PDA

View Full Version : Necromancer Games Rejects the GSL



Matthew
2008-08-01, 03:26 PM
Well, the list grows longer, but this is one company I am surprised to see back tracking.



Sorry I have been so quiet. Things are very up in the air right now. And no one is more aggravated with that than me. It has been about a year now that we havent put out a product. The market for 3.5 is all but dried up. Maybe Pathfinder's release will help, but that is still some time off. I intend to support Pathfinder when it is finalized. I trust and respect the people at Paizo. They are gamers and brilliant designers. They love D&D and have its best interests at heart. Luckily, when Wizards first took over D&D, they put a visionary gentleman named Ryan Dancey at the helm and he was able to convince the powers that be to release D&D 3E as an Open Game, thus essentially assuring that the game we all love could exist in that iteration forever. 3E and the d20 movement was a great time for gaming. A true renaissance, in my view.

Now we have the GSL. Right now, in my view, the GSL needs some major reworking or clarification to be usable. The bottom line, in my view, is that the GSL is a total unmitigated failure. And that is a shame. I have been one of the biggest vocal proponents of Wizards and I love Scott and Linae. I still do, big time. I am hopefull that we can find a way to change or clarify some of the issues with the license so that we can use it and create 4E products. You know that philsophically I believe in supporting the current version of D&D.

Trust me that I am working hard to try to resolve the GSL issues so that we can go forward. I'm optimistic that some changes can be made. Will they be enough to make the GSL usable? I sure hope so.

Please dont take this post as bashing Wizards. I am not doing that. I support Wizards. And if there is one thing that is clear from this process it is that, while I would have done it differently, they have always been great about listening to our comments and revising things based on our comments. That is a credit to them, for sure. And Scott and Linae continue to be amazing and, in my view, working hard to make the license usable.

So what will Necro do? I'll try to break things down by relevant topic:

So are you doing 4E? Well, right now I dont see 4E products in the immediate future from Necro without some changes or clarifications to the license. My hope is that I will be able to get what I need so that we can do 4E products. But as of today we have not adopted the GSL, we have not sent in our card accepting the license. And, unless there are changes or significant clarification, we won't be adopting it.

Necro and Paizo? I still very much want to work with them and they very much want to work with me. The problem is the GSL. Necro will definately be supporting Pathfinder when it comes out. If the GSL issues are resolved, Necro and Paizo will be bringing you some amazing products that we already have lined up and in the hopper. Seriously, there are several awesome products literally ready to go just awaiting the fixing of the issues with the GSL.

Tegel Manor? Right now, in my view, in addition to the problems the GSL has in general, it has specific additonal problems for a product like Tegel. I see the risk to Judges Guild, which wants to continue to make OGL versions of JG content and distribute our old Necro/JG products as well, as being too great to jeopardize permenantly, which the GSL does. But, you may say, Judges Guild doesnt have to adopt the GSL! That is true, but the GSL has some problematic provisions that make that partnership very difficult and uncertain.

What about that free adventure, Winter's Tomb? Can't you just do a free adventure? Its not happening. There is no way to "just do a free adventure" without adopting the GSL, which we have not yet done and wont do in its current incarnation.

So now will you release all that stuff for 3E? Doubtful. The market for 3E is not there. I expect Pathfinder to revive it, but that isnt going to be a full, public supportable system for some time. 3E remains viable for many publishers. But our plan is to up the production value on our products, which means they cost alot more to make, which means our margins are so small, that the current 3E market makes those products not feasible for lots of reasons I wont get into. I know there are many fans who say they will buy that stuff and would love to have it. Well, in a perfect world, we'd love to deliver it. But this isnt a perfect world and fan demand isnt the only factor--there are distributors and retailers and others who are not so excited about generic 3E now that 4E is out.

So bottom line it for me--what are you going to do? We are working with Wizards to clarify and/or change the license. If that works, we will release 4E material. If there are no changes, I dont see us adopting the GSL (absent some significant official clarification of terms of the GSL). We will support Pathfinder. But we will not just release OGL content from this point forward until Pathfinder is viable and we can support it.

How likely do you think it is that there will be changes? I am very hopeful that some significant changes or clarifications can be accomplished with the GSL.


Source (http://www.enworld.org/articles/No_4E_for_Necromancer_Games%21/6939)

Kurald Galain
2008-08-01, 04:08 PM
Well, the list grows longer,

It does? Other than Paizo, who else is on this list, then?

Matthew
2008-08-01, 04:28 PM
It does? Other than Paizo, who else is on this list, then?
Green Ronin and Kenzer & Company (though they were never really on it, they actually have released 4e material without using the GSL).

AKA_Bait
2008-08-01, 04:45 PM
Green Ronin and Kenzer & Company (though they were never really on it, they actually have released 4e material without using the GSL).

The latter was just pointed out to me. It's... interesting. I'm wondering if they are going to get sued.

Matthew
2008-08-01, 04:49 PM
The latter was just pointed out to me. It's... interesting. I'm wondering if they are going to get sued.

Well, Kenzer is actually a copyright lawyer or somesuch thing, so we'll see. I think it is pretty unlikely, though; Kenzer & Company released about a dozen products for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons back in the (very) late nineties without legal repercussions, but anything is possible. For your convenience, here is the thread I started about Kingdoms of Kalamar 4e (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85181) (I know, I have got my finger on the pulse :smallbiggrin:).

AKA_Bait
2008-08-01, 05:02 PM
Huuuuuuuuuuuummmmm. I shall have to watch how this develops closley now.

Back to the topic:

I'm surprised but not shocked to see Neco backing out. The GSL really, really, really does suck. I spent a fair amount of time reading it over looking for any loopholes to avoid the 'we don't like you anymore, destroy all your product, including electronic copies' language and came up pretty much dry.

AstralFire
2008-08-01, 05:21 PM
I'm still undecided (mostly positive) towards 4E, but the GSL is draconian and pretty much blows six times sideways to Chicago.

Viruzzo
2008-08-01, 05:28 PM
Well the GSL sucks because you compare it to the OGL, which is really open, but otherwise is an almost standard "we own the brand, don't mess with us" license. Anyway I find it unlikely that many companies won't at least publish separate books for 4e: if you're a very small publisher you may survive in the niche, but larger ones will sooner or later need to upgrade.
There is hope to see the GSL loosened a bit since it's receiving bad reactions, but is quite small. Bad as it may sound, corporate business is about bullying the others.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-01, 05:36 PM
The GSL is something that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. It really is bad (WotC can effectively put you out of business at any time for any reason). The only way it becomes half way usable is to establish a new company for every release and release only as PDF's (a lot cheaper). And even that doesn't really protect you.


There are a few ways to effectively release 4e products under the OGL but they are pretty shady (although technically legal).

Raum
2008-08-01, 07:13 PM
Frankly I think the GSL (as currently written) is short sighted of WotC / Hasbro. TSR nearly failed when attempting to support the entire line of AD&D products internally, production costs were too high for many of the smaller print runs. OGL effectively outsourced many of those small releases while supporting their audience. Without something similar WotC has to choose between letting small audiences die (shrinking the audience for core books) and attempting to support them in house as TSR did.

My guess is they'll choose not to support unprofitable lines (they're already dropping Gleemax). Long term result will be fewer people purchasing the core books and core accessories.

It'll be interesting to see if the online revenue stream is enough to make up for that.

bosssmiley
2008-08-02, 06:11 AM
It does? Other than Paizo, who else is on this list, then?

Necromancer Games: Staying OGL/Pathfinder.
Goodman Games: Using the OGL to produce 4e material for GenCon, then signing the GSL for the October date.
Kenzer & Co: Producing 4e material through fair use copyright, not signing GSL.
Paizo: Making Pathfinder, of course.
Green Ronin: Not signing GSL, going all OGL, likely to focus on its own OGL systems.
Adamant Entertainment: Producing 4e material through fair use copyright.
The Inner Circle: Signed the GSL.
Mongoose Publishing: Signed the GSL for at least one game line. Probably will produce other OGL content through other game lines.
RedBrick Limited: Signed the GSL (making Earthdawn 4e.)
Open Design: Patron adventures yes for 4e, Kobold Quarterly no.
Paradigm Concepts: Not signing GSL, producing OGL products.
Expeditious Retreat Press: Signing the GSL for one game line, producing other OGL products

Source (http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/07/31/3rd-party-dd-gslogl-publishers/)

Viruzzo
2008-08-02, 09:02 AM
Well I see that the "we can kick your products" clause is annoying, but you got to realize that it's not something they would do without reason, that would scare away the publishers. There is no gain for WotC in removing someone's 4e product line, the clause is there to protect their IP in a rock steady way: if you make something that makes them want to revoke your license, they can do it right away, without long, costly and uncertain legal battles.
I think that the "OGL or GSL but not both" clause is worse for the players, since it will kill a lot of content that could have been made in both versions for some years.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-02, 10:28 AM
Well I see that the "we can kick your products" clause is annoying, but you got to realize that it's not something they would do without reason, that would scare away the publishers. There is no gain for WotC in removing someone's 4e product line, the clause is there to protect their IP in a rock steady way: if you make something that makes them want to revoke your license, they can do it right away, without long, costly and uncertain legal battles.
Irrelevant. If you run a business you want to minimize risk. That clause is a huge risk, one that companies that decide to use the GSL prolly end up getting insurance to cover.

I think that the "OGL or GSL but not both" clause is worse for the players, since it will kill a lot of content that could have been made in both versions for some years.
You can make 4e compatible products under the OGL just fine. And completely legally. You can not copyright game mechanics. You also can not copyright or trademark generic terms such as wizard, fighter, wound, etc. You could even advertise with such things as "Compatible with 4e Dungeons & Dragons". The laws get complicated but the GSL is really mostly a scare tactic.

Jayabalard
2008-08-02, 10:51 AM
You can make 4e compatible products under the OGL just fine. And completely legally. You can not copyright game mechanics. You also can not copyright or trademark generic terms such as wizard, fighter, wound, etc. You could even advertise with such things as "Compatible with 4e Dungeons & Dragons". The laws get complicated but the GSL is really mostly a scare tactic.Even in that case it's legal for Hasbro to sue, and it's possible that they can keep the legal battle going on long enough to put a small company out of business.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-02, 10:56 AM
Even in that case it's legal for Hasbro to sue, and it's possible that they can keep the legal battle going on long enough to put a small company out of business.

They can sue but if you do things right they can't win. And if you operate under the GSL they can put you out of business on a whim. Also under US law the looser pays the legal fees in copyright cases.

Raum
2008-08-02, 11:53 AM
Also under US law the looser pays the legal fees in copyright cases.Only true sometimes which keeps risk around. Legal fees are generally awarded when there's reason to believe the suit wasn't in 'good faith'. That actually brings up another issue though, many contracts spell out who pays for legal fees. Does the GSL?

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-02, 11:58 AM
Only true sometimes which keeps risk around. Legal fees are generally awarded when there's reason to believe the suit wasn't in 'good faith'. That actually brings up another issue though, many contracts spell out who pays for legal fees. Does the GSL?

Any suit attempting to claim copyright of game mechanics would have a hard time making it past summary judgment. And with the OGL to release under they can get around a lot of other stuff as well.

As for how the GSL handle's legal fees, it basically says that "We can revoke this license at any time for any reason with no notice". And so long as you have agreed to that license then you would have a very hard time making it past summary judgment if WotC revoked your license and you took them to court over it.

DrowVampyre
2008-08-02, 07:16 PM
That actually brings up another issue though, many contracts spell out who pays for legal fees. Does the GSL?

GSL explicitly states that the GSL signer pays for WotC's legal fees.