|
There is one good thing about this GSL release.
It has ended with the edition war here in this boards. I see less angry posting and less people arguing since then.
I don't know that it will end the edition wars in general, but it should put a stop to those bizarre posters who were indignant that Paizo refused to nail their colours to 4E last August, scrap all their 3.5 plans, produce nothing for a whole year, and pay $5000 for the privilege signing a GSL for a ruleset they weren't allowed to see.
|
|
I promised I'd write a 4E adventure if the commission was met, and I still intend to.
Is this due to your highly-developed work-ethic, as in an "I've started, so I'll finish" attitude, or due to the impracticality of contacting all the sponsors, polling them for their opinions, and arranging refunds (which I'm sure would be an absolute pain)?
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.
Glad to hear it. Would it be safer to set up a separate company? I don't have a personal stake in this, but I'd hate to see anyone get burned, especially when the licence basically states that the terms and definitions are 'whatever WotC declares them to be'.
|
The GSL wont do anything but drive the demand for closed licensing. That was my point.No offense, but are you readin the same GSL I am? Because the GSL doesnt do that at all from where I'm sitting.
I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
As I understand it there is limited desire to have closed licensing. I don't think this is really an option or something that is desired.
vance and MarkusTay touched on some points of this, but I wanted to make some more clarification. From what I've been able to gather from my reading of the GSL, the problem is this: the GSL allows WotC to redefine the SRD at will. The SRD tells you what is protected content (content that you cannot use except by referencing it in the SRD). The protection is also retroactive to already existing products.
Ok, I can see this problem. But this is "they can shut down your content at will", whereas people are talking like they can take your Uber Rat and include it in Monster Manual 17 and there's nothing you can do about it.
I am not seeing that problem in the GSL.
But, yes, I agree that there is a serious issue with them creating their own "uber rat" and then preventing you from publishing your own.
Contributor
|
Haha!
I know it for sure, it is Sean K. Reynolds!
Just use your Google Fu for Sean K. Reynolds and Paizo and you will see!
I don't disagree with your assertion that it's SKR, in fact that was my first guess.
But your link doesn't constitute proof (unless there is or was something there I missed).
SKR's profile lists him as a contributor, meaning he has written for Pathfinder as a Freelancer, which he has.
What makes you and him think the 800 pound gorilla is going to WANT to negotiate a separate Licence with the good 3rd party companies? Thats wishful thinking as far as I can tell.When no-one signs up to the GSL?
When the DDI is still 'pending'?
When the customers start asking where the adventures are?
Unfortunately, with my experience in corporate mentalities, their replies to those are:
"If no one signs up for the GSL, it's the fault of the third party companies, not us. We are happy to have the 4e market to themselves."
"You should see how awesome the DDI will be! I was playing with the latest version this morning, and it's incredible. We have a few more bugs to work out, but you should be hearing something about this real soon!"
"We have an adventure coming out with every campaign setting, plus a couple adventures every month in Dungeon (Subscribe now! Our next adventure path will be starting real soon and you should see how awesome it will be!)"
So, really, unless actual everyday customers stop buying their products by the tens and hundreds of thousands, WotC won't care.
However, I'm willing to bet what would make WotC take notice and consider a separate closed license is if it makes WotC A LOT of money with little to no effort, and it expires in 5 years.
"Owning" something that you can't publish or profit off of may help you get to sleep at night, but it doesn't mean much.
It's a valid point Chop.
I wonder how well it would hold up in an extended court battle. It's as if they saying, "We're not saying that it doesn't belong to you. No, we're just re-writing the definition of ownership itself. See? You still own it! It's just that you own it under our new revised definition of what ownership is.."
You control the rights to it or you don't. This is a clever way of saying, "If you write under our license, we have say in what you do with it, forever. We may not be able to do anything with it without your consent, but you can't do anything with it without our consent either."
(I'm not using technical language, so please, no corrections on technicalities from the Peanut Gallery. I'm speaking to the broad spirit of the license, not the literal words. Before you get excited about the prospect of correcting me, please bear that in mind.)
They can limit what you can do with your property.
That's convoluted, a$$ backward way of saying they own a controlling interest in your property, without actually saying that they own it. It doesn't entitle them to make money off your work, but they can prevent you from making any money off it either.
Somehow, that strikes me like joint custody of a child.
"Owning" something that you can't publish or profit off of may help you get to sleep at night, but it doesn't mean much.
Ok, I can see this problem. But this is "they can shut down your content at will", whereas people are talking like they can take your Uber Rat and include it in Monster Manual 17 and there's nothing you can do about it.I am not seeing that problem in the GSL.
But, yes, I agree that there is a serious issue with them creating their own "uber rat" and then preventing you from publishing your own.
Agreed.
And without some serious clarifications to the contrary*, I don't think I'll self-publish under the GSL like I was hoping largely due to the "GSL forever" issues (and the fact that the GSL greater restrictions might not be outweighed by its benefits). I'll probably freelance still (since that's unfortunately nearly always work-for-hire, so all the rights are signed away anyway), but I am seriously doubting self-publishing under the GSL now.
* And, yes, I know any clarifications they publicly make can be undone at a moment's notice by a change in the GSL. However, my self-publishing plans are electronic and can easily taken "off the shelves" at a moment's notice as well.
My issue is that the entire business plan seems soaked in the blood of innocents.And Lisa, I apologize if this line breaks the boundaries of civility here. However, I am experiencing a condition diagnosed as GSL Tourette's.Take two Pathfinder products and call me in the morning! :)
-Lisa
Why are you posting on Vic account?
Here. Seoni in black leathers and whips. ;)
Now the scary part is that I hope you are talking Shamanistic traditions or Shadowrun and not latext, swing sets, and goodness knows what else my twist mind can remember or think of in the next few moments.You got a problem with Latex, sex swings and nipple clamps? Oh, you didn't.....bring up.....nipple clamps..........
Nevermind.
Um, Oh THAT kind of Discipline! Damn! Here I though you were getting all Lovitar on me.
Lords of light! :)Ariel! Ookla! RIIIDE!
Ok, that one made me feel old.
This relationship is what I hope will be soon known by the millions of other gamers that may still be unaware that they do not need to follow wotc, and their nasty practices, anymore.But how would they find out, considering that there's no (print) Dragon or Dungeon magazines anymore? Ie. how would Paizo advertise/communicate to them?
Youtube? Having us spam our friends. Viral Video might be the way to go. I know that someone did a Youtube video for Paizo a while back. It might be a good start.
Oh I agree. I don't think they will be all that willing, I just think that's the route any self-respecting 3pp company would go if they want to participate in 4e. Personally, I think it is going to backfire on them, but only time will tell.
What makes you and him think the 800 pound gorilla is going to WANT to negociate a seperate Liscense with the good 3rd party companies? Thats wishful thinking as far as I can tell.I think your last line is the most accurate. I think thats as far as WOTC is goingto go....use it or dont.
I think that they won't be willing to negotiate up front. But give it a year and let it sink in what the 3PP really meant for the industry, let their sales lag because of how many people they've pissed off, and I'll bet a widget that they will be willing to negotiate.
What makes you and him think the 800 pound gorilla is going to WANT to negotiate a separate Licence with the good 3rd party companies? Thats wishful thinking as far as I can tell.When no-one signs up to the GSL?
When the DDI is still 'pending'?
When the customers start asking where the adventures are?
WHen people start buying Pathfinder in droves:)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Glad to hear it. Would it be safer to set up a separate company?
Unfortunately, a separate company wouldn't help. That company would be an affiliate of the original company, and the license is set up to apply to companies publishing under the license and their affiliates.
Take two Pathfinder products and call me in the morning! :)
-LisaThat was funny.
The quote, or the idea that you can stop at only two?
I find this eerily releveant...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs
^^
Edit: Oy, seemingly I am too stupid to make the URL tag work.
|
|
Ok, that one made me feel old.Lords of light! :)Ariel! Ookla! RIIIDE!
The funny part of the intro is "in the year 1994 the earth was...." Dude, 13 years ago the earth was near destroyed!!
|
|
I find this eerily releveant...
Eerily relevant video from Magnuskn
^^
Edit: Oy, seemingly I am too stupid to make the URL tag work.
Linkificated.
I can't think of a scenario (that doesn't involves blackmail or kidnapping) where they would do that. Unless I'm wrong, the ToH 4e would have been like the others: 4th-edition rules, D&D feel. Lots of stuff wizards left out of 4e, and maybe stuff they fubared (like the lamia).When he stated that a 4e ToH was not looking possible, it wasn't necessarily in a "WotC won't let me" sort of way, but in a "once there is a 4e Tome of Horrors, there can never be another OGL Tome of Horrors, which is unacceptable" sort of way.
So he may be legally able to make one, just not willing. I can see how the paraphrasing you quoted could be construed either way.
I'm not saying that there's a federal law against Necromancer doing a ToH or something. I just don't see him doing the book.
ToH has the Ice Troll. It was probably the first book to have one. But wizards came out with their own take on it later. If the same thing happened in 4e, the ToH would suddenly violate the GSL.
Since the whole point of the book was apparently to do classical critters the new Monster Manual didn't have, chances would be that as soon as Monster Manual 2 hit the scene, it would contain at least one of those critters, and the book would become illegal.
Same with the plans Necromancer had about doing a book containing the classes and races and so on the core rules left out.
I like the part where they set up the game so you need minis to play and then say that no one else can make the minis except for WOTC.
They can't really do much about minis. They can say that they're not officially part of the product line, and the minis can't have those names, but make a separate line and wizards can't stop you from making minis. Including minis of dark elves, orcs, squid-heads, dragons....
I'd say the GSL rules are good and bad. Good in that they force 3rd party publishers to actually produce high quality, playtested material.
The problem is, you don't want to make that stuff too good, or wizards views it as a thread and yanks the license from under your feet.
In fact, I guess your best bet is to make stuff that's mediocre at best, so wizards will never bother with you.
Or, are you saying that WOTC's cake was a lie?
The cake is a lie.
I think he wants to say that wizards tried to kill their playtesters. :D
|
|
Youtube? Having us spam our friends. Viral Video might be the way to go. I know that someone did a Youtube video for Paizo a while back. It might be a good start.Good point, but on second thoughts it's probably not a good idea to ask Paizo what they're advertising plans are, given the current climate. I'm sure they have a competent plan though.
They need to make an entry level product and market it in toy stores. Kind of a 'beginning the path' game, similar to Basic D&D box sets from the 70s and 80s or the newer box sets.
|
Cake or Death: Eddie Izzard! What do I win? Huh? HUH? :)At least the offer wasn't, Cake or Death...;)The cake is a lie.
Your vile slandering of the cake is the lie!
...it's the grief counseling that's the real lie.
I think I'll have the chicken.
Jason
I just saw Eddie Izzard's new act on Wednesday. The man is fantastic inperson.
Last night I saw the "true Colors" show. Once again "Fantastic" It's been a very progressive week as Eddie would say.
Cindy Lauper's song "Money Changes Everything keeps playing through my mind while reading this post. It really seems to fit what I think about WOTC at the moment.
|
|
But, yes, I agree that there is a serious issue with them creating their own "uber rat" and then preventing you from publishing your own.
Even though yours predates theirs, maybe by years.
Retroactively declaring a publisher to be in breach of the current SRD, when the product was written in good faith, in compliance with the SRD of the time; that just begs for trouble.And it's not just the poor Uber-Rat; it would be every single word, in every single product, in every product line that your Uber-Rat had ever made an appearance.
The whole lot.
Forced to be withdrawn from sale, pulped, with no notice, no sell-off period, and no compensation.
So any company becomes successful, WotC can just flip through one of their products, pick any power/feat/class/race/ritual/monster, make one of the same name, and BANG, kill your entire 4E product line stone dead.
Is that a fair assessment?
I find this eerily releveant...
Eerily relevant video from Magnuskn
^^
Edit: Oy, seemingly I am too stupid to make the URL tag work.
Linkificated.
Muchos thank yous. :)
There is one good thing about this GSL release.
It has ended with the edition war here in this boards. I see less angry posting and less people arguing since then.
In my opinion the extremely one-sided nature of the GSL is a game changer. The GSL as written == no decent 3rd party support. No decent 3rd party support == drop 4E. So any improvements in the 4E system itself, etc. are all moot.
Seriously. If WOTC doesn't blink, my 4E core books are going into a box with a nasty letter and going back to WOTC.
My guess is: Sean K Reynolds!
That sure would rock.
VIRGIN POST AT PAIZO
This is your first time, but already you do it in a room with hundreds of people O_o
;-P
(Welcome to the neighbourhood, by the way!)
hmmm... Wondering if Vic and Lisa have been the same person this whole time?....
This isn't going to turn into All You Zombies, is it? :D
Vic, if Necromancer produces anything for 4e is there any risk to Paizo under the current GSL (or possible future changes) given the Paizo-Necromancer partnership?
I highly doubt it. They can't lock you up if your father kills someone.
However, I can see people who are used to having all of WotC's rules for free being upset about it.
I'm upset about it, and I own the 3e corebooks. Thrice.
Being able to open Opera, type in "srd dimensional anchor" in the address bar and get the spell a lot faster than by opening the book sure is helpful.
Wizards could easily amend the license in the future to remove the "product line" clause
Haven't even thought of that.
They could easily lure in some publishers with the "poison pill, lesser" spell they tried to put on us - or even put out another, seemingly tamer GSL (but one that still includes the part where they can change it and you automatically agree to the new one), and then shout "SURPRISE".
|
|
Muchos thank yous. :)I find this eerily releveant...
Eerily relevant video from Magnuskn
^^
Edit: Oy, seemingly I am too stupid to make the URL tag work.
Linkificated.
De nachos.
So any company becomes successful, WotC can just flip through one of their products, pick any power/feat/class/race/ritual/monster, make one of the same name, and BANG, kill your entire 4E product line stone dead.Is that a fair assessment?
Yeah. And when they don't find anything, they just yank your license and your 4e product line is still stone dead.
Or they change the license so the "product line" part isn't in any more, wait till you "accept" the updated license, and then yank your license and kill your 4e AND your OGL line stone dead.
Youtube? Having us spam our friends. Viral Video might be the way to go.
Sure can't hurt.
There is one good thing about this GSL release.
It has ended with the edition war here in this boards. I see less angry posting and less people arguing since then.
Well, since even a lot of those who adored 4e until recently are clearly upset about wizards, it's no mystery.
But, yes, I agree that there is a serious issue with them creating their own "uber rat" and then preventing you from publishing your own.Even though yours predates theirs, maybe by years.
Retroactively declaring a publisher to be in breach of the current SRD, when the product was written in good faith, in compliance with the SRD of the time; that just begs for trouble.
[snipped]
Is that a fair assessment?
I'm not sure that it is a fair assessment.
We all agree that you can't create a new Cleric class. It says that specifically. You can make new powers for the class, but you can't rewrite the powers they've printed.
We also know that once Monk has been added to the SRD, you can't create a new Monk class. Just expand upon it.
But does it actually apply Retroactively, as many people have put forth here? I do not see that in the liscence. It says you cannot change the definition of something in the SRD or reprint what WotC prints. That's fine, we all understand that part.
But once a new word is added, does it actually count as redefining that word, or is what you created considered instead to be an expansion of that base? Yes, what they printed is an Uber-rat, but it's not the Monster Manual Uber-Rat, but a whole cloth varient you created. It woul dbe akin to creating a different color dragon. It would be a different monster entirely not a redefinition of their Uber-Rat.
They specifically give an example of expansion being acceptable with the Athletics skill. Adding a new use for the is okay. Changing the way their definiton of Athletics works is not.
So if you made a Magic User class, and then they did too, the powers and abilities you give it could be considered an expansion of the basic class they printed, not a redefiniont. They would just be additional powers like the ones they just printed for the wizard. Not a redefinition of the class but an expansion.
They couldn't even use the same name if it's one you created. I can't use the word Beholder in anything I want to sell because it's their IP, and not something drawn from mythology. They hold the copywrite for beholder, and thus only they can use it. If I created a entirely new race or class, say something like the Bright Blade class, they can't take my name and print their own version because it's copywrited by me. Thus it can't be put into in the SRD.
Where we have a problem is with names that are public domain, like Monk. Until we get a good answer from WotC whether a 3rd party Monk class would be considered a redefinition of their monk or just an expansion, I'm not sure we can be sure which situation would apply.
|
|
Just to tease you guys a little more, we have a new employee coming onboard in a few weeks. A press release should be out in a week or so, but I am going to give you a hint. This employee worked with me at WotC. It kind of feels like I'm putting the band back together...the band.::exit to the Peter Gunn theme song::
My guess is: Sean K Reynolds!
Sean is also waiting for a public announcement before he can talk about his new job...
But I assume that no one can confirm or deny that at the moment. :D
Concur. I thought the same thing reading Sean's statement, now we have this one from Paizo...
Just keep Sean off the messageboards, that guy knows how to stir things up.
(Just kidding, I love reading Sean's opinions).
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic, if Necromancer produces anything for 4e is there any risk to Paizo under the current GSL (or possible future changes) given the Paizo-Necromancer partnership?
To be clear, while Paizo will be providing some services to Necromancer, including print brokering and sales, Necromancer will be the publisher and the copyright holder for their materials. The two companies are separately owned with no common shareholders. There's currently nothing there that puts Paizo at risk if Necro agrees to publish under the GSL, and I can't imagine any changes that Wizards could make that would put us at risk (at least, none that would hold up in court).
But, yes, I agree that there is a serious issue with them creating their own "uber rat" and then preventing you from publishing your own.Even though yours predates theirs, maybe by years.
Retroactively declaring a publisher to be in breach of the current SRD, when the product was written in good faith, in compliance with the SRD of the time; that just begs for trouble.And it's not just the poor Uber-Rat; it would be every single word, in every single product, in every product line that your Uber-Rat had ever made an appearance.
The whole lot.
Forced to be withdrawn from sale, pulped, with no notice, no sell-off period, and no compensation.
So any company becomes successful, WotC can just flip through one of their products, pick any power/feat/class/race/ritual/monster, make one of the same name, and BANG, kill your entire 4E product line stone dead.
Is that a fair assessment?
No, I don't think that's a fair assessment.
Technically is it possible to interpret the GSL such that an SRD change in 2012 can make your 2009 product (even if no longer in print) a violation? Sure, but that's a serious stretch. I know if WotC ever tried pulling that on something I worked on, screw the lawyer fees, I'd probably reply on the level of this.
Technically, they could update the GSL to say if your product has any numbers in it, it's in violation and you have to pay WotC $1 gajillion dollars. Update the license at 8am, and at 8:01 send out the non-compliance letters to all third party publishers demanding the money.
Technically, they are both possible. Are they both a fair assessments? Not in my opinion. They rely on a level of paranoia that I don't think is compatible with entering any sort of license agreement with WotC, GSL or OGL (and believe me, there are plenty of paranoid but technically valid interpretations of the OGL and especially the d20 STL that are right up there with the "retroactive violation of the GSL killing every product you have" argument.)
That being said, the GSL really does need a grace period for compliance. (Actually, it'd be nice if it had a lot of other things, but the lack of any grace period at all is such a glaring omission that it feels as sloppy as allowing "drow poison" but not "drow".) So don't take this as a defense of the GSL as a good license I want to enter into. I'm just saying some of these extreme interpretations aren't real pragmatic worries in my opinion.
Anyone check out http://www.enworld.org/ main page faq/reading of the gsl? Preferably without 5 axes to grind?
this.
Dammit! I've been Rick Rolled again!
Seriously. If WOTC doesn't blink, my 4E core books are going into a box with a nasty letter and going back to WOTC.
Can you please video tape this and the mailing and put it on Youtube so we know you aren't full of shit? Please?
|
The problem with the GSL is not the extreme lengths to which it can be taken.
It is the swatting of a fly with a nuke approach it has taken.
What is the GSL supposed to do?
From the text, it is obvious it has two purposes:
1. Stop people from making their own games. Within that it has the secondary purpose of making sure that what people make always supports what WotC makes.
2. Stop people from using the OGL. There is no paranoia or conspiracy theory in there, no matter how much anyone might want to suggest otherwise. The GSL has a very specific purpose of shutting down use of the OGL.
Those are both in and of themselves quite reasonable. It is not those goals but how WotC has chosen to express them that is the problem. Rather than go with extended text which would likely only be possible with 1-on-1 contracts, what they have made is a completely generic license that must, because it has to apply to anyone and everyone, be excessively harsh.
Rather than just "Here is a license to use the GSL for five years until we make 5E, at which point we can upgrade you to a new license for that" we have "We can change the terms or cancel this at any time! Muohahahahahaha!"
Rather than "This license has to be exclusive, do not include two sets of games stats in any product" we have "Try using the OGL with this and you must destroy all your GSL stuff and pay us for having used the license under false pretenses."
The first would be quite reasonable - if stated the first way.
The second would also be reasonable - if not for the specific OGL-killer aspect.
Combined, they make the whole thing a royal screwing waiting to happen. It is not whether the people at WotC offering it now would never do something like that because they have integrity. It is that those people can be fired as so many others have, and the next batch will inherit a contract that lets them be stone cold SOBs who do it just because they can.
There is also the constant assertion that this is just like any other contract for using IP. That is nice in theory, but it is functionally irrelevant as this is nothing like any other situation for using IP.
The GSL (and the OGL) were not there to license a specific character for use in another line of merchandise. Nobody was, or even could, use it to make Driz'zt bobbleheads. It was never that kind of contract.
The anti-OGL provisions in the GSL are not the equivalent of using a console game engine to make your own game then not being able to use the engine any longer when the license expires or is cancelled. It is like getting a license from Microsoft to make a spreadsheet program for Windows Vista, then when it expires you can never write a book about bookkeeping, or preparing taxes, or anything else you would ever use a spreadsheet for ever again because Microsoft has decided it hates print products.
Yes, that is quite absurd. That is why people are upset.
It is also why, despite their assertions that they want people to create expansions and setting using the GSL, what WotC is going to do is limit people to making nothing more than one shot plug-and-play mods for their D&DI virtual game table. Not that such would be horrible for WotC mind you. It would in fact be quite awesome for their bottom line, driving people even more completely to their D&DI product.
And it is also why there is a certain insulting absurdity to the assertion that people should not complain about the GSL because they are getting to use all that awesome WotC IP for free. As Heinlein would acronym, TANSTAAFL! If you think WotC is not intending to collect millions from secondary sales because of that license you are seriously deluding yourself along with insulting anyone expressing concerns. Tom Sawyer would curse at the sheer genius of it. "Why sure, you can advertise for us for free. Knock yourself out! Just follow these rules and agree to pay us if you do not follow them or we do not like how you are doing it, and you can spend as much money doing our advertising as you like. You can even keep the tips!"
So no, the real deep core principles are not atrociously hideous and evil.
But the functional provisions leave a lot to be desired, and it is not some holy altruistic sacrifice, and nobody should expect anybody else to believe otherwise.
Can you please video tape this and the mailing and put it on Youtube so we know you aren't full of s~@&? Please?
Seriously. If WOTC doesn't blink, my 4E core books are going into a box with a nasty letter and going back to WOTC.
I'll do you one better.
If WOTC doesn't state within one week that an updated GSL (and not just an FAQ posting "clarifying things") is inbound, I will send my 4E core set to Lisa or Erik. Once they confirm receipt, they are free to do with them as they please.
Consider it my penance for being wrong about the whole 4E/Pathfinder fiasco. I might be arrogant, but I'm all for putting my money where my mouth is.