People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
While this is true I don't like the tone the company is taking with the GSL and if it continues with the fansite guidelines then I will pretty much give up hope. In this day and age we are pretty much on the brink of an copyright/IP showdown and some companies seem to think that it means them against us the fans. Thats why the RIAA sues the fans and the only ones who get rich are lobying groups and lawyers.
If WotC takes a stand against fan created material even if if it is a Hasbro decision handed down from on high then I am taking a stand against D&D and so is my gaming group.
I hope it doesn't come to that. I have enjoyed D&D and alot of my enjoyment has come through seeing what the fan community has done with the IP over the years. Hell the RPG hobby is all about taking the IP and DOING stuff with it. Thats what a gaming session is. We take the IP and we make our own creation out of it. And sometimes we post stuff on the web. And sometimes the stuff we post is really usefull and better than what WotC has managed to come out with. So yeah if WotC comes out against its fans then I am done with them.
I'm not going to opine on the boundaries of the available space for creating 4e-compatible products without being under GSL, but what some people seem to be forgetting in the analysis here is that there is some limitation to copyright protection for game rules, and you can also stay out of trademark territory if you're smart. People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
And it can't be stated enough times: You must agree to the GSL to be bound by it, and not just "agree"... action is required on your part.
People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
And that is certainly what I will be doing. 4e stuff under the OGL.
I wouldn't touch the abomination which is GSL with a 20' pole.
I'm not going to opine on the boundaries of the available space for creating 4e-compatible products without being under GSL, but what some people seem to be forgetting in the analysis here is that there is some limitation to copyright protection for game rules, and you can also stay out of trademark territory if you're smart. People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
Steerpike7,
I was wondering when you'd give you two coppers on this! Good to hear from an actual IP lawyer. I agree with you completely in principle. Using the existing OGL and US copyright law, I think one could generate a many 4E compatible products possibley including a 4E "OSRIC" type product. We've both been over this many times.
What concerns me, however, is that the GSL reads like a giant "cease-and-desist" letter. While it's true you have to agree to the GSL to be bound by it, it does seem to indicate that Wotc will not tolerate anything that remotely resembles DnD 4E without at least the threat of a lawsuit whether they think they'd win or not. I am guessing that Hasbro thinks they can probably spend any 3PP into the ground and keep them from doing what you suggest (and I think they are probably correct in that assessment).
Thus while I agree with what you say de jure, de facto is likely to be a whole 'nother animal.
-Polaris
Edit PS: Part of me wonders if this might not have been the entire purpose of the GSL in it's current form, i.e. to prevent a 4E "OSRIC". With no GSL, a company could quite reasonably fall back on copyright precedent and game rules. With the GSL, while the 3PP could make the same claim, Wotc could then counter-claim that they made a "very generous" option available, but the 3PP chose to "steal" Wotc's IP instead. I am not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.
It seems like you would have to be doing quite a bit of beating around the bush and implying and generalizing in your rules if you were to do make such a product without violating copyright laws.
Actually less than you think. Steerpike7, myself, ArcTan, Wrecan and many others hashed this out for pages on the old C-C forums. Basically you'd need the advice of a good IP lawyer, but if you steered clear of trademark and exact expressions from 4E, you're probably going to be OK at least per the letter of the law. (Most 4E concepts can be found in OGL compliant 3E material.)
-Polaris
Actually less than you think. Steerpike7, myself, ArcTan, Wrecan and many others hashed this out for pages on the old C-C forums. Basically you'd need the advice of a good IP lawyer, but if you steered clear of trademark and exact expressions from 4E, you're probably going to be OK at least per the letter of the law. (Most 4E concepts can be found in OGL compliant 3E material.)
-Polaris
If you recall, there was another thread, mostly consisting of posts from Wrecan and Steerpike. The conclusion reached was that there was no precedent for copying D&D and selling it under a different name. This was not some extreme position- the two actual lawyers in the conversation said it was not a safe move.
Regardless of anything anyone says here, anyone contemplating publishing something potentially controversial should talk to a lawyer. Anonymously given advice on the internet from non-experts should not guide your decisions.
EDIT: This isn't as big a deal as your advising people to infringe on WotC's IP, but it is worth pointing out that the thread where you and others "hashed things out" did not end with you actually convincing people that making a 4e rip-off was kosher. For one thing, you started off by basing your argument on laws that *do not exist* and that made it pretty clear that you were more concerned with presenting a particular thesis than getting to the truth.
EDIT, part deux: Also, I saw on ENWorld a post from the guy who put OSRIC together. He asked people to stop saying "4e OSRIC" because he doesn't want to be associated with such a thing. I wonder why!
If you recall, there was another thread, mostly consisting of posts from Wrecan and Steerpike. The conclusion reached was that there was no precedent for copying D&D and selling it under a different name. This was not some extreme position- the two actual lawyers in the conversation said it was not a safe move.
Um, ORSRIC and C&C called and would like to have a word with you. However, I agree too that it's not a safe move.
Regardless of anything anyone says here, anyone contemplating publishing something potentially controversial should talk to a lawyer. Anonymously given advice on the internet from non-experts should not guide your decisions.
Read my first post on this thread. You absolutely should get legal advice. I completely agree and have said so elsewhere many times. In fact as I comment in my first post, I think Wotc is essentially throwing it's money around (via hasbro) on the very notion that most 3PPs can't afford the risk (and I say quite clearly that I think they're right about this).
-Polaris
Steerpike7,
I was wondering when you'd give you two coppers on this! Good to hear from an actual IP lawyer. I agree with you completely in principle. Using the existing OGL and US copyright law, I think one could generate a many 4E compatible products possibley including a 4E "OSRIC" type product. We've both been over this many times.
As long as I'm here, has Steerpike ever said he was an IP lawyer? I'm pretty sure he isn't- forgive me if I'm wrong. I know Wrecan is an IP guy... it would be a weird coincidence if both of our resident lawyers had the same specialty, but I guess that happens sometimes.
What concerns me, however, is that the GSL reads like a giant "cease-and-desist" letter.
It reads like any legal document. It names what is and isn't allowed and spells out the penalties for breaking various terms of the agreement. It says absolutely nothing about publishing outside the terms of the license.
While it's true you have to agree to the GSL to be bound by it, it does seem to indicate that Wotc will not tolerate anything that remotely resembles DnD 4E without at least the threat of a lawsuit whether they think they'd win or not.
I'm guessing your lack of evidence here is intentional. Probably your next post will see that the "general vibe" of the document suggests that WotC will sue people frivolously. Can you actually name any instance of WotC bringing suit or even sending a C&D to someone for creating something that "remotely resembles" its IP?
I am guessing that Hasbro thinks they can probably spend any 3PP into the ground and keep them from doing what you suggest (and I think they are probably correct in that assessment).
Hey, the first three words are actually true. Nice.
Thus while I agree with what you say de jure, de facto is likely to be a whole 'nother animal.
-Polaris
This is weird- here you say that pulling this off is going to be difficult, but in your next post you show a lot of optimism for a 4e rip-off.
Edit PS: Part of me wonders if this might not have been the entire purpose of the GSL in it's current form, i.e. to prevent a 4E "OSRIC". With no GSL, a company could quite reasonably fall back on copyright precedent and game rules. With the GSL, while the 3PP could make the same claim, Wotc could then counter-claim that they made a "very generous" option available, but the 3PP chose to "steal" Wotc's IP instead. I am not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.
As noted above, the maker of OSRIC himself would like people to stop attaching his project to ideas like this.
Um, ORSRIC and C&C called and would like to have a word with you. However, I agree too that it's not a safe move.
How much does OSRIC cost? Zero dollars. Note that I said "and sell it." C&C is a different matter, but it's essentially a d20 game with some AD&D elements. It may appeal to a lot of fans of AD&D, but it is not the same game.
To date, no one has ripped off D&D and made a business of it. Since 4e has a lot of distinctive concepts and mechanics, I think that a 4e ripoff would be even more dangerous. OSRIC and C&C are OGL approximations of out-of-print versions of D&D. They were made quite a long time after the editions they mimic went off the market. A lot of the content was, at that point, rather common in the RPG world. Trying to publish a 4e-ripoff right now has none of those advantages.
Read my first post on this thread. You absolutely should get legal advice. I completely agree and have said so elsewhere many times. In fact as I comment in my first post, I think Wotc is essentially throwing it's money around (via hasbro) on the very notion that most 3PPs can't afford the risk (and I say quite clearly that I think they're right about this).
-Polaris
*sigh* There always has to be something villainous about it. The big bad bully of a corporation is throwing its money around to protect its ideas. How awful.
How much does OSRIC cost? Zero dollars. Note that I said "and sell it." C&C is a different matter, but it's essentially a d20 game with some AD&D elements. It may appeal to a lot of fans of AD&D, but it is not the same game.
Have you played/seen OSRIC? It very much is ADnD with the serial numbers filed off. You still haven't addressed C&C very well. It's also ADnD with the serial numbers filed off albeit less so than OSRIC. OSRIC in particular might not be taking money, but they are definately marketing it and Wotc could sue for copyright infringement based on 'damages' or 'lost sales' even with a zero cost for OSRIC. OSRIC knows this. They've been walking very softly. It's my take that they know they are in the legal right but proving that and surviving the experience financially is a tall order.
To date, no one has ripped off D&D and made a business of it. Since 4e has a lot of distinctive concepts and mechanics, I think that a 4e ripoff would be even more dangerous. OSRIC and C&C are OGL approximations of out-of-print versions of D&D. They were made quite a long time after the editions they mimic went off the market. A lot of the content was, at that point, rather common in the RPG world. Trying to publish a 4e-ripoff right now has none of those advantages.
Um, C&C has. For that matter, arguably all the OGL fantasy games have (Conan, Iron Heroes, etc). Why do you think Wotc hates the OGL so much?
*sigh* There always has to be something villainous about it. The big bad bully of a corporation is throwing its money around to protect its ideas. How awful.
Well, in this case they are. Bottom line. Don't take my word for it, READ the GSL. I have no issue with Wotc protecting their IP, but that does not give them the right to tell other people how to use THEIR IPs nor does it give Wotc the right to effectively kill/steal other people's IPs but this GSL does exactly that.
-Polaris
Have you played/seen OSRIC? It very much is ADnD with the serial numbers filed off. You still haven't addressed C&C very well. It's also ADnD with the serial numbers filed off albeit less so than OSRIC. OSRIC in particular might not be taking money, but they are definately marketing it and Wotc could sue for copyright infringement based on 'damages' or 'lost sales' even with a zero cost for OSRIC. OSRIC knows this. They've been walking very softly. It's my take that they know they are in the legal right but proving that and surviving the experience financially is a tall order.
Here's the thing: OSRIC is a recreation and clarification of AD&D. It's aimed at old-schoolers. It isn't being sold in stores next to D&D, where unsuspecting young gamers might be lured in. It's a fairly small not-for-profit OGL-based game that doesn't threaten D&D. It's very different from a 4e ripoff.
As for C&C, it is also within the terms of the license and, like OSRIC, it also appeals to people who aren't customers for the current edition of D&D. It has a fair number of new mechanics and concepts of its own that set it apart from D&D.
Um, C&C has. For that matter, arguably all the OGL fantasy games have (Conan, Iron Heroes, etc). Why do you think Wotc hates the OGL so much?
No, these games are not ripoffs of D&D. They are licensed products with additional new material. That's really different from a ripoff.
Let me put it this way: C&C and OSRIC are attempts to capitalize on the fact that not everyone wanted to move on to 3e. They provide some new things and some clarifications for AD&D die-hards that WotC has no hope of selling to. They also provide a compatible platform for the (very small) publishing community that sells to the AD&D die-hard market. Even if some of this infringes on WotC's AD&D IP, it isn't worth it to sue
Conan, Iron Heroes, and so on use the OGL in the way it was written and intended to sell a different game. They arguably cost WotC some money, since they create independent systems that are not quite compatible with 3e. Still, they don't do anything remotely shady to accomplish this. There is no reason to sue anyone here either.
Publishing 4e-style products under the OGL, on the other hand, is begging for trouble. If someone writes a supplement or module that is unlicensed and doesn't mention D&D by name but uses 4e statblocks, monsters, and terminology, someone is clearly infringing on WotC's IP. If everything is disguised and renamed to not look at all like 4e, it will be unplayable and not worth publishing. Who would publish a D&D 4e product that (1) isn't allowed to mention D&D at all in the product or advertising and (2) can't write things in the same words and same fashion as they are expressed in D&D? If you think the GSL is bad for companies, think about how bad selling a product like that is.
Well, in this case they are. Bottom line. Don't take my word for it, READ the GSL. I have no issue with Wotc protecting their IP, but that does not give them the right to tell other people how to use THEIR IPs nor does it give Wotc the right to effectively kill/steal other people's IPs but this GSL does exactly that.
-Polaris
I have read the GSL, and I don't think it says what you think it says. If you want to prove your viewpoint to any thinking person, you should start by quoting the terms of the GSL and explaining how they mean what you say they mean.
I'm not going to opine on the boundaries of the available space for creating 4e-compatible products without being under GSL, but what some people seem to be forgetting in the analysis here is that there is some limitation to copyright protection for game rules, and you can also stay out of trademark territory if you're smart. People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
Is there anything in this post, posted by the individual heralded by Polaris as the local authority on IP law, that suggests it is a wise business maneuver to attempt to publish 4E supplements without agreeing to the GSL? It may just be that legalese is not my first language, but it appears that they merely suggests it may be possible to do so with very careful syntax.
... but I don't see companies like White Wolf or even Paizo releasing their systems on an open license any time soon.
The Pathfinder RPG is released under the OGL right from the beginning with the first alpha release. From the current release:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identif ied as Product Identity, as def ined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as def ined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content might be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
The Pathfinder RPG, Alpha release 3 is published by Paizo Publishing, LLC under the Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All other trademarks are property of Paizo Publishing, LLC. ©2008 Paizo Publishing.
What concerns me, however, is that the GSL reads like a giant "cease-and-desist" letter. While it's true you have to agree to the GSL to be bound by it, it does seem to indicate that Wotc will not tolerate anything that remotely resembles DnD 4E without at least the threat of a lawsuit whether they think they'd win or not. I am guessing that Hasbro thinks they can probably spend any 3PP into the ground and keep them from doing what you suggest (and I think they are probably correct in that assessment).
Polaris:
This is quite true. Being able to make 4E stuff without GSL and without violating IP rights is one thing. Being able to defend a suit to prove your point is another. I don't know enough about WotC's practices to know if they'd just send C&D letters out then eventually drop it, or if they'd force you to defend a suit even if they thought they were on the wrong side of the legal argument.
As long as I'm here, has Steerpike ever said he was an IP lawyer? I'm pretty sure he isn't- forgive me if I'm wrong. I know Wrecan is an IP guy... it would be a weird coincidence if both of our resident lawyers had the same specialty, but I guess that happens sometimes.
Yes, I am an IP attorney as well. My specialty is patents, though I also do trademark and copyright work. I am not a litigator, however. Wrecan handles IP litigation.
Is there anything in this post, posted by the individual heralded by Polaris as the local authority on IP law, that suggests it is a wise business maneuver to attempt to publish 4E supplements without agreeing to the GSL? It may just be that legalese is not my first language, but it appears that they merely suggests it may be possible to do so with very careful syntax.
I'm not sure it would be that hard to do, necessarily. But you'd want good legal advice AND you would want a war chest to finance your defense if/when you get sued. The other thing to think about is that while copyright can't protect game rules under current law, WotC's attorneys would argue for a narrow interpretation of "rules," while as the defendant you'd have to argue the "rules" is more broad.
Take monster stats, for example. On the one hand you'd argue that the stats, being necessary to resolve combat with that particular creature in the game, are part of the rules (using that word broadly) and therefore can't be protected by copyright. WotC, on the other hand, would argue that the stats themselves aren't rules and that you can create your own monster stats and still play the game and resolve combat with your custom stats. To my knowledge there is no case on point on an issue like this, and WotC would have some pretty good arguments available to them.
Nevertheless, given that game rules are not protectable it stands to reason that there is some ground available to those who want to provide 4e-compatible products without entering into GSL.
It seems like you would have to be doing quite a bit of beating around the bush and implying and generalizing in your rules if you were to do make such a product without violating copyright laws.
Not neccessarily. Mechanics aren't really protectable (and not at all under copyright), only the specific portrayal of them. Many of 4E's 'advances' are already OGL material in other sources.... so, yeah, you could get pretty far in redoing 4E under OGL, and perfectly legally to boot.
That's what we should aim at -- writing up a ruleset close enough to 4e that products written for it are trivially compatible with it into an SRD, giving it a name and OGLing it. Then, simply releasing products for "Bedrolls & Bugbears, 4th edition" instead of D&D4E. =)
Let me highlight a few parts of what was just posted.
I'm not sure it would be that hard to do, necessarily. [highlight]But you'd want good legal advice AND you would want a war chest to finance your defense if/when you get sued.[/highlight] The other thing to think about is that while copyright can't protect game rules under current law, WotC's attorneys would argue for a narrow interpretation of "rules," while as the defendant you'd have to argue the "rules" is more broad.
Take monster stats, for example. On the one hand you'd argue that the stats, being necessary to resolve combat with that particular creature in the game, are part of the rules (using that word broadly) and therefore can't be protected by copyright. WotC, on the other hand, would argue that the stats themselves aren't rules and that you can create your own monster stats and still play the game and resolve combat with your custom stats. [highlight]To my knowledge there is no case on point on an issue like this, and WotC would have some pretty good arguments available to them.[/highlight]
Nevertheless, given that game rules are not protectable it stands to reason that there is some ground available to those who want to provide 4e-compatible products without entering into GSL.
It sounds to me like Bedrolls & Bugbears would be an easy way to get sued.
Would I really be able to sell a game that's like 4E D&D, but isn't 4E D&D, and make a worthwhile profit?
Why would someone buy my non-GSL product when they'll be getting tons of "official" material from Wizards and, to a lesser extent, 3pps?
Is it worth the effort to do all this extra work to avoid the GSL, or should I just create GSL material and make some guaranteed cash riding the coattails of the D&D brand?
I can't see a rational person thinking it's worth the risk or the cost of developing something like this. IMHO, it's just not good business sense.
I can't see a rational person thinking it's worth the risk or the cost of developing something like this. IMHO, it's just not good business sense.
I tend to agree with you (see my first post on this thread). Furthermore I think that Wotc/Hasbro is counting on 3PPs to make precisely this same assessment. Where it gets squirrelly is if you get an eccentric with a lot more money then sense that wants to do this "to make a point". Given the nature and known eccentrities of gamers and 3PPs (who often make decisions based on gaming rather than business), I can't rule out somebody trying it just to prove a point. (As foolish as that would be.)
-Polaris
I tend to agree with you (see my first post on this thread). Furthermore I think that Wotc/Hasbro is counting on 3PPs to make precisely this same assessment. Where it gets squirrelly is if you get an eccentric with a lot more money then sense that wants to do this "to make a point". Given the nature and known eccentrities of gamers and 3PPs (who often make decisions based on gaming rather than business), I can't rule out somebody trying it just to prove a point. (As foolish as that would be.)
-Polaris
Well, if that's the case then I say "better him than me."
Personally, I am thinking of starting up another publishing company for myself, but if I do any type of 4E work it will be on a contract basis with somebody else. I'd prefer they take the risk instead of me. I'll just take the cash. 
Well, if that's the case then I say "better him than me."
What's the old joke about the Lieutenant and the Sergeant (charing into the machine gun nest)?
Lieutenant: "Follow me!"
Sergeant: "We'll behind you, SIR!"
mutters so only his men can hear.
Sergeant: .....far behind you, sir......
-Polaris
Assuming you wanted to do that and could afford any potential legal costs, you'd basically have to take a look at the big picture and ask yourself:
Would I really be able to sell a game that's like 4E D&D, but isn't 4E D&D, and make a worthwhile profit? Why would someone buy my non-GSL product when they'll be getting tons of "official" material from Wizards and, to a lesser extent, 3pps?
From what I understand, the point of this is not to make money by the core rules themselves. The point is that supplements for "B&B" would also be compatible with 4E D&D. That means that people can make "B&B" modules and supplements that can sell to both 4E and B&B fans without being subject to the restrictions of the GSL.
The key of this is that someone who makes a B&B supplement doesn't have to worry about having to destroy all his stock in case a term that they used becomes a "defined term" by WotC, or in case WotC simply doesn't like how third party material is going and decides to withdraw the GSL.
There is a risk, but once someone breaks that ground, then it would be open for other people.
From what I understand, the point of this is not to make money by the core rules themselves. The point is that supplements for "B&B" would also be compatible with 4E D&D. That means that people can make "B&B" modules and supplements that can sell to both 4E and B&B fans without being subject to the restrictions of the GSL.
The key of this is that someone who makes a B&B supplement doesn't have to worry about having to destroy all his stock in case a term that they used becomes a "defined term" by WotC, or in case WotC simply doesn't like how third party material is going and decides to withdraw the GSL.
There is a risk, but once someone breaks that ground, then it would be open for other people.
The thing is, B&B would have to be rather unlike D&D to survive in court. Further, B&B stuff could not be marketed as D&D compatible.
Someone who wants to make a D&D supplement that isn't marketed as a D&D supplement and doesn't look like one can already do so. Why would someone have to create a ripoff game to enable this?
The entire purpose of the GSL is to let other people make stuff for D&D *and* market it that way without having to worry about legal issues. I don't see how it would be more profitable for a publisher to *not* market something as compatible and to have to pay a lawyer to look everything over and assess the risk of a lawsuit. The latter does not sound like a winning strategy.
The thing is, B&B would have to be rather unlike D&D to survive in court. Further, B&B stuff could not be marketed as D&D compatible.
Yes and no. There are work arounds (which is why you should have a good lawyer). It's my undertstanding that you could say that it's compatible with the latest edition of the world's most popular roleplaying system. The only requirement that I am aware of is that your product can't be mistaken for the actual DnD product or use the actual DnD trademarks.
Someone who wants to make a D&D supplement that isn't marketed as a D&D supplement and doesn't look like one can already do so. Why would someone have to create a ripoff game to enable this?
Flexibility and control of their own IP and you can market it to DnD as long as you are cagey about it.
The entire purpose of the GSL is to let other people make stuff for D&D *and* market it that way without having to worry about legal issues. I don't see how it would be more profitable for a publisher to *not* market something as compatible and to have to pay a lawyer to look everything over and assess the risk of a lawsuit. The latter does not sound like a winning strategy.
Why? What if you want to make similiar products that work for both 4E and Pathfinder? Under the GSL you can't. Doing it this way, you can. What if you at a later point want to at least consider your own system based on your earlier work? Under the GSL, no-go. This way it's possible.
There is an incentive to go this route. Is it worth the risk? Doubtful IMHO.
-Polaris
Yes and no. There are work arounds (which is why you should have a good lawyer). It's my undertstanding that you could say that it's compatible with the latest edition of the world's most popular roleplaying system. The only requirement that I am aware of is that your product can't be mistaken for the actual DnD product or use the actual DnD trademarks.
The problem with a statement like that is that it implies a relationship to D&D. That implication isn't healthy, because once you seem to be marketing a D&D product, you will be under greater scrutiny and will have to avoid using anything copyrighted.
Flexibility and control of their own IP and you can market it to DnD as long as you are cagey about it.
Yes, you control your own IP and avoid license revocation issues, but you can't use WotC stuff or you'll get sued. Here's the thing: Joe Writer doesn't have valuable IP. He may have cool ideas that mean a lot to him, but nobody knows who he is. The best way to get people to buy his stuff is to make it clearly D&D compatible. Protecting himself from WotC whimsically pulling the GSL sounds smart or noble or whatever at first, but really Joe Writer doesn't have a lot to lose.
D&D sells things, but other names don't. Look how successful Gygax was after D&D. I'm grateful to the guy and saddened by his death, but that doesn't stop me from saying that his work after D&D didn't sell. Look at other big names. "Monte Cook's World of Darkness" features a big name in RPGs, but that hasn't made it very successful. Monte can't sell books like D&D does. Pathfinder is grabbing a bunch of big names and relying on Paizo's fan base plus the disaffected 3.5 die-hard market. But I've read Erik Mona saying the game would be a big success if they sold 20,000 books. That's not a lot of books by D&D standards.
Why? What if you want to make similiar products that work for both 4E and Pathfinder? Under the GSL you can't. Doing it this way, you can. What if you at a later point want to at least consider your own system based on your earlier work? Under the GSL, no-go. This way it's possible.
Yes, doing it this way you can make 4e products that a huge majority of D&D players won't know about and won't recognize as D&D books even if they happen to pick them up off the shelf at the store. You will have to rely on clever marketing that never mentions D&D. You will have to avoid using anything copyrighted. You will have to hire a lawyer. And you still might get sued.
And for what? Access to the Pathfinder market? Honestly, who cares? Pathfinder might be a great game, but it isn't going to sell anywhere near as many copies as D&D. Plus, nothing stops someone from making Pathfinder products under the GSL. They just have to be substantially different from the products said person makes for 4e. If the Pathfinder market turns out to be bigger than even Erik Mona and company expect, then it might be worthwhile to come up with some new ideas for that market. The GSL doesn't prevent this.
There is an incentive to go this route. Is it worth the risk? Doubtful IMHO.
-Polaris
Again, you're ignoring the realities of marketing when you say this. Selling books that can't be advertised as what they are is a bad, bad plan.
But I've read Erik Mona saying the game would be a big success if they sold 20,000 books. That's not a lot of books by D&D standards.
What is a big success for a D&D 3rd party publisher then?
Will any of this nonsense pertain to gamers who do play-by-post, when tabletop is not available?
I would hate to see restrictions place on already alienated gamers.
-RW
What is a big success for a D&D 3rd party publisher then?
Depends. I've seen PDF publishers ecstatic over a couple of hundred purchases... I've also seen trade mags consider 15K a 'runaway success'. For me, though, it would have to be, "Can I feed my wife and kids on this?"...
What is a big success for a D&D 3rd party publisher then?
It really depends on how big the 3PP is. For Paizo, Erik Mona said in the latest Green Ronin Podcast, that any of their books that sells 10K + copies is considered a stunning success by them.
Assuming you wanted to do that and could afford any potential legal costs, you'd basically have to take a look at the big picture and ask yourself:
Would I really be able to sell a game that's like 4E D&D, but isn't 4E D&D, and make a worthwhile profit? Why would someone buy my non-GSL product when they'll be getting tons of "official" material from Wizards and, to a lesser extent, 3pps?
From what I understand, the point of this is not to make money by the core rules themselves. The point is that supplements for "B&B" would also be compatible with 4E D&D. That means that people can make "B&B" modules and supplements that can sell to both 4E and B&B fans without being subject to the restrictions of the GSL.
The key of this is that someone who makes a B&B supplement doesn't have to worry about having to destroy all his stock in case a term that they used becomes a "defined term" by WotC, or in case WotC simply doesn't like how third party material is going and decides to withdraw the GSL.
There is a risk, but once someone breaks that ground, then it would be open for other people.
No, seriously, the point is how much money could you expect to make from doing something like this? Separate the philosophical high ground from the realistic bottom line and I think you will see that the profits from such an endeavor will probably be minimal, if they exist at all. Unless you are independently wealthy, the point of putting out a competing product is ALWAYS to make money.
What is a big success for a D&D 3rd party publisher then?
As others have pointed out, anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand sales is a healthy number for the smaller companies.
Note that I am not trying to disparage or diminish these other games/companies by pointing out that they don't sell a million books. But they just don't grab a huge market share, because they don't have the D&D name.
That's why I think it's silly to point out that writing "The Complete Bard" for 4e means you can't do it for Pathfinder or whatever. Let's be honest- D&D is going to sell more books. If you want to get into the smaller markets too, you have to write something totally different. Does that take away a few sales? Sure, it probably does. But hey, the GSL is a royalty-free license with no fees of any kind. In exchange for that, WotC asks for product-line exclusivity. It's a price, but it isn't one that makes it tough for new game designers to jump into the market and start selling some 4e PDFs.
Here's the thing: Joe Writer doesn't have valuable IP. He may have cool ideas that mean a lot to him, but nobody knows who he is. The best way to get people to buy his stuff is to make it clearly D&D compatible. Protecting himself from WotC whimsically pulling the GSL sounds smart or noble or whatever at first, but really Joe Writer doesn't have a lot to lose.
D&D sells things, but other names don't. Look how successful Gygax was after D&D. I'm grateful to the guy and saddened by his death, but that doesn't stop me from saying that his work after D&D didn't sell.
Bringing up Gary Gygax is pointless, because no one gets to be Gary Gygax. Publishing some no-name home-made D&D module with the generic GSL logo isn't going to bring in the big bucks, and it's misleading to imply that. Yes, WotC will make big money with the D&D4 core rulebooks. However, this does not mean that Joe Writer will get rich just from having the GSL-allowed logo on the back cover, especially since that logo has no implication of quality.
In the years following 3rd edition, many people tried making their own lines of modules for D&D. The question is, were these more successful than the pure OGL efforts which had no D20 logo like Castles & Crusades, Mutants & Masterminds, Conan, and True20? I don't think the answer to that is very clear. It seems to me that the pure OGL efforts were just as successful as any D20 offerings, even though they couldn't indicate compatibility.
No, seriously, the point is how much money could you expect to make from doing something like this? Separate the philosophical high ground from the realistic bottom line and I think you will see that the profits from such an endeavor will probably be minimal, if they exist at all. Unless you are independently wealthy, the point of putting out a competing product is ALWAYS to make money.
If you want to make good money, here's my advice: Don't publish role-playing game books!! No one gets rich through this. The small money one makes can help with motivation, though, I'll admit.
I would ask you in return, though -- how much money could you expect to make from writing a third-party module that conforms to the GSL?
Bringing up Gary Gygax is pointless, because no one gets to be Gary Gygax. Publishing some no-name home-made D&D module with the generic GSL logo isn't going to bring in the big bucks, and it's misleading to imply that. Yes, WotC will make big money with the D&D4 core rulebooks. However, this does not mean that Joe Writer will get rich just from having the GSL-allowed logo on the back cover, especially since that logo has no implication of quality.
I mentioned Gygax because he didn't get anywhere with his post-D&D games. That's the point. Some people liked the games a lot, but they didn't take off like D&D did. What can we learn from this?
I am not saying that Joe Writer will be rich just because he has the compatibility logo. But it gives him some chance to cash in on the popularity of D&D. Now what if Joe Writer's module doesn't have the D&D logo, isn't shelved with D&D products in stores, isn't categorized as a D&D product on websites, and doesn't contain any 4e IP? Oh yeah, and Joe had to pay a lawyer *before* he published his stuff, because he had to find out what he could get away with. That sounds like a terrible situation and a real hardship for aspiring game designers.
So the GSL won't make Joe rich, but it might give him a chance to sell a few dozen or even a few hundred PDFs of that campaign setting or module he wrote. That's a whole lot better than paying a lawyer and filing your stuff in the "other RPGs" section.
In the years following 3rd edition, many people tried making their own lines of modules for D&D. The question is, were these more successful than the pure OGL efforts which had no D20 logo like Castles & Crusades, Mutants & Masterminds, Conan, and True20? I don't think the answer to that is very clear. It seems to me that the pure OGL efforts were just as successful as any D20 offerings, even though they couldn't indicate compatibility.
That's a different issue. My point was that writing for 4e but not saying you are anywhere on the product is a bad plan. I'm sure there is some cool stuff out there for Conan and so on, but that doesn't really relate.
As others have pointed out, anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand sales is a healthy number for the smaller companies.
Note that I am not trying to disparage or diminish these other games/companies by pointing out that they don't sell a million books. But they just don't grab a huge market share, because they don't have the D&D name.
I just find it odd that you were using the 20,000 number and saying that was low for D&D, when I didn't think most D&D 3rd parties would not call that a success. WotC wouldn't, but they are much larger than the 3rd parties. I don't think using the GSL over the OGL will change the totals required by success that much on average.
On selling more with Pathfinder vs. 4e. I would say it depends on your fan base somewhat. I don't think going with GSL will guarentee more sales in all cases (most cases, maybe). I think the bulk of people buying from existing 3rd parties will still be the current fans of that 3rd party and not new 4e players.
I think the GSL will work out for some companies (or product lines) and not others. My main critisism of the GSL ends up being that there is no protection for the 3rd parties in it (sell off dates and such). That, to me, merely modifies the value of the GSL to companies and does not make it completely worthless. I think that this drop in value will cause *some* products to have better alternative options.
I just find it odd that you were using the 20,000 number and saying that was low for D&D, when I didn't think most D&D 3rd parties would not call that a success. WotC wouldn't, but they are much larger than the 3rd parties. I don't think using the GSL over the OGL will change the totals required by success that much on average.
I'm not sure what the preceding paragraph is saying. What do you think I was communicating and what exactly is your response?
On selling more with Pathfinder vs. 4e. I would say it depends on your fan base somewhat. I don't think going with GSL will guarentee more sales in all cases (most cases, maybe). I think the bulk of people buying from existing 3rd parties will still be the current fans of that 3rd party and not new 4e players.
I see what you're saying here. Let's say X people will play Pathfinder and 50X people will play 4e. On the surface, it would be dumb to pick Pathfinder. However, let's say a company's biggest fans are all into Pathfinder. In that case, the company would be stupid to pick 4e. Who cares about all those 4e fans when your dedicated fanbase, the people who know about you, trust you, and buy your stuff, aren't playing 4e. Makes sense.
But really, the GSL doesn't force anyone to make an absolute choice. All it says is that a product cannot be published under both licenses. A campaign setting for 4e can't be converted to Pathfinder in a year, unless it does so without using the OGL. A module written for 4e can't be converted to True20. But a company can write modules for both games. Just not the same one!
This actually isn't too weird in business. You can't go to a restaurant and find both Coke and Pepsi, for example. A lot of companies want exclusive agreements.
I think the GSL will work out for some companies (or product lines) and not others. My main critisism of the GSL ends up being that there is no protection for the 3rd parties in it (sell off dates and such). That, to me, merely modifies the value of the GSL to companies and does not make it completely worthless. I think that this drop in value will cause *some* products to have better alternative options.
Oh, I absolutely don't think that every company should make 4e products. Some will focus elsewhere and achieve their goals. My argument was that anyone who is planning on writing for 4e would do far better with the GSL than without. For people just starting out, the GSL is great, because it allows them to publish something using WotC IP without the start-up costs of a conventional license.
I'm not sure what the preceding paragraph is saying. What do you think I was communicating and what exactly is your response?
It seemed as if you were saying that 3rd party companies using the GSL would find 20,000 sales to be low (Although reading this post does show that it wasn't what you were saying). I was trying to say that the GSL isn't going to make that much of a difference.
I don't really communicated clearly.
--
I would really argue against an exclusive agreement (although, again, I think it would lower it's overall value) as it is relatively common and I think it is understandable.
Although I would say that if Coke said that if a restaurant every sold Coke that it could never sell Pepsi (even if the restaurant can no longer sell Coke), that would be a bit excessive.
The definition of product line would be helpful here I think. Like, if a company wants to produce produce separate 3e and 4e adventures would they be considered the same product line because they were both RPG adventures in a fantasy setting (even if they were different adventures). Not a problem for me, but I think it might be for people considering supporting both.
I would type more agreeing with some of your other points, however I want to make sure I get this in before the daily maintenance.
It seemed as if you were saying that 3rd party companies using the GSL would find 20,000 sales to be low (Although reading this post does show that it wasn't what you were saying). I was trying to say that the GSL isn't going to make that much of a difference.
I don't really communicated clearly.
Oh I see. No, I'm not that crazy
My point was that OGL-based systems aren't even selling 20,000 copies. That makes the customer base pretty small for a lot of companies. However, a small but dedicated customer base can be a great thing. But no, I wouldn't expect some random GSL publisher to sell 20,000+ copies of a book just because of the GSL. That would be pretty nuts. Also, I would not be posting here, since it would be getting in the way of my GSL profits.I would really argue against an exclusive agreement (although, again, I think it would lower it's overall value) as it is relatively common and I think it is understandable.
Although I would say that if Coke said that if a restaurant every sold Coke that it could never sell Pepsi (even if the restaurant can no longer sell Coke), that would be a bit excessive.
The definition of product line would be helpful here I think. Like, if a company wants to produce produce separate 3e and 4e adventures would they be considered the same product line because they were both RPG adventures in a fantasy setting (even if they were different adventures). Not a problem for me, but I think it might be for people considering supporting both.
I would type more agreeing with some of your other points, however I want to make sure I get this in before the daily maintenance.
I think the idea that all FRPG adventures constitute a product line is pretty unlikely. I would like some clarification on a few points from the people in charge, but I guess official answers take time. Still, I think the reasonable assumption is that things like "Conan stuff" or "True20 stuff" or "Greyhawk stuff" constitute a product line. Time will tell. I hope not much time.
I think the idea that all FRPG adventures constitute a product line is pretty unlikely. I would like some clarification on a few points from the people in charge, but I guess official answers take time. Still, I think the reasonable assumption is that things like "Conan stuff" or "True20 stuff" or "Greyhawk stuff" constitute a product line. Time will tell. I hope not much time.
My most significant worry right now is that WotC will let the company know after they are well into working on those projects.
It is unlikely, but I not confident in how well WotC communicates things currently.
I mentioned Gygax because he didn't get anywhere with his post-D&D games. That's the point. Some people liked the games a lot, but they didn't take off like D&D did. What can we learn from this?
I am not saying that Joe Writer will be rich just because he has the compatibility logo. But it gives him some chance to cash in on the popularity of D&D. Now what if Joe Writer's module doesn't have the D&D logo, isn't shelved with D&D products in stores, isn't categorized as a D&D product on websites, and doesn't contain any 4e IP? Oh yeah, and Joe had to pay a lawyer *before* he published his stuff, because he had to find out what he could get away with. That sounds like a terrible situation and a real hardship for aspiring game designers.
So the GSL won't make Joe rich, but it might give him a chance to sell a few dozen or even a few hundred PDFs of that campaign setting or module he wrote. That's a whole lot better than paying a lawyer and filing your stuff in the "other RPGs" section.
That's a different issue. My point was that writing for 4e but not saying you are anywhere on the product is a bad plan. I'm sure there is some cool stuff out there for Conan and so on, but that doesn't really relate.
I think the idea though is that someone or some group writes up a "4e but not technically" SRD and OGLs it (what we've been referring to as "B&B").
The release of "B&B" is not necessarily ever sold or published in print, but it's existence as an OGL (or non-OGL but similar license) SRD allows compatible products to be produced which are then effectively compatible with 4e.
Given the nature of 4e rules there is potential to have the "B&B" SRD be essentially a framework, lacking entirely "real" examples of character classes or monsters, but rather simply rules by which such things exist, which should reduce the profile of potentially infringing material in the first place.
The result is an electronic document being produced (likely with more legal assistance that is reasonable, but still) that is never sold but allows 3PP to produce 4e compatible modules while avoiding the GSL, losing only the ability to stick the logo in the lower quarter of the back cover.
Or else you did what people who could handle the OGL but not the D20 STL did in the past and say it's for "the fourth edition of a popular fantasy role playing game".
If you want to make good money, here's my advice: Don't publish role-playing game books!! No one gets rich through this. The small money one makes can help with motivation, though, I'll admit.
LOL, that's very true. For whatever reason it reminds me of this:
I would ask you in return, though -- how much money could you expect to make from writing a third-party module that conforms to the GSL?
I can't answer that. However, I think a more accurate question is: How much more money could you expect to make writing a 3rd-party module that conforms to the GSL versus one that does not conform?
That's a different issue. My point was that writing for 4e but not saying you are anywhere on the product is a bad plan. I'm sure there is some cool stuff out there for Conan and so on, but that doesn't really relate.
I think that D20 / OGL publishing is quite relevant. Some products had the official mark of compatibility by having the D20 logo and could use the specified compatibility phrase; while others didn't. As far as I saw, products without the official mark (like Hackmaster, Castles & Crusades, and Conan) were just as successful as others.
People didn't attach to the D20 logo -- which is unsurprising since it isn't a mark of quality at all. Anyone can use it. And the same is true of the GSL logo.
I would ask you in return, though -- how much money could you expect to make from writing a third-party module that conforms to the GSL?
I can't answer that. However, I think a more accurate question is: How much more money could you expect to make writing a 3rd-party module that conforms to the GSL versus one that does not conform?
The modules would be indistinguishable from the front cover and the spine, since the GSL logo can only be put on the back cover. So I don't think that the GSL logo itself will make much of a difference at all. And since the GSL doesn't let you reprint stat blocks or similar, I don't think it will make much difference.
Well, consider, it only shows up as a small image on your BACK cover, and you're not allowed to reference it or 4E in any other way.
How is it going to be a selling point on a shelf?
How much money would the GSL logo get your product?
Well, consider, it only shows up as a small image on your BACK cover, and you're not allowed to reference it or 4E in any other way.
How is it going to be a selling point on a shelf?
You're dealing with a niche market of people who tend to be savvy about their hobby. I suspect the vast majority of the target market are going to know where to look for the logo if that's what they're interested in purchasing.
You're dealing with a niche market of people who tend to be savvy about their hobby. I suspect the vast majority of the target market are going to know where to look for the logo if that's what they're interested in purchasing.
And, more than likely, they already know about the product before they even see the physical book. I seriously doubt they'll be looking at the back cover for THIS d20 logo any more than they did for the previous one.
And, more than likely, they already know about the product before they even see the physical book. I seriously doubt they'll be looking at the back cover for THIS d20 logo any more than they did for the previous one.
That's probably true. But they'll also know whether it's under GSL or not. For some people that may be important. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if the product is GSL or not. But for many people playing 4E it may be important. Time will tell.
I think that D20 / OGL publishing is quite relevant. Some products had the official mark of compatibility by having the D20 logo and could use the specified compatibility phrase; while others didn't. As far as I saw, products without the official mark (like Hackmaster, Castles & Crusades, and Conan) were just as successful as others.
Do the products without the official mark say what game system they are for? If so, we're not talking about the same thing. My point was that making products for D&D and not being able to say they are for D&D will hurt sales. That isn't the same as saying non-D&D products don't sell.
Do the products without the official mark say what game system they are for? If so, we're not talking about the same thing. My point was that making products for D&D and not being able to say they are for D&D will hurt sales. That isn't the same as saying non-D&D products don't sell.
Well, if we're deliberately ignoring the logo used -- then how do you draw the line between D&D and not-D&D? Iron Heroes, say, technically stayed within the D20 trademark license and was thus able to say "Requires the D&D Player's Handbook" on the back. However, it is effectively a replacement for the PHB and was marketed as such, and it changes a lot of the D&D concepts. My rough impression is that Conan was no more or less different than Iron Heroes from standard D&D, yet it did not use the D20 logo.
So here's how I see the relevant question: I've got a bunch of cool ideas for fantasy gaming that line up with D&D. I want to turn this into a small business. How do I approach publishing my material? I'm not ideologically locked into any particular scheme, but I am interested in reaching as many readers and/or making as much money as possible. What do I do?
If this was a year ago, I would have said that it wasn't important whether you used the D20 logo or not. If you didn't want any character creation material anyway, though, then it wouldn't hurt to publish under the D20STL. Today there is the additional choice of publishing under the GSL. That has some major restrictions, like not having any website support for your product, not redefining anything, and potentially having to rewrite or scrap your books if a change comes out. I would say it is a tricky decision.
If you want to make good money, here's my advice: Don't publish role-playing game books!! No one gets rich through this. The small money one makes can help with motivation, though, I'll admit.
I disagree. I don't think Arneston or Gygax are/were exactly poor.
If you want to make good money reliably, doing something creative isn't the way to go, as you either have to be very good (Garfield) or very lucky (Rawling) to make money at it.
I mentioned Gygax because he didn't get anywhere with his post-D&D games. That's the point. Some people liked the games a lot, but they didn't take off like D&D did. What can we learn from this?
That Gygax wasn't a very good game designer, and got lucky with D&D (or perhaps, lucky that Arneston was around).
Is there anything in this post, posted by the individual heralded by Polaris as the local authority on IP law, that suggests it is a wise business maneuver to attempt to publish 4E supplements without agreeing to the GSL? It may just be that legalese is not my first language, but it appears that they merely suggests it may be possible to do so with very careful syntax.
I would say its unwise even with an IP lawyers advice
The first product Wizard of the Coast ever produced was something called The Primal Order.
It was kinda of a "capsystem" that provided mostly very interesting fluff stuff about religion and deities to be used in any number of games systems.(They are very good books and I suggest you buy them if you can find them).
However they made the mistake of referencing one of Palladium games in the book as one of the systems that Primal Order could be used with. Palladium promptly sued and Wizards was almost wiped out (the case was eventually settled).
http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml
Peter Adkison consulted a IP lawyer before releasing Primal Order and still got hit by a lawsuit that almost destoryed his company.
In short dont attempt to do such a thing unless you have piles of cash to spend on legal fees....
In fact, I expect to get a letter from Kev's lawyers any minute now.
However they made the mistake of referencing one of Palladium games in the book as one of the systems that Primal Order could be used with. Palladium promptly sued and Wizards was almost wiped out (the case was eventually settled).
.
If you want to publish 4e D&D material, you must use the GSL. If you don't want to use the GSL, you don't publish 4e D&D material. It's that simple.
The part I find amusing is that anyone that tries to get around the rules eliminates any customers they might otherwise have by following the rules.
You see, you can't claim your product is compatable with D&D 4e without the GSL. That's why the GSL exists. That shuts the door on a lot of potential customers.
If you somehow manage to release 4e material under the OGL, people will see that it's OGL and those that know about OGL will think OGL= 3e, this product is not for me. People new to the hobby will not have a clue and skip it.
So, no 4e fan would want your product.
But what about the 3e fans? You're releasing under OGL, surely they would want your stuff.
Not really. If 3e people not switching to 4e wanted to play 4e, or play something that looks like 4e, they would just play 4e. The point of holding on to the OGL is to continue on with 3e, not play a clone of 4e.
Now no 3e fan would want your product.
;)
If you want to publish 4e D&D material, you must use the GSL. If you don't want to use the GSL, you don't publish 4e D&D material. It's that simple.
Wrong.
If you want to publish 4e D&D material, you must use the GSL. If you don't want to use the GSL, you don't publish 4e D&D material. It's that simple.
And you're factually incorrect. If I wanted to put out a '4E Orc Compendium' without the GSL, I could. Now, it would in no way be official, and I best not use any copyrighted or trademarked material - but that's a lot easier to get around than you think. It's perfectly legal to do this.
But just because it's perfectly legal does not mean that WotC couldn't turn around and sue - not to win in court - but to make it so expensive in legal fees that doing the above would be a net financial loss. This is a well known abuse of civil law in the US, where a relatively rich 'company' will exert control and influence by launching suits in order to force compliance - even though they know full well that a judge or arbitrator would find against them.
And you're factually incorrect. If I wanted to put out a '4E Orc Compendium' without the GSL, I could. Now, it would in no way be official, and I best not use any copyrighted or trademarked material - but that's a lot easier to get around than you think. It's perfectly legal to do this.
But just because it's perfectly legal does not mean that WotC couldn't turn around and sue - not to win in court - but to make it so expensive in legal fees that doing the above would be a net financial loss. This is a well known abuse of civil law in the US, where a relatively rich 'company' will exert control and influence by launching suits in order to force compliance - even though they know full well that a judge or arbitrator would find against them.
It should also be noted that people have already published 4E material without using the GSL. Not only that, had they published such material under the GSL they would have been in violation of the terms.
I am of course referring to the various free "intro" adventures that people made up during the preview period, and which are still floating around out there. All of them were done without the GSL. And while they are all free, they include standard monster stat blocks, which is a violation of the GSL.
As you note of course, that is no guarantee that WotC will ignore someone in the future, particularly in a non-promotional product.
If you want to publish 4e D&D material, you must use the GSL. If you don't want to use the GSL, you don't publish 4e D&D material. It's that simple.
This is a false statement, as any IP lawyer could tell you. It's never that simple. There is some room under U.S. law to put out 4E compatible materials without being part of GSL. The question is whether anyone want's to take on Hasbro in court to find out exactly how much room there is.
TSR was running high on AD&D2
White Wolf was full of historical obsessives playing Ars Magica (It's not a game, it's a way of life) and the idea of luring in goth chicks for hot goth lovvin with Anne Rice the RPG was just a half-formed idea
Games workshop still sold D&D on a little rack at the back of the shop
the Web existed purely for Computer Studies students to exchange Kirk/Spock stories
Now, in responce to the growing body of fan created material, TSR had possibly one of the most draconian policies EVEr - you stick your character sheet online, their lawyers write to you. up goes your in-house totally unbalanced character class - out come the lawyers. stick your own setting on usenet, the lawyers try to get the whole server shut down
Yet, Mayfare games managed to publish a series of books with 3rd party material in them - one of magic items, a couple of classes, and one of spells (i think). They did it by publishing them stripped down to a point where no IP was used, but every gamer going knew exactly what you meant.
People could conceivably create 4e stuff without subscribing to GSL.
Yes, but only a 'tard would do this. It's like using flaming skates to do figure 8's on thin ice.
Yes, but only a 'tard would do this. It's like using flaming skates to do figure 8's on thin ice.
This is also false.
This is also false.
Say that all you want, only a retard would purposely go outside the rules to create something for D&D.
Say that all you want, only a retard would purposely go outside the rules to create something for D&D.
You are wrong. If you don't take the word of an actual IP lawyer (Steerpike7 is one) then I can't help you much. The fact is though that the "rules" as you phrase them are not defined by the GSL unless you want them to be (i.e. make that contract). Otherwise the rules are defined by current IP law and making 4E stuff without the GSL is not against the 'rules'.
-Polaris
You are wrong. If you don't take the word of an actual IP lawyer (Steerpike7 is one) then I can't help you much. The fact is though that the "rules" as you phrase them are not defined by the GSL unless you want them to be (i.e. make that contract). Otherwise the rules are defined by current IP law and making 4E stuff without the GSL is not against the 'rules'.
-Polaris
Keep thinking this way, please. It makes me laugh.
No takers on my other points that there are no customers for non-GSL 4e material?
How about "facts not in evidence"? The last time (back in the 1990s) when it was TSR, there was a significant market for ADnD compatible material that was published "under copyright" rather than via licensing agreements.
Aderkrag,
Or you'll do what? Send me to bed without supper? Please. The only rules that apply are IP rules (Trademark and copyright law). The GSL doesn't enter into this unless and until you agree to it. That said, I am very concerned about the chilling effect and apparent litigous tone that Wotc is taking, but by itself doesn't change the 'rules'. You can not copyright game mechanics. Period.
-Polaris
How about "facts not in evidence"? The last time (back in the 1990s) when it was TSR, there was a significant market for ADnD compatible material that was published "under copyright" rather than via licensing agreements.
-Polaris
Fact submitted as evidence-
Exhibit A: There are strong 3e supporters who have rather publicly stated, (and loudly) they will NOT buy 4e. Not now, not ever. Thus, making 4e material even under OGL is of no value to them. If they wanted to play 4e, they would.
Exhibit B: The Dungeons & Dragons name is protected under trademark law, so one can't sell product using the trademark name without permission. (Which the GSL provides.) 4e players aren't looking for OGL material, and seeing OGL will put 3e in their minds, which they are not playing. So a generic "wink wink" description of what the product is doesn't sell as much product as having the Official name on it would.
;)
Fact submitted as evidence-
Exhibit A: There are strong 3e supporters who have rather publicly stated, (and loudly) they will NOT buy 4e. Not now, not ever. Thus, making 4e material even under OGL is of no value to them. If they wanted to play 4e, they would.
This amounts to unsubstianted opinion. Given the brisk early sales of 4E core books, there would seem to be a number of people who are at least trying out the new system. Also you completely neglect the smaller size of 3PPs. That small size means they can make sustainable profits from print runs that would be ruinous for larger companies (like Wotc/Hasbro).
You are making the mistake that such companies have to pick between marketing to 3e and 4e customers. Unless they sign the GSL, they can market to both.
Exhibit B: The Dungeons & Dragons name is protected under trademark law, so one can't sell product using the trademark name without permission. (Which the GSL provides.) 4e players aren't looking for OGL material, and seeing OGL will put 3e in their minds, which they are not playing. So a generic "wink wink" description of what the product is doesn't sell as much product as having the Official name on it would.
;)
That isn't true either. You weren't allowed to directly refer to Dungeons and Dragons under the OGL either, but companies got plenty of traction refering to the "The latest edition of the leading RPG" or disclaimers like it. The gaming market is savvy enough that you can market 4e compatibility successfully without violating trademark.
-Polaris
This amounts to unsubstianted opinion. Given the brisk early sales of 4E core books, there would seem to be a number of people who are at least trying out the new system. Also you completely neglect the smaller size of 3PPs. That small size means they can make sustainable profits from print runs that would be ruinous for larger companies (like Wotc/Hasbro).
You are making the mistake that such companies have to pick between marketing to 3e and 4e customers. Unless they sign the GSL, they can market to both.
So... all those people that said they're not going to play 4e really are? If I'm wrong on the point, then I'm wrong. But when people are saying they're not going to buy 4e, it's not "my" opinion that they would not buy made for 4e material. It's like saying I'm not going to buy a Mac computer, but I'm going to go out and buy Mac software. It makes no sense.
That isn't true either. You weren't allowed to directly refer to Dungeons and Dragons under the OGL either, but companies got plenty of traction refering to the "The latest edition of the leading RPG" or disclaimers like it. The gaming market is savvy enough that you can market 4e compatibility successfully without violating trademark.
-Polaris
Excellent point but I base my statement on the fact that 4e, as has been pointed out by lots of folks around here, that 4e is made for "new" players who are not gaming market savvy. So, either I'm wrong or all the people saying WotC is getting rid of all the older players in favor of getting new players is wrong. (My belief is WotC wants to keep older gamers and have them come over to 4e, as well as push for new players.)
Polaris is right here. If I make, say, the 'Orcs of Darkglade', and put it out as a '4E product' AS WELL AS A '3E product' ... even in the same book, there's nothing that WotC can lay a claim on. There, I now have all those who WON'T go to 4E, and all those who WILL satisfied in one product. Spiffy how that works.
Unless, of course, I'm stupid enough to use WotC's trademarks and IP (of which game mechanics are not included). But, if I do that, I could have made the product to be GURPS compatible and still incur WotC's justifiable wrath.
But, if I use the GSL, I don't get the above option, AND WotC gets to control my IP for me... in exchange for not really being able to advertise that I'm 4E compliant anyway.
Odd.
You're trying to argue 'if it's not red, it's blue', which isn't going to fly.
No, I'm saying if it's not red, people who want red won't get it. Or, if it IS blue, people who hate blue won't get it.
If I make, say, the 'Orcs of Darkglade', and put it out as a '4E product' AS WELL AS A '3E product' ... even in the same book, there's nothing that WotC can lay a claim on. There, I now have all those who WON'T go to 4E, and all those who WILL satisfied in one product. Spiffy how that works.
Amd new people to D&D will not see the D&D trademarked name. If they do look at your product, they'll see the 3e rules, get confused and assume you don't know the rules.
Plus, there are folks who won't touch anything having to do with 4e. "I should get this half price! I don't use 4e!" they'll say, assuming they want to go near it in the first place.
so, at the moment, it's an entierly hypothetical argument
No takers on my other points that there are no customers for non-GSL 4e material?
People who play D&D are pretty sophisticated about their hobby. If you're putting out good 4E material outside of GSL, then the market is going to be more or less the same as for any 3PP.
You are wrong. If you don't take the word of an actual IP lawyer (Steerpike7 is one) then I can't help you much. The fact is though that the "rules" as you phrase them are not defined by the GSL unless you want them to be (i.e. make that contract). Otherwise the rules are defined by current IP law and making 4E stuff without the GSL is not against the 'rules'.
-Polaris
Why are you arguing with someone who thinks anyone who doesn't see things his way is a retard. If you want to have a reasonable discussion you're clearly talking to the wrong person.
Amd new people to D&D will not see the D&D trademarked name. If they do look at your product, they'll see the 3e rules, get confused and assume you don't know the rules.
Plus, there are folks who won't touch anything having to do with 4e. "I should get this half price! I don't use 4e!" they'll say, assuming they want to go near it in the first place.
None of this is very likely. The market for D&D products aren't ignorant of what is going on in their hobby, by and large. People won't be confused.
The second point about half-price makes no sense whatsoever.
No takers on my other points that there are no customers for non-GSL 4e material?
I'll lay it to bed for you. I would buy non-GSL 4e material if it was quality work.
There - now you can't say there are "no customer" for that sort of thing. ;)
Just saying,
Malkav
reference:
Adamant's start of the Venture 4th line
Goodman's upcoming "Ruleset: 4E" modules
BlackZero
Doesn't Adamant and GHoodman games have 4e "compatable" modules and tools coming out that are NOT gsl?
I don't know about Goodman - I've read (rumors) that they negotiated a separate license, which is possible. I doubt that's the case with Adamant, though, so it seems like that will be non-GSL. No way to know for certain until the product actually comes out I suppose.
WOTC's hammer is NOT the GSL it is litigation backed by deeper pockets than the offenders.
GSL is WOTC's anvil. Remember 1993WL79272?
The only thing TSR won was the contract violations not the IP violations.
Why do you think that folded the OGL into the D20 trademark licince?
To have a legally binding contract they can successfullysue you over there needs to be consideration, in OGL that was the right to use the SRD text, but they didn't like people just prettying that up into a pretty PDF and selling it so they removed that, now they had no consideration. So now you agree to jump through all WOTC's hoops and all you get in return is the right to use their pretty graphic.
GSL is WOTC's anvil. Remember 1993WL79272?
The only thing TSR won was the contract violations not the IP violations.
Why do you think that folded the OGL into the D20 trademark licince?
To have a legally binding contract they can successfullysue you over there needs to be consideration, in OGL that was the right to use the SRD text, but they didn't like people just prettying that up into a pretty PDF and selling it so they removed that, now they had no consideration. So now you agree to jump through all WOTC's hoops and all you get in return is the right to use their pretty graphic.
I disagree. Reading the GSL I was struck more than a few times with the idea that here was an explanation of just what is and is not acceptable to do with 4ed. IP. I got the idea that what was being protected firstly was branding so 3pps don't go out and make 4ed. Lite. I have personally been witness to what happens when you sell NFL or Disney related products without permission. Trust me it makes the GSL look like opening the candy store to a sugar junkie. It's thier IP and they can decide who gets to sell it, change it, or add to it. What GSL does is give you guidelines for adding to it. I'm not a lawyer but I believe the consideration you mention is more than a logo, its just less than many liked from years of the OGL.
No license. I can make my own football team, but it'll likely have rules like the Canadian Football League.
In OGL I could make my own football team. I cannot say it's an 'NFL' team.
In STL I could make my own NFL football team. I couldn't customize the rules that much, and my players must be wearing clothes.
In GSL I can make my own NFL football team if I promise to never play football again, even if the NFL folds, agree to fold my team if the NFL is 'offended in any way' based on their terms, make absoultely sure that my baseball and soccer teams in no way look like my football team (lest I lose them), all for the priveledge of being able to have the NFL logo displayed once every halftime show, in the corner.
At some point, you're going to say 'screw it, I'm just making my own football team'.