# Goodman Games Releasing 4e Adventures Prior to October 1st



## Shroomy (Jun 22, 2008)

Not sure how they are doing it, but Goodman Games is releasing four 4e adventures in early September.  You can read about it here.  And before anyone says this is a typo, Joseph Goodman confirmed it on their forum:



			
				Joseph Goodman said:
			
		

> For those of you who are wondering about today's news post: yes, those products really will be available before October 1. I generally don't discuss business in public forums but because there will be questions, I am posting here to confirm yes, it is true, as is the blurb in the back of yesterday's Free RPG Day release. 'Nuff said... now enjoy reading about Punjar with the freebies from yesterday.
> 
> _________________
> Joseph Goodman
> ...


----------



## xechnao (Jun 22, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Not sure how they are doing it, but Goodman Games is releasing four 4e adventures in early September.  You can read about it here.  And before anyone says this is a typo, Joseph Goodman confirmed it on their forum:




Lol, will the books have the D&D logo on them?


----------



## Jadeite (Jun 22, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Lol, will the books have the D&D logo on them?




Their system is listed as "4E". So they might be under a special license or they might use no license at all (which should become rather interesting).


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 22, 2008)

they probably think if the gsl is only going to let you refer to the names of creatures and concepts,  and using the gsl is more restrictive and takes away more rights and options then if its not used at all. They probably think that the rights given to make compatible products is flexible enough to publish 4e adventures. 

*edit*

I could be wrong though. I am interested in finding out what is going on here. Other tried and true options other then the GSL are a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 23, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Not sure how they are doing it, but Goodman Games is releasing four 4e adventures in early September.  You can read about it here.  And before anyone says this is a typo, Joseph Goodman confirmed it on their forum:




Fascinating.

And they are still DCCs...


----------



## Alikar (Jun 23, 2008)

Indeed. They might be testing the waters here. It will be interesting to see how this works out. We might be seeing a lot of "4E" material without reference to DnD.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

J. Goodman is smart enough not to be doing anything stupid. I am actually interested in the Points of Light and PC Pearls products, myself, Those are system neutral.

Plus I will be buying one of the modules. I love Fat Dragon Games stuff, so I have to get those tiles.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 23, 2008)

Cool stuff. One with a double sided map of islands, one with a double sided map for minis/encounters, and one with pre-printed 3D terrain from fat dragon games! wow!


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Not sure how they are doing it, but Goodman Games is releasing four 4e adventures in early September.




Technically we'll be able to get them in August (at Gen Con) if I'm reading the coming soon page correctly:

http://www.goodman-games.com/upcomingreleases.html


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

He just negotiated a special license. GSL is if you want to do 4E D&D stuff for free, you can always negotiate a special license paying up royalties ( like you normally have to do for every other product in the market) for use of the IP/System.

Any company can do this. Actually I think that when most serious companies finally decide to jump into 4E , they will negotiate for a special license. So we may actually see good high quality 3PP products for 4E after all.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> He just negotiated a special license. GSL is if you want to do 4E D&D stuff for free, you can always negotiate a special license paying up for use of the IP/System.
> 
> Any company can do this. Actually I think that when most serious companies finally decide to jump into 4E , they will negotiate for a special license. So we may actually see good high quality 3PP products for 4E after all.




That's a relief. For a while it seemed like everybody with jumping off ship. Wizards stuff is great, but variety is the spice of life and all that.


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> He just negotiated a special license. GSL is if you want to do 4E D&D stuff for free, you can always negotiate a special license paying up royalties ( like you normally have to do for every other product in the market) for use of the IP/System.
> 
> Any company can do this. Actually I think that when most serious companies finally decide to jump into 4E , they will negotiate for a special license. So we may actually see good high quality 3PP products for 4E after all.




Is that confirmed somewhere?  I mean, that's what I suspect is going on, but I haven't heard anything directly from GG.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> That's a relief. For a while it seemed like everybody with jumping off ship. Wizards stuff is great, but variety is the spice of life and all that.




Yeah this point is what always get me when people denounce the evils of the GSL. There are other venues out there and there have always been. One of the only attractive qualities of the OGL (and now GSL) is that it was free. Not with a restrictive GSL, only serious publishers will try to negotiate for a alternate license.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> He just negotiated a special license. GSL is if you want to do 4E D&D stuff for free, you can always negotiate a special license paying up royalties ( like you normally have to do for every other product in the market) for use of the IP/System.




Is this speculation or known fact?


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Is that confirmed somewhere?  I mean, that's what I suspect is going on, but I haven't heard anything directly from GG.




Oh no, this is just speculation on my part. Like treebore said, Goodman is a smart guy and I dont believe for a second he would do something as foolish as try to publish without a license or go against a GSL arrangement.

So the only option left is a special license.

Then again I could be wrong, and this Agust could be very interesting.


----------



## robertsconley (Jun 23, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> J. Goodman is smart enough not to be doing anything stupid. I am actually interested in the Points of Light and PC Pearls products, myself, Those are system neutral.
> 
> Plus I will be buying one of the modules. I love Fat Dragon Games stuff, so I have to get those tiles.




I hope you will find Points of Light useful. It is four lands about 125 miles by 100 miles designed to drop into your campaign. All four are presented as numbered hex maps with locales key to a hex along with a listing of geographical

Rob Conley
co-Author Points of Light


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> Not with a restrictive GSL, only serious publishers will try to negotiate for a alternate license.




The cool part is that Goodman Games seems to be taking it to heart. All the battle maps, fold-y dungeon dressing, and island poster maps (which looks attractively similar to one Dreadful Isle) = added quality above and beyond a "simple" pdf release. 

And, best I can tell, the price hasn't gone up.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> So the only option left is a special license.




Or existing US Copyright law, supported by multiple verdicts in case law....


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Or existing US Copyright law, supported my multiple verdicts in case law....




yeah but that way lies madness and tons and tons of wasted money.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

This is *not* an edition knock, but maybe some folks that were on the fence about 4E will reconsider due to the DCC line making the jump. I can see this being beneficial to Wizards*.

*In a very, very, very miniscule way that Hasbro will never notice.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> yeah but that way lies madness and tons and tons of wasted money.




By following existing laws?    Um....OK.....

Sorry, but no.  You're quite mistaken.    

Copyright law is very specific, especially in this category.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> Oh no, this is just speculation on my part. Like treebore said, Goodman is a smart guy and I dont doubt for a second he would do somethings as foolish as try to publish without a license or go against a GSL arrangement.
> 
> So the only option left is a special license.
> 
> Then again I could be wrong, and this Agust could be very interesting.




That he is not stupid means that he knows to cover his ass and not to expose himself in stupid risks. And perhaps he knows more things than you and has more options than what you are saying here. Don't you doubt your own knowledge of options?
If this knowledge was so common ground treebore wouldn't praise him of his intelligence, would he?


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

Regardless of *how* I'm just stoked that it will be ....... and in time for Gen Con, too. Only so many times we can run the Wizards adventures. 

The cover to Dragora's Dungeon is a nice touch. Clyde Caldwell is the man.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 23, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Regardless of *how* I'm just stoked that it will be




Agreed.  Those look like they're going to be great.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Or existing US Copyright law, supported by multiple verdicts in case law....





Shhhh! Only lawyers can post about Copyright law and have any chance of being believed! Reading the laws for yourself doesn't count!


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> By following existing laws?    Um....OK.....
> 
> Sorry, but no.  You're quite mistaken.
> 
> Copyright law is very specific, especially in this category.




Even by having existing laws on your side, a small gaming company has a lot to lose by taunting Hasbro into a protracted legal battle.

I am also of the opinion that this is more likely the result of a licensing agreement


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> By following existing laws?    Um....OK.....
> 
> Sorry, but no.  You're quite mistaken.
> 
> Copyright law is very specific, especially in this category.




Are you a lawyer? Who actually knows copyright law? Or are you like me and just read laws for yourself?

Just asking because I was recently disregarded because I am not a lawyer, and I am apparently too stupid to understand things when I read them.

I learned long ago that just because someone is in the "profession" in no way guarantees they know what they are talking about, so I do my own research. I ask my own questions.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 23, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> Even by having existing laws on your side, a small gaming company has a lot to lose by taunting Hasbro into a protracted legal battle.




Contrary to what gamers might think, corporations are usually smart enough not to bring suit when the law is clearly against them, not to mention literally dozens of previously-ruled cases.

Usually, these things result in nastygrams, in the hopes that a less-than-informed small businessman will just fold.    Actual suits are rare, and usually brought about in specific examples where they believe there are provisions in the case that lie outside of existing law.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 23, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Are you a lawyer? Who actually knows copyright law? Or are you like me and just read laws for yourself?




No, Yes and No.

No, I'm not a lawyer.  I'm a publisher who has fought such cases before, and an industry consultant who has been called in the past as an expert witness in IP lawsuits.

My opinions are based on my own experience, as well as the results of spending the past week in consultation with my lawyer regarding this specific topic.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 23, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Regardless of *how* I'm just stoked that it will be ....... and in time for Gen Con, too. Only so many times we can run the Wizards adventures.
> 
> The cover to Dragora's Dungeon is a nice touch. Clyde Caldwell is the man.




I agree with this!  I read the freebie they gave out on Free RPG Day and it is great!  Punjar sounds like a fun town


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 23, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> He just negotiated a special license. GSL is if you want to do 4E D&D stuff for free, you can always negotiate a special license paying up royalties ( like you normally have to do for every other product in the market) for use of the IP/System.




I think this would be an interesting alternative my idea. I was worried that wizards was just going to have the gsl and not really negotiate anything else. If you are right, i would be glad to see other options then the gsl.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> No, Yes and No.
> 
> No, I'm not a lawyer.  I'm a publisher who has fought such cases before, and an industry consultant who has been called in the past as an expert witness in IP lawsuits.
> 
> My opinions are based on my own experience, as well as the results of spending the past week in consultation with my lawyer regarding this specific topic.




Cool. If your willing, private PM or in a thread, I would like to know your over all opinion of the GSL and copyright law, and using one versus the other.

Personally I think I would go the copyright route, but that is only with about 3 hours of reading the laws and getting a couple of e-mails answered by copyright law professors.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Or existing US Copyright law, supported by multiple verdicts in case law....



Which is what I thought. Question is are they also OGL?


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Which is what I thought. Question is are they also OGL?




Printing under copyright would not make them OGL. However I doubt anything would stop them from declaring their work as OGL, other than their wish to keep WOTC's hands off of it, or just the desire to keep their work theirs.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 23, 2008)

Guys, I've looked at the Plaintiff in the most important cases, it was Hasbro over Monopoly.  Hasbro's Lawyers KNOW they will lose cases, they allow the GSL/OGL hoodwinkery because it limits what people already have the right to do.

IANAL


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 23, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Not sure how they are doing it, but Goodman Games is releasing four 4e adventures in early September.  You can read about it here.  And before anyone says this is a typo, Joseph Goodman confirmed it on their forum:



At first blush, I figured I knew the trick...


			
				GSL said:
			
		

> 5.4 First On-Sale Date. Licensee will ensure that no Licensed Product is first on sale to consumers prior to October 1, 2008. Wizards may terminate this License immediately upon notice to Licensee in the event that any sale of a Licensed Product is made, by any individual or entity, to a consumer prior to October 1, 2008. Without limiting the foregoing, *Licensee may produce, publish, and distribute* (a) marketing and promotional materials for Licensed Products, and *(b) non-commercial Licensed Products (i.e. free), in accordance with the terms of this License prior to October 1, 2008.*



Emphasis mine.

On further review of their site, though, they have an MSRP of > 0, which suggests either (wild speculation follows) a special arrangement with WotC or possibly that they'll be giving them out free at GenCon. (end wild speculation)


----------



## Agamon (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm planning on doing most stuff myself for my upcoming 4e game, but the products coming this summer look pretty snazzy, might have to check 'em out.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 23, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Contrary to what gamers might think, corporations are usually smart enough not to bring suit when the law is clearly against them, not to mention literally dozens of previously-ruled cases.
> 
> Usually, these things result in nastygrams, in the hopes that a less-than-informed small businessman will just fold.    Actual suits are rare, and usually brought about in specific examples where they believe there are provisions in the case that lie outside of existing law.



Also, such things result in bitter business relations, and recriminations when the smaller company wants to play nice again.  Makes me think that there's a negotiated license in use.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> On further review of their site, though, they have an MSRP of > 0, which suggests either (wild speculation follows) a special arrangement with WotC or possibly that they'll be giving them out free at GenCon. (end wild speculation)




I for one am entirely in favor of free Dungeon Crawl Classics!


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

Has there been any word on how Goodman Games are releasing so early?

Do we know if it is a license or are they just going for it and daring WoTC to take them to court?


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Has there been any word on how Goodman Games are releasing so early?
> 
> Do we know if it is a license or are they just going for it and daring WoTC to take them to court?




From looking at their boards, they're not saying how they managed it. I guess it's to prevent competition from other publishers doing the same thing. I expect they won't say either.

Pinotage


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

I looked closely at their site and NO-WHERE do they use the words Dungeons and Dragons in connection with these products and they don't have the new D&D logo on either; they just use the shorthand 4E. This is recognised by all of us as referring to 4th edition D&D but it smells to me like this is there way of avoiding a legal battle later.

I suspect Goodman are going for it without a license.


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I looked closely at their site and NO-WHERE do they use the words Dungeons and Dragons in connection with these products and they don't have the new D&D logo on either.




The logo has to be on the back cover, so you won't see it on the front cover.

Pinotage


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

Pinotage; You are right about the logo but I am still surprised by the very careful hedging around any direct reference to "D&D".


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Pinotage; You are right about the logo but I am still surprised by the very careful hedging around any direct reference to "D&D".




You'll see that from everyone. IIRC, the only claim you can make for compatibility is the logo. There is no other language you can use.


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> You'll see that from everyone. IIRC, the only claim you can make for compatibility is the logo. There is no other language you can use.




Which means that they could've put the logo on their website on the product page, but they didn't. I guess we'll find out at some point after October 1st what's happening.

Pinotage


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification JVisgaitis. Does this mean companies cannot even say "compatible with Dungeon and Dragons" in the blurb on their websites? I mean, I know on the product, that you cannot say anything else, but surely in publicity material you can refer to the game?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 23, 2008)

Saying "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" might be a trademark violation.  That's unclear.

There is such a thing as fair use and nominal use.  For instance, you can use the "phrase" of a trademark when making product comparisons, and courts have started defending the "nominal" use of a trademark if it's part of your past.  For instance, an ex-playboy centerfold was able to describe herself as that as long as she didn't try to use the bunny ears or official logo--you can use the name (again, not the official logo) of a band in an unauthorized biography, and former members of bands have been able to at least describe themselves as "formerly of <band name>".

However, it gets less clear with advertising, or product labeling, since saying you are compatible with implies endorsement.  Your selling an unlicesenced product that purports compatibility without authorization--ESPECIALLY when they have an existing licensing policy in play.  So that can lead to a lawsuit.  

When Gary Gygax released a couple of books about Role-Playing in general in the late 1980s, they described him as creator of D&D or Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and if I remember correctly they clearly said on the back cover "D&D is a registered trademark of TSR--the use of this trademark has not be authorized by TSR".  (If he had done in in recent years he could have been protected by nominal use precedent).

The safest way to describe compatibility is not refer to the trademark at all but say "compatible with the most popular Fantasy RPG".  For instance, there are meals compatible with Nutri-System or Jenny Craig, and they say "worth 3 points", but do NOT define which system they are compatible with.

The trickier (and not 100% legally protected) is to use the trademark in plain text, indicate it's status (tm or R), indicate who it's registered to, and even say your product is not endorsed or authorized.  But I think they could still take legal action.  The safest thing is not to mention the Trademark at all.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Which means that they could've put the logo on their website on the product page, but they didn't. I guess we'll find out at some point after October 1st what's happening.
> 
> Pinotage




Keep in mind, its two weeks once WotC receives the SoA. We sent ours priority and you still wouldn't see that logo on our website for at least 2 weeks.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

So the death of open gaming (with respect to D&D) throws up a whole raft of associated problems (or did this exist under OGL as well; strange that I never noticed it but then I guess I wasn't looking)?


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 23, 2008)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> At first blush, I figured I knew the trick...
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> On further review of their site, though, they have an MSRP of > 0, which suggests either (wild speculation follows) a special arrangement with WotC or possibly that they'll be giving them out free at GenCon. (end wild speculation)




They have an MSRP of 10.99 on each of the new DCCs.


----------



## delericho (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> So the death of open gaming (with respect to D&D) throws up a whole raft of associated problems (or did this exist under OGL as well; strange that I never noticed it but then I guess I wasn't looking)?




Pretty much exactly the same arguments happened eight years ago, with lengthy discussions over the need for an OGL at all. In the end, I don't think anyone tested the legality of publishing without using the license, probably because there was no great reason not to use the OGL.

It will be interesting to see what happens this time out.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 23, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> They have an MSRP of 10.99 on each of the new DCCs.




MSRP??


----------



## Maggan (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> MSRP??




http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-msrp.htm

/M


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification JVisgaitis. Does this mean companies cannot even say "compatible with Dungeon and Dragons" in the blurb on their websites? I mean, I know on the product, that you cannot say anything else, but surely in publicity material you can refer to the game?




I don't have the license in front of me, but I'm pretty sure, yes. Even with 3rd Edition stuff, you'd never see a company say that except for the approved usage text.

EDIT: The only approved text is the compatibility logo IIRC.


----------



## hong (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> MSRP??



 Microsoft Retail Price


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 23, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-msrp.htm
> 
> /M




Thanks. That's cheap.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

At first glance, I thought that they might have decided to make the Master Dungeons series (Master Dungeons M1: Dragora's Dungeon) their 4e product line and keep DCC OGL, but looking at the product details, the newer DCCs and Master Dungeons are both 4e products.

Under the GSL, what would this mean to previous DCCs that are currently being sold under the OGL?  How are they getting around the Product Line issue?


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

The simple answer is this; they CANNOT be using the GSL!

They may be using a special license they have negotiated with WoTC but you cannot release material before Oct 1st under GSL and this stuff is coming out in August.

My guess is that they either have a special license or have decided to test the waters with regard to copyright law.

Interesting times indeed!


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Under the GSL, what would this mean to previous DCCs that are currently being sold under the OGL?  How are they getting around the Product Line issue?




Who said they are getting around it?



> Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format.




They have a sell off period of all physical stock and they need to cease selling electronic PDFs immediately. We'll see what happens when they are released, but this is right in line with the GSL so far.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

But JVigatis; they are starting to SELL their DCC modules BEFORE the embargo date! You can't do that under GSL (unless they have a special deal with WoTC).


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> But JVigatis; they are starting to SELL their DCC modules BEFORE the embargo date! You can't do that under GSL (unless they have a special deal with WoTC).




That's the only bit I don't entirely understand. Everything else seems inline with what is in the GSL.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Sorry, I missed this post.



			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> The simple answer is this; they CANNOT be using the GSL!




Aside from the timeframe, I see nothing else that states otherwise. They might have approval to release prior to Oct 1st from Wizards.



			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> My guess is that they either have a special license or have decided to test the waters with regard to copyright law.




I don't think they would test copyright law. Just MHO.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I don't think they would test copyright law. Just MHO.




Testing the law against WotC sounds like a poor idea for a smallish company like GG. Surely it would be "safer" and more profitable (factoring the cost of laywers) to merely support 3.5, Pathfinder or some other deviant of D&D.

When that is said, I am absolutely thrilled at the prospect of having 4e Dungeon Crawl Classic Adventures (I already pre-ordered all of them on Amazon.co.uk).

Here's to hoping that this will all stick.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone said this but:

1. DCC's schtick really is that they don't look like the product they support... So no need for them to use the "official" monster or power templates, or any of the "visual" stuff.

2. Since monsters have to be redone anyway to be legal, most common monsters are already available, and the idea of special monster powers can't be Copywritten... Only specific instance of said special powers... Combine that with the whole idea of not being able to copywright game rules...

3. Goodman probably realizes that anyone who A: knows who they are, and B: is at Gencon most likely knows what 4e is anyway so no need to have the official brand logo displayed in order to move product.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Haven't read the whole thread...




The heart of the thread is how can they release a pay for product before October 1st.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 23, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Under the GSL, what would this mean to previous DCCs that are currently being sold under the OGL?  How are they getting around the Product Line issue?




Perhaps they plan on converting their entire DCC line to 4e?  They'll have more than enough time to sell off their backstock of 3e stuff.

Having 50+ instant 4e mods would put them way ahead of the publishing game.


----------



## Yair (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Testing the law against WotC sounds like a poor idea for a smallish company like GG. Surely it would be "safer" and more profitable (factoring the cost of laywers) to merely support 3.5, Pathfinder or some other deviant of D&D.



Anyone knows where GG are located, and what are the laws like there? There are states with laws protecting the little guy from harrasment suits, perhaps GG is planning to use them if needed...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> The heart of the thread is how can they release a pay for product before October 1st.




yes... because I'm guessing they aren't using the GSL for reasons I posted.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> Anyone knows where GG are located...




I think Chicago...


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> yes... because I'm guessing they aren't using the GSL for reasons I posted.




That's a legal quagmire and something I don't think any 3rd party publisher should/would attempt. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Time will tell...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's a legal quagmire and something I don't think any 3rd party publisher should/would attempt. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Time will tell...




Not really. 

The GSL says here's how you use our brand, and trademarked stuff in your games. Goodman strays pretty far from that stuff, for reasons I posted already. Of course, I could be completely wrong.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> The heart of the thread is how can they release a pay for product before October 1st.




Which is too bad, I liked it better when the thread was about the actual content of the modules. I'm not sure why everyone cares about the rest, actually.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Which is too bad, I liked it better when the thread was about the actual content of the modules. I'm not sure why everyone cares about the rest, actually.




Because it directly influences how soon you can get 3rd Party support?


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 23, 2008)

How?

Either they are releasing them at Gen Con, or not. Why they can or cannot do this is really irrelevant, no one knows why they are doing this, and no one else has said they are going to. The whole discussion really does not actually influence what we get or don't get. 

I sometimes like to have discussions about things for just discussing them, and that's cool, but the discussion itself answers no questions about October 1, and no other 3rd party has said they are going before October 1, and even if they are, this discussion won't influence that one way or the other.


----------



## pr1 (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I think Chicago...




Chicago indeed.  I actually emailed Joseph Goodman about that, because one of their older modules had a location on a residential street a mile from where I live (Atlanta; his old address was in Ormewood Park).  My roommate, I found out, knows his parents....


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

Maybe it's a "Buy one 3.5 module at full price, get one 4E adventure free!" deal. [/jk]

Regardless, at Gen Con, I will be at the booth, plunking down my cash for the first 4E adventures. Convenient that Goodman Games is directly across the aisle from Wizards of the Coast. One stop shopping for all your 4E needs.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> How?




It does for me. If I find out that we can release paid product before Oct 1st, we would try and have something ready for Gencon. Granted, its a few months difference, but you would get it sooner rather than later.



			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I sometimes like to have discussions about things for just discussing them, and that's cool, but the discussion itself answers no questions about October 1, and no other 3rd party has said they are going before October 1, and even if they are, this discussion won't influence that one way or the other.




No, it doesn't answer any questions, but it rules a lot out. Maybe the thread gets big enough and is noticed so someone from Wizards or Goodman comments and lets us know how this is transpiring. Who knows?


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a "Buy one 3.5 module at full price, get one 4E adventure free!" deal. [/jk]




You may be kidding, but that would work...


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 23, 2008)

See, that first part makes sense. If you are someone that wants to sell stuff, understanding when you can sell is important. Most of the thread looked, to me, like non-publishers talking and conjecturing (and now I'm feeling silly for continuing this....).

anyway, i continue to be excited about the fat dragon games' stuff being included, and a battle map. Very cool.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's a legal quagmire and something I don't think any 3rd party publisher should/would attempt. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Time will tell...




After seeing Adamant going the no-license route and Goodman not using any D&D names I'm betting GG is going no-license as well.

They'll make a bundle at GENCON and the notoriety of the lawsuit will probably net them even more cash -- they'll be slashdotted out the yin-yang.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm surprised people think the no licensed, copyright law and trademark route is so perilous. A number of small companies did it for years/decades before the 3E OGL. Its not all that perilous, you just have to be aware of the laws and not cross those boundaries.

Not hard, and I am betting GG is going forward without the GSL license and is actually going the copyright/trademark laws route.

Its possible they have an agreement with WOTC, but its doubtful. The biggest reason I think that is still a possibility is the fact that Joe has yet to say how he is able to publish and sell prior to October first.

Then again he may be wanting to avoid saying he is not using the GSL because of how finicky people can be about using "compatible" products.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I'm surprised people think the no licensed, copyright law and trademark route is so perilous. A number of small companies did it for years/decades before the 3E OGL. Its not all that perilous, you just have to be aware of the laws and not cross those boundaries.
> 
> Not hard, and I am betting GG is going forward without the GSL license and is actually going the copyright/trademark laws route.
> 
> ...




Nothing on the page indicates he is using the GSL... There's no logo on the cover shot, only the 4e thing, and nowhere do I see the little legal blurb you're supposed to run in adds. 

So I'm inclined to agree with you.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Nothing on the page indicates he is using the GSL... There's no logo on the cover shot, only the 4e thing, and nowhere do I see the little legal blurb you're supposed to run in adds.




Sigh... If you would read the license, it takes 2 weeks after Wizards receives the SOA and accepts you until you could use those materials on your website.

When our new website goes live later this week, it will look exactly the same. We won't say we are using the GSL, we can't use any type of logo on the cover, and we can't use the compatibility logo because the 2 weeks will not have elapsed yet.


----------



## keterys (Jun 23, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a "Buy one 3.5 module at full price, get one 4E adventure free!" deal. [/jk]
> 
> Regardless, at Gen Con, I will be at the booth, plunking down my cash for the first 4E adventures. Convenient that Goodman Games is directly across the aisle from Wizards of the Coast. One stop shopping for all your 4E needs.




Fantastic idea, frankly. It's really a shame that most publishers probably aren't ready to put stuff out.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 23, 2008)

This is awesome.  Assuming that these adventures are unlicensed, I'll be buying them, along with the unlicensed Adamant ones.  Given the Monopoly situation, my understanding is that Hasbro would have very little ground to attack these companies as long as there is no trademark infringement.  Losing any control at all over what these companies put out is a fitting punishment, IMO, and might teach the suits a lesson.

Hopefully the GSL will see no use at all, while a raft of unlicensed products are released, and a decision will be made to modify the GSL into the realm of sanity.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 23, 2008)

Let's not get too carried away; for all we know these companies could be under special license. After all, both were included in the 3PP conference call that WoTC made in Jan.

Or it could be they have decided to tell WoTC where to ram their GSL!

Actually; thinking about it, maybe WoTc themselves contacted selected 3PPs to tell them that they could produce for GenCon so that 4E looks better supported?


----------



## Belen (Jun 23, 2008)

If they were using the GSL, then that would have been part of the release.  They are probably making compatible adventures using nothing but the monster stat style from 4e.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 23, 2008)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> I agree with this!  I read the freebie they gave out on Free RPG Day and it is great!  Punjar sounds like a fun town




Fun in the, "Get your dirk out of my liver!" sort of way.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Jun 23, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Actually; thinking about it, maybe WoTc themselves contacted selected 3PPs to tell them that they could produce for GenCon so that 4E looks better supported?



But shafted Clark/Necromancer, their biggest supporter?

Until I see something coming out from Necro, I can't believe that scenario.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 23, 2008)

Dragon Snack said:
			
		

> But shafted Clark/Necromancer, their biggest supporter?
> 
> Until I see something coming out from Necro, I can't believe that scenario.



Ditto.  I can't envision a reasonable scenario that Adamant and Goodman would get some special rights, but Necromancer would not.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> This is awesome.  Assuming that these adventures are unlicensed, I'll be buying them, along with the unlicensed Adamant ones.  Given the Monopoly situation, my understanding is that Hasbro would have very little ground to attack these companies as long as there is no trademark infringement.  Losing any control at all over what these companies put out is a fitting punishment, IMO, and might teach the suits a lesson.
> 
> Hopefully the GSL will see no use at all, while a raft of unlicensed products are released, and a decision will be made to modify the GSL into the realm of sanity.




Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jun 23, 2008)

Or it could be because Clark mailed Wizards and warned them not to make the GSL too restrictive that he is being left outside. According to him, he told them of the possibility of a company going the "copyright route" and that it was interpreted as a THREAT by Wizards.

So, there is a miniscule chance that GG (and Adamant) got permission while Necromancer got shafted for "being threatening to the gorilla". Or, going by Gareths comments in this thread, atleast Adamant is sailing free.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.




Lets for a moment assume that AE and GG are going the copyright route. And assume that people who buy 3PP products do so regardless of the product having an official logo. 

Wouldn't this hurt companies like yours and Necromancer's more than it would hurt WotC? I mean, if they have less constraints than you, when making their adventures, and all you have going for you is the official D&D logo...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Lets for a moment assume that AE and GG are going the copyright route. And assume that people who buy 3PP products do so regardless of the product having an official logo.
> 
> Wouldn't this hurt companies like yours and Necromancer's more than it would hurt WotC? I mean, if they have less constraints than you, when making their adventures, and all you have going for you is the official D&D logo...




Not only does it give you the logo, but also the ability to sue the "look" of the 4e stuff.

So it depends on who your sales are going to.

Someone who spends a lot of time on message boards and knows the companies, and what they do, might be able to pick up say, a Necromancer book, and know it's designed for 4e, but what about someone who just likes D&D and wants more D&D stuff?

A big ol Officially licensed for D&D 4th edition!!! on the cover, plus contents that look just like the core books they already have, has an advantage.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 23, 2008)

So we only have 2 options:

1) They got a 'Special License' ( meaning the are paying extra for IP use)

or 

2) They are going the unlicensed way.

From some comments made by GMS, I think they are going  unlincensed. 


A couple of questions for Clark(Orcus): Did you aproach WOTC for a special License?
If you did, was it too expensive that only GSL was the alternative for you?
If you didn't, why not?


A comment for GMS: You should try to get the Role-Aids name in those products somewhere.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Sigh... If you would read the license, it takes 2 weeks after Wizards receives the SOA and accepts you until you could use those materials on your website.
> 
> When our new website goes live later this week, it will look exactly the same. We won't say we are using the GSL, we can't use any type of logo on the cover, and we can't use the compatibility logo because the 2 weeks will not have elapsed yet.





Well, your point explains "System: 4E", but it still doesn't address the selling before October 1st. Only a special agreement with WOTC or going copyright/trademark route does.

Personally I hope its not the GSL route. Lets also not forget Goodman has experience with doing things without a license.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 23, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Personally I think I would go the copyright route, but that is only with about 3 hours of reading the laws and getting a couple of e-mails answered by copyright law professors.




As a copyright law professor I tend to agree with you.  The GSL is awfully restrictive; whereas the OGL looked like a fair bargain.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 23, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> As a copyright law professor I tend to agree with you.  The GSL is awfully restrictive; whereas the OGL looked like a fair bargain.






If you were in the US I would have to wonder if you were one of the professors I e-mailed!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 23, 2008)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> I hope you will find Points of Light useful. It is four lands about 125 miles by 100 miles designed to drop into your campaign. All four are presented as numbered hex maps with locales key to a hex along with a listing of geographical
> 
> Rob Conley
> co-Author Points of Light



PoL and Pearls both look great.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't this hurt companies like yours and Necromancer's more than it would hurt WotC? I mean, if they have less constraints than you, when making their adventures, and all you have going for you is the official D&D logo...




It will have a negative impact on publishers sure, but it will hurt Necromancer more than us. I feel for a lot of the publishers with the restrictions of the GSL, but it doesn't really affect our plans or impact us negatively at all.

Violet Dawn is its own IP. We don't need to be able to print stat blocks in adventures from the Monster Manual. We're not scrambling to figure out what we'll do because we don't have access to devils and demons. All of that stuff we develop in house anyway.

Even the whole redefining an existing term isn't a concern to us. We can do everything we wanted and planned on doing with the GSL in its current state. Am I still happy about some of the restrictions? Not at all, but you play with the hand you are dealt. I feel bad for Clark and other publishers, but we lucked out.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 23, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> It will have a negative impact on publishers sure, but it will hurt Necromancer more than us. I feel for a lot of the publishers with the restrictions of the GSL, but it doesn't really affect our plans or impact us negatively at all.
> 
> Violet Dawn is its own IP. We don't need to be able to print stat blocks in adventures from the Monster Manual. We're not scrambling to figure out what we'll do because we don't have access to devils and demons. All of that stuff we develop in house anyway.
> 
> Even the whole redefining an existing term isn't a concern to us. We can do everything we wanted and planned on doing with the GSL in its current state. Am I still happy about some of the restrictions? Not at all, but you play with the hand you are dealt. I feel bad for Clark and other publishers, but we lucked out.




Okay thanks. Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you, but if Necromancer's are negatively affected by this...  

Ah well, I can always vote with my wallet.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 24, 2008)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> they'll be slashdotted out the yin-yang.




Ick, man.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.





I hope the GSL sinks like a cardboard boat. I don't agree with the implication that the dissatisfaction comes from a one-sided aggression or greed toward WotC. I think what people want is the ability to do business alongside and ins upport of WotC. Whereas the GSL seems to actually put people in a more legally vulnerable position than if they just decided to go license-less. 

I consider the risk of being forced to accept a termination of the GSL far more of a liability than the distant possiblity of being sued over a likely unsupportable accusation of trademark infringement (assuming, of course, due care to respect said trademarks).


----------



## Ydars (Jun 24, 2008)

I hope the GSL gets modified, to make it acceptable to 3PPs so that they go back into the safe harbour. The only way that can happen is for the 3PPs to show that they do have other options.............

and it appears they are doing it.

I just hope that once the genie is out of the bottle that WoTC can put it back in again


----------



## Belen (Jun 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.




Why?  What are the pitfalls of producing compatible adventures without using the GSL?  If a publisher cannot reprint rules or monsters for an adventure, then they are forced to list page numbers or create brand new monsters.

If they already have to create new stats, then the OGL lets them create core mythical beasties and they can use the rules style of 4e and not have to worry about losing the rights to their IP or destroying content if Habro yanks the license in a few years.

I can see no benefit for using the GSL.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.



I think there is a big difference between claiming that "the man is holding me down" and meekly accepting a "my way or the highway" situation when your legitimate options exceed that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 24, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> I can see no benefit for using the GSL.



Because the OGL has been great for the roleplaying game industry in general, as it created a whole new caste of professional game developers, which has benefited everyone.

Piss off the folks at Hasbro who aren't on board with the whole open source thing -- which is pretty much everyone over 50, incidentally, which is also the demographic of the folks running multinational corporations -- and you can pretty much guarantee 5E will be closed and that Hasbro will likely be TSR-like in their response to third party publishers.

I think a future with at least some openness to it and a non-adversarial relationship between the D&D brand holders and third party publishers is a benefit, myself.


----------



## Belen (Jun 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Because the OGL has been great for the roleplaying game industry in general, as it created a whole new caste of professional game developers, which has benefited everyone.
> 
> Piss off the folks at Hasbro who aren't on board with the whole open source thing -- which is pretty much everyone over 50, incidentally, which is also the demographic of the folks running multinational corporations -- and you can pretty much guarantee 5E will be closed and that Hasbro will likely be TSR-like in their response to third party publishers.
> 
> I think a future with at least some openness to it and a non-adversarial relationship between the D&D brand holders and third party publishers is a benefit, myself.




Being scared of Wizards is not an excuse to use the GSL.  I cannot see publishers being able to create the types of products under the GSL that I enjoyed purchasing with the OGL.  

Thus, I cannot see any reason to use anything for WOTC 4e products for a 4e game as along as the GSL stands.  The only products that I would consider whole would be those from WOTC.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> Thus, I cannot see any reason to use anything for WOTC 4e products for a 4e game as along as the GSL stands.  The only products that I would consider whole would be those from WOTC.




(I'm not trying to be a jerk.) What does the above mean? Pro-3pp? Anti-3pp? Anti-WotC?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Piss off the folks at Hasbro who aren't on board with the whole open source thing -- which is pretty much everyone over 50, incidentally, which is also the demographic of the folks running multinational corporations -- and you can pretty much guarantee 5E will be closed and that Hasbro will likely be TSR-like in their response to third party publishers.



And?
We don't need 5e and we don't need their corporation.  We have three editions of background to pull from and a boatload of OGC.  I think it's time to let the major corporation side of this hobby die and just set off on our own without them.  They're nothing but excess overhead dragging us down, the community at large and smaller publishers can support our hobby well enough.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.



I'm not "raging against the machine", anti-4E over here.  I love WotC's products, I buy a boatload of them, and I love 4E so much that I'm never going back to 3E or OGL products.  Sorry, OGL guys.

But I've had all I can stand of the copyright cartels trying to hijack copyright to maximize their profits at the expense of sanity and common sense, and to erode fair use rights under copyright and the public domain down to nothing.  It's become so prevalent that it's been used to water down the d20 license into the GSL, which has virtually no benefit to a 3rd party publisher over the rights he already has, and actually restricts them quite a bit.

Now, it's true that Wizards may try to sue a 3rd party publisher with the law against them, and win through attrition.  That's a sad reality of our current legal system.  But that doesn't mean that I have to sit here and be happy about it.  I have no intention of going back to OGL games, but it's already a rotten, adversarial relationship when they try to force companies to give up their existing product lines in the hope that they'll succeed with 4E.

I understand that 3rd party publishers need to maintain a good relationship with Hasbro, as they have their own business interests to look after.  Fortunately, I'm not dependant upon the Dungeons and Dragons brand for my livelihood.  In the modern age, with piracy being so rampant, companies are going to have to learn that goodwill with their consumers isn't just a bonus - it's necessary to turn a profit.  And if they want to try to close off 5E and crush fair use through abuse of the legal system, I hope they burn off every ounce of goodwill they've got.

I don't even buy too many 3rd party products, to be honest, so the GSL won't have a huge effect on me.  I don't need adventures written by others, since I enjoy writing my own settings and adventures, and the crunch from WotC is usually more symmetrical and better tested in my experience.  I bought a bunch of d20 Modern stuff, Malhavoc stuff, Iron Heroes, and a few odds and ends of products that supported my campaigns really well.  But I could live happily without any 3rd party support, in all likelihood.  And I know there's virtually no chance of what's said here changing anyone important's mind about the GSL.  But if they want to go down this road, they'll quickly go from being a cool company that I like to support to a company I hate and will never give another dime to.

If that means D&D dies...  well, I'll be sad.  But this issue is more important to me personally, and more important to us as a culture than any game I might enjoy.  This isn't about people wanting to latch onto a property for free, or get free stuff.  We're facing a Digial Dark Age, where threat of lawsuit, lack of support from the original author, and the vicious attack on the public domain through copyright extension is going to cause thousands upon thousands of works to disappear from public consciousness, and perhaps entirely, just because people are terrified of running afoul of copyright law.  That's unacceptable.  Look up the Google Library Project to see how shortsighted publishers can be - they don't even care if anyone is making any money off of the original work.  And every shred of ground lost on this hurts us as a culture, IMO the greatest culture in history for an intellectual.

In short, while I appreciate the difficulty of your situation, I'm sorry.  I'm going to continue to be upset by this.  But I'd rather do what's right than be comfortable.


----------



## Jengenritz (Jun 24, 2008)

Very.
Well.
Put.

Thank you for that post.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Jun 24, 2008)

Hooray for Terramotus!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 24, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> And?
> We don't need 5e and we don't need their corporation.  We have three editions of background to pull from and a boatload of OGC.  I think it's time to let the major corporation side of this hobby die and just set off on our own without them.  They're nothing but excess overhead dragging us down, the community at large and smaller publishers can support our hobby well enough.




Back on earth, a healthy RPG hobby requires a healthy company that regularly updates D&D and produces content for it. Besides, while WotC might be the only company in the RPG industry that's not a 'small business' by any standard definition, they're certainly not a large one unless you count all of Hasbro.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Its posts like this that I find disturbing and possibly detrimental to the entire community. I hope the GSL is supported. I hope that people don't try and result to copyright to produce products for 4e. All of that just adds up to bad blood and a very adversarial relationship with Wizards of the Coast. I'm so over the whole, "the man is holding me down mentality and we need to teach the man a lesson." Its just so tired already.




I suppose one can sit and take it, and take, and take it.  Or one can try to do something about it.  As long as what is tried is legal or unadjudicated, I see no problem.  Its called the American Way - Don't Tread On Me!


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 24, 2008)

Um, while we've been focusing on D&D, how does this NOT affect SJgames, Palladium and White Wolf.

Somehow, I don't think SJgames and WW are happy with Goodman games.


----------



## Delta (Jun 24, 2008)

Super post, Terramotus.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, while we've been focusing on D&D, how does this NOT affect SJgames, Palladium and White Wolf.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think SJgames and WW are happy with Goodman games.




I don't understand. Why would they care what happens in D&D land?


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 24, 2008)

Is this the answer per Scott Rouse - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216035

Sort of anticlimatic, if it is.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, while we've been focusing on D&D, how does this NOT affect SJgames, Palladium and White Wolf.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think SJgames and WW are happy with Goodman games.




Same as it always has.  There's nothing new here (except for the fact that there are a number of former 3.5 3pp that wanted to support 4E but don't like the GSL).  If a company made an adventure that happened to work with gurps but followed the fair use laws, there's not much Steve Jackson can do.  Mind you, the single biggest reason why no one, AFAIK, has done that so far with anyone but D&D is sheer market share.  Why write material for a game that has substantially smaller market share when you're probably going to have to fight a court battle anyways.  Might as well make it for D&D and sell more copies and still have to pay the lawyer for the court battle.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Is this the answer per Scott Rouse - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216035
> 
> Sort of anticlimatic, if it is.




Naw, that post is ancient. I don't think Wizards ever got out the materials Scott posted about. (If they had, Clark wouldn't be pissed.)


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 24, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> I don't understand. Why would they care what happens in D&D land?




Because if it applies to WOTC and D&D, how the hell does it NOT apply to them?

Palladium, especially (and to a smuch maller extent, WW) have been even MORE stringent than WOTC with people publishing add-ons.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Because if it applies to WOTC and D&D, how the hell does it NOT apply to them?
> 
> Palladium, especially (and to a smuch maller extent, WW) have been even MORE stringent than WOTC with people publishing add-ons.




Right, but the noted publishers also never said, "Here you go, free perpetual license to publish compatible material." 

The old OGL is a document created by Wiz for D&D. SJ Games and WW never created one for their own systems.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 24, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Right, but the noted publishers also never said, "Here you go, free perpetual license to publish compatible material."
> 
> The old OGL is a document created by Wiz for D&D. SJ Games and WW never created one for their own systems.




So Steve Jackson was right to look at the original OGL as a "BAD THING".

Worse, fom his viewpoint, Goodman games et al would enourage people to wonder "Hey, if they can do it for D&D, why cant I do the same for SJgames".


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So Steve Jackson was right to look at the original OGL as a "BAD THING".
> 
> Worse, fom his viewpoint, Goodman games et al would enourage people to wonder "Hey, if they can do it for D&D, why cant I do the same for SJgames".




And the answer would be, "Because there is no OGL for Paranoia." (Or whatever, right?) 

The door was opened when Wizards granted the OGL for their IP. Without that, none of this could have existed. But one company's IP license is not a threat to another company's IP. 

It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

Anyhow, I'm still holding out, hoping against hope, that Goodman has negotiated a separate arrangement with Wizards.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 24, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> And the answer would be, "Because there is no OGL for Paranoia." (Or whatever, right?)
> 
> The door was opened when Wizards granted the OGL for their IP. Without that, none of this could have existed. But one company's IP license is not a threat to another company's IP.
> 
> It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.




Um, read dmccoy's post in response to mine.

Technically, said companies never NEEDED the OGL but it worked as a gentlebeing's agreement.

With Goodman games publishing 4E adventures, how does this NOT prevent random Joe blow from pusblishing SJgames adventures?


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, read dmccoy's post in response to mine.




Hmm...I don't agree with McCoy's Fair Use analysis, but I don't have the background to dispute it with any finality. *shrugs* I'd love to hear a SJ or WW rep weigh in.



> Technically, said companies never NEEDED the OGL but it worked as a gentlebeing's agreement.




Citation? So just that we're clear, the hypothesis on the table is that Goodman Games has ignited an intellectual free for all that has lain undisturbed for years because ... people were being nice to one another?


----------



## Delta (Jun 24, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.




Not sure the Microsoft CEO agrees. Steve Ballmer in 2007 ( http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/ballmer_i_worry.html ):



> Ballmer pointed to open source as one potential source of worry. While the company has gained market share against Linux both on desktops and in the server market, he said that "having a competitor that is nominally close to free is always a challenge... There is a set of pricing pressure that nobody should ignore."


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

But if I am reading the quote right, it is a price point argument, not a "we stole their trademarked code and there is nothing they can do about it per fair use laws" argument. Right? 

If someone creates a great horror RPG that sells for $1, sure that might be a challenge to WW. But it doesn't give folks the right to use WW IP .. unless they create a license like Wizards did. 

I think I must be missing something the rest of you understand.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2008)

Filcher, the thought is that Goodman may be publishing unlicensed 4e-compatible adventures. The legality of this would depend upon those publications not infringing on WoTC's copyrights or trademark rights. (This is why some people are calling it the "copyright-trademark" route.)

The fact that WoTC licensed some non-4e materials under the OGL is mostly a separate issue (unless one thinks that Goodman might be using the OGL to incorporate some SRD material into their adventures).


----------



## Filcher (Jun 24, 2008)

Thank you, Pem. 

I guess, not having access to the products, there's no way I can dispute their claims as to how it is being accomplished.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 24, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Back on earth, a healthy RPG hobby requires a healthy company that regularly updates D&D and produces content for it. Besides, while WotC might be the only company in the RPG industry that's not a 'small business' by any standard definition, they're certainly not a large one unless you count all of Hasbro.



A company, it doesn't need to be any particular company for our purposes.  And given the behaviors of WoTC I don't see that a smaller company with more responsiveness to its user base like Paizo or SJGames couldn't fill the same niche.  D&D isn't the largest revenue stream at WoTC, most of the company is devoted to other products.  A company only doing the D&D rpg could be much smaller than WoTC while maintaining a profit margin and from the examples of some of the larger 3PPs meet or exceed the WoTC production standards.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 24, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> Being scared of Wizards is not an excuse to use the GSL.



Says who? Are you a publisher? Do you have others' mortgages, rents and grocery bills relying on your decisions?

It may be a reason you disagree with, but it's not an invalid reason because of that.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 24, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Why write material for a game that has substantially smaller market share when you're probably going to have to fight a court battle anyways.



I can see a market for more multiple game system books if this becomes commonplace, though.  You might see more Thieves World type books (the Chaosium version).

Say Goodman puts out a "Blahblah, Land of Possibilities" book for d20.  They could include NPC stats for GURPS, 4E, Heroquest, Runequest in the book.  They could release a supplement for a single game system and have conversion stats online for other game systems (for free, or for a fee ala Green Ronin).

Good or bad thing?  For fans good in the short term.  In the long term it's hard to predict.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 24, 2008)

Been away from this thread for a while and it seems to have mutiplied!!

Can someone please summarise what is actually known about how GG and Adamant are managing to publish 4E adventures before the embargo?


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jun 24, 2008)

Sure thing Ydars - nothing is known, alot is speculated.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2008)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> Sure thing Ydars - nothing is known, alot is speculated.





So we still don't know if this is another example of the licensing tiers we were told wouldn't be occurring?    


RC


----------



## SavageRobby (Jun 24, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Is this the answer per Scott Rouse - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216035
> 
> Sort of anticlimatic, if it is.




I'm not so sure that is the answer. According to Scott, that post specifically says that GG can release _"promotional (not for sale) products prior to Aug 1"_. The three modules in question are definitely *not* promotional.


If indeed some folks are going copyright, I'm glad to see to it. I don't see it as a "screw the man" mentality. I see it as a "if Wizards wants to make their license so damn onerous to work with, then we'll look at other options, because we _have_ other options". 

People keep saying, "would you want to risk your mortgage" on going the copyright/fair use route, but the question that pops into my question everytime I read that is would you want to risk your mortgage on the WotC never-go-back-to-the-OGL-terminate-at-will-and-destroy-all-your-stock license, especially given their recent behavior and attitudes?

IANAL and IANAP, but were I either, I'd give serious, *serious* attention to the copyright option.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 24, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> In short, while I appreciate the difficulty of your situation, I'm sorry.  I'm going to continue to be upset by this.  But I'd rather do what's right than be comfortable.




Well said and makes a lot of sense. I guess I should be more annoyed than I am, but I do see both sides to this.


----------



## thundershot (Jun 24, 2008)

*sits on the fence* I'll support whoever gives me additional 4E material.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 24, 2008)

Many thanks for this update lads.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 24, 2008)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> Sure thing Ydars - nothing is known, alot is speculated.




Quality sumation there.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So we still don't know if this is another example of the licensing tiers we were told wouldn't be occurring?




It could be special licensing.  It could they asked nicely and got special permission to sell early.  It could be Goodman/AE invented a time machine and are actually publishing from the future.  Maybe this is simply a tough negotiating stance in their attempt to get WotC to revise the GSL into something more publisher friendly.  Or it could be Opposite Day.  No one knows anything other then, "Its coming."

Now where's my pop corn.


----------



## Fathead (Jun 24, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> It could be Goodman/AE invented a time machine and are actually publishing from the future.




This gets my vote.


----------



## The Cardinal (Jun 24, 2008)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I can see a market for more multiple game system books if this becomes commonplace, though.  You might see more Thieves World type books (the Chaosium version).
> 
> Say Goodman puts out a "Blahblah, Land of Possibilities" book for d20.  They could include NPC stats for GURPS, 4E, Heroquest, Runequest in the book.  They could release a supplement for a single game system and have conversion stats online for other game systems (for free, or for a fee ala Green Ronin).





*Please*, let this become reality!
With stats for GURPS4e, Savage Worlds, Ubiquity (Hollow Earth Expedition, Desolation), Runequest, d20, and BRP, if possible!


----------



## Matthan (Jun 24, 2008)

I know speculation feeds the internet and all, but can't someone from the news part of the site try and email these two companies to get a statement on this?  This announcement is news whether they've "gone copyright" or gotten a special license.  Even a "no comment" would probably speak volumes.  Has anyone asked Morrus to try and write a news story for this?


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 25, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, while we've been focusing on D&D, how does this NOT affect SJgames, Palladium and White Wolf.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think SJgames and WW are happy with Goodman games.



SJGames released dozens of 3.x articles in Pyramid magazine without use of the OGL. They used a thing known as copyright law to put those articles out. I can't imagine they would do anything but applaud GG doing the same thing for 4e. Heck, I'll bet they publish some 4e articles themselves in the same manner at some point.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jun 25, 2008)

if they got a special license, don't you think they would have acquired for themselves the right to use the D&D logo?  otherwise whats the sense in going through all that trouble?  i'm betting they are going copyright, and if so i am glad.  i strongly feel that TSR and WOTC and now Hasbro have all along been claiming rights they never actually had, and just were using their 800 lb gorilla tactics to scare the small guys away.


joe


----------



## Treebore (Jun 25, 2008)

joethelawyer said:
			
		

> if they got a special license, don't you think they would have acquired for themselves the right to use the D&D logo?  otherwise whats the sense in going through all that trouble?  i'm betting they are going copyright, and if so i am glad.  i strongly feel that TSR and WOTC and now Hasbro have all along been claiming rights they never actually had, and just were using their 800 lb gorilla tactics to scare the small guys away.
> 
> 
> joe




Amen.


----------



## Spinachcat (Jun 25, 2008)

I agree that the most logical speculation is the "special agreement" between Goodman / WotC.   That sounds most probable in an Occam's Razor way of thinking. 

I have studied US copyright/fair use laws and I doubt that would be the choice of anyone advertising a 4e D&D product.   Those laws are what protected Palladium and Ultima in the early days of RPGs when they created games similiar to D&D, but safely different enough to be considered unique products.   I have never seen anything in copyright / fair use law that would allow you to write an adventure using the 4e rules and then label your product with  the Product Identity of a competing company.   

Copyright laws are NOT what the internet thinks they are.   They are in parts far stricter and other parts far looser than what people believe.   If you have a spare afternoon and some Tylenol, give the basic laws a thorough reading.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 25, 2008)

Spinachcat said:
			
		

> I have never seen anything in copyright / fair use law that would allow you to write an adventure using the 4e rules and then label your product with  the Product Identity of a competing company.




Are they doing this though? What product ID are they using?


----------



## Treebore (Jun 25, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Are they doing this though? What product ID are they using?




So far as can be seen? 4E, and that is not copyrightable or covered by Trademark.

Spinachat, I have read the laws, and attended many seminars on copyright law due to my wifes working as a medical research librarian at MUSC, and since she wanted to become a published author, and since has become one, I attended those seminars with her. 

I agree with what your saying, but my opinion differs in that going the copyright route instead of the GSL is very doable and can be very worthwhile in comparison to given total control of your future to the good will of WOTC.

I do think the most likely scenario with GG is that he got special permission from WOTC to publish early. However Joe has surprised me a couple of times before, so I can't rule out that he went the copyright/trademark route (to be referred to as the C/T route from now on).

Like I said before, Joe is a smart guy and obviously not afraid to try things likely to fail, or else Goodman Games wouldn't exist in the first place.

So even though I think the "special permission" is the most likely scenario, Joe definitely has the brains and courage to go the C/T route.


----------



## philreed (Jun 25, 2008)

Spinachcat said:
			
		

> . . . and then label your product with  the Product Identity of a competing company.




PI is OGL-speak and has nothing to do with US copyright or trademark law.

I can't see any answer except following copyright law. If the GSL was a useful document, I would expect publishers to use it. As it is, though, I fully expect publishers to ignore the GSL and proceed down the path of legal options.

Keep in mind that there are both Axis & Allies and Risk variants/support products on the market and Hasbro has not shut those down.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 25, 2008)

I agree with the people who think that Goodman Games is opting to use the copyright rules for publishing a compatible product. After all, they're not using the D&D logo, which is pretty much the only benefit of the GSL. Further, even their web pages for those products list the rules set as being "4E" rather than D&D.

There's no other real explanation. Even a special agreement with WotC would have them using the D&D logo.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I agree with the people who think that Goodman Games is opting to use the copyright rules for publishing a compatible product. After all, they're not using the D&D logo, which is pretty much the only benefit of the GSL. Further, even their web pages for those products list the rules set as being "4E" rather than D&D.




They'd just better be careful. Wizards was almost buried by Palladium for the same thing because of the Primal Order, which didn't feature a logo or anything, just references to Palladium material. Though Wizards might not win the case, could Goodman survive a drawn out legal battle against them?


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 25, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> SJGames released dozens of 3.x articles in Pyramid magazine without use of the OGL. They used a thing known as copyright law to put those articles out. I can't imagine they would do anything but applaud GG doing the same thing for 4e. Heck, I'll bet they publish some 4e articles themselves in the same manner at some point.



Are you sure they didn't use the OGL? SJGames' big run at the d20 market was a weekly eZine that used OGL. (I think it was called d20 Weekly?) And ran for maybe a year before they shut it down and folded all its articles into the Pyramid archives.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2008)

philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that there are both Axis & Allies and Risk variants/support products on the market and Hasbro has not shut those down.



This is a far more useful analogy then an earlier one from some other poster about after-sale car parts. (I had been thinking of posting a hypothetical, of someone other than Games Workshop releasing a Talisman expansion.)

Like such support products, a 4e module is useful to its intended market _only_ because that market is using WoTC's IP, and because that market will understand certain of the words occuring in the module as referring to aspects of that WoTC IP. Unlike those support products, the actual amount of IP that is implicated is much greater - 100s of pages of rulebooks rather than maps and comparatively brief rules texts.

LIke such support products, a 4e module also obtains a market at least in part because of the goodwill that WoTC enjoys in that same market.

These are the features of the situation that make me think the copyright/trademark route may not be as straightforward as some are suggesting.

The goodwill issue is not something I have any competence to elaborate on, but one way of dealing with the copyright issue might be to do what someone else suggested above, and include no stats at all except generic descriptions using non-copyrighted/non-trademarked descriptions (goblin level 2 x2, etc). The module text would then, in effect, be nothing but fluff (which just happens to generate a playable D&D adventure when read in the context of the 4e core rulebooks).

Once the module text starts to use power descriptions (for example) which are obviously intended to be read in conjunction with the conditions descriptions on p 277 of the PHB, and the power rules on pp 54-59, then I think it all gets a lot murkier.

I will certainly be interested to see what Goodman Games is doing.


----------



## Delta (Jun 25, 2008)

For those who missed it, I did create a poll for people to register their best guess as to exactly what Goodman Games is doing for a license:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=232730


----------



## kave99 (Jun 25, 2008)

can the little guy win against the big guy? the answer is yes. Last year i worked on a move called  Flash of Genius  about Robert Kearns' long battle with the U.S. automobile industry, and ford played the kind of hard ball that would loss WotC a lot customers. now that case has little to do with the issue at hand, just proves that you can fight the big guy.

Hasbro new that the OGL was out there when they bought WotC, so they will have to live with it. the GSL will not convince any one to give up the OGL . I don't know about you but I can live with out dragonborn and the shadowfell etc. It probably doesn't help that WotC just hired a new lawyer to handle all this and a new CEO. {boy would I love to know What went down over the last 6 months at WotC}


----------



## kave99 (Jun 25, 2008)

check out the "ready to play" on pg 9 of the PH points players to 3pp


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2008)

kave99 said:
			
		

> check out the "ready to play" on pg 9 of the PH points players to 3pp



I think there is an interesting question about the extent of implied licence the PHB grants to purchasers of the book to reproduce parts of iWoTC's copyrighted text - after all, it is a set of rules intended to be used to play a game, and the game can't be played without reproducing power texts, monster statblocks, etc.

But I don't know how far that gets 3PPs, who want to reproduce not for the purpose of play, but for their own commercial publishing purposes.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 25, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Back on earth, a healthy RPG hobby requires a healthy company that regularly updates D&D and produces content for it. Besides, while WotC might be the only company in the RPG industry that's not a 'small business' by any standard definition, they're certainly not a large one unless you count all of Hasbro.




I don't think this is necessarily true. You could argue that every industry needs a leader, but on planet Earth, that leader doesn't have to be the same. Dungeons and Dragons doesn't even have to be in print for the TRPG industry to succeed or flourish.

For argument's sake, let's say my company is in complete control of an industry, and my nearest competitor sells something like 1/10th of the amount of core product I do. And let's assume that my company's name is synonymous with the industry itself, like Band-aid or Xerox. Let's further say that I use draconian licensing agreements, apply content standards to third parties, and generally act like kind of a jerk to all the small companies I deign worthy to suckle at my teat. I am the 800 pound gorilla of the industry, without me the industry would have died and faded into obscurity, I AM the industry.

Now let's say I have a shiny new product, the third edition of my product. Something the entire industry has been eagerly awaiting for years. And I feel like I don't need my biggest third party publishers, they need me.

Now let's say that my biggest, most influential third party partner decides to publish their new product with my competitor and not me. I have no reason to be worried, right? I mean, I'm the industry leader, I'm the brand name.

Now let's say my company is Nintendo, and Square just announced Final Fantasy 7 for the Sony Playstation.

Hasbro/WotC need third party publishers. Period. And the OGL assured that third party publishers were using their system. If the GSL is unacceptable to third parties, what Wizards should be afraid of isn't that someone might publish compatible material without their permission. What they need to fear is that someone will put out something really excellent that sells a big pile of books for their competition. Tengen publishing Nintendo games without a license didn't hurt Nintendo, but Square publishing Final Fantasy 7 did.

Also, for the record, Nintendo did sue the crap out of Tengen for patent infringement.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 25, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The goodwill issue is not something I have any competence to elaborate on, but one way of dealing with the copyright issue might be to do what someone else suggested above, and *include no stats at all* except generic descriptions using non-copyrighted/non-trademarked descriptions (goblin level 2 x2, etc).




Which, oddly enough, is what the GSL requires you to do anyway.



> The module text would then, in effect, be nothing but fluff (which just happens to generate a playable D&D adventure when read in the context of the 4e core rulebooks).




Leaving, as the sole purpose of the GSL, the ability to use the D&D logo on the (back?) cover of your product.

I think the evidence points very strongly towards Goodman eschewing the GSL and using only the permissions already allowed under copyright.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 25, 2008)

If they do go the copyright route, I wonder if they will have pregens in the modules like they normally do....


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Jun 25, 2008)

philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that there are both Axis & Allies and Risk variants/support products on the market and Hasbro has not shut those down.




Wikipedia's article on Hasbro's HeroScape says:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Heroscape spawned much fan-generated content and material, including custom terrain, like jungles made out of aquarium plants, battle boards, ruins, buildings, and sci-fi terrain. Also created are custom figures, which permit fans to include elements from their favorite films, such asStar Wars, Hellboy, and the xenomorph from Alien.[citation needed] A secondary market for such figures grew quickly, but Hasbro expressed disapproval over the market, as the reselling of unlicensed Heroscape merchandise is a violation of the intellectual property of both Hasbro and the various source materials from which the unlicensed figures were drawn.
> 
> Others argue fan-generated content actually helps to promote the game itself.[citation needed]




It'd be interesting to see how Hasbro "expressed disapproval" and what effect it had.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 25, 2008)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Wikipedia's article on Hasbro's HeroScape says:
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be interesting to see how Hasbro "expressed disapproval" and what effect it had.




Keep in mind that Hasbro was probably on the hook FROM the OTHER guys.

Do you think when Lucas et al heard about the "custom figures"that they took their grievances to the people who made such custom figures?

Hell, no. They're making their displeasure known to HASBRO and even Hasbro doesn't mess with Lucas. (especially given that he has a stake in Hasbro).


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 25, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Which, oddly enough, is what the GSL requires you to do anyway.




I'm pretty sure the GSL allows you to include stats. You just can't reprint stats from the books.

I think pemerton is saying that going copyright only, including stats _at all_ is questionable because a large amount of WotC IP is required to make sense of them.

Not arguing the point myself, btw. I don't feel strongly about about the issue- I'll just buy what looks useful to me.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 25, 2008)

You can still find plenty of fan created HS minis on Ebay. Most of them are DDM minis, put onto HS bases, and with HS cards created for them. They go for outrageous sums sometimes.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 25, 2008)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the GSL allows you to include stats. You just can't reprint stats from the books.




Yes, I know. 

The GSL seems designed to provoke one of these two outcomes:

1) Goodman Games (and others) write adventures which reference "goblins" or "kobolds" and does not include stats-- in which case, why use the GSL at all?

2) Goodman Games (and others) write adventures using the GSL, which do include stats, and we end up with literally hundreds of kobold and goblin variants scattered across dozens of published works.

Neither of these is what I would exactly call optimal.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 26, 2008)

http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10769&whichpage=5

Halfway down the page Brian Jacobs (author of Wizard's Grand History of the Realms) states that Goodman has licensed w. Wizards. Think it carries any weight, or is he just speculating, too?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yes, I know.
> 
> The GSL seems designed to provoke one of these two outcomes:
> 
> ...




For a company like Googman, it's not optimal.

the GSL's thing lies on selling the strength of the look and feel of 4e, as well as the oficial brand logo on the cover.

DCC pretty much seems to go for the oposite crowd... Thos who don't want the look and feel of the current system.

So the GSL wouldn't be a huge draw to GG... In my opinion at least.

Since the GSL seems pretty clear that WoTC seems to want to preserve the idea of D&D as one thing... (the brand) I'm wondering if Goodman will show us how far WoTC is willing to take that... My guess is they won't do anything drastic.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 26, 2008)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> I think pemerton is saying that going copyright only, including stats _at all_ is questionable because a large amount of WotC IP is required to make sense of them.



What IP are you referring to? The letters AC? The word Will? About the only thing GG truly can't use is sword in a circle to indicate basic melee attack. Instead they will probably write: basic melee attack. I'm sure their at-will abilities will not have bright green headers.

Yes, they will have to change the layout of the stat block. It will probably resemble the 3e one with all the text run together. Or they will create a unique layout.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Which, oddly enough, is what the GSL requires you to do anyway.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



As Hexgrid noted, this is a bit of an exaggeration.

Also, under the GSL, the module can have a tactics section in which it says which powers the monster(s) will use in what sequence. Writing an unlicensed adventure also makes it more complicated to work out how far you can go in this direction without infringing WoTC's rights.



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> What IP are you referring to? The letters AC? The word Will? About the only thing GG truly can't use is sword in a circle to indicate basic melee attack. Instead they will probably write: basic melee attack. I'm sure their at-will abilities will not have bright green headers.



If you're forming this view on the basis of your own legal expertise, or professional legal advice, then I'm happy to defer to it - I'm not an IP expert. But my lawyer's intuition is that what you're saying is too simplistic, underestimating the relationship between the text that GG might be publishing and the text in which WoTC holds copyright, which (i) GG's product is intended to be read in conjunction with, and which (ii) GG drew upon to write it's adventure.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 26, 2008)

There is actually very little WOTC can claim as copyright, trademark is much more obvious as to what you can't use. But hit points, to hit, damage, saves, abilities, ability modifier, feats, skills, etc... are not copyrighted and cannot be. Even Wizards, thief, warrior, fighter, barbarian, etc... cannot be copyrighted.

Publishing 4E compatible stuff via the OGL opens things up a bit more as well.

Staying away from specific formats, names unique to D&D, such as Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc..., since those are copyrightable, and I believe still are, are a good start to avoiding copyright infringement.
Not using other phraseology identifiable to 4E would be wise too, like you wouldn't want to refer to the "roles" the character plays, you don't want to be using their monster stat blocks, or refer to their books. 

You can say the monster to fight is a "spherically shaped creature, with many eyes on the end of sticks", and the reader will have to figure out what creature you mean and look it up in their MM, or call it the "Many Eyed Fiend" and write up your own interpretation of it, but don't use the same format WOTC does.

So going the copyright route is very doable. Possibly even more so if you use the 3E OGL in a manner similar to how OSRIC was done.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 26, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10769&whichpage=5
> 
> Halfway down the page Brian Jacobs (author of Wizard's Grand History of the Realms) states that Goodman has licensed w. Wizards. Think it carries any weight, or is he just speculating, too?



Hmm, while that's interesting, I'd consider it just speculation without a real press release. After all, if Goodman Games has a special licence with Wizards, then don't you think they'd want the 4e fans to know about it?


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 26, 2008)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Hmm, while that's interesting, I'd consider it just speculation without a real press release. After all, if Goodman Games has a special licence with Wizards, then don't you think they'd want the 4e fans to know about it?




Perhaps not if you were negotiating or staring to negotiate special licenses with other companies.


----------



## Filcher (Jun 26, 2008)

Given how weird everything else has been with Wizards' release of 4E, I wouldn't be surprised if the specifics of the license were still in negotiation. It would be in the interest of Goodman to announce the releases ASAP, while Wizards can kick back and take their time. Meanwhile neither party says anything specific regarding licensing until the ink dries.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 26, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10769&whichpage=5
> 
> Halfway down the page Brian Jacobs (author of Wizard's Grand History of the Realms) states that Goodman has licensed w. Wizards. Think it carries any weight, or is he just speculating, too?




I really don't think Brian R. James knows what he's talking about. I looked up his profile at LinkedIn and he's not only never worked for Goodman Games (scroll down for a photo and listing of some of their employees), he's only a freelancer for WotC, and that's of August, 2006. There's no way he'd have any sort of special information regarding a license between Goodman and WotC.

EDIT: As an interesting note, BRJ has worked/is working on a WotC book for 2009 called _Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead_.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> There is actually very little WOTC can claim as copyright, trademark is much more obvious as to what you can't use. But hit points, to hit, damage, saves, abilities, ability modifier, feats, skills, etc... are not copyrighted and cannot be. Even Wizards, thief, warrior, fighter, barbarian, etc... cannot be copyrighted.



But the combination and arrangement of those common words into a unique text can be copyrighted.

Suppose you replaced every proper name in the Lord of the Rings with a name of your own invention, but otherwise republished the story wholesale. I suspect that that might be a copyright infringement. Now, suppose you rephrase the odd sentence that is active into passive and vice versa. I'd still have my doubts that you're not infringing - that work belongs to Tolkein and his successors in title, and you have substantially reproduced it.

Now, how small can we make the work and how significant the changes and still have something potentially infringing? That's a tricky question which I'm not qualified to answer. But I don't think it would help an argument in favour of non-infringement that your _intention_ in writing your text about Many-Eyed-Fiends doing battle with Shadow Elves was that it was to be understood as having the same content as WoTC's text about Beholders doing battle with Drow.

Note that I'm not accusing anyone of copyright infringement. I'm just making the (slighly abstract) point that the question of infringement is not a trivial one, and can't be decided just by focusing on individual words that do or don't occur in WoTC's copyrighted text.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 27, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Suppose you replaced every proper name in the Lord of the Rings with a name of your own invention, but otherwise republished the story wholesale. I suspect that that might be a copyright infringement.




I thought that was called "The Sword of Shannara".


----------



## philreed (Jun 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Keep in mind that Hasbro was probably on the hook FROM the OTHER guys.
> 
> Do you think when Lucas et al heard about the "custom figures"that they took their grievances to the people who made such custom figures?
> 
> Hell, no. They're making their displeasure known to HASBRO and even Hasbro doesn't mess with Lucas. (especially given that he has a stake in Hasbro).




Note that the issue was with custom figures and material based on IP, not material based on the Heroscape mechanics.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 27, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Is this the answer per Scott Rouse - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216035
> 
> Sort of anticlimatic, if it is.



Can someone post this answer in this thread? The link is broken with the move, and I'm really curious what Scott actually said. 

Muchas Gracias!


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jun 27, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> Can someone post this answer in this thread? The link is broken with the move, and I'm really curious what Scott actually said.




The answer was severely dated and was from back in January if memory serves. The Rouse said that they were letting publishers release free products prior to October 1st and judging by Goodman's annoucement DCC won't be free.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jun 27, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I thought that was called "The Sword of Shannara".





*cough* Iron Tower Trilogy *cough*


----------



## Jadeite (Jun 27, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> The answer was severely dated and was from back in January if memory serves. The Rouse said that they were letting publishers release free products prior to October 1st and judging by Goodman's annoucement DCC won't be free.




Actually, he mentioned publishing because august because by the time he posted this answer they still planned the 5k early adopter thing.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 27, 2008)

SavageRobby said:


> *cough* Iron Tower Trilogy *cough*




Hmm... I'd never heard of that one!


----------



## Mark (Jun 27, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> Can someone post this answer in this thread? The link is broken with the move, and I'm really curious what Scott actually said.
> 
> Muchas Gracias!




Add a level to old links that include a "/forum" folder and they should work.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=216035


----------

