Search results

That's how I understand it as well. What I was trying to say is that I would be more inclined to switch to 4e and subscribe to DDI if I the subscription included access to all rules beyond just character options without having to buy the books.

Fully aware of that, but that doesn't mean WotC should enable theft of their own material. That's a very good point. Still, there are some persistent individuals. How many OCR'd books are there floating around on the Internet because someone had the patience to scan and OCR every page of a book...

What are the differences between 4e Skill Challenges and Complex Skill Checks from Unearthed Arcana?

But that would render the core rulebooks obsolete, which is what they are trying to avoid. Personally, I think they shouldn't. I think the subscription should include the rules, but then how do you prevent one from copy/pasting the rules from the Compendium and then canceling the subscription...

They did in some instances, but it was usually in the same sentence that explained what it had and didn't have. The problem is that internally WotC refers to character options as Rules, but then uses mixed meanings with products such as the 3.5 Rules Compendium, which has no character options...

It's been communicated very clearly in several demos, presentations, and postings that the Compendium is a datbase of character options, not rules of the game in general. Think more along the lines of the Consolidated Lists in WotC's 3.x archive rather than a 3.5 SRD. Regarding the new...

They've mentioned updating d20 Modern to follow suit in a year or so. It's on their to-do list essentially. Since I never really bought into d20 Modern but have always had interest in it, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do.

I've made this point earlier in this thread. The argument from Mearls is that you simply publish/release your own version of the update because it shouldn't be WotC's job to update it. Unfortunately, that creates forks unless there is a central organizational unit monitoring such changes. My...

Working on it. It was in an interview, possibly a podcast such as Fear the Boot, but I'm not sure. Trying to pin it exactly, but it's hard to do when you have to listen to audio rather than search text (the one thing I hate about podcasts). Let's just say I remember it vividly as I had a 'huh'...

In regards to WotC opening some of its own closed content, I'd like to make a point more clearly. As part of an open gaming effort, I'd love nothing more than to take some or all of the 3.5 materials and combine them into a single resource for the open gaming community to use and expand upon...

Not entirely accurate. While I'd certainly like to see WotC adopt some open content (just for kicks really) I'd primarily like to see WotC open some of its closed content, especially that which updates previously open content, so that the community can update or use it in their open gaming...

Precisely what I was trying to say in my earlier post. In many cases, there is little to no distinction between publisher and community as many small PDF publishers are not much more than a budding of the community. Granted, once profit becomes and objective, it derails from the remaining...

Mike, the problem I'm addressing is that the community cannot legally do anything to update that content if it is not open content. Updating the SRD with errata, or releasing content based on closed content wasn't an option for the community because that non-SRD content was copyrighted and not...

Let me address these two ideas specifically. There have been a number of occasions through the 3.x lifespan when WotC could have borrowed from community contributions, fixes, etc to D&D rules. Here are a few: 1. Allow third-party publishers to reference materials in non-core supplements. Why...

I found two interesting Q&As from Ryan Dancey on WotC's site. They really give a strong perspective of what WotC was trying to achieve with the OGL and the D20 STL. I think they are interesting reads. Below are a few things I personally found interesting. First, the OGL... One point made I...

I'm starting to feel the same way. I feel like there's this demand from those defending Pathfinder to write a dissertation consisting of argumentative points when all we're trying to do is give a personal opinion rather than an expert analysis. ;)

What makes me think there will be such a thing whem those materials are not open content? Besides, why wouldn't Paizo just publish and sell it's own Pathfinder PrCs that have similar effects? #1: I'm not worried about numbers as much as I am about effect. #2: Read my answers regarding quick...

Well, my statement was a bit overly generalized. What I mean to say is that I personally don't have the time or inclination to 1) evaluate and compare the current power level of the Pathfinder classes' new abilities to non-SRD classes and 2) augment those non-SRD classes (i.e. - warlock...

Erik Mona and Co. have made it clear that backwards compatibility is now a secondary consideration. Effectively, Paizo is taking the SRD, using the OGL to rewrite it, and creating a new RPG game of their own. It's one of the problems with the SRD and OGL. There are a significant number of...

I think the overall danger is that the GSL is effectively an OGL and d20 STL rolled into one, which really hinders the flexibility inherent in the OGL alone.