D&D's Story Manager Answers Your Questions on Camera

Chris Perkins, story manager for the upcoming Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, took some time out this past weekend at the D&D Experience event to talk back to us. He answered the concerns of five readers who had commented on their responses to our earlier questions from January. With a large amount of information about Fourth Edition now out in the open and the NDA for playtesters lowered, there's been a floodgate of new concerns over the latest change to this tabletop icon. You might also be interested in the other videos from Gamer Radio Zero filmed at the D&D Experience event, which covers everything from DMG design to D&D Insider pricing. Chris's responses can be seen in the YouTube videos included below. Thanks both to Mr. Perkins and Michael Lescault for making this interaction possible. Mongoose Disciple asks "Is there any concern that you've eliminated the most tactically interesting/complex characters from the game?"



Anonymous Coward asks "halivar asked what influence computer games might have had on the design of 4th ed, but what about computer games that are going to use the D&D rule set having an influence on the design of 4th ed? None of the games based on 3/3.5ed appealed to me because of the over-complexity of the rules, I preferred the older titles such as Baldur's Gate that used 2nd ed. That's obviously a personal opinion, but I know it's not an uncommon one. So, were there any design choices made based on the fact that computer games will also use the system?"



skinfaxi asks "Does WotC think all players and DMs are male?"



BobMcD asks "I'm looking at the back of that specific Tiefling Wizard's sheet, and it seems to me that conversion is going right out the window. This 1st level character seems pretty beefy to me, in terms of sheer spell face-meltage. Does 'At-Will' really mean 'as much as you want, just so long as it is your turn'?"



bugnuts asks "How does the Open Gaming License affect WotC's view on computer programs? Does Wizards consider the actual rules, the type of map, the genre, the number of d20's, etc to be their IP?"

Comments

Was typing too much work?

[slaker]

Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn. Would it have been too much to ask to get some transcripts and/or replies in the standard, text only format that I expect from every single other post on Slashdot, or would all that typing be too much of a hassle?

Re:Was typing too much work?

[SQLGuru]

I concur, many offices now block streaming media (video or audio) due to bandwidth concerns. So, I can read the questions and see the blank space where there would be video, but I'd like to get a transcript, please.

Layne

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Fozzyuw]

Was typing too much work?

To Summerize...

Why did you get ride of complex characters?

We didn't. We're going to sell them to you in another book at a later time.

Did you design DnD4 around video games?

Yes, we designed DnD4 with consideration of selling our rules to video game makers and to work on other platforms.

Are all DM's male?

There is a such thing as a stupid question, and that's one of them.

Will wizards be overpowered because they can cast as many spells a round as they want?

No, a wizard can only perform a certain number of things a round, but they can cast as many number or different spells per combat. We don't want wizards to have to use a xBow because their spells are gone. That's boring.

Does WotC consider everything in DnD their IP?

I don't really know how to answer that question without bringing my legal team down on me, so I'll just say that d20 is symbolic with DnD but other games use it, but logically our IP = our IP.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Stanistani]

If Slashdot continues the drift towards video submissions, well, then I will probably get all my geek interaction from Youtube. Your choice, Taco. Will I dream?

This is a text-based site for good, historical reasons. You want more videos? Put 'em in a link at the bottom as an option.

>Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn.

Best old-school comment ever. Sir, you win.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Remus Shepherd]

Thanks. Count me as another person who cannot view videos at work. Thus, I will take the above summarizations as the true answers to Slashdot's questions.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Hoplite3]

I agree. I can skim text, sip the parts I want, skip the parts I don't. Video doesn't work that way. I have to listen to the whole response. Lame.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[LandDolphin]

Count me in the group that wanted this in text. My work blocks most video's and my comp has no speakers. :-(

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Outland Traveller]

I agree 100%

My current frustration is trying to search for technical documentation online, and discovering that only exists in the form of a video. Text and screenshots would be been a far superior medium. I thought it was bad enough when it happened the first time, but it has happened to me now with two different products. And this article is less useful to me because I do not have the same kind of time to watch videos than I would to scan text.

Text please!

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I agree. I'm glad the video is here, but a transcript posted also would have been really nice.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[SyntheticTruth]

Likewise...I can't even access youtube anymore. :(

Oh, and...

Hello Remus!

(Duskrunner from alt.db and Jeffryn from EQ1 -- if you remember either of those. :D)

Even on slashdot, it's a small world. ;)

Re:Was typing too much work?

[UNKN]

Actually, I prefer the video, that way you get it straight from the horses mouth. I'm sure if someone had typed up some transcripts they would have forgotten something and then your comment would have been "God this sucks, you left out X Y Z." Don't watch the video, just listen to it.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[tlhIngan]

Honestly, if I want to see video, I'll fire up some porn. Would it have been too much to ask to get some transcripts and/or replies in the standard, text only format that I expect from every single other post on Slashdot, or would all that typing be too much of a hassle?

Not to mention that reading is way faster than speaking, and doubly so when there's enough background noise to make inaudible the speech (futzing with rewind buttons and progress thumbs is quite slow, especially in crappy players that insist on only letting you go back/forth to markers every N seconds rather than anywhere). That, and if you only care about one small part of a video, having to sit there through the entire thing is a pain rather than simple scanning.

Video is great for some things, but other times, it should be used to augment, rather than replace. (E.g., video is great for demos and such, but poor if you're looking at a talking head unless it's used to clarify or illustrate a particularly difficult concept in the text).

Re:Was typing too much work?

[theAtomicFireball]

Thus, I will take the above summarizations as the true answers to Slashdot's questions.

They were, perhaps a bit snarky, but overall relatively accurate. The signal-to-noise ration was pretty low.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Berkyjay]

"No, a wizard can only perform a certain number of things a round, but they can cast as many number or different spells per combat. We don't want wizards to have to use a xBow because their spells are gone. That's boring." That is such BS. This is the most obnoxious attempt to appeal to the WoW crowd and it sickens me. Wizards should prepare spells and if they run out then too bad, they should have planned better.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Fozzyuw]

That is such BS. This is the most obnoxious attempt to appeal to the WoW crowd and it sickens me. Wizards should prepare spells and if they run out then too bad, they should have planned better.

I'm curious. Why do you feel that wizards should prepare spells and be limited to the number they can cast (per day)? Is it because you simply don't like the "WoW crowd" and don't want WotC to appeal to them or is there another reason?

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Berkyjay]

That is such BS. This is the most obnoxious attempt to appeal to the WoW crowd and it sickens me. Wizards should prepare spells and if they run out then too bad, they should have planned better.

I'm curious. Why do you feel that wizards should prepare spells and be limited to the number they can cast (per day)? Is it because you simply don't like the "WoW crowd" and don't want WotC to appeal to them or is there another reason?

Yes, I don't like WoW. It's game system is designed to be simple so that our moms and girlfriends can play it and it doesn't belong in D&D. If they want to attract that crowd then they need to go back to the D&D/AD&D system. Make D&D the dumbed down WoW version of the PnP game and keep AD&D deep and complex. The Vancian spell casting system is a foundation of D&D and I can't stand to see them destroy it.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DnD spell casting system is bad game design. Period. I'm not going to go back and read a player's guide to get my example down exactly in terms of rules, but heres how it plays out for a player in the real world when they play an arcane magic class in old DnD.

I gain access to level 5 spells. I can memorize two per day. There are 10 level 5 spells. One is a direct damage spell, ALL the other spells are hyper-specialized utility spells. I'm going to select the direct damage spell because it's the most likely to be useful in most situations, and ONE utility spell that I may or may not use ever. I enter combat and find 5 cases where if I had randomly selected one of the other utility spells, I could have used that spell in that situation, but I didn't because I had no idea what was going to happen in my encounters (I'm ignoring metagaming here because most people consider it bad form in DnD anyway). So I got to cast my direct damage spell once in an entire day of encounters (which can be weeks in real time for some games). The rest of the time I was hiding in the back or casting low level cantrips doing almost nothing of value in combat or out. If I'm lucky, I found a wand or some useful scrolls, and the thief didn't claim he should get them because he spent points in use magical device specifically to use them.

So for weeks in real time, my character did one cool thing, and continually felt that if I had arbitrarily chose a different utility spell weeks ago, I would have done two cool things.

DnD's spell system was retarded and needed to die. It was anti-fun. When you put a lot of time and effort into researching your class, and still feel like whether or not you can do something useful is based entirely on the luck of which encounters you face, it's not a rewarding experience.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[h4rm0ny]

I'm with you as regards dumbing down, but I think we know too little yet to say if this is the case. For example, I don't think that a wizard running out of spells is exactly gone, so much as supplemented with some basic magic abilities to be used when they run out instead of being forced to shoot their friends in the back of the head with a crossbow.

Don't get me wrong - my two main concerns with 4th ed. are that it turns out to be dumbed down and that it focuses too much on being a defining everything in terms of combat. For example the Pit Fiend entry we have seen details "Tactics: The Pit Fiend acts as follows..." which rings alarm bells. However, there are some very talented people working on this game and they are long time players. These include Mike Mearls who wrote the incomparable Iron Heroes alternative player's handbook.My ideal scenario would almost to have seen them just revamp the core ideas of that game for 4th Edition with a few of the weaknesses filled in, but failing that I'm optimistic that he'll bring across some of the expertise he showed there to the new game.

4th Edition might be the dumbed down money extractor that we fear, but there are positive signs with a lot of this, so please reserve judgement. You can be sure I'll be as loud as anyone in complaining if I feel it's damaging the game I care about.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Yosho]

I'm going to guess that you aren't actually that familiar with the rules. There are two very important things to know about playing a good wizard:
1) You don't have to prepare all of your spell slots at once. At the beginning of the day, just prepare a few good combat spells of various levels that you'd want to have if somebody got the drop on you, and leave the rest of your slots open. You can sit down for a few minutes at any time later that day and prepare spells in those slots.
2) Find magic scrolls? You get Scribe Scroll at first level. Making scrolls is cheap. Use it. You should go ahead and make multiple scrolls of every utility spell you know -- especially the specialized ones, so that you never need to spend a slot preparing them -- and it's also a good idea to prepare scrolls of combat spells that don't rely heavily on caster level, so that you can use them in combat when you run out of prepared spells.

Also, there are lots of spells that seem specialized until you actually put your mind to thinking of alternate uses for them. Just out of the level five spells you derided -- teleport, transmute rock to mud, telekinesis, overland flight, baleful polymorph, shadow evocation, persistent image, wall of force, prying eyes, summon monster 5, major creation... all of those spells are very powerful and can quickly disarm many different situations if used creatively. And none of them are direct damage spells (at least, that's not their intended use). Or were you just setting up a strawman argument that you didn't actually want anybody to disprove?

I'm not saying that the wizard class is perfect, mind you -- I welcome the addition of at-will powers (perhaps like the reserve feats in some of the recent splat books) so that you wizards don't have to pull out a crossbow when they've run out of their daily spells. But I am saying that you don't know how to play a wizard correctly, and it's not the class' fault that you suck.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Arterion]

1) The book says you can do this, but NO WHERE does it actually detail the rules for it. Like how long it takes to prepare a single spell. I've tried before, to do the math on it taking "an hour" to prepare all your spells, and basing the numbers off that, but you end up with huge charts.

2)It's REALLY stupid to make magic items. Even scrolls. They not only cost XP which only the wizard pays, even though they benefit the ENTIRE parte, but they also cost a CRAZY amount of gold for "magical materials". And that's never explained or defined anywhere, either.

Sure, you can say it's all up to the DM, but that's always rule 0. Something that integral to the viability of a class should be clearly spelled out in the rules. And the Wizard is pretty much suck as much as the GP says, in my experience. Yes, I've thought about your suggestions, but they're just not very good ones, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I won't even get into the issue of being able to lose your spellbook, and the concept of "learning" a spell, even though you need special feats to prepare it without the spellbook.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Yosho]

1) The book says you can do this, but NO WHERE does it actually detail the rules for it. Like how long it takes to prepare a single spell. I've tried before, to do the math on it taking "an hour" to prepare all your spells, and basing the numbers off that, but you end up with huge charts. PHB page 178. See the section titled "Spell Preparation Time". It's very clear; preparing all of your spells takes an hour, preparing a small number takes an amount of time proportional to how many you prepare, but at least 15 minutes. It's not as clear as a lot of things in the book, but that's still high school algebra -- the amount of time is equal to (number of spells you want to prepare) / (total number of spells you can prepare) in hours, with a minimum of 15 minutes. No chart necessary.

2)It's REALLY stupid to make magic items. Even scrolls. They not only cost XP which only the wizard pays, even though they benefit the ENTIRE parte, but they also cost a CRAZY amount of gold for "magical materials". And that's never explained or defined anywhere, either. This is true in a lot of situations, unless you're playing a class that specializes in making magical items (see Artificer). But scrolls are cheap. Look at how much it costs to make a scroll compared to character wealth by level. It's a little pricey if you're cranking out scrolls of the highest level you can cast, but the cost of scrolls a level or two lower is a pittance. The GP cost is simply part of being a well-rounded wizard -- do you refuse to buy a new axe when you're playing a barbarian or more ammunition when you're playing a ranger? Do you complain about buying new armor because you being a better tank "benefits the entire party"? The XP cost is practically little more than a rounding error -- a 9th level scroll costs only 153 XP! By the time you can cast 9th level spells, you can sneeze on something and get that much XP back. If you don't mind a little bit of cheese, take a look at the Complete Adventurers' Thought Bottle, and all of your XP problems are gone.

But that's not the only way to end your "running out of spells per day" problem. Be a specialist, get a few Rings of Spell Storing or Pearls of Power, and get a Headband of Intellect for more bonus spells.

Sure, you can say it's all up to the DM, but that's always rule 0. Something that integral to the viability of a class should be clearly spelled out in the rules. It's not all up to the DM. Aside from the specifics of "magical materials" -- which I admit is a bit vague, but can easily be explained away as the cost of specially prepared paper, magical ink, etc., all available from your corner adventurers' market -- all of that is pretty clearly spelled out.

I won't even get into the issue of being able to lose your spellbook First, you know that a typical spellbook has 100 pages, and it takes one page per spell level to scribe a spell in it, right? You're probably going to be hauling around several spellbooks. Losing one will suck, but it's not the end of the world. You can also re-scribe any spells you had in memory at the time it was gone into a new book. Second, any DM who destroys a spellbook is a cruel bastard. Yes, it's a viable tactic, but it's no different from making all of the fighter-types fight waves of rust monsters. All it does is piss off players.

Of course, a respectably high-level wizard will have a couple of Boccob's Blessed Books with copies of his favorite spells in all of them. One of them will probably be in a Leomund's Secret Chest, too. Yeah, it sucks if you lose one, but you've lost less than a fighter whose magic sword got sundered.

and the concept of "learning" a spell, even though you need special feats to prepare it without the spellbook. Wizards don't "learn" spells, they copy new ones into their spellbooks. I think you need to re-read the chapter on magic.

Re:Was typing too much work?

[shindrak]

Wizards don't "learn" spells, they copy new ones into their spellbooks. I think you need to re-read the chapter on magic.

In 3E, Wizards get 2 free spells to copy into their spellbooks each time they level up. But any others they come across from a scroll or someone else's spellbook must be "learned" by studying them and making a check to see if they understood it. If they fail the check, they can't copy the spell.

In fact, the text in the SRD (here) clearly uses the word "learn" for this process of wizards studying spells in order to copy them. So, I'm not sure that its quite appropriate to go advising others to "re-read the chapter on magic".

Re:Was typing too much work?

[Arterion]

That's assuming a 9th level spells takes the same amount of time to prepare as a 1st level spell, with a minimum of fifteen minutes. I find that a little hard to swallow. If you factor in the levels, I think it does get into something that's a little too complicated for something that's so basic to the class. I also have to ask here: how long does it take to make a scroll? One day per each 1000 GP in the base price. But that's with no minimum. Does that mean you can crank out a 1st level spell with a caster level of 1 in 14.4 minutes? The rules are so vague here without assuming a lot.

As far as equipment goes, Wizards still need all that equipment, if not MORE because of Arcane Spell Failure. That's all in addition to the cost of making magic items. And sure, you can get all that XP back by killing a critter at your level, but that XP is split among the party. So every XP you spend on making a magic item is ultimately an XP that you are behind the rest of the party. I can add up to levels over the course of a campaign.

As for Baccob's Belessed Book. Definitely. But you don't get those from the start. And the first levels are where you'd need it most. As far as the fighter losing his favorite sword... I'm not so sure about that. I think the Wizard has it worse off. Do the cost on replacing a full spellbook. And realize the Wizard is totally useless in the meantime. A fighter can pick up a quarterstaff for free and still be moderately useful.

I'm just saying, of all the things I'd call gaping holes in 3E, spellbooks, spell preparation, and magic items are definitely on the list. They had a good start, but they should have dedicated at least a few detailed pages to the process. But not even Complete Arcana goes into more detail. It's a little depressing.

Another thing I had about "magic materials" is that it never explained what they were. Presumably, someone has to make them from materials that can be collected. If it gave us a little more, it would be easy for the party to naturally accumulate a stock of these from normal adventuring. Maybe with some Profession or Craft skills involved in some of it. Specially prepared inks? What kind of inks? Why couldn't the Wizard make those himself? The same for kobold eyes, dragon scales, lich blood, etc. Again, sure, it's up to the DM, but for someone that so integral to the class, I'd like to have seen more printed rules on it.

I really hope 4E addresses some of these issues. (That's may way of bringing it back on topic. heh.)

transcribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's geeky and all to film the interview, but this is a website not a television. Let me read the answers, mkay?

No effect...?

[chriscoolc]

I keep casting +5 Funny, but it's not working.

Re:No effect...?

[cthulu_mt]

Slashdot readers are immune to mind-affecting effects like Oozes or Plant creatures.

Re:No effect...?

[moderatorrater]

Have you tried buffing your charisma? Maybe upping your int?

Re:No effect...?

[Torvaun]

Or undead creatures that never see the sun.

I guess Zonk doesn't work for a living.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Hey, Zonk, did it occur to you that some of us are at work, and thus don't have time to watch a bunch of YouTube clips? It's a lot easier to skim a text interview while waiting for the compiler than it is to sit and watch the guy talk slower than I can read.

floodgate

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

zwhu?

[lotekppc]

Transcripts would be appreciated. I read about an order of magnitude faster than people talk, so it drives me up the fucking wall to click on a link to find videos. Bah. No time, no time.

Gary Gygax has died

[Viol8]

No one seems to have mentioned this but the creator of D&D died today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7278927.stm

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[The Aethereal]

I hope not. I read about his death yesterday, so if he died today, someone has some explaining to do.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Mr. Bad Example]

> No one seems to have mentioned this but the creator of D&D died today:

Someone failed his saving throw vs. dupe.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Paranatural]

That was yesterday. It made front page coverage on slashdot, and, somewhat surprisingly, almost every major news source. So apart from that, yeah, no one mentioned it.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[mblase]

No one's mentioned it because it already had it's own slashdot article.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the rules, you are allowed to exist at negative hitpoints for a period of time depending on how you roll.

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he should of spent an action point to auto stabilize rather than try to get a 1 or a 2. I mean, He always rolled 20s

Re:Gary Gygax has died

[calyxa]

it obviously took a long time to set up this particular article, with questions and movies and all that. it would have been nice had the final sentence of the short article blurb said something like, "What a coincidence it is that this article's timing comes so recently on the heels of the death of Gary Gygax" with a link to yesterday's article.

Gary Gygax

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda stinks that this comes on the same day of the Gary Gygax's death. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7278927.stm

The answer to my question...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Summary:

My original question above: "Is there any concern that you've eliminated the most tactically interesting/complex characters from the game?" Meaning, none of the classes we've seen to this point for 4E are on the strategy/forethought/complexity level of any of the "prepared" casters in 1-3E.

The response, paraphrased: We realize that all of the characters in the new base game are middle of the road complexity-wise, none of them as complex as 3E wizard and none of them as simple as 3E fighter. Later material will introduce some more complex choices.

Assuming this is true, I'm happy with this response and for the first time I'm actually hopeful about 4E. I know a ton of people (mostly current or former convention-circuit gamers) who strongly prefer the more complex characters (even when they're not necessarily more powerful), and I have hope that they won't be alienated from the game. When you're looking at playing the same character for literally thousands of hours of play, a character that isn't going to be doing the same 5 things in 99% of combats becomes a lot more appealing than it otherwise might.

I'm sure I won't ever play again the way I did during my 'con' years, but I'm at least interested in giving the 4E rules a shot now.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Gutboy]

The response, paraphrased: We realize that all of the characters in the new base game are middle of the road complexity-wise, none of them as complex as 3E wizard and none of them as simple as 3E fighter. Later material will introduce some more complex choices.

See, I heard him say (paraphrased): We are giving you the boring classes, so you'll spend more money on our products later to get the interesting classes.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Degreeless]

I can appreciate that more complex characters haven't made the starting line-up, when first starting out a complex class can be intimidating and I have no problems with having less tactically challenging classes to begin with, so long as when character progresses I am given the options to give them a more challenging and interesting role.

I wouldn't say I was very excited, but I am interested to see what 4Ed can do.

Re:The answer to my question...

[ranton]

When I look at those 1st level characters, I do not see them as basic. They are incredibly complex for 1st level characters. A 1st level wizard in 3e knows just a couple useful spells and can only cast them a few times per day. All of the prebuilt characters I have seen from 4e blow anything from 3e away in terms of complexity for a 1st level character.

Maybe that complexity will not scale as characters rise in levels, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Maybe that complexity will not scale as characters rise in levels, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

At least as of the beta tests, it didn't really scale -- at least, not anywhere near as much as complexity did by level in 3E. A mid-level wizard would basically be doing the same 3-4 things in every combat whereas that wasn't very true in 3E.

I didn't go to D&D Experience and haven't talked to anyone who did yet though, so no idea if it's any different based on feedback they received.

Re:The answer to my question...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Well, right. "You'll pay more money for this later." is standard with WotC. I assumed everyone knew that. :)

Re:The answer to my question...

[ildon]

Admit it. You were going to buy the book either way.

Who picked the questions?

[Paranatural]

Yeah, mostly they were good. Except the one 'Does WOTC think all players are male?". I mean seriously, all the source books are written with the default pronoun as 'she'. It's pretty rare these days to find gaming groups without at least one female in it. Been to a con lately? Yeah, people like to point out that the stereotypical male gamer geek is still in abundance, but in every con I have gone to as of late I've seen more and more women going and playing. I mean hell, is someone still living in 1980 asking this question?

Re:Who picked the questions?

[techpawn]

Yeah, people like to point out that the stereotypical male gamer geek is still in abundance

I cringed listening to NPR last night during their coverage on Gygax passing. They had the audacity to ask that very question. Instead of focusing on the mans life and legacy they though to ask that question about the gender divide? Which BTW the person they interview said it may be due to the fact that Gygax based some ideas off playing Cowboys and Indians/Cops and Robbers as a kid... which girls didn't do when he was young...

I notice the frequent use of "she" in the PHB to talk about characters. I wonder if Hasbro was thinking MMRPGs? (Many Men Role Playing Girls)

Re:Who picked the questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cring listening to NPR last night during their coverage on Gygax passing. ... they though to ask that question about the gender divide? ... I wonder if Hasbro was thinking MMRPGs? (Many Men Role Playing Girls) Holy shit, hypocrit. You talk about Gygax passing and then go on to make your own snide, sexist comment? Good job.

Open Gaming License

[Aaron_Pike]

Am I the only person that thinks he tap-danced a bit on the OGL question?

Re:Open Gaming License

[Paranatural]

A little, but he's probably not a lawyer, he's more of, you know, a game designer. And while these days you need to know some stuff about laws when designing a game, he didn't want to say too much in case he said something that he shouldn't.

Re:Open Gaming License

[Kierthos]

A bit yes. But considering that he's not a lawyer.....

He failed his saving throw

[Serenissima]

Vs Verbosity. But luckily, he was wearying his +3 Armor of Monotonous Speaking.

Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming License

[SirGarlon]

First of all, no, I did not watch the damn videos of Perkins spewing marketer-speak. If I wanted to see video I would go to YouTube, not Slashdot.

Second, the elephant in the room is the Open Gaming License, or "Game System License" as it will be called for 4E. Basically, Wizards of the Coast is dropping open gaming in all but name. Some details are here; highlights are:

The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.

Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.

The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date.

Translation: we are moving from free-as-in-speech to free-as-in beer because we think it's in the best interest of our brand.

Gygax was the co-creator and he died YESTERDAY.

[JoshDM]

Facts are in the subject line.

DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Maxo-Texas]

As a long term player of the game- it seems to me that what they are calling Dnd4.0 is basically a new product cashing in on the D&D name.

It may be a good game, it may be a bad game, it is most certainly another attempt to mine your wallet without adding as much value as the money it will take out.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[An ominous Cow art]

You've very accurately summed up my opinion about 4.0.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Rydia]

Like how AD&D created the dichotomy between classes and races? That wasn't D&D.
Or how 2d Ed threw in proficiencies and different movement rules? That wasn't D&D.
How about 3d Ed, which created feats and skills and standardized exp? That certainly wasn't D&D.

Dungeons and Dragons is a brand, a bundle of concepts and mechanics upon which a concrete game is built, and a franchise which provides consumers with an indicator of a) a level of quality and b) a general "feel" that differs from other games (such as Legend of the Five Rings). If we go by your ridiculously restrictive definition, then everything from AD&D on was "a new product cashing in on the D&D name.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[ThirdPrize]

I have been watching the Diggnation video podcast thing. They should really get Alex to be the new poster boy for AD&D. If the world knew that people who looked like surfer dudes played it, it might lose some of its stigma.

Nearest I came to playing it in the last 20 years was a quick bit of Neverwinter Nights.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Maxo-Texas]

Attaching new ideas to the existing system was part of the D&D tradition. Hell, my campaign is run with my own 400 page typeset customized version of the Cyclopedia.

Dnd 4.0 is not attaching ideas-- it is a new product that uses the old name. It is WoTC bringing the MtG concept to D&D. Dnd4.0 is about as much D&D as Gurps is.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll bite. Exactly how does 4e have more differences from 3e than 3e had from 2e?

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Rydia]

I think they should pull on Shaq more. He's a big D&D player (he was at the press unveiling and got the first copy of Alderac's d20 "World's Largest Dungeon") and is eminently more recognizable. WotC has the cash to make it happen.

Re:DnD 4.0- WoTC says goodbye to D&D

[Maxo-Texas]

Specifically, if you are running a 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 campaign this is basically a reboot. Existing characters are not compatible with the new rules. This is not an addition or change but a restart.

Mod me offtopic, but I hope...

[TomatoMan]

...they're going to insert a dedication to Gary Gygax on the front page of every volume of 4th edition.

Re:Mod me offtopic, but I hope...

[MintMMs]

They are. Scott Rouse of WotC has already confirmed this in his blog. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=996519

Re:Mod me offtopic, but I hope...

[TomatoMan]

Awesome. Thanks for the link.

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[Rydia]

shorter: "I've decided that WotC should give their stuff out on my terms, and also I've decided that he won't tell me exactly what I want to hear, so I've constructed a convenient straw man to attack, unsullied by actual knowledge of their position."

Dear WotC...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why did you kill E. Gary Gygax?

Going from 1st to 4th editions - what to expect?

[waynemr]

So, with the passing of Gygax and these recent posts about AD&D, I'm interested in getting back into the D&D world... but this time with my kids, instead of playing as a kid. When I was heavy into D&D, well... it was called D&D and then there was AD&D, which I guess is now called 1st edition D&D, right? Anyway, my fond memories of the game were of a simple-to-grasp set of rules that just sort of nudged your imagination into a certain direction, but was open-ended enough so the DM could be the "decider" on anything outside of those rules. So, it was more about imagination, story telling, and role-playing than futzing with rules. My sense of the later editions, from casual browsing, is that the newer rules are a lot more dense - which isn't bad, but it seems like it moves it out of the league of younger players. For those in the know, will the 4th edition set of D&D have an introductory set of rules for younger players? Sort of a Wii-like version of D&D 4th edition? Ideally, I want to introduce my kids to a basic set of rules and then ramp it up as they get older. Thanks!

It's a WotC thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It took months of griping on their forums for them to start posting text summaries to the quickie video responses they put on their own website. It's annoying as hell for the reasons you and others above listed.

1st Edition is simpler than ever with OSRIC

[halivar]

Did that sound like an advertisement?

OSRIC is an OGL compilation of OD&D ("Old" D&D) rules, put together in a much more easily comprehensible format than the original books. It's sort of like an SRD for 1st Edition. If you miss 1st Ed., you may want to give it a try with your kids.

Not every reads /. 24/7

[Viol8]

Some of us have jobs to do

Re:Not every reads /. 24/7

[masterzora]

We're not saying that you having not seen it is a problem. It's the part where you try to say that nobody's mentioned it when it was front page news yesterday where we run into trouble.

Re:Going from 1st to 4th editions - what to expect

[Mongoose Disciple]

What I know of 4th edition is that it simplifies a lot vs. 3E, at least.

(Although that being said, the introduction of spontaneous casters in 3E makes those kinds of classes much more accessible to new players than in previous editions.)

Even 3/3.5E, though (which I think I can fairly say is the most tactically complex version of D&D so far) really can play pretty simply for normal players. A friend of mine DMs a regular game where I guarantee you that at nearly every session (with a few exceptions where one of his more knowledgeable friends have sat in), he is the only person at the table who knows jack about the rules.

If you want to try to force the troll you're fighting back ten feet to knock him into a pit, there aren't very good rules for that in 1st edition, and the DM is making something up on the spot. In 3rd edition, there are good rules for that. The question in your case is, from the perspective of your kids, when one of them tries to do that to a troll, does it really matter whether:

A) You're playing 1st edition, and you the DM are making up the rule,
B) You're playing 3rd edition (or whatever), and you the DM know the rule and just tell the player what they need to roll or
C) You're playing 3rd edition (or whatever), and there is a rule but you don't know it, so you make it up on the fly as you would in 1E?

I'd think no. Playing whatever is probably fine.

well, there is only one thing left to do.

[geekoid]

I'm sorry it has come to this, but I think we all need to make video replies and link them.

I'll start when I get home

Problems

[ShakaUVM]

Basically, he needs to tap dance like this because the response to 4ed has been overwhelmingly negative (Mike Mearls estimated it as a 50% negative response when they introduced the idea), as opposed to 3.5, which was seen in a much more positive light. Apparently, when people play it, they like it, but nothing changes the fact that they're killing off 3.5 (what feels like) 2 years too early, and half the books they've been introducing over the last two years has been blatant test runs for 4ed - all sorts of alternate systems for doing combat (Bo9S) and Magic (ToM, MoI).

They're also killing every extant RPGA campaign (which is a big mistake, IMO, since LG came out before LC died, allowing players to bridge over).

But the only thing that actually kind of pisses me off is the snarky comments the developers have posted online (and in the 4ed Preview books) that people have been wrongly predicting the development of 4ed for years now. Of course, they started work on it 3 years ago...

the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[Khopesh]

The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.

Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.

They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding, with controls in place that let WotC retroactively change terms (this lost one company some serious money when their printed product was suddenly in violation of an update).

On top of that, it sounds like the license is reforming to such a degree that it doesn't actually grant you anything you aren't already entitled to ... citing my question from the last round (which was submitted late and never saw moderation):

The view of OGL presented by Technomancer Press, for example, is that the OGL and d20 System License restrict more than they enable; US patent and trademark law already allows almost everything "granted" by OGL, whereas the only extra bit given by the license is the ability to reproduce the copyrighted text in exchange for restrictions on references to WotC printed materials. (The d20 System License grants use of the copyrighted/trademarked system logo, viewed by the industry as a requirement to sell successfully.) This presentation seems to indicate that a publisher is permitted (by law) to release D&D-compatible products and clearly mark them as such, so long as no WotC-owned logos are used and no copied text blocks are included. What response do you have to such a view?

This interpretation suggests that everything offered by the 4e "Game System License" is already permitted by law.

(Remember when Wizards of the Coast was a fledgling company, before Magic: The Gathering? They made greeting cards and a few unsanctioned D&D add-ons. TSR's (lack of) licensing did not permit this.)

Re:the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[Khopesh]

Ooh, the Technomancer Press website is actually responding today ... I'd better quote them while I can. From the Technomancer Press FAQ [1]:

1. Are Technomancer Press books d20 System® compatible?
   
   First, we would like to stress that "Dungeons and Dragons" and "d20 System" are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, not us. Yes. All books by Technomancer Press are compatible with Dungeons and Dragons® and other d20 System® games. A couple of them are d20-only (The Player's Companion and ConQuests), but most of them can be used with virtually any system.
   
   
2. Why don't Technomancer Press books have d20 System® logos on their covers?
   
   The short, quippy answer is "it is against the terms of the d20 System License to publish the d20 System® logo in black and white." Again, we'd like to start by making it clear that d20 System® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, not us. To answer the question, if you read the text of the Open Gaming License (version 1.0a), it actually restricts companies from using certain terms in their books: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. This means that saying our books are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons (a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast) is a violation of the Open Gaming License. Further, the system reference document for D&D 3.5 released by Wizards of the Coast states: The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual... In addition, the d20 System® Guide, v5.0 states: You may refer to the Player's Handbook by title or as the PHB. You may refer to the Dungeon Master's Guide only as the DMG and the Monster Manual only as the MM. You may refer to the Psionics Handbook only by title. You may refer to the Epic Level Handbook by title or as the ELH. You may refer to the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game only by title. You must not cite page number references... Technomancer Press finds these requirements to be restrictive and more beneficial to Wizards of the Coast than any of the d20 System® licensees. We also find it to be hypocritical, considering that Wizards of the Coast's initial product line consisted of books intended to be used in other role-playing systems. Technomancer Press believes that the d20 System® is a clever way for Wizards of the Coast to maintain their market share by advertising on their competitors' covers. The funny thing is that initially we decided that we couldn't officially do the d20 System® because they require the logo to be printed in color, and our covers are printed in black and white! We learned all the other stuff later.
   
   
3. So you guys think the open gaming movement is BS?
   
   Hell no! We applaud the open gaming movement, and invite everyone to create new material inspired by our content. We just aren't pleased with Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming License. By agreeing to the OGL, you give up some rights in return for "receiving" others*. By not signing the OGL, we are not bound to WotC's restrictions. *We contend that the rights they are "granting" are rights we already have anyway, without needing their permission.

[1] www.technomancer-press.com/index.php?mact=Glossary,cntnt01,show,0&cntnt01tid=9&cntnt01returnid=59

Re:the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[SirGarlon]

They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding

It seems you understand the difference between the SRD, the OGL, and the D20 License, but a lot of readers might not. So others can follow as we get technical: the OGL is the Open Gaming License, which I and some others would argue is not really very open. The SRD is the System Reference Document, which are the D&D 3.x rules as trimmed down and released under the OGL. The D20 System License is a separate license one could use to put a "D20 System" logo on one's product, which was supposed to indicate some level of compatibility with D&D. To get that logo one had to consent to rather odious and very non-free license terms.

What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?

Re:the new OGL draft doesn't grant anything

[Khopesh]

What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?

See my other posts in this thread for more clarification (including links to the criticism sections of the WikiPedia pages on Open gaming and d20 System). I'll also address your question here[1].

The biggest problems are outlined in the above Technomancer Press quote, which alleges that US patent and copyright laws specifically do not protect game mechanics themselves[2], only algorithmic implementations (i.e. software patents) and the copyright on the text itself (i.e. on grounds of plagiarism). Given this assumption, Technomancer Press makes d20 System/D&D-compatible products without the Open Game License or d20 System License. To avoid the copyright issues, they simply don't paste sections of the System Reference Document (or any other copyrighted works) to any excess prohibited by law. This allows them to do things expressly prohibited by the OGL, such as citing a specific page in the Players Handbook or calling the person running the game "Dungeon Master." OGL as it currently stands is a good approximation of Free Culture, but it's not quite there.

See also my earlier post citing the Technomancer Press FAQ (which more closely picks at the issues with the OGL), an IGDA article on Protecting Game-Play rules and the legal struggles of Data East (and as a cons, the rulings on KC Munchkin), which are the best I could come up with for citations.

[1] - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't know the hard facts, and I have no intent to spoil or harm Wizards of the Coast or the Open Gaming movement. I am an advocate of Free Culture, and I will someday soon release my own D&D campaign world under a more free license.

[2] - I could not find a direct citation of this claim, though I'm sure I've read that there was a definitive Supreme Court ruling protecting game mechanics from patent in the same way that many Slashdotters would like to see software go. It may not have been Technomancer Press.

Flash hell

[coopaq]

Hey /.

I really never want 5 Flash YouTube instances loaded in my browser when I click "Read X More Bytes"

Maybe you could have titled the link "WARNING: VIEW 5 VIDEOS ON ONE PAGE"

It's just a vain attampt

[geekoid]

be TSR to seem hi[p and relevent.

Granted they are trying to adapt to the changing gamer market, but they are trying to do so AND serve a corporate master stuck in the 20th century.

these [people get it:
http://www.peginc.com/Games/SavageWorlds/main.htm

10 bucks for the rule book, 10 freaking bucks.
The system allows the players to feel like hero's out of the gate. It's simple.I am a hard core DnD (Method 1, baby!) but this game system rocks.

On the plus side, I hope to see a bunch of nice mini's released for the collectible game there trying to turn DnD into.

Re:It's just a vain attampt

[Mongoose Disciple]

On the plus side, I hope to see a bunch of nice mini's released for the collectible game there trying to turn DnD into.

Just in case you weren't being sarcastic -- there's been a D&D Miniatures collectable game out for the last 5 years or so.

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[geekoid]

Of course they are, and that's fine. the open system was very painful for a lot of shops. It made for really bland gaming and creativity. Glad to see it go.

If you are going to create an open system, you make a generic system, and on to that. You don't create a complex system, that's been honed to a specific style of play that just sticks bit's on it willy nilly and expect it to work.

The system should be the fulcrum, rules for the game are the weights. the more you can adjust the fulcrum, the easier it is to find an equilibrium the group is happy with.

Kind of sad

[brkello]

Slashdot is a news site about technology for nerds. It is sad to see when they slightly stray from the norm, everyone freaks out. Yeah, it is a good idea to have a text transcript. But I thought this was a site full of people who like the cutting edge...the early adopters...the intelligent. But oh no! Streaming video is presented in front of you and this site becomes a bunch of old curmudgeon, get off my lawn types. I can't see this stuff at work either, but if I am truly interested, I will go watch it at home. It's a games article after all...your next meeting won't rely on the fact that you watched these videos. Just wish people would lighten up on here instead of threatening to move to Canada when something changes slightly.

Re:Kind of sad

[DaveV1.0]

Different != better. Putting videos up reeks of laziness and change for change sake.

As many other have said, if I wanted to watch a video, I would go to youtube. More importantly, I can read faster than most people can talk.

Re:Kind of sad

[brkello]

1) I didn't say it was better. 2) I said they should have put up a transcript.

They are not changing all of the content on the site. It has been only been on a few articles. Most the people on here don't even care about the game and are just complaining for the sake of complaining. If they added a transcript, it would have been the best of both worlds. You guys act as if graphics need to be removed because it is ruining the site.

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[SirGarlon]

shorter: "I've decided that WotC should give their stuff out on my terms, and also I've decided that he won't tell me exactly what I want to hear, so I've constructed a convenient straw man to attack, unsullied by actual knowledge of their position."

I notice that you've attacked my so-called "ignorance" without actually pointing out any error or oversight on my part. So what exactly is your basis for that accusation? Or do you just enjoy insulting people without bothering to back it up?

There are those who complain the OGL was not really open, but I believe that it was, indeed, open with regard to game mechanics. The less-than-free clauses related to "product identity" did not prevent people from making derivative games with the SRD rules as a starting point. Malhovoc Press, for example, did exactly that.

The new plan WotC has announced is that the SRD will not contain the full rules of the game. So I reiterate, the 3.5 SRD was free-as-in-speech and WotC's announced plan is that the 4.0 rules will be free-as-in-beer.

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[Rydia]

You began your post by saying that you did not watch the video, which detailed at least partially WotC's position, and then went on to characterize it. You then went on (in tenor) to suggest that WotC has some sort of obligation (or at least that it would be objectively good) to make OGL "free as in speech." The former is false, even if the 3.5 version of the OGL was. The latter is your opinion, on a matter that (I will hazard a guess) is really irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers in the market.

And to clarify, I was not insulting you. I was highlighting the logical fallacies of your argument (argued to a pre-conceived conclusion, ignored readily available evidence, etc). If you feel insulted, I would say that had more to do with your position than anything I had to say about it.

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[SirGarlon]

You then went on (in tenor) to suggest that WotC has some sort of obligation (or at least that it would be objectively good) to make OGL "free as in speech."

I don't see why you read into my comments a delusion that WotC has any obligation to do anything. To be clear, I agree with you -- they don't have to offer any license of any kind to anyone.

The latter is your opinion, on a matter that (I will hazard a guess) is really irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers in the market.

I disagree with you there. The licensing terms WotC offers to publishers have a considerable impact on what products those publishers decide to print: whether they adopt 4E rules, continue making 3.5-SRD based products, or "fork" away from D&D entirely and go back to making independent game systems.

To be clear, my position is that the new licensing terms are less favorable to third-party publishers than the OGL 1.0 was, and that is bad news for anyone who wants to see 4E-compatible products from third parties (because fewer publishers will accept the license terms). How many people want to see 4E-compatible products depends mostly on whether 4E is any good, and that's another subject.

And to clarify, I was not insulting you. I was highlighting the logical fallacies of your argument (argued to a pre-conceived conclusion, ignored readily available evidence, etc).

I said up-front I ignored the video but I linked to, and quoted, text sources. The video was really answering a different question, anyway (about how the OGL relates specifically to computer games). So I think one can have an informed opinion on the matter without watching the video. If the video directly contradicts what I've said, I fully expect to see comments to that effect in this thread.

As to arguing to a pre-conceived conclusion, I don't follow what you're criticizing there. How can one argue anything effectively without having made up one's own mind?

Videos blocked by firewall

[sgtrock]

This might be the most insightful (or worst) set of answers from a interviewee that I've ever (not) seen! :)

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[Rydia]

"As to arguing to a pre-conceived conclusion, I don't follow what you're criticizing there. How can one argue anything effectively without having made up one's own mind?"

A more clear statement is "ignoring evidence to bolster a pre-conceived conclusion." Like it or not, that's really what you did.

What I want to know was not answered ...

[WillAffleckUW]

When can I create my Night Elf Mohawk?

And how come there are no Frostsabers?

New OGL forbids cut-and-paste, thus offering nada

[Khopesh]

Since my Technomancer Press citation got moderated to 5 and its parent didn't, here's what is important to note: The only redeeming bit about the OGL for 3e (and 3.5e) was that it allowed cut-and-paste actions, somewhat like a Free Software license, though certainly not "Free" or "Open" as we know it in the software industry (see Open Gaming and d20 System on WikiPedia). The new OGL takes this away, as sited at the top of this thread:

The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.

(An aside: I'm not a fan of authors responding to (or re-posting) their own posts, but this is an important distinction.
I'm sure I'm also not earning any brownie points at WotC by these posts, either ... which hurts my life-long dream of working there, but there's no IT/software jobs in the Seattle area to fall-back to anyway (oww, my foot...). )

RPGA Campaigns

[yandros]

Many of the RPGA campaigns were killing themselves off before the 4E announcement, or were effectively dead already.

The LC->LG `bridge' was a horrible, awful, terrible experience for basically everyone involved. Almost everyone involved agrees (I believe) that while they tried to do something good, they actually did something bad. Serious effort should be made to avoid another ``LC after LG'' situation.

Basically, they're killing off LG. I'm not really happy about it, but LG has had trouble with the far-more-minor conversions it has suffered in the past, and (having played both), a 3.5->4E conversion would be basically impossible. They don't have the support necessary to run LG and a new campaign at the same time, so they could either start a new LG or a new something else. They chose to start a new something else.

I'm not totally happy about it (I was very involved in LG, and prefer both Greyhawk and Eberron to Forgotten Realms), but I find it to be a pretty obvious choice, rather than a big mistake.

Re:RPGA Campaigns

[ShakaUVM]

The problem is, all the RPGA players are looking at all of their play experiences going out the window at once, which is a bad thing. Pretty much all my friends are done with the RPGA now, and have moved into other hobbies (poker, soccer, video games, etc.), which means that 4ed won't sell as well as it could.

Not to say it won't sell well, since it probably will, but that they're hurting themselves, definitely.

By the way, Gary Gygax died

[troice]

It's true. Even the BBC has the story. He was sixty-nine, had a history of heart problems and missed his saving throw vs. death. RIP

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[SirGarlon]

"Like it or not, that's really what you did."

Actually, no. Not that I feel the need to justify myself to you -- especially since you've made no substantive criticism of my position (intentionally misconstruing my words counts as "ad hominem," not "substantive"). I just don't feel like giving you the last word until you actually say something.

After I got home, I did play the video, and Perkins didn't even seem to understand the question that was posed, let alone address the topic of how WotC has changed is changing its licensing terms. He sounded like an idiot.

Re:Going from 1st to 4th editions - what to expect

[Beaker Kelly]

I'd recommend Castles & Crusades, a sort of stripped down version of the d20 SRD into something resembling first or second edition. Nicely streamlined with a unified rules mechanic. Gary Gygax was developing his old Castle Greyhawk dungeons into the 'Castle Zagyg' productline for C&C. Even though he's passed on, he'd written heaps of notes for it and the first boxed set should come out sometime this year. I've had great success teaching C&C to casual gamers who easily get bogged down by too many rules, but there's also enough substance there to occupy other gamer types, too.

More Game-mechanic Patent resources

[Khopesh]

Relevant discussion on EN World: Possible [4e] Rules Patent?

GameDev.net has a campaign to fight the IP claims of Hasbro (Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro): Why the Hasbro Lawsuit Should Terrify Game Developers And what we can do about it

I'm toying with the idea of a free implementation of 4e to be released in wiki form under a multi-license scheme of CC-SA/FDL/GPL that might also include a fourth license option of OGL so long as it also includes all three other licenses. I will request advice from Technomancer Press, Tom Buscaglia, and some more legally savvy friends before forging ahead on that venture.

Re:Going from 1st to 4th editions - what to expect

[arb phd slp]

I've played with lots of new players and I maintain a house rule that no one touches the PHB or DM guide while play is ongoing. You write the stats and info you need on the character sheet next to the relevant spell/feat or in the DM notes, but if something comes up that isn't available on notes, character sheets, or the DM screen, we make up the rule and move on.

Over time we all memorized most of the important stuff, but I figure if it wasn't important enough to stick in anyone's memory, it can't matter that much anyway.

"Out of Bat guano again, lets find a cave!"

[Brownstar]

Another thing I had about "magic materials" is that it never explained what they were

This was done on purpose in 3E. And if it does change in 4E, my guess is it will go in the direction that you don't need magic materials at all anymore.

It's all part of stream lining the Magic system.

In 1E and 2E, spells listed what exactly what material component that you needed for spells. Which just added to the book-keeping of playing a spell caster.

Nothing worse then memorizing 3 fireballs for the day, and then when you go to cast the 3rd one against the final encounter of the day to realize, you'd used up all of your bat shit. (And yes bat shit and sulfer were the material components for fireball).

But don't worry, the rest of the party will have no problem stopping the adventure, so that you can go find a cave, and look for bat droppings...

Re:"Out of Bat guano again, lets find a cave!"

[Arterion]

The clever way they did that in 3E was with a "spell component pouch". As long as you had it, you didn't need to micromanage what they were. And spells only listed components that were more expensive than what you'd find in your spell component pouch.

What I always did in my games was let players make some skill checks to see if they could harvest any useful "magical materials" off things they'd killed. I'd also let them specifically hunt doing certain things for magical materials to waive the costs for making a magic item. You want a flaming sword, you had to go get something off a red dragon, or a fire elemental, or fire giant, etc. You were free to buy it from the magic shoppe, but you could waive most of the cost by doing a little quest.

And I just ignored the XP costs. That's because I'd work it all out on the backend. If they made a shitload of magic items, their EL's go up, so they're getting less XP. I think it's more fun for the players that way, though. They are free to use their cool feats. They get more powerful. But they don't realize it's not really helping them "get ahead" any quicker. Everything in 3E is a moving target. Plus, then the entire party is paying the XP costs for all the cool items they're getting. So the wizard has no reason to refuse to make the fighter a magic sword. Honestly, I'd never spend my XP on making magic items for another character using the rules as written.

Re:Going from 1st to 4th editions - what to expect

[Abreu]

Sorry if im a day late, but I have been researching this very question myself (I'd love to use roleplaying as a tool to bond with my kids)

This is a good tool to look at:

http://www.technomancer-press.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=9

Re:Taking the openness out of the Open Gaming Lice

[ruemere]

For the sake of completeness, current state of knowledge (basing on news provided by www.enworld.org) is that GSL (4E counterpart of 3E's OGL) will be closer to d20 license, and that GSL document will be an index of items from core books made available through license.

Also, GSL is likely to be prohibitive toward 3rd party products of the following types:
- new rule systems supplementing/replacing core rules,
- software game aids.

In other words, say goodbyes to 4E PcGen and 4E Mutants and Masterminds.

Regards,
Ruemere

Hmmmm.

[Moryath]

Bat shit and sulfur are two pretty important components of gunpowder, too.

Funny how that worked out... you're casting an explosive spell and using explosive components. Most of the old "material components" are still explained in spell flavor text, btw.

Still, there's something to be said for it. Archers have to carry ammunition. Why wouldn't wizards need to keep their material components up to date?