|
Ok, this is just a copy and paste from ENworld:
D&D 4th Edition News
WotC announces plans for 4e SRD and OGLOn January 7th, Wizards of the Coast held a courtesy call with the 3rd party publishers who had expressed close interest in gaining advance access to the 4e rules.
Attending the call were:
* Adamant Entertainment
* EN Publishing
* Expeditious Retreat Press
* Fantasy Flight Games
* Goodman Games
* Green Ronin Publishing
* Mongoose Publishing
* Necromancer Games
* Paizo Publishing
* Paradigm Concepts
* Privateer PressOn the line for WotC were Scott Rouse, Linae Foster (Licensing Manager), Sara Girard, Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, and Chris Perkins.
Their formal announcement can be found here, but here's what we learned from the call.
4e publisher support will be released in two phases.
Phase One is for publishers who want access to the 4e rules early. Taking a lesson from software publishers, WotC will be making available an OGL Designers Kit. This gives early access to rules and is offered to any publisher, not just the ones on the conference call. Access to the kit requires a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee.
This kit will be available within a matter of weeks, as soon as several legal logistics are complete. It provides three hardcopy pre-publication versions of the three core rule books, copies of the OGL and SRD, and a FAQ. Publishers will continue to receive updates to these rules as changes are made, one in the beginning of February and possibly one in March. Publishers will also receive advance copies of the final rule books. Importantly, publishers who purchase the kit may begin selling product on August 1, 2008 – earlier than other publishers.
Phase Two is free and begins on June 6th, when the OGL goes live. Any publisher can then produce D&D supplements under the OGL, but these cannot be published until January 1, 2009.
Effectively, this means that publishers who pony up the $5000 fee get four months of advance production time for their products, can sell their products at GenCon and Christmas without a whole lot of competition, and have a five month grace period when theirs are the only 4e products available. Publishers who choose not to pay the fee will enter the market at a later date.
I took notes during the Question and Answer portion of the call, and the following Q&A comes from my notes. In some cases the information is paraphrased instead of an exact quote.
1. What's the current status of the core rules?
The Players Handbook heads to typesetting on Wednesday. The Monster Manual heads off at the end of January, and the Dungeon Masters Guide in the middle of February. Additional changes and corrections will continue to be made in the galley through the end of March, but the rules are largely complete. Lots of playtester feedback, both internal and external, has been incorporated.
2. Tell us about the 4e OGL and SRD.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.
The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
The community standards clause will follow the same spirit as the current version. It will lay out in broad brushstrokes what’s appropriate and what isn’t in a D&D-compatible product. If publishers have any questions, they’re always welcome to ask WotC about specifics. This clause applies to content, and wouldn’t apply to (say) a shoddy or ugly cover. (Note that this is a rare occurrence anyways; according to Scott Rouse, there has only been one case in the last two years where the community standards clause came into effect, and that was amicably resolved.)
In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.
3. How will publishers indicate 4e compatibility with D&D?
There will be no front-cover logo. There will be specific compatibility language that indicates a book is “compatible with 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons,” or something similar. There will also be verbiage to be included in the book that includes an official “visual statement” linking the product to D&D.
WotC will work to educate distributors and the market about D&D-compatible products, but expects publishers to help educate consumers as well.
4. Will subsequent core releases be promptly added to the SRD?
Subsequent content will be added when it is Open Source.
(In my opinion, Scott Rouse sounded a little abashed when he added that subsequent rules would be added more promptly than 3rd edition rules were. That's probably a good sign for publishers who want to utilize rules and monsters from subsequent releases.)5. Under Phase One, how are rules distributed to freelancers?
A company’s NDA covers their agents and contractors. As such, any freelancer for a publisher is legally bound by their NDA. The pre-release rules will be three copies of a physical document (although WotC is flexible on the quantity, and may provide more copies if necessary.) Companies working together as partners only pay one fee.
6. Can 3rd party publishers get involved with Gleemax or DDI?
Publishers are welcome to have a product support page in Gleemax. At this stage, plans to integrate 3rd party publisher support in the DDI have not reached beyond the discussion phase.
7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?
The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.
8. Does the NDA prevent publishers from announcing that they are participating in Phase One?
Absolutely not. They’re free to promote their involvement.
9. Will the Phase One program make subsequent releases (the PHB 2, for instance) available to publishers more quickly?
No, it won't. The program only applies to the games’ launch and the first three core books. However, we will likely allow Phase One developers to distribute free 4e material on Free RPG Day, and to show (but not sell) sample books at Origins.
10. Who's the contact person for publishers interested in Phase One?
Linae Foster (linae dot foster at wizards dot com) is WotC’s contact person for purchasing or learning more about the OGL Developers Kit.
This is going to be interesting!!
So, now any third party can write for them, provided they pay them $5000. Unbelievable. What audacity. It can't be under the guise that will improve the total body of 3rd party products out there. I don't think $5,000 is a deterrent for bad products - Wizard has put out plenty of them in the last couple years!!
|
So, now any third party can write for them, provided they pay them $5000. Unbelievable. What audacity. It can't be under the guise that will improve the total body of 3rd party products out there. I don't think $5,000 is a deterrent for bad products - Wizard has put out plenty of them in the last couple years!!
Well, any third party can write for them in the first year for 5000$. After January 1, 2009, it's free OGL.
I'm often at the front of the line when it's time to bash WotC, but I think this is all pretty reasonable stuff -- and good business.
This actually improves my opinion of their judgement and competence, which has been decreasing for a couple of months.
Party already started.
I have no problem with the form of this business move. It's a bit annoying to small to medium publishers to have to front a lot of cash, and on that level I don't care for it. However, it's fair.
This part?
The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
I call shennanigans. The whole point of the SRD is being able to copy and paste. I find the rhetoric about "use their creativity and talent" to be a thin veneer over control issues and an unwillingness to open architecture completely. Instead, they're going to make people work for some of the rules that gets reused. The best part of the current SRD is that you can fix some of the stuff you prefer to showcase differently.
Ah well, typical large corporation lawyers got their hands on this at some point and failed to understand a viable business model. Either that or WotC R&D still hates letting other people scrabble for the leavings of their business.
The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.I call shennanigans. The whole point of the SRD is being able to copy and paste. I find the rhetoric about "use their creativity and talent" to be a thin veneer over control issues and an unwillingness to open architecture completely. Instead, they're going to make people work for some of the rules that gets reused. The best part of the current SRD is that you can fix some of the stuff you prefer to showcase differently.
Ah well, typical large corporation lawyers got their hands on this at some point and failed to understand a viable business model. Either that or WotC R&D still hates letting other people scrabble for the leavings of their business.
That part about the SRD sounds not very promising. In fact, it sounds horrible.
Neither do I like the ransom for the system.
Perhaps, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, the monetary requirement for the early release is to keep up quality of the products? I don't know how many people recall some of the surpassingly bad adventures and materials which came out with the introduction of 3rd edition, but my old and beloved Friendly Local Gaming Store had these pamphlet-like adventures which sat by the counter, and were somewhat akin to the hot dogs in a convenience store that nobody ever purchases.
The adventures were made, mostly, by fly-by-night companies I'd never heard of, had absolutely awful spelling and grammar and were very rushed and poorly done. I'm not trying to say every small to medium scale company produces inferior products, but some do. If that investment is required from the get-go, it might make sense then that those cheap pamphlet adventures wouldn't recoup the cost of getting in on the ground floor, and thus force them to print something of such a standard that they might make some actual profit off what they're printing.
Just my two cents.
The only reassuring part of this is that the publishers get to at least look at the OGL before they pay the $5000. Personally I think it is a little silly to pay for something you haven't even seen yet but this will be an interesting issue to follow.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That part about the SRD sounds not very promising. In fact, it sounds horrible.Neither do I like the ransom for the system.
I don't like the pay to play myself. That said, 'Ransom' is a bit too much. It's Pay 5K to play early, not pay 5K or we kill your kitten.
Perhaps, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, the monetary requirement for the early release is to keep up quality of the products? I don't know how many people recall some of the surpassingly bad adventures and materials which came out with the introduction of 3rd edition, but my old and beloved Friendly Local Gaming Store had these pamphlet-like adventures which sat by the counter, and were somewhat akin to the hot dogs in a convenience store that nobody ever purchases.
In other words, the crappy quality of the products was sufficient to keep you from buying them. You didn't need WotC to keep them off the shelf. Really, if this is about quality, WotC could just restrict to SRD to bigger, established companies. They're not. They're charging money to anyone who wants to pay, which is ultimately simply a way to increase profit at the expense of their fans.
The people who suffer the most off of the licensing system as announced are those hobbyists who love WotC. Want to write up a "classic" paladin under 4.0 rules and publish it on your website? You can't. Your take on druids? Also out. You are legally barred from doing anything like that until 2009, because for Wizards, it's not about getting as many people playing the game as possible. It's about trying to maximize their revenue stream.
I fail to see how the 5k is unreasonable.
Another company wants to make a profit off of WotC's idea. Besides, they don't HAVE to pay, just if they want a head start.
It's actually a pretty sound business decision.
It is pretty much unheard of lately. Most closely resembling this relationship in another format is video games. Consoles do not require an investment by game companies to make games for them. They do like to hand exclusivity contracts, so a game company will not make 'clone' games for another console.
The part about not being able to use the SRD as a rulebook substitute I like. Makes sense, too. Why require hobbyists to buy a book when they could download all the rules they need. Same goes with companies making substitute rulebooks or games. Make your own. Mike MacKinnon, Steve Jackson, and Kevin Siembeda already did.
It's actually a pretty sound business decision.
Actually, it's not.
Either making the SRD open is a good decision, or it isn't. If making it open is a good decision, then you should reap those benefits earlier. If making it closed is a good decision, you should never open it to everyone.
As written now, the license increases short-term profits at the expense of the long-term viability of the game. That's a typical short-sighted business decision, but it doesn't make it a smart one.
|
|
The people who suffer the most off of the licensing system as announced are those hobbyists who love WotC. Want to write up a "classic" paladin under 4.0 rules and publish it on your website? You can't. Your take on druids? Also out. You are legally barred from doing anything like that until 2009, because for Wizards, it's not about getting as many people playing the game as possible. It's about trying to maximize their revenue stream.
So? I don't see how Wizards playing to close to their chest for the sake of profits as a bad thing for hobbyists.
Most people will produce "classic" paladins or druids for use in their home games. Wizards can't stop that. You can even share such information privately if you would like.
Otherwise this seems like a wise move for a company seeking to protect their interests, maximize profits, and maintain a strong name for their brand in an uncertain market. I can't fault them for that.
In any case, how does the OGL apply to fan related material? I must admit a certain ignorance of the license when it comes to this aspect of it.
Make your own. Mike MacKinnon, Steve Jackson, and Kevin Siembeda already did.Yes, which I suppose is why I have little sympathy for folks having to pay for early usage of the OGL or waiting to use it for free.
I don't see why WotC doesn't hand-pick certain companies and offer a deal with them on a case by case basis. Like how they had with the Dragonlance, and Ravenloft franchises (or others I'm not going to mention). If WotC was worried about people going apecrap with their game's name then pick your friends so it won't happen.
Based on the new module format to include miniature battlemaps which reflects the new higher module price($24.95), I wonder if third party publishers like Goodman games will also have to include battlemaps with thier line of modules thus raising the price to almost triple the cost and this in turn attracts the skirmishers of DDM game; To me 4e is just that a skirmish miniature game with a outlined story. IMHO
I hope this trend continues and we get to see some new systems appear on the scene. I don't think a varied number of systems is the hurdle others see it as.
Indeed. It just meant that whatever aspect wasn't handled well with that system wasn't getting handled well all over the place.
|
|
I hope this trend continues and we get to see some new systems appear on the scene. I don't think a varied number of systems is the hurdle others see it as.Indeed. It just meant that whatever aspect wasn't handled well with that system wasn't getting handled well all over the place.
Funny enough, I deleted that post and I didn't mean to. I had done it before I realized I was deleting the wrong post. Sorry that makes your statement seem like it comes out of no where.
For those who didn't see, I essentially stated I like the idea that companies are producing their own in-home systems again or taking the 3.5 version of the d20 system in new and dramatic ways.
I feel OGL was great but that it stifled some of that creativity. Its good to see that creativity coming back.
|
To me 4e is just that a skirmish miniature game with a outlined story. IMHO
Actually, take a look at the Savage Worlds system. It is designed to be used as a skirmish game or an RPG and does a real good job at it. Being able to do both doesn't lessen 4e for me.
I didn't used to think that way though. Savage Worlds changed my mind.
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - Profit!
The only reassuring part of this is that the publishers get to at least look at the OGL before they pay the $5000. Personally I think it is a little silly to pay for something you haven't even seen yet but this will be an interesting issue to follow.
I think that OGL, in this case, means the actual license. The legal document. The contract. Not the rules. I don't think they're shown any of the rules before they hand over the dosh.
Perhaps, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, the monetary requirement for the early release is to keep up quality of the products?
Let me repeat myself here: Having to pay doesn't mean better quality. (If anything, the 5000$ will mean that something else, something actually quality-improving maybe, will be 5000$ short).
It might mean that people think that there will be higher quality ("those guys are first AND they paid 5000 bucks. It's gotta be good."), but doesn't mean that some big company won't pay the money and make some hackjobs churn out some bad 4e material.
I'm still convinced that greed is the motivating factor here. Otherwise they would have offered this deal only to some companies (with or without the money). That way, they could have gone with those who are generally respected in the scene, have lots of products with many good reviews and awards and all.
I don't know how many people recall some of the surpassingly bad adventures and materials which came out with the introduction of 3rd edition
Yeah. Well, how many of those companies are still around? And there were big companies (of the kind that can probably pay those 5000 with ease) who made abysmal products, too.
And small ones that made great stuff. Only that those will be left behind until next year because they probably don't have 5000.
It's Pay 5K to play early, not pay 5K or we kill your kitten.
Actually it's "Pay 5k for something you don't know that much about or you will be left behind once your competitors start cashing in on the big 4e rush".
I'd say ransom isn't that far from the truth.
I fail to see how the 5k is unreasonable.
Another company wants to make a profit off of WotC's idea. Besides, they don't HAVE to pay, just if they want a head start.
It's actually a pretty sound business decision.
There's a difference between "getting a head start" and "not getting left behind".
And wizards stands to make profit off those people, too, because they're not forcing everyone to use those products to buy their core as well.
So, say, Paizo decides to support 4e. That will mean that people who don't like wizards or their products might get the core books so they can use the stuff Paizo creates, even though they wouldn't buy it just to play in wizards' game worlds.
We all know wizards doesn't have just fans. Some hate them, some just think that they can't make any decent stuff (especially adventures) or won't do stuff that interests them. While those companies probably won't be able to get the haters, or only some of them. But many of those who don't usually buy wizards stuff just because it does nothing for them will get the core books just so they can use the stuff that does do it for them.
Ok, this is just a copy and paste from ENworld:
Publishers will continue to receive updates to these rules as changes are made, one in the beginning of February and possibly one in March.
4.5 ahead
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
4.5 aheadOk, this is just a copy and paste from ENworld:
Publishers will continue to receive updates to these rules as changes are made, one in the beginning of February and possibly one in March.
No, it's not.
Look at the original creature collection. It had some stuff the rules didn't accomidate. that's what this means. Last minute tweaks, not 4.5.
Come on guys, as cynical as I am, even I can draw the lines here.
at the expense of the long-term viability of the game.How so?
Let's suppose you're a small game publisher, who can't afford the $5,000 up front to license the SRD early. You need right now to be working on (and, in fact, probably are) your products for the fall/winter. Right now, you have two choices:
1) Don't publish anything until 2008, thus missing GenCon and the holiday season.
2) Publish what you have under the 3.5 rules (or a different rules system entirely)
If your product sucks, it probably doesn't matter for WotC one way or the other; it's going to tank, you'll be bankrupt, and that'll be the end of it.
If your product is fantastic, though, neither scenario is a good one for WotC. If it's #1, that means 6 months you need to survive without a revenue stream, and 6 months without your product helping drive sales of WotC products, through the critical launch period. If it's #2, your fantastic product will actually prevent people from switching to 4.0.
So, sure, in the short term they might sell 10-15 licenses to publish products early, and make an extra $50-75,000. That's not chump change. But the license structure will also delay the spread of 4.0 into the marketplace, and that discourages people from switching, which makes publishing 4.0 material less attractive for everyone. I don't think I'd want to risk tanking my main product line for $75,000.
4.5 aheadOk, this is just a copy and paste from ENworld:
Publishers will continue to receive updates to these rules as changes are made, one in the beginning of February and possibly one in March.No, it's not.
Look at the original creature collection. It had some stuff the rules didn't accomidate. that's what this means. Last minute tweaks, not 4.5.
Come on guys, as cynical as I am, even I can draw the lines here.
OK 4.1 ahead
|
|
So, sure, in the short term they might sell 10-15 licenses to publish products early, and make an extra $50-75,000. That's not chump change. But the license structure will also delay the spread of 4.0 into the marketplace, and that discourages people from switching, which makes publishing 4.0 material less attractive for everyone. I don't think I'd want to risk tanking my main product line for $75,000.
I dunno. I don't see how that will harm the long-term viability of the line.
10-15 companies OTHER than WotC helping get the market penetration is nothing to sneeze at. Especially if you consider that several top tier 3rd parties will likely be doing it.
Plus, if you have confidence in the strength of your product, and it delivers, you do not need the other guys helping you get your system out there at all.
at the expense of the long-term viability of the game.How so?2) Publish what you have under the 3.5 rules.
Every publisher who sells material under the 3.5 rules in the whole 2008, depending on the quality of the product, still will have decent sales.
In any case, how does the OGL apply to fan related material? I must admit a certain ignorance of the license when it comes to this aspect of it.
Well, IANAL, but in short you are not allowed to perform or publish someone else's copyrighted material publicly. So, if you want to make a 4.0 bard class, you're fine. If you want to show it to anyone else, that's a copyright violation.
The OGL provides a license which gives you a right to create derivative works based on the SRD, in exchange for a few requirements. Most fan related material could easily qualify for the OGL by including a link to the license text, and that's generally why WotC doesn't go sending cease-and-desist letters to those that technically don't.
This gets a little tricky because a broad reading of copyright law would suggest it's illegal to actually run a game in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms (as you're publicly performing a work derived from a copyrighted work). On the other hand, copyright protection also doesn't cover the expression of facts (such as the rules of games). The real breakthrough of the OGL is that it clears up a lot of these grey areas--I might be permitted to publish a bunch of monsters compatible with D&D under current copyright law anyway, but by adhering to the OGL I can be sure I'm legally in the clear.
Every publisher who sells material under the 3.5 rules in the whole 2008, depending on the quality of the product, still will have decent sales.
That's still speculation at this point. And it's a risky gamble, too. I'm sure some people will buy both 3.5 and 4.0 products, but I think it's safer to assume that some people will switch 100%, and some won't. Even if only 20% of people decide to buy 4.0 products exclusively, that's instantly shrunk the 3.5 market by 20%. For a small publisher, that could easily be the difference between a profit and a loss.
I think you're more likely to see a sudden drop of sales in 3.5 products around the time 4.0 launches, followed by a gradual tapering off. There will always be a market for 3.5--even for new products--but it's going to constantly dwindle. And WotC has a strong incentive to make that drop as sharp and as sudden as possible.
|
|
In any case, how does the OGL apply to fan related material? I must admit a certain ignorance of the license when it comes to this aspect of it.Well, IANAL, but in short you are not allowed to perform or publish someone else's copyrighted material publicly. So, if you want to make a 4.0 bard class, you're fine. If you want to show it to anyone else, that's a copyright violation.
The OGL provides a license which gives you a right to create derivative works based on the SRD, in exchange for a few requirements. Most fan related material could easily qualify for the OGL by including a link to the license text, and that's generally why WotC doesn't go sending cease-and-desist letters to those that technically don't.
This gets a little tricky because a broad reading of copyright law would suggest it's illegal to actually run a game in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms (as you're publicly performing a work derived from a copyrighted work). On the other hand, copyright protection also doesn't cover the expression of facts (such as the rules of games). The real breakthrough of the OGL is that it clears up a lot of these grey areas--I might be permitted to publish a bunch of monsters compatible with D&D under current copyright law anyway, but by adhering to the OGL I can be sure I'm legally in the clear.
Thanks. I appreciate that. That makes a great deal of sense.
|
This gets a little tricky because a broad reading of copyright law would suggest it's illegal to actually run a game in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms (as you're publicly performing a work derived from a copyrighted work).
That does not sound right to me. Games are written for the private use of the people that play it. You are not staging a commercial performance for which you are collecting money. You are not deriving any income based on their IP. It seems to me that this interpretation would not hold muster if it went through any legal procedure.
|
|
That does not sound right to me. Games are written for the private use of the people that play it. You are not staging a commercial performance for which you are collecting money. You are not deriving any income based on their IP. It seems to me that this interpretation would not hold muster if it went through any legal procedure.
Although I'm not going into IP Law, my understanding is that even if it is for a non-profit performance you can still be violating the law. Point in case: As an undergraduate I would go to the announced "movie nights" run by the Student Union Council. At least until they were shut down for not obtaining permission to show the films. $'s collected = 0.
If you want a real shocker, take a close look at the FBI warning next time you pop a DVD in your player.
So, its not to many degrees away from CNB's point.
That does not sound right to me. Games are written for the private use of the people that play it.Although I'm not going into IP Law, my understanding is that even if it is for a non-profit performance you can still be violating the law.
That's exactly right. How much money you make off of someone else's IP is completely irrelevant. It's still illegal.
Where money does matter is in court; you can be required to pay any profit you made in damages (in addition to statutory or actual damages). So making $10 off someone else's work can cost you $10 + $150,000 for the copyright violation. Giving it away only costs you the $150,000.
|
|
That's exactly right. How much money you make off of someone else's IP is completely irrelevant. It's still illegal.
As a further, albeit personal, example my church uses some more modern Christian takes on music during worship. The lawyer to be in me always notices "Permission #: XXXXXX" on the slideshow.