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.
Insulting me is not going to further convince me of your assertion.
It was not really an insult, it was an honest question. Lots of people change names (stigma vis-a-vis their old account, loss of pw, because their dog walked left instead of right, what do I know). Besides, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Your short track record has clearly shown you that it would be a waste of time.
Quote:
I would like to read the original legal complaint documents myself, and possibly the original study which determined that 6-7 million D&D players figure (or at least whatever sections have been published publicly).
I don't take these figures at face value.
Then do a little digging. I have already done you a favor and told you the info is right here on this site. As a bonus, may a recommend a community supporter account, which enables you to use the search function!
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
In the one modern campaign I played, the massive damage rule quickly led me to realize that your HP don't matter near as much as your ability to not get hit and to make fort saves regularly.
As I mention above, high level Defense Option characters have this in spades.
Fading Suns and Deadlands both come to mind. Both of those d20 conversions were poor imitations of the original systems. Also, please note that I'm no huge fan of the original Deadlands mechanics, but still acknowledge that they were a better fit for an Old West RPG than the d20 mechanics were.
Absolutely for deadlands. That was a great game...the d20 version just sucked in comparison.
1. d20 is the engine that drives DND. DND is not d20
2. SRD is the material that WOTC made open for other companies to use in d20STL and OGL Products
3. Under the d20STL and OGL licenses, companies could use the SRD . However, products under the d20STL and OGL did not have to necessarily be compatible (as in plug and play from one d20 game to another) with DND which many people didn't understand when trying to mix some d20 and OGL products with DND.
The d20 STL allowed third parties to make d20 products and use the d20 logo. In exchange for using the logo the products could not include rules for character generation or advancement. The idea was that requiring the PHB for character generation and advancement would drive sales of the PHB.
The OGL allowed third parties to take the OGL and
a) make products for DND without the d20 logo or claims of compatibility with D&D
b) Take the d20 "engine" and create non-dnd games that included rules for character generation and advancement. The price for including rules for character generation and advancement was the inability to use the d20 logo. WOTC hoped that the familiarity of games using the d20 system would keep people in the d20 loop and, thus, close to DND.
c) keep supporting 3e should WOTC (or, if sold, another company) release a new edition or stop making DND since the OGL cannot be revoked.
Each license had other requirements, but that is the basics of it.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 28th June 2009 at 01:39 AM..
In general? Probably. Why? Because the fan base they will most piss off is the one the already wrote off....ie pathfinder players and 3PP followers.
Still, they'll know that if they doggedly pursue a lawsuit against Paizo or whoever, they'll lose some of their existing base as well. It'd be stupid, and they won't do it unless they have a glaringly good reason.
Also, how did they write off Pathfinder players before Pathfinder even existed? Pathfinder's players/followers are surely able to pick up whatever 4E books they want.
The OGL allowed third parties to take the OGL and
a) make products for DND without the d20 logo or claims of compatibility with D&D
b) Take the d20 "engine" and create non-dnd games that included rules for character generation and advancement. The price for including rules for character generation and advancement was the inability to use the d20 logo. WOTC hoped that the familiarity of games using the d20 system would keep people in the d20 loop and, thus, close to DND.
c) keep supporting 3e should WOTC (or, if sold, another company) release a new edition or stop making DND since the OGL cannot be revoked.
I am well aware of what the OGL allows people to do.
My post's topic centered on the reasons Wizards had to release its core rules in such a license.
The reason, as I see it, was that Wizards wanted third parties to make supplements to D&D, since they had seen that trying to cover each and every single niche had been a big part of TSR's bankruptcy.
Under this scheme, sales of third party supplements would drive up sales of Core Rulebooks published by WotC, and everybody would win.
I don't think anybody in WotC foresaw Arcana Evolved, Mutants and Masterminds or Moongoose's "PHB Lite", which in some way, directly competed with WotC's D&D Core Rulebooks
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.
As other people have noted, WotC revised the d20 STL by incorporating decency standards, not the OGL. Totally different beast.
The d20 STL (System Trademark License) defined the conditions under which you could slap a d20 logo on your book.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 28th June 2009 at 01:59 AM..
In general? Probably. Why? Because the fan base they will most piss off is the one the already wrote off....ie pathfinder players and 3PP followers.
Has WotC done anything directly and explicitly which has deliberately written off 3.5E/PFRPG players? (That is, without using "the existence and release of 4E D&D" as an explanation).
For example, did WotC do something like repeatedly saying derogatory things about 3.5E in the media which has been well documented? (ie. Has WotC ever officially said anything like, "3.5E sucks!" ?).
Offhand I don't recall anything WotC officially saying, which was extremely damaging to 3.5E.
Last edited by ggroy; 28th June 2009 at 02:08 AM..
Has WotC ever officially said anything like, "3.5E sucks!" ?
In the first few months after 4E was announced, many of the "selling points" the designers made in Design and Development articles and interviews were interpreted by some as "3.5E sucks!"
edit: Please note that I said "interpreted by some", not that I actually believe that.
I think the WotC people who made those comments were on "sales mode" only
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Last edited by Amphimir Míriel; 28th June 2009 at 02:58 PM..
I am well aware of what the OGL allows people to do.
The reason, as I see it, was that Wizards wanted third parties to make supplements to D&D, since they had seen that trying to cover each and every single niche had been a big part of TSR's bankruptcy.
No. they utilized 3rd parties in two ways
1. Have 3rd parties create products for DND
2. Have 3rd parties create new d20 games that keep others from going outside d20 which is not the same as making DND supplements.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 28th June 2009 at 03:09 AM..
In the first few months after 4E was announced, many of the "selling points" the designers made in Design and Development articles and interviews were interpreted by some as "3.5E sucks!"
Were there any particular Design and Development articles, which were very egregious in this manner?
Were there any particular Design and Development articles, which were very egregious in this manner?
It should still be on WOTC's own website (of course, finding things there is a pain and a half)...
Still, I think most of the "insults" WOTC launched against 3.5 were similar to Paizo's preview of the bard (PF preview flat out says, "the 3.5 bard sucks").
Basically, if you didn't agree with the reasoning, you would take it as the most negative light possible...
EDIT: The one thing I always wonder about is the "shared space" concept of the OGL. Exactly how does this work in practice?
Last edited by AllisterH; 28th June 2009 at 03:24 AM..
Dannyalcatraz View Post
Why would they do such a thing?
To minimize possible alienation of the 4E crowd when rebranding 3.5E/Pathfinder as a 5E D&D.
Dude- the things you excised from 4Ed to rebrand 3.X/Pathfinder are some of the things the pro-4Ed crowd love the most.
It simply wouldn't work. To quote Chef "Pig and Elephant DNA just won't splice."
As for games ruined by their D20 incarnations, let me offer a counterpoint.
I'll agree that few if any games ported into D20 were better or even as good as their original versions.
However, the gains included:
1) More gamers exposed to the fluff, which inherently increases the value of the underlying IP. So many more d20 players exist than for most of those games in their original forms- and after a taste for the fluff, at least some portion will find their way back to the originals.
Its the same thing that happened when so many games had GURPS versions made of them.
2) Introduction of new concepts, gear, feats and mechanics into D20, increasing the value of its underlying IP.
Still, I think most of the "insults" WOTC launched against 3.5 were similar to Paizo's preview of the bard (PF preview flat out says, "the 3.5 bard sucks").
Basically, if you didn't agree with the reasoning, you would take it as the most negative light possible...
From a casual read of the 2007 and early-2008 Design and Development articles on wizard's website, I'll have to agree that the level of "anti-3.5E" bias is somewhat subjective.
If I had read such articles 20+ years ago, I probably would have perceived them to be saying "1E AD&D sucks!".
Dude- the things you excised from 4Ed to rebrand 3.X/Pathfinder are some of the things the pro-4Ed crowd love the most.
I have no idea what most 4E D&D players are really into, which may be absent from previous editions.
So far I've only DM'd 4E with an additional duty of playing an NPC wizard in my present game, since none of the other players were interested in playing a wizard or any other controller type character. Other than the at-will combat spells, the wizard doesn't seem to be that drastically different from previous editions, besides having less spells. I haven't really played the other classes that extensively.
Are there some 4E fans who are fascinated by the character powers being more powerful, than the simple use of a sword or bow & arrow in the combat of previous editions?
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
Mechanically?
Non-Str-Con-Dex-Int-Wis-Cha stat systems
Non-Class dependent systems
Non-"Level up" based systems
Systems that don't require you to build encounters around getting fly at 5th level
Non-Vancian magic systems
Systems that use Dodge/Damage reduction combat mechanics rather than ablative hit points
Systems that do not want the AD&D alignment system built in
Systems that do not use the 4-encounter-day assumption
Systems that scale well and intuitively towards vehicular combat
Systems that want to include wide-ranging / interjected subsystems such as "corruption", "faction" or "faith"
Quote:
Are there some 4E fans who are fascinated by the character powers being more powerful, than the simple use of a sword or bow & arrow in the combat of previous editions?
Yes, those funny people that want to do more than wait for the wizard to run the adventure for them.
__________________ "Welcome to the Honorable Temple of Tiamat. Survivors of the monster attack will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Donations gladly accepted."
99% of edition conflict boils down to "For me, there are a lot of things that [Edition] can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can."
I have no idea what most 4E D&D players are really into, which may be absent from previous editions.
So far I've only DM'd 4E with an additional duty of playing an NPC wizard in my present game, since none of the other players were interested in playing a wizard or any other controller type character. Other than the at-will combat spells, the wizard doesn't seem to be that drastically different from previous editions, besides having less spells. I haven't really played the other classes that extensively.
Are there some 4E fans who are fascinated by the character powers being more powerful, than the simple use of a sword or bow & arrow in the combat of previous editions?
ggroy, let me give you a small list of what we 4E fans are into, which may be absent from previous editions:
1.-Class and Race balance (the Wizard does not overpower the Fighter, at any level)
2.- The At-Will/Encounter/Daily power mechanics allow everybody to have interesting things to do on each round, not just the spellcasters.
3.- DMs can make NPCs and Monsters with any abilities demanded by the story, not with those demanded by the character creation rules.
4.-Class and Race balance (the Bard is a useful character to have, not the comic relief)
5.-Healing Surge mechanics model the "action movie" paradigm and eliminate the need for someone to play a "healbot" character or for the party to carry tons of potions or wands
6.- Level based encounter creation rules allow DMs to create interesting combat encounters quickly (useful for those times when the players go somewhere not originally intended)
7.-Class and Race balance (no CoDzilla and the Paladin is still interesting at level 10)
8.- DMG Page 42 allows DMs to "say yes" to stunts and manoeuvres, above and beyond what's on the players list of powers
9.-Movement is a much bigger part of combat now and shifting, running, pushing, pulling and sliding are all more interesting than just standing there and stabbing the bad guy.
10.- Did I mention Class and Race balance?
These are some of the reasons why some of us find the idea of "Pathfinder as 5E" as a very bad step backwards.
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Last edited by Amphimir Míriel; 28th June 2009 at 03:06 PM..
I agree that the DM stuff in 4E is a lot more simplified and easier to manage.
I usually test out my encounters by playing "solo D&D" with the player characters (ie. guessing what I think the characters may possibly do), to check whether the encounters are too hard or too easy. 4E makes it relatively easy to do this, compared to 3E/3.5E.
It was not really an insult, it was an honest question. Lots of people change names (stigma vis-a-vis their old account, loss of pw, because their dog walked left instead of right, what do I know). Besides, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Your short track record has clearly shown you that it would be a waste of time.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
