General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
If folks want a view of One Bad Egg's numbers, you can find them at Driving Blind
Thank you Fred Hicks!
When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irda Ranger
A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.
Absolutely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.
Absolutely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruin Explorer
So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.
Amen! This is the best environment - tremendous diversity and lots of choices for gamers.
So then, are 3PP's free to redefine things which aren't covered by the SRD? For instance, I notice the Shaman isn't included in the new SRD. Does that mean a 3PP in the future could come up with a completely different type of Shaman, with the name 'shaman', basically redefining the class? It seems like it would be acceptable.
But you can't create a new Druid class, because it's listed in the SRD, unless you call it something like the "Greenmountain Druid".
(I also propose that all discussions of theoretical variants must have an assumed origin of Greenmountain...)
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)
It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.
From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
I feel compelled to point out that it should not be taken as legal advice, yadda yadda yadda. But it might be interesting to some people.
Cheers,
Roger
That's handy. Thanks!
Obviously, they've addressed some of the major problems and have appeased a few 3pps with this new version. However, there are other portions that still cause some concern. Given the track record, this will require a much more thorough vetting than can be done with a quick read through. While some might feel it suits their purposes, there are still some potential dealbreakers that need a closer look. They've made the basket prettier but haven't necessarily made it the best place for everyone's eggs.
From what I understood in the previous thread, the REAL wait wasn't with the GSL, it was with the SRD. The core terms of the GSL 2.0 was done something like two months ago I believe, according to Scott? It was the reading over the SRD with a fine toothed comb, and getting specific points clarified by Legal, and making sure certain things could or could not be included, etc. was what added a good bit of time to the mix, from several of Scott Rouse's earlier posts.
Before the OGL we had a lot of games out there. D&D was popular but you had World of Darkness, Gurps, Runequest, Deadlands, Big Eyes Small Mouth, and a wealth of others.
Um... those are all still in print, and they've all had new editions in the past few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
Since the release of the OGL occurred, while new companies formed, they focused on various variations of D&D, even if removed such as Spycraft and M&M. This has weakened a lot of the other alternatives. GURPS used to publish a lot more, for instance, before this d20 explosion. While we can argue these alternatives are still around they lost significant market share, and some alternatives went under.
SJG still publishes quite a bit, but some of it has shifted to PDF (which is something they were headed for before d20), and a lot of it has been that GURPS isn't where SJG is making it's real money from anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
I can't accept the OGL helped "create an ecosystem". It hurt the existing ecosystem. Now, you already have sort of a monoculture of d20 derived game systems. It leads to less variety. I can't believe people look at various derivations of D&D as being "good" for the overall industry. Right now we have what I call the "Irish Potato Famine" syndrome. You all have a game system that has been weakened. The brand new edition of D&D shows just how weak this has made the so-called ecosystem--everybody was eating and planting that one plant, while letting the others wither.
Really? Mongoose Publishing got started as a d20 publisher. They've gone on to put Paranoia, Classic Traveller, and Runequest back in print, as well as publishing a number of non-d20 games for other companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy
A healthy industry should have loads of alternatives. Gaming is not something we need to have ISO or IEEE standards for. We should have dozens of healthy alternatives to D&D. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.
There are tons currently supported of alternatives to d20. Paranoia, Runequest, HeroQuest, Warhammer Fantasy, Traveller, Hero, Twilight 2013, GURPS, nWoD, Exalted, Basic Roleplaying, Silhoutte, Fuzion, FATE, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, Cortex, CthuhluTech, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, HARP, Unisystem, the list goes on.
As for true innovation, I would strongly argue that some of the most innovative games of the past ten years are based on d20. Sometime because the rules are innovative (M&M, True20) sometime because the setting is (Etherscope). Some of the most innovative ones aren't (FATE, Burning Wheel).
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
Last edited by Krensky; 3rd March 2009 at 10:42 PM..
I agree they are committed to Pathfinder, however, I doubt they are in any danger of failing, considering they are the main rallying point for those D&D gamers dissatisfied with 4E. That being said, I am sure they will be more than happy to publish 4E material now that some of the more ridiculous aspects of the GSL have been excised. It's a win-win for both systems.
It appears my earlier optimism was misplaced:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Wertz, Paizo Technical Director
... This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
I do appreciate that it makes life easier for some other parties, though.
Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!
Don't your two statements completely conflict with one another?
"Creativity and new games" (neither of which need the OGL as we see with HARP, GURPS 4th edition,, Warhammer 2nd edition, etc...the OGL games that have survived like Castles and Crusades, Mutants and Masterminds, Conan, etc...)
and then it been weakened because they're not all D&D based.
Not seeing it.
I think the opposite happened. Too many companies went to suckle at the teat of D&D via d20 and when that went boom, those that didn't diversify like Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds, their systemless Freeport and other materials, or Mongoose with Runequest and Traveller, etc...
The only ones suffering in this OGL ecology are those that stick too close to the d20 fantasy system where many people have either moved on, or those many loud internet voices that cliam they haven't, aren't buying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irda Ranger
I am very happy that the GSL has improved to the point that Necromancer Games (and others) can support it.
I am grateful to Scott Rouse personally for his yeoman's work in making this happen.
But that doesn't mean I am not still disappointed in the people inside Wizards who are taking the "ungenerous" way forward. The OGL lead to an explosion of creativity and new games, companies and memes in the gaming space, all of which must have improved both Wizard's (the company) and D&D's (the culture) survivability long term. A monoculture of one or two companies does not make for a long-term, successful roleplaying culture. You need an ecosystem for that.
The OGL obviously created a thriving ecosystem. The OGL's ecosystem still exists, but it is greatly weakened by the loss of the "currently supported" version of D&D. I fear the GSL (even as revised) will actively prevent a new ecosystem from forming, and that the neither the OGL nor the GSL ecoystems (such as they are) will be strong enough to survive independently. And if they do survive they will surely not be as vibrant and creative as the OGL ecosystem during the 3.x era.
To use a purely natural example, I fear the GSL is equivalent to taking a thriving woodlands and diverting one of its primary water sources to a dune plain which lacks mineral soils - neither the woodlands nor the plain will thrive under this scenario. I really, really hope that Wizards is not replacing one Central Valley with two Dust Bowls.
Yup; while I'm very pleased that the revisions to the GSL are out and seem to be a lot less restrictive—we're committed to the Pathfinder RPG at Paizo now and have no intention to produce GSL versions of adventure paths or other Pathfinder products. There's a lot of fan-based conversions going on at various places on the internets, though, which is good to see!
Given the time it's taken for an acceptable GSL to show up, I can understand Paizo's reaction...but nonetheless, it seems foolish to pass up easy chances to grow your customer base in economic times like these!
Too little I understand. I disagree with it, but I understand why someone could take that position.
But too late? That I do not get. Unless their think either a) D&D 4e will go under in 6 months, or b) Paizo will go under in 6 months, I do not get the "too late". If they started someone working on it now, they could come out with their product in 6 months or less. So, it's not "too late". They've just made a choice that they wouldn't make as much money if they decided to put someone on 4e instead of devoting that person to Pathfinder.
Which I think is erroneous. I suspect there would be very strong sales for a Paizo 4e product. It's a shame we apparently will not ever see that product.
I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.
__________________ Jeffrey J. Visgaitis
Creative Director The Inner Circle
The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.
You hit on the core argument I made to Scott for about an hour on this point.
I said that purchasers want stat blocks in their adventures. Because if they dont have them, then they have to go to their MM, copy the stats onto a sheet, slip it in the page of the module, etc. Its harder on the DM.
If the concept is to drive purchasers to the core books, you are doing the OPPOSITE.
I am not going to fail to give the purchaser what they want. If all I can do is say "kobold skirmisher (see MM)," then I wont do that. I'd prefer to use a shortened stat block for simple monsters. So what will I do?
I will just make a cheesy substiution. Instead of a Level 1 kobold skirmisher you will fight a "level 1 kobold dragonfang" with the exact same damn stats as a kobold skirmisher except maybe HP 26 instead of 27 or something. I would make a change so small and a cosmetic name change that the monster would really be the same, but I can claim it is different enough that I am not just reprinting the monster.
Because if I do it this way, I get to put the whole damn stat block in the product! And that is what people want! So instead of incenting me to drive them to the MM you are incenting me to create a new monster that is a tiny twist on an old one just to get past that restriction, which is dumb to make me do. It means, if they are smart, NOT A SINGLE 3P module will ever include just a straight monster from the MM. Not one. And that is dumb.
What they dont want is a web site of monsters or someone doing monster cards. That, in my view, is what really drove the objection to this change. Because, taking out that issue, it doesnt make any sense to object to this.
But I blew my skill check on that and lost apparently.
Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up. No, I will create "ettercap web guardians" that are level 4 soldiers with maybe 55 hp instead of 56 and with greatswords instead of greataxes. Then you have basically the same monster, but not I can put the whole freaking stat block in teh adventure because I just "created a new monster."
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
This is the biggest question I have at the moment. Any comments about the kosherness of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urizen
<snip>
You_can_apply the mathematical values for powers without reprinting the power verbatim, but some powers need to be reprinted to be fully understood. Those, you'll still have to refer to.
here's a sample statblock I_think_is going to be just fine for my upcoming book: Scarrport, City of secrets.
---------------
Talfordinate Wicking, Thunder Priest of Velun Level 16 Controller (Leader) Medium Humanoid (Human) XP 1,400 Initiative +8 Senses: Perception +11 Aura of the Sky God Aura 5; all enemies in the aura gain vulnerable 5
thunder. HP 131; Bloodied 66 AC 28; Fortitude 28, Reflex 28, Will 33 Resist 10 thunder Speed 6 Action Points 1
m Mace (standard; at-will) +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6 r Holy Thunder (standard; at-will) * Thunder
Range 5; +27 vs. Reflex; 1d6 + 12 thunder damage and the target is pushed 5 squares. R Plague of Doom (standard; encounter) Range 10; +27 vs. Fortitude; 3d8 + 12 damage; (Level 13 Cleric Encounter Attack Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook); -3
R Thunderbreak (standard; encounter) * Thunder
Range 10; +27 vs. Will; 2d8 + 12 thunder damage, and the target is
deafened and dazed until the end of Wicking's next turn.
A Purifying Lightning (standard; daily) * Lightning
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 3d10 + 12 lightning damage and
ongoing 10 lightning (save ends)(See the D&D 4E Player's Handbook.).
A Thunder Cloud (standard; daily) * Thunder
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 2d10 + 12 thunder damage and
ongoing 5 thunder (save ends); Miss: half damage.
Divine Fortune (free; encounter)
(Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook)
C Healing Word (minor; twice per encounter)
Close Burst 10; (Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook); +4d6
C Mass Cure Light Wounds (standard; daily)
Close Burst 5; (Level 10 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E
Player's Handbook); +3
M Cure Serious Wounds (standard; daily)
Melee touch; (Level 6 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook)
Alignment Good
Skills Religion +15, Insight +18, Diplomacy +16, History +15
Str 14 (+10) Dex 11 (+8) Wis 21 (+13)
Con 14 (+10) Int 14 (+10) Cha 16 (+11)
Equipment robe of thunderbolts +4, symbol of the storm +6
__________________ "If life gives you lemons go find someone with vodka and make a party!" --Antilles
Yeah, really. The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it. I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".
I am reminded of Veruca Salt...
Everyone needs to back up.
First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same.
Really, you should compare the d20 STL to the GSL. And they are basically very much the same. The OGL let you use the SRD without the restrictions or the benefits of the d20 STL. The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.
And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL. That is an amazing concession! That actually exceeded my expectations.
Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves (though Scott liked it).
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E.
so what can we look forward to clark??? on your site you look to be working on some optional rules...any monsters/adventures/classes you have in mind??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...
They arent worried about that because that wouldnt work in any event.
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up.
you know that is what WotC did with thunderspire...there is like 3 or 4 pages of optional encounters that onyl list monster names...I think it works out well
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic. I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic. This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.
I feel bad for Joe and I'm sorry I was so harsh on him, but I had to nip that in the bud right out of the chute. I appreciate where he is coming from. He's right to call attention to the provisions that remains and to let people make up their own minds. But what he doesnt have is actual publishing experience with the license and a historical understanding of the licneses since their infancy and inception, which, by fortunate accident, I do. The GSL is essentially no more risky than the old d20 STL which lots of people used for a long time. Similar and often identical provisions. It is not scary in any way. Plus, as I think I previously pointed out, if you want a barometer for whether or not Wizards is going to "use the license for evil" just see what they have already done--the very first change they make is an improvement, an expansion, an addition of content, a reaction to the comments of the community, a removal of the poison pill and over all good guy good partner good neighbor attitude. If you STILL want to say they are the evil empire, then I just cant save you from that at this point. You're just going to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Look, do I love every part of it? No. Should they have just listened to me from day 1? Yes. Should they have adopted all my suggestions? Yes. Did they? No. Should this have all happened much much faster? Hell yes. But is this a great change and now a license that is on par with prior licenses and totally acceptable to people who did 3E products for years? Absolutely.
Thanks, Mistwell, by the way
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.
The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well. So, it's not too late.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
