The 3.5 OGL will not be running out. Instead a new license for 4e will be coming out as well. In that license, supposable a company will not be able to produce products under both 3.5 and 4e, so they will have to choose. But a company can stick with 3.5 indefinitely.
I hope the new SRD will be freely available to the general public. Being able to browse through the rules in html makes it much easier to look things up.
I hope the new SRD will be freely available to the general public. Being able to browse through the rules in html makes it much easier to look things up.
That is certainly not true. By WotC employees own words.
The SRD will only list the material that is allowed to be referenced by third party publishers. For example, a part of the SRD might look like "Races, pages 14 to 27 of the PHB."
And then, third party publishers aren't allowed to even reprint that material. They can only refer to it in their work.
|
I hope the new SRD will be freely available to the general public. Being able to browse through the rules in html makes it much easier to look things up.That is certainly not true. By WotC employees own words.
The SRD will only list the material that is allowed to be referenced by third party publishers. For example, a part of the SRD might look like "Races, pages 14 to 27 of the PHB."
And then, third party publishers aren't allowed to even reprint that material. They can only refer to it in their work.
That's a pity. Pretty much the only thing that could have convinced me to buy the 4e rulebooks was seeing the rules on the SRD and liking them.
|
I hope the new SRD will be freely available to the general public. Being able to browse through the rules in html makes it much easier to look things up.That is certainly not true. By WotC employees own words.
The SRD will only list the material that is allowed to be referenced by third party publishers. For example, a part of the SRD might look like "Races, pages 14 to 27 of the PHB."
And then, third party publishers aren't allowed to even reprint that material. They can only refer to it in their work.
You know this for a fact from where?
That is a complete change from the current SRD, which actually lists the rules and can be printed, as well as altered to fit each publisher's needs.
Also the current SRD is available to the general public, so it would be a sad change if they do ot make it available.
"That's a pity. Pretty much the only thing that could have convinced me to buy the 4e rulebooks was seeing the rules on the SRD and liking them.
Really? How is that much different from going to a store, reading through the rules there, and then deciding? It seems to me that if you were interested in giving the rules a look over before purchasing that it would be in your best interest still to do so, rather than to throw out the possibility altogether.
You know this for a fact from where?
That is a complete change from the current SRD, which actually lists the rules and can be printed, as well as altered to fit each publisher's needs.
Also the current SRD is available to the general public, so it would be a sad change if they do ot make it available.
I wish I had links for you. This was released early on in the presentation of 4th Edition... maybe four or five months ago.
I don't remember where it was anymore. I'll look around and see if I can find references for you.EDIT:: I found some links. here, and here. While not the points I remember (these are a bit more vague), it is a start in referencing it. I'll keep looking.
And yes, it is a sad change. One of many.
|
|
Really? How is that much different from going to a store, reading through the rules there, and then deciding?
Because with a downloadable or HTML version of the SRD rules, I can browse them extensively, at my leisure, from the privacy of my own home, without having to go anywhere, and in my underwear, if I so desire.
I can print the whole thing and read it cover-to-cover on the toilet, or in my bed before I go to sleep at night.
Speaking for myself, once there's a wife and kids involved in your life, there's not as much time to just hang-out at a bookstore or gaming store and read the thing from cover-to-cover.
As a game aid, the d20SRD website is one of my most frequently used resources.
-Skeld
|
|
You know this for a fact from where?
That is a complete change from the current SRD, which actually lists the rules and can be printed, as well as altered to fit each publisher's needs.
I've read this before too, but I don't remember where. The point was that you can't use the SRD or play D&D without the PHB. You're correct that this is a change from the way the current SRD works, but from the article/transcript I read, that was the entire point. WOTC didn't want a D&D4e you could play without their books.
-Skeld
Because with a downloadable or HTML version of the SRD rules, I can browse them extensively, at my leisure, from the privacy of my own home, without having to go anywhere, and in my underwear, if I so desire.
I can print the whole thing and read it cover-to-cover on the toilet, or in my bed before I go to sleep at night.
Forgive me. I realize I phrased my point poorly. Obviously what you describe is much more convenient. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if one is interested in reviewing the rules before purchasing, there are certainly ways to do so without relying on the entire ruleset being freely available on the internet. Moreover, I do not consider such means to be significantly less convenient than the way in which consumers normally review similar products before purchasing.
I was responding to a post I believed was concerned primarily with being able to review the rules before buying them. If convenience of the process is of primary importance, then I apologize, as my comments are likely inapplicable.
I've heard that the new SRD will only list parts of the core books that are open content. I'm not sure about this idea that other publisher's can't reproduce those sections in their work. It would fit with WotC's apparent goal of limiting third-party content to campaign settings, adventures, and things like monsters that you can just plug into the existing system.
|
It looks like there isn't going to be a new SRD, as we know it today; according to WotC's Mike Lescault in the information they put on their site (posted at ENWorld last Friday):
Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?
A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.
HERE is the thread where it's posted on the WotC forums.
Yep, no OGL for 4E and D20 is going bye bye too. Ryan Dancey forsaw this possibilty when he split up the OGL and D20 so that even if future WoTC overlords (insert Dilbert joke about telepathic giants) decided to withdraw the D20 they couldn't the OGL. The GSL is a combined setup with traits of both as I currently understand it and definitely retractable. From a business standpoint as a third party publisher this would make me very nervous.
And the new System Reference Doument has a truer claim to the term - it only references the content instead of republishes it. I assume that this is a move to more closely control their IP essentially. Although there were repackaged versions of the SRD that some folks used in place of the Core Books I'm not sure it really impacted their sales in a significant way but if they did (or they at least beleive it did) that would certainly be a motivator as well.
|
I have read that the OGL for the d20 system runs out soon, and that the new license will only be for 4.0 fantasy or non-fantasy 3.5. Does this mean that wotc would possibly sue Paizo for Pathfinder? I have read some of the wording in the newly proposed license and though I have not fine-tooth-combed it, that is how it seems to me.
I am, of course, referring to this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a
Though you can dig through the forums on Gleemax and find other indications.
I am not trying to start an argument, btw, just voicing my concern.
Oh dear god its going to be like when BP developed the neutrino propulsion drive for cars and stuck it on a shelf marked "Sue the next guy".
Conceivably the copyright on d20 expires at twenty years old and it becomes public property...you can have it free of licence (public property)...if they dont plunder it for parts of a new game engine before then and re-patent it as something new the way pharmacutical companies have been doing to retain control of inventions with expired patents.
The OGL cannot run out. The OGL is perpetual, i.e. eternal. Wizards cannot scrap, erase, forbid to use, modify etc the OGL itself (important nuance, see penultimate paragraph).
They can, however, modify and/or delete the d20 System License, which allows you to use the d20 logo, which they are doing.
They can also prohibit the use of the OGL along with a new license they would be making available to the public. Which they are, through the 4E GSL. Smart marketing move at first glance, but I don't think anybody's fooled by this and sees it -rightfully- as an attempt to strangle any OGL competition to 4E some publishers on the fence would like to keep producing.
Instead of making the OGL a potential ally and booster of 4E and GSL sales, they're making it (or confirming it as) an opposite, a potential foe. That may not be so good as they think it is.
|
|
Instead of making the OGL a potential ally and booster of 4E and GSL sales, they're making it (or confirming it as) an opposite, a potential foe. That may not be so good as they think it is.
That's the whole point. WOTC doesn't want any alternate rule systems based on 4e competing with them. Technically speaking, one could use the 3.5 OGL to modify 3.5 in such a way that it uses 4e mechanics. They certainly don't want that anymore then they wanted Monte Cooke's Arcana Unearthed or True20.
They certainly don't want that anymore then they wanted Monte Cooke's Arcana Unearthed or True20.
*cough*Pathfinder*cough*
Maybe this article help shed a little light.
Unlike Chris Pramas, I do not think that the conclusion to be drawn is "fairly positive overall", but his analysis is totally on the spot.
It deserves a QFT. Read this link!
Well that too. But Pathfinder isn't the product that caused them to make this decision, those two are.They certainly don't want that anymore then they wanted Monte Cooke's Arcana Unearthed or True20.*cough*Pathfinder*cough*
Really? I thought it was more like Mongoose's Pocket Player's Guide and such.
|
|
Mongoose's Pocket Player's Guide
I don't know anyone around here that ever bought that, I don't even think I've seen it on store shelves. Alternate PHB with better rules are definitely what miffed them.
They want Adventures, Monsters, and Elf books from other companies because they know that when they eventually get around to making them, people will buy them from WOTC too.
|
|
Yep I finally found where they explicitly said it. Course I have no idea where the link is now. The 4E SRD will be a list of materials from the books.
However the 3.5 or 4E is not as bad as I thought. A company can support both lines, but a given product cannot support both lines. So, you cannot have an adventure, for example, with stats for both 3.x and 4E. But Paizo could support PRPG which is 3.x and also publish materials for 4E.
However, what I read implied that all 3rd party material must support D&D. There can be no Modern or Future support. That may change when they actually release the OSL.
Now, the real problem with the OSL is that the license can be revoked at any time by WOTC. Therefore, all those 3rd party publishers who will support 4E will be living with an axe over their heads at all times. At a moments notice their entire publishing business can be destroyed. Were I a publisher, that alone would make me not support 4E.
Now, the real problem with the GSL is that the license can be revoked at any time by WOTC.
Which is exactly the same situation with the current d20 license yet plenty of people published with that. Granted, you could fall back to the OGL in that case which is not the case with the GSL.
They've even announced that the d20 license is going away come Jan 1 (or so?) thus destroying anything with that logo.
Which is exactly the same situation with the current d20 license yet plenty of people published with that. Granted, you could fall back to the OGL in that case which is not the case with the GSL.They've even announced that the d20 license is going away come Jan 1 (or so?) thus destroying anything with that logo.
Although the funny thing is that the current d20 License only has termination for breach, not for convenience.
Now granted, all they have to do is issue a new version of the license with new termination language, but technically, they can't simply terminate at this time.
If I'm a publisher and the license is revokable at any time, I think I'd be apt to do one-shot products rather than a product line for 4E D&D. That way you're not deep into development of an entire line only to find that WotC has decided that it's time for 5E and the license terminates immediately.
Now granted, all they have to do is issue a new version of the license with new termination language, but technically, they can't simply terminate at this time.
IIRC, they have. If they haven't yet, its an easy guess they will around June 6th.
|
|
However the 3.5 or 4E is not as bad as I thought. A company can support both lines, but a given product cannot support both lines. So, you cannot have an adventure, for example, with stats for both 3.x and 4E. But Paizo could support PRPG which is 3.x and also publish materials for 4E.
From what I understand that's not the case at all. The discussions I've read from insiders is a company that decides to go 4E and use the GSL is not allowed to continue to print products based on the OGL as per the terms of the GSL.
So you're either 4E or 3E, not both in your product line.
However the 3.5 or 4E is not as bad as I thought. A company can support both lines, but a given product cannot support both lines.
Bad enough.
For example, there won't be any 4e conversions for Pathfinder - at least no official ones, and I wouldn't put it past WotC to try and sue anyone who makes his own conversions public.
There won't be a Secrets of Pact Magic 4e (unless trash their old book and only do the new one).
There's probably lots of other good examples out there.
I personally think it will further split the community, and I think that's intentional.
However the 3.5 or 4E is not as bad as I thought. A company can support both lines, but a given product cannot support both lines. So, you cannot have an adventure, for example, with stats for both 3.x and 4E. But Paizo could support PRPG which is 3.x and also publish materials for 4E.From what I understand that's not the case at all. The discussions I've read from insiders is a company that decides to go 4E and use the GSL is not allowed to continue to print products based on the OGL as per the terms of the GSL.
So you're either 4E or 3E, not both in your product line.
Check out fliprushman's link above. Also, I searched WotC's site for the FAQ mentioned in the link and found these two Q&A's.
Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
The way I read that, it looks like Paizo can publish both Pathfinder and 4e-compatible material. They just can't publish 4e-compatible Pathfinder material.
Yes, they could do 4e stuff, which may not be PF. Since they seem to have their hands full with PF, it's not that likely that they'll get to making anything 4e any time soon.
If that stupid restriction weren't in place, Paizo could do some 4e conversions for Pathfinder, or the fanbase could do them and Paizo could host them. As it is now, neither is possible.
|
|
That's just junk. I can't believe WotC is pulling this crap with their new game. The OGL was genius and abused but it lead to an interesting industry and many products for us consumers. Without the OGL, WotC would have floundered shortly after TSR but with the other companies publishing books based off the game, it kept them alive. Even games like Mutants and Masterminds using the OGL still lead people over to try DnD. The games were the same and allowed for a large dichotomy of choice. With the new GSL, we won't see as much.
|
If that stupid restriction weren't in place, Paizo could do some 4e conversions for Pathfinder, or the fanbase could do them and Paizo could host them. As it is now, neither is possible.
Aye, doesn't mean that the fans can't convert them and list links to the converted stats on the wiki
The 3.5 OGL will not be running out. Instead a new license for 4e will be coming out as well. In that license, supposable a company will not be able to produce products under both 3.5 and 4e, so they will have to choose. But a company can stick with 3.5 indefinitely.
Things can change. Deals can be changed. WOTC will see their sales of D&D 4.0 suck, and the sales of Pathfinder in August 2009 will go through the roof. Maybe they can get rid of the OGL, and tell companies like Paizo that they can no longer use 3.5...actually, it will be more like 3.75.
It will be embrassing when WOTC realizes that the gamers have rejected D&D 4.0, just like they rejected the D&D movie. What the hell were they thinking? This is not an improvement to the Game...
|
|
However, what I read implied that all 3rd party material must support D&D. There can be no Modern or Future support. That may change when they actually release the OSL.
The D&D GSL will allow you to use D&D rules and advertise compatibility with D&D (in fact, it will probably require it). I see no reason a publisher couldn't release a modern (lower case) or SF game based on D&D. They couldn't use d20 Modern or d20 Future rules in that product because they wouldn't have a licence to do so.
|
|
Without the OGL, WotC would have floundered shortly after TSR but with the other companies publishing books based off the game, it kept them alive.
Lol. Hardly. Magic the Gathering and miniatures continued to be WOTC #1 source of profit. Even as a licensed product, the amount of money they make off the Star Wars minis is what has pushed the D&D minis to become a larger part of the game.
The D&D GSL will allow you to use D&D rules and advertise compatibility with D&D (in fact, it will probably require it). I see no reason a publisher couldn't release a modern (lower case) or SF game based on D&D. They couldn't use d20 Modern or d20 Future rules in that product because they wouldn't have a licence to do so.
Because the D&D GSL doesn't allow you to create new classes or explain game mechanics. The 4E SRD will be a list of terms you're allowed to use, not mechanics.
The D&D GSL is specifically for D&D only. Wizards is coming out with a standard non-fantasy license and SRD later in the year for companies that want to continue to do modern/future settings.
|
|
The D&D GSL will allow you to use D&D rules and advertise compatibility with D&D (in fact, it will probably require it). I see no reason a publisher couldn't release a modern (lower case) or SF game based on D&D. They couldn't use d20 Modern or d20 Future rules in that product because they wouldn't have a licence to do so.Because the D&D GSL doesn't allow you to create new classes or explain game mechanics.
The 4E SRD will be a list of terms you're allowed to use, not mechanics.
New classes are one of the things WotC specifically expects third parties to release:
Q. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I’m guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publishers to make Adventures, “Fluff,” Campaign settings, Alternate Classes, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products.
What makes you say that the GSL will prevent third parties explaining game mechanics, apart from character creation and advancement?
The D&D GSL is specifically for D&D only. Wizards is coming out with a standard non-fantasy license and SRD later in the year for companies that want to continue to do modern/future settings.
The non-fantasy licence will allow publishers to use the non-fantasy SRD. That's the significance of the split. I wasn't aware that Wizards have said it will be out this year.
WotC could use their discretion not to allow a publisher to use the GSL for a modern or future product, but that's another thing entirely from the terms of the licence.
|
|
What makes you say that the GSL will prevent third parties explaining game mechanics, apart from character creation and advancement?
Because they don't want another Arcana Unearthed or like products. If they can reprint the combat rules, why buy the PHB?
I'll repeat, the 4E SRD is terms 3rd party publishers can use, not rules. This is a well documented FACT. The GSL is nothing more then a legal piece of paper that lets companies use the contents of the 4E SRD. (The OGL is nothing but a piece of paper letting companies use the 3E SRD.)
A publisher can't create a future rpg using the D&D GSL, none of the rules are part of the SRD. The publisher would be asking their players to flip between two rule books, the future one and the phb.. the future one being piecemeal of nonsense that a new player to the game would never understand or figure out because he's looking at less then half of what he needs to play the game.
However the 3.5 or 4E is not as bad as I thought. A company can support both lines, but a given product cannot support both lines. So, you cannot have an adventure, for example, with stats for both 3.x and 4E. But Paizo could support PRPG which is 3.x and also publish materials for 4E.From what I understand that's not the case at all. The discussions I've read from insiders is a company that decides to go 4E and use the GSL is not allowed to continue to print products based on the OGL as per the terms of the GSL.
So you're either 4E or 3E, not both in your product line.
You are correct in that what you wrote used to be the policy of WotC. When it was announced, however, there was a massive outcry from publishers and fans, so they backed down partially (removed the company restriction) and gained great PR points, despite the introduction of the product-line restriction.
|
|
You are correct in that what you wrote used to be the policy of WotC. When it was announced, however, there was a massive outcry from publishers and fans, so they backed down partially (removed the company restriction) and gained great PR points, despite the introduction of the product-line restriction.
Yeap you're right things have changed. But take another look at when I posted what you're replaying to... two week ago. ;)
|
|
What the hell is going on? Can someone recap clearly what this all means?
Ok simply put...
D&D 4th edition isn't going to be as open as 3E was to 3rd party products. They can make adventures, treasure books, magic books, monster books, "prestige class" books. They can not make their own games that do not require the PHB.
|
|
Maybe they can get rid of the OGL, and tell companies like Paizo that they can no longer use 3.5...actually, it will be more like 3.75.
Fortunately for Paizo Pathfinder RPG fans this will never happen. WOTC cannot revoke the 3.x OGL because of its own terms. Paizo can continue to use 3.x rules through as many editions of WotC's D&D as it wants, and they can't be forced to change.
|
Maybe they can get rid of the OGL, and tell companies like Paizo that they can no longer use 3.5...actually, it will be more like 3.75.Fortunately for Paizo Pathfinder RPG fans this will never happen. WOTC cannot revoke the 3.x OGL because of its own terms. Paizo can continue to use 3.x rules through as many editions of WotC's D&D as it wants, and they can't be forced to change.
Speaking personally, the fact that Pathfinder will be published under an open license is a huge selling point. I *like* the idea of open gaming - to me the GSL seems like a huge backward step.
Although the d20 license undoubtedly encouraged the release of an awful lot of poor quality material, market forces have shaken out most of the ephemeral crap. Nowadays, we are left with about a dozen companies that have a track record of producing outstanding work in this space - Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, etc. It is worth pointing out that most of these companies did not exist before the d20 license.
It saddens me deeply that we may lose some of these companies from the D&D industry due to the GSL.
Things can change. Deals can be changed. WOTC will see their sales of D&D 4.0 suck, and the sales of Pathfinder in August 2009 will go through the roof. Maybe they can get rid of the OGL, and tell companies like Paizo that they can no longer use 3.5...actually, it will be more like 3.75.
Contracts cannot be changed, unless there's a clause in there that allows you to change it, or all parties agree. Such a clause doesn't exist, all parties (which is, basically, everyone on the world) won't agree, and since the OGL is perpetual, there's nothing wotc can do. If there was, they'd have pulled the license already, which is exactly what they'll do with the 4e GSL once 5e comes out.
Aye, doesn't mean that the fans can't convert them and list links to the converted stats on the wiki
I'm not so sure. Are you allowed to put up stuff like that under the GSL? If not, better brace yourself for the FLS (fiendish lawyer swarm)
You are correct in that what you wrote used to be the policy of WotC. When it was announced, however, there was a massive outcry from publishers and fans, so they backed down partially (removed the company restriction) and gained great PR points, despite the introduction of the product-line restriction.
They got PR points for that? Get real, people! wotc: "We won't put him to death, but we will horribly torture him for a month." crowd: *Cheers*