Recent Posts
Missing monsters, should folks care...
Beholders
Displacer beasts
Githyanki
Githzerai
Mind flayer
SahuaginCarrion crawlers are available now.
Updated as I find more...
See, this is interesting and odd to me . . . if everything now has to reference the "core" books, and doesn't allow people to publish the stats, only "If you want a Githyanki Gith, see the MM," why hold any monsters back?
Edit: Nevermind, figured it out . . . you could still, if it was in the SRD, make your OWN Githyanki Razorknight or DragonStraifer, with full stats. I get it now.
Did you seriously just quote Tori Amos?
Yes. To quote Tori Amos: It can be done, it has been done, and I think you are up to it.Yep, you sure did.To further quote Tori Amos: If you need me, me and Neil will be hanging out with the Dream King.
Oh sorry, aren't we doing that?
To further *further* quote Tori Amos: "The cookie never crumbles."
Oh. No—sorry, that was "Famous" Amos, not Tori Amos. I keep getting those two confused.
See, this is interesting and odd to me . . . if everything now has to reference the "core" books, and doesn't allow people to publish the stats, only "If you want a Githyanki Gith, see the MM," why hold any monsters back?Missing monsters, should folks care...
Beholders
Displacer beasts
Githyanki
Githzerai
Mind flayer
SahuaginCarrion crawlers are available now.
Updated as I find more...
To limit what other companies can do. If you like those monsters, you have to buy from Wizards.
Such licenses I've seen also include such "niceties" as paying the licensor for the use of their IP. Don't get me wrong, this thing is a huge step back from the OGL, but let's keep some perspective on how unique and awesome the OGL is.
Absolutely. It made a rules set open code.
It was revolutionary and still is.
It may end up being more durable than anyone imagined.
To limit what other companies can do. If you like those monsters, you have to buy from Wizards.
I think so too: no drow? Egads.
By the by, if Pathfinder had gone 4E, PF volumes 1-18 would be off the shelf once stock sold out. PF 1-12 could have been converted and eventually put back on sale (probably not worth the salary spent doing said onversion), but Second Darkness? Dead in the water, due to drow.
I'm kind of liking Paizo's decision.
That was actually my main point—my bad for making it parenthetical. Wolfgang would have to take some trouble to ensure that Wizards couldn't say that it was part of the same product line as his OGL products.It's a great point. In fact, I just posted that point to Open Design and even gave you credit for it. :)
It's a public thread, so it's readable to all.
Reading that thread, I was amused by varianor's comment: "This isn't a license. This is a an invitation to act as a doormat. " (He kind of backtracks on that later... but it still made me laugh.)
At some point, though, those restrictions become functionally equivalent to "we're not playing ball"—which woulda been a whole lot less work for those lawyers! Have they crossed that line? It'll be interesting to see...
Well, they can say, "We have the GSL. It's up to third party publishers to determine if they want to be our partners."
Most folks do not have levels in corporate pimp (like myself) or infernal litigator (like Sebastion) and will see this as a valid argument.
That does seem to be the safest thing to make. Anybody else see any other opportunities that are safe from "retroactive redefinition?"From what I can see, this is designed entirely to facilitate the production of adventure modules, none of which would include new monsters or materials outside of the Wizards IP (why would you even try, considering the creative and financial castration you'd be risking?)
I'd be amazed and more then a bit flabbergasted if anyone would consider trying to bring out anything else wider then that.
I've read it a few times with my IP hat on and that seems to be the most logical/safe. --> Creating modules that use the base classes/monsters as defined within the SRD. Since Keep on the Shadowfell is... meh, you might have a market for "Gamemastery" modules or whatever you want to call a new line. You have people that can crank those out. Of course, I wouldn't start until after "dungeon" goes from free to charge and people start bailing from there.
From a market sense that would make the most sense for you, or most any other company. Goodman can probably fit within that. Peterson... hmmm...
However, Wrath of the River King could not be released under any other system - even if Wizards terminates the GSL. A true "one shot" product.
I promised I'd write a 4E adventure if the commission was met, and I still intend to. Right now, I'm very happy that the GSL Wrath of the River King is fairly well insulated from Open Design projects in the main product line.
It's looking very much like my 4E one-shot. I'm not sure I can risk my existing product lines (KQ, Open Design adventures) just to publish under some fairly nasty terms. So I've already got a new product line name and logo underway.
Yep, I can't see Clark being happy about it. I can't see any way to safely do a ToH (or any kind of monster compilation) or advanced PHB under this license. As soon as WotC creates a version with the same name and adds it to the SRD, your product is in violation.The more I think about it, the worse this is... If you create a monster, class, race or even a power that WotC later duplicates you're sunk unless you come up with something suitably original and copyright/trademark the name of it before WotC.
Technically a ToH or Advance PHB is still possible, as the text mentions the possibility of a "separate licensing agreement" that may allow the publisher to use WotC's intellectual property.
But I agree that, with only the text as written, a 4E ToH/Advanced PHB seems out of question for Necro. Too bad, as I was really looking forward to a 4E ToH.
It's gonna be real hard for them to put a cap on 'Drow'. 'Oh not the D&D Drow, the Everquest drow is our influence' or any of the other myriad of usages recently. Not to mention that Drow is quite an ancient term in legend and myth. I misremember what type of creature it was in reference to exactly but.....
Now that I'm over my initial disguist, I have a few more things to add:
I get that Wizards wanted to rein in their IP. Hell, I've been defending their efforts to do that. And I can see why they wouldn't want to help create D&D competitors, so I can live with things like Conan, True20, etc. not being able to piggyback on D&D. Those are both reasonable and expected.
But the "terminate at any time" clause is pure B.S. Whether Wizards likes it or not, the GSL has a competitor: the OGL. What they have offered in its stead is so useless as to be meaningless. The only possible purpose of the GSL as it is written that I can discern is to try to kill the OGL before people think too carefully. It is a giant marketing-cost externalizing machine; nothing more.
Frankly, I've seen big corporations lie before (sometimes firsthand); in some circumstances they are practically legally OBLIGATED to do so; for some silly reason I allowed myself to forget that Hasbro is pulling the strings over at Wizards. I'm sure Scott Rouse had good intentions when he said the OGL would continue, and was probably thought he was telling the truth, but the GSL is no OGL...not even close.
I LIKE 4E, but I'm rethinking continuing purchasing WOTC products. The non-monetary price might simply be too high.
There goes my run 4E/play Pathfinder zen.
It's gonna be real hard for them to put a cap on 'Drow'. 'Oh not the D&D Drow, the Everquest drow is our influence' or any of the other myriad of usages recently. Not to mention that Drow is quite an ancient term in legend and myth. I misremember what type of creature it was in reference to exactly but.....
"Drow, n., [scot.]." The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology.
Drow---- "The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology."
Thank you Wikipedia, but take with a grain of salt.
Drow---- "The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology."
Thank you Wikipedia, but take with a grain of salt.
Hey, it sucked us both in!
It's gonna be real hard for them to put a cap on 'Drow'. 'Oh not the D&D Drow, the Everquest drow is our influence' or any of the other myriad of usages recently. Not to mention that Drow is quite an ancient term in legend and myth. I misremember what type of creature it was in reference to exactly but.....
"Drow, n., [scot.]." The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology.
Nice! Beat me to it!
;P
All this talk of monsters reminded me of another clause in there that's potentially troublesome:
"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
So if I make my monsters look like their monsters, is that "derivative" of their art?
All this talk of monsters reminded me of another clause in there that's potentially troublesome:
"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
So if I make my monsters look like their monsters, is that "derivative" of their art?
Absolutely. They want to have review before someone prints images of their IP that doesn't fit within the standards that they feel are appropriate. Erotic Kobolds. Hillbilly Ogres. Etc.
I saw that during my last looksee and it made sense. It's not very festive, but it made sense. Seems like you could just come up with your own images for whatever you wanted your versions to be and get them reviewed and get a written ok. A pain, but it controls the misuse, which obviously is a much bigger deal than previously.
All this talk of monsters reminded me of another clause in there that's potentially troublesome:
"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
So if I make my monsters look like their monsters, is that "derivative" of their art?
Oh screw that.. I wish I could just return my books to Amazon. Not cause I dislike the game, but all this crap is too much of a pain in the a$$.
Oh screw that.. I wish I could just return my books to Amazon. Not cause I dislike the game, but all this crap is too much of a pain in the a$$.All this talk of monsters reminded me of another clause in there that's potentially troublesome:
"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
So if I make my monsters look like their monsters, is that "derivative" of their art?
Yeah, this is why I waited for the GSL before buying.
Dökkálfar sounds much more menacing than drow. Drizzt and Elistrae ruined the "drow as infernal menace of terror below." vibe.
That's basically saying "dark elf" in another language, for what it's worth.
I think people who AREN'T using the GSL aren't gonna get into a problem with drow, but if you do want to use the GSL, you've already agreed to WotC's rules...no drow for you, except poison. You could probably get away with dark elves or shadow elves or whatnot, as long as they weren't too drow-y.
The thing that gets me about this whole debacle is that WotC is cutting themselves with this but they just don't see it. They think that if they close down all the other burger-joints, make it a legal issue for others to cook burgers, and ignore that the other burger joints drew burger-loving customers to the area, then people will have to love their burgers. Unfortunately most of the best chefs work elsewhere now.
Damn. Now I'm hungry.......
All this talk of monsters reminded me of another clause in there that's potentially troublesome:
"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."
So if I make my monsters look like their monsters, is that "derivative" of their art?
Ick.
2. Updates or Revisions to License. Wizards may update or revise the License at any time in its sole discretion by posting the updated License on its website page located at http://www.wizards.com/d20. Wizards will indicate on the License the date it was last updated. Licensee is responsible for checking the License regularly for changes, and waives any right to receive specific notice of changes. Licensee's continued use of any Licensed Materials (as defined below) after the "Last Updated" date above, including without limitation any publication or distribution of Licensed Products (as defined below), confirms Licensee's acceptance of any changes to the License.
(Not speaking for Paizo!)
This may be my favorite part of the license, mainly because it involves writing new code. :-) If you use the GSL and want to ensure that you're adequately protecting your company's interests, you need to make a bot that scrapes the http://www.wizards.com/d20 page just before you accept any order for a GSL-licensed product. If the "Last Updated" date has changed since the last time you scraped it, you must refuse the sale until someone with authority at your company has vetted the terms of the new GSL or the contents of the SRD.
However, Wrath of the River King could not be released under any other system - even if Wizards terminates the GSL. A true "one shot" product.I promised I'd write a 4E adventure if the commission was met, and I still intend to. Right now, I'm very happy that the GSL Wrath of the River King is fairly well insulated from Open Design projects in the main product line.
It's looking very much like my 4E one-shot. I'm not sure I can risk my existing product lines (KQ, Open Design adventures) just to publish under some fairly nasty terms. So I've already got a new product line name and logo underway.
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL. So technically, they could say that unless you agree to go 4E all the way, you aren't even allowed to use the GSL. (Not that I think they would deny you, of course...but they could.)
2. Updates or Revisions to License. Wizards may update or revise the License at any time in its sole discretion by posting the updated License on its website page located at http://www.wizards.com/d20. Wizards will indicate on the License the date it was last updated. Licensee is responsible for checking the License regularly for changes, and waives any right to receive specific notice of changes. Licensee's continued use of any Licensed Materials (as defined below) after the "Last Updated" date above, including without limitation any publication or distribution of Licensed Products (as defined below), confirms Licensee's acceptance of any changes to the License.(Not speaking for Paizo!)
This may be my favorite part of the license, mainly because it involves writing new code. :-) If you use the GSL and want to ensure that you're adequately protecting your company's interests, you need to make a bot that scrapes the http://www.wizards.com/d20 page just before you accept any order for a GSL-licensed product. If the "Last Updated" date has changed since the last time you scraped it, you must refuse the sale until someone with authority at your company has vetted the terms of the new GSL or the contents of the SRD.
What? You don't have a legal team at the ready, 24/7 to peruse the terms at any time? Now that's just not how business works here! And God forbid if you make an error, for now your heiney is owned!
;P
Drow---- "The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology."
Thank you Wikipedia, but take with a grain of salt.
So...all these years, and hundreds of arguments later, I've been right!!
It's pronounced drO, with a long O.
Oh, happy day.
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL. So technically, they could say that unless you agree to go 4E all the way, you aren't even allowed to use the GSL. (Not that I think they would deny you, of course...but they could.)However, Wrath of the River King could not be released under any other system - even if Wizards terminates the GSL. A true "one shot" product.I promised I'd write a 4E adventure if the commission was met, and I still intend to. Right now, I'm very happy that the GSL Wrath of the River King is fairly well insulated from Open Design projects in the main product line.
It's looking very much like my 4E one-shot. I'm not sure I can risk my existing product lines (KQ, Open Design adventures) just to publish under some fairly nasty terms. So I've already got a new product line name and logo underway.
WotC- "I've got you now George Bailey, and I'll shut down your building and loan. You've been a thorn in my side for too long now"
Unsuspecting 3rd party publisher- "But Mr. Potter please! Think of all the families who need to play 3.5 or, or, or, Pathfinder! Think of the kids, Mr. Potter!"
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL.
... and I love how you have to mail your application to the same exact PO Box they use to handle customer service questions, fan mail, returns of defective minis and misprinted cards... and your license begins 14 days after they receive your application (unless they decline your application), but they apparently don't have to tell you when or even if they actually receive it.
It's gonna be real hard for them to put a cap on 'Drow'. 'Oh not the D&D Drow, the Everquest drow is our influence' or any of the other myriad of usages recently. Not to mention that Drow is quite an ancient term in legend and myth. I misremember what type of creature it was in reference to exactly but.....
You guys seem to be under the impression that we are talking about copyright here. They can't copyright something clearly in the public domain.
But YOU can enter a license agreement that obligates YOU to avoid using it.
Which is why I, were I a publisher, wouldn't touch the GSL.
Who is Lorrain Williams?Its Porteguese for SATAN.
Actually, I'm not sure.. but my best guess was that she was a TSR CEO back in 2nd Edition days that was not loved for some of her decisions. I didn't know either, and someone had to tell me. I might be wrong.
Learn, Children, of the olden times when She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named Ruled: LINK
I am only slightly surprised by the terms of the GSL. I expected them to be more open initially, except the provisions to change and/or cancel the license at their discretion. That way they could sucker a few publishers into signing on before crushing them with the full force of the GSL.
For example, if they didn't have the clause requiring publishers to convert all of their old material in a product line, Goodman might go ahead with some 4E DCC modules. Then whammo! slide that clause in and Goodman is out of business.
They've built a giant elaborate trap, but they forgot to bait and camouflage it.
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL.... and I love how you have to mail your application to the same exact PO Box they use to handle customer service questions, fan mail, returns of defective minis and misprinted cards... and your license begins 14 days after they receive your application (unless they decline your application), but they apparently don't have to tell you when or even if they actually receive it.
LOL!
Publisher: "Yay! I sent in my ap and I wasn't rejected!"
(Publisher creates 5,000 copies of a 400-page campaign setting)
WotC: "Uh, we never received your application - it must have been lost in the mail, and since we don't know you, you are denied the right to use the GSL."
*Publisher faints*
Actually, this sort of one-sided agreement doesn't really surprise me. In my line of work, if you are holding all the cards, then if anyone wants to play ball, it's by your rules . . . and preferably with the least amount of work on the cardholder's side.
It makes sense if WotC thinks it's the leader of RPGing and 3rd party independents' survival hinges on playing ball.
I imagine that from a business sense, WotC anticipates that, even with the adversity many players have against 4e, eventually the majority of people will come over to 4th edition. Moreover, if people aren't happy with 4e and outspoken against it, WotC has probably written them off already.
So, again, it makes sense.