Erik - how do you think Clark Peterson will react to this?
I've been expecting this sort of thing for months, obviously.
I'm feeling very pleased with our decision to stick with the OGL today...
Erik/Lisa:
Well. No other way to put this: You guys were right. I was wrong.
I can't *believe how freakin delusional* Wizards is if the think that anyone running an actual business is going to accept:
"11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees."
Seriously...wtf? There may as well not even be a license. I have lost all confidence in Wizards with this single clause. This is a slap in the face to all serious publishers. The thing that pisses me off the most is that I was sitting in the FREAKING ROOM at Gencon when Scott Rouse explicitly stated that the OGL would live on. I took him at his word; I guess that makes me naive. I'm truly glad Lisa and Erik were wiser.
|
All good points, but at the end of the day, the GSL is not your only option, yet you continue to portray it as such. Thus, the term "scapegoating".
The impression I received from Paizo's decision was more based on the GSL delay than the terms, which have now been officially revealed. Three (four?) months is a long time for a company. And Erik, Lisa, and the rest of the Paizo crew must have noticed the ground-swelling of 3.x supporters and its business opportunity. Example: Toyota, Honda, BMW, and many foreign automakers didn't take on the Detroit Three on gas-guzzling cars and trucks, which was their forte at the time. Instead, they looked at the niches: small, fuel-efficient vehicles, luxury, etc. Even today, Mazda, Subaru, and Hyundai survive quite nicely in their own niches.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Actually this reads very much like the licenses I have been party to way back when I worked on licensed products form film and comic properties. Basically the owner of the IP holds all of the cards.
Every such license I've even seen has at least had "niceties" such as sell-off periods, opportunities to correct accidental breaches, occasional use of the word "mutual" —that sort of thing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I understand correctly, though, if you were to create a class called "Bard" or "Barbarian" or "Cheesehead," and then Wizards created a class called "Bard" or "Barbarian" or "Cheesehead" and added the name of that class to the SRD, your product would be in violation of the license from that moment forward, and you'd have to stop selling it immediately.
INAL, I have a soul still. But Vic if you're right about that, it screws anyone. Especially Clark's projects. I'd guess the ToH is dead, but so would his player's options project.
That's a lot of work gone bamf.
It's pretty much everything I thought it'd be.
1) People can't use 3rd party products without the Core books.
2) Publisher can't mix and match their 3e and 4e products.
3) There won't be any more Books of Erotic Fantasy.
Yeah, and 3) is very annoying if you think about it. Dozens of D&D books, including the 1E MM, simply couldn't be published under the new GSL because of it. At least allow an age indication would be fair.
5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).
This appears to drop a tactical nuke on the HeroForge kids...
I mentioned that to Wolfgang Baur over at the Open Design LiveJournal, and he wisely said, "Well, if you're going to charge $120/year, you better nuke the competition first."
|
Every such license I've even seen has at least had "niceties" such as sell-off periods, opportunities to correct accidental breaches, occasional use of the word "mutual" —that sort of thing.
Oh sure. I chalk that up to paying the royalty fees. Since the GSL is free WotC has no incentive to make the GSL anything but one sided given the intent to have greater control over their IP.
If this were a closed license I would laugh, get my lawyer to break out the red pen, and then send back one heck of a counter.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually this reads very much like the licenses I have been party to way back when I worked on licensed products form film and comic properties. Basically the owner of the IP holds all of the cards.Every such license I've even seen has at least had "niceties" such as sell-off periods, opportunities to correct accidental breaches, occasional use of the word "mutual" —that sort of thing.
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.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Under the OGL, we had to include this as part of the legal text if we referenced SRD material:
System Reference Document, Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Here's the equivalent text required by the GSL:
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 4th Edition PLAYER’S HANDBOOK, written by Rob Heinsoo,
Andy Collins, and James Wyatt; DUNGEON MASTER’S GUIDE, written by James Wyatt;
and MONSTER MANUAL, written by Mike Mearls, Stephen Schubert and James Wyatt
© 2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All rights reserved.
Well, I don't know if we'll actually publish anything under the GSL, but if we do, I think we'll add back the "based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson" bit.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, I don't know if we'll actually publish anything under the GSL, but if we do, I think we'll add back the "based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson" bit.
Don't worry Vic,
They dedicated the books to Gary after all.
I mentioned that to Wolfgang Baur over at the Open Design LiveJournal, and he wisely said, "Well, if you're going to charge $120/year, you better nuke the competition first."
So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?
Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?
|
I mentioned that to Wolfgang Baur over at the Open Design LiveJournal, and he wisely said, "Well, if you're going to charge $120/year, you better nuke the competition first."So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?
Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?
Hmmm...maybe they want serious players in the 4e world to negotiate a private license. Erik Mona mentioned though, that they haven't been interested up to now prior to the GSL.
So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?
Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?
Uh uh, not really Dave.
Wrath of the River King (the tenative 4e Project title) can still be published under a different product line. It couldn't have any connection to Zobeck, or any other distinctive components of his 3.5 Projects, but the license still allows for an unrelated 4E Project, without ceasing publication of your OGL line.
With his 4E patrons Wolfgang has toyed with names for a 4E line, and/or maybe a distinctive product line logo.
None of this is offical. The 4E project isn't fully funded yet, and nothing was ever finalized until the GSL came out. Plus I'm not his offical spokesperson.
I only know this because the nature of Open Design requires some advance planning, and he discusses things with Patrons, even in the preliminary stages.
So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?
Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?
Uh uh, incorrect Dave.
Wrath of the River King can still be under a different product line. It couldn't have any connection to Zobeck, or any other distinctive components of his 3.5 Projects, but the license still allows for an unrelated 4E Project.
Ok. 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.
Uh uh, incorrect Dave.
Wrath of the River King can still be under a different product line. It couldn't have any connection to Zobeck, or any other distinctive components of his 3.5 Projects, but the license still allows for an unrelated 4E Project.
He's not sounding real thrilled with the GSL right now over at Open Design. The GSL details pretty much torpedo his plan to publish 3.5 and 4E in Kobold Quarterly.
No provisions for magazines, no provisions (yet) for web pages (and given their apparent haste in getting a GSL out I shudder to think when THAT will happen!), I wonder how long until WotC goes after podcasts...
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?
Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?
Uh uh, incorrect Dave.
Wrath of the River King can still be under a different product line. It couldn't have any connection to Zobeck, or any other distinctive components of his 3.5 Projects, but the license still allows for an unrelated 4E Project.
However, as I read it, if anyone decides to make a 4E version of a product initially released under the GSL, they can no longer sell any of the OGL versions—even in PDF form—of any of the products in that entire product line. (And what constitutes a product line? It's not explicitly defined; rather, it's "as reasonably determined by Wizards.")
Actually, that clause will likely trouble Goodman Games more than anyone else—if he chooses to convert even one Dungeon Crawl Classics module, he has to stop selling all of them.
And the GSL was dedicated to Lorrain Williams.
This made me giggle like a little girl. Thanks.
Ok. 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.
That is correct, from my limited understanding of the GSL.
In some respects, the exclusivity of the Open Design model works well (or rather 'okay') with this. Projects are only available to Patrons, not the general public (there are some loopholes that permit new patrons to pick up the previous project, but the general context is accurate).
Except, Wolfgang would point out that Wrath of the River King was never going to be exclusive to its patrons, unlike the 3.5 projects.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
No provisions for magazines...
Magazines are not disallowed. However, a licensed product may not "be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation)." So, no mixing OGL and 4E content under the same cover.
However, as I read it, if anyone decides to make a 4E version of a product initially released under the GSL, they can no longer sell any of the OGL versions—even in PDF form—of any of the products in that entire product line. (And what constitutes a product line? It's not explicitly defined; rather, it's "as reasonably determined by Wizards.")
Valid points, and I don't disagree with this. However that doesn't make what I said to Dave incorrect either. This is a "Yeah, but what about this over here?!" arguement.
No, he couldn't republish it under a different license if the GSL is revoked. But it doesn't mean he couldn't do it.
The definition of Product line is admittedly, troubling.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Missing monsters, should folks care...
Beholders
Displacer beasts
Githyanki
Githzerai
Mind flayer
Sahuagin
Carrion crawlers are available now.
Updated as I find more...
Edit:
Add to the list -
Cambion
Demons (entry exists, but no specific critters allowed)
Devil (entry exists, but no specific critters allowed)
Drow (holy crap!)
Flameskull
Hook horror
Kruthik
Kuo-Toa
Ooze (entry exists, but no specific creature allowed)
This means no ochre jellies or gelatinous cubes
Oytugh
Owlbear (are they kidding?)
Shadar-Kai (no shock)
Shifter
Slaad
Spider (demonweb terror only)
Umber hulk
Warforged
Yuan-Ti
Oddly, demons, devils and oozes have an entry, but no specific monsters. Apologies in advance for any missing critters or incorrectly included ones.
Seems like if TSR or WotC did a book about it, it's gone...
Also, it looks to me as though you can't print an MM stat block in your module...so any mod that's not WotC is going to involve a lot of page-flipping to DM...
Well, I don't know if we'll actually publish anything under the GSL, but if we do, I think we'll add back the "based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson" bit.
Not meaning to disparage GG or DA at all (in fact I think they'd agree), but 4e really isn't that based on their works. Inspired by? Sure, but based on? Nope. Of course, it'd be a much better game if it was... Too many mechanical and flavor changes in 4e IMO.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
However, as I read it, if anyone decides to make a 4E version of a product initially released under the GSL, they can no longer sell any of the OGL versions—even in PDF form—of any of the products in that entire product line. (And what constitutes a product line? It's not explicitly defined; rather, it's "as reasonably determined by Wizards.")
Valid points, and I don't disagree with this. However that doesn't make what I said to Dave incorrect either. This is a "Yeah, but what about this over here?!" arguement.
No, he couldn't republish it under a different license if the GSL is revoked. But it doesn't mean he couldn't do it.
The definition of Product line is admittedly, troubling.
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.
|
|
You could have negotiated a private license with WotC. Had you done so, you would still have faced the other problems you listed above, including being subject to the whims of WotC, but such a private license is another option. I don't begrudge you the option you chose, but I just don't believe that your only choice was to accept the GSL.
Teh arrogance, it burnz us!
|
|
You could have negotiated a private license with WotC. Had you done so, you would still have faced the other problems you listed above, including being subject to the whims of WotC, but such a private license is another option. I don't begrudge you the option you chose, but I just don't believe that your only choice was to accept the GSL.Teh arrogance, it burnz us!
Que?
The definition of Product line is admittedly, troubling.
As troubling as it is for 3rd party publishers, it's really the only sensible way WotC could have defined it. Not that it's really any more than a heads-up to discourgae publishers from over-working their legal department - after all, they can just yank the license from a publisher without reason under this license if they really want to...
|
|
Oooh...shiny!
I must say, that's some fine looking legal work there.
Yep. I can only view it from the perspective of someone who deploys counsel to lock in position and secure I.P. but it sure looks like some rugged work.
All about, "You will play ball with us on this court, in this way, and if you try to play ball any other way, we take your ball."
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.
The whole corporate enterprise, combined with my lukewarm reaction to the 4E PHB, has pretty much guaranteed I'll not be jumping on the bandwagon. It's a big step backwards into the bad old days (loved the Loriann Williams gag, btw).
On the plus side, we have the OGL and it's true creative inheritors in Pathfinder, True20 and such. If anything, you guys have reaffirmed my faith in the future of the hobby.
But Vic if you're right about that, it screws anyone. Especially Clark's projects. I'd guess the ToH is dead, but so would his player's options project.
That's a lot of work gone bamf.
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.
Heck, even if you own the copyright/trademark, WotC can still stop you publishing it using 4e rules - all means is that no-one can publish it (not WotC because you have the rights to the name, and not you because WotC have the rights to the rules expression).
:(
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.
If I understand correctly, though, if you were to create a class called "Bard" or "Barbarian" or "Cheesehead," and then Wizards created a class called "Bard" or "Barbarian" or "Cheesehead" and added the name of that class to the SRD, your product would be in violation of the license from that moment forward, and you'd have to stop selling it immediately.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read the "redefining" thing . . . what if WOTC "redefines" something you made first?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Oooh...shiny!
I must say, that's some fine looking legal work there.
Yep. I can only view it from the perspective of someone who deploys counsel to lock in position and secure I.P. but it sure looks like some rugged work.
All about, "You will play ball with us on this court, in this way, and if you try to play ball any other way, we take your ball."
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...
