D&D 4E 4E: What we think we know

[Knight Otu]

Not necessarily; maybe the license is to play in their sandbox with their IP (Gods, mind flayers, Eberron, etc)?

Yeah, it may be the 4E equivalent of using both the OGL and the d20STL. In 3.X, you could go and use both and enjoy the advertising value of having the d20 System logo and the "Requires the use of 3rd edition books" texts, but be limited in some ways (no character creation rules), or you can just use the OGL without those benefits and drawbacks. In the years since the release of 3E, using the d20STL kind of became too much of a drawback, or at least the value of the symbols diminished too much, to be worth the additional hassles the license imposes.
So, in 4E, the equivalent to the d20STL may get limited to companies that either have proven to be able to produce quality material that was bought, or that are big enough on their own to produce quality material.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, if the mechanics *don't* change significantly, then I may stay on board....

If the mechanics *don't* change significantly, I may just drop the game for good.

Can't please 'em all, I guess

 

[Mercule]

The biggest bummer I see in this is that the chargen tool will be online only and, it appears, won't have any room for custom content. Both of those annoy me.

On the other hand, D&D is the only RPG I regularly customized, anyway. If 4E is similar to 3E, but doesn't prompt as much customization, I'd be pretty happy. And, if the chargen tool is really outstanding, it'd be worth doing online.

I wonder how much it will be to purchase the electronic versions of the books. I really, really love reading dead trees when I'm absorbing new rules, but I'd love to have the errata immediately available to me and have the searchable version. If they hyperlink referrences online (ala d20srd.org), it would also increase the value. I just don't want to pay $30 for the hardcopy and another $20 for the digital version.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...e.g. Book of Erotic Fantasy 2: The FATAL Edition

That is the second or third time your made that comment - are you really so offened by ToEF? Are you really so obthered by the products made by third party publishers?

I perfer market evolution to weed out poor books and poor publishers, becuase that allows good ones to surive. Cutting it off at the top closes off good books and bad ones.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
* Fans will be able to publish material on Gleemax under (free) license from Wizards. (This material will be available to Wizards to republish; see discussion on Gleemax TOS).

Can somebody explain this further? What happens if fans publish material on places like EN World?

You all will get a kick out of this thread on the RPG Board Business then.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906564

 

[an_idol_mind]

It seemed like the plan would be to roll out one new setting each year.

If that's the plan, I can only assume most of the settings will get little support beyond a world book and maybe a couple of products. Unless, of course, WotC wants to divide their market the same way TSR once did.

 

[DaveMage]

If the mechanics *don't* change significantly, I may just drop the game for good.

Can't please 'em all, I guess

The only reason I feel the opposite way is because I have spent thousands on 3.x products that I don't want to render (basically) useless.


If I didn't have as much invested, I really wouldn't mind a complete revamping.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

That is the second or third time your made that comment - are you really so offened by ToEF? Are you really so obthered by the products made by third party publishers?

It's not that I'm offended, it's just a joke that I think does a good job of highlighting a concern. I do the same thing sometimes with the title Llamaworld d20 when I want to talk about someone's hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker.

And it really doesn't have anything to do what what may or may not offend me. It's what may or may not bother WotC. The licensing restrictions give them slightly more control. And check out the timeline and the revisions for the real BoEF and the updated OGL. They tweaked the OGL to control content right about the time the BoEF was released. So, yes, I'd say it was a concern for them.

 

[Rangoric]

It's not that I'm offended, it's just a joke that I think does a good job of highlighting a concern. I do the same thing sometimes with the title Llamaworld d20 when I want to talk about someone's hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker.

And it really doesn't have anything to do what what may or may not offend me. It's what may or may not bother WotC. The licensing restrictions give them slightly more control. And check out the timeline and the revisions for the real BoEF and the updated OGL. They tweaked the OGL to control content right about the time the BoEF was released. So, yes, I'd say it was a concern for them.

Just for reference you really ment to say d20 STL. I know you did

The OGL has never changed once it was published.

 

[borc killer]

If that's the plan, I can only assume most of the settings will get little support beyond a world book and maybe a couple of products. Unless, of course, WotC wants to divide their market the same way TSR once did.

No it is really more to do with man power I think. You just can't release 2 or 3 fully fleshed out and edited campaign worlds and keep producing all your standard books in a few months time. You have to space them out. I would think they would still release them within the first year, but I would not expect them to be out on day one (as you can see we won’t even get the DMG or MM on day one just like 3.0).

Oh and did anyone else just book a room in Indy? heheh