So what exactly is allowed for a 4E 3PP? I'm not 100% certain but this is my interpretation. Please tell me how you agree/disagree. My rating system is as follows: (Encourages, Discourages but allowed, and Not Allowed)
Stand Alone Adventures: Encouraged
Campaign Settings: Discouraged, unless you can just walk away from your setting
Adventure Paths: Discouraged (reason: if WotC ends the GSL in the middle of your AP, you're screwed)
New Monster Books: Encouraged
Revisited Monster Books (i.e. Classic Monsters): Not Allowed (since you cannot rebrand a predefined monster)
New Races: Encouraged
Race Books Expanding PHB Races: Not Allowed (can't redefine something)
New/Additional Feats/Powers/etc: Encouraged
Thoughts? Am I missing stuff?
I'd say you weigh the risk of GSL dismissal higher than I personally would, but otherwise it seems alright. I'd guess monster/race books would be possible, but you'd probably want WotC's ok first, to make sure they don't see it as redefining of core concepts.
Cheers! :)
I'd say you weigh the risk of GSL dismissal higher than I personally would,
I don't consider the GSL dismissal a possibility; I consider it a certainty, like death and taxes. The only questions are when that will be and will 5E (whenever it maybe) allow someone to use 4E material in 5E, assuming 5E will have a free license.
I don't consider the GSL dismissal a possibility; I consider it a certainty, like death and taxes. The only questions are when that will be and will 5E (whenever it maybe) allow someone to use 4E material in 5E, assuming 5E will have a free license.
Ah, in that case I do quite agree with you. No doubt the GSL will be ended when 4E's run is over, and 5E is on its way. I thought instead you meant something along the lines of "that 3PP is doing very well! let's pull their license!" which I've seen thrown about a bit ...
If 5E has an open license, I'd expect there to be a provision to convert 4E stuff over, although (as with the current GSL) you'll likely give up your ability to produce the 4E stuff any longer.
So still, I wouldn't rate it as bad as you do. If you publish a campaign setting for 4E, you'll likely be allowed to publish it for 5E someday as well.
I'd think the danger posed to an AP is even less, since an AP by its nature isn't as long term a product as a truly supported campaign setting. In most cases, I think you'll know that 4E's era is coming to a close at least a year or so in advance, so you should have time to wrap your AP up (and if you start an 18 month AP the day before 5E's announcement, it's probably best to just trim the initially planned length)
Cheers! :)
I'd say you weigh the risk of GSL dismissal higher than I personally would,I don't consider the GSL dismissal a possibility; I consider it a certainty, like death and taxes. The only questions are when that will be and will 5E (whenever it maybe) allow someone to use 4E material in 5E, assuming 5E will have a free license.
Well, but an adventure path will last, what, 1 year? I don't think WotC got so much trouble to make a GSL only to dismiss it within one year. If it dismisses it, it will probably give some time for publishers to sell their printed stocks and remove the compatibility logo, just like they did with the d20 STL.
It's a possibility, but the d20 STL was also revokable, lasted 8 years, and WotC gave publishers a fair amount of time (6 months) to sell their stock. Perhaps WotC is really evil as some people say, but I don't think the launch of 4th edition made them suddenly ten times more evil than before.
Well, but an adventure path will last, what, 1 year? I don't think WotC got so much trouble to make a GSL only to dismiss it within one year.
Not necessarily talking today, but next year, three years from now, and longer. If I were a publisher, anything after 3 years, I'd start getting very skiddish about publishing anything for 4E.
Campaign Settings: Discouraged, unless you can just walk away from your setting
Not only that, but most Campaign Settings would either have to be rather homogeneous with or wildly different from existing WotC Campaign Settings, due to the fact that you can't really redefine the races and such.
Campaign Settings: Discouraged, unless you can just walk away from your settingNot only that, but most Campaign Settings would either have to be rather homogeneous with or wildly different from existing WotC Campaign Settings, due to the fact that you can't really redefine the races and such.
Yes but who is to say Arkohsia is the name only used by the dragonborn for what is now called The Black Dunes Desert. Or that they weat desert apporopraite clothing.
Or that you cant create a new race called the Dragonkin ?
Well, but an adventure path will last, what, 1 year? I don't think WotC got so much trouble to make a GSL only to dismiss it within one year.Not necessarily talking today, but next year, three years from now, and longer. If I were a publisher, anything after 3 years, I'd start getting very skiddish about publishing anything for 4E.
Hmm, I would say that the GSL would stick for at least 4 years. That gives time for a publisher to sell a couple of adventure paths. There is some risk involved, but it's possibly smaller than attempting to publish for 4E without the GSL.
Campaign Settings: Discouraged, unless you can just walk away from your settingNot only that, but most Campaign Settings would either have to be rather homogeneous with or wildly different from existing WotC Campaign Settings, due to the fact that you can't really redefine the races and such.Yes but who is to say Arkohsia is the name only used by the dragonborn for what is now called The Black Dunes Desert. Or that they weat desert apporopraite clothing.
Or that you cant create a new race called the Dragonkin ?
But that's the point, if you want to make a Campaign Setting which diverges from PHB lore then you have to invent entire new races to populate your world with. If you don't want to do that you have to go the PHB way and all the races across all the Campaign Settings become the same.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
It's a possibility, but the d20 STL was also revokable, lasted 8 years, and WotC gave publishers a fair amount of time (6 months) to sell their stock. Perhaps WotC is really evil as some people say, but I don't think the launch of 4th edition made them suddenly ten times more evil than before.
I don't consider 6 months very long to sell-off books that may well have only been in the pipe for a year or so. In fact, I think it's pretty close to the bare minimum WotC thought they could get away with.
But that's the point, if you want to make a Campaign Setting which diverges from PHB lore then you have to invent entire new races to populate your world with. If you don't want to do that you have to go the PHB way and all the races across all the Campaign Settings become the same.
From the GSL:
Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.
From my understanding, you can't alter the definition of "elves" (make them greeny small guys with black wings, and print new stats for them, won't be OK, for instance). But to add a new subculture to elves (making them more like Eberron elves or Dark Sun elves, for instance) as long as is obvious that they are the same elves from the PHB, would be perfectly fine.
It's a possibility, but the d20 STL was also revokable, lasted 8 years, and WotC gave publishers a fair amount of time (6 months) to sell their stock. Perhaps WotC is really evil as some people say, but I don't think the launch of 4th edition made them suddenly ten times more evil than before.I don't consider 6 months very long to sell-off books that may well have only been in the pipe for a year or so. In fact, I think it's pretty close to the bare minimum WotC thought they could get away with.
Consider that 6 months is the only the time to sell the products in stock to revenuers - after they are already in the shops, they don't need to be recalled even if the time expires.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Consider that 6 months is the only the time to sell the products in stock to revenuers - after they are already in the shops, they don't need to be recalled even if the time expires.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's going to be tricky to get people to take it, and that not very much time was given for publishers to come up with a liquidation plan. I work in publishing, 6 months is not a lot of time.
The D20STL is not analogous.
1) The D20STL, as written, never specifically allowed termination at-will, only termination for breach. It did allow for modification at-will, but modification-at-will clauses aren't a blank check under contract law. It is accordingly questionable whether WotC actually has the right to revoke it for non-breach reasons. (If we reach December and there's somebody with lots of D20 stock on-hand, we might see this tested.) It is, however, certain that the GSL can be revoked at-will. Accordingly, it is much more certain that Wizards has this power under the GSL than under the D20STL.
2) A D20STL revocation during the life of 3.x would have had next-to-no effect. It would have caused some financial damage to people with the logo on their products, yes. But new product would have come out on schedule without difficulty, now minus the logo, under the terms of the OGL. Accordingly, the ability to revoke the license is much more powerful under the GSL than under the D20STL.
3) The D20STL had no provisions that survived termination. The only way Wizards could maintain its limits on third party publishers was by keeping the license in effect. The GSL has a number of provisions that survive termination, allowing Wizards to have influence on the actions of third party publishers after termination..
If Wizards terminated the D20STL in, say, 2002, with a demand for immediate pulping, it would have likely provoked lawsuits, and it would have had little long-term effect on licensees anyway. If Wizards revokes the GSL in 2010 with a demand for immediate pulping, it would unquestionably be within their right and it would have significant long-term impact on licensees.
The D20STL is not analogous.
...
I agree with you that the D20STL is far easier to handle than the GSL. However, what I'm trying to point is that there is absolutely no sense on Wizards spending so much on lawyers to write a new license, and revoking it soon thereafter. If they don't want 3rd party publishers to make modules for them, then why they bothered making a GSL? They obviously don't want 3PPs to make competition, but as we know, adventures aren't competition for WotC, they support the main product instead.
I also consider very risky for a publisher to make only GSL products. However, believe it or not, D&D 4E may become tremendously sucessful, so a publisher may earn considerable profit by having at least one 4E product line, and it may be less "risky" than not having any 4E product at all.
|
|
Revisited Monster Books (i.e. Classic Monsters): Not Allowed (since you cannot rebrand a predefined monster)
Why not? I know that you cannot change the definitions of the critters but what would prevent someone from expanding what is already there? I am thinking of the Mongoose Slayer's Guides for example.
Race Books Expanding PHB Races: Not Allowed (can't redefine something)
I think this can be done without redefining anything. Bad Axe Games did an awesome series of race books taking the 3e PHB races and their favored classes, and created all kinds of cool paths and prestige classes.
What would prevent a publisher from taking the base PHB races and adding racial powers, class powers tailored to a specific race, racial feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and even new base classes for each race?
I agree with you that the D20STL is far easier to handle than the GSL. However, what I'm trying to point is that there is absolutely no sense on Wizards spending so much on lawyers to write a new license, and revoking it soon thereafter.
My point was deliberately limited; merely that the D20STL behavior could not be used as a guide to GSL behavior, because the cases were entirely non-analogous. Wizards did not actually have terminate-at-will power under the D20STL as written, and even if it did, that would have been a far less dangerous power than the GSL equivalent.
Race Books Expanding PHB Races: Not Allowed (can't redefine something)I think this can be done without redefining anything. Bad Axe Games did an awesome series of race books taking the 3e PHB races and their favored classes, and created all kinds of cool paths and prestige classes.
What would prevent a publisher from taking the base PHB races and adding racial powers, class powers tailored to a specific race, racial feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and even new base classes for each race?
I do think that this is very problematic.
Say I want to make Midnight 4e:
Midnight has elves that are very at home in the forest (it's practically the only place they live there), but they're still the masters of arcane magic. That is basically a mix of 4e elves and eladrins. I don't think saying "there's no eladrin, but elves have eladrin powers, too" is possible under 4e.
Then there's Gnomes: Riverfaring fey with very high charisma and quite talented in performance, trade, and smuggling. I don't think you can change the existing monster entry to create this properly.
What would prevent a publisher from taking the base PHB races and adding racial powers, class powers tailored to a specific race, racial feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and even new base classes for each race?
You missed this bit here:
New/Additional Feats/Powers/etc: Encouraged
Personally I wouldn't do a fluff book simply because: what happens if you expand on a race (i.e. slayers guides/races of books) and WotC comes out with a book that contradicts it. Your book is now in violation of the GSL.
But you are correct, I did place it in the wrong category. It should be labeled as dicouraged.
I don't think saying "there's no eladrin, but elves have eladrin powers, too" is possible under 4e.
Then there's Gnomes: Riverfaring fey with very high charisma and quite talented in performance, trade, and smuggling. I don't think you can change the existing monster entry to create this properly.
I would, however, agree with this.
|
|
I do think that this is very problematic.
Say I want to make Midnight 4e:
Midnight has elves that are very at home in the forest (it's practically the only place they live there), but they're still the masters of arcane magic. That is basically a mix of 4e elves and eladrins. I don't think saying "there's no eladrin, but elves have eladrin powers, too" is possible under 4e.
I did not say change - that is clearly a bad thing under the GSL. I was talking about expanding the PHB races.
Besides in the case of Midnight - just come up with a name that isn't Elf or Eladrin. Call the Elfin or Eladar or Dwelfs or something.
I do think that this is very problematic.
Say I want to make Midnight 4e:
Midnight has elves that are very at home in the forest (it's practically the only place they live there), but they're still the masters of arcane magic. That is basically a mix of 4e elves and eladrins. I don't think saying "there's no eladrin, but elves have eladrin powers, too" is possible under 4e.
I did not say change - that is clearly a bad thing under the GSL. I was talking about expanding the PHB races.
Besides in the case of Midnight - just come up with a name that isn't Elf or Eladrin. Call the Elfin or Eladar or Dwelfs or something.
but you shouldn't have to do that. There's no reason people can't realize, "oh, hey, these elves are slightly different from the "official" ones. They must be a variant." The GSL insults the intelligence of people who can hold two differing interpretations of something side by side. For those who can't, never fear! That squishy, scary thing in your skull won't be necessary, thanks to the foresight of WotC legal department.
Then there's Gnomes: Riverfaring fey with very high charisma and quite talented in performance, trade, and smuggling. I don't think you can change the existing monster entry to create this properly.
Just give them a new name. It can even have gnome in it, like "Xoxuluc Gnome". Just make clear its not a regular gnome, saying something like "The gnomes of Xoxuluc are not regular gnomes, but their own separate race". Then the regular gnome is still there; you are not redefining anything. Same goes for elves et all. Of course, in play, you'd omit the campaign name and just call them gnomes, but in the rules they are always Xoxuluc Gnomes. This is actually meaningful, as it reduces confusion.
|
|
but you shouldn't have to do that. There's no reason people can't realize, "oh, hey, these elves are slightly different from the "official" ones. They must be a variant." The GSL insults the intelligence of people who can hold two differing interpretations of something side by side. For those who can't, never fear! That squishy, scary thing in your skull won't be necessary, thanks to the foresight of WotC legal department.
It has nothing to do with intelligence or the lack thereof - instead it is about brand consistency. The idea is that 4e is supposed to be a common generic framework. If I run a third party mod and say "you see an elf" then you should be able to know exactly what I mean.
The creation of a clear taxonomy for D&D has a great number of advantages. If you want to greate a world that is radically different from the 4e framework then write a whole new game or go back to using the OGL.
The GSL is highly restrictive and it will be interesting to see what happens with it. And for the record - I do not like it one bit but that does not mean that I will condemn WotC for trying to protect the investment it has made in its own IP.