# Revised GSL TODAY!



## JVisgaitis (Mar 2, 2009)

Just got an email from Scott Rouse. The revised GSL is going live today. There isn't anything else I'd want from this. It's perfect. Thanks to Scott for finally getting this to us. It is greatly appreciated.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 2, 2009)

Thanks very much for the heads up!  I put a link to this post on RPGnet, since I know that forum is also very interested in the GSL release.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 2, 2009)

It's up.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 2, 2009)

Sweet Baby Demogorgon! It looks great, thanks WotC!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 2, 2009)

Moniker said:


> Sweet Baby Demogorgon! It looks great, thanks WotC!



1) Baby Demogorgons aren't sweet. 

2) Good god that image. Two haded tentacle monkey babies. WAUGH.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 2, 2009)

Morrus posted this in the "Any word on the GSL" thread. He said this was sent in a letter along with the GSL to Publishers:



> [FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Publishing friends,
> 
> I just wanted to let you know that the revision of GSL that we announced back in August 2008 is going live today (it should go up around 4PM PST). I have posted a copy for your reference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rechan (Mar 2, 2009)

So. Any publisher want to explain what the real changes are? Or rather, what changed that was objected to for the most part?

What stayed that people dislike? 

Do the new changes help? 

How do people feel about this all?

I just know many people were unhappy with the previous GSL and calling doom and gloom, so I want someone who groks all this to explain it in layman.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 2, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> It's up.
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome





anyone have the old one?  i would like to do a word by word comparison.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 2, 2009)

I'm still reading through it, but, as far as I can tell, since the old section 6 is out, we can now support our titles in both OGL AND GSL, so long as we are very careful not to violate the existing GSL (which supercedes the ogl),

So, as an example, if  I decided I wanted to convert my Touch of Evil Game line, or Blood Throne, to 4e (which I'm now seriously considering), I could do so, as long as I don't redefine any of the terms in the SRD. Additionally, I can keep selling Blood Throne as a true20 product.

I'm going to need to check with a lawyer on that, but I believe I'm reading it right.

If anyone else interprets it differently, please speak up.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 2, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> anyone have the old one?  i would like to do a word by word comparison.




I do.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 3, 2009)

I just read through it and came to the same conclusions as Urizen.  It seems to bear out exactly what Scott sent to Morrus.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Mar 3, 2009)

Glad to see Gnomes in the SRD. 

To bad all the non-legacy PHII material is on the blacklist.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Urizen said:


> I'm still reading through it, but, as far as I can tell, since the old section 6 is out, we can now support our titles in both OGL AND GSL, so long as we are very careful not to violate the existing GSL (which supercedes the ogl),
> 
> So, as an example, if  I decided I wanted to convert my Touch of Evil Game line, or Blood Throne, to 4e (which I'm now seriously considering), I could do so, as long as I don't redefine any of the terms in the SRD. Additionally, I can keep selling Blood Throne as a true20 product.
> 
> ...




I think I do... I'm not a lawyer though. 

relevant text from the FAQ



			
				 GSL FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
> A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same  as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)




Which seems to indicate you can have stuff using both the OGL, and GSL at the same time, but you have to make sure you follow the GSL rules first.

IE if you use something that's defined in the GSL, you can't choose to use how it's defined in the OGL instead. You have to go with the GSL version.


----------



## justanobody (Mar 3, 2009)

I have the old one, but no way to distribute it, and the SRD file fails to load. SO... they are using some kind of graphics or something that fails to work right it seems rather than just a single image layer and text. or the file just refuses to download.

Anyone think they will make a text version for people since WotC has so many problems making PDFs that work?


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> IE if you use something that's defined in the GSL, you can't choose to use how it's defined in the OGL instead. You have to go with the GSL version.




Yeah that would make sense. 

Any conversions can't define or redefine any existing terms in the GSL SRD.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Urizen said:


> Yeah that would make sense.
> 
> Any conversions can't define or redefine any existing terms in the GSL SRD.




Also there's nothing in the GSL itself that actually talks about the OGL, so it doesn't seem like there's anything to prevent you from still publishing your existing OGL stuff right? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Rechan (Mar 3, 2009)

So the "No OGL and GSL products in the same line" is now out. That seemed to have been a big stickywicket for many a publisher.

How about the "No reposting monster statblocks in your adventure"?


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Just took a quickie look at it, and please don't take this as legal advice, just observations:

They can cancel the GSL at any time.

They can change the GSL and/or SRD at any time.

Therefore, anything people didn't like from the first version that was taken out can be put back in.

Plus, if there are any legally questionable claims of right WOTC makes in the GSL (9.1), you can't fight it if you sign the GSL.

Also, it looks like they can put out stuff similar to yours and compete against you.

Not something I would feel comfortable making long-term business decisions with.

If you are a guy who wants to put out a supplement once a year or so for 4e, and make a hundred bucks here and there, no major loss.

If you're a guy basing a business and livelihood around 4e products, seems risky to me.  Your livelihood is in the hands of the Hasbro corporate executive of the month in charge over there.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket if I were a 3pp. develop your business broadly, support Pathfinder, C&C, etc., in order to have options if Goober the future new VP of WOTC who never rolled dice before has a brain fart and screws over all 3pp's.

Just my gut take on it from a fast read.  Again, not legal advice, so don't take it as such. Consult a lawyer who specializes in IP and/or business contracts. I do not work in those areas.


Joe


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Also there's nothing in the GSL itself that actually talks about the OGL, so it doesn't seem like there's anything to prevent you from still publishing your existing OGL stuff right? Or am I missing something?




No, I think you got it right.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Just took a quickie look at it, and please don't take this as legal advice, just observations:
> 
> They can cancel the GSL at any time.
> 
> ...




I for one appreciate your "non-legal" observations. 

It's nice to develop some sort of concensus on something before spending the money on legal advice, which I plan to do anyhow.

I am a bit concerned about them possibly trying to compete directly with 3pp such as myself, though. Not that there's anyhting I can do about it except not sign.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 3, 2009)

I think that it's a strong step in the direction of regaining some of the goodwill that has been lost. It still doesn't allow the freedom that the OGL had, but good business sense should tell you that the OGL was too good. It was open to the point where it had the potential to hurt WotC's business interests. Also, many licenses that you would pay many thousands of dollars for have a clause in there allowing them to kill your line at will. I think that if your goal is to support D&D, then this is good. If your goal is to do something out in left field, then it's not so good, leaving the 3.x mechanics and OGL the preferred choice. For instance, it looks doubtful that someone like me could take the parts of 4E that I like and splice them together with the excised counterparts from 3.x.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 3, 2009)

So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




Welcome to the Internet. May I take your coat?


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




I'm perfectly happy with it. It's a vast improvement. It gives me more freedom to do what I want.

Don't get me wrong.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Welcome to the Internet. May I take your coat?




Dude! What the BLURP is the Internet???


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




For me its not a matter being happy with it or not.  I don't really care.  I have Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, and access to more gaming supplements than I could use in 87 lifetimes.  I personally don't use or like 4e, but that's not really an issue because it doesn't change my Friday game night in the least.

Heck, I don't even need 4e to attract new gamers.  My brother, with whom I have been gaming with for 25 years, just had triplets last year, and his 3 yr old already knows that Red Dragons breath fire and are bad guys.    The 3 yr. old already has a set of dice!  His father's original set, in red, his favorite color.  

I just pointed out as objectively as I could the potential risks in the new GSL for businesses who want to use it.  It's up to those businesses to get a real legal opinion on the matter, examine the risks, and weight the risks vs. the rewards of signing the GSL and making 4e compatible products.  Some will sign it, some won't.  Simple as that.


----------



## caudor (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> How about the "No reposting monster statblocks in your adventure"?




Hum, I have not found a mention of this anywhere.  Perhaps this will be cleared up as more people read and interpret it.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

caudor said:


> Hum, I have not found a mention of this anywhere.  Perhaps this will be cleared up as more people read and interpret it.




It's a holdover from the first version of the GSL, section 4.1.

You cannot define or redefine any term in the SRD, which means you cannot reprint monster statblocks verbatim. period.

You may make variations on them ( the monsters, classes, races), but you cannot reprint any powers either.

This clause can be tricky, because it prohibits you to make, say, an adventure with fully statted creatures from the MM, or NPCs with powers in the Players handbook.


----------



## scarik (Mar 3, 2009)

While this version is certainly more permissive than the last if I were to want to create a system ala True d20 or M&M I would much rather clone the system and alter my Frankenstein's Monster to my preference instead of signing on to this.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




For me it isn't a question of being happy or not. I think the 4E licensing is definitely in a state that I would find its use acceptable if I were wanting to make 4E compatible game products. It's a success in that regard, and I have to give credit to Scott Rouse and everyone else at WotC who made that possible. 

On the other hand I still prefer 3.x, Pathfinder, True20, Modern20, and C&C as game systems. In other words, this only affects me in the abstract kind of way where I can say that WotC is once again acting like a responsible steward of the hobby game industry.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> How about the "No reposting monster statblocks in your adventure"?




Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're yusing one of the standards you can still only refference it.

Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're using one of the standards you can still only refference it.
> 
> Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?




I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?

Then you run into issues.


----------



## Vanuslux (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




It doesn't appear that anyone here is saying that it's not a vast improvement over the original.  That doesn't mean it cures cancer and makes perfect panini sandwiches.  There's always room for criticism.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2009)

Urizen said:


> I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?
> 
> Then you run into issues.




I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.

It's not even _remotely_ a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.


----------



## Jasperak (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Does not appear to have changed. You can only publish the mechanical effects on a statblock. If you're yusing one of the standards you can still only refference it.
> 
> Is that still a big deal though? Even the "Official" published adventures tend to use "new" monsters... With how easy it is to make a monster it kind of seems lazy to just use a standard monster in a published adventure? Why not make monsters that fit the situation of your adventure?




Don't quote me on this, but I don't think the problem is with using standard monsters from the MM. The problem is as I read it you cannot reprint ANY of the powers from either the PH or MM in an adventure you write. What I think will end up happening is that 3pp will have to create new powers or the DM will have to print out the powers himself if he wants to quickly reference them without have to go into any manuals.

Thanks to Scott for his hard work in getting the GSL out.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 3, 2009)

Vanuslux said:


> It doesn't appear that anyone here is saying that it's not a vast improvement over the original.  That doesn't mean it cures cancer and makes perfect panini sandwiches.  There's always room for criticism.



I'm not saying that.

It's just the impression I get is "This is a great improvement, it's fixed lots of problems! But you won't catch me signing it because it's not good enough."


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 3, 2009)

It is a definite improvement. Don't like the non-computer generator section, but nobody expected that to change really, at least not yet.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Urizen said:


> I agree with you to a point. It's not complicated to make cool new monsters for an adventure, but what if you really need, say, a Tiefling warlock for an NPC?
> 
> Then you run into issues.




Well... NPC is a mechanical effect right? (I think thats one of the examples it has if I remember)



Mouseferatu said:


> I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.




I think I didn't explain what I meant as well as I should have...

I didn't mean to say instead of an orc use ike the Goober Monster or soemthing... Just instead of an Orc Eye of Gruumsh, you could make your own Orc Fire Shamman or soemthing... All you're "really" doing is changing the powers it has. The stats themselves are generated using the monster class stuff... 

If worse comes to worse just drop or raise it a level? The mechanical change comes into play...

I agree it's not as simple as just being able to use the stats wholesale... But not really as big a stumbling block I think then it first appeared before we knew much about the system? (Because changing monsters seems more routine then just picking monster X out of the book...)


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
> 
> It's not even _remotely_ a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.




I understand why they did it.

They want to see creative development from 3rd party publishers.

You_can_apply the mathematical values for powers without reprinting the power verbatim, but some powers need to be reprinted to be fully understood. Those, you'll still have to refer to.

here's a sample statblock I_*think*_is going to be just fine for my upcoming book: Scarrport, City of secrets.

---------------

*Talfordinate Wicking, Thunder Priest of Velun          Level 16*
*Controller *(Leader)
*Medium Humanoid* (Human)                         XP 1,400
*Initiative *+8 
*Senses*: Perception +11
*Aura of the Sky* God Aura 5; all enemies in the aura gain vulnerable 5
thunder.
*HP* 131; *Bloodied *66
*AC* 28; *Fortitude *28, *Reflex *28, *Will *33
*Resist *10 thunder
*Speed *6
*Action Points* 1

*m Mace (standard; at-will) * +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6
*r Holy Thunder (standard; at-will)* * Thunder  
Range 5; +27 vs. Reflex; 1d6 + 12 thunder damage and the target is pushed 5 squares.
*R Plague of Doom (standard; encounter)*  Range 10; +27 vs. Fortitude; 3d8 + 12 damage; (Level 13 Cleric Encounter Attack Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook); -3

*R Thunderbreak (standard; encounter)* * Thunder
  Range 10; +27 vs. Will; 2d8 + 12 thunder damage, and the target is
deafened and dazed until the end of Wicking's next turn.

*A Purifying Lightning (standard; daily)* * Lightning
 Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 3d10 + 12 lightning damage and
ongoing 10 lightning (save ends)(See the D&D 4E Player's Handbook.).

*A Thunder Cloud (standard; daily)* * Thunder
 Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 2d10 + 12 thunder damage and
ongoing 5 thunder (save ends); Miss: half damage.

*Divine Fortune *(free; encounter)
 (Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook)

*C Healing Word * (minor; twice per encounter)
  Close Burst 10; (Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook); +4d6

*C Mass Cure Light Wounds* (standard; daily)
 Close Burst 5; (Level 10 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E
Player's Handbook); +3

*M Cure Serious Wounds* (standard; daily)
 Melee touch; (Level 6 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook)

*Alignment *Good

*Skills *Religion +15, Insight +18, Diplomacy +16, History +15

*Str* 14 (+10)  *Dex *11 (+8)   *Wis *21 (+13)

*Con *14 (+10)  *Int *14 (+10)  *Cha *16 (+11)

*Equipment *robe of thunderbolts +4, symbol of the storm +6


----------



## Orcus (Mar 3, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Just took a quickie look at it, and please don't take this as legal advice, just observations:
> 
> They can cancel the GSL at any time.
> 
> ...




That is terrible advice. 

Everyone please disregard it.

The revised GSL is a huge improvement and includes many of the changes and suggestions that I specifically, and I am sure others as well, have been calling for for a long time. 

One of the biggest changes is the "opt out" clause which the old GSL didnt have. In other words, if they change something you are bound by it. Now, if they change something you can opt out. Can they still change things? Sure, but that is the nature of just about any license and it was the nature of the d20 license that we all used for many years. 

Plus, think about this. As I told Scott--wouldnt it be cool if the first revsion was an expansion that allowed us to do more with more freedoms and more content? what would the naysayers say then? Shure, they "could" make it more restrictive, but look what they have done. 

This is a big WIN for all involved. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So after they made all the changes, people are still not happy?




Look, there are things that werent changed that I think should have been changed. So dont condescendingly say that since they deigned to make some changes that everyone has to be happy. That isnt the end of the analysis. 

I think it was a mistake not to make some of the additional changes and some other things. 

But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E. That doesnt mean I have to like everything about it. I dont. But it is now acceptable to me for use. 

Clark


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
> 
> It's not even _remotely_ a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.



If occurs to me that this would be a great way to create synergy between the online initiative and 3PP licensees.  For 3PP adventures using core monsters or NPCs with core powers, WotC could allow those publishers to use the encounter builder and character generator to create pre-generated, downloadable encounter sheets for their adventures. Insider subscribers could then log on and download ready-made encounter sheets for the adventure they just bought, with all the stats right there on each sheet.

It would allow 3PPs to make their adventures more user-friendly for their customers while increasing the usefulness and desirability of Insider for a whole new group of people.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 3, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> anyone have the old one?  i would like to do a word by word comparison.



What are you, a lawyer? 



Spoiler









Mouseferatu said:


> Welcome to the Internet. May I take your coat?



Your method of coat-taking is BadWrongFun. 



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E. That doesnt mean I have to like everything about it. I dont. But it is now acceptable to me for use.



That's good news for those of us who love your stuff and are playing 4E.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 3, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I...but good business sense should tell you that the OGL was too good.




I wish people would stop saying that like it is true. That is not true, no matter how many times people say it.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 3, 2009)

Ourph said:


> If occurs to me that this would be a great way to create synergy between the online initiative and 3PP licensees.  For 3PP adventures using core monsters or NPCs with core powers, WotC could allow those publishers to use the encounter builder and character generator to create pre-generated, downloadable encounter sheets for their adventures. Insider subscribers could then log on and download ready-made encounter sheets for the adventure they just bought, with all the stats right there on each sheet.
> 
> It would allow 3PPs to make their adventures more user-friendly for their customers while increasing the usefulness and desirability of Insider for a whole new group of people.




Except it would force me to buy DDI? Not too happy about that...

At least some of the 3PP's are saying it's acceptable (Looking forward to Necromancer Games  )and we can get some more products out there.


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 3, 2009)

Personally I would have to see good defined in order to say that something is "too" good.


----------



## Vanuslux (Mar 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I'm not saying that.
> 
> It's just the impression I get is "This is a great improvement, it's fixed lots of problems! But you won't catch me signing it because it's not good enough."




There doesn't seem to be very many of those and even if there were...so what?  It's a business decision and some people are more adventurous (or reckless depending on one's perspective) than others.  There are people's livelihoods on the line and a single bad decision can sink a small company...so I can hardly fault those that are still wary even in light of the much better GSL.  

Of course, that's easy for me to say when all but one of the publishers I care about have signed onto the GSL.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 3, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I agree, actually. Much as I love and support all the other changes, I do wish this could've been dealt with as well. Sometimes, an adventure just needs an orc or a red dragon.
> 
> It's not even _remotely_ a deal-breaker, though. (And it's not like there's no precedent, in gaming history, for modules that require you to flip open the MM now and again.) I don't find it to be that big of a deal; just a slight itch, really.




I fought hard for that change (just ask Scott, I think I bent his ear for nearly an hour on this issue alone some months ago). It makes sense to make the change. But we lost that one. Like you, I wish it would have been fixed but its not a deal breaker. 

Scott, if you are reading this, thanks and good work. I put my faith and trust in you and I knew you would deliver becuase you believe in doing what is best for D&D no matter whether it is hard or unpopular or whether you get blasted on these boards (many of whom here owe him an apology for saying it wouldnt happen), and I firmly believe a vibrant 3P support is good for D&D. So thank you. You are the man!

Clark


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 3, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I just pointed out as objectively as I could the potential risks in the new GSL for businesses who want to use it.




I have to question the "objectively" part.  It would seem pretty standard, if being objective, to mention that the first two parts of your criticism of the license - that WotC can change it at any time or cancel it - are quite standard clauses for many such licenses, including the OGL and the licenses for most every videogame open to modding.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Except it would force me to buy DDI? Not too happy about that...



Not at all.  If you didn't want to subscribe to the DDI, you could still use those adventures, you'd just have to own the book the adventure references in order to look up the statblock or power (which is what you have to do now if you don't have a DDI subscription). It's just that DDI subscribers would get the added bonus of being able to download an expansion for their 3PP adventure with all the monsters and powers that the 3PPs can't reprint on reference sheets. Theoretically, DDI subscribers could do this on their own, anyway.  My idea is to let the 3PPs do the work for their customers and then distribute the reference sheets through the DDI.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> That is terrible advice.
> 
> Everyone please disregard it.
> 
> ...





*Shrug*  See?  I told ya not to take it as legal advice.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I have to question the "objectively" part.  It would seem pretty standard, if being objective, to mention that the first two parts of your criticism of the license - that WotC can change it at any time or cancel it - are quite standard clauses for many such licenses, including the OGL and the licenses for most every videogame open to modding.




Like I said earlier though, I don't know anything about this area of law. Hence my many disclaimers, and Clark's pointing out the crappiness of my BUSINESS analysis. I just read the GSL, and on its face it says what I said it does. If they are standard clauses in these kinds of contracts, and you feel comfortable with them, then accept the GSL.  

Clark is in the great position to analyze the contract as a lawyer and also as a businessperson in the field, to better determine the likelihood based on standard business practices of the negative possibilities written into the GSL becoming realities.  He is going to sign the thing, so we know how he feels about the chances of those possibilities becoming realities.  Not to defend lawyering too much, I know that's a losing cause,   but a good lawyer points out every legal possibility to the business/client, and the client weighs the possibilities and risks v. rewards, as I said earlier, and determines a course of action.  We're professional naysayers.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I wish people would stop saying that like it is true. That is not true, no matter how many times people say it.




I for one appreciate the fact that it was as open as it was. Thanks to that, we have True20, C&C, Babylon 5 RPG, Conan, and many, many others. On the other hand making the OGL as open as it was allowed for the games I just mentioned, which did not require a person to own any WotC books to play them. If you can make a convincing argument on how that's good for WotC from a business standpoint then I'll agree with you that it wasn't too good.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 3, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I for one appreciate the fact that it was as open as it was. Thanks to that, we have True20, C&C, Babylon 5 RPG, Conan, and many, many others. On the other hand making the OGL as open as it was allowed for the games I just mentioned, which did not require a person to own any WotC books to play them. If you can make a good argument on how that's good for WotC from a business standpoint then I'll agree with you that it wasn't too good.




Perhaps it might be fair to say that at the time it was created it served everyone well, including WOTC. I don't know, I have no idea what the market was like back then. I mean, if WOTC would have stopped producing D&D without the OGL rejuvinating the market, then it was good.  Again, I have no idea what the market was like.

To the extent that it created competitors for WOTC, then I on't know how good it is for WOTC. Expecially in a worsening economy, when there are only so many RPG dollars to go around, I don't see how it can be good for a company to have competing brands taking those dollars.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 3, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Not to defend lawyering too much, I know that's a losing cause,   but a good lawyer points out every legal possibility to the business/client, and the client weighs the possibilities and risks v. rewards, as I said earlier, and determines a course of action.  We're professional naysayers.




Fair enough, sir.  And no need to defend lawyering to me, I have nothing but respect for the profession.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 3, 2009)

I am glad it is out and that it is better.

Orcus basically says everything I could.

In otherwords, 
Him man speak me happy face gold truffle perfumed horse litterbox face. 
*GSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSL*





*GSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSLGSL*​


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Mar 3, 2009)

Scott- I know I said this on the phone a few weeks ago, but I wanted to reiterate it here; THANK YOU! 

FDG's SOA will go out in tomorrow's mail.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Mar 3, 2009)

I've been waiting for this.  Great job, Scott.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 3, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In otherwords,
> Him man speak me happy face gold truffle perfumed horse litterbox face.



KM's Brain Escapes, Declares Itself Free: News at Eleven.


----------



## Monte At Home (Mar 3, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> If you can make a convincing argument on how that's good for WotC from a business standpoint then I'll agree with you that it wasn't too good.




I'm certain Clark can. I know I can. This seems well off topic for this thread, though, so I won't do it here.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E.



And that, for me, is exactly what I wanted for this updated GSL.

I will feel even better when I see a 4E Tome of Horrors (or variation thereof) from Necromancer, and a handful of adventures.


----------



## Riley (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E. That doesnt mean I have to like everything about it. I dont. But it is now acceptable to me for use.
> 
> Clark




The main reason I hang around GSL threads is to hear news like this.

To The Rouse: Thanks!

To Clark: Get to work!


----------



## jephlewis (Mar 3, 2009)

Clark, i'm glad to hear you're going to be making stuff for both pathfinder and 4E. I think it's a win-win for everybody.

I'm especially looking forward to your 4E products, though .


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 3, 2009)

IF this means I will see a Tome of Horrors from Clark Peterson then I am one happy cow.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 3, 2009)

At Scott Rouse:

Thank you!

Most sincerely, I thank you.

From the bottom of my heart.


I know this has been a burden to you, and I am incredibly grateful that it has finally been released. I think you have a huge burden off of your shoulders, and for that I am glad.


I can only hope this version is well received.

Based upon what I've seen on the Necromancer Games main page, I think it is.

Again, thanks.


----------



## Thasmodious (Mar 3, 2009)

I will borrow an expression from the title of another thread to react to the 3PPs that have stated the new GSL works for them and they will be getting to work on 4e stuff - 

SQUEEE!


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 3, 2009)

This is a much better license. It's still a straightjacketed, one-sided mess, but it's a kinder, gentler one-sided relationship. Mind you, it's still a violation of the license to state in a product, "Elves are outdoorsy." But at least you aren't walking the tightrope without a net any more. Six months is a generous sell-off, and if you can get past the condescension of being treated like a fansite or modder, the clauses about changing and terminating the license look all right. 

It is, at least, no longer automatically preferable to not use a license than to use the GSL, which marks a qualitative improvement.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 3, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I for one appreciate the fact that it was as open as it was. Thanks to that, we have True20, C&C, Babylon 5 RPG, Conan, and many, many others. On the other hand making the OGL as open as it was allowed for the games I just mentioned, which did not require a person to own any WotC books to play them. If you can make a convincing argument on how that's good for WotC from a business standpoint then I'll agree with you that it wasn't too good.




It keeps players within the "network" of d20-mechanic-based systems, and thus a lot easier for Wizards of the Coast to bring them into the fold with a cool sourcebook, a new edition, or some sort of online subscription service or what have you than they would if they had completely abandoned D&D.

Take a look at some of Ryan Dancey's early posts about the purpose of the OGL and its benefits to Wizards of the Coast. You might find them enlightening.

--Erik


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 3, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> It keeps players within the "network" of d20-mechanic-based systems, and thus a lot easier for Wizards of the Coast to bring them into the fold with a cool sourcebook, a new edition, or some sort of online subscription service or what have you than they would if they had completely abandoned D&D.
> 
> Take a look at some of Ryan Dancey's early posts about the purpose of the OGL and its benefits to Wizards of the Coast. You might find them enlightening.
> 
> --Erik




And while youre posting here Erik, will Paizo be doing any 4e material at this point? Some of the books Paizo does are almost stat free now and others might take some work but things like Rise of the Runelords which are OOP might be good books to experiement with for 4e.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 3, 2009)

4e Pathfinder would be interesting -- my suggestion would be for Paizo to create a 4e-compatible Adventure Path by revising their very first one ("rise of the runelords"?). The content's basically there already, expands Pathfinder's reach, and keeps Pathfinder as Paizo's preferred system for the time being, since the most current Adventure Paths are going to come out for Pathfinder well before anything else.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 3, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Some of the books Paizo does are almost stat free now and others might take some work but things like Rise of the Runelords which are OOP might be good books to experiement with for 4e.



If they did a RotR 4e conversion, I would be insanely happy and Paizo would get my business back in a nanosecond.


----------



## Aristotle (Mar 3, 2009)

I'm so glad to see some publishers excited about this, and the idea that more product will hit the shelves. I relly feel that 3PP are a big part of what made 3e a success (interesting new directions for the game, some really solid products, and an introduction to some really talented designers). I love 4e, and really want to see more of that for this edition too.

To those publishers who are throwing your hat into the ring: Thanks!

And Mr. Mona. Please consider any pathfinder products that you might produce for 4e in the future preordered.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 3, 2009)

Unless I'm mistaken, the GSL changes are threefold:

1) The SRD is updated with MM2 and PHB2 materials.

2) There's no longer language preventing publishers from using the OGL in any fashion if they use the GSL.

3) Publishers can now opt out of the GSL at will, with a six-month period to sell off remaining materials.

Points 2 and 3 being the big ones.

I guess those are pretty good. Certainly they're the biggest problems that everyone seemed to have, but there's still a lot in there that seems to be rather bad. They can still make changes at will? You still can't reprint stat blocks or redefine terms? A large number of sections of the GSL still survive termination?

This is a step in the right direction, to be sure, but I certainly wouldn't call this worth whooping and hollering over. YMMV, I suppose.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 3, 2009)

Count me among those who thought that this would never come out.  

I wonder how long it'll take for stuff to start coming out of the woodworks.  It won't be long IMO.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 3, 2009)

As one of the harshest critics of the previous GSL (I'm the guy whose "Wizards Declares War On Open Gaming" article got Slashdotted), I want to say credit where credit is due; this new version of the GSL is way better.  It isn't without its flaws/areas of concern for potential licensees, but it is a huge improvement.  Good job Scott.

My quick summary is that adding a termination clause with some rights for the licensee and removing the last of the anti-GSL poison pill clause greatly change the implications of the license.  There are still reasons for someone to pass on the license, but they now have more to do with legitimate business tradeoffs than having to be concerned about a totally one-sided license agreement.

To a potential licensee:
Old GSL: 2/10
New GSL: 6/10
OGL: 8/10

The super crazy long analysis is at "Wizards Releases Revised GSL - Is It Better?" if anyone's interested.


----------



## gribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Hmmm... no-ones pointed this out yet, but if I was a 3pp I wouldn't be too happy with a logo that states it *requires *(not even *may *require) about half a dozen books to use. Anyone reading that would certainly be discouraged from picking up my product unless they owned all those books. 

I'd be even less impressed if the statement wasn't true (and in fact it may fall afoul of many advertising/consumer codes of practice - particulrly in this part of the world...). I don't imagine many GSL products will *actually *require AV, PHB2 or MM2 (I assume it's a typo where the MM is listed twice, and the second time is supposed to be MM2 - probably why the PDF versions of the files are missing from the website).

Other than that, it's good to see a slightly friendlier GSL released. Good work Scott!


----------



## gribble (Mar 3, 2009)

I also notice this:


			
				GSL FAQ said:
			
		

> *Q: What happens to original material a third party publisher creates? A 3PP might create an original aspect (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) for the game which WotC could later put into a D&D book but not into the SRD. Will that 3PP then be in violation of the GSL?*
> A: Wizards of the Coast does not wish to cause undue damage to third party publishers that have accepted the GSL and are supporting the 4th Edition of D&D. The GSL allows and assumes that development of original aspects (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) may happen separately, but in parallel, with neither party having knowledge of the other’s actions. In the unlikely event that this situation occurs, a publisher can petition for their original work to be entered into the SRD although WotC reserves the right under the license to incorporate its original aspect into the GSL SRD.




Now, while WotC is trying to sound nice and friendly, they haven't really answered the question posed. Seems to me that the last sentence is basically saying: "Yes, if you create the "Dinosaur Wrangler" class in one of your GSL products, and we later release (and add to the GSL) our "Dinosaur Wrangler" race/class/power/feat/paragon path/epic destiny, you will have (effectively) redefined a GSL term and therefore be in violation of the GSL... along with all the attendant penalties. Is my interpretation of this correct?


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 3, 2009)

gribble said:


> "Yes, if you create the "Dinosaur Wrangler" class in one of your GSL products, and we later release (and add to the GSL) our "Dinosaur Wrangler" race/class/power/feat/paragon path/epic destiny, you will have (effectively) redefined a GSL term and therefore be in violation of the GSL... along with all the attendant penalties. Is my interpretation of this correct?



First, WotC can already just yank your license because they feel like it.  They don't _need_ to play these sort of games to do it.

Second, I read that section as saying "We realize this could be an issue, and our lawyers can't see any way to avoid it without causing massive problems for our IP.  So the best we can do is promise we're not trying to screw you, and try and solve the problem if it occurs."

If you feel point #2 is unacceptable, you didn't read point #1.


----------



## gribble (Mar 3, 2009)

catsclaw said:


> First, WotC can already just yank your license because they feel like it.  They don't _need_ to play these sort of games to do it.



Right, but I'm not one of the tinfoil hat brigade who think WotC will use the "terminate at will" clause willy-nilly. They are sensible enough to understand the implications of exercising that clause without good reason.

This problem of content added to the SRD by WotC "retroactively" causing a licensee to be in violation of the GSL on the other hand I can definietly see occurring. Unless 3pp are very creative with the names of content they produce I could see a very real risk of coming into conflict with WotC. Given that 3pp will generally want to publish content with D&D-like names, I think this risk increases.



catsclaw said:


> Second, I read that section as saying "We realize this could be an issue, and our lawyers can't see any way to avoid it without causing massive problems for our IP.  So the best we can do is promise we're not trying to screw you, and try and solve the problem if it occurs."



Read it as you like but that isn't what they're _saying_ and if that was really what they _meant _then why didn't they just come out and say that more explicitly?


----------



## Henrix (Mar 3, 2009)

I have only one thing to say:


Yes!




Orcus said:


> But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E. That doesnt mean I have to like everything about it. I dont. But it is now acceptable to me for use.




That's good enough for me!
Excellent - I look forward to more good things from you! (And other 3pp, of course!)


----------



## avin (Mar 3, 2009)

yay for more monster books!


----------



## Tuft (Mar 3, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, the GSL changes are threefold:
> 
> 1) The SRD is updated with MM2 and PHB2 materials.





Hm, why is the SRD updated with the new *classes* but not the new *races* of the PH2? Oversight or intentional?


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 3, 2009)

The new races are not classics? They only seem to be adding to the SRD things that were there from past editions.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 3, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The new races are not classics? They only seem to be adding to the SRD things that were there from past editions.



The only race that isn't from a past edition is the Deva. The Goliath, Shifter, Gnome and Half-Orc are all from past ones.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 3, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> And while youre posting here Erik, will Paizo be doing any 4e material at this point? Some of the books Paizo does are almost stat free now and others might take some work but things like Rise of the Runelords which are OOP might be good books to experiement with for 4e.





			
				Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> 4e Pathfinder would be interesting -- my suggestion would be for Paizo to create a 4e-compatible Adventure Path by revising their very first one ("rise of the runelords"?). The content's basically there already, expands Pathfinder's reach, and keeps Pathfinder as Paizo's preferred system for the time being, since the most current Adventure Paths are going to come out for Pathfinder well before anything else.





			
				catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> If they did a RotR 4e conversion, I would be insanely happy and Paizo would get my business back in a nanosecond.



Until they do: Tales from the Rusty Dragon.  Ongoing, complete 4e conversion of the Rise of the Runelords adventure path.  Burnt Offerings and The Skinsaw Murders are already finished.


----------



## fissionessence (Mar 3, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> The only race that isn't from a past edition is the Deva. The Goliath, Shifter, Gnome and Half-Orc are all from past ones.




Here's to hoping that future SRD updates won't be so hard to come by.

~


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 3, 2009)

Tuft said:


> Hm, why is the SRD updated with the new *classes* but not the new *races* of the PH2? Oversight or intentional?




Intentional. WotC wants to share, but not everything. Which is okay with me.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 3, 2009)

Yey!!

Congrats Scott, I know it was a long haul for ya.

The new license and FAQ is much clearer, easier to understand and with some examples. I've a better idea what I can and cannot do. Now to sign up and start creating some content.

2$ PDFs here I come...

I wonder if Paizo will jump in? I don't like pathfinder, but their adventures rock.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 3, 2009)

I don't see why you couldn't create your own version of, say, a gnome, and be within your legal rights to do so.

Expeditious retreat press did so in the Advanced Players Guide.


----------



## Henrix (Mar 3, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> I wonder if Paizo will jump in? I don't like pathfinder, but their adventures rock.




Here's another vote for that!


----------



## Arksorn (Mar 3, 2009)

Henrix said:


> Here's another vote for that!




And another!


----------



## MadBrewLabs (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> That is terrible advice.
> 
> Everyone please disregard it.
> 
> ...




Eh, I don't think this is a HUGE improvement, especially considering the timeframe involved to make these changes since they were announced on 08/11/2008.  I am especially not thrilled about the survivable clauses...  To be frank this license looks like it can really screw someone over if they agreed to it and then had a change of heart later.

I mean is Clark Peterson drinking the kool-aid or perhaps he is right, and the GSL is/was so rotten that any _*improvement*_ can be seen as _*HUGE*_.  But I can't say it is a bug win... seems like an epic loss to me.


----------



## avin (Mar 3, 2009)

Henrix said:


> Here's another vote for that!




Count as preordered any 4E Monster Book that comes from Paizo.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 3, 2009)

MadBrewLabs said:


> I mean is Clark Peterson drinking the kool-aid or perhaps he is right, and the GSL is/was so rotten that any _*improvement*_ can be seen as _*HUGE*_.  But I can't say it is a bug win... seems like an epic loss to me.



Kick people in the teeth hard enough the first time, they will thank you for just kicking their shins the second time around.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 3, 2009)

I think it's a good license for publishers that want to make 4E-compatible products.


However, I'll take the OGL and 3.x-compatible products, TYVM.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Kick people in the teeth hard enough the first time, they will thank you for just kicking their shins the second time around.




So WotC offers every single person on earth the right to profit by publishing materials based on their IP, but only on their terms, and that's comparable to kicking people in the teeth?

Time for a reality check.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Kick people in the teeth hard enough the first time, they will thank you for just kicking their shins the second time around.



Huh. I was thinking the reverse: let people become entitled enough, and they'll start to expect free licenses that no one is actually required to grant.


----------



## jgbrowning (Mar 3, 2009)

I'd like to thank Scott and those at WotC for these changes. I appreciate a less restrictive license.

joe b.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 3, 2009)

Urizen said:


> I don't see why you couldn't create your own version of, say, a gnome, and be within your legal rights to do so.
> 
> Expeditious retreat press did so in the Advanced Players Guide.




Well, you can't, as soon as a gnome is listed in the SRD. Then you can't even state that gnomes are short.


----------



## webrunner (Mar 3, 2009)

gribble said:


> Right, but I'm not one of the tinfoil hat brigade who think WotC will use the "terminate at will" clause willy-nilly. They are sensible enough to understand the implications of exercising that clause without good reason.




At lower levels they'd have to rely on it due to lack of options, but at higher levels they can use their more powerful "terminate encounter" abilities more often.


On a more serious note.. I still don't understand why they limit what's in the SRD, instead of just saying "Anything in the books".  It's not like they're actually sharing these things with the publishers, they're just letting them _say that they exist and where_.  They can't modify them or put them in their own books, they can't USE things from the SRD, just REFER to them... so there's really no legal reason not to let people have everything.  In fact, it gives people more reason to buy the books.. if you published an adventure that used Manual of the Planes content, then more people would have to get insider or manual of the planes in order to use it.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 3, 2009)

Gnomes and the Half-Orc are in the new SRD.


----------



## thundershot (Mar 3, 2009)

The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Mar 3, 2009)

Being interested in publishing material, and having read through the new GSL and SRD I can say that it is definately better than the first version.

HOWEVER, for me the parts that scared me away are still looming there. 

Section 6a, (Excesive violence or gore) What exactly do you consider excessive? Will my product be forced off the shelves because an npc got a paper-cut? My plan was to write a horror/survival peice... but I don't think I can set the right mood with a (for instance) PG-13 restriction on it.

Section 17 scares the hell out of me. Wizards has full rights to make somthing that looks similar or even exactly like what I wrote, and I can't do anything about it. Especially when you look at

Section 18 Waiving my rights to a jury trial of despute. If wizards does take my stuff, and I think its not right, I have to ask them politely to fix it and hope for the best.

However, Section 9.2 seems to say that wizards agrees that what you wright is your IP. But it doesn't go on to say that if they wright the same thing if it stays your IP or not.

The FAQ does state that wizards does not want to kill me and take my stuff... but if they so happen to accidently kill me and my stuff just so happens to fall into their pockets... there's nothing I can do about it. 



Despite all of this negativity, however, I am still considering signing the agreement (Where as before I didn't even think twice as to saying "no") and that is a vast improvement. 

At least this time, if they change somthing that I can no longer agree to, I'm not forced to retroactively have already agreed to it.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 3, 2009)

Tuft said:


> Hm, why is the SRD updated with the new *classes* but not the new *races* of the PH2? Oversight or intentional?



Gnome and half orc are in the new SRD.

*Edit:* Ninja'ed by Drkfathr1. Gotta remember to refresh a thread before I reply.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 3, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> So WotC offers every single person on earth the right to profit by publishing materials based on their IP, but only on their terms, and that's comparable to kicking people in the teeth?
> 
> Time for a reality check.




He's not the only one.

They are not letting people use their IP out of the goodness of their hearts.  They are doing it because they see (correctly) that it is in their best business interest to do so.  Having a vibrant partner community increases overall interest in gaming and D&D in particular, and it gives people product to use with these corebooks that Wizards would never get around to publishing themselves.  None of this is charity.

In the commission of setting up an allegedly free, community-wide license to promote this business goal, they decided to issue one that was totally and, yes, unfairly stacked in Wizards' direction, and that allowed for little benefit/high risk to those partners.  It *didn't* adequately let partners profit while doing work to promote Wizards.  So it got a big vote of no confidence.  Whether that's a "kick in the teeth" is based on your own private metaphor engine.  But its terms were so unacceptable few would uptake it.  And I think it's fair to be insulted when anyone hands you a contract that is ridiculously stacked in one party's favor.  It shows a fundamental lack of respect for your stake in the partnership.

They have revised it - it is still a deck strongly stacked in their favor, but it's at least able to be considered by a smart company.  Will it be enough?  It still has a lot of clauses of concern.  Again, whether it's a "kick in the shins" is between you and your bard.  It's certainly not as friendly to a licensee as licenses some other companies are using - the OGL, especially. 

Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly.  It establishes a business relationship; in this case a relationship between them and potentially most of us, in one way or another.  So everyone has standing to complain about the terms in it that are unfair, not competitive with what is found otherwise in the marketplace, etc.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 3, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Well, you can't, as soon as a gnome is listed in the SRD. Then you can't even state that gnomes are short.




Sure you can. You just need to call your gnome something else, like Earth Gnomes. At least that's how I understand the example in the GSL.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 3, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> At least this time, if they change somthing that I can no longer agree to, I'm not forced to retroactively have already agreed to it.




Aren't you?

The GSL can still be changed at will, without notification; I don't see anything in there stating that should such a change occur, you're exempt from the new terms. Yes, you have the right to opt out of the GSL now (with six months to sell off your GSL materials), but they can change whatever they want, including the opt out option - unless you can divine beforehand any forthcoming changes and cancel your entry with the GSL prior to their release, it seems like you'll be subject to whatever changes they make (which could include killing the opt out option).


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 3, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly.  It establishes a business relationship; in this case a relationship between them and potentially most of us, in one way or another.  So everyone has standing to complain about the terms in it that are unfair, not competitive with what is found otherwise in the marketplace, etc.




It is charity. How many 3PP's have been making good money since Wotc went to 4e, aside from Pathfinder and GR?

For all but a few, the money is where WotC goes.

At least that's the impression I get - I could be totally wrong of course and the 3PP marked for OGL products has been booming since last summer.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It is charity. How many 3PP's have been making good money since Wotc went to 4e, aside from Pathfinder and GR?
> 
> For all but a few, the money is where WotC goes.
> 
> At least that's the impression I get - I could be totally wrong of course and the 3PP marked for OGL products has been booming since last summer.




In any corporate partner relationship,  you *want* your partners to profit.  Mutual profit is indeed what all such relationships are built upon.  People who think that a partner profiting is charity, or worse, that it diminishes the other partner, should never be let closer to real business than working the counter of something in a strip mall.


----------



## evilhat (Mar 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It is charity. How many 3PP's have been making good money since Wotc went to 4e, aside from Pathfinder and GR?




If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 3, 2009)

thundershot said:


> The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.




I don't want to sound dismissive, because this is a legitimate concern. But there's also a juicy irony to this.

In the OGL era, adventures were specifically one of the categories of product that WotC wanted to see the 3PPs pursue. The 3PPs, in general, concluded that _they_ didn't want to be stuck in such a loser business, and instead flooded the market with splatbooks. Seeing a hole in the market, WotC returned to the adventure business. And now there's an outcry that the GSL isn't friendly enough to adventure publishers. I love it!

(Note: I say "the 3PPs _as a whole_," fully aware that there are exceptions--companies that didn't view adventures as "WotC's table scraps," but rather as an unserved market need. I'll note that those companies have a much higher survival rate into the current day than the overall field of d20 publishers.)


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 3, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Anyway, taking the position that either version of the GSL is an outpouring of Wizards' love and charity upon us and that no one should criticize them is silly.



Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Mar 3, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Aren't you?
> 
> The GSL can still be changed at will, without notification; I don't see anything in there stating that should such a change occur, you're exempt from the new terms. Yes, you have the right to opt out of the GSL now (with six months to sell off your GSL materials), but they can change whatever they want, including the opt out option - unless you can divine beforehand any forthcoming changes and cancel your entry with the GSL prior to their release, it seems like you'll be subject to whatever changes they make (which could include killing the opt out option).




As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 3, 2009)

thundershot said:


> The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.



I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time.  Or print pages from my Monster Manual.

I was worried about this, too, at first.  Having done this a few times now, it works fine.

-O


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 3, 2009)

evilhat said:


> If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind




I meant the 3PP's who didn't join the 4e bandwagon because they didn't like the old GSL - sorry, I thought it was obvious. I have been following your numbers, but frankly, I have no idea if they are crap, medium or great. I hope they are great, because I love your work.


----------



## malraux (Mar 3, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I'll just use the Compendium to print them out ahead of time.  Or print pages from my Monster Manual.
> 
> I was worried about this, too, at first.  Having done this a few times now, it works fine.
> 
> -O




The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with.  Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once.  Its a silly restriction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 3, 2009)

malraux said:


> The only issue with that is the multiple different formats I'd have to deal with.  Since I'd have some original monsters in the adventure, plus some from the MM/DDI, I'd have to deal with both the book and extra loose paper, and sometimes both at once.  Its a silly restriction.




Not silly, annoying. There are perfectly fine reasons explaining why WotC thinks iti s a good idea to do it this way. But it doesn't change in the slightest that the comfort of having an entire encounter complete with stat blocks on one double page won't be possible in 3pp adventures.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 3, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Similarly, taking the position that the business relationship offered by the new GSL *in any way* benefits Wizards more than it benefits you, the licensee, is equally silly. The terms may be stacked in Wizards favour, but the cash you will make by exploiting their IP, and their development dollar, is stacked wildly in yours. Or did I miss the part of the agreement that said licensees have to pay royalties?




Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly.  Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money.  In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 3, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> As I read it, it is past section 9, which is indicated as "Survivable" which means even if wizards changes their mind in the future, I can refer to this agreement and be right.




Sections 9 through 20 survive the termination of the GSL, true, but I don't think it's a question of it surviving termination.

If they make a change to the GSL, you've effectively agreed to it before you can even exercise the option of opting out, as per Section 2. 

Now, to be fair, Section 2 does say that you can opt out if you do not accept the changes (per 10.1), and in doing so, that termination will survive any further changes that are made (with exceptions for the surviving clauses - and I wonder if there could be some sort of retroactive language put in future revisions, but I have no idea about that).

The problem with the above is that, as defined by Section 2, it seems to be very difficult to not "accept" new GSL revisions. 

The second-to-last sentence of Section 2 notes that any company that continues to publish and/or distribute GSL materials after a revision is posted has automatically accepted any new GSL changes. For PDF publishers, this means that if they post a revised GSL - which you might not even know about, since they don't have to tell you - then if you keep selling your PDFs after they do so, you've effectively agreed to the new GSL, despite not knowing about it. That effectively undermines your ability to opt out of a revised GSL, in the event that you don't accept whatever changes they make.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 3, 2009)

I am very happy that the GSL has improved to the point that Necromancer Games (and others) can support it.

I am grateful to Scott Rouse personally for his yeoman's work in making this happen.

But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward.  The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term.  A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture.  You *need* an ecosystem for that.

The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.

To use a purely natural example, I fear the GSL is equivalent to taking a thriving woodlands and diverting one of its primary water sources to a dune plain which lacks mineral soils - neither the woodlands nor the plain will thrive under this scenario. I really, really hope that Wizards is not replacing one Central Valley with two Dust Bowls.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 3, 2009)

*Wow*

I'm really happy to see this!  I think it marks a real turnaround for post-3E WoTC, and for 4E as a system.  I'm really glad to see that Necromancer Games, my favorite publisher, will be having a go at an old school 4E.  

As for the stat block issue, I like the idea of having links to DDI that let you download all that stuff from a WoTC site.  Honestly, there were times during the 3E era when I felt shortchanged by the need for all those statblocks -- because a 32 page adventure with 16 pages of statblocks has less of everything else than I had come to expect from a 32 page adventure in 1E.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing an Old School spin on 4E.  I'm looking forward to Pathfinder too.  Good times!

Ken


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Huh. I was thinking the reverse: let people become entitled enough, and they'll start to expect free licenses that no one is actually required to grant.




Yeah, really.  The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it.  I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".

I am reminded of Veruca Salt...


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 3, 2009)

> But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.
> 
> The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.




The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.

Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there.  D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.

Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.  This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives.  GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion.   While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.

I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem".  It hurt the existing ecosystem.  Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems.  It leads to less variety.  I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry.  Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome.  You all have a game system that has been weakened.   The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.

A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives.  Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for.  We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D.  True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 3, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> I wonder if Paizo will jump in? I don't like pathfinder, but their adventures rock.



Add my vote as well! 

Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now. 

But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)

_It sounds like you're trying to start an argument! Discussing the upcoming success or failure of Pathfinder really has no place in this particular thread. Carry on, folks, without taking this particular bait.  ~ Piratecat_


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 3, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Business people know there's a lot more benefits to be had out there than only one person handing you cash directly.  Companies don't put out free demos, give out free support, etc. because they love spending money.  In fact, this line of reasoning is so obvious I'm not going to spend more time on it.



 I never said they didn't gain anything, I'm not sure where you got that from. Your point was that this isn't charity, that Wizards have much to gain from the GSL. My point was that licensees have so much *more* to gain, relatively speaking, that arguing the GSL as a business contract and bemoaning the fact that it is one-sided is silly.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

gribble said:


> This problem of content added to the SRD by WotC "retroactively" causing a licensee to be in violation of the GSL on the other hand I can definietly see occurring. Unless 3pp are very creative with the names of content they produce I could see a very real risk of coming into conflict with WotC. Given that 3pp will generally want to publish content with D&D-like names, I think this risk increases.




I get the feeling this is in there to prevent themselves from having to rename stuff they've spent a lot of money advertising because they didn't know joe little pdf seller had already used it. 

Take that as you will... I don't think it's really going to come to pass that much with the big companies whom also might have spent a lot on promos for their new product because it seems like WoTC is pretty aware of them, and they are pretty aware of WoTC. And if it does come up, they've left themselve an avenue of discussion. The smaller companies... I don't think it will be such a big deal if they have to change a name. 

I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 3, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there.  D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.
> 
> Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.  This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives.  GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion.   While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.



I believe this was the #1 reason put forth by the creators of the d20 OGL. You certainly seem to believe it was a success, then.

By your line of reasoning, you should be _happy_ the GSL is nowhere as generous as the OGL...


----------



## LurkMonkey (Mar 3, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Add my vote as well!
> 
> Though I don't expect it to happen any time soon; they're far too committed to their own system right now.
> 
> But perhaps a year after Pathfinder has failed...? (Assuming the company survives, of course)




I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 3, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> The problem with the ecosystem analogy is that it misses the greater view of the gaming culture.



No, my analogy doesn't miss that at all. You can see the broader ecosystem if you choose to; I merely chose not to. I was speaking of the ecosystem that directly supports D&D and its close relatives - my games of choice. 




JohnRTroy said:


> Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.



That's pretty good enough, AFAIAC. If the RPG ecosystem of which I speak includes Fantasy, Modern, Sci-Fi, Spy and Mutant Supers, I think it's broad enough to support pretty much anything you could ask for.



JohnRTroy said:


> I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem".  It hurt the existing ecosystem.



It certainly changed the ecosystem. Whether it _hurt_ the ecosystem I guess depends on your point of view. As a gamer I see it as an improvement.




JohnRTroy said:


> Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems.  It leads to less variety.



Less variety of what? To-hit tables? Thanks, I'll pass. d20 means gamers don't have to learn a new game mechanic every time they want to try a different setting or thematic element. This is a "Good Thing." As a gamer nothing annoyed me more than that learn-up period. The learning curve is much, much shorter going from D&D to Spycraft (or M&M) than from D&D to Mage: The Ascension (or Marvel Supers). Considering the breadth of worlds and games that have been translated to d20 (including World of Darkness) I really don't see a substantive argument here.



JohnRTroy said:


> I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry.



I see this more as a signal of market demand than anything related to the OGL or d20.



JohnRTroy said:


> A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives.



There are. I've got my Burning Wheel, NWoD and Spirit of the Century.



JohnRTroy said:


> True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.



This is just false. Constrained innovation is real. It can also be elegant and beautiful. d20 has become more refined with each passing year as designers and publishers learned from each other (both the successes and the mistakes). I have witnessed this purely from the consumer side, and have been really excited about it. I want it to continue.


----------



## see (Mar 3, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> It would seem pretty standard, if being objective, to mention that the first two parts of your criticism of the license - that WotC can change it at any time or cancel it - are quite standard clauses for many such licenses, including the OGL and the licenses for most every videogame open to modding.




No, _not_ including the OGL.  The OGL was (and therefore is) an explicitly perpetual license, and while new versions with different terms can be released by WotC, the OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use whatever version of the OGL you prefer with any OGC.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 3, 2009)

I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.

The GSL does not apply to websites.
The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)

Now that Gleemax is dead, WOTC is not in "competition" with other websites offering game-related content, so I can't imagine they'd care. However, the lack of any kind of "fansite license", promised shortly after the initial release of 4e, is a bit irksome; I really do not understand how it can be a complex process.


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.




Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree.  Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.

I'm certainly not saying that all games should have the same six stats, hit points, feats, etc. but having a common resolution mechanic at the very least seems to give gamers a common point to come back to in their cycle of trying new games.

And before I forget: My thanks also to Scott Rouse and his co-workers who put a lot of time and evergy into a GSL that reassures a lot of the 3rd peraty publishers that were once alienated. I've liked what I've seen for 4e from WotC thus far, but a lot of what I liked about 3e didn't come from WotC, but from other publishers who filled in the gaps that WotC just couldn't fill.


----------



## Roger (Mar 3, 2009)

*A comparison of the two GSL versions*

I've written a side-by-side comparison of the two GSL versions.  (BTW -- the new version of the GSL is now out.)

http://stirgessuck.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gsl_comparison_v1.pdf

I feel compelled to point out that it should not be taken as legal advice, yadda yadda yadda.  But it might be interesting to some people.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington  to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses? 

I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 3, 2009)

Lizard said:


> I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.
> 
> The GSL does not apply to websites.
> The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
> Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)




You are right that if you don't sign the GSL, it has nothing to do with you.  You fall under the "normal" law.  Which isn't all that simple unto itself.

You are probably all right from a copyright standpoint, as game rules can't be copyrighted and you're not copying text.

The trick is that there's a bunch of other kinds of IP law that make this more complex.  The GSL even lists them - "patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade name, trade secret, or anything else we can think of.”  (I'm paraphrasing.)

Are any of those terms trademarked?  Could the stat block format be justified as trade dress?  These aren't black-letter law, it's more "what you could argue in court if you felt inclined."

Several companies have published 4e products without signing the GSL - Adamant and Goodman for sure, and probably others - and we haven't heard of them being crushed yet.

In your case, the worst that can happen is they tell you to take it down and/or get your ISP to delete your stuff.  So I think it's reasonably safe.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 3, 2009)

Henry said:


> Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree.  Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.




I don't think they would disagree, actually, because I don't think any of them would claim to be "true innovators", and high-quality creative work is not necessarily tightly linked to innovation.

The OGL certainly did do what you're discussing to some significant degree. The GSL, including this new GSL, utterly forbids it. Which is sad, really, and I think it kind of supports claims that WotC have damaged the industry, as the OGL/d20 was helpful in some ways, but served to focus the market on d20-style products, and now the new GSL doesn't allow them to be "updated" as it were to being 4E-style. I'm sure some overzealous defender of WotC will be along to explain, slowly and carefully, that no 3pp has a right to kind of continuing support, but I think if the claim is "Overall, OGL/d20 has damaged the RPG industry and reduced diversity", then I think some support can be found for that argument.

I mean, for my part, I'd love to see 4E-ized versions of quality OGL/d20 things like Spycraft, but given the GSL, I seriously doubt that we will. So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington  to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses?
> 
> I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?




I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now.  Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point).  I can't imagine it had any impact at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 3, 2009)

Orcus said:


> That is terrible advice.
> 
> Everyone please disregard it.
> 
> ...




And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic.  I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic.  This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 3, 2009)

*applause to both Scott and Wizards*  Thank you!


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now.  Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point).  I can't imagine it had any impact at all.




Huh? Not the OGL.

On the GSL v 1.0 WoTC was listed as a corporation in Washington. 

On the GSL v 2.0 WoTC islisted as a Limited Liability Company in Delaware.

So at some point between the two versions of the GSL, they changed the location of their company documents, as well as their business type.

I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)

It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.


----------



## Spinachcat (Mar 3, 2009)

Thank you Scott Rouse!

Now get that DDI game table up and running!




evilhat said:


> If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind




Thank you Fred Hicks!

When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?  




Irda Ranger said:


> A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You *need* an ecosystem for that.




Absolutely!



JohnRTroy said:


> A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.




Absolutely!



Ruin Explorer said:


> So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.




Amen!  This is the best environment - tremendous diversity and lots of choices for gamers.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 3, 2009)

So then, are 3PP's free to redefine things which aren't covered by the SRD? For instance, I notice the Shaman isn't included in the new SRD. Does that mean a 3PP in the future could come up with a completely different type of Shaman, with the name 'shaman', basically redefining the class? It seems like it would be acceptable.

But you can't create a new Druid class, because it's listed in the SRD, unless you call it something like the "Greenmountain Druid". 

(I also propose that all discussions of theoretical variants must have an assumed origin of Greenmountain...)


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)
> 
> It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.




From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.


----------



## Mark (Mar 3, 2009)

Roger said:


> I've written a side-by-side comparison of the two GSL versions.  (BTW -- the new version of the GSL is now out.)
> 
> http://stirgessuck.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gsl_comparison_v1.pdf
> 
> ...





That's handy.  Thanks!


Obviously, they've addressed some of the major problems and have appeased a few 3pps with this new version. However, there are other portions that still cause some concern. Given the track record, this will require a much more thorough vetting than can be done with a quick read through. While some might feel it suits their purposes, there are still some potential dealbreakers that need a closer look. They've made the basket prettier but haven't necessarily made it the best place for everyone's eggs.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 3, 2009)

Henry said:


> From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.




Well then... Nevermind!


----------



## Krensky (Mar 3, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there.  D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.




Um... those are all still in print, and they've all had new editions in the past few years.



JohnRTroy said:


> Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M.  This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives.  GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion.   While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.




SJG still publishes quite a bit, but some of it has shifted to PDF (which is something they were headed for before d20), and a lot of it has been that GURPS isn't where SJG is making it's real money from anymore.



JohnRTroy said:


> I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem".  It hurt the existing ecosystem.  Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems.  It leads to less variety.  I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry.  Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome.  You all have a game system that has been weakened.   The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.




Really? Mongoose Publishing got started as a d20 publisher. They've gone on to put Paranoia, Classic Traveller, and Runequest back in print, as well as publishing a number of non-d20 games for other companies.



JohnRTroy said:


> A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives.  Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for.  We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D.  True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.




There are tons currently supported of alternatives to d20. Paranoia, Runequest, HeroQuest, Warhammer Fantasy, Traveller, Hero, Twilight 2013, GURPS, nWoD, Exalted, Basic Roleplaying, Silhoutte, Fuzion, FATE, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, Cortex, CthuhluTech, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, HARP, Unisystem, the list goes on.

As for true innovation, I would strongly argue that some of the most innovative games of the past ten years are based on d20. Sometime because the rules are innovative (M&M, True20) sometime because the setting is (Etherscope). Some of the most innovative ones aren't (FATE, Burning Wheel).


----------



## LurkMonkey (Mar 3, 2009)

LurkMonkey said:


> I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.





It appears my earlier optimism was misplaced:



			
				Vic Wertz said:
			
		

> ...  This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
> I do appreciate that it makes life easier for some other parties, though.




[from Paizo's website]

Ah well.


----------



## James Jacobs (Mar 3, 2009)

Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 4, 2009)

Don't your two statements completely conflict with one another?

"Creativity and new games" (neither of which need the OGL as we see with HARP, GURPS 4th edition,, Warhammer 2nd edition, etc...the OGL games that have survived like Castles and Crusades, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan, etc...)

and then it been weakened because they're not all D&D based. 

Not seeing it.

I think the opposite happened. Too many companies went to suckle at the teat of D&D via d20 and when that went boom, those that didn't diversify like Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds, their systemless Freeport and other materials, or Mongoose with Runequest and Traveller, etc... 

The only ones suffering in this OGL ecology are those that stick too close to the d20 fantasy system where many people have either moved on, or those many loud internet voices that cliam they haven't, aren't buying.





Irda Ranger said:


> I am very happy that the GSL has improved to the point that Necromancer Games (and others) can support it.
> 
> I am grateful to Scott Rouse personally for his yeoman's work in making this happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 4, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!




Given the time it's taken for an acceptable GSL to show up, I can understand Paizo's reaction...but nonetheless, it seems foolish to pass up easy chances to grow your customer base in economic times like these!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2009)

LurkMonkey said:


> It appears my earlier optimism was misplaced:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's a shame.

Too little I understand.  I disagree with it, but I understand why someone could take that position.

But too late? That I do not get.  Unless their think either a) D&D 4e will go under in 6 months, or b) Paizo will go under in 6 months, I do not get the "too late".  If they started someone working on it now, they could come out with their product in 6 months or less.  So, it's not "too late".  They've just made a choice that they wouldn't make as much money if they decided to put someone on 4e instead of devoting that person to Pathfinder.

Which I think is erroneous.  I suspect there would be very strong sales for a Paizo 4e product.  It's a shame we apparently will not ever see that product.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> But too late? That I do not get.




I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

thundershot said:


> The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.




You hit on the core argument I made to Scott for about an hour on this point.

I said that purchasers want stat blocks in their adventures. Because if they dont have them, then they have to go to their MM, copy the stats onto a sheet, slip it in the page of the module, etc. Its harder on the DM.

If the concept is to drive purchasers to the core books, you are doing the OPPOSITE.

I am not going to fail to give the purchaser what they want. If all I can do is say "kobold skirmisher (see MM)," then I wont do that. I'd prefer to use a shortened stat block for simple monsters. So what will I do?

I will just make a cheesy substiution. Instead of a Level 1 kobold skirmisher you will fight a "level 1 kobold dragonfang" with the exact same damn stats as a kobold skirmisher except maybe HP 26 instead of 27 or something. I would make a change so small and a cosmetic name change that the monster would really be the same, but I can claim it is different enough that I am not just reprinting the monster. 

Because if I do it this way, I get to put the whole damn stat block in the product! And that is what people want! So instead of incenting me to drive them to the MM you are incenting me to create a new monster that is a tiny twist on an old one just to get past that restriction, which is dumb to make me do. It means, if they are smart, NOT A SINGLE 3P module will ever include just a straight monster from the MM. Not one. And that is dumb. 

What they dont want is a web site of monsters or someone doing monster cards. That, in my view, is what really drove the objection to this change. Because, taking out that issue, it doesnt make any sense to object to this. 

But I blew my skill check on that and lost apparently. 

Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up. No, I will create "ettercap web guardians" that are level 4 soldiers with maybe 55 hp instead of 56 and with greatswords instead of greataxes. Then you have basically the same monster, but not I can put the whole freaking stat block in teh adventure because I just "created a new monster."


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 4, 2009)

This is the biggest question I have at the moment. Any comments about the kosherness of this? 



Urizen said:


> <snip>
> 
> You_can_apply the mathematical values for powers without reprinting the power verbatim, but some powers need to be reprinted to be fully understood. Those, you'll still have to refer to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, really.  The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it.  I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".
> 
> I am reminded of Veruca Salt...





Everyone needs to back up.

First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same. 

Really, you should compare the d20 STL to the GSL. And they are basically very much the same. The OGL let you use the SRD without the restrictions or the benefits of the d20 STL. The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.

And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL. That is an amazing concession! That actually exceeded my expectations. 

Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves  (though Scott liked it).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E.




so what can we look forward to clark??? on your site you look to be working on some optional rules...any monsters/adventures/classes you have in mind??


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...




They arent worried about that because that wouldnt work in any event.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up.




you know that is what WotC did with thunderspire...there is like 3 or 4 pages of optional encounters that onyl list monster names...I think it works out well


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic.  I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic.  This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.





I feel bad for Joe and I'm sorry I was so harsh on him, but I had to nip that in the bud right out of the chute. I appreciate where he is coming from. He's right to call attention to the provisions that remains and to let people make up their own minds. But what he doesnt have is actual publishing experience with the license and a historical understanding of the licneses since their infancy and inception, which, by fortunate accident, I do. The GSL is essentially no more risky than the old d20 STL which lots of people used for a long time. Similar and often identical provisions. It is not scary in any way. Plus, as I think I previously pointed out, if you want a barometer for whether or not Wizards is going to "use the license for evil" just see what they have already done--the very first change they make is an improvement, an expansion, an addition of content, a reaction to the comments of the community, a removal of the poison pill and over all good guy good partner good neighbor attitude. If you STILL want to say they are the evil empire, then I just cant save you from that at this point. You're just going to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Look, do I love every part of it? No. Should they have just listened to me from day 1? Yes. Should they have adopted all my suggestions? Yes. Did they? No. Should this have all happened much much faster? Hell yes. But is this a great change and now a license that is on par with prior licenses and totally acceptable to people who did 3E products for years? Absolutely. 

Thanks, Mistwell, by the way


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2009)

JVisgaitis said:


> I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.




The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well.  So, it's not too late.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well.  So, it's not too late.



What he said.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well.  So, it's not too late.



This.

I love Paizo, I love 4e, and unless there's a really enormous disconnect between how large I imagine the audience for quality 4th Edition adventures and how that audience actually is I cannot see any solid reason not to put the effort into widening the impact of your brand like that.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 4, 2009)

Dannager said:


> I love Paizo, I love 4e, and unless there's a really enormous disconnect between how large I imagine the audience for quality 4th Edition adventures and how that audience actually is I cannot see any solid reason not to put the effort into widening the impact of your brand like that.



The Pathfinder decision is very likely all-consuming and pushing what is quite a small company to the absolute limit. They'd have to spin off a whole department to handle 4E material to the quality we're accustomed to, and even then they'd be committed to branching Pathfinder down two very different roads and maintaining support for both of them simultaneously. In other words, they would be making a decision that Wizards, a company with far more resources, has declined to make since they took over the brand.


----------



## Echohawk (Mar 4, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> The Pathfinder decision is very likely all-consuming and pushing what is quite a small company to the absolute limit. They'd have to spin off a whole department to handle 4E material to the quality we're accustomed to, and even then they'd be committed to branching Pathfinder down two very different roads and maintaining support for both of them simultaneously. In other words, they would be making a decision that Wizards, a company with far more resources, has declined to make since they took over the brand.



That might be the case, but if so I hope Paizo considers partnering with or licensing someone else to produce printed 4e adaptions of the Pathfinder adventures. I'm currently buying every issue of Pathfinder, plus all of the Golarion world-books. However, I'm not terribly interested in the Pathfinder RPG though, so if there are no plans to ever have 4e support for the Pathfinder adventures, I'll feel less inclined to keep supporting that line.

On the other hand, if Paizo were to licence someone else to produce 4e versions of their adventures, I'd probably buy those *as well as* continuing to buy the fluffilicious Golarion products from Paizo.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> That might be the case, but if so I hope Paizo considers partnering with or licensing someone else to produce printed 4e adaptions of the Pathfinder adventures. I'm currently buying every issue of Pathfinder, plus all of the Golarion world-books. However, I'm not terribly interested in the Pathfinder RPG though, so if there are no plans to ever have 4e support for the Pathfinder adventures, I'll feel less inclined to keep supporting that line.
> 
> On the other hand, if Paizo were to licence someone else to produce 4e versions of their adventures, I'd probably buy those *as well as* continuing to buy the fluffilicious Golarion products from Paizo.



This is exactly it.  Whether they produce it in-house or license it out, enabling conversions of their own products for a rules set that is currently the industry giant seems like a no-brainer - they provide incentive for people not only to purchase the conversion guides, but to purchase the original adventures which they normally would not consider doing since they play 4th Edition.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 4, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Given the time it's taken for an acceptable GSL to show up, I can understand Paizo's reaction...but nonetheless, it seems foolish to pass up easy chances to grow your customer base in economic times like these!




I think it partially comes down to resources. They've put a lot of resources into developing the Pathfinder RPG. It's not just 3.5 with a facelift, it's a major overhaul of the system. It's so much that I feel that it qualifies as a new edition in its own right. Paizo customers are not predominantly people who strictly play 4E. Since they're releasing (I believe) 3 RPG books per month and they're all 3.5/Pathfinder RPG compatible, and they're selling well, why would they want to divert resources away from those lines to create products for a system they've decided not to support? Then there's that little matter of WotC still being able to kill your 4E product line at any time and for any reason. In a few years they're going to move on to 5E, and they would expect Paizo to stop producing 4E stuff for an indefinite amount of time when that happens, and who knows if 5E will even be GSL?

Licensing it out would be problematic as well since everything produced would have to be up to Paizo's standards. That means further diverting resources to ensure that the quality from the licensee is there. Also, the licensee would probably be required to print in color, which is something that very few publishers can even afford to do these days. I just don't see that working in today's RPG industry.

I think Paizo is making exactly the right choice for them.


----------



## pedr (Mar 4, 2009)

From the Paizo message-boards and James' LJ, it seems reasonably clear that Paizo still don't believe that the 4e rule-set is a good 'fit' for the stories they want to tell in Golarion.

Among the problems is the fact that, since the launch of Pathfinder, Paizo have been _extensively_ 're-defining' D&D rules-elements (witness the discussion of goblins early on for instance.) In other cases, WotC have redefined iconic rules-elements, with things having the same name as a 3e monster (for instance) but looking, and working, very different. The GSL does not allow Paizo to publish products with 'Elves' which are not martial, out-door, ranger-types. What were 'high' elves are now called Eladrin, and the GSL will not allow a redefinition of the word 'Elf'. Similarly with many aspects of the new rules. And while this could be avoided by appending the word 'Golarion' to all these names, I don't think they want to go down that route - they want the name of the rules-item to be the same thing the inhabitants of the world say when referring to that creature, etc. 

That's logical, I think, even if it is disappointing, as I think I, personally, prefer 4e to its predecessors.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think it partially comes down to resources. They've put a lot of resources into developing the Pathfinder RPG. It's not just 3.5 with a facelift, it's a major overhaul of the system. It's so much that I feel that it qualifies as a new edition in its own right. Paizo customers are not predominantly people who strictly play 4E. Since they're releasing (I believe) 3 RPG books per month and they're all 3.5/Pathfinder RPG compatible, and they're selling well, why would they want to divert resources away from those lines to create products for a system they've decided not to support? Then there's that little matter of WotC still being able to kill your 4E product line at any time and for any reason. In a few years they're going to move on to 5E, and they would expect Paizo to stop producing 4E stuff for an indefinite amount of time when that happens, and who knows if 5E will even be GSL?
> 
> Licensing it out would be problematic as well since everything produced would have to be up to Paizo's standards. That means further diverting resources to ensure that the quality from the licensee is there. Also, the licensee would probably be required to print in color, which is something that very few publishers can even afford to do these days. I just don't see that working in today's RPG industry.
> 
> I think Paizo is making exactly the right choice for them.




I agree it's a matter of available resources for them. I think there were good reasons for them to go their Pathfinder approach (especially due to the fact that there was no GSL available for quite some time, and the first round wasn't so great for them.). 

But if they would support 4E, they wouldn't have any weaker sales now. The only thing they could do would get more sales, because a lot of 3E "die hards" would reconsider their options if they knew they could get exactly the type of adventures they love in 4E, too. 

WotC made a bad decision when they left Paizo "hanging" and waiting for the GSL and the revised GSL.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

pedr said:


> From the Paizo message-boards and James' LJ, it seems reasonably clear that Paizo still don't believe that the 4e rule-set is a good 'fit' for the stories they want to tell in Golarion.



To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion. 
I don't know what is their "true" opinion, or if they really believe it, but that's what it is. None of the adventure paths I have played in os far (Dungeon or Pathfinder) contained anything that couldn't be converted storyline wise to 4E. In fact, that is exactly what we have done with Savage Tides and Curse of the Crimson Throne (and a little bit with Rise of the Runelords.)



> That's logical, I think, even if it is disappointing, as I think I, personally, prefer 4e to its predecessors.



That I agree with.


----------



## glass (Mar 4, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> Section 18 Waiving my rights to a jury trial of despute. If wizards does take my stuff, and I think its not right, I have to ask them politely to fix it and hope for the best.



Is that enforceable? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be in the UK. Undermining the authority of the courts is one of the few things contracts are not allowed to do.



see said:


> The OGL was (and therefore is) an explicitly perpetual license, and while new versions with different terms can be released by WotC, the OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use whatever version of the OGL you prefer with any OGC.



Not quite. OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use any later version for content released under it. Had there been an OGL 2.0, assuming it included the same language then you could use content released under OGL 1.0a under 2.0, but not vice versa. If it ommitted that clause entirely, you could still do that; the difference would come if OGL 3.0 arrived. At least, that is my understanding.

IANAL. _EDIT: And I'm sure the 3 (at least) lawyers who are contributing to this thread will set me straigt!_


glass.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.



I think you may be correct here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the new GSL, product lines can include products published under both the OGL and the GSL, correct?

Doesn't this mean that Paizo could continue to publish its adventure paths under the OGL as it has been, and then publish a separate conversion document under the GSL?  It wouldn't have to jump through hoops (whether or not those hoops exist in reality) to avoid "re-definition" since all it would need to provide in the conversion document (the one using the GSL) is the necessary information on how to run it in 4th Edition.  The "fluff", plot and other information where you might get tangled up in problems of terminology would all stay in the original adventure, free from the restrictions of the GSL.

Am I correct in how I understand this?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 4, 2009)

The issue with paizo's story style is 4e's pg-13 limit. Paizo often pushes the limits, remakes monsters and redefines what something is.

Could they do..child eating monsters?, gay lovers?, incest driven cannibalistic creatures? carnivals of pain ?

The issue is having to tip -toe around someone else rules on what you can and can not say.
And it would take months extra just to get one mod out,...send it in..reject...send it in..reject...send it in reject.  It's to much, they can not tell storys how they want, they have to limit it to how the gsl allows. Simple as that

Add that they are small, are streached as far as they can and 4E just is not gonna happen.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.
> I don't know what is their "true" opinion, or if they really believe it, but that's what it is. None of the adventure paths I have played in os far (Dungeon or Pathfinder) contained anything that couldn't be converted storyline wise to 4E. In fact, that is exactly what we have done with Savage Tides and Curse of the Crimson Throne (and a little bit with Rise of the Runelords.)




Which completely ignores the second paragraph about redefining.

Piazo's goblins, ogres, harpies, elves, drow, and gnomes have been extensively redefined. Not mechanically, but description and background wise. They can't do that under the GSL. Additionally, there's the moral violence and gore cause. If that was in effect a lot of stuff that they've done they might not have. Ogres and ogre-kin, the side quest in Runelords featuring them, Lamashtu, Calistria, Zon-kuthon... heck, even Cayden Cailean might get them in trouble.

Now, they could come up with a second world or PG-13 versions of Golarion; but they're a small company who have decided they don't want to divert resources to developing a world that they can do in 4e, or to make a clean version that won't potentially make WotC either now or later revoke their liscense.


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 4, 2009)

I see pathfinder as paizo's take on a 4e (i don't mean a clone or copy of wotc's 4e), it's thiers and I can definately see why they wouldn't want to divert resources at this time.

Gil


----------



## carmachu (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I agree it's a matter of available resources for them. I think there were good reasons for them to go their Pathfinder approach (especially due to the fact that there was no GSL available for quite some time, and the first round wasn't so great for them.).




I dont think thats its JUST resources. I think pedr is hitting the head on the nail: WOTC's redefining alot of things throws a huge wrench in Paizo's world- which is based on more 3.x stuuf. 4e background stuff doesnt work in pazio's newly created world. 

Plus as was said-the SRD doesnt allow things like Elves of G, or perhaps Classic monsters revisited....

Plus the  "no excessive gor or violence...They couldnt make things like AP3 hook mountain perhaps.


----------



## LurkMonkey (Mar 4, 2009)

Although I had hoped that Paizo could enter the 4E market safely, I do understand their reluctance.  I don't play 4E myself, but my thought was that by marketing 4E material Paizo could widen their audience and please those who have moved on into 4E whole-heartedly.  However, considering the size of the company and the amount of effort developing the 4E line would take, right before Pathfinder's rules set release date of August I can see where they are coming from.  They have also mentioned that most of the folks there are unfamiliar with the new rules, and the time that it would take to become 'professional-grade proficient' would be prohibitive.   Que sera sera. 

I guess that Vic had it when he called it 'too little too late'.  They have decided to devote all their resources to Pathfinder, and that's not such a bad thing ...


----------



## Halivar (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL.



Wait a second... _in the same product?_ Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?


----------



## Vanuslux (Mar 4, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Wait a second... _in the same product?_ Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?




I'm not sure that's the case, but dual-edition products would be mega-awesome.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL. That is an amazing concession! That actually exceeded my expectations.




So lemme ask you.

Orcus is in the Tome of Horrors. So is Jubilex (not Juiblex) and a couple of other big-name demons and devils, some renamed, some "classic". All OGC.

One project I've been working on, off and on, is a Big Book Of Slimes And Oozes, 'cause I think they're cool. I was going to use the TOH Jubilex as the centerpiece and reference him by name a lot.

Could I make a (mostly) 4e book, but include Jubilex (not Juiblex), provided I correctly included the OGL solely to reference his name, writing up my 4e version of him? Theoretically, I can include as much or as little actual text from an OGL source in an OGL product that I wish, so I could, I think, include just the name as text and the rest as "concept". I don't think you can trademark/copyright "Big slime demon" as an idea.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Which completely ignores the second paragraph about redefining.



You are correct, I ignored that.


My view on this is: If you redefine a race that strongly, why bother with calling it "Elf" or "Harpie": Give it your own frigging name! Even if it's just "Golorian Elb" or something like that. 

Especially in 4E, this would be a great idea to do in the first pace, since races really have characteristics and abilities that make them unique. Why not represent their take on Elves or Goblins with their own racial abilities?


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.




Point of order, those more-unpleasant clauses in the d20 STL *were* exercised.

I don't know if I'd say "screw," but it was used:
1.  To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
2.  To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)

So yes, that morals clause COULD come bite you, and yes, eventually this GSL WILL pass and you'll have to burn your existing stock.  

Let others debate whether that's a "screw" or not... (Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs!  Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)


----------



## carmachu (Mar 4, 2009)

In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:



> At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.
> 
> 
> We're launching the PF RPG this August, and it's just not good business sense for us to try to support other games at this time. Furthermore, the 4th edition rules are dramatically different than the 3.5/Pathfinder RPG rules. None of us here at Paizo are overly familiar with the 4th edition rules, and I, as Editor-in-Chief, am one of the least familiar with those rules of all of us simply because I've not really had time to tear away from Pathfinder-related stuff to branch out into playing other games, be they 4th edition D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, or whatever. (Although I do try to make exceptions now and then for Call of Cthulhu!)
> ...




They dont have the time or resources to devote to 4e with PFRPG coming out. And they dont think the 4e flavor is a good fit for them. Pretty much whats already been said here by some folks.


Then he goes on further:







> In order to tell the stories we want to tell... we need to be able to reinvision things like goblins to fit our world. The GSL wouldn't let us do that, since "goblin" is already defined in the game.
> 
> Also, our products ARE more mature content; several of the things we produce would probably butt heads with the section of the GSL that prohibits pushing the PG-13 envelope. And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.
> 
> ...


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 4, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Wait a second... _in the same product?_ Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?




Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible.  The GSL FAQ says:

"Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)"​
So you're not prevented from using GSL and OGL in the same product per se - you just can't use anything OGL that is also defined in 4e, like say any race or class or anything, as a 3.5e cleric's stat block would not be congruent with all the GSL definitions thereof.  So IMO it's practically impossible and this is a bit of a false hope.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 4, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Technically, but there's a big gotcha that I think makes it nearly impossible.




There's more to the OGL than the SRD.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

carmachu said:


> In debating whether or not paizo should make 4e stuff, here's what James Jacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought. 

I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The second point is actually interesting, and maybe not as cow-excrementish as I thought.
> 
> I still think they worry too much. But maybe WotC does, in its GSL, too.





Thats kinda the point thought. Wotc, given the history and tone of the GSL, has pulled in the reins so to speak. Given Piazo's much more mature content, it is a concern they need to look at.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves  (though Scott liked it).




Somewhere in my mind, there is a squirrel writing down this idea, placing it inside an acorn shaped storage container, and burying it to preserve it for a later date and making a map to the exact location.  This is brilliant.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 4, 2009)

ThirdWizard said:


> There's more to the OGL than the SRD.



But the quoted portion asks about having an adventure that's both 4E and 3.5.  Given the quoted text, that will be a huge hurdle, since you can't have 3.5 stats for anything in the 4E SRD.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 4, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> 1.  To block the Book of Erotic Fantasy (which then went OGL to avoid that - that choice won't exist in this setup)
> 2.  To make every company that did 3.0/3.5e stuff burn it at the end of last year (or go back and un-d20 it, really only feasible for PDFs)




Let's just put this in context, though:

1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.
2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of _every_ licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.



> (Haters: Yes, it's proof Wizards wants to recycle you for your organs! Fanboys: No, it's great, it's like Wizards pooping little magic poops of pixie dust upon our eagerly upraised faces!)




How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Mar 4, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of _every_ licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.
> 
> 
> 
> How about reasonable people: It's a licensing contract. I might not love every element of it, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty reasonable.





It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license.  And even if you don't accept the terms, you have to destroy everything you already invested time, money and effort in if you refuse.

This is still not a good license.  At the very least, any pre-existing product before a license change should be excempt from the license change.  When DC licenses off Batman for movies, I doubt Warner Bros. accept a clause that let DC change the licensing terms at any time and forces them to destroy the film after the fact if they refuse to take the changes.


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Everyone needs to back up.
> 
> First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same.
> 
> ...




I agree that you can't really compare the OGL and the GSL. Apples and Oranges. 
However, one distiction (at least in my mind) is that under the D20 STL that was purely a license for a logo and not the content. The content was governed under a different agreement. If wizards changed the D20STL and I didn't like it or I was in violation of the D20STL or they simply rescinded the license then you didn't have to worry about if you could still sell your product. You had a short term "what do I do with current product" but you could release the exact same product without the D20STL info and logo. Today if the GSL get's revoked (I don't buy into the evil corp out to screw you stuff), you terminate, or you are in violation. Then you can't keep selling that exact product like you could previously by just removing the logo. I don't see this as good or bad, just a term of the license. This shouldn't be a problem unless there wasn't a whole lot of creativness going on with the product. You should be able to adapt your IP to a new system.

This is where a 3PP's business savvy would need to come into play to determine if that was acceptable. I don't publish so I don't know what would be acceptable but from the look of things it does seem acceptable with more 3PP's now. 
My personal opinion of the license is that it is much improved and much easier to use. If I were to get into the game I'd develop under it.  I think the best thing to do if you want to publish under it is to forget that the OGL and D20STL ever exsisted and move forward. The GSL and the OGL/D20STL are for two different properties and the terms of one shouldn't be used to throw stones at the terms for the other.

gil


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 4, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.




It wasn't just one title. 

There were other books of a similar nature that also couldn't exist under the d20 STL, and can't exist under the GSL now, from Mongoose's _Encyclopedia Arcane: Nymphology_ and _Quintessential Temptress_ to Skortched Urf' Studios _Black Tokyo_ to Fantastic Gallery's _Sisters of Rapture_.

And that's just dealing with products that have a sexual focus. Ones that could be considered to have "excessive graphic violence and gore" also fall under this prohibition. Blackdirge Publishing's _None So Vile_ line of products was OGL rather than d20 because of the similar prohibition in the d20 STL. And as has been said, a lot of Paizo's products could fall under either, or both, of these particular clauses (though usually the latter, most likely).

It seems pretty clear that the "quality and content standards" aren't the minor points that some people seem to think they are.


----------



## Echohawk (Mar 4, 2009)

Bardsandsages said:


> It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license.



To be fair though, it is also a *royalty-free* licensing contract.

It stands to reason that the criteria for deciding what constitutes "reasonable" contract terms are probably slightly different when comparing a royalty-free contract to one where the licensee is actually paying money for the licensing rights (such as in your Batman example).


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 4, 2009)

Those books can still exsist. It's only a issue if the publisher is wantingn to use the logo's which requires using the license. you could still release a line that was compatible with 4e, several publishers are doing this and still getting across that it's for DnD 4E without infringing. 

Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate. Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property.

gil


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 4, 2009)

Gilwen said:


> Those books can still exsist.




Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.



> _Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate._




They are not "appropriate" in any sense of the word. Restrictions that vague and undefined are harmful, not helpful, in that they leave companies unsure if their products would leave them in an actionable position or not. James Jacobs even said this outright regarding Pathfinder, if you tried to apply it to this particular litmus test in the GSL.



> _Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property._




The GSL doesn't give anyone "complete and unfettered access" to the D&D IP anyway, so I don't see why you're mentioning that. The point here is that those nebulous "community standards" clauses are another problematic stumbling block in the GSL.


----------



## Justin D. Jacobson (Mar 4, 2009)

Spinachcat said:


> Thank you Fred Hicks!
> 
> When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?




Short version: When we compile sufficient material to warrant such a treatment.

Longer version: Our plan is to release a steady but not overwhelming stream of Shroud-related products through the rest of the year. We have a couple of products in the pipeline, a location-based supplement and an adventure. At some point, when we reach critical mass, we will collate the material add additional necessary material and a few bennies, and we will set it up for print-on-demand and some sort of low-handling print version for sale through IPR and the retail market.

Unrelated Note: We should have some news to report very soon about a different setting we'll be releasing that will make some people very happy.


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 4, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I mention it because it seems people are crying foul  on WOTC for not allowing certain things to be published under this brand or even giving them the same amount of freedom that was had under the OGL. The license is so you can play in their pool not the other way around. 

The restrictions are there to protect the brands image. How is that inappropriate. This is a subjective condition but it I would imagine it is in most contracts that deal with a third party representing a company or their brands/IP/whatever. This restriction is a condition subject to WOTC satisfaction. I don't think this issue is a strict as people want to make especially considering there was a hell of a lot of publishing going on under similar conditions in the D20STL

Gil


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

I wonder if this "decency" clause thing is not also a Hasbro specific issue? 

I know little about their policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if a toy company tries to keep a "clean" image.


----------



## justanobody (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I wonder if this "decency" clause thing is not also a Hasbro specific issue?
> 
> I know little about their policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if a toy company tries to keep a "clean" image.




Well My Little Ponies and Dragons just wont work as a game. Even the Judeo-Christian attempt at D&D where the players are good, and anything they fight is evil, and you dont fight other good things has the idea founded in it that you are killing other creatures. Even the PHB has one creature beheading another. That right there throws "decency" out of the window in many contexts.

Just because the heavily Christian influence and morals within Chronicles of Narnia had people being killed.

Leaving the idea of religion alone but just as a book and what is decent to have in print, because I am not trying to start a religion discussion, but rather to show what would be the height of allowed decency in modern society....anything in The Bible is decent enough for print to most people, so it should be decent enough for D&D. Sorry, I don't know the Torah, Koran, etc to compare the things printed in them. But if it is decent enough to be printed in ANY religions holy scripture, then a game focused on "killing things and taking their stuff" would be silly to not consider them decent.

I know they are trying to avoid porn books and such, but decent doesn't totally remove everything that could get close, and mature need not include porn and excessive gore.

If HASBRO wants to make kiddy games, they can continue to print CandyLand for that audience and demographic, and need to understand that those games fade out, and there needs to be more than kiddy games, and family games. There are other demographics of which D&D and other RPGs and games gave those people something to do and spend their money on.

I think the idea is sound to protect IP form certain types of things, but they went mother hen and pecking the life out of anything that may contain a buzzword that might set some random person in [insert state or country here] into a hissy fit. Or just their lawyers in this law suit crazed country.

I think recent action has caused D&D to take a turn back to the late 90's and TSR is back in control, or at least the LW mentality. C&D's to fans that help promote the game? Well we all know what happened to TSR, and that is my final words on recent events and D&D.

The GSL will not help the gamers, the game, or the game makers still as it is. It will only keep around those people who are devoted to the company and will play anything that company makes. Plus some people that actually like the game. But the "brand" has been dilluted by WotC and the GSL and other thing that was worse than could have happened form any confusion OGL products or the like could have done.

Anyway. the whole HASBRO poking around making D&D some kid-ified game is just dumb. Lead me to the Rugby and Hockey versions of D&D, rather than the flag tag football version. 

I agree with Paizo, that redefining public domain terms is still overkill and overboard.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 4, 2009)

The whole point about the ecosystem comments I made earlier was just because I think people see gaming in limited terms (D&D), without looking at the whole pie.  (All of genre gaming).

The one reason I prefer the GSL to the OGL, is, while it's great for the licensees, I felt the OGL as presented threatened to turn D&D from a product to a commodity, and commoditization of a product makes limited economic sense.   While I don't agree with the direction of it, it seems the goal with D&D is to strengthen the brand, the GSL (instead of an OGL) and it seems to be working.

As far as the morals clause goes--well, it's okay to cry about censorship and freedom when its your own neck on the line, but if your creating a product that is "spun off" or using somebody's else's creation, you shouldn't drag them into a fight they might not want to have.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Mar 4, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> To be fair though, it is also a *royalty-free* licensing contract.
> 
> It stands to reason that the criteria for deciding what constitutes "reasonable" contract terms are probably slightly different when comparing a royalty-free contract to one where the licensee is actually paying money for the licensing rights (such as in your Batman example).




Whether it is free or not is not the point.  Any license that allows one party to change the agreement at will and forces the other to either submit or lose their investment in a product is a bad one.  Even if you aren't paying one dime for it, a publisher still has expenses.  And I don't know how comfortable I am as a publisher investing in paying writers, artists, marketing and production costs for a product that WoTC at any time can make obsolete.

Yes, it is their IP. Yes, they have a right to do what they want.  NO, that doesn't make this a good license.

I don't think WoTC is 'evil' or deliberately out to screw people.  But I do believe they often suffer from a bad case of legalitis, and do things because their legal department tells them so without really thinking through the ramifications for their license partners.  Its like the old saying "never ascribe to malice where ignorance will suffice."

Let's be honest.  Did the license get changed because WoTC was really taking the concerns of 3pp to heart, or because so many were successfully creating 4e compatible material legally without a license?  Or because so many were successfully continuing to use the existing OGL to produce sellable, quality product?

And like the folks at Paizo said, for many publishers it is too little too late.  I've no interest in 4e material.  Our 3.5 products are still selling, and our own Karma system is starting to grow.  Do I now spread my resources thin to jump on the 4e bandwagon, not knowing what WoTC might change in the license tommarrow?  Do I risk resources, in this economy no less, on trying to build a third product line of game materials when that entire investment is at the whim or whether or not some lawyer at Hasbro decided the license needs to be changed?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 4, 2009)

Bardsandsages said:


> Any license that allows one party to change the agreement at will and forces the other to either submit or lose their investment in a product is a bad one.  Even if you aren't paying one dime for it, a publisher still has expenses.  And I don't know how comfortable I am as a publisher investing in paying writers, artists, marketing and production costs for a product that WoTC at any time can make obsolete.




Business is full of risk, and businesspeople make decisions all the time by assessing risk against reward. If, for you, the rewards that come from playing in the D&D sandbox aren't worth the risk you perceive in the GSL, that's a perfectly rational stance to take.

And I agree that the risk of WotC suddenly killing off your product is very real. Who knows what WotC--or anyone--will do in the future, no matter what their behaviour or apparent intent is now?

But there are mitigating factors. The long sell-off period (in the frontlist-oriented world of RPG publishing, most products have made 90% of their sales within six months) and WotC's past behaviour (as Clark pointed out) through the d20L era are two of them.

Nonetheless, YMMV. That's fine. But expecting WotC to craft an open contract in any terms other than what best protects their interest is pretty unrealistic.


----------



## Garnfellow (Mar 4, 2009)

Do I have this right? The "decency clause" was *not* in the original d20STL, but added in about the same time the Book of Erotic Might was about to launch.

It seems like there was one other significant change made at the same time, but I'm blanking on it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 4, 2009)

Garnfellow said:


> Do I have this right? The "decency clause" was *not* in the original d20STL, but added in about the same time the Book of Erotic Might was about to launch.
> 
> It seems like there was one other significant change made at the same time, but I'm blanking on it.




It was added specifically because of the Book of Erotic Fantasy.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Let's just put this in context, though:
> 
> 1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.
> 2. A defined sell-off period is part and parcel of _every_ licensing agreement. Usually they're like 2 weeks. WotC gave months.
> ...




Agreed 100%. That first post was rubbish.

Frankly, the BOEF was garbage and is EXACTLY the kind of product that content owners make license restrictions for--they dont want their brand affiliated with total crap. So the fact that there is a license that interfers with BOEF means the license is working correctly. 

As for the d20 STL ending, all content/branding licenses have the chance to end. You always have to deal with that. In this case, they let you scrub off the logo and keep selling the stuff. That is MORE than reasonable. And the current license has a 6 month sell-off period. Again, more than reasonable. 

Anyone who wants to hate on Wizards for the terms of the license simply doesnt use licenses. This stuff isnt particularly objectionable and any objection to it for those reasons is unreasonable.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 4, 2009)

In my opinion (based on what it appears has happened in the past) if your product is making waves, and people are talking about it, but it happens to have some content that might be questionable... you're probably good to go. 

If on the other hand your product is making waves and people are talking about it BECAUSE of the questionable content it contains... you're probably not.

Thats how I saw the whole BoEF thing... That book only made any attention for itself because it was a book about doin "the nasty" in D&D (complete with naked chicks in elf costumes) and not because it was a good book, that happened to have some stuff about sexual themes in D&D.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

Bardsandsages said:


> Let's be honest.  Did the license get changed because WoTC was really taking the concerns of 3pp to heart, or because so many were successfully creating 4e compatible material legally without a license?  Or because so many were successfully continuing to use the existing OGL to produce sellable, quality product?




The license got changed because it was a failure and because people dont like failures. The GSL, as it originally existed, totally failed in all ways to get third parties to support 4E under that license. They werent afraid that people were supporting 4E with non-GSL created products. They took our comments to heart and made changes to make the license actually accomplish its stated goal--to get 3P support. Did they listen to us? Yes. The changes that came about are the direct result of my input and my proposed drafted changes. I sent Scott multiple versions of drafts and changes and he incoporated that stuff into his thinking that subsequently went to Wizards legal. The amount of OGL products for 4E is really not that significant right now. That wasnt bothering them. What bothered them is that they made this license and no one is using it. And people dont like doing somehting that just flat winds up sucking. They tried to make a good license, but what they made was a camel--a horse by committee. They tried to serve too many diverse masters in the first version and wound up serving none. So they took our input on what had to change. I told them what had to change. I told them we need an opt out and we need section 6 to go away. I also included some "wish list" items such as monster stat blocks. We got our mandatory stuff, didnt get our wish list stuff. And there you have it. Listen, I worked directly with Scott on a good amount of this stuff. In the end it is his work, but this was based on feedback from the publsihers because they want a license people will actually use. They dont want a failure. And that is what the GSL was--a total abject failure. Now it isnt. 

And I hope to see all the prior larger 3E publishers on board--I'd love to see GR use it, I'd love to see Monte raise Malhavoc and use it, etc. And I hope they will. Now, there is little reason not to. 

Clark


----------



## CaptainChaos (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Frankly, the BOEF was garbage and is EXACTLY the kind of product that content owners make license restrictions for--they dont want their brand affiliated with total crap.




Interesting then that the Book of Erotic Fantasy was co-written by a WotC employee and published by the guy who used to be in charge of D&D.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 4, 2009)

There are, in fact, quite a few reasons not to use the GSL, which have been enumerated over the last few pages of this thread. And that's not even taking into account questions of whether or not the publishers want to support 4E at all.

And by the way Clark, great work elevating the discussion. So far you've referred to other products as being "garbage," suggested that those who complain about the GSL are just ignorant (because they don't use licenses) and those who object to it are "unreasonable," and objectively said that there's "little" reason not to use the GSL, despite a number of people, including publishers, having raised some very valid points over the last few pages of the thread.

Quality replies, all.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> What bothered them is that they made this license and no one is using it.




That part I'm willing to accept.  To spend man-months of time on a license that no-one uses has a lot of fail in it, so I can see this being a lot of the reason for an update.



> And people dont like doing somehting that just flat winds up sucking. They tried to make a good license, but what they made was a camel--a horse by committee. They tried to serve too many diverse masters in the first version and wound up serving none. So they took our input on what had to change. I told them what had to change. I told them we need an opt out and we need section 6 to go away. I also included some "wish list" items such as monster stat blocks. We got our mandatory stuff, didnt get our wish list stuff. And there you have it. Listen, I worked directly with Scott on a good amount of this stuff. In the end it is his work, but this was based on feedback from the publsihers because they want a license people will actually use. They dont want a failure. And that is what the GSL was--a total abject failure. Now it isnt.
> 
> Clark




A lot of the rest of this ... is hard to verify.  You might consider that the whole process might have been set as an extensive bargaining session, where WotC floated what they _knew_ would be hard to accept, in part to back folks off of the OGL, and in part to gauge the reaction and to see how much to put back in to get usage.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 4, 2009)

CaptainChaos said:


> Interesting then that the Book of Erotic Fantasy was co-written by a WotC employee and published by the guy who used to be in charge of D&D.




A guy who, in the midst of doing that, made a lot of 3pp upset because he interpreted the license creatively, to say the least, and who then was let go from WotC pretty promptly.

Could be coincidence.

And was he really in charge of D&D, or was he in charge of the d20STL? I can't really remember anymore.

/M


----------



## justanobody (Mar 4, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> As far as the morals clause goes--well, it's okay to cry about censorship and freedom when its your own neck on the line, but if your creating a product that is "spun off" or using somebody's else's creation, you shouldn't drag them into a fight they might not want to have.




Silly question. Is HASBRO or WotC legally responsible if you bludgeon someone to death with a 4th edition PHB since it was their product? Why would they be responsible for something someone else writes or decides to misuse any of their products, be it physical or intellectual?

Without some connection between the two WotC could claim deniability. Without the SOA, WotC is not directly connected to the 3PP materials. With the SOA, is where they open themselves up because they are bound to a 3PP. So just like they could claim a portion of the 3PP product, they must also take the bad with the good they want.

Likewise a 3PP cannot be held responsible for WotCs debts just because they are using their IP.

The GSL could simply contain, and should, that any 3PP is the sole responsibility of its creator, and WotC is only liable for its material in its published products, and not the misuse thereof in any 3PP product.

So if a BoEF came out of 4h, WotC would have it known in the license that it isn't their fault. Likewise someone could write the "Book of Goblin Porn" and have it compatible with 4th edition, without using the GSL. So they really didn't solve anything.

Kingdoms of Kalamir still says compatible with 4th edition without using the GSL. So no reason the "Book of Goblin Porn" can't turn up and say the same thing, and without the GSL, WotC has nothing really they could do to stop the book without going to court and try to fight over it.

So that clause has really done nothing except waste a lot of lawyers and Scott's time probably. You cannot control the minds of other people.


----------



## justanobody (Mar 4, 2009)

where is the delete option?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 4, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Quality replies, all.




Just trying to help


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 4, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I feel bad for Joe and I'm sorry I was so harsh on him, but I had to nip that in the bud right out of the chute. I appreciate where he is coming from. He's right to call attention to the provisions that remains and to let people make up their own minds. But what he doesnt have is actual publishing experience with the license and a historical understanding of the licneses since their infancy and inception, which, by fortunate accident, I do. The GSL is essentially no more risky than the old d20 STL which lots of people used for a long time. Similar and often identical provisions. It is not scary in any way. Plus, as I think I previously pointed out, if you want a barometer for whether or not Wizards is going to "use the license for evil" just see what they have already done--the very first change they make is an improvement, an expansion, an addition of content, a reaction to the comments of the community, a removal of the poison pill and over all good guy good partner good neighbor attitude. If you STILL want to say they are the evil empire, then I just cant save you from that at this point. You're just going to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Look, do I love every part of it? No. Should they have just listened to me from day 1? Yes. Should they have adopted all my suggestions? Yes. Did they? No. Should this have all happened much much faster? Hell yes. But is this a great change and now a license that is on par with prior licenses and totally acceptable to people who did 3E products for years? Absolutely.
> 
> Thanks, Mistwell, by the way





No need to feel bad man.  I don't take it personally.  Like I said, and I think you would agree, my take on the legal provisions was accurate. My take on what MAY logically happen based on those provisions is accurate. No lawyer would disagree with me there, I don't think.  Where we differ is in our opinions of the business decisions to make based on that reading of the contractual provisions.  

The bottom line is, as I stated, you have a working knowledge of the industry and I do not. Also, most importantly, I have no skin in the game.  You do.  And green skin at that. How you or anyone else chooses to weigh the risks vs. rewards of the contractual terms is a business decision, not a legal one.  I only pointed out the legal terms and gave a plain language interpretation of the powers it gives WOTC.  We differ in our business analysis.  

If lawyers didn't have different opinions on things there would be no need for lawyers.  

edit--I just wanted to add that I am glad you feel comfortable enough to publish material for 4e.  While don't play or like 4e, I think the D&D brand brings more people into the hobby than probably all other brands combined. While I don't have much need for new players in my game, based on my brother and sister-in-law's insane reproductive abilities, I do love the tabletop RPG hobby. So I wish 4e all the success it can get.  Your support can only help that.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 5, 2009)

justanobody said:


> Silly question. Is HASBRO or WotC legally responsible if you bludgeon someone to death with a 4th edition PHB since it was their product? Why would they be responsible for something someone else writes or decides to misuse any of their products, be it physical or intellectual?




They may not have any legal responsibility, but anything written for D&D is going to reflect on the brand of D&D - most people won't know or care that a BOEF (just as an example) was put out by a third party and not WoTC.  It has the potential to reflect poorly on them, and as a result they'd like to reduce that potential.

(And to address someone else's qustion, Anthony Valerra was the brand manager of D&D and the person behind the BOEF if I'm remembering correctly.  He had Scott Rouse's job, basically).


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> There are, in fact, quite a few reasons not to use the GSL, which have been enumerated over the last few pages of this thread. And that's not even taking into account questions of whether or not the publishers want to support 4E at all.
> 
> And by the way Clark, great work elevating the discussion. So far you've referred to other products as being "garbage," suggested that those who complain about the GSL are just ignorant (because they don't use licenses) and those who object to it are "unreasonable," and objectively said that there's "little" reason not to use the GSL, despite a number of people, including publishers, having raised some very valid points over the last few pages of the thread.
> 
> Quality replies, all.




The bottom line is that it's Clark's money to do with as he pleases. He read the GSL, did his legal analysis, presumably saw the same risks I did legally speaking, and decided it was worth the risk based on past business practices and industry norms.  If he seems defensive, maybe it's because to a certain degree this is his "baby." As he stated in an earlier post, he put a lot of work into it.  Maybe he's too close to it. They say lawyers should never act as their own attorneys because they are too close to the matter to be objective.

Who knows.

Who cares.

The bottom line is that Clark made the decision to go for it. He did the legal and business analysis and decided to publish under the GSL.

Everyone should make their own legal and business analysis and make their own decision. Everyone has different needs and issues to consider. Everyone who is deciding whether they should publish under the GSL should go talk to a lawyer, someone who deals in these types of matters, not your brother's divorce lawyer or the guy who did your mother's Will.  Then talk to other publishers in this business. Then examine your own particular unique situation and your vision of where you want to take your publishing business. Then make a decision.  Your own decision.  To do something just because someone else is doing it is just, to put it bluntly, stupid.

I'd bet a dollar Clark doesn't want to be perceived a giving legal advice on these boards in any way, shape, or form.  I doubt he is saying that just because he is doing it that everyone should do it.  

He is just telling everyone what he is doing, and how he views the matter for him personally.  Since everyone's situation is unique, do the same thing he did and evaluate the opportunity for yourself. Then decide.

/ass coverage on/ Again, don't ever take a word of anything I say here as legal advice.  /ass coverage off/

Joe


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> And by the way Clark, great work elevating the discussion. So far you've referred to other products as being "garbage," suggested that those who complain about the GSL are just ignorant (because they don't use licenses) and those who object to it are "unreasonable," and objectively said that there's "little" reason not to use the GSL, despite a number of people, including publishers, having raised some very valid points over the last few pages of the thread.
> 
> Quality replies, all.




Alzrius, you misunderstand Clark's statements I think.

Clark is putting things in perspective.  Most licensing arrangements work like this for IP.

You pay a license fee and/or royalties.
You submit all work for approval.
You have a limited time to hold it, expiring after a certain point.
Most licenses by nature tend to favor the owner of the property, at least slightly.

The OGL was a very unusual license, and in some ways it kind of spoiled the publishers.  I think Clark is just reminding people that the current revised GSL is what could be considered a reasonable license from a publisher.  You're not likely going to get the OGL back for 4e or future editions of D&D.

Most businesses consider licenses on this point, and they are aware there are tradeoffs--most licenses are a tradeoff.  The key value of the license is the tie to D&D--is it worth giving up some control for the benefit.  That's a question every licensee asks.  

Now, I can understand why some publishers don't want to support the 4e rule set, or believe their existing systems are a better business model, that's reasonable.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Maybe he's too close to it.




"Maybe"? I think when you've degenerated to name-calling and childish insults, to say nothing of broad characterizations regarding everyone who disagrees with you, then you've long since crossed that line.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 5, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> They may not have any legal responsibility, but anything written for D&D is going to reflect on the brand of D&D - most people won't know or care that a BOEF (just as an example) was put out by a third party and not WoTC.  It has the potential to reflect poorly on them, and as a result they'd like to reduce that potential.




Keep in mind too that the GSL allows the use of the D&D Logo/Trademark and Trade Dress.  This ties GSL products tighter to 4e and thus D&D/Hasbro.

Put it this way.  A license is a sign of trust between two partners.  You're basically agreeing to act in good faith.  98% of the licensees will do nothing to upset that balance.  The other 2% might try to push the envelop or try to find loopholes in things or exercise very poor judgment--the reason you have restrictions on a contract is to prevent "worst case scenarios".  

These "slippery slope" arguments don't really hold water to WoTC behavior.  Heck, they may still want to release a BoVD or the like.  But because it's their reputation and their product on the line, the clause is their to prevent the "line-steppers" from hurting them.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 5, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Alzrius, you misunderstand Clark's statements I think.
> 
> Clark is putting things in perspective.




No, he isn't.

I'm not commenting on his analysis of the GSL, his comparisons to the OGL, or anything legal. I'm objecting to his insulting OGL products he doesn't like and people who disagree with his stance, and stating his opinion about the quality of the GSL as though it were fact. 

That's blatant threadcrapping, and it's not useful or helpful in any regard.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> "Maybe"? I think when you've degenerated to name-calling and childish insults, to say nothing of broad characterizations regarding everyone who disagrees with you, then you've long since crossed that line.




Name calling?  Childish insults?  The only person I think would be offended by Orcus' statements is perhaps the publisher and/or writers of BoEF.  

His statements that the license is not something to be worrying about is to put things in perspective, since a lot of people aren't publishers.  I didn't see him insult you directly, unless you think some blunt honest opinions are wrong.


----------



## justanobody (Mar 5, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> They may not have any legal responsibility, but anything written for D&D is going to reflect on the brand of D&D - most people won't know or care that a BOEF (just as an example) was put out by a third party and not WoTC.  It has the potential to reflect poorly on them, and as a result they'd like to reduce that potential.




But is there anything they can really do to prevent it even with the clause in the GSL? Nancy Grace claimed that a couple negligent parents were neglecting their children because they were playing D&D on the internet, when the clip showed clearly it was WoW. So even having the thing right there people are dumb and don't pay attention. Like you said people just claim something is what it is. So BoEF could say D&D, but wasn't made by them and any court of law would be like.... What does this have to do with WotC since they didn't write or publish this book?

Don't you have to prove the person you are blaming for any kind of damages is the responsible party? So anyone claiming damages, even with the GSL, would not be able to hold WotC to blame for something of "mature" content, if WotC did not write it.

I don't recall Gene Roddenbury held responsible for anything occuring from the porn flik Sex Trek with James T **** as the captain. It wasn't his fault, so cannot be held responsible for someone using or misusing his IP.

The potential will always be there for some people to complain about something. But in a court of law they will have to prove they are blaming the party responsible. In such a case of mistaken identify, I think then WotC could press charges for such then. But since the "Book of Goblin Porn" can exist outside of the GSL, then WotC has little to do but go through the courts, since the GSL never covered it in the first place.

Where is the GSL did cover it, they could terminate then and explain why in public record the maker of BoGP, and remove themselves from the responsible party for any damages caused by the BoGP....right?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 5, 2009)

As if anyone had failed to realize this, this topic is apt to have lots of passions behind it.  So, people should be taking steps to be on their best behavior.  Please, folks, let's not argue, fight, or get into ego contests.

If you think someone's thread crapping, we have a "report a post" feature.  Getting in each other's faces about thread crapping has, to my knowledge, never rectified the situation to anyone's satisfaction.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> I'm not commenting on his analysis of the GSL, his comparisons to the OGL, or anything legal. I'm objecting to his insulting OGL products he doesn't like and people who disagree with his stance, and stating his opinion about the quality of the GSL as though it were fact.
> 
> That's blatant threadcrapping, and it's not useful or helpful in any regard.




Or you might consider these possibilities:

Maybe he thinks the BoEF _is_ garbage. Maybe he's been working his ass off for _months_ helping WotC get the GSL into shape, and he's so frustrated from seeing the same complaints coming from a wide array of people who aren't qualified to know what they're talking about that he's gotten impatient even with those objections and objectors that _do_ have potential validity.

(Though keep in mind that even Clark said he understands why some people might not want to hop on board.)

And maybe, as a lawyer, he really _does_ believe he has a better understanding of the GSL's strengths and weaknesses than most people on a message board.

Could he have been more diplomatic? Sure, and it's unfortunate that he wasn't. But I think a certain level of frustration and tension are to be expected, and even excused, before we go accusing someone that we know to be a valuable member of the community (both ENWorld and D20 in general) of "threadcrapping."

Edit: Umbran beat me to it.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 5, 2009)

Booze and Jalapenos, OH MY!!  Whee!!!  Damn the new GSL!!  That means in addition to the thieves at WOTC, the likes of Clark and other 3PP are going to be thieving from me too.  My purse will be empty, my wife will be mad, my players happy, and me out of booze!!  Curse all the publishers!! Curse 4e!!


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> I'm not commenting on his analysis of the GSL, his comparisons to the OGL, or anything legal. I'm objecting to his insulting OGL products he doesn't like and people who disagree with his stance, and stating his opinion about the quality of the GSL as though it were fact.
> 
> That's blatant threadcrapping, and it's not useful or helpful in any regard.




Just so we're clear. The BoEF IS garbage. G-A-R-B-A-G-E.

And the whole maturity clause in the d20 STL and the GSL is a direct result of Anthony Valterra's epic fail in the good business sense department.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 5, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Just so we're clear. The BoEF IS garbage. G-A-R-B-A-G-E.
> 
> And the whole maturity clause in the d20 STL and the GSL is a direct result of Anthony Valterra's epic fail in the good business sense department.




My acronym allotment for the day just ran out. What does BoEF stand for?


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> My acronym allotment for the day just ran out. What does BoEF stand for?




Book of Erotic Fantasy


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> My acronym allotment for the day just ran out. What does BoEF stand for?




"Boobs of Elven Friends"

"Book of Elven f&*^"

"Biscuit's of Elven Flatulence"


----------



## Mark (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I'd bet a dollar Clark doesn't want to be perceived a giving legal advice on these boards in any way, shape, or form.





And I advise whoever wins that dollar to . . .


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2009)

I obviously can't speak for the man, but I'ma give my opinion.

What I took away from what he said about the GSL wasn't that you should like it, or use it. What it seemed to me he was saying was it was no longer a flawed contract from the standpoint of a legal professional. He seemed to be saying it was now pretty much along the same lines as most other IP contracts. (And even more open because it's free.)

Whether or not you choose to operate with a license of that type is your own business.

I could be way off, but that's what I took from it.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 5, 2009)

Mark said:


> And I advise whoever wins that dollar to . . .





Shameless.  

And thx for telling me what BoEF stands for.  Sometimes you just have a brain fart at the end of a long day.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Shameless.
> 
> And thx for telling me what BoEF stands for.  Sometimes you just have a brain fart at the end of a long day.




BFaTEoaLD?


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 5, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Agreed 100%. That first post was rubbish.
> 
> Frankly, the BOEF was garbage and is EXACTLY the kind of product that content owners make license restrictions for--they dont want their brand affiliated with total crap. So the fact that there is a license that interfers with BOEF means the license is working correctly.
> 
> ...




Clark, I think you're overstepping here.  There are plenty of licenses which don't have these restrictions, and it's not unreasonable to make a business  decision that you don't want to incur the risk of either one of these.

And one man's "garbage" is another man's treasure.  Not everyone's a prude and recoils at the concept of adult content in D&D.  When I was active with the RPGA I remember a scenario getting revamped due to its "objectionable content" of some kid being the victim of a cult.  When you sign on to a morals clause, you can never be sure what the person administering that is going to target - and according to this license, if Wizards terminates YOU, there is NO six month sell off.

You're certainly entitled to sign on, but I have to say your rant here is totally misplaced.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 5, 2009)

> Not everyone's a prude and recoils at the concept of adult content in D&D.




Have you _read_ Necromancer material? 

Maybe Clark's problem is just that he doesn't like the _quality_ of BoEF, rather than the topic?

(Note: I've never read BoEF all the way through, just skimmed it. I'm not saying it is or isn't good. I'm saying that just because he thinks Book X is garbage, it doesn't necessarily follow that he objects to the _topic_ of Book X.)


----------



## Mark (Mar 5, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> When I was active with the RPGA I remember a scenario getting revamped due to its "objectionable content" of some kid being the victim of a cult.






Are you posting about _River of Blood_ by Erik Mona?  I remember running that.  Great fun but the subject needed to be treated in a certain delicate fashion if younger players were involved.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 5, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Have you _read_ Necromancer material?
> 
> Maybe Clark's problem is just that he doesn't like the _quality_ of BoEF, rather than the topic?
> 
> (Note: I've never read BoEF all the way through, just skimmed it. I'm not saying it is or isn't good. I'm saying that just because he thinks Book X is garbage, it doesn't necessarily follow that he objects to the _topic_ of Book X.)




But that would be disingenuous and irrelevant, as the GSL clause is a morals clause and not a "quality" clause.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 5, 2009)

Mark said:


> Are you posting about _River of Blood_ by Erik Mona?  I remember running that.  Great fun but the subject needed to be treated in a certain delicate fashion if younger players were involved.




Yep.  I was one of the original LG Triads; ran that one and untold others...  Not really sure how delicate you need to be.  If they're old enough to play, they are killing and being killed - "oh no some kids got killed" is probably nothing not adequately depicted in art on their school notebooks.

[Edit: I bet this experience influenced how much trust Paizo's willing to put into the GSL morals clause today, sine Erik's one of the big boys over there.  You reap what you sow...]


----------



## Mark (Mar 5, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Yep.  I was one of the original LG Triads; ran that one and untold others...  Not really sure how delicate you need to be.  If they're old enough to play, they are killing and being killed - "oh no some kids got killed" is probably nothing not adequately depicted in art on their school notebooks.





Well, let's not forget that April of the year before saw Columbine school as the sight of a tragedy that may have had most people particularly on edge regarding the killing of children.


----------



## James Jacobs (Mar 5, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.
> I don't know what is their "true" opinion, or if they really believe it, but that's what it is. None of the adventure paths I have played in os far (Dungeon or Pathfinder) contained anything that couldn't be converted storyline wise to 4E. In fact, that is exactly what we have done with Savage Tides and Curse of the Crimson Throne (and a little bit with Rise of the Runelords.)
> 
> 
> That I agree with.




It's worth remembering that we've had the rug yanked out from under us by WotC once already. The loss of the magazine license was actually handled pretty graciously and nicely by WotC—it could have been a LOT worse for Paizo, but WotC was very generous with the event (as seen by their extending our license by several months so we could finish out Savage Tide). 

Yet still, having the license taken away was an incredibly frightening thing. As in, a lot of us were afraid that by the end of the year we'd be out of a job. We took a risk with starting up Pathfinder and it paid off big. We're taking an even bigger risk with the Pathfinder RPG and that's looking like it's gonna pay off even bigger.

Personally... speaking for only myself... after being laid off from WotC once, and after losing the magazine license... I'm pretty much all through with putting my fate in someone else's hands. I'm really proud of what we're doing with the Pathfinder RPG, and even though I think that the 4th edition rules are really elegant and well designed (I'm a bit less fond of the changes to the game's flavor and traditions)... it's still not the game I helped build.

Call it male cow excrement if you want, but my TRUE opinion is that Pathfinder RPG (and by extension, 3.5) is a better system to build the games that I want to write, develop, edit, and play. It's an opinion that everyone at Paizo shares, and that's the main reason we're supporting our own game rather than looking to officially support 4th edition at this time.

That may not have been the case 1 or 2 or 5 years ago. It's certainly the case now.

EDIT: In any case, it's the "We can pull the plug on your license for doing something we don't like because it's too R-rated" part of the GSL that I really mean when I say that the GSL won't let us write the type of adventures we want to write. Especially since there's no definition of what might or might not trigger that reaction from WotC... what's appropriate to one reader isn't to another, and all that.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 5, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Have you _read_ Necromancer material?
> 
> Maybe Clark's problem is just that he doesn't like the _quality_ of BoEF, rather than the topic?
> 
> (Note: I've never read BoEF all the way through, just skimmed it. I'm not saying it is or isn't good. I'm saying that just because he thinks Book X is garbage, it doesn't necessarily follow that he objects to the _topic_ of Book X.)




Yeah, when Anthony announced his company, I was excited at first because I thought it would be cool to have a company pushing the darker edges of D&D. I didn't realize that he was going for gamer pr0n. It isn't that I have an issue with pr0n, but after looking at the BoEF, I don't think it really fits the game at all. In fact I was kind of repulsed by it. Now if the concept would have been more along the lines of Book of Vile Darkness volumes 2 - 10, I could have jumped onboard that.


----------



## justanobody (Mar 5, 2009)

Silly question again.... The old NEtobook of CArnal Knowledge including STDs, etc. All these things are possible in a fantasy world as disease is often a major problem....so without the gratuitous sex, could this trigger a "mature" rating and cause for alarm and termination of a GSL? opinions not legal advice requested....not trying to put anyone on the line, just throwing out an idea.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 5, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Yeah, when Anthony announced his company, I was excited at first because I thought it would be cool to have a company pushing the darker edges of D&D. I didn't realize that he was going for gamer pr0n. It isn't that I have an issue with pr0n, but after looking at the BoEF, I don't think it really fits the game at all. In fact I was kind of repulsed by it. Now if the concept would have been more along the lines of Book of Vile Darkness volumes 2 - 10, I could have jumped onboard that.




I find it funny that the BoEF is really the only OGL book that I regularly see in almost any Borders store; I'm surprised that more 12 year olds haven't figured that out yet.  I've paged through it, but never in depth.  In terms of mechanics, a CR 12 creature being able to summon a CR 20 monster was enough for me to put it back down.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 5, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> Not everyone's a prude and recoils at the concept of adult content in D&D.





The implication that anyone who does not like the BoEF is a prude is NOT ACCEPTABLE.  If you want to impugn the sexual mores of people, you are seriously on the wrong boards.  I don't want to see you post in this thread unless the first words are an apology to all and sundry.

If that was not your intention, you were not paying close enough attention.  Nobody should expect any patience with such a statement.  This thread has been warned once.  

This is warning #2.  

There will be no warning #3.  And, given that this topic is important to our community, it is likely to end in bans, rather than thread closure.

The Book of Erotic Fiction is not the subject of the thread.  Please drop it.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 5, 2009)

Wow.  12 pages in the thread already?  The license has only been out a couple of days.  

Everyone else is throwing their opinions around, and since I want to be like everyone else...

I don't like 4E.  I played it, I DM'd it, I tried writing original content for it, and it just doesn't do it for me.  But I am a freelance writer, so I have been very interested in the new GSL for a couple of reasons.

First of all, this new GSL will set the tone for all business relationships that WotC has with third-party publishers.  And second, the GSL will guide the evolution of the game more than anything else.  The more contributing authors, the more variety and innovation...so this spiffy little document will give these aspiring writers a working, legally-protected platform to sell their ideas.

I think this GSL will do everything it was intended to do: create a solid network of high-quality authors, artists, and publishers, and grow the product line for the mutual benefit of Hasbro and 3PPs alike.  So that makes it a success, in my humble (and non-legal) opinion, even though I probably won't ever use it.

As for the BoEF?  Don't blame the license, and don't blame the publisher.  That book is truly horrible, but the reason that manuscript got approved and the book got printed was because of consumer demand...however slight.  It wasn't because of a lack of control over IP.

In other words: if people would stop _buying_ crappy products, publishers would stop _making_ crappy products.

So when the 3PPs start cranking out new material by the boatload, resist the urge to throw your money at anything with the new logo on it.  Be selective.  Demand good products, and make those publishers earn their money.  If a book is awesome, buy it and tell your friends to do likewise...but if a book is awful, do not buy it and warn your friends not to.

Remember: Only You Can Prevent Crappy Products.TM


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Mar 5, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> Section 18 Waiving my rights to a jury trial of despute. If wizards does take my stuff, and I think its not right, I have to ask them politely to fix it and hope for the best.



You're seriously misunderstanding what that clause means.  You waive your right to a _jury_ trial, not to any trial.  You still get a trial, but it's with a judge making the final decisions.  It's common to include this in business contracts, because judges are a lot more predictable than juries.  Judges can generally be relied upon to understand the law and make their decisions based on it, while juries make decisions for all sorts of wild reasons.


----------



## mxyzplk (Mar 5, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> It's worth remembering that we've had the rug yanked out from under us by WotC once already.... I'm pretty much all through with putting my fate in someone else's hands...




How dare you learn from experience!  

EDIT: Once I already submitted, I see I am told to apologize to Clark about the BoEF stuff in my next post.  OK Clark, sorry, I apologize, you are right, it is garbage.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 5, 2009)

> EDIT: In any case, it's the "We can pull the plug on your license for doing something we don't like because it's too R-rated" part of the GSL that I really mean when I say that the GSL won't let us write the type of adventures we want to write. Especially since there's no definition of what might or might not trigger that reaction from WotC... what's appropriate to one reader isn't to another, and all that.




Exactly, that's a smart decision.

Basically, I see licensing D&D or going with the older or variant versions as similar to a choice that a comic writer or artist does when he decides to either do "work-for-hire" with a big company or be independent and have control over copyright, trademark, and full ownership.

Anybody who licenses anything takes a trade-off.  And it's important to recognize that.

I think the main gist Clark, Charles, and others have said is, to use the analogy, that being in the former camp is not necessarily a bad choice, as long as you know what you're getting into, and get enough in return.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 5, 2009)

mxyzplk said:


> There are plenty of licenses which don't have these restrictions, and it's not unreasonable to make a business  decision that you don't want to incur the risk of either one of these.



I have to admit that I find this really unlikely.  Are there really "plenty of licenses" which don't involve some kind of content control, whether in the form of a morals clause, freedom to withdraw license, right of review and refusal?  Especially when the license is an open one with no royalties involved?  It seems like any such license would almost immediately result in "Custer's Revenge" style problems or worse.

I would imagine most licenses that don't have some kind of clause that allows refusal based on content are much more narrow in scope and specific in the products they enable.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 5, 2009)

FourthBear said:


> I have to admit that I find this really unlikely.  Are there really "plenty of licenses" which don't involve some kind of content control, whether in the form of a morals clause, freedom to withdraw license, right of review and refusal?  Especially when the license is an open one with no royalties involved?  It seems like any such license would almost immediately result in "Custer's Revenge" style problems or worse.




Any larger game publisher would have experience with that.  Ask somebody like Mongoose which is licensing several properties, or Margaret Weiss productions.

I think a lot of people are thinking of the new "copyleft" licenses like Creative Commons or software licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD, as examples, as well as the OGL.   

The gratis licenses are very rare in the Entertainment world and I don't see we're going to see many big publishers license their own content in this manner, especially if the property is as valuable as D&D.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2009)

justanobody said:


> ... So BoEF could say D&D, but wasn't made by them and any court of law would be like.... What does this have to do with WotC since they didn't write or publish this book?
> 
> Don't you have to prove the person you are blaming for any kind of damages is the responsible party? So anyone claiming damages, even with the GSL, would not be able to hold WotC to blame for something of "mature" content, if WotC did not write it.
> 
> I don't recall Gene Roddenbury held responsible for anything occuring from the porn flik Sex Trek with James T **** as the captain. It wasn't his fault, so cannot be held responsible for someone using or misusing his IP.




Not necessarily. A court of law might agree with that at the _conclusion_ of a lawsuit, but not necessarily before. In which case you'd have to spend a lot of money defending yourself, not to mention the PR hit your company and brand may take.

Yes, you'd have to prove they are the responsible party, but, they may be able to force proceedings to attempt to prove just that. It may be possible to force a lawsuit on the premise that WoTC licenses (in this case the OGL and STL) gives tacit permission for such a product, and therefore WoTC is liable. A lawsuit like that would probably never win, but the money spent defending themself, and the PR damage, could be considerable. That could even be just the crack in the armor that anti-D&D activists could use to bring the subject back into the limelight. For a real world example (not as a commentary on politics), lawsuits just like this have been brought against the gun industry. To date, I don't think any of the suits have won, but they've spent considerable amounts of money figthing this and lobbying for support.

But that's only about possible liability issues. Something doesn't have to be legally valid for your brand to take a Public Relations hit. Just look at the hits WoTC takes here on ENWorld for some seemingly inocuous actions (and some not so inocuous actions). Could you imagine what the damage to the D&D brand would be if anti-D&D groups started publicly declaring that D&D promotes pornography and lasciviousness, and used BoEF as exhibit number one? Whether right or wrong, to most parents it would appear to be a smoking gun, which is all that would matter to them. Game over. So, they protect themselves with a clause in their license before it becomes a problem. Sounds like a very smart decision to me.

As far as the porno example, one could make the argument that it's parody, and therefore protected by the first amendment (no matter how distasteful it may be to some people - even bad parody is still parody). Something of which the Trek franchise or Gene Rodenberry's estate would probably have had no ability to control even if they did seek legal action.

(edit: Sorry Umbran.  I was probably typing yet when your post went up.  It takes me a while to make sure I've spelled everything right - which even then I usually don't have everything spelled right.)


----------



## justanobody (Mar 5, 2009)

User banned for ignoring mod warning.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 5, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Just so we're clear. The BoEF IS garbage. G-A-R-B-A-G-E.
> 
> And the whole maturity clause in the d20 STL and the GSL is a direct result of Anthony Valterra's epic fail in the good business sense department.





Right it is.

But so is the clause. Since its so vague it doesnt exactly give an idea what is or is NOT allowed.

Obviously another BoEF is out. But how about skinsaw murders? Ogre mountain there based in the AP? Or some of the other items from Paizo in that AP?

Unless its clearer, no its NOT good business sense. Understandable? Sure. But right now its pretty unclear.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2009)

justanobody said:


> I just think you
> Maybe a "no sexual acts depictions/descriptions" clause rather than just a blanket "no mature content" type clause.




I get where you're coming from.  The only problem I see is that "mature content" covers more than just sex for a reason.  For example, although the game portrays violence and injury, it does so in an abstract manner.  If a D&D book, or a D&D compatable book, presented violence in all of it's graphic horrific un-splendor, it could be adverse to WoTC's goals.  WoTC wants to sell books, and espcecially with this edition is going to great lengths to bring in new and younger gamers.  Anything that breaks that "PG" standard is just ammunition for those aforementioned anti-D&D groups.  They can use it to convince parents to not let their children buy or play the game.


----------



## joethelawyer (Mar 5, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> I get where you're coming from.  The only problem I see is that "mature content" covers more than just sex for a reason.  For example, although the game portrays violence and injury, it does so in an abstract manner.  If a D&D book, or a D&D compatable book, presented violence in all of it's graphic horrific un-splendor, it could be adverse to WoTC's goals.  WoTC wants to sell books, and espcecially with this edition is going to great lengths to bring in new and younger gamers.  Anything that breaks that "PG" standard is just ammunition for those aforementioned anti-D&D groups.  They can use it to convince parents to not let their children buy or play the game.






On the flip-side, nothing gets the word out for your product like controversy. And nothing gets kids to buy something better than those in "authority" telling them its bad for them.

edit: though I can see where Hasbro wouldn't like the wingnuts calling for a boycott on My Little Pony.  Yet another reason I wish WOTC was still in control of their own destiny.  Hegemony is bad...


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> On the flip-side, nothing gets the word out for your product like controversy. And nothing gets kids to buy something better than those in "authority" telling them its bad for them.
> 
> edit: though I can see where Hasbro wouldn't like the wingnuts calling for a boycott on My Little Pony. Yet another reason I wish WOTC was still in control of their own destiny. Hegemony is bad...




Yeah, it worked exactly that way in the 80's didn't it.  I think even Gary said it was actually one of the best things for D&D marketing back then.

I don't know if it would work a second time around though.  At least back then there was no real evidence, it was all just anecdotal and twisted statistics.  But if someone had hardcopy proof in the form of a publication, I don't know if the public would be very forgiving today.  But you never know, even if parents didn't let there kids buy or play, I guess you can't be absolutely sure it would adversely affect sales.  But, if you're a publicly traded company do you take the chance?


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 5, 2009)

CleverNickName said:


> Remember: Only You Can Prevent Crappy Products.TM




If only that were true....


----------



## Gilwen (Mar 5, 2009)

Mark said:


> And I advise whoever wins that dollar to . . .




LMAO! Good one mark! I think I'll have to toss a dollar up on your table for that!

Gil


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 5, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> The OGL was a very unusual license, and in some ways it kind of spoiled the publishers.




I've heard this said many times, the OGL "spoiled" the publishers. Muy perspective is quite different. The OGL was created with a specific purpose in mind: to create a "safe harbor" for third party publishers. In the absence of the OGL, publishers could have put out very similar products, but there might have been questions about what was permissible, which could lead to legal challenges that would be costly to WotC and fatal to most small publishers. The OGL never gave anything away but goodwill. 

Virtually no game terms in the SRD are trademarkable and titles are generally not copyrightable. Game concepts cannot be copyrighted, only expressions. There are no patents in the SRD that are being licensed, and at this point, there is nothing left to patent. WotC did not invent elves nor regenerating trolls nor "halflings." 

Effectively, the OGL served as a way of sidestepping what might or might not constitute "derivative content." It created a situation such that as long as you followed the rules, if you did create derivative content, you would not be sued and WotC would not have their IP rights weakened by a failure to do so.

I understand the OGL can be interpreted strictly as a business contract, but in a broader sense, it was a covernant. The purpose of the OGL was not to license some kind of original creation (like the Star Wars franchise or a a particular brand name like D&D) but instead to cover all asses. The few truly original variations on old themes (chromatic dragons, dark elves, clerics) long ago became assimilated into popular culture and there is no reclaiming them. I could go fire up Final Fantasy I right now and show you a fire-breathing red dragon, a frost-breathing white dragon, and a gas-breathing green dragon. That ship has sailed.

So in effect, it is WotC that has been spoiled. As originators of the OGL, they have grown used to the idea that they control the use of the SRD material. In fact, you need no license at all to create a wide variety of compatible products with little or no legal exposure. The only major obstacle is WotC's possible willingness to file unlikely suits in the hope of forcing the 3PP out of the game through bullying. Since WotC has retracted their offer as a safe habor, I can draw only two possible conclusions:

1. After years of debate, some folks in upper management still have not grasped the central issues at stake (the D&D trademark, versus the un-ownable right to create gaming products with may or may not be compatible). 
2. WotC is prepared to sue 3PP publishers to dust and ashes, TSR style, in an attempt to maximize profits in the short-term by eliminating free market alternatives to their products, and is unashamed to take the role of a bully.

Whichever is the case, as both are dangerous possiblities, I would be leery of entering into any contract to WotC in which the licensee is not protected in some way from WotC's whims. 

Keep in mind that WotC feels they are entitled, solely, to use the displacer beast... a creature which inspired by the coeurl, from Vogt's Voyage of the Space Beagle. They have forbidden others from referencing their unique, original interpretation of someone else's idea. While I do not think WotC is malicious or particularly greedy, it is clear to me that their IP policies reflect a continual tumult of business decisions, rather than a coherent philosophy based on artistic and business realities of the 20th and 21st centuries. 

I could sell a vaccum cleaner bag and print right on the label, "Compatible with Hoover upright vacuum cleaners." Yet I am spoiled for thinking I can do the same for an adventure module? I can write books about elves and dwarves and such, drawing from the same sources as D&D... yet WotC presumes to tell me how tall an elf is and must be? The EU has told Microsoft, in plain terms, that they must allow others to write compatible software for their copyrighted OS and provide no impedence to them, yet WotC feels exempt from this basic pillar of efficient free markets.

What bothers me is not WotC's generosity, which has been reasonable in scope, but their presumption. It bothers me that they would make publishers jump through hoops who actually want to work with them and promote their brand, when less loyal 3PP can simply publish as they see fit, and as long as they practice reasonable caution, suffer no such restrictions. Whereas the OGL was a partnership of WotC, 3PP, and fandom, the GSL is imperial.

If the OGL was a bad business deal, then why was 3.5 so successful?


----------



## Ydars (Mar 5, 2009)

First, let me say that I think the new GSL is a massive improvement on the old one, though it is by no means perfect. Kudos to Scott Rouse and to Clark for pushing this through. I am sure that 4E will now be enriched with many many new things and that can only be good and will help bring in new people and may convert those who have not adopted the new edition.

But my gut is with Pawsplay on this: an Astonishing amount of WoTCs so called IP is actually derived from ideas literally cherry picked from works of Fantasy and Sci-Fi with little or no regard for the IP rights of the original creators.

And a awful lot of what makes D&D, D&D was developed, not by large corporations like TSR or WoTC, but by fans.

For the love of god, BOTH the major settings markerted by WoTC came from FANS: Eberron and FR.

The Beholder was made up by a friend of Gygax's and he was never paid a cent for it. Mindflayers are ripped off from Cthulu andmreged with other sources. The list goes on and on.

I guess what I feel is that the OGL enshrined the fact that the fans or outsiders actually created one hell of a lot of what most people regard as core D&D and acknowledged that it is likely that they will continue to do so.

So it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when they take it away. Having said this, I would still like to end by paying tribute to Scott Rouse and Orcus for their work.


----------



## defendi (Mar 5, 2009)

Just as input from someone who operates under five licenses from three companies and has worked under at least one more (I'm probably missing some), the The GSL is the second most permissible one (the OGL is the most, of course).  All the other licenses I've seen still allow the publisher to yank a product of mine even after I've spent countless time and money on creating them.  The fact that this hasn't happened yet is because I'm careful to follow the same basic morals clauses that are in the GSL.  The other licenses don't have them explicitly, but if I violated them, I'd be in big trouble.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 5, 2009)

Ydars said:


> For the love of god, BOTH the major settings markerted by WoTC came from FANS: Eberron and FR.




The concepts and starting details were created by fans. From then on, it always was a team effort - FR was bought to be used as a shared world, and Eberron was quite the same. You can see the touch of the creators, but we wouldn´t recognize both settings if the original authors would have been creating them alone, only focused on their wishes. 

But i already know one thing: you can´t kill the corporation/creator black/white idea on the internet.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 5, 2009)

The really interesting question is WHY TSR and WoTC, with their large staff and professional designers, feel the need to start their world-building with fan created worlds and content?

I agree with you Keefe; FR and Eberron are somewhat different to how they were originally envisaged (though I have to say that all the changes made to the FR by TSR lessened the setting and the bits I like most are almost pure Greenwood).

It still doesn't change that fact that the original inspiration for these things came from fans and not from the owners of the D&D IP.

I fail to see how the dismissive comment at the end of your post in any way addresses this.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 5, 2009)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> (And to address someone else's qustion, Anthony Valerra was the brand manager of D&D and the person behind the BOEF if I'm remembering correctly.  He had Scott Rouse's job, basically).




Not to drive this thread even further off topic, but to clarify: Anthony was my predecessor. The position he held evolved a great deal, both in my tenure and, as I understand it, into Scott's. Anthony's position as Category Manager for RPGs was the closest equivalent to current position of Senior Brand Manager for D&D, but it wasn't identical in its responsibilities, nor was it nearly as senior.

So, yeah, Anthony kinda had Scott's job, but not quite.


----------

