4E No Longer Wizards Specific - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

4E No Longer Wizards Specific

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
BaenEndkind
Apr 17, 2008 20:02:00 Honestly wasn't sure where else to post this, but :
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a
According to this not only will 3rd party publishers be able to publish material for 4e but they will be able to do so for FREE, no royalties. Anyone will be able to from day 1 of launch, earlier for some trusted publishers We can now hopefully expect to see a LOT of 3rd party stuff on the market.
#2
sphyre
Apr 17, 2008 20:15:20 No longer in what time frame reference? In terms of 3e? Because 3e has the OGL. If you're referring to 4e's $5000 licensing, then you're also wrong, because that was an "early" licensing fee. After about 6 months to a year (I don't recall the exact time) it was going to allow everyone to publish using 4e.

"No longer wizard's specific" is misleading wording. They still hold the D&D License.
#3
burgundy_lotus
Apr 17, 2008 20:17:15 4E will be pretty much the same as 3.5E as far as I can see.
#4
hellmute
Apr 17, 2008 20:22:13 The newest GSL article implies that no business license is required to sue it, wherein one was for the previous that included the "early bird" fee of $5000. But I am trying to find that place I asked Mike_Zero about it in the thread he asked for questions about it to see if the business license is or is not required to use the "D&D 4E GSL".
#5
shamsael
Apr 17, 2008 20:23:32
No longer in what time frame reference? In terms of 3e? Because 3e has the OGL. If you're referring to 4e's $5000 licensing, then you're also wrong, because that was an "early" licensing fee. After about 6 months to a year (I don't recall the exact time) it was going to allow everyone to publish using 4e.

"No longer wizard's specific" is misleading wording. They still hold the D&D License.

That same article says that a version of the license will allow allow third party publishers to put a variant D&D logo on their books...

I think that's what the OP was talking about.
#6
sphyre
Apr 17, 2008 21:04:04
That same article says that a version of the license will allow allow third party publishers to put a variant D&D logo on their books...

I think that's what the OP was talking about.

You mean like the d20 logo?
#7
trailfoot
Apr 17, 2008 22:03:41 The big difference looks to be that you won't be able to publish standalone d20 fantasy games under the 4e engine and GSL - things like Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes.
#8
nthdegree256
Apr 18, 2008 0:22:50
The big difference looks to be that you won't be able to publish standalone d20 fantasy games under the 4e engine and GSL - things like Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes.

Wait, what? What makes you say that? I read this...
The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules

That doesn't sound very different to me than what Iron Heroes did - it still used the D&D 3.5 rules, it just put them in a new setting and added (a lot of) changes.
#9
squidyak
Apr 18, 2008 0:39:39 It'll all be open content eventually. I think WotC allowed the OGL mainly because the limits on copyrights towards rules are dubious at best, as TSR learned in their many courtroom defeats. About the only thing that can really be copyrighted is fluff, which is the only the the 3e ogl didn't allow to be copied. In effect, the OGL was pretty much meaningless outside of WotC symbolically throwing up their hands and saying "we won't sue, it's not worth it!"
#10
banpai
Apr 18, 2008 11:29:20 As I understand it, Wizards wants to prevent other companies from taking the SRD, print it and sell it under their name. I don´t now how often I saw something like the "Pocket PHB" it´s just a printed SRD ..... I am pretty shure they want to make shure that people buy the 3 Core Rulebooks if they want to play D&D.
For example the old Warcraft D20 RPG required the Core Rulebooks, it added some classed and removed others but WotC did profit from it. Now the new WOW version is a standalone and WotC doesn´t profit .....
#11
squidyak
Apr 18, 2008 14:53:35
As I understand it, Wizards wants to prevent other companies from taking the SRD, print it and sell it under their name. I don´t now how often I saw something like the "Pocket PHB" it´s just a printed SRD ..... I am pretty shure they want to make shure that people buy the 3 Core Rulebooks if they want to play D&D.
For example the old Warcraft D20 RPG required the Core Rulebooks, it added some classed and removed others but WotC did profit from it. Now the new WOW version is a standalone and WotC doesn´t profit .....

I love my pocket phb. Wizards should release something similar eventually.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 BaenEndkind Apr 17, 2008 20:02:00	Honestly wasn't sure where else to post this, but : http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a According to this not only will 3rd party publishers be able to publish material for 4e but they will be able to do so for FREE, no royalties. Anyone will be able to from day 1 of launch, earlier for some trusted publishers We can now hopefully expect to see a LOT of 3rd party stuff on the market.
#2 sphyre Apr 17, 2008 20:15:20	No longer in what time frame reference? In terms of 3e? Because 3e has the OGL. If you're referring to 4e's $5000 licensing, then you're also wrong, because that was an "early" licensing fee. After about 6 months to a year (I don't recall the exact time) it was going to allow everyone to publish using 4e. "No longer wizard's specific" is misleading wording. They still hold the D&D License.
#3 burgundy_lotus Apr 17, 2008 20:17:15	4E will be pretty much the same as 3.5E as far as I can see.
#4 hellmute Apr 17, 2008 20:22:13	The newest GSL article implies that no business license is required to sue it, wherein one was for the previous that included the "early bird" fee of $5000. But I am trying to find that place I asked Mike_Zero about it in the thread he asked for questions about it to see if the business license is or is not required to use the "D&D 4E GSL".
#5 shamsael Apr 17, 2008 20:23:32	No longer in what time frame reference? In terms of 3e? Because 3e has the OGL. If you're referring to 4e's $5000 licensing, then you're also wrong, because that was an "early" licensing fee. After about 6 months to a year (I don't recall the exact time) it was going to allow everyone to publish using 4e. "No longer wizard's specific" is misleading wording. They still hold the D&D License. That same article says that a version of the license will allow allow third party publishers to put a variant D&D logo on their books... I think that's what the OP was talking about.
#6 sphyre Apr 17, 2008 21:04:04	That same article says that a version of the license will allow allow third party publishers to put a variant D&D logo on their books... I think that's what the OP was talking about. You mean like the d20 logo?
#7 trailfoot Apr 17, 2008 22:03:41	The big difference looks to be that you won't be able to publish standalone d20 fantasy games under the 4e engine and GSL - things like Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes.
#8 nthdegree256 Apr 18, 2008 0:22:50	The big difference looks to be that you won't be able to publish standalone d20 fantasy games under the 4e engine and GSL - things like Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes. Wait, what? What makes you say that? I read this... The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules That doesn't sound very different to me than what Iron Heroes did - it still used the D&D 3.5 rules, it just put them in a new setting and added (a lot of) changes.
#9 squidyak Apr 18, 2008 0:39:39	It'll all be open content eventually. I think WotC allowed the OGL mainly because the limits on copyrights towards rules are dubious at best, as TSR learned in their many courtroom defeats. About the only thing that can really be copyrighted is fluff, which is the only the the 3e ogl didn't allow to be copied. In effect, the OGL was pretty much meaningless outside of WotC symbolically throwing up their hands and saying "we won't sue, it's not worth it!"
#10 banpai Apr 18, 2008 11:29:20	As I understand it, Wizards wants to prevent other companies from taking the SRD, print it and sell it under their name. I don´t now how often I saw something like the "Pocket PHB" it´s just a printed SRD ..... I am pretty shure they want to make shure that people buy the 3 Core Rulebooks if they want to play D&D. For example the old Warcraft D20 RPG required the Core Rulebooks, it added some classed and removed others but WotC did profit from it. Now the new WOW version is a standalone and WotC doesn´t profit .....
#11 squidyak Apr 18, 2008 14:53:35	As I understand it, Wizards wants to prevent other companies from taking the SRD, print it and sell it under their name. I don´t now how often I saw something like the "Pocket PHB" it´s just a printed SRD ..... I am pretty shure they want to make shure that people buy the 3 Core Rulebooks if they want to play D&D. For example the old Warcraft D20 RPG required the Core Rulebooks, it added some classed and removed others but WotC did profit from it. Now the new WOW version is a standalone and WotC doesn´t profit ..... I love my pocket phb. Wizards should release something similar eventually.