Xyxox
First Post
Wormwood said:I am loving just about every aspect of this announcement. C'mon May!
I'm going to pre-order the World and Monsters and the Classes and Races supplements to get ready for next May.
Wormwood said:I am loving just about every aspect of this announcement. C'mon May!
Xyxox said:I'm going to pre-order the World and Monsters and the Classes and Races supplements to get ready for next May.
Cadfan said:I don't understand this D&D Insider thing. Specifically, I don't understand the limits on the system.
Limiting you to three games per month is possibly reasonable, if they're concerned about people sharing passwords. This makes it so that sharing your password with someone else directly reduces the amount of times you can play. But there's objections to this: first, why three times? If a game runs on a weekly basis, that number needs to be 5 (to encompass 30 day weeks where the game starts on day 1 or 2). And second, there certainly has to be a better way to do this than to impose an arbitrary limit. Many other online communities have handled password sharing problems, I'm sure D&D could do the same.
What really doesn't make sense to me is limiting a player to 10 stored characters, and/or 10 stored versions of the same character. Why? It can't possibly be file space. A character sheet is a low file size item. Even if you allowed players to upload multiple high definition jpegs of their characters, you wouldn't expect to pass a megabyte in storage.
Xyxox said:I'm in this one all the way. I'll definitely subscribe to D&D Insider and the online Dungeon and Dragon magazine content now.
An SRD released under the OGL was my requirement and they met it.
Hold on Matilda, I'm drinkin' the KOOLAID!
thormagni said:
In short, the mechanics aren't changing a lot
I kind of didn't like the second-to last point in this when I first read it, but thormagni's post sort of soothes my fear - that Wizards would not want fan-created material to appear anywhere else but on Gleemax (and somehow would try to enforce this). If the OGL will in fact remain, then probably fan-created material should be tolerated elsewhere.MerricB said:Open Gaming Licence
* 4th Edition will fall under the OGL, and there'll be a new SRD (this post by thormagni)
* Wizards wants 3rd party publishers to produce 4e-compatible material. (this post by thormagni)
* 3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards. (??)(source: jgbrowning This post)
* Fans will be able to publish material on Gleemax under (free) license from Wizards. (This material will be available to Wizards to republish; see discussion on Gleemax TOS).
* The OGL/SRD/d20 Licenses will still exist - details still to come (source: this post)
The Grumpy Celt said:What does it mean that “4th Edition will fall under the OGL” but that at the same time “3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards.” Those sound like contradictory statements; i.e. the presence of OGL by its nature means 3rd party publishers do not have to get licenses to create 4e material.
The Grumpy Celt said:What does it mean that “4th Edition will fall under the OGL” but that at the same time “3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards.” Those sound like contradictory statements; i.e. the presence of OGL by its nature means 3rd party publishers do not have to get licenses to create 4e material.
Hjorimir said:I'm not entirely convinced that's a bad thing, depending on how hard/expensive they make it to licence 4E. There are some great 3rd-party publishers to be certain, but (over the years) there has been some very, very bad ones too.
Maybe requiring a licencing fee will keep the quality up from the very beginning. Just a thought.
Makes. Me. Happy.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.
Cadfan said:But there's objections to this: first, why three times? If a game runs on a weekly basis, that number needs to be 5 (to encompass 30 day weeks where the game starts on day 1 or 2). And second, there certainly has to be a better way to do this than to impose an arbitrary limit. Many other online communities have handled password sharing problems, I'm sure D&D could do the same.
WayneLigon said:Well, damn. I guess I'll see what's offered, then, but now it sounds like we're really seeing 3.75![]()
TheLe said:A high licensing cost ($1000+) will easily eliminate 50% or more of the publishers out there.
The Grumpy Celt said:What does it mean that “4th Edition will fall under the OGL” but that at the same time “3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards.” Those sound like contradictory statements; i.e. the presence of OGL by its nature means 3rd party publishers do not have to get licenses to create 4e material.