Holy Crap…

What else can I say? The letter posted two weeks ago took a life of its own. I was hoping it would have an impact, but I had no idea it would do this.

Let me explain, or as Montoya would say, let me sum up. On February 28th, I decided to reach out publicly to Wizards of the Coast to offer suggestions to improve their relationship with their GSL 3rd party companies. Without going into too many details, I’ll enforce certain ideological points the letter hit upon. The first dealt with WOTC’s relationship with 3rd party companies and the fact that the community is divided on what that relationship is. Accusations abound that WOTC created the GSL as a handout to prevent an uprising, while others considered it a restrained, but conscious business decision to protect WOTC’s franchise while still offering its rules to outside publishers. Still others consider it an aggressive maneuver to destroy said competition. Assumptions followed claiming WOTC considered 3rd party companies annoying tolerances best pushed under the bed. This despite WOTC listing 3rd party companies on their website under the title “Partnerships”, indicating something more valued.

Fast-forward a week later, the letter on Living Dice had received no comments and little attention…until a news posting on EnWorld on Monday. Three comments followed, a link on thread on EnWorld, but the letter seemed fated for obscurity. That was March 5th. Upon my return from work on March 6, the responses on Living Dice had increased to twelve and the thread on EnWorld had exploded to 135 posts over nine pages with over 2,000 views. By the end of the week, those numbers would triple. Unfortunately the dialogue appeared more concerned over the conflict between which was the better system, Pathfinder or D&D. I have to take personal responsibility for that, as I had stated that some 3rd party companies were enjoying increased sales under the Paizo banner over the Wizards’ one. That statement was easily misunderstood as a declaration that Paizo was selling better, a statement I neither made nor could back up with any accurate data.

Overall, the responses were extremely supportive, though many provisionally. Some comments held hope that WOTC could actually adopt these proposals, though convinced the letter would fall on deaf ears for reasons as varied as grains of sand. The negative comments appeared divided into two camps, those that considered the letter the ramblings of a whiner complaining that WOTC doesn’t do his work for him and those using the letter to extol the virtues of Paizo’s community policy. The latter I will deal with later. As for the accusations of whining, beyond the ill-mannered tone of such accusations, I realize now I could not have hoped to have posted that letter without such comments being made, despite their ignorance. If the policies and business practices I suggest are so pitiable, then why does Paizo follow that same model (more on that later)? These comments also appeared isolated to certain regions. On EnWorld, although initially present, they quickly vanished in the swell of Paizo vs. WOTC rhetoric. On WOTC’s official forum, three threads discussed the matter without a single negative remark towards the spirit of the letter. I have seen at least one extensive negative thread continue on two other sites, revealing how certain people congregate to certain sites.

The conflict between which was the better system eventually dragged Morrus (owner/operator of EnWorld) to defend his company practices along with praising the advantages of writing for 4th Edition. Humorously, he repeated a comment I had made in jest to a podcast interview some months back concerning the lack of products in the 3rd party 4e landscape being in our favor (given the absence of competition).

There were comments made about my opinions towards Pathfinder, based mostly on assumption. I stated I have my preference, which is true, but it is in no way based on the quality of the product. I have never played or read Pathfinder. My group made a decision; gamers can be stubborn that way. They won’t even touch Essentials despite me wanting to. Pathfinder was released a year after DEM had signed the dotted line on the GSL. Because of the limitations with the license at that time, there was no point in attempting a dialogue with Paizo, as there was no way we could adapt Amethyst to 3.75 without breaking our license agreement with WOTC. However, my initial opinion was that an Amethyst-Pathfinder adaptation would not succeed given the deluge of 3rd Edition products available.

Little did I know the irony of this situation. In actuality, as I alluded to earlier, the proposals I was hoping WOTC would adopt were the same Paizo follows as gospel. Pure coincidence. What does that say about the practicality or effectiveness of that business model? If the concepts I suggest are so totally alien to a successful business, why is it that Wizards’ biggest competition in the RPG market follows those very same practices? Regardless, the letter was made not as a vent but also not as a heartfelt attempt to garner a response for Wizards, as I agree with many people in that WOTC is unlikely to respond. But sometimes you have to make a statement despite the futility of it. The fact that it generated this considerable reaction does indicate a lot of pent up frustration felt by players and publishers alike. With a definite presence of knee-jerk reactionaries and armchair quarterbackers, it’s unlikely that WOTC would be willing to sift through the conflict to see the legitimate concerns their fans and 3rd party companies have. If by some grace of sorcery Wizards does respond, and does implement some of the suggestions offered, I imagine the fanatical naysayers would not be the first to apologize.

The conclusion of this tale takes an interesting twist. I was in fact contacted by a major publisher involved in this entire episode. It wasn’t Wizards of the Coast that contacted me; it was Paizo, specifically Vic Wertz, its technical director. With little stake in the situation, watching silently from the sidelines, Vic decided to wave a flipper of friendship from welcoming shores, inviting me to dip a toe in water of Pathfinder. After Morrus discussed the difficulty with converting his 4E products to Pathfinder, he suddenly announced a Pathfinder adaptation to ZEITGEIST. The revised GSL issued in 2009 does open 3rd party companies to develop properties outside of the GSL, even single products released under two rules (a fact I confirmed with Goodman Games). This permits simultaneous releases of both Amethyst 4E and Amethyst 3.75. Alas, as I have mentioned, I have no experience with Pathfinder (though extensive with 3.5), so there is considerable research to be done.

IF such a project were to move forward (which it actually is—I bought Pathfinder last week), it would be an expansion of the line, not a shift (as two books are still due for Amethyst 4E this year). It would also be an adaptation from the 4E Foundations book, not the 2008 Amethyst D20 release. Too much has changed in the setting in the intervening years and I’ve gotten to be a much better writer (I didn’t even have an editor for the old book). This is not an official announcement; I’ll make that up for later.

It’s an interesting footnote to the story. By this posting, I still have not received a word from WOTC. I am grateful at all the positive feedback received.

Apparently I have a 500 page rulebook to read…

Dear Wizards:

I’ll attempt to word this letter in a fashion that promotes compromise and expresses my understanding of the situation. It  starts with the declaration that Wizards of the Coast are not obliged to follow anything mentioned here. They don’t owe anyone, and I am neither demanding action nor contending that what I request must be followed. I am suggesting a course of action that will benefit all parties involved.

On Friday, February 25th, I received a phone call from a writer experienced in 4th Edition wishing to produce his product. He had previously been tied to another major publisher that had recently dropped its 4th Edition lineup in favor of Paizo’s Pathfinder which they claim had been growing in sales to the extent of surpassing their 4th Edition products. This is not an isolated incident but only the latest symptom, following in the wake of similar announcements from Mongoose and Goodman Games. For all intents and purposes, despite declarations from fanboys on both sides about whether Pathfinder or D&D is the better seller, it is now glaringly obvious that from the 3rd party publisher outlook, the winner has been decided.

This wasn’t always the case. It’s important to mention that I am not threatening to cut my ties with the mother company. If DEM fails to make an impression with its 4th Edition lineup, we won’t be abandoning it in favor of Pathfinder. Most likely, if our 4th Edition products prove to disappoint, it may be the end of products from the DEM universe. This is not a threat; it’s simple fact of life and investment. Dias Ex Machina made its name with 4th Edition D&D. We already created an Amethyst 3.5 in 2008. We switched it to follow 4th Edition; stepping back to 3.75 feels…exactly that.

I am offering suggestions to make the 4th Edition D&D multiverse a welcoming place for 3rd party publishers, most involving D&D’s online presence. This is not like the days of the OGL, where companies could access and copy the entire rules system, a la Linux. Third party companies need to reference original WOTC products. This encourages sales. Additionally, more 3rd party products increase D&D penetration in the marketplace. It may not be a significant increase, but the investment is negligible, making a return virtually guaranteed. You wouldn’t even have to offer these to every publisher, only to those you believe have reached a certain level of quality—perhaps companies that are producing truly original products over those only offering variations on elements already created.

It’s important to know that 3rd party companies can keep up with the pace if you dare them to. Changing the rules through an errata is not as damaging as you might think. As a metaphor, I would offer that a 3rd party product (at least Amethyst) was a car using WOTC roads. WOTC can change the laws and the limits, where and how fast you can go, but we don’t have to rebuild our car. The problem is WOTC uses an express lane and refuses to open to those following them.

So here are my proposals:

TALK ABOUT US
Simply put, with the many blogs and official press releases WOTC issues, reserve a section to mention the products being released by third-party companies. This could include the many newsletters and online articles dealing official WOTC products. This would not be a one-time occurrence but a recurring practice so that players will know these products and companies are ever-present in the community. Currently, WOTC has a single page mentioning 3rd party companies and one forum group called GSL. We would like something prevalent and dedicated one blogger a week, one page in a newsletter, maybe even space in an issue of Dragon. You would be surprised the amount of free content 3rd party publishers would offer in exchange for a bit of free advertising.

SUPPORT US
In the many products released by WOTC, they put aside space for advertisements. Although you would imagine costs would be astronomical, offering a discount or a single gratis communal page dedicated to everyone (like those small market advertisers at the back of a Road & Track) could work wonders. Banner ads on the website would never come to pass, but allowing some advertisement, side by side with D&D, could muster up considerable leverage in convincing third-party companies that they are under your umbrella, not standing beside you in the rain.

REWARD US
Although there are perhaps dozens of products that may not reach your level of quality, if one does come about, acknowledge them. Perhaps even special awards dedicated to only 3rd party products. You could offer accolades for artwork, layout, writing and originality. You won’t even need to make plaques; a simple GIF would suffice.

SELL US
File this under improbable, but opening an online store is something Wizards still insists on not creating. They offer DDI as the compromise. But selling 3rd party PDFs via the official Wizard site would not only promote our products but also offer revenue for WOTC. If you think this is unprecedented, it is important to know that Amethyst Foundations (a 4th Edition 3rd party book) is available for sale (and does sell) on Paizo’s online store. If Paizo can sell a 3rd party D&D product, why won’t the creators of D&D. There is revenue there to be had.

DISTRIBUTE US
The DDI is the single biggest feature that sets 4th Edition apart from the rest of the RPG community, allowing up-to-date content a finger-tap away. Trying to get 3rd party content into Character Builder has been a poster-protest since the debut of the controversial application, something that WOTC has never been receptive to. They have come close, with the frank answer being that even though they are not against the idea, WOTC is not sure how to implement it. Meaning they could if they spent a large amount of money on programmers to enable the system and still keep it secure…ergo, they won’t do it. I am not talking about Character Builder; however, I am talking about all the other aspects of DDI, the exclusive content. Allow 3rd party products to post artwork, classes, and monsters. It would be part of DDI content and showcase the products offered by 3rd party companies.

TALK TO US
The last proposal is to keep us 3rd party companies in the loop. With the exception of the first GSL license update, there has not been a single email sent mass to the companies signed under the GSL. There has been no attempt to keep them—us—informed of future products and changes in the rule structure. We are not told about rule updates until after they have gone up. We had no warning about the potential rule changes coming with Essentials. We are not made aware of the coming products; if we were, we could make an effort to support those very same product lines.

As long as you require, by word of GSL, to reference your products without copying information within them, then consumers must own those books to use ours. It’s a symbiotic relationship, not unlike the clownfish swimming around an anemone. All we’re asking is to open that umbrella just a teeny bit more to allow us the same protection, show us that we’re connected, not holding on for dear life.

Hoping and Optimistic (as they are different)
Chris Dias
Dias Ex Machina Games

4Th Edition Modern.

My fanatical push to complete Amethyst that year was directly connected with the possibility that 4th Edition would emerge as our primary competition.  Then the economy started to sag, dogs and cats started living together, and Amethyst was delayed until 2009.  The facts around 4th Edition Modern turned into rumors, than into conjecture.  As Amethyst was pushed further back to 2010, I realized I was competing with a non-existent product.  At some point in the intervening two years, someone at Wizards had closed the book on 4th Edition Modern, if it ever existed at all.

(Deadpan) Oh, lucky me.

Some suspected that the lack of significant returns from the original D20 Modern was the reason for this.  Other people accused the 4E system itself as being incompatible with modern or science fiction games.  Amethyst was the first, a bridge setting merging science fiction into fantasy while separating the two elements on mechanical as well as philosophical grounds.  This allowed DEM to develop technology based rules without riding the crutch of fantasy.  We had to overcome the challenges of circumventing high firearm damage outputs as well as squeezing in enhancement.  So how do you do it?

The first issue dealt with damage output.  An arrow carries significant energy due to its speed and mass.  A bullet travels much faster and carries more energy despite being smaller.  A bullet can do more damage to a target due to its velocity along with side effects like hydrostatic shock.  An arrow can inflict more damage in certain situations because of different forces at work, namely the deceleration rates between a bullet and an arrow, flexional energy, torsional vibration, etc (long story).  Still, a bullet’s speed overcomes its deficiency in mass, allowing it to do more harm than an arrow.  But how much more?

Historical fact—bullets didn’t replace arrows because they were faster, deadlier, and/or more accurate and it was several centuries after their introduction before they could overcome the arrow on these matters.  Simply put, it’s easier for one trained man to build fifty pistols than it is to train fifty men to use a bow.  With that out of the way, let’s address damage.  Since “modern” bullets have the potential for more damage, I have seen huge damage outputs by homebrew firearms (a pistol doing 2d8, for example, a rifle doing 3d8) to explain this.  These homebrew mechanics are referencing one point.  An arrow inflicts 1d8 damage.  Thus a rifle bullet doing arbitrarily three times more damage should do 3d8 (not fabricated, I saw homebrew damage listings this high).  This fails to take into account the range of weapon damage in D&D.  The next damage scale from 1d8 is 1d10 (or 2d4 is you want to get technical).  What does 1d10?  A greatsword.  So this argument contends that a trained human fighter with the strength of a pubescent gorilla, wielding a twenty pound chunk of sharpened steel will only do a third the damage of a rifle bullet.  It’s a matter of scale.  If a greatsword does 1d10 and an arrow does 1d8, it doesn’t matter how much more a rifle bullet inflicts.  If it does not do the damage of the greatsword, it remains at 1d8 (let’s keep autofire out of the discussion for now).  When dealing with a high caliber weapon that can take off limbs, then yes, those can do 1d10 or 1d12.

I have seen homebrew rules that constructed workarounds to make their high damage firearms function, all of which contained mechanical flaws.   If William Wallace’s flail, which crushed the skull of Mornay in Braveheart (I looked it up), does 2d6, then no two-handed firearm should do more.  All’s fair.  Of course, you can forget all the science and decide that firearms have to inflict damage in scale with melee weapons in 4E for no other sake than game balance.

Onto opportunity attacks.  D&D made the uniform rule that all ranged attacks prompt opportunity attacks.  I can agree with this on several levels, with one exception.  I would remove such a condition with pistols.  So if you create a Ranger from the PHB and give him two pistols a’la Woo, then those ranged attacks would not prompt an opportunity attack.  Heck, in adjacent squares, I would even allow them to be used a melee weapons.

Probably the one rule I was most concerned over and the one no one ever complained about was movement.  Only when running at full speed can your accuracy with ranged weapons be hampered.  When it comes to pistols (one-handed small arms), then this rule still applies.  But if you look at modern military training, this is not encouraged.  Further reinforced with first person shooters (one of our primary influences regarding our modern rules), if you stop, your reticle narrows and your accuracy improves.  Not ignoring this basic fact, we implemented such movement penalties into Amethyst when dealing with two-handed small arms and heavy weapons.  If you move more than one square, you suffer a penalty to attack until the beginning of your next turn, meaning you can shoot first and then move to avoid the penalty.  Heavy weapons are stricter and offer a greater penalty while super heavy weapons (a new addition coming in the next book) must be planted in the ground before they can be fired.

It would be an obvious comparison that if you wanted to include firearms into a fantasy that the ranger would be the preferred choice.  However this does limit you in your role.  Firstly, a ranger shoehorns you into the Hard Boiled attitude (most people won’t complain).  Perhaps you may want to try something else.  A rogue can turn into a Ghost Recon-styled character with no fuss…but that’s still a striker.  Yes, the Amethyst stalker is a glorified ranger with a secondary build allowing long range sniper powers, but we needed to expand on that.  The grounder was the answer.  The grounder is not striker.  He is a defender/controller (yes, two roles, let’s move on).  As defender, even though he doesn’t mark (something I still insist is not mandatory), he can impede enemies from approaching allies.  As for being a controller, the grounder is equipped with dozens of area affect powers that inflict controller-like powers.  Overwatch, Stacking Burst, Standing Barrage—all these powers use firearms to mimic wizard-like powers.

Here are some final ideas to consider.   You can create powered armor by simply combining the effects of multiple magic items into armor and adding their costs.  Enhancement can come from acquiring more advanced weapons (bullets to railguns to lasers to plasma).  You can create massive weapons that inflict incredible amounts of damage by limiting their use to ranged basic attacks.

These were the biggest anchors which Amethyst sat upon, the same anchors I’m utilizing for our upcoming Ultramodern4.  By ensuring a solid foundation (see what I did there), we can reach beyond into more fringe rules WOTC may never have thought of.  Since Amethyst proved solid mechanically (the powers had a few bugs but we’re working them out), Ultramodern4 can tackle other ideas, like cybernetics, computer hacking, giant robots and aircraft, the latter two of which are being folded back into Amethyst for its second book.

Yeah, you heard right.  Giant robots.  Check the image.  That’s the Angel Amarok, detailed in the Amethyst: Factions.

Addendum:  I know I mentioned that first person shooters were an inspiration when designing our firearms.  Since people accused D&D of mimicking an MMO, I figured the game comparisons were still valid.

Chris

The Essence of the GSL

locations, creatures) in their products. It was originally released in the summer of 2008 and very few companies signed it. In fact, it was roundly criticized as draconian and grossly unfair to the 3rd party publishers. WOTC quickly withdrew the GSL for “revision” and released a new version this week.

There are some improvements over the original document, but I am still very, very unimpressed. A particularly onerous section that forced 3PP to remove/destroy old inventory when they leave the GSL contract now has a 6-month grace period to allow them to sell off non-compliant inventory. This is an improvement, but then you get down to the truly evil section.

By the way, I should mention that I am skipping some sections related to the SRD, logo use and “approved” content (ie no sex, excessive violence, hurting anyones feelings, etc) and the clause that allows Wizards to produce a competing product “substantially similar” to what the 3PP publishes. No, I think that true evil in the GSL begins at section 9.3. I reprint it here for your convenience.

9.3 Protection of Wizards’ Rights. Licensee will assist Wizards to the extent necessary or as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property. Wizards will reimburse Licensee for any reasonable out-of-pocket costs incurred as a result of providing such assistance, provided that Wizards has approved such costs in advance. Licensee will not institute any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property. Licensee will take no action that will harm, misuse or bring into disrepute the activities, properties or products of Wizards or Wizards Intellectual Property.

Yes, once you sign the GSL, you are now a potential “draftee” in any IP infringement action Wizards undertakes. They kindly offer to pay “reasonable” expenses incurred by the 3PP. Lovely, letting lawyers decide what is reasonable is like letting pigs decide how much slop to eat. No thank you.

Just as a thought experiment, let us assume you want to take Wizards to court and let the lawyers sort out a problem between the two of you. Problem is, WOTC picks the venue and you gave up the right to trial by jury.

18. Choice of Law; Jurisdiction. This License will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, USA, without reference to its choice of law rules. Licensee  irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located at King County, Washington with respect to any claim or suit brought by Licensee arising out of or related to this License, and Licensee agrees not to commence or prosecute any such claim or suit other than in the aforementioned courts. LICENSEE EXPRESSLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE.

The uppercase lettering was in the original document. At least they are being upfront about what you give up.

I am done. I cannot read this thing any longer without spasms of laughter. I do not t speak for anyone except myself, but I would never sign this contract. There is too much power in the hands of Wizards and too little benefit to the 3PP. There is one great thing that might come of the new GSL If this version is an unpopular as the last one ( and I believe it will be), then more companies will start producing their own systems and worlds and variety can only be good for the gaming community.

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

Wizards of the Coast Game System License

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

For those coming late to the party the GSL is the license that WOTC makes 3rd party publishers sign before they can sell anything that uses the 4E D&D system. You should read the original GSL. It provides some context for my suggestions. If you are not interested in reading a legal document or old blog posts to catch up on the GSL controversy , let me sum it up for you: it is an evil document. Incredibly unpopular with publishers and pulled within a few weeks of release for “revision.”

Let us move past this old document to the new, “Trask Built” version.

{Lots of Legal Boilerplate, on to the good stuff }

1. Wizards will notify all signatories of any changes to the GSL by mail.

No, this is not a major burden for Wizards. I personally contacted/visited most of the RPG companies in the English-speaking world setting up rpgseek.com. There are less than 400. Not a big deal to do a mass mailing. The original version of “we change it and you have to keep checking back to see if we changed anything” is just rude.

2. You can reprint entire unaltered blocks of text from the SRD, including page numbers for reference.

I get that WOTC wants to sell books, but preventing publishers from reprinting power descriptions and the like was just annoying.

2. You may print an OGL and 4E version of the game simultaneously.

This one really annoyed me in the original GSL. If 4E is so much better than 3.5 in every possible way, what harm does a 3.5 version of the same book cause? Clearly no one is going to buy the “inferior” version, right?

4. “Wizards of the Coast” has final approval on all books published under the GSL. All works must be submitted for approval to the “Community Standards Department” before publication. WOTC reserves the right to require edits before release of any offensive material.

Wizards included a vague “community standards of decency” clause in the original GSL. Vague is not acceptable. Either you let people print what they want or you demand approval on every product, with feedback to fix the problems. Vague is just too dangerous in this age of litigation.

5. If there is a lawsuit between WOTC and the 3rd party publisher, arbitration is the venue of choice. Legal costs are determined by the arbiter.

I am not a lawyer, but even I know that lawyers and trials are expensive. Here is the original GSL’s version of this, “Licensee will be responsible for all legal costs, including Wizards’ attorneys’ fees, associated with any action required by Wizards to enforce the terms of this License.” No small company can afford to pay the legal bills during a protracted suit for both sides! It basically made WOTC lawsuit proof from anyone other than a large company. Arbitration is fair, cost-effective idea.

6. Changes to this document are NOT retroactive. All changes require signatories sign the license again. Currently published products do not have to conform to the new requirements

It will be a cold, dark day in Hell before I ever sign a contract that can change without my consent. Of course, it is very unlikely WOTC would do such a thing, but can you afford to take the risk?

Such is my vision for the new 4E GSL. I am sure there are those that disagree with me or think they have a better idea on how to handle these issues. Feel free to make your feelings known in the comments.

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

Wizards of the Coast announces a forthcoming revision to the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License (GSL) and System Reference Document (SRD).

“We recognize the important role third party publishing support plays in the success of the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. We have listened to the community and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart. Our commitment to the health of the industry and hobby gaming lifestyle is reflected in the revisions to the Game System License.”
–Linae Foster D&D Licensing Manager

While the delivery date is not yet firmly established, the revised documents will be available in the very near future.

The new fan site policy, to be made public at a later date, will be posted upon completion.

Happy day! The GSL is the single most restrictive and unfair agreement I ever read and most publishers rightly avoided it. I give Kenzerco credit for leading the charge against this evil document. I am not certain, but I am sure their strong resistance inspired others to either reject the GSL outright or take a “wait and see approach.” I am sure WOTC felt the heat.  With luck this means the new version will allow are more “SRD” approach to the rules. Although I would settle for the ability  to reprint powers and abilities in a module and reference a page number in the PHB. Yes, both were banned under the old GSL. That is what happens when lawyers become involved. Madness ensues.

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

From the description, LPJ Design is pitching this as  a logo for those companies that produce 4th Edition, but do not sign the 4th Edition GSL. See my Kenzerco post for more information.

When I went to the link (here ) there was a “not found” error. It looks like it was posted  and then removed. I do not know the reason for the removal, but thanks to Google’s cache, you can still take a look at it.

Anyway, decide for yourself if you think this is a viable idea.

Here is the link to the google cache version , but I also reprinted it below.

With all the recent changes due to the release of 4e, the GSL and the OGL, we here at Louis Porter Jr. Design have decided to create an all new 4^th Edition System Compatible logo which can be used by any and all 3rd party RPG publisher, completely and absolutely free of charge, with any of their products that they wish to support the 4^th Edition of the world most popular RPG, but not the GSL in a similar fashion to Kenzer & Company and Adamant Entertainment recent 4^th Edition release.

The reason for this new 4^th Edition System Compatible logo is the basic failure of the GSL and it use, unify and support of the 3^rd party RPG Publishers who wish do to 4^th Edition System Compatible material but do not support the GSL. This logo; as in similar fashion with the OGL 3.5 System Compatible logo; easily brands and makes 4^th Edition System Compatible material easy to identify with this logo so people can tell on sight what gaming system they are supporting. The initial concept of the OGL was to make the gaming industry stronger by making it possible for more people to create and make products to support the concepts of the OGL.

With the release of 4e and the GSL, many 3^rd party RPG publishers have decided to forgo the GSL completely make 4^th Edition System Compatible material without use of the GSL. And with the limiting nature of the GSL in its current form, it has caused the creation of this new 4^th Edition System Compatible logo. This logo has bee created in several graphic formats including Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Illustrator EPS, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Photoshop JPEG and TIFF. Each of these formats comes with three different versions: color, Grayscale and Black and White.

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

———————————————

There has been a lot of speculation around the details of the new GSL, and I feel like there is need for some clarification. Our intention is to encourage publishers to design for 4th Edition, not to jeopardize independent third-party games published under the OGL. With that in mind, publishers are going to be able to decide — on a product line by product line basis — which platform they will use for developing their products. If a publisher has an existing product under the OGL, we would love for them to update it to the GSL; however, that is not a requirement.
–Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License FAQ

Q. Will there be a fee to participate? Do we still have to pay $5,000?
A. The Game System Licenses are royalty-free licenses and there is no developer’s kit fee associated with them.

Q. Can anyone participate?
A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008.

Q. When can we start publishing GSL products?
A. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications is set for October 1, 2008. The timing for the d20 GSL has not yet been determined.

Q. Is the new license finished yet? Can you provide a firm timeline?
A. The D&D 4e GSL will be released when we launch Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition on June 6, 2008.

Q. What are the specific details of the license?
A. The specific details will be available to the public upon the release of the licenses.

Q. How will the GSL interact with the OGL?
A. The two GSLs are new licenses, separate from the OGL. They are designed for companies that wish to publish 4th edition compatible products.

Q. Can companies still produce 3.x products under the OGL?
A. Yes, but we anticipate that interest in the 4e GSLs will be greater.

Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.

Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.

Q. Will there be a different license for other lines, such as d20 Modern?
A. The d20 GSL will allow for other genres of roleplaying games.

Q. Why are there two different licenses?
A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for non-fantasy genres. Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set.

Q. Do I have to give up my right to publish 3.5 OGL products in order to publish 4e compatible products?
A. No. Publishers are free to print product lines under either the OGL or 4E GSL. We would love to see our industry colleagues convert their entire product offerings to 4E, as we are doing, but we do not expect or require entire companies to convert to the new edition.

Q. Can publishers update their previous publications from older editions to the D&D 4th Edition rules?
A. Yes. Publishers participating in the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition GSL will be allowed, and encouraged, to convert their publications from earlier editions to the 4th Edition rules.