D&D 4E Rumor control: Lucca 4e seminar report inaccuracies

Deset Gled · Nov 7, 2007

Goken100 said:
Ya, that sounds fine to me. As long as the errata are corrections of mistakes or completely broken rules and NOT revisions.

I'd be fine with any change they want to make in errata, as long as they release the errata for free on the website and update the system reference documents accordingly.

[/passive aggressive comments about the Rules Compendium]

BadMojo · Nov 7, 2007

Wulf Ratbane said:
Or, more importantly still, the effect it will have on the buying habits of retailers.

Yeah, it's certainly a big kick in the teeth for anyone looking to sell print products. Very disappointing. The average consumer won't even need to worry about which books will be compatible with 4th edition since many retailers will probably stop stocking products from anyone but the big names like Green Ronin, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.

Amphimir Míriel · Nov 7, 2007

Deset Gled said:
I'd be fine with any change they want to make in errata, as long as they release the errata for free on the website and update the system reference documents accordingly.

[/passive aggressive comments about the Rules Compendium]

Hear, Hear!

Make all classes OGL!

Scott_Rouse · Nov 8, 2007

BadMojo said:
Yeah, it's certainly a big kick in the teeth for anyone looking to sell print products. Very disappointing. The average consumer won't even need to worry about which books will be compatible with 4th edition since many retailers will probably stop stocking products from anyone but the big names like Green Ronin, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.

Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?

Henrix · Nov 8, 2007

A kick in the teeth is a bit of an overstatement, but it would be nice if there's a good way to say "this is fairly compatible with D&D4E" rather than just "uh, it's OGL, like so much else".

That wasn't quite what the D20 STL did, but that was one of the things it was used for.

BadMojo · Nov 8, 2007

Scott_Rouse said:
Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?

Yeah, I didn't quote very well back there.

The end of D20 STL is going to make it very, very hard for smaller publishers to move print product. I'd imagine a lot of retailers are going to look at "Compatible with the 4th Edition of your Favorite Roleplaying Game" and then just shrug while they order a few more copies of the Player's Handbook.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think this is some sort of malicious plot by the Evil Megacorp to destroy small publishers and I think I even understand why the D20STL is gone. It does seem like it's going to be tough to get a print product sold for the uh, 4th Edition of That Game We All Like.

WhatGravitas · Nov 8, 2007

Henrix said:
A kick in the teeth is a bit of an overstatement, but it would be nice if there's a good way to say "this is fairly compatible with D&D4E" rather than just "uh, it's OGL, like so much else".

That wasn't quite what the D20 STL did, but that was one of the things it was used for.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It was better than "compatible with the 4th edition of the world's most popular RPG" or "for use with the 4th edition" or other strange ways to say "that's stuff that is for use with D&D 4"

tenkar · Nov 8, 2007

The D20 license was an experiment that failed overall.

The OGL was a success.

I figure WotC did well in making this change.

Course, I figured that the D20 license was going to change greatly or die... based on what i thought was Scott's attempt to avoid answering the question directly. I was right for the wrong reason.

D20 is dead... long live games based on the D20 system of the world's most popular game using the Open Gaming License... eh, doesn't have the same ring

Bacris · Nov 8, 2007

Scott_Rouse said:
Are you saying the end of the D20 STL is a kick in the teeth?

It kind of is, but it kind of isn't.

Sure, I can produce a product using the OGL and have it entirely based off the core rules in the SRD, but there's no "quick" way for me to indicate it's compatible with the core rules, which was a nice feature of the d20 STL, even if there was a perception of negative brand equity - I could still quickly indicate that it was compatible without requiring some "Compatible with the world's most popular role-playing game" blurb.

Hrm, maybe a "CWtWMPRPG" logo? Not quite as concise as 'd20'

Scott_Rouse · Nov 8, 2007

We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."