4e D&D GSL Live

[Darrin Drader]

I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.

I predict that there will be some adopters, but it won't be the gold rush we saw with 3rd edition. I also predict that there will be a lot more 3rd party support for Pathfinder than people previously predicted. Finally, I predict that the general manner in which the GSL has been received will prompt a major revision to entice some of the publishers dragging their feet to adopt it.... or not, if it was really their intent to kick everyone out of their sandbox.

 

[defendi]

TimeOut,

I read that Q and A as I don't have to use a defined term in the setting. For instance, I could make a setting without warlocks. But I did ask WotC about it, so we'll see how they respond. Plus, I bet someone will be answering this thread in the morning.

 

[TimeOut]

TimeOut,

I read that Q and A as I don't have to use a defined term in the setting. For instance, I could make a setting without warlocks. But I did ask WotC about it, so we'll see how they respond. Plus, I bet someone will be answering this thread in the morning.

Yeah, an official answer on that would be nice. If you can remove rules (without altering them), you can at least create settings without specific classes/races.

 

[hong]

Never fear, anyone who is willing to publish for ego bucks, as opposed to real bucks, is likely to continue doing so.

 

[Thunhus]

I predict that there will be some adopters, but it won't be the gold rush we saw with 3rd edition. I also predict that there will be a lot more 3rd party support for Pathfinder than people previously predicted. Finally, I predict that the general manner in which the GSL has been received will prompt a major revision to entice some of the publishers dragging their feet to adopt it.... or not, if it was really their intent to kick everyone out of their sandbox.

I predict that new license users make far more money than Pathfinder and old OGL users from now on. People want new stuff for shiny 4th edition.

Thunhus

 

[defendi]

Yeah. The only thing that will cause me real issues with The Echoes of Heaven is if I'm not allowed to disallow races. I have one race that just doesn't fit the setting and two that I'd like to make minor changes to, and so I'd have to disallow the official version and make my own. I can survive any of these changes, it just takes me adjusting setting elements which have a large body of canon behind them, and that kind of ret-conning will likely annoy my customers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah. The only thing that will cause me real issues with The Echoes of Heaven is if I'm not allowed to disallow races. I have one race that just doesn't fit the setting and two that I'd like to make minor changes to, and so I'd have to disallow the official version and make my own. I can survive any of these changes, it just takes me adjusting setting elements which have a large body of canon behind them, and that kind of ret-conning will likely annoy my customers.

There is nothing that forbids you from saying something like
In the Echoes of Heaven campaign world, regular humans are unknown. It is generally advised not to use humans as a race (I suspect it's not humans you worry about, but you get my gist). The closest to Humans are the Sebestians (no that is not a misspelling of Sebecean, but it was inspired by it), and you should probably refer a player interested in playing Humans to checking this race first.

This way, it is generally understood by the reader that he's not expected to use the "undesired" race, but the race itself is not changed. You are not required to keep fluff or the PoL setting, after all.

In the end, you don't really have to care about how people abuse your setting at home.

 

[xechnao]

But it also looks like this line kills any sort of campaign setting uniqueness. I don't want Star Pact Warlocks in the campaign? Too bad, that's altering the definition of Warlock. Healing magic is weaker, so all healing does -1 point? Not allowed. I want Raise Dead to be more difficult, and not available until higher levels, or to not have any cost, but rather a quest component? Not allowed. Want Eladrin to lose their teleportation ability in exchange for something else because the Feywild was destroyed in that campaign world? Not allowed.

Are you sure? Can't you add to these definitions by history development in your campaign that parts from the core definitions?

 

[defendi]

I would suspect you can do most of those things to make your setting unique. For instance:

"I don't want Star Pact Warlocks in the campaign?"

How about creating your own warlock class, and not including it, then directing people to that class as per the suggestion on Humans above.

"Healing magic is weaker, so all healing does -1 point?"

Add a new effect, call it the bane of healing, have it add a -1 penalty to damage healed and apply it all the time.

"I want Raise Dead to be more difficult, and not available until higher levels, or to not have any cost, but rather a quest component?"

Same as with warlocks.

"Want Eladrin to lose their teleportation ability in exchange for something else because the Feywild was destroyed in that campaign world?"

Same as with warlocks.

The only part of this I think we actually need clarification on is the omission of the original reference so that your new creation can replace the old, if you need to swap out.

I might have to do that warlock one, by the way. It's completely a flavor change, though, so maybe it will pass. We'll have to see how they define fluff as it interacts with references.

Actually, now that I think about it, I just have to define what the stars actually are, which I don't think IS defined, so doing that is no change.

However, that's not really an immediate issue.

 

[defendi]

Oh, here's two I missed. I don't see Dungeons & Dragons as a reference, unless I'm just not seeing it. So how do we refer to the game itself? We are allowed to say D&D in citations, but I didn't see it as a reference itself. Importantly, how to we refer to it:

1) in the text. Eventually, you need to refer to the game you are playing by some sort of name.

2) On the front cover. Can we?

3) In marketing text on the back.

4) In marketing text in general.

5) In titles in product listings. I don't want to use D&D in a title itself, but if I'm listing products, it's good to be able to toss on an indicator of the game compatibility, especially in a download store. Like Critical Matters (D&D) or Critical Matters (GSL), as opposed to Character Background Generator (HERO System).

Same for DM or Dungeon Master. Are we allowed to use the term.

Oh, a third thing. Do we have actual size requirements for the logo, or should we just trust photoshop to size it right? Essentially, how big is it supposed to be?