4e D&D GSL Live

[Nightchilde-2]

Damnit. There's little else for us to complain about waiting on.

Come now, we're gamers...I'm sure SOMEBODY will find SOMETHING to complain about...

 

[Vanuslux]

Soooooo...

Say I didn't like the 4e falling rules (just an example).

Could I make up a whole new set of rules that worked differently, and then call them "plummeting"?

Could I say "Disregard Falling (see the D&D 4E Dungeon Master's Guide)"?

Variant rules was something I was big on. If I can't pull that off, I'll not be happy.

I hate to say it, but I think the main thing they were going for was to keep people from creating near replacement versions of D&D that went by different names so that people were no longer getting hyped to play D&D...they were getting hyped to play Iron Heroes or some such. It looks like they succeeded in making this licence closer to the original 3.0 intent...to get people to make adventures to drive sales of the core rules.

 

[TimeOut]

Another possible example is actions in combat (standard, shift and the like). Say I want to add another type of action named "orientation" and add gaming rules regarding it.

Will these stuff be possible?

Again...

not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.

You can't change existing actions. But you might add new ones, as long as they don't change anything else.

 

[Erik Mona]

I noticed that the OGL Bottle Genie is not in the SRD.

Was that intentional?



--Erik

 

[xechnao]

You can't change existing actions. But you might add new ones, as long as they don't change anything else.

So I guess I could add rules for henchmen, mass combat, summoning and controlling summoned creatures and the like, right?

 

[Siberys]

I hate to say it, but I think the main thing they were going for was to keep people from creating near replacement versions of D&D that went by different names so that people were no longer getting hyped to play D&D...they were getting hyped to play Iron Heroes or some such. It looks like they succeeded in making this licence closer to the original 3.0 intent...to get people to make adventures to drive sales of the core rules.

See, I don't want a 4e IH. I want a 4e UA, and I'd like to make it myself, if I felt like it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.

Aside from that, I saw no mention of other publishers designating content as open for others to use. While there wasn't an overabundance of publishers using this in 3rd edition, it would still be nice to have a book or two of 3rd party monsters that could be used.

 

[TimeOut]

So I guess I could add rules for henchmen, mass combat, summoning and controlling summoned creatures and the like, right?

As long as nothing requires you to change anything that is defined in the SRD, I would say "yes".

 

[Erik Mona]

I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.

They don't own the tarrasque, either, but it doesn't stop them from claiming they do.

The displacer beast was ripped off from A.E. Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer," and that was verboten content for 3.5, so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.

--Erik

 

[Shroomy]

I really don't see a reason for excluding demons and devils. Some of those were based on creatures pulled from mythology, so Wizards doesn't own them to begin with.

Aside from that, I saw no mention of other publishers designating content as open for others to use. While there wasn't an overabundance of publishers using this in 3rd edition, it would still be nice to have a book or two of 3rd party monsters that could be used.

That's in Section 10.2