4e PLAYERS HANDBOOK is not availiable.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 19, 2008)

> Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be as long as it is used in a manner that won't confuse. If I were to put the D&D name in letter reminiscent of the D&D-logo, say something like




While I am not a lawyer, I have studied Trademark law in general.  I can show you the USC Code, but it's probably easier showing you the Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution


You have the right to "fair use" of the trademark.  Using the logo is not allowed unless it's a case of something like comparing a physical product to another--if you're doing a comparison ad for Pepsi you might be able to us a Coke bottle (with its trademarked logo) next to it--or if the logo is so indistinct that it's considered a weak symbol.

You simply can't stamp any form of the Dungeons and Dragons logo on a box.  If you use their exact logo you are using it without authorization. Your using it to promote your product, that's not "fair use".  If you try a different logo with the same words--"Dungeons and/& Dragons, D&D, D and D, or other variations--it still comes under the same protection, since creating a different graphic logo of somebody else's trademark to use on your products is not fair use and is what Trademark law is designed to protect.  (Heck, people get sued for similar looking logos with different words.)  

You might be able to legally use it as a plain-text description, while also stating that it is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast and your use is not authorized by WoTC.   Note I say might.

I would be very careful with the trademark law.  It's the strongest law supporting WoTC in this case and protecting their property.


----------



## Yair (Jun 19, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_fair_use
> ...



The only relevant pieces I got from these were:

"Intent to sow confusion is also relevant; hence, the general rule that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose. For instance, use of a word mark is preferred to a logo, and a word mark in the same style of type as surrounding text is preferred to a word mark in its trademarked distinctive type."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use is, I think, relevant in its entirety, especially
"former Playboy Playmate Terri Welles was sued for using the trademarked term, "Playmate of the Year" in a meta element in her website. The court found that Welles had to use the term to completely describe herself, as she had been given that title by the trademark holder. In the same case, however, Welles was barred from using Playboy's famous bunny-ears logo - while she had a right to use the title for self-identification purposes, this did not extend to use of the logo."

So yeah, it appears you are correct. In this case, using the D&D logo is a great benefit of the GSL.

Edit: I'd note that I consider this a preversion of the trademark rules, as such a use of tradermark does not foster confusion or misidentification, which is what trademark law is supposed to be about. But that's totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 19, 2008)

Basically it boils down to WotC wanting to adopt the Microsoft model of development:  You can develop additions to our products that add extra functionality, but you can't modify our product itself.


----------



## Kaffis (Jun 19, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Sure, it is reasonable. The intent is clearly a good one for the D&D brand. But if you are too restricted to create even the basic supplements beyond "Feats and Powers splatbook #2003244-XA" then the license is wrong.
> 
> I would love to publish (for free) my campaign setting and all the stuff I have written for it in the past, after I finish converting it all to 4e. I can't do so, without removing some things from the core setting.
> 
> ...




And such a setting, in Wizards' eyes, dilutes the D&D brand because it is no longer representative of what they are pushing as "Dungeons and Dragons."

D&D has room for different campaign settings. Faerun, Eberron (though I imagine 4e Eberron will take a step back towards the mainstream in many mechanical ways), Planescape -- they're all D&D, in that they are different expressions of the same iconic classes and magical fantasy sword & sorcery settings.

Such drastic alterations of the available classes, to the point of even removing entire power sources and changing the functionality of others, has stopped being Dungeons and Dragons in Wizards' eyes, and, as such, they don't want you slapping their logo on it.

The fansite license might be less restrictive, and allow you to post your campaign setting on a website (vs. publishing it in a one-time download format such as, say, a .pdf) as a collection of home-brew setting and house rules that *refer* to D&D (but aren't referred to *as* D&D) core rulebooks. Also, some legal insight (and/or precedent) might map out an un-logo'd product that doesn't claim to be D&D but refers the reader to core rulebooks as okay, too, but I expect this scenario to be much less hazy in the fansite language.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 19, 2008)

TimeOut said:
			
		

> Yes. What stops people from using the "old" power? Nothing, which seems to be the intent of the GSL.



I'm not sure why you would need to stop people from using the old power.  As the publisher of a campaign setting, it's your job to give your campaign setting to the player/purchaser.  It's not your job to control how the player uses it once he has purchased it.  If he chooses a core PHB power rather than your new one for his Warlock character, isn't that his choice to make?  He has still purchased your book.  Isn't that all you can really ask for?



> My campaign world has no Gods, so no Divine power source. As far as I understand the GSL doesn't allow me to exclude these things.



You can easily say, "The Gods do not exist in the World of TimeOut and, as a result, people do not choose to become Clerics or Paladins."  That doesn't require you to redefine any terms or violate the stipulations of the GSL in any way.  Clerics, Paladins and Gods are all still defined exactly as they are in the core rules in your product, players are just instructed that those elements won't come up in play.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Apparently so. He wants to change a power, not add an alternative. That's against the terms of the GSL.



What I'm missing is why it's essential to change the original rather than offering an alternative.  Is it really the author's place to remove options from the end user?  You can't control what the end user does with your product once they purchase it anyway, so why try by redefining core rules?  Why not just offer the alternative and let the customer decide whether to use it or not?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 19, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Basically it boils down to WotC wanting to adopt the Microsoft model of development:  You can develop additions to our products that add extra functionality, but you can't modify our product itself.



Well, it's hardly unique to Microsoft. I could name Apple, too, but it's pretty standard business practice in may areas.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> That jurisdiction thing is the main issue in the US.  Unlike a centralized system we're Federal, so each State will have a different and often conflicting set of laws.



Australia is also a federal system, but under our constitution we do have a single common law of Australia (although, in practice, there are some variations from state to state because of the way our superior courts are structured).

Nevertheless, I would be surprised if there is any US jurisdiction which does not have _some_ doctrine pertaining to excessive contractual penalties - I would expect the question to be, rather, one of what constitutes excess in such a case.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be _as long_ as it is used in a manner that won't confuse.



First, "confusion" in trademark law probably has a technical meaning, and I would be hesitant to try and say what does or doesn't count as confusing without a sound knowledge of the relevant body of cases.

Second, why would WoTC not enjoy copyright in their logo, in which case reproducing it would be a breach of that copyright?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> And such a setting, in Wizards' eyes, dilutes the D&D brand because it is no longer representative of what they are pushing as "Dungeons and Dragons."





			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> You can easily say, "The Gods do not exist in the World of TimeOut and, as a result, people do not choose to become Clerics or Paladins."  That doesn't require you to redefine any terms or violate the stipulations of the GSL in any way.  Clerics, Paladins and Gods are all still defined exactly as they are in the core rules in your product, players are just instructed that those elements won't come up in play.



I think Ourph is right here. As far as I can see, nothing in the licence or the usage guidelines precludes one from saying that the game element denoted by a certain 4e Reference does not exist in a given campaign world.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> What isn't cool is that WotC allows this in a way that poisons the content you create. If you write the Rapan Athuk adventure for 4e - great! but now you can't publish Rapan Athuk 3e, or True20, adventures - not so great, but acceptable. What's really got people in a tangle is that when 4e ends, and the GSL is hence revoked - you can't take Rapan Athuk and publish it under the OGL, under the Pathfinder Tenth Edition rules. You arguably can't even publish it under any other system, or into the public domain, as WotC is the sole judge of what's part of the same "product line", and may look at the content in deciding that. That's just has nothing to do with being allowed to make supplements rather than variant games, it goes way beyond that.



What part of the licence precludes publication of an adventure after the GSL is terminated? Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 preclude publication under the OGL, subsequent to publication of a new product or conversion of an OGL produce, of a GSL product. They do not preclue publication of that product under any other licence (and in fact 10.2 contemplates just this possibility) or independently of any licence.


----------



## Boarstorm (Jun 20, 2008)

Sky... falling... must... warn... townfolk...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 20, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Australia is also a federal system, but under our constitution we do have a single common law of Australia (although, in practice, there are some variations from state to state because of the way our superior courts are structured).



Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain and many of the other former Commonwealth nations.  In fact my college political science texts used Australia as an example of a unitary state.  Oh well, nice to find out.



> Nevertheless, I would be surprised if there is any US jurisdiction which does not have _some_ doctrine pertaining to excessive contractual penalties - I would expect the question to be, rather, one of what constitutes excess in such a case.



You're right that every State will have some legal code pertaining to what constitute enforceable contractual penalties.  Thing is there's no guarantee any two states will have the same idea of what is enforceable.  On top of that a state may or may not honor the verdict of another state regarding the contract based on its own laws and any agreements or lack thereof between the various states.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain and many of the other former Commonwealth nations.  In fact my college political science texts used Australia as an example of a unitary state.  Oh well, nice to find out.



In that case I wouldn't regard your text book as very reliable! Australia has been a federal Commonwealth since federation in 1901 (prior to federation Australia was a collection of mostly self-governing British colonies).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jun 20, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain




The Law of England and Wales is different from the Law of Scotland, mate.  Britain isn't a centralised system.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 20, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What I'm missing is why it's essential to change the original rather than offering an alternative.  Is it really the author's place to remove options from the end user?




Why not?  Didn't WOTC's authors do just that?


----------



## chriton227 (Jun 20, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I believe in people's IP rights. Nevertheless, I have no intention of being a contracted, occasionally paid snitch a la 10.3.



And according to the 11.2 Survival portion, section 10 remains in force after the termination of the license, so if you accept the license you will always be required to be a contracted, occasionally paid snitch.

With the long lasting ramification of the license, and the number of things that are permanantly in Wizards favor compared to the number of things that Wizards can revoke from the licensee at will, I really don't expect to see many 3PPs being willing to agree to the GSL.  It feels almost as if they tried to make it so oppressive that no one would be willing to accept the terms, effectively stopping 3PP 4e products while still being able to say that they are open and willing to allow 3PP 4e products.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 23, 2008)

OK, maybe someone can explain this to me in layman's terms.

As I understand it, if you publish under the GSL, then you agree not to publish under the OGL. However, you CAN go back to the OGL, BUT if you do so, you will never be granted the right to use the GSL again.

Is this correct, or is it: if you publish under the GSL, you can never publish under the OGL again, even if you stop using the GSL.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2008)

Roughly, if you publish something under the GSL, then you come under a contractual obligation never to publish something having "the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents" under the OGL. The relevant clause of the GSL is 6.2.


----------

