D&D 4E What will happen if 4E doesn't use the OGL?

[Shroomy]

For me, personally, I'm not moving to 4e (though I may buy a few 4e supplements if they are easily compatible for 3.5e). I have almost every 3.5e (and many 3e) supplements and I'm currently stockpiling adventures, including every 3.5e issue of Dungeon. Between all of that material, my own stuff, and any OGL, I'm set pretty much for life.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Gamers don't make buying decisions based on what they currently own. They make buying decisions based on how intriguing a new product is. And you can't beat a new edition of D&D for intriguing.

That's not true for everyone. Back when 3e was released, several people in the gaming circle I got into at that time didn't make the move, staying with 2e instead. And while some refused to play because Dwarves Could Be Wizards, some said they'd stick with 2e because they had a shelf full of 2e books and didn't want them to become useless.

I'm not saying that they're the majority, and I'm not commenting on whether it makes sense or not, but it does happen.

 

[Mark CMG]

I base much of my choice of games based on the ability to get other people to play.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Does anybody think they will actually scrap the d20 system come 4th edition?

There are conspiracy theorists who are sure of it. Of course, they also use the Zapruder Film as the wallpaper on their computers.

 

[Baby Samurai]

There are conspiracy theorists who are sure of it. Of course, they also use the Zapruder Film as the wallpaper on their computers.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I think you have the most wonderful screen name I have ever seen.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm not sure what that means. For folks who are using the OGL and d20 licenses correctly, there's nothing WotC can do. I think those who weren't cleaned up their acts years ago.

Let me explain, hopefully a bit better.

WotC has always published material that is OGL, and material that is not. Traditionally, they published rules and mechanics as OGL, and flavor and additional classes/abilities/feats as proprietary. However, in the last few years, we have seen more and more instances where they have published rules in reprints, the FAQ, and RotG articles that differs from the rules in the SRD. Since the reprints, FAQ, RotG, etc (Rules Compendium, I'm looking at you) are not OGL material, WotC is slowly making D+D distinct from existing OGL material.

Now, the differences are minor, and are likely to go unnoticed most of the time. And we haven't seen WotC go after anyone for using the alternate rules. But the real point is that the differences are growing as time goes on. WotC has not gone and made D+D non-OGL, but they've taken some steps in that direction, and are using the Move Silently skill when they do it.

 

[Nellisir]

They abandoned 3.0e in three short years.

They're leaving the Third Edition because that era is about to end.

No, they revised 3.0. Same rules system. And they'll revise it again.

 

[jmucchiello]

Now, the differences are minor, and are likely to go unnoticed most of the time. And we haven't seen WotC go after anyone for using the alternate rules. But the real point is that the differences are growing as time goes on. WotC has not gone and made D+D non-OGL, but they've taken some steps in that direction, and are using the Move Silently skill when they do it.

This doesn't matter. When I reference the OGL, I say the wizard NPC has Polymorph as one of his spells. It doesn't matter to me which of the 5,000 interpretations and 666 rule revisions of Polymorph is used in your game. You can use any one other them or multiple ones in multiple combinations. All I know is that when you see "polymorph" you know it is a spell and vaguely agree with me what it does.

Those kinds of difference are completely irrelevant unless I'm trying to rewrite the rules. OGL works don't need to rewrite the rules. The whole point of having the OGL is I can reference the rules we have in common and build from there.

WotC hasn't gone after anyone using alternative rules because no one does. Nobody quotes the errata or the D&D FAQ. They don't even quote the SRD unless they absolutely have to. No, they just reference the SRD. And if you use a rules errata'd version of something I reference in the SRD, it doesn't affect me at all.

The only way to make a 4e that is incompatible with the existing SRD would be to give things new names and meanings. It's not Armor Class it's Defensive Value (DV). And even in that case, if it looks like AC and walks like AC and talks like AC, people will still understand a product uses the "old style" AC in place of DV.

Moving on....

Nellisir stole my thunder. I was going to posit the AD&D theory. That instead of 4e, they release 3.5++ and call it AD&D.

 

[jmucchiello]

Absolutely! Like I said, a game with an audience the size of DnD needs a BIG ecosystem. When 4th edition is released, they are going to need adventures. WotC can't fill that void and still turn a profit, so it will almost without a doubt issue a very exclusive license to 2-3 different companies with a good track record in this department and good relations with WotC. Paizo and Necromancer are almost shoe-ins for this. Maybe Goodman too (though if not, I'm sure the Trolls will be knocking on their door for C&C support). But it will be far more limited than the OGL so as to prevent the glut that happened early on with 3e and keep WotC the go-to company for splatbooks.

That license would have to include the D&D logo for those companies to jump, I think. Without a guaranteed way to link those 3rd party products with a new D&D edition, those companies could lose money easily. But licensing the logo would be slow and expensive process that might not be worth it for the listed companies or for WotC. The d20 logo certainly would go away. It's value was destroyed a long time ago.

 

[Ranger REG]

No, they revised 3.0. Same rules system. And they'll revise it again.

Like when TSR "revised" 1e rules in 2e?