http://www.enworld.org/showthread.ph...5&page=4&pp=15
His posts cross a good 3 pages from what I've seen so far.
I am curious to see what Goodman has to say now.
I am a big fan of 3rd party AND 1st party adventures. What I hated most was buying an adventure that had nothing but page references. Sadly, if this is all they will allow...I may now be out of the 3rd party market.
Seeing how slow WotC has always been to produce material, it means I may also be out of the 1st party market.
As much as I was geared for 4E, I'm starting to question my choice.
http://wolfgangbaur.com/blogs/open_design/archive/2008/06/17/the-gsl-is-here.aspx
The GSL is Here
And at first glance, the GSL is absolutely terrible for Kobold Quarterly. I'm not sure it will matter much for Open Design, as the Wrath of the River King will be in a separate product line.
I was hoping for better. Bah.
And these were two companies hoping to support fourth edition....
The biggest thing that convinced me to give fourth a try was Necromancer getting on board...I love their stuff. I really hope this doesn't send them running... But if they stick with 3.5...so might I.
Given my role in the OGL and the d20 STL and now the GSL, I have sort of a long standing tradition of publically discussing and dissecting the relevant licenses. So as a result, I talk about them alot. Some care what I have to say, some dont. And that is fine. But please dont confuse my comment and commentary on the license with a rejection of the license. I think there are things that could have been done better. I have some questions that need answers. I am making my business decision like all the other publishers. I am just talking about it. Some take that as criticism. Or that I dont like the license. Or that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Not true. I am glad to have a license for 4E. I am very thankful for the hard work that Scott and Linae (both of whom I have incredible respect for) put into just getting this thing live. But I'm a lawyer. And I run a game company. So digging into the license in a legal way and in a way that impacts my business is just what I do. So please dont take my comments as displeasure. Do I have my moments of frustration? Sure I do, I'm human like everyone else. But that is just Clark reacting, not Necro rejecting.
So here is the text of a post from ENWorld. I hope it clears up where Necro is.
Necro still in for 4E!
There seems to be some confusion about Necromancer Games' plan to support 4E, so I am here to clear that all up.
Necro will be supporting 4E.
Though we still have a few questions to clear up before we can fully go forward, we anticipate resolving those issues shortly.
Anticipated products:
The Advanced Player's Guide--a source book with alternate classes based on the classic druid, bard, barbarian, monk, as well as classic versions of the halfling, gnome, and other optional rules such as 0-level adventuring, new spells, etc. Written By Ari Marmel.
The Iron Tower Adventure Path--a series of adventure products and campaign supplements for your 4E campaign.
Winter's Tomb--a free, downloadable pdf to get you up and playing 4E right away. A lead in to the Iron Tower Adventure Path or a standalone adventure for your use. Contains pregenerated characters and a ready to play format similar to or Ennie-award winning Wizard's Amulet. Start 4E the way you started 3E--with a free adventure from Necromancer Games.
The Folio of Fiends--a monster book by Scott Greene of Tome of Horrors fame. Contains new monsters for your use in 4E play!
Other adventures and products are in the works and will be announced soon.
Products that were anticipated that will NOT be making a 4E appearance: (1) due to provisions in the GSL, the Tome of Horrors product line will not be converted to 4E. Instead, look for a Revised Tome of Horrors for Pathfinder; and (2) Judges Guild's Tegel Manor, which was planned as a 4E product, is on hold until certain issues regarding licensing and the GSL and its impact on the licensor's ability to use that content in the future are resolved.
We are looking forward to supporting 4E with the same quality adventures and products with First Edition Feel that we delivered for 3E.
So let it be known: Necro is 4E.
Clark
The Folio of Fiends--a monster book by Scott Greene of Tome of Horrors fame. Contains new monsters for your use in 4E play!
Ooh, that's what I'm looking forward to.
I was worried when you said no Tome of Horrors originally.
The Advanced Player's Guide -- a source book with alternate classes based on the classic druid, bard, barbarian, monk, as well as classic versions of the halfling, gnome, and other optional rules such as 0-level adventuring, new spells, etc. Written By Ari Marmel.
I'm definitely looking forward to this one! :D You print it and I will buy it, Clark.
The Advanced Player's Guide--a source book with alternate classes based on the classic druid, bard, barbarian, monk, as well as classic versions of the halfling, gnome, and other optional rules such as 0-level adventuring, new spells, etc. Written By Ari Marmel.
I'm amazed this is legal. Isn't this going to "redefine" the halfling (and when they're released later: druid, bard and barbarian)?
Can someone here with experience with third party products comment on how balanced using this book would be? For example could I have a party with a Necromancer Druid in the same party with a WotC Wizard, WotC Fighter and a WotC Cleric and it still be a well balanced party? Another example, could I have a halfling with a mix of Necromancer and WotC powers and have it still be a balanced creature?
I doubt I'll buy the Advanced Player's Guide (with PHB 2 looking to include much of these races and classes (monk is the only looking to be excluded) I'll probably just wait for that), but I'd definitely like to have it as a possible resource for my players if they desire.
Now if Necromancer were to include a book (or a group of books) based on underwater adventures (classes, races, monsters, items) I'd definitely pick that up.
Ooh, that's what I'm looking forward to.
I was worried when you said no Tome of Horrors originally.
But it will NOT and CANNOT contain any of the content from the Tome of Horrors, unfortunately. So please understand this is not just a "change the name and its all good" trick. That doesnt work under the GSL.
Per the GSL, if you update a product to the GSL, you can do that by product line, by title, or by content (they dont say how much content qualifies, but it is in their discretion to determine) in so doing you make a "converted product" which then means you can no longer sell the old OGL version of the same work. So I cant just rename the ToH to Folio of Fiends and include the old ToH content. No go. Because I dont want to lose the right forever to use and sell the ToH content under the OGL, I cant update it to the GSL.
Which is wierd. You'd think they would want me to convert that. Thats what they say. But the license doesnt deliver on that.
Frankly, I'd probably be ok with not sellign it as an OGL product. But the GSL has an unexpected extra kicker--you cant EVER sell it as an OGL product again, even after they terminate the GSL. That means if they terminate the OGL after a couple years, I cant go back and revive the ToH. That just doesnt work for me. That puts my product line entirely at the mercy of Wizards. While I like Wizards, that is simply a bad business move for anyone to put significant content at the mercy of another entity. I'd happily bring Tome to 4E, but only if after the GSL terminates I can go back to using it under the OGL.
I just wanted to post this so people dont get the impression that the FoF will just be the TOH with a new name. It wont be. It will be totally new monsters.
However, in the grand tradition of the Tome of Horrors' total openness, I will include written permission in the book allowing people to reuse the content of the FoF without even asking me. The GSL requires a publisher to secure permission from other publishers to use their content. I am going to give it ahead of time and to everyone, which is as close to open content as you can get under the GSL.
I'm amazed this is legal. Isn't this going to "redefine" the halfling (and when they're released later: druid, bard and barbarian)?
Can someone here with experience with third party products comment on how balanced using this book would be? For example could I have a party with a Necromancer Druid in the same party with a WotC Wizard, WotC Fighter and a WotC Cleric and it still be a well balanced party? Another example, could I have a halfling with a mix of Necromancer and WotC powers and have it still be a balanced creature?
I doubt I'll buy the Advanced Player's Guide (with PHB 2 looking to include much of these races and classes (monk is the only looking to be excluded) I'll probably just wait for that), but I'd definitely like to have it as a possible resource for my players if they desire.
Now if Necromancer were to include a book (or a group of books) based on underwater adventures (classes, races, monsters, items) I'd definitely pick that up.
I guess you will have to decide the balance issues for yourself. But Ari wrote it. And he writes for Wizards. So you be the judge.
As for halfling, it isnt a halfling. It is a "shire halfling". So we are not redifining halfling.
Same with the druid, bard, etc. They will have names that obviously say what they are without being "druid, bard, etc." I cant redefine those things once they are put in the GSL/SRD (they arent there yet, but they will be and I dont want my book to be automatically in violation when they are). Plus, we are designing them in a classic way, which is a bit different than the direction we understand WotC is going with their druid and bard, etc. So even when the official stuff comes out, ours will remain relevant. Clark
As for halfling, it isnt a halfling. It is a "shire halfling".
And thanks for that. Just the other day I was thinking to myself how much I missed seeing hairy feet on halflings.
Thanks for the news!
EDIT: Quick question for Clark- Should we expect to see a lot of fancy, unique names for GSL creations? It sounds like anyone who wants to stake out some IP turf for the long term needs to come up with names that are unlikely to find their way into the GSL, yes?
And thanks for that. Just the other day I was thinking to myself how much I missed seeing hairy feet on halflings.
Dungeon-punk halflings have hairy feet, it's just hard to tell because they wear shoes ;)
As for halfling, it isnt a halfling. It is a "shire halfling". So we are not redifining halfling.
Huh. Been lots of people around here asking if a "descriptive SRD_Race" would be acceptable.
Same with the druid, bard, etc. They will have names that obviously say what they are without being "druid, bard, etc." I cant redefine those things once they are put in the GSL/SRD (they arent there yet, but they will be and I dont want my book to be automatically in violation when they are).
Lots of people speculating on whether or not it would be a violation on that as well.
Thanks for including your input. Nice to hear what a lawyer has to say
I guess you will have to decide the balance issues for yourself. But Ari wrote it. And he writes for Wizards. So you be the judge.
Plus, we are designing them in a classic way, which is a bit different than the direction we understand WotC is going with their druid and bard, etc. So even when the official stuff comes out, ours will remain relevant.
I'll have to ask around when it comes out. If they're of a different enough flavour and aren't unbalancing, I might even get it myself
Thanks for the info.One note, though: please dont take my comments as legal advice. I merely make my comments from my own thoughts. If anyone is considering using the GSL, dont rely on posts on message boards for true legal advice. Plus, I cant guarantee you how Wizards will interpret a clause of the license, and in the end that is the one that counts
However, in the grand tradition of the Tome of Horrors' total openness, I will include written permission in the book allowing people to reuse the content of the FoF without even asking me. The GSL requires a publisher to secure permission from other publishers to use their content. I am going to give it ahead of time and to everyone, which is as close to open content as you can get under the GSL.
Excellent!
I've spent a few days trying to determine whether this is legal under the GSL, as I was considering doing something myself - the inability to publish a full monster stat block for an adventure (unless you made it yourself) was somewhat annoying.
One note, though: please dont take my comments as legal advice.
I won't ;) Its just nice to have an actual lawyer's opinion on the boards in comparison with all the opinions by the non lawyers ;)
However, in the grand tradition of the Tome of Horrors' total openness, I will include written permission in the book allowing people to reuse the content of the FoF without even asking me. The GSL requires a publisher to secure permission from other publishers to use their content. I am going to give it ahead of time and to everyone, which is as close to open content as you can get under the GSL.
I had planned on doing the same, actually, though I didn't realize written permission within the product itself would qualify. At the very least, I am sure that there will be a certain library of open and semi-open material for 4e developers to choose from.
However, in the grand tradition of the Tome of Horrors' total openness, I will include written permission in the book allowing people to reuse the content of the FoF without even asking me. The GSL requires a publisher to secure permission from other publishers to use their content. I am going to give it ahead of time and to everyone, which is as close to open content as you can get under the GSL.
That should drive sales of the book up as its used in published adventures (it would be funny if WotC used it) and people decided to check it out.
As for Necromancer's line of products, I would rather see them stay true to their motto, though I suppose it should be altered a bit; "New rules, Old-school feel."
I would rather see Necromancer do write-ups of old classes that haven't seen the light of day in many moons, like the 1st ed Assassin, Arcane Knight, Bounty Hunter, ect.
Especially now that multiclassing only crosses together two classes, updates of those hybrid classes from the past would be especially helpful.
As a side note, I hope the classes in the Advanced Player's Guide have the associated Multiclass feats.
Out of curiosity, did you use new Power sources, or the existing ones? I imagine the existing ones, as you state you are going for a classic feel.