Another nail in the coffin?

[ggroy]

[JonSetanta]

... which is clarified by the preceding statement;

One of the most popular and convenient ways to share is on websites owned or operated by our fans, collectors and commentators ("Fan Sites"). For that reason, we have developed this website to provide you with trademarks and logos, product images, artwork, and other trademarked and/or copyrighted materials that have been pre-approved by Wizards ("Wizards Materials") for your use on your Fan Site. We encourage you to use these materials, post your character sheets for Dungeons & Dragons®, create fan fiction, display your personal artwork, and just have fun on your Fan Site.

Although, it isn't without problems.
Their use of the term "Fan Site", especially in caps, rubs me the wrong way.
It's as if the concept of gamer-created adaptations was their idea all along, and always will be.

It's like covering their ass for any future copyright rewrites that would
retroactively halt even nonprofit fan creations, pardon... Fan Sites... just in case.

The conservative governor of Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Gov. Pappy O'Donnell, comes to mind.
Practically retconned the whole movie in his image.

[IGTN]

Wait, are they saying that you aren't allowed to publish your own feats, powers, etc., or that they're covered by another license.

Still, having a Fan Site Policy at all seems a bit off.

[Judging__Eagle]

Awesome!

There's no reason to not just make your own system that not only parodies 4E, but is hopefully better than 4E.

Also.... this means that the argument "The DM can make new ... " or "But it's ok, the DM can add..." is now MOOT. Since now it's illegal to modify or add or fix things in 4E.

Now we're truly epic fail territory, as now the 4rries can't ever claim that they can "add things" to the game, since the "word from up above" has deemed the current edition "perfect"; depsite its many glaring flaws.

[JonSetanta]

There's no reason to not just make your own system that not only parodies 4E, but is hopefully better than 4E.

Also.... this means that the argument "The DM can make new ... " or "But it's ok, the DM can add..." is now MOOT. Since now it's illegal to modify or add or fix things in 4E.

Now we're truly epic fail territory, as now the 4rries can't ever claim that they can "add things" to the game, since the "word from up above" has deemed the current edition "perfect"; depsite its many glaring flaws.

How is this bad at all?
They've encouraged us to make our own entirely-non-D&D shit.

Fan Site, and everything

I'm trying to make a new dice system. Turns out it wasn't the numbers that was hard; it was the decision process. Every aspect cut out is like a sacrifice, since implementing it back in later is potentially game breaking, like adding new feats and spells in to a system after it's "balanced".
Pre-empting breakage is near impossible, I've given up on that much, but the main focus now is at least setting ceilings on character growth within each level-group category (aka "rank").

Then again, there's not much a gamer need do to make their custom RPG better than 4e.
Not much at all.

[Josh_Kablack]

Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands

Right, it's not this policy, it's the Fair Use Terms of the Copyright Act of 1976 which should allow fansites to at least publish and distribute such things.


PS: I am not a lawyer.

[Starmaker]

Awesome! No more Oberoni! I almost wish we had an active 4etard thread.

Also, giant frog detected:

We encourage you to use these materials, post your character sheets for Dungeons & Dragons®, create fan fiction, display your personal artwork, and just have fun on your Fan Site.
...
You may not write, produce or create any novels, theatrical productions or other adaptations that include our copyrighted materials without our express written permission

[Roy]

Giant Frog is Giant. But really, is anyone surprised?

[mean_liar]

Based on what's been posted, you can still distribute 4e mods, but you can't do it as a defined Fan Site using WotC copyrighted materials.

Basically it only says you can't slap the 4e logo or artwork on whatever you're doing if it mods the rules.

[Lich-Loved]

Based on what's been posted, you can still distribute 4e mods, but you can't do it as a defined Fan Site using WotC copyrighted materials.

Basically it only says you can't slap the 4e logo or artwork on whatever you're doing if it mods the rules.

I don't think this is exactly correct. Specifically you see...

does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License

If you browse to the GSL FAQ, you can glean these tidbits:

Q1: What parts of Dungeons & Dragons is Open Game Content?
A: None

Q2. What do I do on my website if I can not use the GSL?
A. Wizards will release a fan site policy in the future that will offer a limited license for specified uses. Websites are not licensed under the GSL.

Q3: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term although it would be difficult to avoid using them. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL.

Q4: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede
like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)

Q5: Can I redefine non-mechanic materials (“fluff”)?
A: No. You may add new material, but you cannot define, redefine, or alter any 4E Reference, including “fluff.” Please refer back to Section 4.1 on redefining 4E References. As an example: “In this world Eladrin are between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5” in height and can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would redefine the definition of Eladrin, whereas the statement: “The isolation of the Deepwood Eladrin have allowed them to evolve with several unique traits including being slightly taller in height, between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5”, and after generations of meditation can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would extend the definition by adding a Deepwood sub race while allowing the term Eladrin to maintain its original definition as found in the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook.

Q6: Section 5.5 states that interactive products are not available under the license. What does this mean?
A: Interactive products include, but are not limited to, video games, software, or other programs that offer rules adjudication. Products that accept input from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return the indication of the results of those inputs to the users are considered interactive products.This includes random determinations of hit points, ability scores, dice rolls and the like. These types of products are not available under the GSL.

Q7. Section 5.5 states that Character Creators are not available under the license. What does this mean?
The question alone says it all.

tl;dr:

(0) Nothing in 4th Edition is Open Gaming Content
(1) Your website cannot publish modules using the Fan Site Kit; you must use the GSL.
(2) The GSL does not cover websites (uh just their content I guess?)
(3) You do not have to use Defined Terms in your product (module for example), but you may find it hard not to do so. You cannot use the definition of "Cleric" to be anything other than the Cleric published under the GSL. You cannot reuse any term found in the rules anywhere with a house rule attached, like the redefinition of the Eldarin fluff. If you start a sentence on your site with "In this campaign..." and you are mentioning a WotC term, you are in violation of the GSL.
(4) You may not create "interactive products" under the GSL. WotC claims dice rollers are a violation of the GSL.
(5) While staying in the above rules, have fun and spread the word on our products!

This is seriously screwed up. I really have no idea what to make of it, but I don't see how you are allowed to write modules or do anything else under the Fan Site Kit except having "user communities for our games [to] enjoy sharing information, experiences, and opinions about our products" or, in other words, the Fan Site Kit allows you to "advertise for us" if you want the shorthand version.

[MGuy]

Just another reason to not like 4e. Its because fan made content is probably better than the shit they're pumping out in their books.

[Koumei]

Can we get K in here to tell us what it means, and how to get around it?

Not that I intend on making ANYthing for 4E, you understand. I just like the idea of declaring "Fuck you too" to them.

[K]

Based on a cursory review while eating my breakfast sandwich, my limited and inlicensed legal opinion is:

This basically just says that it is not a license for their IP, and that the license for that is the GSL.

Now, the GSL is crap in that it allows them to use legal action to get injunctions against your stuff for almost no reason at all, and if you want a reason to not make things for 4E then there you go, but this license is basically just one that gives a right to put things on your website.

An interesting thing that shows up when you read both docs is that you never get a right to just put the text of an adventure or supplement onto a website. Everything must be in softcover, hardcover, or PDF format.

[JonSetanta]

The majority of us fans won't be bothered by this. We don't make a dime, nor run publications, nor advertise RPG sites to the extent that concerns WOTC's influence.
Anything posted on wizards.com or gleemax is theirs anyway by other obscure and slightly creepy rights.

It does, however, prevent new Eberrons from sprouting up without WOTC's direct control.
Namely, competitors.

It's like playing whack-a-mole with independent RPG publishers.

[ggroy]

[Username17]

This time around, it will be interesting to see how many of WotC's 3pp competitors will go over to Pathfinder rpg instead.

How would that be interesting? Pathfinder isn't open content, so the answer is "one."

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

How would that be interesting? Pathfinder isn't open content, so the answer is "one."

Right. As a direct D&D derivative it falls neatly under their preemptive clause.

In my own seeking to write a (much more compact and abstracted) non-d20-brand RPG I was shocked at their copyright of the term "Cleric" though.
That... that is just bullshit.

[ggroy]

[ggroy]

[MGuy]

My money's on 4esince it is already out and has time for the "new car smell" to fade away.

[ggroy]

[Surgo]

Also.... this means that the argument "The DM can make new ... " or "But it's ok, the DM can add..." is now MOOT. Since now it's illegal to modify or add or fix things in 4E.

That's not true. You can create, you just can't distribute. Using it for your own game group doesn't count as distributing.

[Manxome]

In my own seeking to write a (much more compact and abstracted) non-d20-brand RPG I was shocked at their copyright of the term "Cleric" though.
That... that is just bullshit.

IANAL, but I didn't get that from reading it. It looks to me like they're saying that if you want to make a 4e product using the GSL, you have to use 4e's terms to mean what they mean in 4e and nothing else. It doesn't claim (at least in the quoted portion) that they have any right to prevent you from using their terms to mean anything you want in unrelated products that don't require you to obtain a GSL license in the first place.

Saying that people trying to make products compatible with their game aren't allowed to redefine established game jargon doesn't seem that unreasonable on the face of it.

[ludomastro]

Given the title of "Another nail in the coffin?" I was drawn to the thought that Wizards is really a vampire that survives on the regular cash infusions from Hasbro. Which I suppose makes it more of a tick than a vampire ... but still. Are they trying to nail the coffin shut?

[Crissa]

Ooo! Unenforceable EULAs!

Also, there is still conflict over fan produced materials diluting brands or adding value to them, which means that if it is found to be diluting, that it is not fair use, but if it is adding... It sometimes is fair use.

-Crissa