thormagni said:They didn't specifically embargo us but since I saw news on the front page about it with quotes from Bill, I figured I could comment on it.
thormagni said:I was at the press announcement last night (I work for an Indiana newspaper) and they very definitely said that 4e would fall under OGL and they would be releasing a new SRD. They very clearly expressed a desire for third parties to continue to produce D&D compatible material.
A 4e Forgotten Realms will be the first setting book released, and I believe that is scheduled for next August. Chris Perkins was pretty vague when I asked directly what they were going to do with Ravenloft, Dragonlance and Eberron. It seemed like the plan would be to roll out one new setting each year. He even teased me that Greyhawk could be one of those. But I think that was just because I admitted to being an old-school Greyhawk gamer.
For what it's worth, I believe there is going to be a 930 a.m. press release hitting the wire, or so their PR people told me last night. They didn't specifically embargo us but since I saw news on the front page about it with quotes from Bill, I figured I could comment on it.
thormagni said:I was at the press announcement last night (I work for an Indiana newspaper) and they very definitely said that 4e would fall under OGL and they would be releasing a new SRD. They very clearly expressed a desire for third parties to continue to produce D&D compatible material.
MerricB said:Cool, thanks muchly!
(You managed to delay my bedtime by a few minutes with that news!)
Cheers!
grodog said:Thanks for the info Merric! I'm at the show, and will be curious to hear what the scoop is from folks at WotC, in particular on the status of the OGL and d20 STL, and what this whole free fan license means (WotC republishing fan material sounds dubious to me, on first reading it).
grodog said:Thanks for the info Merric! I'm at the show, and will be curious to hear what the scoop is from folks at WotC, in particular on the status of the OGL and d20 STL, and what this whole free fan license means (WotC republishing fan material sounds dubious to me, on first reading it).
Rothe said:Who needs the OGL? Seriously. You can't copyright or trademark rules and there are ways to say on the cover "compatible with..." legally. The ability to say "usuable with..." "compatible with..." etc. is not limited to the world of games. The only thing left is product identity, and that is not some uber IP right, far from it. And product identity can be easily avoided, unless you think you can't posibly publish without saying Mind Flayer, etc., in every product. For example, changing hobbit to halfling seemed to work pretty well for TSR.
Third party publishers should band together and pony up the $30K-$40K for a reasoned opinion of counsel from a tier 1 firm and finally get some sense of certainty here. Heck, they may even be able to use the market power of WotC/Hasbro against it. That is if your goal is to make materials compatible with the rules. If you want to use logos, the "official" designator, etc. then well I guess you may want that license.
So yeah, we have two eyes, a nose, two ears, a mouth, and hair all over the top. What? You say he wanted me to "plan ahead," not "plan a head?" Back to the drawing board, then.Frostmarrow said:Lol, they have one Doomsday and one Halellujah thread prepared. That feature alone will make it easier for people to whine about the new edition. I love it when people plan a head.![]()
Garnfellow said:Support for the OGL was my single biggest concern about 4e; I feel much better about this project now.
...other than the lawyers, of course.Shawn_Kehoe said:The d20 publishing community is a small one... I don't think anyone benefits from getting the lawyers fighting each other.
So trueMystery Man said:I just can't believe how fast eight years can go by.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()