No stat blocks in modules per the GSL?

[tovokas]

It seems the whole point of the new combat system in to encourage fluid, dynamic battles. Role-based monsters offer many new 'sub-types' each with specific abilities. As DM's we'll need those details in front of us, and slogging back and forth through the core books to get them will bring everything to a grinding halt.

Wizards understands this: the encounters in KOTS are all neatly laid out on two page spreads with all necessary stat blocks. Fabu. That they would deny 3p adventure builders the same functionality is needlessly unfriendly to DM's, and brings the viability of crippled 3p adventures into question.

I'm 'old school' - but I can't turn the clock back 30 years and regain the endless free time to prepare I had as a 12 year old DM. In 3.5 I put together 'encounter sheets' copying and pasting from d20srd.org. A bit time consuming, but worth it. As I previewed the encounters in KOTS I thought 'Wow... this is a how adventures should be laid out.' It's discouraging to think that, for anything but WOTC adventures, things might even be worse than before...

mlund- interesting idea about D&D D.I. essentially replacing a resource like D20srd.org.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Okay, let's take an example. I forget what the names are in the MM; let's say there's an "Orc Berserker" in the Monster Manual.

You can say "This encounter contains one Orc Berserker". That's legal.

You can also make a new monster using the rules, and use the GSL to use the word Orc, then make him an "Orc Rager"

until wizards makes the orc ranger after you.

 

[gribble]

A strict reading of the GSL would seem to me to indicate that a 3rd party adventure could only use the word "Kraken," since the rest (CR and hp) aren't open content or in the SRD.

I'm not entirely sure. I think you could actually reference the XP and hp (because both terms are included in the SRD, and both could be derived using the tables referenced). The only stuff you couldn't include is stuff "made up" specifically for the monster - movement modes/rates, powers, ability scores, skill selection, etc. Anything derived from referenced tables is probably ok.
I'll admit it is muddy though...

And there isn't much point in including hp for 4e monsters - they're all identical (no variance)!

I do think WotC have shot themselves in the foot with this one though. If their intention is to drive sales of the MM by forcing publishers to refer to the MM, they're going to have the opposite effect - adventures will include few if any references to the MM and instead use newly created monsters instead! I can see a lot of "Orc Ragers", etc in GSL published adventures...

 

[Mark Chance]

If their intention is to drive sales of the MM by forcing publishers to refer to the MM, they're going to have the opposite effect - adventures will include few if any references to the MM and instead use newly created monsters instead!

I can see that happening. It's what I already do (although, admittedly, I'm not doing much freelance writing at all anymore). I recently rewrote one of WoTC's downloadable 3.5 adventures for my game this Saturday. Where it referenced monsters not available in the 3.5 SRD, I either made up my own or substituted one that is.

(Heck, I don't even own a 3.5 MM, and I can DM just fine without it.)

 

[Lord Xtheth]

So, I was looking, and sure I can't print out stats for a Goblin or a page number... however I can print out stats for
Bob, the goblin
Bill, the other goblin
Jen, the female goblin
Pack of mud-faced goblin minions

Doesn't seem too ristricting to me. It might take some time to come up with "orriginal" material, and change some stats around a little. But "Creating your own monsters" and puting their stat blocks up in your material is perfectly safe to do.

 

[hong]

Seeing how people like Clark Peterson have raved about how easy it is to create monsters (and I would agree), this shouldn't be a major obstacle to publishing modules.

 

[Grazzt]

This is really going to hurt 3rd part modules. I think this is terrible, and will pretty much stop me from buying any non-WOTC modules. Which sucks, because I am a big Goodman Games fan. Sad

I don't think it will hurt modules that much. What I believe will happen is publishers will just make their own monsters or variants; that way they can put the entire stat block in the book.

Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of locking down the GSL/SRD as much as they did....doing the above does NOT drive peeps to use the MM.

Again- just my 2 cents on it (but Ive talked to a few guys/publishers who have more or less said about what I did above).

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Considering this is the way *most* modules have been done, whether you're talking about the 3rd edition era or the classic 1st edition and BECMI adventures, this is a complete non-issue. You have to things exactly the way people have been doing them all along, boo hoo.

Yeah, be content with the scraps WOTC/Hasbro is content to give you, third party publishers! Quit your bellyaching and just write "insert appropriate monster here" in your products!

 

[Grazzt]

Seeing how people like Clark Peterson have raved about how easy it is to create monsters (and I would agree), this shouldn't be a major obstacle to publishing modules.

Exactly. And Clark's right. It is extremely easy to whip up monsters for 4e. (Hell, Ive got a folder of about 350 right now in 4e style...not sure they'll see the light of day now...well in 4e anyway, just depends on the GSL clarification and NG's decision on Tome or whatever 4e monster book we do)

 

[jeffh]

Um, except that's not true - 1e adventures had enough info you needed to run the monster without going to the book.

Looking at Against the Giants right now. It's got hit points, and that's pretty much it.