D&D 4th Ed vs. Open Gaming

I'm no expert in this subject, but mxyzplk has written a good summary of the issues affecting open gaming and the upcoming release of 4th Edition D&D. The open licensing associated with the 3rd Edition spawned a number of successful 3rd parties and add-ons that made the system far greater than it might have been otherwise. I've attached his writeup on the subject below, and you should really read it if you are interested in D&D, Gaming, or trying to apply 'Open' licenses to things besides code.

mxyzplk writes "Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast shocked the role-playing game industry today by announcing that anyone wanting to publish material for the new Fourth Edition of D&D, expected out in June of this year, must forgo open licensing entirely as part of their new Game System License.

With the launch of the third edition of the popular game eight years ago, Wizards had sponsored an open licensing scheme. This license, called the Open Gaming License, or OGL, was a kind of open source license designed for game publishers. The result was an explosion of third party game companies supporting D&D and establishing their own game lines. Many of these companies became quite large and successful, notably Paizo Publishing, Green Ronin Publishing, and others.

Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all — Dungeons & Dragons related or not. A number of companies had leveraged the OGL for their independent games, for example the pulp game Spirit of the Century.

In response to questions about this policy, Scott Rouse, D&D Brand Manager for Wizards of the Coast, says that "We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?"

It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!" Since this is a small niche market without the visibility of a Microsoft, this play to muscle out competition by making them choose "between us and open licensing" will probably succeed. Some other game companies are rebelling; Paizo Publishing, for example, has declared their intent to move forward with the open-licensed previous version, essentially 'forking' the Dungeons & Dragons code base. But small gaming companies are small indeed, and Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro (a recent development likely not unrelated to this change of heart)."

Comments

Is this even legal?

[brennanw]

I'm not a lawyer so as far as I know this *is* legal, but... how can it be? How can your license forbid someone from using another license for a different product? Aren't antitrust laws that specifically forbid that?

Re:Is this even legal?

[Deathdonut]

The thing they should be worried about is splintering their currently (mostly) consoladated customer base, not legality.

How is this different from:

"If you want to work here, you can't compete with us."

or

"If you want the free Pepsi soda fountains, you can't sell Coke products."

They obviously want to sell 4e products and encourage the transition. This may be an overly ambitious plan and somewhat of a strongarming tactic (hard to say for a product that's not even remotely monopolistic), but it's certainly legal.

Scott Rouse (The Rouse) commented on their motivation recently:

We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?

Re:Is this even legal?

[SatanicPuppy]

Spending "multiple 7 figures" on making a new edition of D&D makes my brain hurt. Doesn't everyone who seriously plays spend half their time beating on the rules until they make sense for their player group?

From everything I've read about 4th edition, I think that money has been ill-spent, and to take that wasted money, and compound your crime by not allowing people to release their mods and make a few bucks off of them is obscene.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Kierthos]

I haven't been horribly impressed with what I've seen either, and I can't figure out how they could have spent millions on design, unless they're rolling in the costs of all the pizzas, sodas and chips they bought during the process.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Tanktalus]

IANAL, either, but don't anti-trust laws only apply to monopolies? The gaming industry is too fragmented, IMO, to support such a charge. Sure, WotC are a de facto leader in the industry (not necessarily based on the best games, but likely just in revenue), but owning 40%, 50%, or even 70%, of a market doesn't make you a monopoly.

Microsoft, however, has been convicted of illegal monopoly behaviour, which, among other things, legally proved that they were a monopoly to begin with. That's the difference.

Oh, that and WotC are prohibiting the work on two of THEIR OWN PRODUCTS by the same company, not prohibiting you from writing modules based on both WotC's (4e) work and, say, Green Ronin's (4e-based) work. It does have the side effect of barring you from working with Paizo's 3.75 system, but that's more of a side effect than anything else. This is not anything like Microsoft preventing developers from releasing products based on Windows and Linux at the same time. It's more like preventing you from targeting Win200 and Vista at the same time.

Personally, I'd create a shell corporation and release my 3e works from there, and my 4e works from my main corp. Shutting down the shell when 3e was no longer profitable would likely be trivial.

Re:Is this even legal?

[grahamd0]

I haven't been horribly impressed with what I've seen either, and I can't figure out how they could have spent millions on design, unless they're rolling in the costs of all the pizzas, sodas and chips they bought during the process.

If their accountants are worth more than dirt they are including that in the cost.

The cost likely comes largely from the wages and/or benefits of the probably hundreds of people who've participated in its development. Game designers, graphic designers, programmers, playtesters, artists, copy editors, accountants, managers.. etc.

Re:Is this even legal?

[halivar]

The obvious answer is that the summary is sensationalist and not true.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Moryath]

It does have the side effect of barring you from working with Paizo's 3.75 system

Actually, that's precisely why WotC/Hasborg did this - they had a falling out with Paizo, said "Fuck you we're pulling Dragon/Dungeon", got greedy over the idea of $14/month for people to play on their shitty as hell (I've been in beta) "insider" online playboards.

End result? D&D 4e is a pile of steaming crap that doesn't deserve to have the D&D name on it. Every gameplay change has been made not to make a better game, but to make it easier for lazy programmers to code it into the online board.

Yeah, there's a set of things in 3.5 that need fixing. There were things in 3.0 that needed fixing. 4e is the "fix" for those things like replacing a worn down Ferrari's engine with a Geo Metro 3-cylinder engine will "fix" the car.

Re:Is this even legal?

[swordgeek]

First of all, anti-trust legislation only comes into force when a company has a monopoly, so it's not really relevant here.

Secondly, this is all dones through legal weaselese. In this case:

1) I've licensed D&D 3e to you under the OGL. That license states that it is non-revokable, and therefore there is NO WAY I can stop you from releasing all you want under it. However...
2) I can offer you the opportunity to license D&D 4e from me under a new license. I can put any clause into that license I want. I can say you need to shave your head, paint your arse blue, and change your name to Stacy if I want. You have the option of either accepting those terms, or not licensing 4e from me.

Note that you could probably take some of those conditions to court for a judgement, if they were particularly egregious. A court may rule that certain licensing restrictions are invalid and unenforceable, and no longer stand. That's why you often see a clause at the end of a license which says something like, "In the event that certain parts of this license are determined to be unenforceable, the remaining parts are still valid." Much of this detail though, depends on country and jurisdiction.

Re:Is this even legal?

[hey!]

Well, what if I gave you money? Could I then ask you to stop using the another license for a different product? What if I gave you some other consideration of value? What if that thing of value was the use of my spiffy new product?

Just turn your question on its head for a moment. Sure, an open license to a company's product is an open license, but that does that give you any rights whatsoever to future, similar products? If not, they can offer the future product to you under any terms they choose, and you are free to refuse and continue to use your currently licensed material whether that material is openly licensed or not. It's not changing the deal, it's offering a different deal.

With respect to anti-trust laws, I don't see how they apply here. If they, for example, refused to allow shops that carried third party products created under their open license initiative, you might have a point. Instead, they're giving vendors a choice: license the new stuff, or continue using the old stuff under the old license, but not both. Doesn't sound coercive to me, sounds like a straight up deal.

What WoC is doing is forfeiting any future trust others might put in any open license initiative they attempt. They're no doubt aware of this, so it probably means they look at their open licensing experiment as a net business failure, and not worth repeating.

Frankly, I doubt it really matters that much. The whole source of the original D&D craze was that the system wasn't really that "good". But it was playable. That's why it created a new class of games, "role playing" games, distinct from simulation games. The enjoyment of the game comes entirely from the creativity of the people you play it with. Role playing is really a hybrid of war simulation gaming and "Cowboys and Indians".

Unless the fourth edition is some kind of mighty leap forward in playability, it's doubtful that a company that has been successful at publishing games based on older d20 systems would have much incentive to switch. If they do decide to switch, it's because they see greater profit that way. In any case, users will probably adapt whatever they like out of the new edition into older edition campaigns, including those where the features are not licensed by the vendor.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Erioll]

Secondly, this is all dones through legal weaselese. In this case:

1) I've licensed D&D 3e to you under the OGL. That license states that it is non-revokable, and therefore there is NO WAY I can stop you from releasing all you want under it. However...
2) I can offer you the opportunity to license D&D 4e from me under a new license. I can put any clause into that license I want. I can say you need to shave your head, paint your arse blue, and change your name to Stacy if I want. You have the option of either accepting those terms, or not licensing 4e from me.

Note that you could probably take some of those conditions to court for a judgement, if they were particularly egregious. A court may rule that certain licensing restrictions are invalid and unenforceable, and no longer stand. That's why you often see a clause at the end of a license which says something like, "In the event that certain parts of this license are determined to be unenforceable, the remaining parts are still valid." Much of this detail though, depends on country and jurisdiction. The only caveat with your point 2 is that you can't contract someone to do something illegal, or at the least, that section is void. So you can't take somebody to court to enforce a contract on somebody's life because the hitman refused to actually carry it out. That may be extreme, as that TYPE of contract may be illegal by other laws, but even if it wasn't it would still be void by the "you can't legally bind somebody to do something illegal" catch-all. That might vary by country, but I think any legal system based off of old english common-law (basically anything that ever WAS a British Colony, and some others too) this applies too, though IANAL.

I don't know how "subsequent contracts" work though. Can they null older ones? Or what? Assuming it's both the same parties involved, "common sense" would seem to indicate that if you both agree to the new terms that they can void anything in the earlier contract, which would make the clause perfectly enforceable.

Re:Is this even legal?

[bkr1_2k]

It may be legal to say that people have to use a different license to support 4e but there is no way it is legal to "force" them to stop making OGL products all together, especially those unrelated to any D&D product as the summary suggests. That is not enforceable in any legal manner, though it can be effectively enforced by crushing the competition who are much smaller, which is the point of the whole article.

Re:Is this even legal?

[DuckDodgers]

I'm not thrilled by all of the changes, but some make sense. Among the changes that are partly or totally confirmed that make sense:

1. Monsters no longer must have class levels.
2. Racial abilities that improve with level are basedon feats, instead of Level Adjustments which were a bookkeeping mess.
3. Hit points are fixed per class and level, plus ability modifier, instead of the luck of the dice. (There are already luck in dice for combat. Adding luck in die rolls for hit points can really screw PCs. )
4. Spells are unlimited use, per encounter, or per day - a big improvement over memorization/preparation/whatever.
5. No confirmation rolls on critical hits (a roll of 20) or different tables for critical hit damage multipliers. Instead a critical hit just does maximum damage.
6. Spell levels correspond with caster level, so a 12th level Wizard can cast a 12th level spell, instead of having 12th level Wizards casting 6th level spells.
7. No feats or experience point expenditure is required to make magical items.
8. No spells require experience point expediture to cast. The Wish spell is also gone.
9. No level drain from undead or spells.
10. Fewer magical items can be worn, to reduce that complexity.
11. Fewer buff (temporary improvement) spells, and fewer buff spells that overlap, so your group doesn't spend 10 minutes in spell preparation before each combat.
12. Save or die spells are replaced with spells that do large amounts of hit point damage, so trick instant kills become less common.
13. Full attacks are removed.
14. The rules for attacks of opportunity are (supposedly) simplified and clarified.
15. Monsters can be scaled down for lower level encounters.
16. Other class abilities get moved to the same once per day, once per encounter, or unlimited use mechanic as spells.
17. Characters get healing surges, which let them recover from damage outside of combat more quickly without requiring a caster with healing magic. This mitigates the need to have a priest healer in every gaming party.
18. The skill system is dramatically simplified. PCs have trained skills and other skills, and no individual skill ranks in (potentially) dozens of different skills. The skill list is also condensed.
19. Defenses and saving throws follow a simpler progression than the various charts in previous editions.

That's just a decent helping of the changes we know about, and I'd say a lot of it makes good sense. I'm far from uniformly excited about all of the changes, but there's definitely some good with the bad.

Re:Is this even legal?

[SatanicPuppy]

No doubt, no doubt.

But I've done tons and tons of that development as well, and it's all been in the form of a few dozen friends sitting around eating pizza and beating out the rules over the course of playing. Obviously we weren't getting paid, but it's hard to imagine where that sort of cost could rack up into the multi-millions.

If their development has moved over to that sort of dynamic, if their process has grown that expensive and bloated, I can't conceive of a worthwhile product coming out the other side.

Re:Is this even legal?

[SatanicPuppy]

Some of that stuff is just undoing stupid changes they made in the past...Confirmation on criticals, Magical Items costing experience (wtf was that about anyway? Nothing irritates me more than the idea that I get dumber by practicing something).

Some of the other stuff is just making up for stupid DMs, and that irritates me. Monsters can be scaled down? So? A good DM should be able to come up with an easy or hard encounter with any sort of monster anyway, and relying on the "book difficulty" with monsters means you run out of monsters that your PCs can't beat around lvl 15.

Likewise magic items and buffs; if I decide that they're spending too long on their buffs, I start throwing random encounters at them. If they keep going into combat, blowing all their spells/abilities, and trying to rest, I make resting very difficult.

Some of the other stuff I like; level drain is awesome...It forces players to pay attention when certain undead are on the loose. Spell preperation, while I never really liked it, forces a certain amount of tactical thinking that is completely removed by unlimited spells. Can't rest? Who cares!

Just doesn't sound like fun to me.

Re:Is this even legal?

[BobMcD]

My list would be shorter. Specifically:

#3 ensures that everyone of a given class/level combination will have almost exactly the same number of HP's. That's a net loss for the game as a whole.

#4 is novel, but is firmly in the 'maybe' column. This could change the genre. It could completely destroy any concept of game balance, making casters the only class to play at any level. Hard to say, but it certainly doesn't strike me as something that makes sense without a lot of testing.

#9 means that one of the truly horrifying parts of facing, say, a wight is now in dire need of replacement. Otherwise it's just another shape of ghoul.

#10 is arbitrary and therefore dumb. I mean, they're MAGIC items, are they not?

#12 means that the 'Tomb of Horrors' couldn't exist in 4e...

#13 was in place to give combat types an edge, so hopefully it got replaced with something

#17 represents a serious change for DM's to bear in mind. Hopefully the ENTIRE rule-set has been reworked to take this into account and every DM is drilled on the changes. The 3e DMG makes a fairly solid case as to how much 'oomph' an encounter is supposed to expend. This limited (yet unlimited) healing is VERY different and could be quite damaging beyond it's short-term gains.

#18 means less opportunities for skill-based encounters, which used to be some character build's pride and joy. Fewer skills probably means a more combat oriented Rogue class. for example, which is a net loss for the game also...

I could go on, but my point is these changes may or may not have been necessary at all, and until we get to measure the full impact of them, there is good cause to be concerned. Some of them seem to be quite huge...

Re:Is this even legal?

[NightRain]

Spending "multiple 7 figures" on making a new edition of D&D makes my brain hurt. Maybe he was including the figures after the decimal point in the number "7" :)

Re:Is this even legal?

[Ihmhi]

How can your license forbid someone from using another license for a different product? Aren't antitrust laws that specifically forbid that?

The new license specifically states that if you wish to make products for 4th edition, you must cease making products for 3rd edition. It's nothing new or strange in the business world.

Hell, they could write in something in their license like "You must cease publishing products based on GURPS and other systems" and they could full well get away with it. It happens in everything from sports to business to Hollywood.

Re:Is this even legal?

[mxyzplk]

Hi all, mxyzplk here. This is very probably not legal, but unfortunately most RPG industry companies have very shallow pockets; many companies only have a handful of permanent employees and can't afford a lawsuit. In general I think they're on shaky legal ground anyway (though IANAL) in requiring a license to produce D&D products. The new GSL is at least going to allow licensees to use the D&D logo and all - the OGL didn't, and arguably the old OGL license wasn't allowing anything that wasn't legal anyway. A lot of the relevant case law (and a lot of it against Hasbro) indicates plenty of legality if you want to generate a "d20" compatible product - take the RADGames/Monopoly add-on lawsuit. But of course Hasbro is happy to take each and every case to the mat, and it's hard to find people who want to jeopardize their livelihood to step up against them.

Re:Is this even legal?

[ClamIAm]

IANAL either.

I think the legality and/or enforceability of this depends on what restrictions there are in copyright law regarding licensing. This is, of course, assuming that this new license is a copyright license and not a contract or something.

Moving on, if this is indeed legal, all I have to say is: fuck Wizards/Hasbro. The real purpose of this license is to place other RPG companies in subordination to Wizards. This is achieved through putting them on an upgrade treadmill. Each time a new license is released, the small companies have to spend a lot of time and money retooling their products to comply with the new rules. This effectively reduces their profit, meaning they will be less of a threat to Wizards.

I don't play tabletop RPGs, but I'm still really disgusted by this. Go capitalism!

Re:Is this even legal?

[grahamd0]

#3 ensures that everyone of a given class/level combination will have almost exactly the same number of HP's. That's a net loss for the game as a whole.

Unless, like I have, you're playing a melee combat character with a decent CON and roll a 1 at nearly every level. The whole idea of rolling when the game is balanced around your having ~50% of your total potential hitpoints + CON starts to seem pretty stupid.

#4 is novel, but is firmly in the 'maybe' column. This could change the genre. It could completely destroy any concept of game balance, making casters the only class to play at any level. Hard to say, but it certainly doesn't strike me as something that makes sense without a lot of testing.

Spells in 4E are only one form of "power" other classes have comparable abilities with comparable use slots, so I'd worry more that it will *reduce* the appeal of playing a wizard.

#13 was in place to give combat types an edge, so hopefully it got replaced with something

In Star Wars saga edition, extra attacks are gained through feats. They cost penalties to use (like a Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot does now) and they have BAB as a requirement. So everyone has the option to get multiple attacks. I'm hoping 4E D&D will have something similar.

#17 represents a serious change for DM's to bear in mind. Hopefully the ENTIRE rule-set has been reworked to take this into account and every DM is drilled on the changes. The 3e DMG makes a fairly solid case as to how much 'oomph' an encounter is supposed to expend. This limited (yet unlimited) healing is VERY different and could be quite damaging beyond it's short-term gains.

Monsters are supposed to be much more challenging in 4E. I like the idea of a character getting a second wind over the idea of waking up in the morning, getting in a fight, using up your spells and going back to sleep 10 minutes later.

#18 means less opportunities for skill-based encounters, which used to be some character build's pride and joy. Fewer skills probably means a more combat oriented Rogue class. for example, which is a net loss for the game also...

I don't think that's true at all. AFAIK, they didn't flat out remove the ability to perform any actions based on a skill check that could be performed in third edition, they just organized those actions into a smaller set of skills. For example, Thievery replaces Open Lock, Pick Pocket, etc.

I could go on, but my point is these changes may or may not have been necessary at all, and until we get to measure the full impact of them, there is good cause to be concerned. Some of them seem to be quite huge...

It's not inappropriate to be concerned if you're interested in 4E, but my take is that I might as well keep an open mind about it. We can't pressure WotC into changing anything at this point, and the worst case scenario is we get to keep playing 3.X.

Re:Is this even legal?

[BobMcD]

We can't pressure WotC into changing anything at this point, and the worst case scenario is we get to keep playing 3.X. The temptation, though, is to make something better from either the ground up or based off of an earlier version. With the 'power' of the internet and collaboration, the 'need' for a company like WotC is diminishing by the day. Unfortunately without the very real dollars they pump into and out of the industry - well, this notion would likely die a death of starvation.

I get disappointed when I think that the lineage that DnD represents is going off on a tangent.

Re:Is this even legal?

[pugugly]

Frickinghades.

I *survived* Tomb of Horrors!

. . . to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!

Call the Colbert Report - I demand that WotC be put on Notice!

Re:Is this even legal?

[Kuvter]

What about prestige classes? There seemed to be much less emphasis on creativity in manipulating your character to what you wanted to be. To many people just picked a prestige class and took stills, not to fit their personality or style of fighting, but only because they were prerequisites for the prestige class.

Also what about social combat, is there anything added for that. That always seemed lacking in D&D in general, however it's a 1/3 of Exalted's attributes (Physical, Social, Mental). Charisma alone is too general.

Re:Is this even legal?

[DuckDodgers]

Some of that stuff is just undoing stupid changes they made in the past...Confirmation on criticals, Magical Items costing experience (wtf was that about anyway? Nothing irritates me more than the idea that I get dumber by practicing something). It's an improvement, isn't it? We're comparing 4th to 3rd. If you're still at Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition or earlier, you've never cared what Wizards of the Coast does.

Some of the other stuff is just making up for stupid DMs, and that irritates me. Monsters can be scaled down? So? A good DM should be able to come up with an easy or hard encounter with any sort of monster anyway, and relying on the "book difficulty" with monsters means you run out of monsters that your PCs can't beat around lvl 15. Lots of nice stuff can be done with a good DM and house ruling. If that's your test for whether a particular RPG is worthwhile, why not run original Dungeons and Dragons and house rule the rest?

Likewise magic items and buffs; if I decide that they're spending too long on their buffs, I start throwing random encounters at them. If they keep going into combat, blowing all their spells/abilities, and trying to rest, I make resting very difficult. After a while, that starts to get contrived. Building it into the rules ultimately makes for less work.

Some of the other stuff I like; level drain is awesome...It forces players to pay attention when certain undead are on the loose. Level drain is a bookkeeping nightmare. Which spells are lost? What did it to to attack bonuses? Skill levels? Feats? And besides, the threat is very artificial. Raise Dead is easier, if I recall correctly, than Restoration. If the reverse were true - and the reverse is more intuitive (returning lost energy should be easier than raising the dead) - a giant or dragon, or even a poisonous snake would be scarier than a wight.

Spell preperation, while I never really liked it, forces a certain amount of tactical thinking that is completely removed by unlimited spells. Can't rest? Who cares! Just doesn't sound like fun to me. Well, there is still limit on casting. Some spells can only be cast once per day, some once per encounter (aka battle) and some an unlimited times per day. The unlimited use powers are obviously weaker than the others. The per encounter powers are weaker than the once per day powers. So the tactical thinking is still required. This just makes it easier than a list of spells known and spells prepared or memorized.

Re:Is this even legal?

[grahamd0]

The temptation, though, is to make something better from either the ground up or based off of an earlier version. With the 'power' of the internet and collaboration, the 'need' for a company like WotC is diminishing by the day. Unfortunately without the very real dollars they pump into and out of the industry - well, this notion would likely die a death of starvation. I get disappointed when I think that the lineage that DnD represents is going off on a tangent.

I don't think it will be that big of a problem. Some people never accepted 3rd edition. Some people never accepted 2nd edition. D&D isn't going to die. It's changed before.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

End result? D&D 4e is a pile of steaming crap that doesn't deserve to have the D&D name on it. its truly amazing how often i heard this said about the 2nd ed. - 3rd ed. transition

Re:Is this even legal?

[2short]

"... represents a serious change for DM's to bear in mind. Hopefully the ENTIRE rule-set has been reworked to take this into account and every DM is drilled on the change..."

The entire rule set has been reworked, period. It's a new ruleset. Any discussion of 4E as a list of changes, or of how any 4E rule doesn't work in a 3E context is beyond pointless. Perhaps an illustration will help:

You know the castling rule in chess, how it says you can't do it if your king has moved? That's totally stupid, because in checkers, you only get a king by getting to the back row, and how are you supposed to do that without moving?

That's what most people discussing what's wrong with 4E online sound like. 4E is a new ruleset, not a collection of tweaks.

Re:Is this even legal?

[BobMcD]

That's a very optimistic view.

I wonder, if this really is the case, was it only for marketing purposes that WotC decided to name the system 'DnD 4e'? It would seem if it was something completely new, or advanced in some revolutionary way (as per Chess vs Checkers), then it would merit a non-incremental name, (e.g. 'Chess' rather than 'Checkers 4e').

Would it not?

Re:Is this even legal?

[Chrondeath]

Every gameplay change has been made not to make a better game, but to make it easier for lazy programmers to code it into the online board.

Am I the only one who reads this as "solid mechanics"?

I worry any time I see a set of rules that can't be represented in code...

Re:Is this even legal?

[ravenshrike]

Most of it almost certainly went towards their new online gaming system coding and design and the expanded push for peripheral(like minis) use.

Re:Is this even legal?

[ravenshrike]

*sighs* It's quite simple. The contract for 4th ed 3rd party licensing forbids the further making of 3rd ed OGL products. If a company continues to do so, they would be in breach of contract and Hasbro could sue the pants off them. It's not illegal in any criminal sense, no. Of course, if they would just spin off a separate company and have that company(still primarily owned by the original) create 4th ed products, it would probably get around this mess entirely. Hell, they could just cut their employees salaries in half and sign them up in the new company as well, thereby solving the entire issue and making WOTC, and by implication Hasbro, look like morons. Which they are.

Re:Is this even legal?

[2short]

I should note that my Chess-Checkers analogy was just the first way I could think to jam a rule from one ruleset into another; I'm not claiming 4E is chess to 3E being checkers as any sort of analogy about the quality or sophistication of the games.

If you wanted to say 4E was really a whole new game and calling it D&D was just a marketing ploy, I'd say it was both an excellent marketing ploy and an obvious one and WotC obviously wouldn't pass it up. I certainly wouldn't assume that WotC would always put what made sense ahead of marketing, to put it mildly.

Or one could say that 4E maintains the essential character of D&D, and therefore deserves the name, even though practically all of the details are different. You're still charachters in a fantasy setting doing a fair amount of fighting, and conducting that fighting via rounds during which you roll polyhedral dice and track hitpoints, etc, etc.

In any case, I have seen the rules and will tell you: it is not an incremental change, it's a rewrite. Whether it's worthy of the name or a cheap marketing trick you'll have to decide for yourself; I'm just encouraging you to judge it in totality, not as individual rules fragments that can be expected to make any sense jammed into the context of a different ruleset.

Re:Is this even legal?

[ultranova]

Magical Items costing experience (wtf was that about anyway? Nothing irritates me more than the idea that I get dumber by practicing something).

From that, and quite a few other things (such as undead draining levels) it appears that XP in 3rd Edition represented "life force" rather than practice. This makes plenty of sense, actually: how can practice make you able to take more damage (hit points) or more resistant to death magic (saves, especially fort) ? However, while this appears to have been the intention, it was never spelled out or taken to its logical conclusion, leading to a somewhat contradictory and confusing system.

Of course this would then make your typical PC a de facto vampire: a monster who's pumped himself up on the stolen lifeforce of hundreds of victims ;).

The sad thing: I've never actually played the game. I simply like reading the rulebooks.

Re:Is this even legal?

[ultranova]

Moving on, if this is indeed legal, all I have to say is: fuck Wizards/Hasbro. The real purpose of this license is to place other RPG companies in subordination to Wizards. This is achieved through putting them on an upgrade treadmill. Each time a new license is released, the small companies have to spend a lot of time and money retooling their products to comply with the new rules. This effectively reduces their profit, meaning they will be less of a threat to Wizards.

Actually, no. This means that those small companies can resell the same content, with small upgrades, again and again as new editions come out. The one screwed is the customer: the purpose of this scheme is to kill the 3rd party market for the 3rd Edition, in order to kill off said edition and force everyone to buy the 4th. Which very likely won't work, since there's already an obscene amount of material for the 3rd, but that's another matter.

Re:Is this even legal?

[devolutionist]

The sad thing: I've never actually played the game. I simply like reading the rulebooks.

huge props for you ultranova - that's some true grit hardcore geek shit right there. keep up the good work spud.

Re:Is this even legal?

[bkr1_2k]

As I said, that's not what the summary suggests. I wasn't able to read the full article, so I don't know the actual details, but the summary specifically says "produce no further open products at all-- Dungeons & Dragons related or not." which is not what you're saying.

As you said, there are several legal ways to get around this issue, and Hasbro just look like a bunch of asshats.

Re:Is this even legal?

[BobMcD]

I'd like to get my hands on a copy. My point was this:

From 1st ed AD&D to 2nd ed, there were few changes. Material could be adapted from one to the other with only a small amount of work, and the general idea was very much the same. And again from 2nd ed to 3e the changes were sort of 'tacked on'. One could learn the new parts without really having to relearn any old parts.

4e could have gone that way as well, but I'm beginning to understand that it did not. HOPEFULLY it is clear to everyone that it did not, and HOPEFULLY they went in a better direction with it.

Ergo Windows Vista.

Re:Is this even legal?

[CapeBretonBarbarian]

1. Monsters no longer must have class levels.

I actually liked having the option of giving a monster class levels. It allowed you to construct encounters on a more level playing field without having to deal with different mechanics for players and monsters.

4. Spells are unlimited use, per encounter, or per day - a big improvement over memorization/preparation/whatever.

I strongly dislike this for two reasons :
(1) The old Vancian spell system forced the player to make some tactical choices.
(2) The new approach sounds kind of bland and I suspect it will get old after a while with the smaller set of options available.

And I suppose there is a third thing that bothers me. They've pushed the whole at will/per encounter/per day out to every single character class so everyone is equivalent and balanced. It sounds bland.

8. No spells require experience point expediture to cast. The Wish spell is also gone.

Wish has always been a bit problematic, but it was always one of the big features in the game that players used to dream of acquiring. I'll miss it, and all its associated issues. I never had a problem with some spells exacting a cost on the spell caster. Ditto for creating magic items. That fits the fantasy genre well enough. There were some class balance issues, however, with spell casting players advancing slower because of spending experience.

9. No level drain from undead or spells.

That is unfortunate. I never had a problem with handling energy drain in any of the previous versions of the game.

10. Fewer magical items can be worn, to reduce that complexity.

Was it ever really so complex that it had to be simplified with more arbitrary limits (such as rings only work for Paragon level characters)?

11. Fewer buff (temporary improvement) spells, and fewer buff spells that overlap, so your group doesn't spend 10 minutes in spell preparation before each combat.

Version 3.5 created the 10 minute prep time issue with the much shorter durations on the buff spells.

13. Full attacks are removed.

Why? Some weird idea of balancing everyone by allowing players to only get to do one thing (attack, spell, whatever) a round? Again, I'm worried they are making the game too bland.

14. The rules for attacks of opportunity are (supposedly) simplified and clarified.

They always seemed pretty simple in our games and were rarely an issue. I've never understood why other people had problems with them.

15. Monsters can be scaled down for lower level encounters.

A DM could always do something like this in any version of the game. I suppose what you mean is that they've explicitly written a new simple mechanic of achieving this. That or they've decided to introduce a bazillion stock example monsters (e.g. orc archer, elite orc archer, orc brawler, orc minion, orc chief, etc etc ).

16. Other class abilities get moved to the same once per day, once per encounter, or unlimited use mechanic as spells.

While I'm sure this makes the game easier for some, it sounds very bland to me. It sounds more like something I'd expect in a computer game.

17. Characters get healing surges, which let them recover from damage outside of combat more quickly without requiring a caster with healing magic. This mitigates the need to have a priest healer in every gaming party.

It also makes the characters far more heroic and 'cinematic' which would make running a realistic gritty game more difficult. While I see some elegance in the mechanic, it's a huge change from previous versions of D&D and not something I personally want to use. I can see why it might appeal to some.

18. The skill system is dramatically simplified. PCs have trained skills and other skills, and no individual skill ranks in (potentially) d

Re:Is this even legal?

[Archiviste]

My list is even shorter:

#3, 4, 10, 12, 17 and 18 means it's now a bleeping video game...

I strongly hope several companies will resist the urge to go with 4e and continue develop for 3.5.

Daniel M.
who was there for D&D Basic, AD&D 1st Ed., AD&D 2nd Ed., D&D 3th Ed. D&D 3.5,
but won't touch 4E with an eleven foot pole...

Re:Is this even legal?

[ClamIAm]

I think we're both right.

Re:Is this even legal?

[zagmar]

Of course it's legal. For the most part, anyone can put any restriction they want on their IP. Whether or not it's actionable in court is a different matter.

Also a different matter is just how effective it is. A better idea would be to ignore 3e completely, OGL 4e, and once again reap the benefits. Dozens of companies came out with products supporting 3e, making the system as a whole much more attractive. As for the analogy in the writeup, it's more like MS saying if you want to make software for Vista, you have to drop XP support. I'll be quite surprised if someone else doesn't step in to take WotC's place as the OGL company-Hero Games and Dream Pod 9, I'm looking at you!

Re:Is this even legal?

[shadowless]

It was wise of you to stop at only 19 items. Had you added a 20th, your extract of D&D rules would no longer have been covered by "fair use" laws and the Lawyers of the Coast would be upon you before you could have said "d20"!

Re:Is this even legal?

[DuckDodgers]

I like the option of giving monsters class levels too, and I understand that option is still present. But they also have simpler rules for boosting and or weakening stock opponents and it makes DM preparation easier when he doesn't need to add monster levels.

I disagree on the blandness of tactical choices. When the party wizard cast a Fireball, or even Sleep in combat or something like Read Languages or Detect Evil out of combat it was a big deal. That was the player's moment to have their character shine and really hold the spotlight. For a player running a Fighter, they only got something similar if they were lucky enough to land and confirm a critical hit, and also roll well on the damage dice. Otherwise, mechanically their combat options were pretty limited. I think the change is good.

I think the unlimited weak spells, once per encounter moderate spells, and once per day strong spells is every bit as tactical as the Vancian system and dramatically simpler for bookkeeping in play. (I would also be happy with a true Vancian system: wizards can cast a much smaller number of dramatically more dangerous spells. That makes bookkeeping easier too.)

Level drain meant keeping track of what was taken away. I also disliked it because getting levels restored was more difficult than raising the dead, which seems counter-intuitive. I also think it's especially frustrating for a player, because losing a character is often easier to deal with than having one with moderately or severely reduced competence. What if your 5th level Rogue gets knocked back to level 1? Tough luck, if you're lucky you get to tag along on a long quest while all of the other 5th level characters do the hard work to find someone to restore you. You've been relegated to baggage handler. It would have been easier if your PC died, and then you can create some new 3rd (or if the DM is generous, 4th) level character to bring in with the rest of the game.

I think the presence of a cleric with the attendant ability to heal wounds makes for cinematic gameplay too. The healing surge abilities of classes is no more over the top, it just lets groups get by without needing a PC or NPC cleric in the party. If you want a gritty game, you already needed to house-rule away magical healing in previous editions, so I don't see a difference.

I think the 3.0/3.5 system is too complicated, especially for multi-class characters trying to keep track of skill costs and cross class skills as they progressed. If you ran a mostly single class game (which is what I prefer, but doesn't seem too common), it wasn't as much of an issue. But the new system still allows for variation, so I'm satisfied. Dungeons and Dragons has always had a big combat element to it - for any edition, total up the number of pages on combat rules, monster combat stats, armor, weapons, and combat-oriented magical items and compare it to the number of pages on non-combat skills. Combat is dramatically more important, and the new skill system is easier without becoming so general that it's useless.

Re:Is this even legal?

[kitsunewarlock]

Why do you enjoy no monster levels? They are effectively taking all those beautiful races you could use and going "Nope, stick to the 8-10 in the Player's Handbook." No longer can you run Dragon, kobold, pixie, will-o-wisp, etc... characters without "special permission" and homebrew stuff from your GM. And unfortunately, I doubt the homebrew stuff will carry over well to the computerized $5/month version they are so desperate to get people hooked on...

Re:Is this even legal?

[DuckDodgers]

It's my understanding that there will be rules for monster levels when you want them OR simpler rules for boosting or weakening monsters. So the GM doesn't need to pick every feat and spell for, say, an Ogre Mage that he wants to give 5 extra HD if he does not feel the need to do so.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should be able to put any restrictions they want on using their new license, don't want to meet the requirements of the new license? then fuck you.

This sounds familiar

[gruvmeister]

It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!" It's more like "If you want to make and sell products for Vista, you can't make and sell products for XP." Both products are made the the same company, the older one has been around for quite some time and has developed a very good following, but now the owning company wants to push sales of their new product line.

Re:This sounds familiar

[srmalloy]

I'm not sure that the analogy you draw is on all fours -- given statements Microsoft has made about requiring a new codebase, drawing that analogy for Windows 7 would be better, but virtually all applications written for XP will run on Vista without changes, while D&D4e has made changes that may require significant editing for compatibility. Now, Microsoft might require that a company stop selling an XP version and put in Vista-Specific code in order to be able to put the "Designed for Windows Vista" cachet on their product, but they're not forcing companies to discontinue all existing XP-compatible products in order to get any Vista branding.

Re:This sounds familiar

[dcollins]

"It's more like 'If you want to make and sell products for Vista, you can't make and sell products for XP.' Both products are made the the same company..."

No, that's incorrect. The OGL *license* was originally made by WOTC. But there are now many products that are completely unique games published under that license. In some cases they have zero to do with any of the WOTC brands or products.

Say you created a brand-new piece of software and released it under the Sun Public License (or something). Later, Sun starts aggressively trying to stop publishing of any software ever released under the SPL, including yours. That's what this is most like.

Re:This sounds familiar

[destine]

What alarms me about that is that a lot of small companies make money through the sales of pdf's specifically using that license, wether it's tied to a wotc product or not. And the pdf is a great way to get rules and information from past games or even play a game that you remembered from high school but don't have and can't find the books for. It's also a cheap way for many on limited incomes to get copies of books for cheaper. Obviously, all these small companies some of which have loyal fanbases, would have to stop producing items that bring in the cash. This also alienates a part of their fanbase, for those making content that is playable in multiple systems. It's basically saying that the only customers a company can have are those that wotc approves of. And I suppose that's fine, but I doubt it will receive the amount of support that it has in the past.

Most of my favorite books are those from Monte Cook. He did some excellent work and his former company would have to just stop printing and selling their best stuff just to hop on board the 4e train. No more ptolus pdf's for sale for those that missed the bus. And that's a shame. If 4e is a hit then it means those that don't like 4e are going to stop seeing supplements from people and companies they've enjoyed. Seems a shame really.

Viva la Revolution?

[PresidentEnder]

Everything I hear about 4e (subscription access to web content, big monster-type race, "WoWification") seems bad. This seems worse. I hope the independent publishers respond by sticking to 3.5e.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more like, go make your own rpg system? We've been playing our own custom rules since ever...

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Sentry21]

It's strange... pretty much all the negative things I've been hearing are people on the forums who've never played it and only know what's been told to them, but who form negative opinions based on what they assume people mean (and we've seen a lot of uproar about things that were never actually said).

Conversely, every review I've read by people who've actually played it, and everything I've heard from the people I know who are playtesting it right now, has been overwhelmingly positive, to the point where I have no question in my mind about wanting to switch over to 4e as soon as is possible.

Go figure.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Planesdragon]

Conversely, every review I've read by people who've actually played it, and everything I've heard from the people I know who are playtesting it right now, has been overwhelmingly positive, to the point where I have no question in my mind about wanting to switch over to 4e as soon as is possible. People who have actually played it fall into three camps.

1: The people who wrote it.

2: People who went to a convention just to play it.

3: Folks who have NDAs, that limit what they can say.

What part of this audience makes you think it's a fair metric for how good the game actually is?

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Whyte Panther]

Honestly, I'd trust the people who went to the convention to play it. Those people are going to be, on average, among the most dedicated gamers you can find. If a dedicated player approves, then that's good enough for me. What reason do you have to beleive that the con-goers have been coerced into providing positive reviews?

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Blakey Rat]

Ok, but your post also confirms that the nay-sayers haven't played it, and so their opinion is utterly meaningless.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[deathy_epl ccs]

That simple... because the geek community has a very major issue with fanboyismm, and those that go to geek conventions are demonstrating a particularly strong fanboy streak in general. It doesn't really take coercion to get it, but I still wouldn't trust their opinions in this matter.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Ristol]

The transition from 2.0 to 3.0, while correcting many of the bizarre rules of the game, also dumbed it down and made it much more 'politically correct'. If you want a game that does it like it used to be, try out Hackmaster. They actually licensed the AD&D and 2nd Edition rules for the game!

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[dreamchaser]

I stopped buying when they published the horrid 3E rules. My old books and house rules work just fine, and I have been creating my own campaign content for over 30 years so I see no need to purchase any 3rd party add ons or modules anyways.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[NightRain]

That simple... because the geek community has a very major issue with fanboyismm

Sorry, that doesn't follow. If it did, the primary attendee of a typical gaming/sci-fi con etc would not be geeks, when generally they clearly are.

I have an issue with fanboyism. I'm a geek. I'm also aware that many of my fellow geeks are fanboys and fangirls for various things that interest them

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[PresidentEnder]

I haven't played it, you're right. However, I reiterate: everything I've heard sounds like a bad idea.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[deathy_epl ccs]

I see that my having left off the smiley made the tongue-in-cheek nature of my post a little unclear.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[NightRain]

Yes, the smiley would have helped. I thought it was a strange comment, but I took it at face value. A smiley would have helped me not make an idiot of myself :)

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[deathy_epl ccs]

Sorry, weren't my intent.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[KDR_11k]

The geek fanboys seem more like the type that will complain about any change, even if it is for the better just because it's not "true to the original".

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Flwyd]

#1 are obviously biased.

#2 are probably pretty excited about it, but (as every Slashdotter should know), geeks can display very negative feelings about first impressions of changes to products they love.

#3, while they're restricted regarding the specifics they can share, tend to be in a position of objectivity. They've tried the game and may have sent the authors very specific feedback on what they do and don't like. So while they can't provide enough information for people to evaluate the products, comments like "I think the changes are great, the games run a lot smoother and classes are more balanced" are a decent source of information on the quality of the new rules.

I've had about as much exposure to 4th Edition as I had to 3rd Edition when it came out before my free time switched away from playing D&D. Each edition of AD&D has gotten simpler and addressed common frustrations. The arcane quirks and special exceptions I loved as a teenager playing 2E are gone, but nobody's taken away my old books; if I want to play the old way, I still can. 4E is a good way to have a group of folks sit at a table and pretend to beat up monsters, better in my estimation than WotC/TSR's previous methods of doing that. It's also got an innovative way of handling non-combat, skill-based situations. And it's got about as many degrees of freedom beyond the rules as the editions before had (which is to say, limited primarily by your imagination).

I've got no stake in how well 4E does financially, if that improves my value as a metric. Fundamentally, I think it does a good job at what it sets out to do. And if its goals are the same as yours, it's a good choice. If balanced abilities based on class and level and straightforward rules focused on beating up monsters aren't your goals, there are plenty of other good systems to choose from.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[deathy_epl ccs]

Gah! I wasn't trying to be insightful, I was trying to be funny!

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[Sentry21]

What part of this audience makes you think it's a fair metric for how good the game actually is? The people under NDAs haven't given me any specific information (i.e. 'I love the way Level 12 Wizards can cast Dispel Undergarments at-will!'); it's only been generic information ('I'll never go back to 3.5; 4th edition makes everything so much simpler and more fun, by taking out all the useless and overly complicated junk that shouldn't have been in there in the first place').

My fiancée and I created 15th level characters the other day for a group we're joining, and it was all manner of messy.

We had to figure out what our hit points were, which meant (for her fighter) 10 + 14d10 + (CON bonus x 15)â¦Âafter finishing that up, we got her an Amulet of Health, which added +6 CON, so that was another 45 hit points. This also changed all of her skills (because her CON bonus changed) so we had to consider that.

We also figured out her attacks at +15/+10/+5, plus her STR bonus (+4) which increased by one because of ability point increases at two levels, and damage as 1d12 + 5. Then we had to add more STR bonus (+6 STR from Belt of Giant Strength = +3 to Attack and Damage). Oh, and it's a magic Warhammer (+1 to attack and damage) with Weapon Focus (+1 attack) and Weapon Specialization (+2 damage). Oh, and she's got power attack tooâ¦

So her attack is 15 + 8 + 1 + 1, and her damage is 1d12 + 8 + 1 + 2. So, you can remember those as 25 and 1d12 + 11⦠except that she has Power Attackâ¦

In some specific cases, because of all the feats she has, she could charge a foe and use Power Attack (-10 to attack, +20 to damage for a 2h weapon), except she can take that penalty to AC instead, and if she hits, she gets (in the next round) to power attack and get 3x the penalty instead of 2xâ¦ÂOr, if she Bull Rushes someone to push them back, her next round she gets +1 to attack/damage per five foot square she pushed them back.

When she's Bull Rushing, she makes an opposed Strength check (1d20 + 8, for her); but then she has Improved Bull Rush (+4), might be charging (an optional +2), is a giant-equivalent (+4 size bonus) and can Enlarge Person herself (+4 size bonus)⦠Nice, if you figure that as 1d20 + 20, except that not all of those things apply in all situations; if she's not Enlarged, then no +4; if her adversary is also Large, no other +4; if she were in an antimagic field, -6 to STR, for a -3 penalty (oh, and Enlarge Person would wear off).

These are the sorts of calculations that need to be done in every single round in a modern, high-level game of D never mind trying to factor in the opponent's capabilities, cover, visibility, miss chances, critical chances, and so on.

3.5e can be very fun, but it's also obscenely complicated. It took us two days to make two level 15 characters; in 4e, we could probably do it in an hour or so, because there's a lot less pointless variation. Ok, so my wizard gets 4 HP per level instead of rolling 1d4. That's bad, because every 15th-level wizard has 60 HP, but good, because my 15th-level wizard doesn't end up with 22 HP (and yes, I have rolled that before). Hell, if I didn't have a CON bonus (not unlikely), my fiancée's damage, even if she rolls ones, would kill me in two hits; if she rolls max, one hit. Not really something you want to be trying to play on the battlefield.

4e is going to be pretty awesome in a lot of ways; if it does suck in parts, which is likely, it'll suck in much more tolerable ways than the current edition. At the very least, I'll have less books to dig through to build a character.

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[caudron]

You are mistaken.

I don't work for WotC. I never went to a convention to play the new edition. I am not under an NDA or in any other way a part of a beta testing group for WotC.

I also play 4th ed every weekend right now. We use the pre-release compilation ruleset and the pregen characters and have toyed with character creation to make a thief to add to the party. Not a complete experience, but definitely gives me a clear idea of what 4e is about and how it will play. So let me comment about that.

I have a strong desire to dislike the new edition. I have publicly devcried that it would be crap. I have good reason to dislike their move away from the open source model. I have no love for Hasbro's tenure as keepers of D&D.

And I love the new game so far. I don't want to. But I do. So far, the game is just more fun. More action. More of the good stuff and not so much of the crap that made previous editions tedious. I'm not saying it's perfect (I could give you my personal list of dislikes) but overall, it is an improvement from previous editions. And it just kills me to say that.

-Tom Caudron

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[2short]

I'm in the third camp. As a player in a playtest campaign I've signed an NDA and can't say anything about the specifics of the rules. But I can certainly say whether I like it or not and can't think of any reason I ought to be biased.
    Therefore: In my humble opinion, which may or may not be impartial (though I think it is), and which I can at least claim to be informed as it stems from actual experience: Fourth Edition is wicked frickin awesome, and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a completely entrenched grognard I don't want to play with anyway. :)

Re:Viva la Revolution?

[ravenshrike]

Um, firstly, what character sheets were you using? The base ones? Cause those pretty much suck. Secondly, when making characters, skill points totals and ability mods go last, especially when making high level characters. Thirdly, why the hell did you giver her a +1 weapon at 15th level? There's also the question of why you even would go the enlarge person route, given that unless you're running certain tripping builds or a build using stand still or thicket of blades you're only getting 1 AC and reach out of it, which is of limited utility. Not to mention I doubt your DM would mind if you asked to take average HP(before you rolled). The only one's that do tend to be Killer DMs anyway. As for your wizard, if you didn't want the bookkeeping you could have easily gone sorcerer, and while not being as powerful as a wizard would have been, could still have killed your fiance's character in 3 rounds of combat. Wizards, artificer's, archivists, clerics, and druids are for those who really like bookkeeping and strategy. If you don't, then you shouldn't play one.

wiki rpg

[__aanonl8035]

Role-playing games seem to be ripe for having all the rules and settings put up in a wiki, under a truly open content license.

Here is a resource for various projects
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Major_Projects
http://www.kirith.com/shapeshifter/Main_Page

Also, from what I have read about the net, you can not copyright rules. With that in mind, some bright fellows have put all the old school rules into a pdf and called is OSRIC.
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

Re:wiki rpg

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but the typical flaws of open systems will apply, such as the inability to get shelf space, etc...

Centralizing the system and having a "dictator" who is passionate about it would be key. Forking it endlessly would be a mess, and, unfortunately, I think would be what would happen. While customization is good, the central system would have to be carefully considered and have a clear focus.

Re:wiki rpg

[igneousquill]

I haven't played for years, and am really turned off by recent D&D publications. If I get back into gaming, I'll probably use what my brother has been working on developing with others: http://www.basicfantasy.org/main.html

Re:wiki rpg

[Sancho]

Earthdawn is a pretty neat P&P RPG, too. It's set in the same universe as Shadowrun, but thousands of years earlier. It's really neat source material for an medieval-fantasy setting alternative to D&D.

Can't recall the name right now...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but I believe there was a alternate 2nd edition that took all the rules and none of the "fluff." It existed only so that publishers could say "Our product is compatible with _foo_," which gamers knew was code for "Our product is compatible with 2nd edition."

Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

Sure sounds terrible, doesn't it. Of course, Wizards of the Coast did NOT make the announcement Mxyzplk claims they did.

Instead, a publisher posted on one of the www.enworld.org forums that he had had a conversation with someone at WotC and that this was his understanding of what the new license does. The individuals at WotC who responded did make comments that suggest that such a policy may be part of their new GSL, however there have also been indications that they are backing away from that position. Of course, since no one has actually seen the new license, no one knows precisely what is permitted and prohibited.

An announcement is expected today, which should clarify the issue.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mudbunny]

The comments from WotC that I saw on ENWorld seemed to indicate that the exclusion clause was to keep a 3rd party publisher from publishing the same book under both the GSL and the OGL. I suspect that someone at WotC stepped on their crank by releasing information to a 3pp without fully confirming that what thought that they were confirming was what was actually being said.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Myxplyx is also probably the same Myxplyx who got banned from a thread on this on EnWorld due to being a shmuck. Way to go helping petty little people grind their axes.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

Yep, and I'm looking forward to the "clarification" from Wizards. But the current information (OGL vs GSL full-company block poison pill) was told by the WotC Brand Manager to a third party publisher and lawyer who is supporting 4e as part of a phone conversation specifically to clarify that publisher's position vis-a-vis the GSL. I'd expect both of them to communicate pretty explicitly on the subject. So this isn't some vague rumor or hearsay. And it wasn't just a casual conversation between "someone" at WotC and "some" publisher - it's very disingenuous to pretend that's the case, if you really have bothered to read up on it. If this does make them "back away from that position," as you say, that would be the best possible outcome, right?

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

Hi Mxyzplk,

I promise I'm not stalking you (for those arriving late to the party, Mxyzplk and I have been discussing this on Enworld for a bit).

Looking back at Clark Peterson's post about the source for his information, he did not indicate that it had come from Scott Rouse (WotC's Senior Brand Manager). Instead, Clark says "By the way, this info was from Wizards." I'm sure Clark was doing his best to obtain accurate information. However, we do not currently know who was on the other end of the phone and the extent of that person's familiarity with the actual terms of the GSL.

So while its true that Mr. Peterson knew what he was talking about when he asked his questions, it's not yet clear whether the person with whom he was speaking was fully informed when giving the answers to those questions. Moreover, it's not entirely clear that WotC as an entity had fully considered the potential impact of such a decision on publishers who do not currently make products under the d20 STL. Based on more recent posts from Linnae Foster (one of WotC's Brand Managers), it appears that one of the provisions WotC is relying on to enforce this move is the termination clause of the d20 STL. This at least suggests that the goal is not to force OGL publishers into the GSL, but to require those seeking to profit from 4e to let go of 3.xe.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

A further reply is necessary.

In my response, I never referred to "some" publisher. I think I accurately described Clark Peterson's involvement. He was communicating with WotC, as the head of Necromancer Games, a publishing company. There is nothing disingenuous in stating that he is, in fact, a publisher. The fact that he is an attorney may, or may not, add to his credibility among certain audiences. Indeed, his status as an attorney may have suggested lines of questioning to him that may not have occurred to another publisher. Moreover, the individual responding to those questions may not have been fully prepared to answer.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

Yeah, and maybe it's all just a ruse and they're going to unveil the new Super Open License and mail us all rebate checks. It's possible - but it's not what the evidence at hand points towards. Don't be purposefully dense. Sure, "maybe" it'll turn out different - I sure hope so.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

Don't be purposefully rude.

You don't know WHO Clark Peterson spoke to. You're jumping to conclusions that as yet, are utterly unsupported by facts. Yes, the evidence presented so far points to some kind of termination of the d20 STL. It also points to some kind of provision to prevent publishers from simultaneously producing content for 3.xe and 4e. However, what's not clear, and where there's an absolute dearth of evidence, is whether the basis for that is the expiration of the d20 STL.

If you look at Mr. Rouse's comments in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211767), you'll see that he is uncertain about the full effect of the 4e GSL. Initially, Mr. Rouse said:

There will be no d20 STL in 4e but the d20 system trademark will still be used on our books. and other products as a mark of compatibility. This is what I said that I believe the OP was referring to.

There is no "without cause" termination clause in the d20 STL. The only way for us to stop it's use is to find cause to terminate through a violation of the community standards for example or b) update the license and essentially nullify it's use at a certain date e.g. version v.x this license will expire in January 2008. We have never stated that we would do b).

Even if we did kill the license and stop future use past products would likely be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to be sold using the mark as they were legitimately made under the license.

Go back and read the STL and let me know if you disagree. The OP should of done that or consult a lawyer before stating opinion as fact.

Shortly thereafter, he came into possession of additional information, requiring a retraction:

Well as we have announced more about the GSL I stand corrected. Use of the d20 STL will end on June 6th 2008 as it will be replaced by a d20 GSL. The books and PDFs with the old red and black logo will need to be updated without the logo after 2008.

It's pretty clear that the precise terms of the GSL are not yet fully understood by WotC's brand managment personnel. I suspect this is because the 4e team was so excited to finally get the eagerly awaited license back from legal that they announced before they understood all the terms. As a result, miscommunication is occurring. Until Mr. Rouse and WotC's lawyers have a chance to discuss all of the terms and confirm that they mean what they say and reach the intended result, statements from WotC personnel aren't necessarily accurate.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

Toss out every side track you can think of, but the facts at hand are pretty damning, and WotC has been promising to show people the GSL for lo these many months, and haven't yet. Sure. Maybe a 3p company president and lawyer talked to the WotC janitor to get licensing specifics. And your points about d20 STL expiration are completely random; it's easy to demolish a claim no one is making. The claim is that the GSL will tell companies they are not allowed to partake in open gaming by publishing any OGL products, period end of sentence. Secrecy is a weapon that organizations like WotC use to put one over on people like you. Wake up.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

So wait, you're allowed to make inferences based on information from outside the threads on enworld, but I'm not allowed to use other statements to make my own inferences? That's absurd.

The information about the d20 STL may not be dispositive of the issues concerning what the GSL says about making OGL product. But it is certainly relevant to the question of how well understood the GSL is among the people working at WotC. Mr. Rouse's lack of familiarity with its terms is not necessarily indicative of secrecy. More likely, it is indicative of a lack of familiarity with the document. If Scott Rouse, WotC's Senior Brand Manager is not familiar with the full import and terms of the GSL, then how can anyone be certain that the person talking with Clark Peterson was familiar with the full import and terms of the GSL. Hell, let's assume that you were correct when you said Clark Peterson spoke with Scott. Given that we already have evidence that Scott Rouse does not know how the GSL plays with the d20 STL, what evidence to YOU have that he understands what the GSL says about the OGL.

WotC can't "put one over" on people like me, because people like me are withholding judgment until the facts are out. Once I'm in possession of all the relevant facts, I'm more than capable of taking my dollars elsewhere. But unlike some people, I'm going to wait until I'm sure that WotC's representatives actually know what they're talking about. Mr. Rouse received a number of questions from the folks at Enworld late yesterday. Because he has prior professional commitments this week, he won't be able to answer them until later this week. Once those questions are answered, I'll be more than happy to break out the torches and pitchforks (and cancel my 4e pre-orders), if its warranted. But until then, there's insufficient evidence upon which to act.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

And that's fine. I think that the unfolding of events warranted a little pre-pitchforking, however - they have obviously been holding back on the GSL for a long time now and have no interest in releasing the terms until their hand is forced - probably so that people who have the books on preorder etc. get them before the news breaks. I myself am interested in the answer - if they are going to be acceptably open, I'll probably buy the books on release myself. Hell, I was at Gen Con 2000 helping run 3e events; as a LG Triad I got the 3e galleys to train from. So it's not like I 'hate me some D&D.' I mean - sure, there's a "lot" of questions - but how much work does it take for the senior brand manager and/or senior licensing manager to say "No, no, the GSL doesn't prevent a whole company from releasing OGL products." Sure, that's not every jot and tittle in the GSL, but it's the big deal item. Rouse took the time to post a lengthy post to ENWorld last night that says exactly jack shit. It doesn't take "time" or "work" to address a simple item like this unless you a) are trying to get it changed or b) trying to cover it up.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

So... Where's the announcement? I eagerly wait to be disproved, since the down side is just "I have an out of date blog post" and the up side is "open gaming is safe for now."

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

WotC solicited questions regarding its policy from its own posters and from posters at ENWorld. WotC has promised answers to those questions will be posted soon.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

How about now? Seriously, dude, they've been dragging this out for months now. First they were going to share the new licensing scheme with publishers months ago for $5000. Then they didn't. Then they announced it, but didn't release it. Then they were going to clarify on Monday, and they didn't. Now they're going to post a Q&A... Sometime. They stonewalled every publisher and distributor in the RPG industry all week at GAMA. The GSL's complete and "set in stone," as Linae Foster's posts make clear. They just don't want to tell anyone what it actually says. They're going to draw this out until all the distributors have their orders in, and all the preorders are filled, and all the eager fanboys run out and buy 4e when it hits stands June 6... What are you, a company shill? Aren't you embarrassed to keep up propagating *their* claims that they keep backing out of? If they really mean it, maybe they'd post it here themselves.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

As long as you continue posting one sided views based on speculation and conjecture as if they were God's own truth, I'll keep coming back here and posting the facts that are available. I'm not a fan of relying on hearsay and innuendo. It's bad for business.

Think of it as keeping you honest.

That said, my patience is not infinite, and is beginning to wear thin. I'm personally inclined to give them till Friday, but I can understand that some folks are neither as optimistic nor as accepting of human failing as I am. As they say, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence and miscommunication.

I should be so lucky as to be a shill for WotC. It'd probably mean my job would be more fun. But I'm not. Nor am I an eager fanboy. I am a person who thinks that the truth is important, though. I don't like seeing people make decisions without all of the facts. Too often, that kind of thing gets others hurt. So it really pisses me off to see people propagating rumors about others which are based on less than a full understanding of the facts. As I see it, neither you, nor I, have all the facts. Until we do, we shouldn't be making accusations. But as I said, as long as you're going to present one side of the story, I'm happy to keep coming back here and posting the other.

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

There's no one suppressing a side of this story but Wizards/Hasbro. As has been copiously discussed, this was not 'rumor'. That's a real word with a real definition. A rumor doesn't have an attributable primary source. A Wizards rep told a reliable person specific details on the OGL spiking, and I reported it. That's news by the journalistic standard. Every person like you trying to make excuses for them does nothing but hinder the real truth from coming out. It makes them think "Maybe we can get away with stonewalling them even longer!" If you really want the facts, push on Wizards, don't cry about the facts that are in evidence.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

Last time I checked, hearsay was not admissible as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 801 and 802. We can rely on Clark Peterson's statement that he had a conversation with "someone" at WotC. But the contents of that conversation are pure hearsay.

The reason it's not admissible is that there's no way to gauge the reliability of the hearsay. As we've discussed before, we don't know who provided information about the GSL and the OGL spiking. We don't know that person's level of familiarity with the GSL. Clark Peterson, your primary source, won't reveal his source (which makes Mr. Peterson a secondary source for the contents of the GSL). And moreover, your primary source has been urging people to withhold judgment until all the information was available.

And I'm not accusing you of suppressing anything. I'm simply pointing out that your presentation is one side of the story. There's another side, that in all fairness, should be presented with it. That's not trying to hinder the real truth from coming out. That's presenting all the facts. If you're right, and WotC is going to adopt an "us or them" approach, then that will come out in time. If, however, some miscommunication has occurred, then what you've been reporting is not the real truth.

Your problem is that you're not willing to give WotC enough rope to hang themselves. :) I'm content to wait until I have confirmation of their misconduct before I pull the lever (as it were).

--AC

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

Rules of legal evidence aren't the standard to which journalistic news is held. And we can agree to disagree, it's just that timing is important here - WotC is going to control the timing to gain their own ends, it's not value neutral to wait. If they intended to deny this they could do so in 30 seconds. They have a very specific agenda in holding out and going along with that is being a collaborator with their goals, which clearly seem to be the death of open gaming.

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[mxyzplk]

So for anyone following along at home, Wizards still isn't talking. The most recent news from a Wizards community liasion is that they still won't commit to a date for a response/clarification - "not this week and possibly not next week either" being all they'll say. Most miscreant companies just say "We won't comment!" Say what you want about Wizard's PR department, it's wilier to say "Oh, we have a comment coming, it's just... Taking time..." In that way you actually fool the more gullible into thinking that they really do want to respond, and that response might be good, it's just that we need a leeetle more time... http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/wizards-still-silent-on-anti-open-licensing-flap/

Re:Summary blatantly misstates the facts.

[Goobermunch]

And if you're still following this after this much time, Wizards has finally clarified their position. It's available at EN World.

mxyzplk, FYI, I've submitted a story here about it, and in an attempt to be fair I do state that we can't tell whether a miscommunication between WotC and Orcus caused the furore, or whether WotC has changed its position as a result of that furore.

--AC

4e is a piece of crap...

[Grimfaire]

I've a friend who was in on the testing of the new edition. So I've seen some of the rules. And as someone pointed out above, it's a complete destruction of the core values of D&D and most role playing games in that it moves it almost entirely to a "WoW" format. Where each so-called class is now one of a role filler as in tank/healer/cannon. No more, well I'm a fighter but specialize in damage... there is now aggro and everyone can heal themselves... it's really not D&D in any shape or form. I for one, am not moving to 4e and neither is my roommate. Considering we both play extensively and have more than 2 book cases and a closet set aside for just D&D books... that's saying quite a bit.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

And just what is the "shape or form" of D&D? It's changed a lot since it's inception.

Similar things were probably said about 3rd Ed.

And there's not aggro, and healing is limited (but only there to stop a party NEEDING a cleric)

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sapphire wyvern]

So what do you see as the core values of D&D that 4E fails to respect? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not sure what you mean by "so-called" class; the classes still seem very distinct to me *even though* each one is designed to fill one of four tactical roles in a combat situation.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Colonel Korn]

Aggro in D&D seems entirely incompatible with having an intelligent DM. Were I to ever run a game where some guys stood there healing a heavily armored warrior, there's no way the evil thingies would even glance at said warrior. Aggro is a ridiculous, unrealistic idea that has no place in a real RPG. In MMORPGs it's an occasionally entertaining arithmetic minigame.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[rossmills]

Which is why it's not in D&D. The guy is just incorrect.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sckeener]

Where each so-called class is now one of a role filler as in tank/healer/cannon. No more, well I'm a fighter but specialize in damage... Here's my example: say you want to play a swashbuckler or a duelist, does a fighter fit? They wear heavy armor in 4e because they are tanks. So our fighter swashbuckler swinging from the chandelier is wearing plate mail...Not a good image for a swashbuckler...

Ok how about the Rogue? Well they won't fall on their ass because of the heavy armor and they get trapfinding.....so while the swashbuckler or duelist is dancing around attacking, they can look for traps in the brassieres of the wenches.

Basically if you wanted to play a class different than how WotC thinks you should min/max it, you are screwed in essence, getting junk you don't need (heavy armor or trapfinding as examples above)...

In 3rd edition you would have run into similar problems with the fighter...but not so with the rogue.

4e is just making the matters worse with the Roles, which basically tweak characters to min/max one way.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

The roles of "tank/healer/nuker" have always been in D&D. The creation of these roles is fundamentally what character classes are all about. It is pretty basic to RPG game design, table top or not. WOTC has just decided to publicly call a spade a spade.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, I think you might have missed 1st & 2nd ed. AD&D and 3rd. ed. D&D where you *also* couldn't make a reasonable swashbuckling character as a rogue, fighter, ranger, or whatever. In fact this is what came up any time a player wanted to go outside the box class-wise, or try any interesting complex combo without getting into the terrible multiclassing rules. It doesn't sound like 4th ed. is an improvement, but it seems to be following the same trend.

On the matter of 4th ed. in general... come on people. It's called a money grab. IF it's a fun game, might as well play it, but it's not like morals and ethics come into play.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a complete destruction of the core values of D&D and most role playing games in that it moves it almost entirely to a "WoW" format. Where each so-called class is now one of a role filler as in tank/healer/cannon. If anything, this is a return to core D&D principles. Sure, the roles have never been explicitly named before, but the original fighter/thief/magic-user/cleric team worked along the same lines.

there is now aggro and everyone can heal themselves... This is misleading, there's no "threat table" telling the DM who the monster should attack, nor is there a single ability that compels a monster to attack (or avoid) a specific character. The defender classes (fighter and paladin) have some abilities that make it painful for monsters to ignore them, but the decision to do that or not is still left entirely to the DM. Characters can also get a "second wind" once per encounter which restores some HP, but this isn't healing, and no DM worth their salt would present it that way, as HP have always been an abstract number and not an indicator of how much raw physical punishment you can take.

You're welcome to switch to or ignore the new edition as you see fit, obviously, but at least judge it on its actual merits, not secondhand misrepresentations of it.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sapphire wyvern]

You're exactly right. I'm afraid that I can't see sckeener's point at all; in 3E a fighter who didn't wear armour was crazy, unless you started getting into Prestige Classes. And 3E rogues *did* get trap related class features automatically, although you could choose to not exploit them by neglecting the Search and Disable Device skills.

And Prestige Classes was basically WotC's way of developing a list of several thousand Approved Character Concepts. And if you didn't like the way they'd statted your concept, or it was missing... well, sucks to be you.

That's why I prefer systems with weakly-typed characters. I'm ok with having a few archetypes (no more than a half-dozen) as long as they're very flexible and easy to customize. In that respect, I think I'll like 4E better than 3.x (at least for a while); the focus will be back on customizing a relatively small toolkit to fit your concept, rather than searching through the books for a pre-gen concept that you want to play. The D&D tradition, however, is for strongly-typed characters. I hope they move away from that.

Also, it looks like there are no more "no choice" classes like the 3.x Monk, Paladin, or Ranger. Good riddance, I say; no matter what class I play, I want to be distinct from other characters of that class.

Finally: limited-use powers for everyone, not just the wizard? Awesome! Finally classes other than wizards have tactical decisions to make!

There are things that about 4E that I don't like the look of. The tactical combat mechanics and related class features aren't one of them.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[memfrob]

In 3rd edition you would have run into similar problems with the fighter...but not so with the rogue.

...while of course, in 2nd Edition you could be flexible with either a Swashbuckler Fighter (Swashbuckler Kit from The Complete Fighter's Handbook) or a Swashbuckling Rogue (half a dozen kits from The Complete Thief's Handbook), with whatever skills you like.

For that matter, if you wanted to tweak the armour and weapon proficiencies even further, the Player's Option books allow more customization than you might have been aware of, rendering classes almost completely into custom characterizations.

I'm not entirely certain why everyone seems to think their only options are a poor 3e, a mediocre 3.5e, or a disastrous 4e... all three were ruined by the WoTC CCG-style marketing.

IMHO. :)

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[2short]

"Here's my example: say you want to play a swashbuckler or a duelist, does a fighter fit?"

You want a Ranger; it is (or can be) exactly what you're describing.

"4e is just making the matters worse with the Roles, which basically tweak characters to min/max one way."

If Roles do anything besides group classes for ease of table-of-contents ordering, I haven't seen it.

I find it interesting how many people declare how horrible 4E is in such specific terms, when they clearly haven't played it. If you think 3E is the greatest RPG system ever, you may not like 4E. It's different than 3E.

But I and everyone I know who has actually played 4E with a good GM will tell you one simple feature that puts 4E over the top: It's more fun.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[2short]

"No more, well I'm a fighter but specialize in damage..."

That's funny, because I'm playing 4E, and well, I'm a fighter but specialize in damage...

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar things were probably said about 3rd Ed.

Anyone else suddenly feel very old indeed?

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[RogueyWon]

Ok, lots of comments attacking this post from the 4ed side of things... now for one from the WoW side.

No more, well I'm a fighter but specialize in damage... Arms Warrior. Fury Warrior. Not every WoW Warrior goes protection. I knew plenty of Warriors (WoW's fighter-equivalent) who specialised in damage.

WoW gives each class three different specs to choose from. In some cases (for example, mages), this is just three different flavours of damage dealer (so some specs are better vs other players, while others are better in raids). In others, it allows for more significant specialisation. For example, Paladins can choose to be healers, tanks, or even (fairly poor) damage dealers.

Might want to actually learn a little about WoW before you use it as your generic comparator for "RPG systems I don't like".

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Grimfaire]

Ummm... I played wow for way to long... from Alpha onward actually...but hell, make ad hominem attacks without any idea on what the person knows or has experience, that is fine with me. The whole idea with WoW and 4e is to pigeon hole characters into specific roles. This is contrary to entire basis of table top RPGs in the first place. They're meant to be venues of thought and expression; new methods of using what is given you to accomplish tasks; different tactics and ideas. 4E has gotten rid of most of what made D&D (and many other table-top RPGs) so much better than CRPGs. The ability to play something different. I'm sorry but your Arms warrior or Fury warrior is still a tank. They may do more damage than a protect warrior just like the other poster who said he's a figther specced for damage... you're still a tank according to the rules and dictates of the system. 3E and before... hell you could have a mage tank if you wanted... because there are no tanks/damage/etc... it's more about what tools does your party have and how to use them. It's a complete change not in how things happen but in the culture of WHY they happen.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Arivia]

I'm *19* and this whole thing is making me feel positively *ancient*.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[BobMcD]

The whole idea with WoW and 4e is to pigeon hole characters into specific roles.

This is contrary to entire basis of table top RPGs in the first place. They're meant to be venues of thought and expression; new methods of using what is given you to accomplish tasks; different tactics and ideas. From everything I've seen recently, that basis for RPG's has mostly devolved to match their console cousins. This is ESPECIALLY true for anything under the d20 banner. The myriad of expansions add power after power to the rule set without adding much flavor at all. It seems to me that 4e is a leap forward in that same direction. Like a trump-card that basically catapults the entire ball of wax directly to what we're used to in our single player experiences.

I'm perhaps still a bit bitter from my last attempt to sit down to a gaming table with an 'old-school' 14th level wizard, only to find him severely lacking.

Min-maxing is not only the norm these days, it has become the rule, and from what I can see, 4e is merely the next logical step along that line.

Gone are the days where 4 hp's meant you had a good shot at surviving your first adventure, and few, it seems, will miss them.

My point is, it is our perceptions of that a 'good RPG' means that need to change, as the younger crop was raised on lesser stock, and has become accustomed to it...

(No offense to the whipper-snappers...) :)

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[DuckDodgers]

There were official Wizards of the Coast supplements for 3/3.5 and also third party D20 products that allowed for swashbuckling Fighter characters too.

This is all much ado about nothing. You're a fool if you're upset that Wizards of the Coast is trying to make a profit with a new gaming line.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[WNight]

Can't imagine how that'll happen. If your entire game system is predicated on a bunch of idiots kicking-open doors and getting beaten half to death, you need magic potions.

(A)D&D is totally and fatally based on absorbing damage in a video-game way. Other RPGs tend to have relatively fixed numbers of hitpoints and you try to avoid damage - rather than letting people stick spears into you just slower than you can heal. More skilled people can't take more spears in their gut - instead they get better at avoiding the spears.

Done right, an adventure shouldn't need a cleric. In fact, having one along takes the challenge out of it. But D&D isn't for adventures, it's a tabletop fighting game with character detail for your guy.

D&D always was a fantasy battle simulation - moving closer to WoW is just part of that.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sckeener]

But I and everyone I know who has actually played 4E with a good GM will tell you one simple feature that puts 4E over the top: It's more fun. (my bolded above)

Having a good DM can make any system good. They know how to go beyond the rules.

but there aren't many good DMs. I've been playing since 1981 and I can say I've had only two DMs that have been good and in the tens that have been bad.

As for 4e being more fun...we'll see. I have yet to feel like they have targeted me in any way shape or form.

From what I've heard, it sounds like this,

(the average fouth edition combat round will be:)

Fighter uses martial power "sword stabbity death" to attack for 1d6+Str damage. Roll to hit.

Mage uses arcane power "magic missile" to attack for 1d6+Int damage. Roll to hit.

Cleric uses divine power "holy blargh" to attack for 1d6+Wis damage. Roll to hit.

Succubus uses fiendish power "corruption touch" to attack for 1d6+6 damage. Roll to hit.

And so on. Solid game design. Just somewhat boring. If the powers are to add spice, then I'd think there need to be a lot of powers available to make a combat round interesting. Hopefully there are.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically if you wanted to play a class different than how WotC thinks you should min/max it, you are screwed in essence, getting junk you don't need (heavy armor or trapfinding as examples above)... Duh, looks like said game has "rules" and "guidelines".

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sckeener]

in 3E a fighter who didn't wear armour was crazy depends on the DM. I've known several fighters that went with leather armor if any armor went the Combat Expertise feat tree...which, as you know,trades attack bonuses for AC bonuses. They primarily did that for the increased base move speed for not wearing heavy armor and for the noise factor...heavy armor's skill check penalties for move silently sucked.

And 3E rogues *did* get trap related class features automatically, although you could choose to not exploit them by neglecting the Search and Disable Device skills. true...but the point was I don't want them at all for the swashbuckler.

To quote Mike Mearls who even recognized that the game system has issues with fighters:

The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap).

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[sckeener]

To quote Mike Mearls who even recognized that the game system has issues with fighters:

The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap).

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[2short]

"Having a good DM can make any system good."

Potentially. Certainly having a bad DM can make any system bad, which is what I had in mind when I threw that line in. I've played several systems over a couple decades, with basically one DM, who is fabulously good. By the fact he's running 4E playtest campaigns, you may deduce he's an "insider" of sorts.
    If he's running it, it's going to be fun. But 4E is even more fun for me, and notably is clearly more fun for him. A good DM can go beyond the system to make things work, but it's smoother and better the less they need to.

Combat is easier, in that I can actually get my brain around what my options are in a particular round. But I'm still selecting between various possibilities based on the tactical situation, and using powers that change that tactical situation in interesting ways and that interact in interesting ways with the powers of my teammates.

In short, try it, you may like it; I certainly do.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

> For example, Paladins can choose to be healers, tanks, or even (fairly poor) damage dealers.

They've been improving the Retribution tree -- their damage isn't completely terrible anymore. Seal of Blood in fact does some pretty awesome damage ... shame it's limited to Blood Elves.

Re:4e is a piece of crap...

[memfrob]

You're a fool if you're upset that Wizards of the Coast is trying to make a profit with a new gaming line.

Personally, I don't care what they do with their gaming line, although I have some ideas for them that would make their proctologist blush. I'm just tired of the Microsoft-style new incompatible versions that influence people to re-release (and suggest to customers they should re-purchase) material that they already have.

Maybe if it was a completely new gaming line, that might be something. But much of the non-mechanical material seems like retread of IP they published in the 80's.

I guess my point is, if I've invested heavily in 3.5, say a nice $50 leatherbound DMG, I might feel a little peeved if it was suggested I should buy another DMG with the same races, equipment, skills, and themes, and new combat mechanics to go behind it.
If I invested in 3e, I'm starting to see a pattern in all of this...
If I invested in 2e, I'm just shaking my head...
...if I invested in 1e, I'm shaking my cane! Damn kids and your fancy new books!

Jumping to conclusion based on one interpretation

[Blue23]

I think this is a more complete story. D&D 3ed had two licenses. A open source one called OGL, and a trademark related one called d20STL that gave access to IP/PI but was more restrictive. The new GSL replaces the d20STL but is rumored to be a bit more open, and they aren't doing an OGL.

The announcement mentioned "mutual exclusivity", which some are reading as "one product can not be licensed under both OGL and GSL", but one publisher said on ENworld that they think it's a per-company not per-product. We haven't heard any confirmation either way.

It could be that this is bad, but right now it's just FUD until we have clarification.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

Please keep reposting this story!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can never repost a story about D&D too many times.

But don't let that stop you from trying!

Not 100% Clear

[dcollins]

In general, that's a very good summary of what's blown up over the weekend (WOTC made an announcement that a GSL would be coming last Thursday). However, a couple things to keep in mind:

- WOTC spokespeople have made conflicting and contradictory statements and backtracking on their plans since last November. First there was to be a revised OGL, then a GSL with publisher buy-in of $5,000, then no GSL, now GSL with no buy-in, etc.

- WOTC hasn't officially confirmed the "poison pill" clause yet (publishing for 4E prohibits you from any more Open Game License publishing). This was related second-hand by Clark Peterson, the well-regarded head of Necromancer Games (and a lawyer), as being delivered to him by WOTC staff members. Two WOTC spokespeople have been posting in the same thread over the weekend, but have ambiguously neither directly confirmed nor denied that statement.

- No one's seen the actual new license yet. WOTC has been saying all year long that it was within a week of being released. Clearly the GSL is intended to be far more restrictive than the OGL (one thing they've been consistent on is that it must directly support the Dungeons & Dragons brand, that it restricts product types, has a community standards clause, is revocable by WOTC, etc., none of which existed in the OGL). But once again after all the riot with the new announcement last week, the speaking Brand Manager for WOTC revealed Saturday that he *still* hadn't received the actual text of the license!

- Physical D&D 4E books are at the printers, to be released in June. A true conspiracist would think that the ongoing confusion might be WOTC FUD to delay third-party publisher business plans until 4E has already been purchased widely by the customer base. (But I think that's a low-probability bet.)

So what's coming out of WOTC is pretty messed up. My observation is that it's been clear since January that WOTC was going to take some shot at attacking the Open Game community. I'm guessing it's at least 80% likely that this company-wide "poison pill" restriction is in fact present in the new GSL. But everything that's come out of WOTC so far this year on the issue has turned out to be incorrect and later retracted. So we'll see about this latest one.

Re:Not 100% Clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking about the books being at the printers, what's up with there not being any leaked versions on TPB? They've got be be using some electronic form for the books that could be leaked. It would be nice to get a jump start on being able to use the material before the books become available.

Re:Not 100% Clear

[Anonymous Coward]

AEG had several dual system books with mechanics for both D20 and L5R 2nd edition.

I think WotC may just be trying to prevent 3.5/4th E books with mechanics for both systems. This would make quite a bit of sense given that the license allows the product to use the D&D trademark.

Re:Not 100% Clear

[Anonymous Coward]

They are out there... I've got the preview editions of 4E "Races and Classes" and "Worlds and Monsters." Nothing with the final versions yet though. I'm still sticking with 1E/2E anyway.

It's worse than that

[Chrisq]

It's more like "If you want to make and sell products for Vista, you can't make and sell products for XP or any of your other completely independent products that you released under the same license."

Re:It's worse than that

[Saint Fnordius]

That's not the take I got from it. It's more like "Since we can't forbid you from using the old API outright, We won't let you use the new API unless you promise never, ever to use the old API any more." It's about which licences underlie the game, not under which license the supplement itself is released.

I doubt it would have any effect on companies that license other game systems. If Steve Jackson Games were to abandon the "Powered by GURPS" License and instead have an OGL-worded license, would a company that publishes a game usable with both D20 and GURPS get in trouble? I doubt it, really.

This is still a very troubled area, as it is still murky as to how much of a game rules system can be considered trademark, copyright or patent protected.

Leave OSX ALONE!!!!111!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!"

It's more like "If you want to make and sell products for Vista, you can't make and sell products for XP." Both products are made the the same company, the older one has been around for quite some time and has developed a very good following, but now the owning company wants to push sales of their new product line.

Actually... it's more like Apple saying if you make applications for OSX, you can't make them for MacOS9.

You see, unlike Windows, Apple makes no attempts to preserve backward compatibility. But that's why people hate Microsoft so much!

The standard solution

[Chrisq]

It sounds like paizo.com has gone for the standard open source solution. Fork your own version from the previously licensed product. Since this is going to get support from other pissed-of companies it has the potential to become the majot player, just like Joomla vs Mambo.

Re:The standard solution

[moorewr]

I think Paizo's motives are simpler, and have little to do with the STL question. They know there will be a long-term demand fro v3.5 products from legions of gamers like myself who don't go to 4th edition. I clung to 1st edition for 20 years.. so I expect to sue 3.5 for ages yet.

It's just smart business for Paizo to pick up a part of the market abandoned by Wizards.

Re:The standard solution

[JeroenFM]

Consider my situation - very little time to write my own stuff, players who recently bought their 3.5 stuff and will not to switch to 4th edition for at least the next decade or so. Using Paizo, I have a healthy supply of new adventures, and with their Pathfinder RPG I won't have any problems getting rulebooks for new players once the Wizards 3.5 stuff is no longer available.

Re:The standard solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, as an aside, Paizo isn't "rebelling" - they needed to see the GSL by a certain date in order to keep their business model profitable, and when WotC couldn't deliver they decided to move ahead with their own update to D&D 3.5 (the Pathfinder RPG) so they could continue publishing game material and making money.

Paizo had announced previously they would work with another company (Necromancer Games, I think) to publish/distribute 4th edition game material in addition to Pathfinder RPG products, but with the new announcement by WotC I'm wondering whether they'll just stick with Pathfinder.

What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[Lanu2000]

I've heard this argument a lot about 4E. But no one really gives examples as to what they mean. Here you at least say that everyone is assigned to a role of tank/healer/cannon, but couldn't that be said for 3.x and 2E as well? They just didn't explicitly say it in those versions.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[grahamd0]

Class abilities seem to work more along the lines of WoW talent trees than 3rd edition you always get X ability at level Y.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[Lanu2000]

Okay, I see that, but can't it also be thought that they made all the classes into wizards? (I don't take this view point because of the 'fluff' associated with each character and their skills, but mechanically it is similar)

Also, we need to remember that all the conjecture about 4E is from the first 10 levels of the game. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies really haven't been explored too much. We'll have to wait for Wednesday to see Paragon Paths.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[grahamd0]

I wasn't suggesting that it was a bad thing. I'm actually pretty optimistic about 4E.

I like what they've done regarding giving all classes "powers" and making sure everyone always has something to contribute. Rangers have always been one of my favorite classes role-playing wise, but mechanically they're as boring as watching paint dry, and wizards are ultimate death machines at high level, but they might as well sit on the bench if you have more than one fight without resting at 1st or 2nd level.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[halivar]

You mean like the ranger, where you pick ranged or TWF specialization, and get your per-level abilities based on that choice?

I once believed D&D 4E was WoW-ish. I now believe that WoW is D&D 3E-ish.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[grahamd0]

Actually, no. Though I think the 3.5 ranger is an improvement on the 3e ranger.

I think they're going with something more like Star Wars saga edition, where you have various "talent trees" and you pick an ability from any of them (as long as you meet the prerequisites) each time you get a talent. This is largely speculation on my part, but saga is essentially 4E Star Wars, and it fits with the concepts they've been describing so far for 4E D&D.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[halivar]

I'm not doubting what you're saying about how 4E per-level class abilities work. I'm contesting the notion that this model is unique to WoW, or even that it represents a significant break from previous iterations of D&D.

In 3E, if you weren't playing a spellcaster, you modeled your character on one of several feat trees that you progressed in throughout your characters careers (i.e. TWF, Whirlwind Attack [whose prereq's are a tree in and of themselves], ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, grappling and defensive fighting just to name a few feat trees from the core PHB).

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[ravenshrike]

Not since the MIC came out(healing belt and Rod/Orb of Physical/Mental Restoration FTW), and even before then a sorc or face rogue with maxed out UMD could stand in for the cleric and only sacrifice a bit of healing ability for quite a bit of lower level offensive ability(and high level unless the cleric was properly optimized). Not to mention the whole druid route.

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[kitsunewarlock]

No. In 3.5, for example, I can play as MANY different types of characters that are more than a "role" in a party. For example (thought up on the wing, but all of these abilities exist in the game), I can play a pixie poisoner who specializes in diplomacy and subterfuge, relying on smoke bombs mixed with inhaling poisons and some amnesia crossbow bolt action during battle. I know, the easy argument against this is "but they only have 3 books now...wait and you'll get enough content to do all that." Well the sad part is, I shouldn't have to wait! The rogue can't use poisons anymore (the class was posted already). And you can't be a pixie! The first three books in 3.0 let me do all that and more!

I can't even remember the last time I had a defined "role" in a 3.5 game...I guess it would be my first game with my current group, in which I was the "evocation caster". Mind you I was a Sparrow Hengeyokai (Oriental Adventures) Wu-Jen, so I wouldn't say I was completely unoriginal (yet not too original considering Wu-Jen is the hengeyokai's favored class).

But the reason for all this is simple: 4E is being developed to support their $5/month software. Anything too complicated (like a ton of abilities from monsters combine with the abilities of players) is going to be scrapped to "simplify" the game. They've even admitted it themselves that the game is being "simplified in order to attempt to reintroduce a new generation of DnD players".
Which personally I see no need for.

You need proof? I'm co-GMing a 13 man group at my college, 10 of which have never played DnD before, and 9 of which have never played any tabletop RPG before. And they are doing fine! Heck, I self-taught myself most of the rules of d20, and those I didn't get I got the moment I messed up at the table! And trying to simplify it won't do much, because in the end role playing is not "simple". Ever. The moment a player in a "new group" trying 4E for the first time goes "I want to break the bar stool in half and slam the chunk of wood, nail side down, in to the opponent's skull", people are going to realise just how complicated an RPG is. Of course its having written rulings on weird scenerios like that which resulted in such an information overload we now have in 3.x.

But I digress.

The point is, Wizards is going to release this "new, simply 4E". People will migrate, because of a mixture of tactics like this and people coming to the table with "hey guys, check out what I got, lets try this system". Then more and more books will come out and it'll be the same bloated engine...just spit polished. If Wizards really wanted to make a simple RPG, they wouldn't need to say things like:

"...Will be released in future Modules."

Because the player's handbook would have everything you'd need to do anything you need. Don't think its possible? Pick up BESM 3.0 or Shadowrun and tell me what you can't do (in the case of shadowrun, tell me what you can't do that is still feasible in the setting).

Re:What do people mean by "WoW-ish?"

[Lanu2000]

First of all, the 'role' of your pixie poisoner seems very close to that of a controller to me... AoE smoke and amnesia bolts fit that role well.

Second, the first three books have not been released yet. There may be rules in the MM for playing a pixie, and rule in the DMG for poison use. We saw the start of the rogue including some abilities all rogues have, I don't know about you, but of the rogues I've played (one of my favorite classes) only two, that I can recall, have ever bought poison. It may be that poison use has been relegated to a class skill. We've only seen five of those so there's still a chance.

My point is we don't know enough about the game yet, and probably won't until we start playing in June, so please don't say you can't do something yet.

You say you can't remember the last time you had a defined role in a 3.5 game, to that I say you may have to think harder about what a role is. Did your group wander into every fight without any tactical panning? Did the wizards end up in the front line next to the rogue while the fighter stood back with healing potions and the cleric snuck around back to get around the enemy? Somehow I don't think so.

Please God, learn them to link

[CarpetShark]

The post says:

Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all Dungeons & Dragons related or not.

With "Wizards has stated" linked to where they said this.

Can people please go read about Hypertext? You know, as in Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or HTTP?

Hypertext works by linking concepts to further information about those concepts. So, for example, if you're writing a sentence about Ford Mustangs, and you have a page with further information on Ford Mustangs, then the words "Ford Mustang" are what you actually link. You do NOT link "Here is a page about..." or (God, help us), "Here". If you link it at all, "Here" should only link to "#". And no, please don't link "page" either, unless you're defining what a page is.

Dear WotC, if this is true then DIAF

[metamatic]

The OGL was the reason I bought D&D 3E, Traveller T20, Call of Cthulhu D20, and a bunch of other books.

I've seen too many good gaming systems and worlds die because the publisher lost interest. Many of them were from TSR. The way I saw it, D20 OGL guaranteed that even if WotC decided to kill the game (which in the case of CoC D20 they did), there would still be the option of community and independent support, and I'd be able to use the SRD to get new players up and running.

So if this rumor turns out to be true, I will not touch 4E. And I hope that all the 3rd party companies leave it alone and stick with 3E and D20 as well.

"Aggro" in 4E

[Lanu2000]

From my limited experience with 4E, the aggro people talk about is not the 'stickyness' from MMOs, but the fighter/paladin making it costly to attack someone else. For example, the fighter can focus on an enemy so that it (the enemy) will have a -2 to hit any other party member. Now, if the AC of the fighter is 4 higher than that of the wizard, this will not have an effect on the enemy (it's still easier to hit the wizard).

Re:"Aggro" in 4E

[Colonel Korn]

Okay, that actually sounds like a nice game mechanic, and feasible. Thanks for the info. ...now I want to try 4E. Damn you.

Re:"Aggro" in 4E

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, so they decided to lift the pvp aggro idea from Warhammer Online instead of WoW.

Re:"Aggro" in 4E

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they stole an idea from a game that isn't even out yet. Cause, you know, they're still writing the rules a couple months before print.

Re:"Aggro" in 4E

[rkanodia]

I think the best part about the 'mark' concept is that it also allows the DM to have monsters that 'tank' the players (protecting squishier monsters), without taking the decision-making process out of the players' hands.

Re:"Aggro" in 4E

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's not like Mythic haven't been bragging about this feature since a couple years before 4e was announced.

4E GSL vs OGL

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is full of half truths, lies, and complete misinformation.

OGL - Does not give WotC any benefit anymore. It is not comparable to Microsoft with XP and Vista, because you don't have to buy WotC products to use the OGL, but you have to buy windows to use the software (unless you steal windows which is a crime).

So stop bringing up useless and completely wrong comparisons.

As for what WotC does with the GSL, while I think its great that they are going to support 3rd party, they are in no way obligated to. It can and will benefit them, but they have learned from their big mistakes with the OGL. Mainly that they released their hard work and other people copied it in such a way as to take away from their market share instead of boost it.

Oh and for the completely mis-informed who think 4E is like Wow, that is old news and been debunked hundreds of times all ready. Find a better analogy. IF you like it play it, if you don't then play something else. Though try finding ANY major RPG that has support 3rd party like DnD and I will be impressed, since basically no other major RPG manufacturer even allows 3rd party.

Re:4E GSL vs OGL

[CarpetShark]

I think its great that they are going to support 3rd party, they are in no way obligated to.

Of course they are. Sure, it's a commercial organisation, but that doesn't give them the right to do what they want. Cinemas are commercial organisations, but they can't tell disabled people not to come in because they can't be bothered making things work for them.

It's the same with anything that becomes a part of society: once some people have and enjoy it, the rest are entitled to participate to. That applies to other companies who might make add-ons as well: if there's a good ecosystem of products built up around something, that benefits everyone. If there's a product which has the vast majority of gamer's attention, and no one else is able to develop add-ons for it, then it becomes a monopoly, which hurts everyone... except that company who will rake in profits for a while and then ditch the whole product in favour of a newer one that can make more cash still.

There's no legal obligation, perhaps. But there is definitely an ethical obligation there, for people who choose to acknowledge it.

Re:4E GSL vs OGL

[Planesdragon]

Oh and for the completely mis-informed who think 4E is like Wow, that is old news and been debunked hundreds of times all ready. The comparison to WoW and MMORPGs in general has been made by actual WotC staff. If nothing else, "all classes have spell-like abilities" pegs it 100%. (The rest can be abscribed to all MMORPGs trying really hard to be "MMO-D&D")

Though try finding ANY major RPG that has support 3rd party like DnD Head down to your local bookstore. Tell me the "major" games you see.

Last time I checked, there was D&D, Storyteller, and d20-variants like Mutants and Masterminds.

Storyteller has a "Storyteller d20" book written by Monte Cook.

D&D has, well, d20.

And the d20 variants often have explicit "this is how our system works" trademarks, similar to d20.

Find me a major RPG that DOESN'T support third-party products, and is still a viable business. All of the "major" RPG manufacturers went d20 ten years ago, and are either contractually obligated to stay open, or will go for WotC's GPL.

Re:4E GSL vs OGL

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... technically, according to copyright law, rules of a game cannot be copyrighted. In other words what would normally be OGL content in the SRD is still OGL content I think...at least legally anyways since the rules of a game cannot be copyrighted... so while no OGL exists, you could still copy the new rules, maybe not verbatim, but enough to make your own game and be ok legally?!...

Re:4E GSL vs OGL

[grahamd0]

The reason for the license is that, in addition to being able to use D&D branding, if you're running a business, you know that you can release your product and continue to make a profit without having to spends thousands or millions of dollars defending your perfectly legal activities.

Essentially, you know WotC can't/won't pull a Monster Cables on you.

Re:4E GSL vs OGL

[Daswolfen]

You seem to have missed a few there...

GURPS from Steve Jackson Games.. not a d20 product, nor is it OGL. And it has been around a damn long time.

Shadowrun is still around (but on the 3rd pubisher)

West End Games has its D6 line (which grew out of the Star Wars RPG system)

AEG still pubishes the L5R rpg now back to the original d10 style rules

R. Taslorian Games still makes Cyberpunk (now in 3.0 flavor)

Heroe Games still pubishies Champions

and none of these rules are 'd20'.. in fact AEG went back to their old rules system after some time spent as a d20 system. Maybe you should visit a real game shop instead of Barnes and Noble or your Borders in your mall.

WOTC==IBM==SUN

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves them right for trying to profit from Open Source principles.

This is what happens when big business tries to embrace an Open philosophy - they realize they can't make money from it, and give up. It's just happened faster in the RPG industry than it has in the software industry.

Re:WOTC==IBM==SUN

[Planesdragon]

This is what happens when big business tries to embrace an Open philosophy - they realize they can't make money from it, and give up. It's just happened faster in the RPG industry than it has in the software industry. Oddly enough, if WotC got over their NIH-fetish and released a "Open D&D" book that borrowed from their licencees, they'd likely as not make money with it. Especially if they tried it with their actually valuable IP -- Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc.

WotC backing out of the OGL is a case of a compromise destroying a vision, not the vision being unworkable.

Re:WOTC==IBM==SUN

[WNight]

When that big business makes money selling software, perhaps not. But when that big business makes money selling hardware, FOSS is a goldmine.

Businesses who try to profit from proprietary software fail too, so should we assume that it shows the great failure of capitalism?

No fair!

[aztektum]

Way to totally deflate an opportunity for unfounded, emotionally driven whining by a buncha lifeless nerds with facts. Now what are we going to do?

Jerk.

Re:No fair!

[KutuluWare]

Are you new hear? Since when did not having valid facts on our side stop us from emotionally whining about imagined abuses?

-K

Re:No fair!

[galen]

Damn him and his +2 Circlet of Level-Headedness!

Better games?

[Cheetahfeathers]

With 4th looking to be the Vista edition of RPGs, will this be enough to get RPG players to change games? Will alternate fantasy games such as the Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel see an upsurge? I can hope. Those games go to show that you don't need to spend several million to make a highly polished game. The Riddle of Steel has the most realistic combat of any game, and has won awards based on that. It still has interesting fantasy and story aspects, and the Spiritual Attribute rules are great! Burning Wheel is one of the most Tolkien-esque in feel of any RPG, including many Middle Earth RPGs. D&D was interesting in its day, but RPGs have moved way beyond it. We have games that have a lot better rules than D&D provides... let's use them! As a bonus, you'll spend less money on the books as well.

Have any other people here moved on past D&D and found other P&P RPGs more to their liking? What are they? What are some of the things you enjoy about them that's superior to what D&D offers?

Re:Better games?

[DarkSarin]

The problem with many of the alternate systems is that I have invariably found that while I often like the rules well enough, what I really want is a generic system that lets me create my own setting. I want flexibility. The ability to create my own worlds, classes, races and whatnot. In other words, D&D is a kernel, more than a complete system. Sure they've got some things that are neat and the default settings are nice, but sometimes rolling your own distribution is really cool.

Unfortunately, it's like Hasbro bought gentoo and doesn't know it. They think they bought Microsoft, but they didn't really. The discovery is leaving them a bit confused, and now they've spent millions of dollars developing a new version, only to realize that people still like the old version for some really valid reasons. People don't like change.

Re:Better games?

[sapphire wyvern]

Well, over the last few years, I haven't played any D&D (although a lot of it has been played *around* me).

What have I played?

Exalted is probably the big one. It's got the fantasy feel of D&D, but with a fresh and interesting setting that combines some aspects of Asian myth & pop culture (Celestial bureaucracy, Shinto-esque animism, oversized swords and mecha) with the tropes of Western & Mesopotamian classical epics. World-striding heroes, wars between the Titans and the Gods, and curses that worm into the hearts of heroes to slowly destroy the world. It's truly an awesome setting. Unfortunately we started to encounter mechanical problems at higher levels of experience. What does it offer that D&D doesn't? Plenty. Like most WW games, only about 20%-30% of the character "crunch" is combat related; Exalted concentrates a lot on out-of-combat abilities and (melo)drama. The D&D4E buzz has been, to me, conspicuously silent on the parts of roleplaying that aren't tactical monster-slaying exercises.

I've also played a fair bit of Alternity, specifically a space opera campaign in an original setting. Now there's a system that didn't deserve to die. I still enjoy it now. Obviously, compared to D&D, it has tech-ey flavour and interstellar scale. Mechanically, it has a relatively arithmetic-light core mechanic and very, very flexible character archetypes, heavily customized via the extensive skill list.

Things I've played a little bit of, here and there, include:
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I played this for longer than I should have. I'm not impressed by it; the setting would be pretty cool with a great GM (which I didn't have) but the rules are simply awful. The only virtue they have is simplicity, but, in the name of all that's holy, random character generation was old hat in the eighties.

Mutants & Masterminds. d20 superheroes. Not bad, but character creation needs to be supervised with an iron hand by the GM in my opinion.

Starship Troopers. (Also d20). Entertaining within its seemingly limited scope; some quality control issues with the mechanical design & book editing but nothing that really ruined the game. A bit of a beer-and-pretzels game in my opinion.

Burning Empires. Based on the same mechanics as Burning Wheel, I particularly enjoyed this game due to the collaborative approach to world creation. It's great to get that sense of setting ownership that BE provides. However, something about the campaign just didn't quite gel and it fizzled out. Pretty great game though; I have it on my shelf. The production of the book is fantastic!

Werewolf: The Forsaken, one of the World of Darkness game line. I ran the introductory campaign pretty successfully, and then tried to run a homebrew campaign for a few sessions. My game wasn't a huge hit but I blame myself. I really like the thematics of Werewolf, although I would describe the mechanical quality of the Gifts (magical Werewolf powers) as "patchy" - about on a par with feat balance in the 3E d20 core (ie some very good, some very very weak).

I've also played Stargate: SG-1, which is d20. A pretty solid mechanical core (based on first ed Spycraft) but it doesn't emulate the TV show all that well combat-wise. It's incredibly hard to put down Jaffa and a lot of Earth weapons are disappointingly ineffective, particularly grenades.

I've got a copy of Shadowrun 4th Edition and most of the supplements, but haven't had/made an opportunity to play it yet. The rules look pretty slick but I am intimidated by the character generation. (But that's always been the way for me and SR). I'd love to play this, but only in a group that had similar expectations to me about what Shadowrun should be like.

Another game I've read but never played is Blue Planet. Now out of print, it has (in my opinion) quite a neat core mechanic, especially for damage, but more importantly it's an imaginative *hard SF* sci-fi setting. There's not enough hard SF in the world.

I've also tried to

Re:Better games?

[sapphire wyvern]

Hmm. I have the opposite problem.

I have found over the years that a system which fits the setting is a thing of beauty. Generic rules... well, they never do seem to sit quite right.

Right now I have an idea for a setting that I think is awesome, and I'm trying to find a set of rules that covers most of what I want. I don't want to have to write a large rules system just to support the game elements I want to use.

Re:Better games?

[FrnkMit]

Actually I moved past D&D back in the early 80s.

A few favorite systems:

- RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Basic Roleplaying: pretty much the same system,

- GURPS: character creation is a right pain, but after that it's smooth sailing. (Also a descendant of Steve Jackson's Melee/Wizard, which first lured me away from D&D.)

- FATE, especially its current incarnation [I]Spirit of the Century[/I]: a fast and light system that actually makes combat fun and interesting without giving other parts of the game short shrift.

- PDQ: a really lightweight game engine, with a more abstract "narrativist" approach to combat ... not really suited to grim-and-gritty settings, but it's beauty is its simplicity and flexibility.

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... I moved past D&D a long time ago. I describe D&D as the McDonalds of gaming. While I sometimes like a Big Mac, deep down I know it isn't really that good. When I can't find anything else to eat or just want something I know, then I will eat at McDonald's.

That is the same way I look at D&D. So many games have made advancements in mechanics in player interaction and the GM's role. If you look at games like Spirit of the Century (which is not OGL even though the article states so), Burning Empires/Burning Wheel, and all the other indies games, they are trying to do something different and interesting. D&D is actually a step backwards with its grid map. RPG's managed to find their way out of the Dungeon environment a long time ago, but for some reason, Hasbro/WOTC kicked us back into it. D&D is a step backward.

Ironically though, the new rules actually look good to be, mainly because they are leaving behind all that stupid "D&D mechanic stuff" (i.e. memorize spells, inconsistent roll resolution, etc.) They have finally decided to throw out all that stuff that never made sense in D&D 2nd Ed, which they kept solely because it was "D&D".

Re:Better games?

[FrnkMit]

D&D imposes its own assumptions on game worlds.

Want a low-magic world centered on non-magical heroes, like most pre-D&D fantasy fiction? Chop out 3/4ths or more of the PHB. Better yet, write your own rules to make fighters cool (*cough*[I]Iron Heroes[/I]*cough*), because all you've got left are Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, and maybe Rangers and Monks.

Want realistic heroes who don't shrug off dagger thrusts as they gain experience? Find a "grim and gritty" hit point and damage system "patch" on RPGNow, because it's not in the "kernel".

Those are the two big problems I have with D&D. That's why I find myself gravitating to "generic" or rules-light systems ... they're made for tinkering.

Re:Better games?

[FrnkMit]

[I]Spirit of the Century[/I] technically uses the Open Gaming License, but it has no actual content from the d20 SRD. It just uses the text of the OGL for compatibility with FUDGE (which does the same), and in turn to make the core of the FATE system free for others to build upon.

See http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html for the license (and the entire FATE 3/SotC SRD, as it currently exists).

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly, no.

I played D&D and GURPS often in jr. high school and high school with friends... less so in college when EverQuest supplanted them for my fantasy fix. The only reason I sit down and play D&D at all these days is to occasionally get together with friends I rarely meet otherwise, and reminisce.

I don't care enough about RPG rules to want to learn a new system, to be quite honest. Learning rules takes time away from MMOs...

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I get older, I find that I don't have as much time to prepare to game anymore. Savage Worlds fits just fine into my busy life. It advertises to be fast, furious, fun and thats exactly what it is. I also have Deadlands Reloaded to go along with it because my group and I were huge fans of the original.

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

GURPS?

Re:Better games?

[earrame]

The best games I have played have been games that the various groups I have been with have created them selves. aside from that I enjoy the d6 version of Starwars and really wish that had an OGL to work it into a more fantasy genre. quite honestly, when I have a craving to play D&D, I get out my old 1st ed. books, clunky as they are, and just work around their problems. I guess I am cheap, but I never wanted to get caught up in the "now you must buy into the new improved system until we improve it again and then you will shell out for that too..." mentality. I figure it was a lemon from the start, but the only game we had at the time. there are much better options now.

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first RPG experience (1978) was a 3 month long overland (and dungeon) campaign run by a friend who had played D&D in highschool. We used no dice. We roleplayed.

Since 1979, I've been playing a highly modified version of Tunnels and Trolls. Emphasis on the story and the player experience (are we having fun yet?) rather than the "rules" (are we on page 1837 yet?).

The last time I tried playing D&D was in college. I was a guest DM, and it didn't last very long. I started describing a creature, the players all started consulting their D&D library, and then whined "You can't do that! It's not in the Monster Manual!". I laughed at them, explained that while their impossibly convoluted characters were sitting around in a dungeon hallway doing research the creature had killed or maimed them all, and left.

Re:Better games?

[sabt-pestnu]

Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro (a recent development likely not unrelated to this change of heart). I find the Hasbro arguments less than compelling... Hasbro bought WotC in 1999.

D&D 3E and the Open Gaming License came out in 2000. 3.5 in 2003. 4E coming out soon.

I'm thinking you don't really need to look higher than WotC for these strategies.

Game design wants to be free. Rent wants to be paid.

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Savage Worlds and Deadlands Reloaded. Fast, Furious, Fun!

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could switch to GURPS, spend more money on books, but actually enjoy reading them and find that outside of the core books that they are rather system neutral

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

We used no dice. We roleplayed.

Then you were telling an interactive story. Which is all well and good, but it's rather a different thing.

D&D is, at its root, a GAME. You don't roleplay your way through Monopoly or Axis and Allies. There's areas of RP, there's a continuum of RP vs mechanics, sure. And while you can turn it into a pure-RP thing and just use its setting, there really isn't much reason to use D&D for that. Many players do enjoy the technical challenges of the game, and not necessarily a continuous improv acting session.

I laughed at them, explained that while their impossibly convoluted characters were sitting around in a dungeon hallway doing research the creature had killed or maimed them all, and left.

I don't guess you were invited back. Hope you found a group that that gave the respect an artiste like yourself so obviously deserved.

Re:Better games?

[sapphire wyvern]

Luckily for you, the d6 System's IP has passed from hand to hand since West End Games' fall. As of 2003 it was available in three flavours: d6 Adventure for pulp & modern games, d6 Space for sci-fi (eg Star Wars), and d6 Fantasy which I assume does what it says on the box.

I believe it's now published by a company called Purgatory Publishing. I'm not 100% sure if it's still in print but you should be able to dig it up without too much trouble, and if you can't get hardcopy, there's always www.drivethrurpg.com.

Re:Better games?

[Chrontius]

My group has switched to Savage Worlds, and everyone else hasn't looked back, but I'd rather play a low-level sorcerer in D&D than a low-level caster in Savage Worlds. Nerf or nothing.

Re:Better games?

[RCanine]

I've been very excited about Artesia: Adventures in the Known World. It's very new and fairly complex, but its focus on RP and plot over chopping up monsters is very cool.

Re:Better games?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.burningempires.com/

Played this over a couple of sessions. Very interesting gameplay and mechanics. The setting is brilliant,as well.

Re:Better games?

[MadMoses]

> what I really want is a generic system that lets me create my own setting.
> I want flexibility. The ability to create my own worlds, classes, races and whatnot.

Then The Burning Wheel is probably the game for you. You are expected to create your own setting, and the "Monster Burner" book has detailed instructions on how to build your own lifepaths (i.e. races/classes) and monsters.

Liar.

[Valdrax]

I've a friend who was in on the testing of the new edition. So I've seen some of the rules.
[...]
there is now aggro Liar. Bare-faced liar.

If you had been playing, you know that there are no aggro rules in 4e. They briefly considered them early in the development of the product but put aside an aggro system in favor of the new marking system which forces a monster to either attack a Defender or take a penalty. AFAIK, the aggro system never saw the light of day outside of WotC offices.

The ultimate choice between the two options is still up to the DM. Players do not get to take control of monsters by inciting them.

The whole "D&D is now WoW" argument is common from people who *haven't* seen enough of the game. You've probably just read a few things on-line and decided to try to boost your credibility by claiming to be an insider. Too bad you tipped your hand by making an obvious and outrageous lie. Also, if true, you would've just publicly stated that your friend violated their NDA.

Re:Liar.

[Viking Coder]

Uh, "marking" someone is pretty close to making them aggro onto you.

Re:Liar.

[mudbunny]

Ummm, no. Aggro, as used in MMOs, means that the MOB that has "aggro" on you has no choice but to attack you. It is a number in a file somewhere that MMO devs use to try to recreate the intelligence of a DM controlling a monster. In 4E, the marking may make it an unpleasent choice to attack someone else, but the option is still there if the DM determines that it makes good tactical sense for that monster. A stupid monster may just attack the last creature that attacked it and hurt it. A smart monster may say "OK, I will accept the damage I get from not attacking the dude in plate-mail so that I can take out the guy flinging around fireballs."

Re:Liar.

[Viking Coder]

Considering that there were, to my knowledge, no game mechanics for anything like it in previous editions, and now there are classes in the core rulebook which heavily rely on the mechanism to control the flow of combat, I'd definitely agree with the point that it's "like aggro."
Not that I think it's a bad thing. I had a bit of a hard time explaining it to my players, when I ran "Raiders of Oakhurst" - the first 4E session we had. And honestly, when I explained it, what I said sounded similar to Aggro...

Re:Liar.

[mudbunny]

I am not trying to say that it isn't like aggro. There are some superficial similarities between the marking system and aggro. However, they are only superficial. What with combats no longer being a party of PCs vs one or two monsters and now involving much arger groups of monsters and having a lot more mobility involved, making the defenders "sticky" adds an important variable to the combat. I think that the important distinction between the two systems is that in D&D, the DM controls who the monster attacks. The DM can ignore the marking penalty if the monster is one that would be able to make the tactical decision.

Re:Liar.

[Valdrax]

(Aside: Slashdot ate my reply to your first post. Does anyone else hate these new comment forms?)

The main difference between the marking system and aggro is that aggro takes over the actions of the victim whereas marking forces a choice.

Additionally, it's worth noting that the Fighter & Paladin marking abilities only penalize the enemy for attacking someone other than the user of the mark. There is no penalty for sitting around, running away, healing yourself or an ally, etc.

Re:Liar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as someone who has played and DM'ed D&D since 1980, have worked for game companies such as Steve Jackson Games, AEG and even TSR, I can say that this game that they are now calling 4e is not worthy of the lineage of the previous versions. It is simply an attempt to gain the attention of the MMORPG crowd and it WILL fail utterly. They have wasted the 'seven figures' that they have spent on making this version and as such, Hasbro will be either shutting them down or selling them off.

And while I have not been privy to all the rules, a lot of what is the direction that WotC is going currently can be found not only in the 4e previews, but in the Star Wars RPG Saga edition(and for my money, the WEG D6 system is vastly better than the new version of the SWRPG), and some the last 3.5 ed books like Tome of Battle:Book of the Nine Swords. While they may not have gone with the 'aggro' system, what they are spouting is not that far off from the agro system of various MMORPGs.

I for one will not be purchasing any of the 4e rules or any product that is created with them. Instead, I will support those companies that keep the spirit of D&D alive and continue to produce products with the previous rules system. If none of the companied do so(and it will be a dark day for pen and paper RPGs should that occur... more than likely it would be the death knell of it) then my gaming budget will go to other things.

Maybe its time to dust off those 1st Ed books and run from them again... /WWEGGD?

Re:Liar.

[ravenshrike]

If you can do this when not threatening the monster in question, then it's fucking aggro, just not run by an AI. Especially if you don't take penalties from other attackers while concentrating on the one.

Re:Liar.

[Daswolfen]

(please ignore the anonynous post.. didnt notice the wrong password and posted it anyways) Actually, as someone who has played and DM'ed D&D since 1980, have worked for game companies such as Steve Jackson Games, AEG and even TSR, I can say that this game that they are now calling 4e is not worthy of the lineage of the previous versions. It is simply an attempt to gain the attention of the MMORPG crowd and it WILL fail utterly. They have wasted the 'seven figures' that they have spent on making this version and as such, Hasbro will be either shutting them down or selling them off. And while I have not been privy to all the rules, a lot of what is the direction that WotC is going currently can be found not only in the 4e previews, but in the Star Wars RPG Saga edition(and for my money, the WEG D6 system is vastly better than the new version of the SWRPG), and some the last 3.5 ed books like Tome of Battle:Book of the Nine Swords. While they may not have gone with the 'aggro' system, what they are spouting is not that far off from the agro system of various MMORPGs. I for one will not be purchasing any of the 4e rules or any product that is created with them. Instead, I will support those companies that keep the spirit of D&D alive and continue to produce products with the previous rules system. If none of the companied do so(and it will be a dark day for pen and paper RPGs should that occur... more than likely it would be the death knell of it) then my gaming budget will go to other things. Maybe its time to dust off those 1st Ed books and run from them again... /WWEGGD?

Re:Liar.

[Valdrax]

Actually, as someone who has played and DM'ed D&D since 1980, have worked for game companies such as Steve Jackson Games, AEG and even TSR, I can say that this game that they are now calling 4e is not worthy of the lineage of the previous versions. As someone who's been gaming since the 90s, I don't find myself too impressed by that argument. I played 1st & 2nd edition through the eyes of a gamer who grew up with modern, lighter, and more orthogonal rules sets. Don't get me wrong. I love Planescape, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun as settings, but D&D as a system has been terribly clunky in its earlier incarnations, and a break with that is a good thing in my mind. 4e has actually made me excited about D&D for the first time in a very long time.

They have wasted the 'seven figures' that they have spent on making this version and as such, Hasbro will be either shutting them down or selling them off. You're inflating the importance of gamers with your tastes too much. Grognards who are happy with older systems will be replaced with younger gamers. And really, what's the point in trying to woo customers who are already happy with what they have?

WotC could shave its customer base in half and still end up with more customers than any other RPG publishing house and still be an industry powerhouse. They will still survive, and I think they'll probably prosper. In contrast, their space for new and interesting 3e products has been mostly mined out.

I haven't heard a single report of someone who has played any of the demo games claiming that the system is *less* fun than 3e. (The only real complaints I've seen is that the game seemed "hack & slash" based on a combat-only delve-format demo meant to highlight the combat rules.) Most of the people predicting 4e's doom have not examined the rules and have no intention of doing so.

[T]he WEG D6 system is vastly better than the new version of the SWRPG I won't disagree with you there. I'm a big fan of D6 Star Wars, though the Jedi system has a fragile balance.

While they may not have gone with the 'aggro' system, what they are spouting is not that far off from the agro system of various MMORPGs. It actually is if you look deeply into the difference between the two mechanics. I've already made two replies on that above, though.

Maybe its time to dust off those 1st Ed books and run from them again... /WWEGGD? I hate to be blunt, but who gives a rip? He's dead, and he hasn't innovated for over 20 years.

Yes, he was the founder of RPGs and a very important, influential man to whom we owe a great debt, but rockers don't ask, "What would Elvis do?" and language designers don't ask, "What would Kernighan and Ritchie do?"

RPG design has moved on since those days. So should we. If you think that the old ways are better, then let the market decide.

Re:Liar.

[geekoid]

Marking is aggro under a different name.

3 was the first step toward making DnD more video game like. Blizzard didn't invent aggro, BTW.

I believe 4 is more so based on interviews with the people involved. They use a lot of video game terminology.

"Also, if true, you would've just publicly stated that your friend violated their NDA."

And?

"The ultimate choice between the two options is still up to the DM."
No shit? really?

Re:Liar.

[Valdrax]

Marking is aggro under a different name. Already addressed elsewhere. See the reply chain to Viking Coder above. I don't care to repeat myself to people who won't bother to read to see if their post is redundant.

3 was the first step toward making DnD more video game like. [...]

I believe 4 is more so based on interviews with the people involved. They use a lot of video game terminology. Define "video game like." People toss that term around like it actually means something but it's frequently just an umbrella term for "things I don't like."

And what's wrong with using MMO terminology? It's useful to describe the way D&D has always been played. All 4e has done is separate combat and non-combat roles and ensure that they're balanced.

"Also, if true, you would've just publicly stated that your friend violated their NDA."

And? And that's a contractual violation that carries legal penalties. It means that if he's not a bare-faced liar, then he's either an idiot or a terrible friend.

"The ultimate choice between the two options is still up to the DM."
No shit? really? That's important. See posts above. Aggro does not allow for monster choices. That's how it works.

Re:Jumping to conclusion based on one interpretati

[grahamd0]

The announcement mentioned "mutual exclusivity", which some are reading as "one product can not be licensed under both OGL and GSL", but one publisher said on ENworld that they think it's a per-company not per-product. We haven't heard any confirmation either way.

They've been very specific with the license regarding individual products' mutual exclusivity. Personally, I think that the per company thing is a little ridiculous and probably not correct, especially since they have been very specific about individual products. WotC probably just doesn't want to rush to dispel that guy's illusions as they fit perfectly with their druthers.

old is new

[Anonymous Coward]

First, to all who are thinking or have stated that
this seems like a bad move on WotC's part...
This is obviously not the first time anyone's ever
said that. How many of you had invested hundreds
of dollars in Magic: the Gathering cards before
they announced (the first of several times) they'd
no longer be supporting tournaments featuring
cards more than two years old (approximation of
the original "Classic" format) ?

I think that what Wizards has seen is that TSR
was producing too many competing core rules
formats in the 80s (D&D, AD&D, Gamma World, etc),
and wants to restrict the line so it doesn't
fragment the base. And it's possible that Paizo's
announcement may reflect some behind-the-scenes
discussions about continued Edition 3.5 support
by trusted partners (remember, Paizo was the
publisher of Dragon and Dungeon magazines until
last August).

Easy solution

[Dachannien]

If this is all true, there's one very simple solution.

Phase 1: Spin off company to handle 4ed-based games, while the original company continues working on 3ed-based games.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

Spawn off a sister company that makes 4e material

[freejamesbrown]

License to sister company the rights to the relevant IP of your company. Move on. Pretty annoying, but cheaper than fighting Hasbro. Go wiki rpg!

The future of Third Edition?

[bytor4232]

I'm a long time RPG player, for at least 20 years. I was on the fence with 4e, given my years of support of WOTC and D&D in general. I love third edition to death, however at best I was going to pick up the players handbook if I found a 4e seat. At worst I was going to live and let live, and continue with my beloved 3rd edition. Now, I am not so sure. I really can't, in good conscious, support 4e. Not as a Linux advocate, and certainly not as a gamer. This move is as bad, if not worst, than anything Microsoft has ever pulled.

So it looks like the debate for me has been settled, I'll be sticking with 3rd edition. The only way I'll jump ship is if, for some odd reason, I can't get a 3e game off the ground, or find a seat. With Paizo continuing the Third Edition legacy with Pathfinder RPG, that may not ever be an issue.

resent purchase?

[Anonymous Coward]

"and Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro (a recent development likely not unrelated to this change of heart)."

You mean that buy out that happened in 1999? Yup, real recent... Oh, and the OGL program started in 2000.

That statement right there makes me question the credibility of the article.

Infinite Spheres

[Dillenger69]

A couple buddies of mine have a gaming system they came up with over the years. They call it "Infinite Spheres".
It used to be a massive binder but has since been reduced to a nice database plus front end.
It encompasses all the best features of all the gaming systems they've used for the last 30 years and is open ended.
You can play any race you can reasonably spec out from classic D&D races to a guy from Dark City or a Cenobyte from Hellraiser.
If a race isn't already in the DB, all you need to do is enter it and someone else can play it later.
It's all between the players and the GM as to what will be allowed. They work with magic as well as technology.

D&D seems awfully restrictive after using this system.
It's the best system I've played yet.

There is NO AGGRO in 4e

[cbpye]

Wizards has stated this on several occaisons, and I've played through the first-level 4e adventure (released at the D&D Experience) with several friends. There is no aggro mechanic in 4th edition, and those who continue to insist that there is are either uninformed, ignorant, hopelessly stupid or trolling.

Example: a Paladin can use a power that will deal damage to a monster when it attacks someone other than the Paladin. This "encourages" the monster to focus on the Paladin, but it's still ultimately the DMs decision what the monster will attack. At the same time, fighter's have a "power" that gives them a free Attack of Opportunity should their designated foe attack an ally.

On a side note: fourth edition characters are very much more powerful than third edition characters. This is because the monsters are much, MUCH more dangerous in fourth edition. The first encounter in the first-level demo pits a party of 6 level-one PCs against two level-two hobgoblins. Each goblin had a high attack bonus, 40+ HP (the average character had about 20 to 22), and dealt 1d10+STR damage. If they hit you, your move speed would be slowed to two squares until the hobgoblin's next turn.

The penultimate encounter of this adventure was absolutely absurd. I'll not be complaining about any perceived "WoW-ishness" (and I'm a WoW player of 3+ years), but much of the combat flavor is over-the-top.

Highlight of the adventure: the paladin had fallen, and the cleric would follow within one more turn. He was about to be flanked by two skeletal assailants and I, the Eladrin ranger, used my daily power ("Split the Tree") to destroy both skeletons at once. It was over-the-top, but it was one of those epic moments that an artist would dedicate a page-and-a-half to in a comic book.

As much as I enjoyed the demo, however, these announced licensing changes do have me concerned and worried, and my ultimately leave me disgusted.

Re:There is NO AGGRO in 4e

[ravenshrike]

Um, sounds like exactly what would happen if you sent a 3.5 ed 3rd level party against an EL 5-7(depending on optimization and luck) encounter. In 3.5 an equal CR encounter was meant to use around 25% of a parties resources and you were supposed to have four a day(when you were having encounters). Since there is relatively little need for conservation of abilities for casters in the new edition, it's obvious they upped the challenge of an equal CR encounter to compensate.

Summary is WRONG

[halivar]

Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all â" Dungeons & Dragons related or not

Absolutely incorrect, and the linked post from Scott Rouse doesn't even support that conclusion. You will not be allowed to mix GSL mechanics with OGL mechanics in the same product. IOW, you can't have a book that is both 4E GSL and 3.5 OGL. This is a far cry from the sensationalism written up here.

To quote Scott Rouse further:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.

Re:Summary is WRONG

[Fulminata]

Actually that's a link to someone quoting a post not by Scott, but by Linae Foster, the other WotC rep posting on ENWorld about this issue, and it doesn't contradict the highlighted statement.

In fact, both reps have gone out of their way to neither confirm nor deny that statement, although Scott has indicated that he will provide more clarification today.

Both reps are being very cagey in their answers, and I suspect that the actual text of the GPL is not yet in its final form. This whole issue may end up being a trial balloon, whether or not it was intended to be so in the beginning.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I admire the blatant and front-first honesty of putting goatse right in an URL without redirection or hiding. For that, I have done three things:

1. I clicked your link as support for this practice.
2. I modded you troll and
3. I posted this comment to show, without hiding or redirection, that you are, indeed, a first-grade old-school slashdot troll.

Pol

unconfirmedrumor

[night_flyer]

can someone please tag this with unconfirmedrumor or something?

Not Surprising...

[morari]

This is exactly the kind of thing that Wizards of the Coast has always been known for. It doesn't matter if you're replacing "banned" Magic cards every year, being muscled out of the wargaming scene, or any number of other scenarios. This is what they do.

Who cares...

[Sir_Eptishous]

I've been playing/DMing AD&D since it came out. I still enjoy that system much more than 3 or 3.5. The more recent WoTC rules are bloated and overly complex. Whats funny, is the reaction we get when my group plays our 2nd ed campaign at a local game store. We're surrounded by other groups playing various RPG's, boardgames, etc;. They give us these sidelong looks because were playing some kind of "ancient relic" of the RPG world... But were into the action and having a blast while the other game tables are taking forever to setup, and taking forever to look up rules while they play...

Re:Who cares...

[jsepeta]

My feelings exactly. I just started a version 1 campaign with my 8 year old daughter and am planning on bringing in my girlfriend's 10 year old. I already own thousands of dollars in books and maps and dice and modules for v1, why buy v2, v3, v3.5, v4? the main purpose of these new versions is to bring in more cash for WOTC -- it's their problem not mine if I decide to keep gaming on v1.

The main thing to remember is that FRPG's are supposed to be fun. Sure it's an immersive world and you need a certain amount of structure to guarantee that things are fair for the players. But when Anastasia swings her mace at an Orc, will she have more fun if it's a version 4 Orc than a version 1 Orc? Puh-lease.

Re:Who cares...

[ChakatSanddancer]

You like hack and slashes. Personally, I think they're kind of boring. I like games where you need to put skills into diplomacy, etc. 3.x ed put a decent amount into letting people run campaigns that aren't pure hack and slashes. Yes, it means needing a DM who can alter their scripts as-needed, but it's more fun that way, imo.

Re:Who cares...

[ravenshrike]

He's playing with pre-pubescents. Unless they have suddenly gained the ability to follow complex plots and have advanced reasoning skills, their interest is going to be limited.

Too early to know WHAT this means.

[Silicon Jedi]

It's WAY too early for this. This is mostly based of of some speculation and off handed comments and there has been no official clarification nop the "exclusivity".

Role vs. Roll

[Anonymous Coward]

Through extensive arcane research, we have determined that D&D was developed by the same people who wrote the US tax codes.

D&D has been flawed since its inception. What do you want to spend time doing? Roleplaying? Or trying to remember 6000 pages of rules, (mostly dumb) monsters, statistics, and dice tables? Try playing a real RPG (that's "Role", not "Roll"). Any GM/DM/etc. worth their weight in zombie tongues should be able to run an entire campaign without using a single die.

Not quite

[fudgefactor7]

It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!"

More like "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't sell any software that functions on any previous version of Windows."

Re:Not quite

[theltemes]

Actually, it's more like this: Suppose the guys at Evil Hat decided that they wanted to publish a 4E adventure and sell it under the GSL. Now they are faced with a choice: do I publish this 4E adventure or do I stop selling Fate, Spirit of the Century, and the Dresden Files? Now, none of these games have anything to do with the fantasy RPG genre, but they were published under the OGL, and therefore supposedly subject to the restrictions of the GSL if Evil Hat wanted to publish that 4E adventure.

Re:Not quite

[Schadrach]

Most likely, it's more like EvilHat won't be able to publish their adventure for both 4e and another OGL system, such as 3E, 3.5E, or Paizo's Pathfinder. They had a lot of 3rd party supplements released after 3.5 that had rules for 3E and 3.5E, which probably hurt sales of 3.5, and as the purpose (in their minds) of the OGL was to allow 3rd parties to produce supplements that would increase sales of the current generation core books, this is bad. I'll put odds when concrete information is released, it will only be a per product restriction or something only vaguely more restrictive than that (basically enough to keep you from releasing a single product for 4e [sells the most WotC core books], 3.5e [sells some WotC core books], and Pathfinder [sells no WotC core books]).

Re:Spawn off a sister company that makes 4e materi

[Tompos]

Yep that's right. Create another company. Move half of the people to this new company. Rent them half of your office, and voila. Creates a lot of paperwork for the accountants but noone can sue you. These are separate companies. What if employes speak with the other company's employes. They are free people. :) Alternatively. The other company can outsource the work to the original.

re: summary of changes and expansion opportunities

[KeithH]

Duck Dodgers wrote

The skill list is also condensed. You can bet that is to make it easier to churn out more expansion books.

Re: summary of changes and expansion opportunities

[Alex777]

Not necessarily. In Spycraft 2.0, for instance, skills that cover similar things were lumped together, and there were rules for all the different applications of that skill. For example, Hide and Move Silently were combined into Stealth.

Lame Car Analogy

[Larryish]

It is like, if Volkswagen said "Hey if you want to make aftermarket parts for our new Cabriolet, you have to clean out your old VW hippie van."

Uh... o.k... maybe it isn't like that at all.

Re:Spawn off a sister company that makes 4e materi

[Rydia]

"Clever" strategies like this is how people lose millions of dollars in court.

One other important difference.

[Valdrax]

Besides the fact that marked enemy can take non-aggressive actions without penalty, it's important to note that aggro systems generally apply to the entire party -- not just to the class that's designed to "take" aggro. (After all, there has to be aggro to take away from allies.)

Thus, 4e does not suffer from the problem of over-zealous healing or nuking causing enemies to blindly charge at the Cleric or Wizard. Enemies will only do so because it's a sensible choice and not because some numeric threshold has been crossed.

Marking is purely a feature of current Defender classes and has nothing to do with how other classes interact with monsters, unlike aggro.

They don't want 4e mechanics reimplemented in 3e

[fungol]

I'm sure wizard's nightmare is that someone uses the OGL to reimplement all the new 4e rules (call it 3e++), and then all the publishers start dual-logoing all their products for both 4e and 3e++

Why?

[ChameleonDave]

Why is anyone into Open Source playing D&D at all? Surely you should go and write your own kernel, I mean, basic game system. Or else you can find a freely licensed game and personalise it. Surely any game session is mostly in your head anyway.

This is like using XP and having to fork out cash for Vista when it comes out and deal with all MS vageries.

Re:Why?

[mxyzplk]

Yeah - the problem is, they snookered people into it. They release the D&D rules under an open license, and pledged support to open gaming. So a) people used the D&D rules to make other games, when what they "had to say" with the game was more story and less rules oriented, and b) people used the "generic" open license WotC had derived for non-D&D based games. One massive personnel turnover later, they are trying to poison pill *both* these groups. The information we have on the GSL indicates that it forbids a publisher to touch *any* open game, regardless of whether it's D&D-based or not. Hosing the (a) group is dickish but you can kinda understand it, but going after the (b) group is just kinda... evil.

Couple of things

[geekoid]

"Here's my example: say you want to play a swashbuckler or a duelist, does a fighter fit? "
Yes.

"So our fighter swashbuckler swinging from the chandelier is wearing plate mail.."

Talk to your GM. Instead of getting a +3 Breast plate, maybe you can get a +3 vest. Really, not much of an issue here.

Under v2 you could get a -6 AC and not wear any plate at all.

Oh $#|7, I forgot my chainmail suit!

[docwatson223]

...and here's where we watch WoTC jump the shark -straight into the enclosure. It's gonna be a bloody mess. It's been a fun ride for 30 years of gaming but all things come to an end. /cry

Ex-WOTC fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I was on the Fence about 4E. But I think they made the choice for me. No thanks. I vote with my wallet. Wotc Is not getting my vote.

Wizards Gives Update

[mxyzplk]

The Q&A is split over two Web sites, but the quick summary is that though the new license is closed not open, they will not forbid a licensed company from publishing *any* open gaming proucts, just ones in the same product line. Details here: http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/wizards-comes-clean-on-open-gaming/