WOTC and GSL seem to be gunning for FG...

[Tantras]

5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. 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; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).

The exclusion of "interactive products" is the point here. References to "artwork" and "imagery" could also include a character sheet.

In other words no character sheets/rulesets or anything else you naughty people!

Any one for Pathfinder?

[Oberoten]

Actually that only means you have to do your own layout on the charactersheet.

[Thore_Ironrock]

Actually that only means you have to do your own layout on the charactersheet.

No, that is not true. The statement "interactive products" is a CLEAR shot at Fantasy Grounds and other electronic-based RPG software (i.e. PCGen and other character generators). Software use to play games, RPG or not, are considered interactive products. The character sheet has nothing to do with it, and for the life of me I cannot understand why people thought that just because you only had a character sheet that WOTC was going to look the other way.

There are many other portions of the GSL that do specifically target competition to DDI, and that should really come as no surprise. I'm sure there are others out there that might think differently, but IMHO I think the writing on the wall is clear. Even if you might see things differently, you still have to get the approval of the people that wrote it before you can even think about selling it. Good luck with that.

BTW, you might also noticed that that the wording in the says the agreement applies to (I don't have the exact wording in front of me) products to be sold such as printed books/products, and electronic PDF downloads. VGT software clearly does not fit into that category either. This just proves that WOTC considers FG a viable competitor, and that actually makes me feel good. They can have 4E, and we'll take the rest of the RPG world.

"Boy, do I hate being right all the time!"
- Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

[Sorontar]

They can have 4E, and we'll take the rest of the RPG world.

"Boy, do I hate being right all the time!"
- Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

See that's the spirit (should I mention HERO as a flagship ruleset again, nah I won't this time :p)

Should we all go back to the "Screw you wizards" post now :D

[joshuha]

Well one thing thats possible that Wizards can't do anything about is a total generic character sheet that users fill in what the fields mean. Would mean a bit more work for each user but would allow the playing of 4E without any 4E terms or game information in the ruleset.

[Sorontar]

Well one thing thats possible that Wizards can't do anything about is a total generic character sheet that users fill in what the fields mean. Would mean a bit more work for each user but would allow the playing of 4E without any 4E terms or game information in the ruleset.

So a super-toadies generic sheet then to enable people to enter stuff, which I think was brought up in the "Screw wizards" thread.

[The Scriven One]

Thore_Ironrock, are you a lawyer? I'm not, but I am a writer, and someone who had a few books published under 3e. It seems to me that as long as you don't try to use the GSL, there's no reason you can't make a useful customizable character sheet. After all, only the expression of an idea can be copyrighted, not the idea itself. Additionally, game rules are a process that can't be protected under copyright.

The reason the GSL can be so strict is because it offers something creators might want- the D&D logo, not because WotC actually has that much power.

[Thore_Ironrock]

Well one thing thats possible that Wizards can't do anything about is a total generic character sheet that users fill in what the fields mean. Would mean a bit more work for each user but would allow the playing of 4E without any 4E terms or game information in the ruleset.

This is an excellent idea. In fact, I'm sure the ruleset Toadwart did awhile back could be modified to accomplish exactly this without breaking any of the GSL rules. If the download link for this isn't still out there let me know and Digital Adventures will host it.

[Thore_Ironrock]

Thore_Ironrock, are you a lawyer?

Nope. However, I am an RPG publisher, have worked for about 10 other major publishers at some point, have my own lawyer, know several RPG lawyers, and worked at TSR for four years where they actually made us take "legal training" in regards to industry copyright. Oh, I'm an RPG writer too, and have been for about 20 years.


I'm not, but I am a writer, and someone who had a few books published under 3e. It seems to me that as long as you don't try to use the GSL, there's no reason you can't make a useful customizable character sheet. After all, only the expression of an idea can be copyrighted, not the idea itself. Additionally, game rules are a process that can't be protected under copyright. The reason the GSL can be so strict is because it offers something creators might want- the D&D logo, not because WotC actually has that much power.

Hmm, sorry, but that is not 100% correct; but you're happy to test the waters on your theory. I would rather work with WOTC in a more socialable manner than to openly challenge their legal stance.

[Griogre]

Well one thing thats possible that Wizards can't do anything about is a total generic character sheet that users fill in what the fields mean. Would mean a bit more work for each user but would allow the playing of 4E without any 4E terms or game information in the ruleset.
Yes. Not only would this help people who want to play 4th Ed - it would help everyone who wants to play any game that does not have a character sheet already created for it.

I think a character sheet similar to Toadwart's generic sheet where you could specify an amount of number boxes with lables and a few more tabs would be great.

[Astinus]

Well one thing thats possible that Wizards can't do anything about is a total generic character sheet that users fill in what the fields mean. Would mean a bit more work for each user but would allow the playing of 4E without any 4E terms or game information in the ruleset.

That's all well and good, and like Griogre says it would help gamers in other systems too, but let's face it, it's a very poor alternative to what ships with FGII right now. You're looking at trading off spellbooks, magic item and monster modules, all that interactivity, for what? A generic character sheet? It's a major step backwards.

I'll stick with my 3e/C&C hybrid. But what I'm wondering is, irrespective of the final decision on 4e character sheets, will FGII continue to ship with the SRD as a default?

[Valarian]

Is this the time to ask for a GUI character sheet builder to be considered as part of the Fantasy Grounds product set. Perhaps called "Fantasy Grounds Toolkit".

[Astinus]

Yes, it is the time. Smiteworks has to come up with something, strategically, that allows for continued growth. And that strategy should probably involve tapping the 4e market without being dependent on it. A GUI character sheet builder would go some way to doing that.

[Valarian]

It would certainly allow the "average" user of FGII to create something, rather than just those of us familiar with XML and Lua. The character sheet builder, NPC sheet builder are fairly simple. Placing the widgets and generating the XML behind the scenes. Standard Lua "effects" or "triggers" could allow people to add standard bits of code with some property filling. A combat tracker builder could allow named columns within built character/NPC sheets to be linked to the combat tracker fields. If this is done as a separate product, it could also generate more sales for SmiteWorks. I'd pay $30 to $40 dollars to make this process easier if the tools were built, and I'm fairly familiar with XML. The reduction in time to make changes and the number of different games I want to play would make it worth it to me.

[Griogre]

Yeah, that is what I was alluding to earlier. A character sheet builder that would allow custom character sheets to be tied to specific campaign/rule sets. Personally I don't care if it is GUI based or not - a simple menu creator system, or checkbox and number system would work fine as far as I am concerned. You only build a character sheet every once in a while. If it was kept very simple at the start, it would not take that long to develop.

On the other question of the SRD, it seems likely Smiteworks would have little incentive to change shipping FG with it.

[richvalle]

They could try shipping it with MORE rulesets but I think, for now, the 3.5 SRD one is still the best choise for default.

rv

[Nylanfs]

Yes, there are a couple of things that we at PCGen "could" try. but with the wording of the license, and current attitude (not to mention possible future attitude). And the fact that PCGen is a informal group we are choosing to not even attempt to create a dataset for 4e. We will be building the ground work so that the core software can support it if the users want to make their own datasets for themselves.

[Thore_Ironrock]

I wanted to post a quick message to let everyone know that we (myself and SW) have been in contact with Wizards of the Coast, and are in the process of submitting them questions regarding the GSL and Fantasy Grounds. As soon as we know something we'll post it to the FG forums.

Stay tuned. ;)

[The Scriven One]

And I wanted to post a message to anyone who read my previous messages and thought I was making sense in saying to try to bypass WotC. I was reacting emotionally to the fact that this license is more difficult than the ones I cut my teeth on.

Please, no one get yourselves into trouble. Thanks.

[Xorn]

Mentioned in another thread, I'm curious what FG2 can do OUTSIDE of the GSL as well--just obeying copyright law.

[Thore_Ironrock]

Mentioned in another thread, I'm curious what FG2 can do OUTSIDE of the GSL as well--just obeying copyright law.

We have posed those questions to WOTC as well.

Patience.

[Ram Tyr]

Thore_Ironrock, are you a lawyer? I'm not, but I am a writer, and someone who had a few books published under 3e. It seems to me that as long as you don't try to use the GSL, there's no reason you can't make a useful customizable character sheet. After all, only the expression of an idea can be copyrighted, not the idea itself. Additionally, game rules are a process that can't be protected under copyright.

The reason the GSL can be so strict is because it offers something creators might want- the D&D logo, not because WotC actually has that much power.
I have, in the past, noted that everyone's has a position that biases their viewpoint. If you do not understand the underlying position, you will not see the bias. Some favor WotC's rights, and some lean the other way. Keep this in mind when reading the various viewpoints. Decide which way the source leans and incorporate that into your judgment of their position. (This is going to be especially important if one wants to rely on WotC to establish what is and is not permissible. They will lean further towards not permissible than anyone else.)

Do your own homework. If you are going to try to make money doing something you have questions about, consult a lawyer.

Also, keep in mind that copyright laws vary from country to country.

It is correct that ideas or systems, such as the rules of a game system, cannot be copyrighted. If you believe the US government...(which is easily identifiable as being a very conservative protector of copyrights)
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

The Scriven One is correct, the GSL is a contract which is stricter than copyright law. No contract is needed as long as a copyright is not violated. Without the GSL, and the additional rules it imposes, one only has to comply with applicable copyright laws. (This is true under 3.5 as well.)

This is similar with trademark law...see the OGL FAQ for 3.5 for an example of WotC acknowledging this. (WotC is not going to play fast and loose with their own rights, so this is another conservative viewpoint.)
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

Q: My understanding of Trademark law is that it is legal for me to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark so long as I don't dilute the mark, confuse consumers about the ownership of the mark, or attempt to claim ownership of the mark. How can the OGL stop me from using a Trademark in a way that is otherwise completely legal?

A: The terms of the Open Game License supercede the terms of general Trademark law. By agreeing to accept the Open Game License, gaining the benefit of the consideration of being able to use Open Game Content under the terms of the OGL, you limit certain other rights that you might otherwise have.

So, to be clear, one can proceed without the GSL as long as one complies with applicable copyright law. With 3.5 it was easier to comply with the OGL so more people used it. With 4.0 the GSL is much stricter (more like the d20 system license from 3.5, but then again different still); so it should be expected that it will see less use.

Later.

[Sigurd]

Working outside of the licenses with the limits of copyright law is the most stabilizing route but it may also be the most expensive. Cooperation reduces legal fees and court threats - this is almost universally true.

I think it would be great if a body would test and define copyright limits re. game content and rules systems. I completely understand when a someone chooses not to take that route however.

The license system is designed to serve WOTC as well as the licensees. One of the governing principles is that by accepting the license you move any disputes to the context of the license. You effectively give up the right to challenge WOTC's basic copyright stance for everything you have submitted to the license.

The license insures a great deal more control over publishing conditions for WOTC. Publishing to the net has become a very cheap activity. More clarity about its rights and limits would be great.

Maybe we as player\publishers should find a liberated or open source game system to support and avoid this mess?

If that doesn't appeal, or you dont think it would work, give WOTC a few extra pips of respect. If you can't replace them, they must be supplying something essential.


Sigurd

[Sorontar]

If that doesn't appeal, or you dont think it would work, give WOTC a few extra pips of respect. If you can't replace them, they must be supplying something essential.


Sigurd
New gamers, much like in other things in life, are like sheep in that they go with the crowd. It takes years to turn into cynical, cantankerous old gamers who remember "The Golden Years".

In the MMO market WOW is a prime example, it's nothing special it just had great PR and played to the lowest common denominator so even 6 yr olds could play. Those that ever played "old skool" MMOs long for open, sandbox games and deride the spoon fed drivel.

I won't give WotC anything other than the money for the gift set, ultimately that's all they want anyway IMO :p

4ed looks as though it'll play well, and I won't cut my nose off to spite my face if opportunity to play it BUT there is so much more out there that offer a great gaming experience.

[Dachannien]

If that doesn't appeal, or you dont think it would work, give WOTC a few extra pips of respect. If you can't replace them, they must be supplying something essential.

Really, the main thing that WotC supplies is a large base of people who are, by default, interested in playing whatever incarnation of D&D they create. (There is also a good comparison here to Blizzard/WoW, in that WoW got its huge audience because people liked the Warcraft franchise and/or anything that Blizzard puts out.) I haven't played 4ed, and while 3.5 was a good system, there's nothing saying that a more open system wouldn't work just as well.

By the way, note that if you ask WotC for their opinions on what you can do if you don't agree to the GSL, their response is likely to be more restrictive than the truth. Whether it amounts to them just bending the truth a little in their favor, or outright lying to you, is anybody's guess, but it's almost certain at this point (given the trouble they've gone through making the GSL in the first place) that they aren't going to give away the homeworld this time.

Nevertheless, as long as you aren't making a rules supplement or game setting that is dependent upon their trademarks (e.g., saying that the evil kingdom in your setting is ruled by a royal family of beholders), you are probably better off not going along with the GSL and just sticking with the default rights granted to you by copyright and trademark law. (Make sure you consult with a lawyer on the specifics of what you're planning to do.)

[unerwünscht]

Maybe it all has something to do with THIS (https://www.smiteworks.com/press/10062008.html)


HELSINKI, FINLAND. June 10, 2008. SmiteWorks Ltd. issues notice of
copyright infringement to Wizards of the Coast

SmiteWorks Ltd., publisher of Fantasy Grounds II virtual tabletop
software (www.fantasygrounds.com), has sent Wizards of the Coast,
a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and publisher of Dungeons & Dragons
roleplaying game, a notice of copyright infringement and demand to cease
and desist.

Wizards of the Coast is promoting a subscription-based service, D&D
Insider, featuring D&D Game Table (to be released). One of the six
features promoted is a Die Roller. The graphics for the dice on the Die
Roller marketing screenshot are taken from a Fantasy Grounds product,
first published in 2004. The fact is illustrated in
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/misc/infringement.html. The technology
used for the interactive 3D dice is a unique and distinctive feature of
Fantasy Grounds and the look and feel of the dice has gone unchanged
since the launch of the first version of Fantasy Grounds.

"We are very surprised that Wizards of the Coast, whose business
heavily involves intellectual property management was so ignorant on
intellectual property rights that it chose to take distinctive
graphics directly out of the most prominent head-on competing product."

Fantasy Grounds II is a virtual tabletop for roleplaying and social
gaming online; it features an open platform for game producers to
develop an online dimension to their products.

SmiteWorks is a recognized worldwide leader in virtual gaming table
software since 2004, headquartered in Espoo, Finland. For more
information, visit www.smiteworks.com.

[Thore_Ironrock]

No, the dice issue is something completely different, and it has since been resolved.

[unerwünscht]

Could someone hook me up with more up to date information on that then? It was just posted by a member on one of our websites 2 days ago (so we were all under the impression that it was accurate). But as a semi-news oriented forum I feel it best to make sure everyone knows that its old and resolved, but would hate to post anything to that effect without reference.

[Thore_Ironrock]

As far as I know there is no formal press response from Wizards. If you check out their DDI section you'll see the dice have been changed.

[scytale2]

It does seem reasonable that anything "common" to 3rd ed and 4th ed should be maintainable in Fantasy Grounds - like the attributes, HP etc. What I think is only fair, is that Wizards are allowed to produce an on-line D&D play system, which works with their new intellectual property and gain some commercial advantage, since they designed the new system and put all the research money into it.

To have an existing product simply steal all of their new content and publish it legally in text format within their game also seems unreasonable, at least in a period when only the core rules exist. I am not suggesting that FG have this in mind, but it does seem a rather sticky issue at the moment to resolve, when Core is all there is.

[richvalle]

It seems that Goodman Games (and someone else... someone with an A...) is going to be releasing 4th Ed adventures without using the GSL. The guess is that they are going the 'copyright' way and creating things that don't cross the line (but probably comes very close to it) and steps on WoTC's IP.

Is something like this a viable option for FG? Do you think WoTC might jump on Smiteworks harder then GG because FG is more of a threat to WoTC's future plans for DDI and their VT then GG's releasing Adventures you'll need to have the core books for anyway?

rv

[Dachannien]

To have an existing product simply steal all of their new content and publish it legally in text format within their game also seems unreasonable, at least in a period when only the core rules exist. I am not suggesting that FG have this in mind, but it does seem a rather sticky issue at the moment to resolve, when Core is all there is.

I'm pretty sure that's not what's being discussed here. We already know that FG won't be able to reproduce the core rules for 4ed as they did with d20 under the SRD. What's really being discussed is whether FG can implement a character sheet that works with 4ed, and whether/how much it can provide calculation and automation.

You would still have to buy the core books to play 4ed. Well... ostensibly, anyway, but it wouldn't be SmiteWorks's fault if you happened to get your hands on a copy through other means.

What does seem unreasonable to me is for WotC to make use of a dubious interpretation of copyright law to bludgeon their competitors into submission through lawsuits, when they're the ones late to the party. I guess time will tell (a) whether anyone's willing to call their bluff on the GSL by producing 4ed-related products without agreeing to the GSL, and (b) whether WotC will really take such called bluffs to court or not.

By the way, it almost seems like the WotC lawyer pendulum swung too far the other way this time. The reason that SmiteWorks and others agreed to the OGL during the 3/3.5ed days was because it gave them license to reproduce the text of the core d20 rules. At that point, SmiteWorks was bound by the OGL's terms against automating various processes in FG, not to mention other terms like not describing the character creation or leveling up processes. Now that the GSL doesn't let you reproduce any of the core rules, and still bars you from automation and various other things, people will be much less likely to agree to any of it, which means that otherwise-legal things like character sheet automation will be out of WotC's control.

Too much stick, not enough carrot.

[sppeterson]

Is something like this a viable option for FG? Do you think WoTC might jump on Smiteworks harder then GG because FG is more of a threat to WoTC's future plans for DDI and their VT then GG's releasing Adventures you'll need to have the core books for anyway?

I think it's the only viable option. The GSL is clearly anti-software.

But I also think that they will try to find a way to come after you.

However, you should be in better shape than rulebook publishers since, at core, all you need is a character sheet where the users fill in the blanks. In the old days companies like Judges Guild and others would make stuff with slightly different words -- Hits to Kill for Hit Points, Health for Constitution, and so on.

That said, this is something that, moving forward, you'd want a copyright lawyer looking over precisely what you do and advising on what will hold up in court. I know that Adamant Entertainment (another publisher using copyright) is doing that and I'd imagine that Goodman Games is as well.

[Griogre]

It seems that Goodman Games (and someone else... someone with an A...) is going to be releasing 4th Ed adventures without using the GSL. The guess is that they are going the 'copyright' way and creating things that don't cross the line (but probably comes very close to it) and steps on WoTC's IP. I got a useable with any edition of D&D module off of RPGNow: The Forgotton Tomb (https://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=56490) . And this definitely went the copyright way with no specific monster stats at all. Just names of the monsters like Goblin Scouts and Goblin Sneaks, ect.


Is something like this a viable option for FG? Do you think WoTC might jump on Smiteworks harder then GG because FG is more of a threat to WoTC's future plans for DDI and their VT then GG's releasing Adventures you'll need to have the core books for anyway? Smiteworks doesn't do adventures so no on the adventures. :p Generic adventures seldom do well. Judge's Guild was the first to try when TSR pulled their "Approved for use with D&D" license at the end of the '70s. The big difference now is generics will do well *before* people can release GSL adventures though - especially if they include figures and tiles like the Goblin adventure did. This is a consequence of the botched third party support at launch.

Is WotC going to keep a very close eye on Smiteworks? Oh yeah, probably even more so after the dice thing. Can Smiteworks take advantage of DDI being late with a generic type ruleset with a genric and configurable character sheet by the user? Yes, I personally believe so. I believe that if Smiteworks was to release a generic character sheet builder where you could build a character sheet for any RPG they would get a huge boost not only by the 4e crowd but by every poor soul out there who wants to play a game with no legal ruleset.

[Xorn]

I think a character sheet builder is the single most awesome thing that SW could put out for FG at this point. (Or a ruleset builder, really.)

[joshuha]

I think a character sheet builder is the single most awesome thing that SW could put out for FG at this point. (Or a ruleset builder, really.)

Well in theory it maye be possible now with the current LUA structure but there are things Smiteworks could do to make it much easier. While the structure now could allow for generic sheets, things like object oriented design could make it so you could extend from beyond generic to generic with system ruleset specific bits.

Using the built into controls for dragging and dropping and setting the static bound of controls I have done some proof of concept of a generic sheet but need some time to refine it more and see if it could really be used to build a sheet from scratch.

[Griogre]

What I am envisioning is a what for the user to be able build his own character sheet through the use of a simple GUI, Menu or Wizard. You can use say 4 panes on a tab page with an optional top or bottom text area. Panes could be filled squares for numbers with a label to annotate the number boxes, with text lines (like the notes tab), addable text lines with a shortcut box (like the spells tab), addable lines with modifier die or a mod like the Feats Section of the abilities tab.

The user would be able to specify the number of tabs and the name on the tab. The character sheet would be completely dumb at no logic at all (at the start anyway).

The combat tracker is one of the most major features of FG2, so I believe it would be important to be able to create a generic personality along with the character sheet. In this case I would back into the generic personality sheet by making all the available drag and drop variables appear on a personality sheet with an option to change the label for each. I.E. the personality name gets dropped so there is a text field on the generic personality and several other string fields, as well as several dice parsing textboxes, a series of number boxes, a color, token and so on.

I believe the Smiteworks guys could do something with a minimal feature set pretty rapidly. I don’t really think there is any down side in doing this for them. Even if they manage to make some non GSL deal with WotC, all these features would greatly help all the games which don’t currently have a ruleset.

[azbo]

a completely dumb character sheet is really a huge step backwards. If you're going to build a sheet builder the obvious strength of the software is that it can handle "dependencies". The problem being once players start building a 4e sheet and giving it to their friends they're now distributing something that's clearly infringing on wizards rights. Since the sheets by definition have to be stored on the DM's machine they pretty much all have to be the same format for any specific game which means the DM will be distributing stuff to his players every time you log on and this could pose a problem. It's very murky water and truly unfortunate because lets face it in a perfect world it would be super cool to have a fully functioning rule set for FG2/4e

[Foen]

Head over to FUM if you want to see a 4e ruleset, and have a chat with the guys there (Joshuha and others) to see their views on copyright etc.

www.fouruglymonsters.com

Cheers

Foen