GSL news from Wizards

[Xorn]

Straight repost from the EnWorld scoop:


Hey all! Just saw this on Wizard's main page:

https://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.

The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.

The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.

Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.

To make sure I understand this correctly, this means that developing and releasing a public 4E ruleset should be fine now (assuming the material in the SRD isn't prohibitively restricted)?

What I mean by that is as long as the SRD states, "AC = 10 + Dex Bonus + Armor Bonus + etc" then I can make a ruleset that has a character sheet that figures that up, and make it public, right?

[Illrigger]

It will depend on the wording in the actual document. You'll have to wait until June 6th to find out.

[Xorn]

More details of the GSL will be in a podcast tomorrow, too.

[Griogre]

To make sure I understand this correctly, this means that developing and releasing a public 4E ruleset should be fine now (assuming the material in the SRD isn't prohibitively restricted)?

What I mean by that is as long as the SRD states, "AC = 10 + Dex Bonus + Armor Bonus + etc" then I can make a ruleset that has a character sheet that figures that up, and make it public, right?
Yes. However, I suspect they won't have that formula in the new SRD. My guess is the SRD is basically going to just have spell names and monster stats and the Names of abilities, ect but no fomulas. Still, the 3.x SRD surprised me so I could be dead wrong. We'll see on June 6th.

I do think you will be able to make, as a minimum, a character sheet that has an AC field with no calculations.

Ha, I see I guessed right that they were going to do something about that $5K buy in after they dragged their feet so long. Go Necromancer go! ;)

[zgrose]

Yes. However, I suspect they won't have that formula in the new SRD. My guess is the SRD is basically going to just have spell names and monster stats and the Names of abilities, ect but no fomulas. Still, the 3.x SRD surprised me so I could be dead wrong. We'll see on June 6th.

I'm curious as to why you think the 4e SRD would not have the AC formula given that the 3.x SRD does?

[Xorn]

I'm curious as to why you think the 4e SRD would not have the AC formula given that the 3.x SRD does?

It's a reasonable speculation--with 3.5 they weren't trying to launch their own VTT. Now that they are with 4E--they might try to be more restrictive with the SRD. I myself don't think that's what is going to happen, but I can still admit there is reason to speculate that direction.

I think everything needed to create content for 4E is going to be in the SRD (simply because the publishers that got a preview have said they are very excited with what they have now), so that would mean that we should have a robust enough SRD to make a public 4E ruleset. We'll see in a little over a month, I suppose. I'll post info from the podcast tomorrow, if anyone is interested--I'll be listening to it at work. :)

[Nylanfs]

Yep, we here at PCGen are eagerly awating the actual text of the D&D GSL and the d20 GSL. Our PR guy is checking his mail box to see if we got a copy of the Q&A that WotC sent out since everyone that would be directly involved with PCGen (ie BoD members and senior data monkey's) signed the NDA for WotC.

[Griogre]

I'm curious as to why you think the 4e SRD would not have the AC formula given that the 3.x SRD does?
I am guessing this because WotC was apparently not amused by people repackaging the SRD and selling it and directly cut and pasting from the SRD into some products. Not to mention as Xorn said, they are launching their own VTT and online character generators with DDI.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that one reason the GSL took so long to release is that at first it was so restrictive, the first third parties to see it screamed bloody murder - that they couldn't work with it and so there was some back and forth.

[zgrose]

I am guessing this because WotC was apparently not amused by people repackaging the SRD and selling it and directly cut and pasting from the SRD into some products.

The first think a publisher realizes when they make something public, copy written or not, it that someone once will likely try to copy it. I think you are grossly underestimating them in this regard.


Not to mention as Xorn said, they are launching their own VTT and online character generators with DDI.

My copy of the PHB came with a CDROM for a never finished (?) character generation tool. So we're really back to where we started.

IMO, the SRD is their "loss leader" product. If you only used the SRD, they can still get your dollars with either the VTT and DDI.

[Illrigger]

From all indications, the new SRD will not have much in the way of actual rules, like the 3.x one did. Instead, it will be mostly references to things in the WotC books themselves (i.e., instead of cutting and pasting the descriptive text of the fighter class, it will be more along the lines of "see page 45 of the player's handbook"). This solves the "issue" of people basically re-selling the WotC books in their own format via the SRD. I honestly don't think that the folks at WotC had thought of the possibility of people doing that, and especially didn't think that there would be two dozen of them.

Doing it the new way does have benefits, however, most prominently the fact that it seriously cuts down the time needed to push material into the SRD, as well as allowing more material to be pushed there without surrendering sales of their books. Under the old system, because they needed the revenue stream of the book sales, they severly restricted what was given away for free in the SRD. For that reason, we never got to see the new core classes from the later books in 3rd party products. Now, since you need to buy the books to make use of the SRD, they're free to allow more materials from future books to be used in 3rd party products.

The question is, will there be a clause in the GSL that restricts any type of electronic version of the SRD. Given that they have announced that their own character generator in DDI will be free to use, they certainly have a basis for resticting other people from making one while leaving little room to complain (so long as it actually works, and 4e is simple enough that it certainly should). As I said earlier, we won't know until they actually publish the documents.

[Griogre]

To zgrose: Oh I think they expected it to be copied - but not copied and sold for profit or copied and sold to make products in competition with 3.x D&D.

On the SRD, WotC was expecting people to make modules or campaign settings with it. They didn't expect a Mutant's and Masterminds or products like the DA's Complete SRD, or using the SRD to make a clone of other D&D edition rules. When it came to modules they really didn't like modules like The Pleasure Prison of the B’thuvian Demon Whore, either. Finally, they felt the SRD was not causing enough modules/campaign settings to be made - the very thing they though the SRD would encourage. That's one reason WotC started releasing modules again.

I don't think they view their core rule books as lost leaders - frankly, I think they view them as "cash cows". I really expect the SGL to much more restrictive. I think WotC feels they learned from the school of hard knocks on what they want from their open game license/SRD. I think they will take steps to focus it on just allowing the things they though it would be used for in the first place.

And that character generator in the back of the book was far superior to e-Tools for a very long while. I think the drag and drop interface in some ways is *still* superior to e-Tools. :p Which is why I expect DDI to suck at the start. ;)

Edit: Beat out by Illrigger. But yeah, I totally agree they are going to use referances to page numbers, ect.

[Illrigger]

You'll also note that the GSL is for high fantasy settings only. The new D20 license schema, coming later this year, seems to cover everything BUT high fantasy. What that says to me is "This is OUR pond, if you want to fish here you follow our rules. If you want to go swimming, there's a place over there, but no fishing in it." In other words, they are staking down claims on what D&D is, putting down a framework for using the core mechanics in other systems, and making sure the two don't overlap. You want to make Darwin's World 4e? Fine - more power to ya. But if you want to make "Sorcerers and Drakes 4e", you'll be able to make a campaign setting with page number references to the mechanics and materials in the WotC books, but not a separate core rulebook.

[Xorn]

I'm still optimistic for a 4E Ruleset compliant with the SRD. I don't need a bunch of library modules with rules, classes, monsters, and powers. What I do need is to be able to build a ruleset that is already formatted for the statblock formats, and adding the AC or Healing Surge amount up for me. If the SRD is aimed at enabling 3rd Party Publishers to make royalty free modules/adventures, it seems that this much of the core mechanics has to be present.

And how does the page reference work? I hope that will mean if it says, "See page 41 of the MM" for the description of a Kobold Dragonshield, that I can use that creature in an adventure I write, but I'll have to own to PHB to see the stats.

[Griogre]

I think you can make a 4 ED character sheet compliant with the 3.x SRD/OGL right now (the core of WotC's problem with those documents). I believe at worse case you will be able to make a 4th Ed character sheet ruleset though you may not be able to have any automatic calculation of characteristics.

I think it *likely* they will release names of classes, powers, stats, defenses, AC - but they will release no formulas to derive the stats - they'll just say see PH pg XX for details. I suspect they will release very little in the way of detailed descriptions of *PC* powers and may release nothing more than the names. IE what ever they are going to have in the free DDI character generator will be the basis, of what is in the GSL for PC classes.

On the other hand I expect them to release most of the monster data, at a minimum - the monster stat blocks.

The real kicker, as Jeremy pointed out, is are there going to be any restrictions on electronic media/applications.

[Illrigger]

Well, here's the nail being hammered in:

https://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172697&postcount=3


The Terms and Conditions of the GSLs are going to be similar to the current d20 STL. A couple key points found here and are likely to be included in the license (possibly in different language)

Quote:

"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users. Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another. This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.


Quote:

Definition of Character Creation:

Character creation means the process of generating and assigning initial scores to abilities, selecting a race, selecting a starting class, assigning initial skill points, selecting initial feats, selecting initial talents, selecting an occupation, and picking an initial alignment. You may, at your option, refer readers to the section on Character Creation in the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook or d20 Modern Roleplaying Game, including references to any of the named steps in the process for character creation. Character creation does not include creating or modifying the description of a race, a class, a skill, a talent or a feat.

You may indicate that a player should use a race, class, ability, etc., presented in a Covered Product in addition to, or exclusive of, those presented in the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook or d20 Modern Roleplaying Game. In no way should this paragraph be construed to allow you to present the process for creating a character as defined in the previous paragraph.


Quote:
Definition of Applying the effects of Experience to a Character:

Applying the effects of Experience to a Character means the process for comparing the accumulated experience point total of a character to a chart to determine if the character's level should be incremented. If the experience level of a character exceeds threshold values as defined by the chart, the character is modified in a specified fashion.

Specifically, Applying the effects of Experience to a Character means incrementing the character level of a character by incrementing a class level by one rank, or by adding a new class at first level, and describing how to allocate new skill points, select new feats, select new talents, or gain new class-level linked abilities.

Applying the effects of Experience to a Character does not include creating or modifying an experience point chart or defining a new class (including describing what benefits that class provides at each level).


Quote:

Mandatory Restrictions:

No Covered Product may contain rules or instructions of any kind that:

• Describe a process for Creating a Character
• Describe a process for Applying the Effects of Experience to a Character

No Covered Product may change or extend the definition of any Defined Game Term as enumerated in this Guide.

No Covered Product may include “Miniatures.”

No Covered Product may use the term “Core Book” on its cover, title, advertising, or self-reference.

No Covered Product may be an "Interactive Game" as defined in this Guide.
I take that to mean no VTs and/or Character Generators will be allowed under the GSL.
Not like we didn't see it coming....

[Ram Tyr]

Well, here's the nail being hammered in:

https://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172697&postcount=3


I take that to mean no VTs and/or Character Generators will be allowed under the GSL.
Not like we didn't see it coming....
The quoted language is from the current licensing structure; which allowed for Fantasy Grounds. (Note the d20 system logo alongside the smiteworks logo on the forum webapges.) There is hope yet.

Perhaps WotC reps have said something else that goes further than the quoted language?

Later.

[Griogre]

I take that to mean no VTs and/or Character Generators will be allowed under the GSL.

The character generator guys are in trouble. However, I don't see anything precluding a 4 Ed character sheet. I think the way the 3rd Ed sheet default d20 sheet works largely confirms to 4 ed except you may need to take out the tables for stat mods so if you put in a 14 in a stat it spits out a +2 mod. Generation of AC by adding plus 10 and the correct mods, and saving throws is also prohibited as appears any "helper" formulas. I still see no restriction on putting in your level, hps, AC and defenses. Basically if you made every field a something the user needed to enter I think you would be OK. It's less clear about powers but you can probably put in at least the name and maybe a description - we need to really see the whole quote in context.

The "use rules" could be a problem for VTTs but right now I read that as having the software "use rules" not people generating rolls and having a DM apply rules.

[mr_h]

The "use rules" could be a problem for VTTs but right now I read that as having the software "use rules" not people generating rolls and having a DM apply rules.


Is that basically saying, we can have a character sheet in Fantasy Grounds, but all the fields have to be input manually? (IE, a strength bonus won't automatically show up in the damage field of a weapon)?

[Sorontar]

Is that basically saying, we can have a character sheet in Fantasy Grounds, but all the fields have to be input manually? (IE, a strength bonus won't automatically show up in the damage field of a weapon)?

From what I can see it won't even show you what the bonus for the stat is never mind getting as far as the attack bonus/damage on a weapon.

[joshuha]

Actually from the text above, the interactive game clause is exactly the same as it is now. There are some more refinements on the character creation aspect but besides maybe changing the way we do stat rolling for the local character side, it doesn't seem like it will change much.

None of the text above would seem to indicate you can't calculate AC or anything like is done currently. The interactive game portion has usually referred to using rules to resolve actual actions. Like using the software to compare a roll vs an AC for a hit or against a set DC for a success.

That being said, without seeing the whole text we don't quite know what's possible or not. However, I am pretty sure no matter what a character sheet ruleset and a combat tracker will be possible. The only question is how much of the crunch we can include.

[mr_h]

None of the text above would seem to indicate you can't calculate AC or anything like is done currently. The interactive game portion has usually referred to using rules to resolve actual actions. Like using the software to compare a roll vs an AC for a hit or against a set DC for a success.

I hope Joshuha is right, this would be pretty much no change from how we do things now.

[Illrigger]

Looking at the thread further, it is really going to depend on the way they actually enforce the policy. From all indications, any form or auto calc is out, but manual manipulation via a software interface is still allowed. So a forms-based character sheet that has no calculations would be acceptable.

Bear in mind also that this specifically precludes any listing of specific abilities, even by name. So FG would be limited to a non-calculating character sheet and no rules.

Lastly, there's the issue of "miniatures". They failed to provide the definition of the term; if it's a broad definition that would cover using tokens, then the map would be out as well.

Of course, in the end they can't stop you from using FG and making your own interactive ruleset. But I know the PCGen folks are a bit nervous right now....

[richvalle]

Lastly, there's the issue of "miniatures". They failed to provide the definition of the term; if it's a broad definition that would cover using tokens, then the map would be out as well.


I think they mean copies of the DnD Mini's they now make. Not generic tokens. I don't see how they could exclude something so... generic.

Heck, worse case FG could start using layers like others have asked for. Then allow images to sit on top of images. THEN 'tokens' could just be small images placed on a larger image of a map.

I'm more curious how this 'poison pill' idea of no company creating both 4th ed under the gsl and still selling 3.5 srd material will work out. If it stands like people are saying it might (you can't do both) then either would never be able to make an official 4.0 compatible version or they would have to stop selling the 3.5 version.

rv

[Griogre]

That being said, without seeing the whole text we don't quite know what's possible or not. However, I am pretty sure no matter what a character sheet ruleset and a combat tracker will be possible. The only question is how much of the crunch we can include.
Exactly my feelings and well said by Joshuha. At the very minimum character sheets are going to be able to be made - exactly how "smart" they will be is still up in the air and will stay there until June.

On the can't make 3.5 & 4.0 stuff at the same time - That will be interesting to see. If a company knows its going 4.0 then it may not be that bad. I'm assuming most sales of 3.5 went down like crazy when 4.0 was announced (similar to the transition from AD&D to 3.0). Being unable to straddle the 3.5 and 4.0 divide will hurt the smaller companies most - the guys who make a print run once a year on some products. We might see a few of the larger companies spin off a division to make content for what ever side of the fence the main company doesn't - ala Piazo & Necromancer. It is pretty clear that WotC views 3.5 as competition to 4.0 and wants 3.5 to die ASAP.

[zgrose]

Poison pill theory seems popped.

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502

[Nylanfs]

Right, PCGen was d20 compliant for about a year because we stripped out the random generation & assignment of HP & Stats. We decided to drop the d20 STL because the user base wanted the random generation of those items.

If you don't have auto-assignment but have random generation like FG does you are compliant. Of course if WotC still decides you aren't and sue, you'd better have deep pockets to be able to prove your point in court.

Which would be kinda cool since the OGL (& now the GSL) haven't been proved in court AFAIK.