http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20090302
Here's the place for discussion.
Steve
Thanks Scott.
I have to admit, I was skeptical about the revised GSL ever being released, but Scott has proven me wrong. Kudos!
Thanks a ton Scott, for all your hard work.
In fact, I am almost bothered. Now everyone that was waiting or worried is going to jump on board and start producing. Competition is going to get more feirce.
Thanks guys.
In fact, I am almost bothered. Now everyone that was waiting or worried is going to jump on board and start producing. Competition is going to get more feirce.
Thanks guys.
Well, competition should help breed a better product overall. At least, in theory.
Don't worry SD, we still love you.
I love you to....but I feel the need to see other gamers.
At the very least, we have one hell of a head start. But, like I said, I hope this finally silences the naysayers that only had knee-jerk reactions to the old GSL.
So I'm having a tough time coming to an understanding about what is and isn't allowed in the way of electronic apps. I think what made the 3.5 OGL crystal clear is that the SRD was fully populated, and not a list of references to other things. So I guess the question is, would something like d20srd.com be allowed under the new rules? or are you only allowed to reference powers by their names/levels?
Only referenced by name, book source and level. You cannot provide the whole of the text for anything in the 4eSRD.
I made mention in another thread that I am slightly disappointed that certain things didn't make it into the GSL or the SRD, but I have my suspicions as to why they weren't. Also mentioned that the logos are missing(I get a 404 Error when looking them up).
But anyway, I do like the changes, at least it looks less restrictive than the original GSL. Which definitely should shut up some of those knee jerk reactions.
And SD, I wont be competition unless you want me to be competition :P
I grant you 3 awsome points.
Gil
Thank you!
Most sincerely, I thank you.
From the bottom of my heart.
I know this has been a burden to you, and I am incredibly grateful that it has finally been released. I think you have a huge burden off of your shoulders, and for that I am glad.
I can only hope this version is well received.
Based upon what I've seen on the Necromancer Games main page, I think it is.
Again, thanks.
And SD, I wont be competition unless you want me to be competition :P
Are you coming on to me?
We should unite and take the world together! 3PPs unite and form Devastator, the most powerful of all...ahem...sorry about that.
I'm still digesting. I had hoped it would incorporate the fan site policy but it's still a nice update.
It's also a nice teasing preview of the MM2.
And I'm glad they removed section 6.
Onto the complaints.
The one addition I *really* wanted to see was the planes.
As it stands they don't exist. No 3rd party adventures in the Elemental Chaos. No monsters from other worlds. No new astral domains.
Heck, new published campaign settings can't even describe how their feywilds and shadowfells differ from the default setting's (or the campaign setting).
It also makes it hard to make new devils and demons when you can't use the terms "Nine Hells" or "Abyss".
I wish it was a little clearer about creating pantheons. As it stands, making new gods probably toes the line of "redefining".
Still it took 10 months, and I fear these companies faced major problems during this time.
Not having paragon paths doesn't scare me (published NPCs often custom powers, and that doesn't mean that a DM wouldn't be able to use them), but yes, not having Planes, even by name, would really make describing slightly custom planes quite difficult (it would be a more "all or nothing" approach). A 7thSea product, for example, can still have its "Dark Corridors" but it cannot say "well they are like shadowfell in these regards".
This isn't a complaint but I noticed a few typos in the FAQ e.g.
From page 3, perhaps 'Greatmountian' should be Greatmountain ?
From page 4, second answer: "Expect as identified in
section 5.7"
It also makes it hard to make new devils and demons when you can't use the terms "Nine Hells" or "Abyss".
"Nine Hells" might be questionable, but you most certainly can use "Hell" and "the abyss." Neither term is specific to D&D.
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Gil
We should unite and take the world together! 3PPs unite and form Devastator, the most powerful of all...ahem...sorry about that.
ooooh devastator rocks!
Anyone else having issues downloading the logo files?
Yes... I haven't been able to download those files either.
From page 3, perhaps 'Greatmountian' should be Greatmountain ?
I've seen some 3rd party products where "Greatmountian" is more accurate.
"Nine Hells" might be questionable, but you most certainly can use "Hell" and "the abyss." Neither term is specific to D&D.
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
It's arguably right restricted. Just like you can't copyright or trademark a single word term like "hulk" or "hulking" but if you publish a comic adverting a character named "Hulk" you could be in trouble.
"Abyss" or "the Abyss" in gaming terms is quite easily identifiable with the D&D planes.
Just like "elf" and "fighter" are included in the SRD document when neither are trademarked or IP. When you play D&D, "elf" means a specific thing.
And as mentioned in another thread, the weapon keywords from Adventurer's Vault have been omitted as well.
Cheers,
Cam
I just read through the FAQ. The big absence I note are the general splat books, more for the monsters from the new Draconomicon than the new powers from Martial Power.
Other than that, a major jaw-dropping "Wow!" It seems WotC has a functional license now. Good job.
"Abyss" or "the Abyss" in gaming terms is quite easily identifiable with the D&D planes.
Nonsense, I've played several other games where "the Abyss" was a distinct entity.
So this is much more usable for third party adventures, but my question is, what kind of electronic tools could you make that are 1) useful 2) compliant with the GSL?
It appears nothing of that nature can be done while remaining compliant with The GSL.
Check with a lawyer though, as I am not one.
Relevant Text:
For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators;
What you CAn do with the GSL:
The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that
contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”).
It appears that while some of the PHB2 classes (druid, bard, barbarian) are in here, the others aren't. What about shamans, wardens, etc?
Cheers,
Cam
I believe some of the races are missing too. Isn't the Goliath in the PHB2?
-Roger
I believe some of the races are missing too. Isn't the Goliath in the PHB2?
-Roger
Right, and the deva.
It would also seem to make sense to include the swordmage, the genasi, things like that from the FR book, but I assume there's a limit to how much IP they are comfortable making available.
Still, it's nice to see copper, gold, and silver dragons in there with the gnomes, half-orcs, bards, barbarians, druids, and sorcerers.
Oh, and centaurs. How I missed the centaurs.
Cheers,
Cam
Nonsense, I've played several other games where "the Abyss" was a distinct entity.
And I could publish a super-hero comic where "The Hulk" was a place without legal problems.
But publish a D&D compatible book that features a plane called "the Abyss" and WotC could say you're using their IP.
A creature is fine. A generic place (canyon, gorge, etc) is probably alright. A demonic pit... that's clearly theft.
I did want to point out that even though Martial Powers wasn't included, the SRD features the "beast", "rattling" and "invigorating" keywords. (I just hope it added Arcane Power keywords too, either in an update or such).
I really like this addition and applaud the author for giving 3p writers as many tools as possible. Good job!
And I could publish a super-hero comic where "The Hulk" was a place without legal problems.
But publish a D&D compatible book that features a plane called "the Abyss" and WotC could say you're using their IP.
A creature is fine. A generic place (canyon, gorge, etc) is probably alright. A demonic pit... that's clearly theft.
I strongly disagree with you. Some places, such as the Shadowfel, are most certainly WotC IP. (or, at least, I've never heard of the Shadowfel outside of 4e D&D.)
Other places, though, are from mythology. WotC has no more claim to Hell or the Abyss as they do to minotaurs and centaurs. The abyss as a place with with fire and brimstone and fiends goes back to the Old Testament, at the very least.
The Infinite Layers of the Abyss might very well be a WotC thing. But a generic "Abyss" most certainly is not.
For a similar argument... in 3e, I can write an OGL adventure that incorporates a plane called Limbo. It's part of mythology. I cannot, however, call that place the Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo. That is a WotC thing.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television.
Bottom line, don't copy their specific names in your own work and you will be fine. If you want to use their cosmology, just reference the core books only per the SRD.
But publish a D&D compatible book that features a plane called "the Abyss" and WotC could say you're using their IP.
A creature is fine. A generic place (canyon, gorge, etc) is probably alright. A demonic pit... that's clearly theft.
No, it isn't. As Zherog says, the use of the term "Abyss" to describe hell or a demonic pit predates D&D by centuries in English, and even longer in other languages.
Also, you may wish to note that the SRD does not limit the use of the term "Abyss". It only limits the use of the term "Abyssal" as a language and as an adjective referring to a number of specific monsters. You can create an "Abyssal Elf" who comes from "the Abyss" and speaks "Abyssese" without even coming close to impinging on WotC's IP, whether you are a signatory of the GSL or not.
And by "entity" I didn't mean "creature", I meant "a distinct thing".
Under the new version of the GSL, the old section 6 no longer exists. This means that publishers can create product lines that utilize both the GSL and OGL - one license does not shut the other out.
If a publisher puts out a line of adventures in a different edition of the game (say, 3.5 or PFRPG), but then publishes a separate document that simply provides information on how to convert that original adventure to 4th Edition, as I understand it this is now allowed under the GSL; the original adventure continues to operate under the OGL as it has been, and the conversion document is the only product subject to the restrictions of the GSL. Am I understanding this correctly?
Now, after a cursory look through the GSL, here's some questions and feedback...
#1. Classes. Should we take the lack of certain classes (avenger, invoker, shaman, warden) to mean that you do not intend to add them, or should we expect another update in the future that will add those to the SRD?
#2. Races. The same question applies to races from PHB2 (goliath, deva). I figure you consider these to be IP on the same level as Drow, but clarification would be nice.
#3. Cosmology. Should we expect another update in the future to add the basics of the cosmology, to allow us to detail our settings' version of the Astral Sea, etc. in order to ensure greater ease of use with official D&D products?
#4. Powers. Evocations are not listed along with spells, prayers, and exploits under the names of powers.
#5. Keywords. A number of the keywords are tied to powers and class builds that are from Martial Power (Beast, rattling, invigorating, etc) and not a part of the SRD. Do you intend to add the basics of these powers/builds to the SRD (allowing us to create new beast companions for Beastmasters, for example) in the future?
#6. Gnome. Under gnome it lists "elven weapon proficiency." Is this a mistake?
#7. Paragon Paths & Epic Destinies. Do you intend to add the more generic paragon paths or epic destinies to the SRD in the future? I understand things like Wizard of the Spiral Tower being closed, but things like Archmage are pretty generic.
#8. Scripts. If we choose to use the names of the Scripts given and come up with our own fonts for them, would this be considered redefining? If it would be considered redefining, is there any update on the off-hand comment from last year that you might consider adding the fonts for those scripts for use?
#9. Backgrounds. Will the basics of the Background system from PHB2 be added to the SRD? This would be a nice tool for settings to use.
I'm sure I'll have more once I can make a thorough examination, but its looking a lot cooler than it was previously!
#5. Keywords. A number of the keywords are tied to powers and class builds that are from Martial Power (Beast, rattling, invigorating, etc) and not a part of the SRD. Do you intend to add the basics of these powers/builds to the SRD (allowing us to create new beast companions for Beastmasters, for example) in the future?
These keywords are in there. Page 31.
These keywords are in there. Page 31.
I know. I guess I should have been more clear in that statement. The keywords are in there, but the builds that use them are not. By my reading of the SRD, you could make new powers with the Beast keyword, but you can't create a new Beast Companion (if you wanted to create a Shark companion for your aquatic setting, for example). Beastmaster strikes me as such a fundamental ranger concept that I was hoping it would end up in the SRD.
I know. I guess I should have been more clear in that statement. The keywords are in there, but the builds that use them are not. By my reading of the SRD, you could make new powers with the Beast keyword, but you can't create a new Beast Companion (if you wanted to create a Shark companion for your aquatic setting, for example). Beastmaster strikes me as such a fundamental ranger concept that I was hoping it would end up in the SRD.
Ahhh, I see what you were saying.
They're the remainder of the 3.5 races and classes not already included from the 4E PHB. Druids, bards, gnomes, half-orcs, etc.
Thus, if you're using both OGL and GSL, since you have to use the GSL definitions of those terms, they have covered all of their bases in order to require the GSL terms used in any instance of conversion, updating, etc.
Because invokers, avengers, wardens, shamans, goliaths, devas, etc weren't included in the SRD before (deva is a possibility... but not as a race) then they have no reason at the moment to include those. They aren't OGL terms.
Cheers,
Cam
Other places, though, are from mythology. WotC has no more claim to Hell or the Abyss as they do to minotaurs and centaurs. The abyss as a place with with fire and brimstone and fiends goes back to the Old Testament, at the very least.
The Infinite Layers of the Abyss might very well be a WotC thing. But a generic "Abyss" most certainly is not.
They can't trademark the term "samurai" either, but they shut-down a oriental themed netbook for Dragonlance because its "samurai" could be confused with the official D&D "samurai".
They neither own nor trademark the term "they Abyss", but when talking about the planar region in the elemental chaos that's distinct and unique and recognizable as property of WotC.
Think of it like the beholder. There's no way they have the copyright on the term "beholder". Nor do they have a copyright on the idea of a ball with eyestalks (I've seen a handful of knock-offs in various computer games under different names). But when you combine the two you have WotC property.
You can have "an Abyss" that's an extra-planar chasm in a vague location, but you better keep the details very, very light (ie, only using the phrase "the Abyss").
Equally, you could probably detail a monster and describe it as being "related to beholders" and be safe, it just better not look like a beholder.
#9. Backgrounds. Will the basics of the Background system from PHB2 be added to the SRD? This would be a nice tool for settings to use.
Oooo, nice catch. That's something 3rd Party Campaign Settings should be allowed to add.
Oooo, nice catch. That's something 3rd Party Campaign Settings should be allowed to add.
Exactly. While you could create something to fill the same role, it'd be nice to be able to use something official D&D products use in order to give greater consistency between D&D and your product. In my eyes, it adds value to both the 3rd party product, and to the D&D products.
They neither own nor trademark the term "they Abyss", but when talking about the planar region in the elemental chaos that's distinct and unique and recognizable as property of WotC.
Sure, but that's a much more specific application than I was talking about.
You can have "an Abyss" that's an extra-planar chasm in a vague location, but you better keep the details very, very light (ie, only using the phrase "the Abyss").
Honestly, that depends mostly on how comfortable you are with IP law and how far you're willing to go to defend your rights.
I don't know anything about this Dragonlance netbook you're talking about, but if WotC shut it down specifically over the term "samurai" then they're a lot more litigious than I thought. I highly doubt that the term "samurai" was the issue.
s, and here is the reasons why:A) GSL requires a Statement of Acceptance to be sent ot WotC rather than OGL's simple "just put the OGL legal part in its fullness somewhere in your document"
B) GSL SRD dissalows modification on its basic rules, whilst OGL SRD you can practically rewrite the SRD.
C) I have said before in some other thread, GSL is still the d20 license in a very thin disguise
A) GSL requires a Statement of Acceptance to be sent ot WotC rather than OGL's simple "just put the OGL legal part in its fullness somewhere in your document"
So what?
B) GSL SRD dissalows modification on its basic rules, whilst OGL SRD you can practically rewrite the SRD.
So... because WotC made a business decision that allows any third party publisher to use their rules completely for free, as long as those publishers add onto the system rather than change it, you're complaining?
I mean, come on! I love the OGL. I made some money freelancing (still do, actually), and had a grand time while doing it. And the GSL certainly is different. But different doesn't make it worse. Or better. It just makes it different.
C) I have said before in some other thread, GSL is still the d20 license in a very thin disguise
Yes. And your point? I sincerely doubt you are the first person to come to this realization.
It appears that while some of the PHB2 classes (druid, bard, barbarian) are in here, the others aren't. What about shamans, wardens, etc?
The only PHB2 classes included are those who had versions available in the OGL. IMO this is not a coincidence. And as such I wouldn't expect many additions in the years.
I personally think the best you can expect to have added are Monks, some psionic classes and any other classes or races that were in the OGL. If you're looking to have Shifters, Avengers, or other non-OGL classes or races, I think you'll be disappointed.
A) About Statement of Acceptance
So what?
It is a bad idea especially if your are not living in continental north america
B) About SRD
So... because WotC made a business decision that allows any third party publisher to use their rules completely for free, as long as those publishers add onto the system rather than change it, you're complaining?
I mean, come on! I love the OGL. I made some money freelancing (still do, actually), and had a grand time while doing it. And the GSL certainly is different. But different doesn't make it worse. Or better. It just makes it different.
There are some rules that are very good inside the 4th ed SRD, and I can, in theory, write them under OGL, but those rules exist under a legal grey zone and I have not enough money to pay for legal advice nor lawey if I got sued.
C) About GSL in general
Yes. And your point? I sincerely doubt you are the first person to come to this realization.
I know that ;)
Surely this section of the license is utterly useless now
...unless WOTC believe time travel is possible?
Far too little; far too late.
-Polaris
My opinion of the new GSL can be summed up in six words:
Far too little; far too late.
-Polaris
Your point is? Everyone knows you have bashed the GSL since day one and now that they have revised it, you have nothing more to say but that? Do you have any constructive input?
Your point is? Everyone knows you have bashed the GSL since day one and now that they have revised it, you have nothing more to say but that? Do you have any constructive input?
I bashed the GSL for good reason and there is no point in rehashing it now. Honestly my six words say it all. However if you want the long version, Chris Pramas of Green Ronin hasthis to say, and I tend to agree (and he says it better than I do).
-Polaris
.I agree with Polaris and Cris Pramas of Green Ronin. GSL is a bunch of legal s
And a lot of other, major publishing outfits disagree with you. If you like it, adopt it. If you don't think it works for you, don't adopt it. WotC is under no obligation, legal or moral, to even do this for you. Go be useful somewhere else.
The OGL was much too lenient, and allowed for, basically, WotC being ripped off by the very people that claimed to enjoy their products. Yeah, without 3PP, 3E would have been worse than it already was, but for these same people to come here with their hands out, expecting the same open-ended freedom to re-write the entire rule-set is a bit sad. I make the things I do under Implement Games because I love D&D. I give it all away for free because I want nothing more than to expand the hobby and give people some of the stuff they've been asking for. About 75% of the material I make under Implement Games is by request (many of which have come from these very boards). Sharing D&D with people is much more rewarding for me than charging them a few bucks in the mindset that I might get rich off of someone else's game license.
I agree with Polaris and Cris Pramas of Green Ronin. GSL is a bunch of legal s
Then you didn't read Pramas' post that Polaris quoted. Pramas' post doesn't talk about legal disagreement with the GSL. Rather, he explaining that for Green Ronin, the GSL doesn't make sense because return on the investment is insufficient for his company, based upon their other opportunities. He also talks about his concerns about strategically depending on WotC to decide what his publishing options are, and how this is different for a company of GR's size. Green Ronin is making its decision on the basis of the business model they have adopted as an independent book trade publisher.
David
Then you didn't read Pramas' post that Polaris quoted. Pramas' post doesn't talk about legal disagreement with the GSL. Rather, he explaining that for Green Ronin, the GSL doesn't make sense because return on the investment is insufficient for his company, based upon their other opportunities. He also talks about his concerns about strategically depending on WotC to decide what his publishing options are, and how this is different for a company of GR's size. Green Ronin is making its decision on the basis of the business model they have adopted as an independent book trade publisher.
David
David,
Apparently you didn't read Chris Pramas' post completely either. While it is true that Chris talks about why the GSL does or does not make marketing/financial sense for Green Ronin (and understandably so!), part of that process dealt with the legal pitfalls of the license. Specifically Chris complains that the GSL is still change at-will/destroy at-will and from a business PoV, Green Ronin doesn't want to be tied to any company with that sort of liscensing agreement (yes there is now a six month window, but that falls under the category of too little and too late).
As for the OGL being too generous? I will just say this: We are rapidly returning to the dark "bad old days" of splintered gaming of the mid to late 1990s. That's just an observed fact people. Given the strong decline in the RPG market as a whole and the fact the economy sucks eggs right now, I strongly dispute that the GSL was worth splintering the market over (but that is what has happened).
-Polaris
I will just say this: We are rapidly returning to the dark "bad old days" of splintered gaming of the mid to late 1990s. That's just an observed fact people.
It looks like you have a hard time distinguishing between "opinion" and "fact". Some of the best gaming in my life came in the mid to late 1990s. If the market was "splintered", it was because of the huge relative popularity of the World of Darkness games and the financial problems of TSR, not because there wasn't an Open Gaming License yet. Remember that D&D had already been around for 20+ years by that time, it was still the most popular RPG in the world, and yet other people had been publishing profitable RPGs almost from day one.
When I want to play D&D, I have D&D. I'm glad to see that when I don't want to play D&D, there'll be games on the market that people are actually willing to try that are very distinctly NOT D&D. OGL homogenized the market; getting away from that is a GOOD thing.
Under GSL, people can make product for D&D, or they can make not-D&D.
It looks like you have a hard time distinguishing between "opinion" and "fact". Some of the best gaming in my life came in the mid to late 1990s. If the market was "splintered", it was because of the huge relative popularity of the World of Darkness games and the financial problems of TSR, not because there wasn't an Open Gaming License yet. Remember that D&D had already been around for 20+ years by that time, it was still the most popular RPG in the world, and yet other people had been publishing profitable RPGs almost from day one.
You have either a short or convenient memory. Some of my best gaming on a personal level happened during the mid-1990s as well, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the industry, and the fact is the industry came periously close to tanking right around the turn of the millenium including DnD. It wasn't just the financial problems of TSR either. It was in part also due to the very business and consumer adverse stance that TSR took....and which WOTC seems to unfortunately be emulating.
From very early on, Wotc understood that and this was a big reason for the d20 system. They wanted to use DnD's market share to give a universal gaming standard and thus make it easier for the industry to thrive....and it worked. What we are seeing now is a regression of the worst sort and in this economy a regression that IMHO the industry can't afford.
-Polaris
I MISS the days when there were tons of games out there that people actually played and weren't "D&D, reskinned." The OGL killed that market dead, and I'm really looking forward to it coming back.
When I want to play D&D, I have D&D. I'm glad to see that when I don't want to play D&D, there'll be games on the market that people are actually willing to try that are very distinctly NOT D&D. OGL homogenized the market; getting away from that is a GOOD thing.
Under GSL, people can make product for D&D, or they can make not-D&D.
I agree 100%. The hobby really needs new ideas and new games. However, I disagree the GSL will help this in any way. The OGL is still alive. Sorta-D&D and "D20 [Something That Should've Never Been D20]" will exist forever, but thankfully, we're still seeing good new games like Cthulhutech anyway.
Sharing D&D with people is much more rewarding for me than charging them a few bucks in the mindset that I might get rich off of someone else's game license.
This is the Pen & Paper RPG industry, I don't think that getting rich is a likely outcome currently. And I don't believe that people get in and stay in the industry expecting that they are going to get rich.
Apparently you didn't read Chris Pramas' post completely either. While it is true that Chris talks about why the GSL does or does not make marketing/financial sense for Green Ronin (and understandably so!), part of that process dealt with the legal pitfalls of the license. Specifically Chris complains that the GSL is still change at-will/destroy at-will and from a business PoV, Green Ronin doesn't want to be tied to any company with that sort of liscensing agreement (yes there is now a six month window, but that falls under the category of too little and too late).
I have read the post completely, dated 3/5/2009 and titled "Once More Into the Breach." After your response, I read it through thrice again, looking for the content you reference. I have read the responses to the article as well.
You say, "Specifically Chris complains that the GSL is still change at-will/destroy at-will..." No, he doesn't say this. In fact, he does not specifically reference ANY of the terms of the GSL (revised or original) in the article. The article is here. Is it possible you are thinking of a different post by him?
As general statements, he states in the first paragraph that there is improvement in the revised GSL, but not enough to change his initial course of action. The rest of the article talks about what the direction is that has been chosen and why. The reasons: time frame on the original GSL and revision, divisive opinion within WotC about 3PP, lack of willingness to be dependent on WotC's decisions on future edition and licensing, and poor sales of 3PP products. These are objections stemming from the decision making climate (too slow), the unequal business relationship, lack of trust, and availability of more lucrative opportunities. In the interest of completeness, he makes a statement that the GSL is essentially the same in structure, without providing details.
Mark Cronan is an attorney whose practice includes intellectual property. He has evaluated the revised GSL, and concurs with Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games, who has announced he will be publishing under the GSL. Mr. Cronan agrees what the revision is a big win, in rebuttal to a negative opinion; his opinion is found here. A partial list of Mr. Cronan's clients can be found here. The one on the bottom starts with "Green" and ends with "Ronin."
Obviously, I don't know if Mr. Cronan has advised Green Ronin on this matter. However, what is clear that Green Ronin has as a resource the opinion of an attorney it has used in the past. That attorney finds the revision to be positive and supported a rebuttal by Clark Peterson; that was a rebuttal of advice to avoid the revised GSL. This supports my position that the GR's reasons are business reasons.
Your six words were "Far too little, far too late." I would characterize Pramas' post as "I lost my appetite already, far too late." Certainly not as pithy.
Keep in mind, my objection wasn't to your six words, or even supporting them with Pramas' post (which is quite similar, certainly). David
You say, "Specifically Chris complains that the GSL is still change at-will/destroy at-will..." No, he doesn't say this. In fact, he does not specifically reference ANY of the terms of the GSL (revised or original) in the article. The article is here. Is it possible you are thinking of a different post by him?
Yes Chris does. He doesn't use those words, but he does say this as you go on to prove.
As general statements, he states in the first paragraph that there is improvement in the revised GSL, but not enough to change his initial course of action. The rest of the article talks about what the direction is that has been chosen and why. The reasons: time frame on the original GSL and revision, divisive opinion within WotC about 3PP, lack of willingness to be dependent on WotC's decisions on future edition and licensing, and poor sales of 3PP products. These are objections stemming from the decision making climate (too slow), the unequal business relationship, lack of trust, and availability of more lucrative opportunities. In the interest of completeness, he makes a statement that the GSL is essentially the same in structure, without providing details.
I bolded the key section. This IS a complaint that the new GSL is still revise at-will/destroy at-will. Thus what I said is essentially correct.
Mark Cronan is an attorney whose practice includes intellectual property. He has evaluated the revised GSL, and concurs with Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games, who has announced he will be publishing under the GSL. Mr. Cronan agrees what the revision is a big win, in rebuttal to a negative opinion; his opinion is found here. A partial list of Mr. Cronan's clients can be found here. The one on the bottom starts with "Green" and ends with "Ronin."
Irrelevant because as you admit YOU DON'T KNOW what he advised Green Ronin to do. In fact the fact he said as much as he did could be taken as a violation of attorney client privledge and if so, I hope that Green Ronin isn't his client any longer.
You are making your case based on what you THINK an attorney advised a client based on not very well thought out public statements.
SHeesh......
-Polaris
Yes Chris does. He doesn't use those words, but he does say this as you go on to prove.
I bolded the key section. This IS a complaint that the new GSL is still revise at-will/destroy at-will. Thus what I said is essentially correct.
Um... No. What you bolded is my paraphrase about his statements about not wanting to have business decisions outside of his control regarding future editions, either the limited market life of 4e or whether the license associated with a future 5th-plus edition would even allow for participation.
Irrelevant because as you admit YOU DON'T KNOW what he advised Green Ronin to do.
It isn't irrelevant. I agree it isn't proof, and I carefully constructed my language to avoid any implication otherwise. Not only do I not know what he advised GR to do, I don't know if they asked him at all. What I stated was that it supported (not proved) my statement. If you want to discard it entirely, that is your option; doing so is the results from a requirement of a standard of certainty that is outside of the scope of this conversation.
In fact the fact he said as much as he did could be taken as a violation of attorney client privledge and if so, I hope that Green Ronin isn't his client any longer.
This is hyperbole. He has made no statement about his advice to GR. He has made a statement about the issue in general without reference to his client or how it affects them directly.
You are making your case based on what you THINK an attorney advised a client based on not very well thought out public statements.
More hyperbole. I am making my case on the statements made by Premas; taking them at face value and without the addition of your additions about revise at-will/destroy at-will. Having made that case (which stands on its own), I then provided the additional information about a trained opinion on the matter, and that this opinion was available to Premas if he sought it. This latter point (what you call what I've based my case on) is gravy, not the primary show.
David
Um... No. What you bolded is my paraphrase about his statements about not wanting to have business decisions outside of his control regarding future editions, either the limited market life of 4e or whether the license associated with a future 5th-plus edition would even allow for participation.
Yes, and the reason is because he doesn't want to put his business in the hands of managers outside his own company. He goes on to explain WHY in this case he is so reticent including the fact that the structure of the GSL hasn't changed much....and it hasn't. It *IS* still revise at-will/destroy at-will (and in fact if WOTC terminates your license for any or no reason you do NOT get the 6 mo sell-off....that only applies if you choose to opt out). I agree that Chris Pramas doesn't say so directly but he does say it.
It isn't irrelevant. I agree it isn't proof, and I carefully constructed my language to avoid any implication otherwise. Not only do I not know what he advised GR to do, I don't know if they asked him at all. What I stated was that it supported (not proved) my statement. If you want to discard it entirely, that is your option; doing so is the results from a requirement of a standard of certainty that is outside of the scope of this conversation.
It is irrelevant and I will explain why. You say that Green Ronin made the decision they did only for business and not legal reasons and THEN you link to Cronan's posts on EN World which while pro-GSL (revised) aren't nearly as enthusiastic as you want us to believe here (I recommend that everyone read that EN world thread in it's entirety). The ONLY relevance for offering Mr. Cronan's opinion as it links to Green Ronin is the fact that Green Ronin is a sometime client of his.
BUT YOU JUST ADMIT THAT THIS DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!]
Because of that, the entire two paragraphs relating to Mr. Cronan are completely irrelevant to what you are trying to show.
This is hyperbole. He has made no statement about his advice to GR. He has made a statement about the issue in general without reference to his client or how it affects them directly.
No it's not. You obviously took his post to be legal advice to Green Ronin...posterior covering language notwithstanding. While somewhat murkier than outright violating attorney-client priveledge, it's still a no-no. It's far too easy to take an attorney's statements and his positions as those of his clients which is why ETHICAL attorneys say as little as possible. It's also worth nothing that he posted under a 'nym and wasn't offering legal advice (two points you neglect to mention).
More hyperbole. I am making my case on the statements made by Premas; taking them at face value and without the addition of your additions about revise at-will/destroy at-will. Having made that case (which stands on its own), I then provided the additional information about a trained opinion on the matter, and that this opinion was available to Premas if he sought it. This latter point (what you call what I've based my case on) is gravy, not the primary show.
David
I am basing what I said on the structure of the GSL which is by fact still revise at-will/destroy at-will (read it yourself), and Chris' statement now and his original statement some months ago (which he refers to).
-Polaris
Yes, and the reason is because he doesn't want to put his business in the hands of managers outside his own company. He goes on to explain WHY in this case he is so reticent including the fact that the structure of the GSL hasn't changed much....and it hasn't. It *IS* still revise at-will/destroy at-will (and in fact if WOTC terminates your license for any or no reason you do NOT get the 6 mo sell-off....that only applies if you choose to opt out). I agree that Chris Pramas doesn't say so directly..
Thank you for retracting your previous statement, in which you said :
Specifically Chris complains that the GSL is still change at-will/destroy at-will..
but he does say it.
Well, almost recanted.
Responding to the rest of the post is more involved in terms of separating fact from fiction than I am willing to get into at this time. I will respond separately regarding the content of the GSL itself.
David
You have either a short or convenient memory.
Nice.
I was talking about the industry, and the fact is the industry came periously close to tanking right around the turn of the millenium including DnD.
That's not fact, it's opinion, unless you can back it up with verifiable numbers. Yes, there were people in the late 1990s bemoaning the "decline of the industry", but there were people saying that in the early 1980s, late 1980s, early 1990s, late 1990s, and early 2000s, and there are still people saying it today. There simply isn't any reliable, public information about RPG sales.
A few RPG companies ran into financial trouble in the mid- to late-1990s - specifically, Game Designer's Workshop, West End Games, and Steve Jackson Games. GDW's issues were reportedly due to an ongoing lawsuit with TSR. West End Games ran into problems because they launched a number of unpopular games, and were only making money on their Star Wars line (and they subsequently lost the license). Steve Jackson Games got into trouble because they were raided by the Secret Service over their "GURPS Cyberpunk" sourcebook, and had most of their computers and files confiscated (some never returned). Of these, only WEG's problems were blamed on "the decline of the industry", and in my opinion that was a cop-out to avoid responsibility for bad business decisions (note my use of opinion rather than fact).
The mid-2000s had just as many companies running into trouble. Palladium ran into serious problems, going so far as to ask customers for cash donations in order for the company to stay afloat. Green Knight Publishing went under in 2005. Guardians of Order went out of business in 2006 due to the owner's inability to deal with currency exchange rate fluctuations. FASA went out of business in 2001. So, I don't think you can point to the late 1990s as an unusually bad time for the RPG industry.
We do have numbers, but you know as well as I that precise sales numbers are considered proprietary information (and rightfully so). However, we have some fairly current best estimates for the number of gamers today (approx 10million comes to mind) which on a per capita basis PALES in compariso to what RPGs were in the early to mid 1980s.
I gamed though the golden era of RPGs as well as the 1990s and today and if you don't think that RPGs are in a serious state of decline then you are fooling yourself. WOTC clearly thinks so which is why 4E was marketed the way it was (to try to cut into the much larger MMORPG pie....which is NOT saying that 4E is an MMO...). If WOTC thought that the RPG market was a healthy growing market, they would have tried to cater to that market rather than try to change/expand it as they have.
However, don't take my word for it. Go ahead and think that RPGs are just fine as an industry. Don't blame we when you wake up one day and find that table-top RPing has gone the way of model railroading (a fine hobby but a cottage one).
-Polaris
Not to burst your bubble, but they have pretty much catered to the markets demands... the market as in the RPG market as a whole, not just "the market of D&D gamers and only D&D gamers and nothing else".
They went with what I would describe as the trend in RPG's and made a rather smoothly flowing RPG that does not rely on ancient design-paradigms long outdated.
Said design paradigms of older editions are more of a nieche market today, as evident from the mostly small-time games that cater to just such player-bases, whilst the big market is made up of more easy, more streamlined games.
I hate to burst YOUR bubble but DND defines the RPG market even now and certainly did just prior to 4E. Dnd and d20 accoutned for IIRC approximately 85% of the market which means that the idea that 4E is catering to the RPG market is simply wrong. DnD defined (or at least did) that market.
What 4E DID do is completely change the marketing paradigm from a book-centered paradign (or even pdf centered one) to a subscription centered one with mixed results so far at best. Also the MMO influence on 4E is crystal clear (which is NOT saying that 4E is an MMO). Wotc wouldn't have done this unless they wanted to try to gain some of the MMO market for themselves which they clearly do.
While I disagree with WOTC strongly on the approach, I can't argue with the intent or need to do this. If you think the tabletop RPG market is healthy and thriving (even outside the rotten economy as a whole) then you are deluding yourself.
-Polaris
However, don't take my word for it.
Don't worry, I won't.
I hate to burst YOUR bubble but DND defines the RPG market even now and certainly did just prior to 4E. Dnd and d20 accoutned for IIRC approximately 85% of the market which means that the idea that 4E is catering to the RPG market is simply wrong. DnD defined (or at least did) that market.
Some might actually argue that the group with the biggest market share is the one catering best to the market (absent some outside influence artificially controlling the market). Catering to the market and defining the market aren't mutually exclusive -- just look at the iPod. If people don't like a product, they buy something else. Lord knows there are enough D&D alternatives out there to fill a swimming pool with rulebooks and supplements. I've got at least 20 linear shelf-feet of non-D&D books.
What 4E DID do is completely change the marketing paradigm from a book-centered paradign (or even pdf centered one) to a subscription centered one with mixed results so far at best. Also the MMO influence on 4E is crystal clear (which is NOT saying that 4E is an MMO). Wotc wouldn't have done this unless they wanted to try to gain some of the MMO market for themselves which they clearly do.
While I disagree with WOTC strongly on the approach, I can't argue with the intent or need to do this. If you think the tabletop RPG market is healthy and thriving (even outside the rotten economy as a whole) then you are deluding yourself.
-Polaris
People seem to love MMOs. WotC was wise enough to recognize this and make an attempt to cater to their target audience (many, many of whom play MMOs) by changing the game in this direction. As George Bernard Shaw (I believe) once observed: "Mediocrity borrows, genius steals." WotC has taken the well-defined roles and class balance from MMOs, but made it their own. And as for going to a book+subscription model (that's what it really is, after all)? It works well in the software world. Why wouldn't a smart business person try it out in the pen-and-paper market?
Is it the "right" way to do it? Who knows. Time will tell far better that bickering on the boards. Is the GSL a bad idea? We'll see. *I* wouldn't enter into an agreement where the licensor could revoke the license at whim like that, but then I'm not in the gaming industry. Again, time will tell.
Is it a money-soak? Sure! But WotC is in business to make money. If the pain of paying for the subscription + new books is greater than the fun you're having from using the subscription + new books, then I recommend you find a new game to play. Or even an old one. 1E and 2E were both a lot of fun for me and my friends. We also enjoy the World of Darkness family of games (old and new), Shadowrun, SWSE, Cyberpunk, Paranoia, Talislanta, Call of Cthulu, ...
And if you're worried that this will kill the RPG market... don't. The car industry was having a rough time before the economic downturn started. Just because GM doesn't "get it" or stumbles doesn't mean people are going to stop making cars. There's always a Toyota around the corner looking to do things better, faster, cheaper and more reliably. As long as people read, imagine and tell stories, there will be a market for RPGs.
And if you're worried that this will kill the RPG market... don't. The car industry was having a rough time before the economic downturn started. Just because GM doesn't "get it" or stumbles doesn't mean people are going to stop making cars. There's always a Toyota around the corner looking to do things better, faster, cheaper and more reliably. As long as people read, imagine and tell stories, there will be a market for RPGs.
I disagree. If what you said was true, then RPGs would be nearly as old as civilization, and they aren't. RPGs are only about thirty years old despite the fact the technology required for RPGs is almost as old as civilization itself.
The point is that up until the 1970s humans did perfectly well without RPGs and that means that if RPGs were to dissapear tomorrow, people would do perfecty well without them. I note that cars are not even remotely in the same category because society has shifted so that cars (or some sort of rapid personal transit) is virtually essential which means that SOMEONE has to make cars which means there will be a car market. Can't say that about RPGs.....and given the trends of the millenial generation and the sheer EASE of MMO play as opposed to tabletop RPGs, I am exceedingly bearish about RPGs in general and I do not think that WOTC did either themselves or the industry as a whole any favors with this approach. You don't beat MMOs by emulating them because when it comes to hack-and-slash, CONVENIENT play using avatars, MMOs beat RPGs hollow...even 4E.
-Polaris
I disagree. If what you said was true, then RPGs would be nearly as old as civilization, and they aren't. RPGs are only about thirty years old despite the fact the technology required for RPGs is almost as old as civilization itself.
Role-playing probably predates civilization. After all, what do you thing all those hunter-gatherers are doing when the dress up in animal skins or hunt attire and weaponry and mimic the hunt? Acting is all about role-playing, too. Collaborative story-telling is also an ancient tradition. Now, I agree that Role-playing wasn't made into a *game* with formalized rules and dice until the 70's, but the urge is a deep-seated human one, and this is now an accepted, supported method of fulfilling it.
The point is that up until the 1970s humans did perfectly well without RPGs and that means that if RPGs were to dissapear tomorrow, people would do perfecty well without them. I note that cars are not even remotely in the same category because society has shifted so that cars (or some sort of rapid personal transit) is virtually essential which means that SOMEONE has to make cars which means there will be a car market. Can't say that about RPGs.....and given the trends of the millenial generation and the sheer EASE of MMO play as opposed to tabletop RPGs, I am exceedingly bearish about RPGs in general and I do not think that WOTC did either themselves or the industry as a whole any favors with this approach. You don't beat MMOs by emulating them because when it comes to hack-and-slash, CONVENIENT play using avatars, MMOs beat RPGs hollow...even 4E.
-Polaris
I agree that if all you want is hack-n-slash with no story, that you're going to play MMOs. I'm not sure how any P&P game could possibly compete on that front. The computer cuts out all the boring parts (the dice rolling, the keeping track of damage and effects and movement allowances, and who's already acted...), while keeping the fun stuff (fighting and killing things, using spectacular powers, leveling). People who love hack-n-slash alone are probably already playing MMOs and not looking back.
You say that WotC made a mistake by emulating MMOs. I'm not sure I understand the mistake. Let me explain what I see, and perhaps you can point out where the problem is (I'm not being sarcastic in the least here -- I just genuinely don't see the flaw and am interested in your take).
1) The well-defined roles (Tank/DPS/Healer/Controller) are not particularly supporting or detracting from the hack-n-slash aspect in MMOs. They are adding some strategic complexity to the game, and requiring people to collaborate for best effect. I see these as virtues for a table-top RPG, not vices. Good table-top gaming involves cooperation and playing together. This encourages good group behavior.
2) Game balance. People complain endlessly when they feel things are unbalanced. Just go to the WoW class forums and scan the last several years' worth of posts to see what I mean. Cutting out complexity to ensure better balance helps people to stay engaged in the game and not feel like they made a "bad" or "losing" choice by playing an X or a Y. Again, I believe this was an adaptive change to pull from MMOs.
3) Simplified rules. I agree that traditional P&P RPGs have had really complex rules. This delights many of us in the community, who enjoy ferreting out the details and inconsistencies in the nooks and crannies of the books. It provides a bar to entry -- you must be steeped in the lore in order to be a real player. That bar to entry is a two-edged sword, though. WotC undoubtedly lost some RPGers who love the complex rules by going to 4E. But I doubt those people fled to MMOs -- that's the wrong direction, since the rules tend to be even simpler than D&D 4E. The question is did they pull in enough new people to offset the loss? I have no clue.
4) Subscription model service. The companies need to make money somehow. I'm not sure what the best income model is in RPG-land, but software + subscription (the equivalent of book + subscription) seems to be really effective in MMO land. The traditional way is to produce endless supplements that some people buy and some don't. Is there a better alternative for competing with MMOs?
I guess I don't see the MMO-like changes as detracting from the core differentiators of a table-top game:
1) The only limit is the players' imagination, not the pre-fab world
2) People work together to tell complex, growing, satisfying stories that have meaning to them as a group
3) The content changes every week (if you have a good DM)
4) People work as a team with real-life friends to achieve great things
5) People get to hang out face-to-face with friends and have fun
I see all of WotC's changes as neutral or facilitating to the above.
Pray tell, what is this influence beyond taking a few names and definitions? Definitions that come from D&D itself, mind you...
I think the influence is most definitely there. I also don't think it's a bad thing. Just one concept off the top of my head: the idea that the enemy should attack the "tank" and adding in rules to make it happen.
RPG's are far better received today, than in the 90s, I'd say. I can approach a lot of people and tell them about D&D and they will listen. I even held a 15 minute presentation at my university about RPG's for my "Learn and Presentation Techniques"-class and guess what, a lot of folks were interested, a few might even start gaming now.
Completely agree. For the last couple of years, I've gone to my kids' school and talked to them about writing, with the teachers fully understanding before I got there that my writing experience is in the RPG marketplace. And I was opened into those classes with open arms - two kindergarten and one first grade class, with another first grade class and a second grade class later this year. (also of some interest as a side note: I always ask the kids how many have heard of Dungeons and Dragons, and every time several hands go up. When I ask how many have heard of World of Warcraft, even more hands go up. So fantasy gameplay is most certainly getting closer to accepted in the mainstream, it would seem.)
I disagree with this a bit.
The "tank" was always there. The fighter was always more or less the "frontline-guy" which was pretty much intended to protect the squishy bits of a party.
Videogames and esp. MMO's refined this concept and made it more integral and functional, but in essence this goes back to D&D itself...
Sure, it was there. But nothing actually compelled the bad guys to pay attention to the tank. Instead, more often than not (at least in all the games I've played in), bad guys made a bee-line for the wizard and/or cleric in an effort to take them down first.
4e has mechanics to compel the bad guys to attack the tank. And, as best as I know, this concept comes from "aggro" in MMOs.
Also I tend to agree that there is *some* influence from MMOs, or *rather* there is influence from Videogames at large. But D&D did not suddenly change into a MMO on paper, as so many claim.
Completely agree. I'm most certainly not saying 4e is WoW on paper.
Because, in essence, 3.5E was WoW on paper, evident from the World of Warcraft Campaign Setting released by some company or another.
White Wolf, through their Sword and Sorcery Studios imprint. I did a tiny bit of work on the product line. ;)
Also, I love your story about going to kindergarten and schools. I know I'm getting players who would've went crazy ten years ago.
My kids switched schools this past year - the district rezoned, and we ended up in the zone for a different elementary school, though the change is probably for the better. So I get to talk to a whole new audience this year.
One of my new players always fits into the freak-pattern. Another new gamer I'm currently about to recruit it a soon-to-be medicine student girl who never played RPG's and comes from a somewhat religious (but open-minded) family. I told her about Roleplaying, comparing it to Improv-Theater and she instantly was hot for it. Same for her best pal.
A lot of folks on my college are interested in it, most just don't have the time for it.
I also have a new player - one guy finally convinced his wife to give it a try. Basically, she was sold on the social aspects -- getting together with adults while the kids play in another room. She caught on really quick to the basic concept of roleplaying and such. I think she's hooked. ;)
*
Anyway... my 4e experience right now is limited to reading the core books. My group didn't want to switch. I just got into a play-by-post game here on the forums, and I'm looking forward to actually seeing the rules in play.
But as somebody who plays WoW (heh - I started because I got the freelance writing work mentioned above), I can certainly see why people say there's similarities. I think you said it well when you said the concepts that were always there are just more refined now.
I will give you one other aspect that 4e "stole" from World of Warcrack...
At GenCon '07, when 4e was announced, Andy Collins was talking about "Points of Light" and said something to the effect of: "As long as you stay on the road, you're safe. Once you wander off the road, there's a good chance the monsters will attack." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of what he said.
Now that is something that comes right from WoW! :D
The "tank" was always there. The fighter was always more or less the "frontline-guy" which was pretty much intended to protect the squishy bits of a party.
I'm not totally sure about that. Way back in the earliest days of D&D, there were only 3 classes: Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. The Fighter was the "standard" guy, the Magic User was the guy who was harder to use but got more powerful if he survived, and the Cleric was a hybrid of the two. The Thief got added later, basically a weaker Fighter who could deal with traps and do some sneaky stuff.
The 'roles' of tank, damage dealer, and healer developed out of this as an optimal way for a party to work. I remember the babysitter who taught me to play D&D saying "Marching order is usually the Cleric and Fighter in the front, and the Thief and Magic User in the back, using ranged attacks."
The first time I saw Fighter = Tank was in Everquest (although I'm sure that it was developed in some MUD or MUSH before that), where Fighters had a "taunt" ability which forced enemies to attack them. I know that some people played D&D this way already, but I know that some people didn't.
The D&D rules were never totally committed to the Fighter as 'meat shield' until 4e, IMO. That's not a criticism, just an observation.
I think the influence is most definitely there. I also don't think it's a bad thing. Just one concept off the top of my head: the idea that the enemy should attack the "tank" and adding in rules to make it happen.
Games, especially fantasy type games are always influencing each other in one way or another. Even if they don't mimic other games, they're still influenced. "Unlike other fantasy games, our game has no wimpy elves!"
WoW borrows from D&D in some themes, yet can still stand uniqely as it's own. I recall the first time I saw moonkin, I thought, "Cool! Owlbears!" WoW has also borrowed the idea of achievements from Xbox. But it's still it's own game.
The idea of the GSL and OGL and so on is to in fact have the game grow and influence itself. While I wouldn't call it so much a failure, the problem is third parties and individuals don't seem to have much interest in designing their own material to be added to the gameosphere. Why do people keep asking everything WotC puts out be added to the SRD? Why can't they be creative enough and create their own materials for other parties to use? Find the best sort of rules for the game?
There's nothing wrong with the game growing and changing. That fact has been pointed out a number of times throughout the edition changes. Just check out the 2e books if you don't believe me. Heck, even 1st edition's Dungeoneer's survival guide and wilderness survival guide say as much. Dragon stated that 1st edition Unearthed Arcana will change how AD&D is played.