Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord Tirian Seriously? No choice is better than a bad choice? |
If there had been a "No license" announcement alongside the
4e announcement, there would, now, be a much more robust "post
WOTC" 3x environment, instead of one just beginning to coalesce. That's why it would have been better to have none, announced honestly, than one which went through constant changes, came late, and is seemingly designed so that publishers will be very limited in what they can do, and will be smacked down if they try to stretch the limits, even under the terms of the license. The inability to reproduce stat blocks in adventures, for example, makes third party products more cumbersome than
WOTC products. The "no redefinitions of defined terms" clause means anyone making a druid or bard class risks having their products become invalid if there's a new
GSL -- and that means constantly second-guessing
WOTC.
There's other problems.
According to the license, you can "upgrade" any
OGL product. In the Tome of Horrors, there's a big fat demon prince called "Orcus". This was licensed properly to Necromancer and is Open Game Content. If Necromancer were to go ahead and produce TOH
4e, technically, they'd be able to use any OGC in that product -- including Orcus. How would that interact with the removal of Orcus from the list of "defined terms"?
Overall, it seems odd to me that anything which underwent such a protracted period of development -- remember, as soon as
WOTC decided there would be a
4e, they had to know they'd have to do something about how the
OGL with interact with it -- comes to us with so many open issues.