A 3.0a SRD?

[GuardianLurker]

We know that fans are willing to convert the SRD to PDF and HTML forms (Thanks all!).

We know that many fans are unhappy with 3.5, that they really wanted a "corrected" version of 3.0.

It strikes me that there's a possible solution in these two points.

What do people think of starting a fan-based effort to produce a 3.0a SRD? It should include all the 3.0 errata, as well as the "revision" fixes from 3.5. It might also include clarifications from the FAQ and the Sage, though those are more problematic.

Legally, of course, such a 3.0a SRD wouldn't really be an SRD - it could only be an OGL document. But as both the 3.5 SRD and 3.0 SRD were OGL themselves, it should be doable.

So, what do you think? Is it a good idea?

Yes, and I'm willing to help.
Yes!
No.
No, for reasons involving Lawyers.
Other, reason below.

If you'd be willing to help, mention an idea on how.

If you think it would run afoul of Lawyers, say how.

 

[Staffan]

The only problem I see is deciding what will be in and what won't. It's not like there's a consensus on which changes are good and which are bad.

 

[bret]

You would probably be better off doing two documents.

v3.1 which just attempts to fix the most broken parts of the system. Debatable if you would pull in the new language used to describe actions and such, but probably would.

It would focus on compatibility with v3.0. Things that cause too much disruption in the system (splitting spells apart, changing how DR and ER work, changing spell levels, adding skill points to a class, changing a class HD, etc) would not be included.

v3.4 which is much more aggressive about pulling stuff in from v3.5. Here is where you get into arguments about which are the 'good parts'.

 

[seasong]

Just a few notes: there is no SRD 3.0 or 3.5. There are just SRDs for 2000 and 2003.

Secondly, you will need to include the legal copy from the 2003 document, since it includes everything from the 2000 document and some additional stuff (like updated copyright info).

There is also likely to be a huge discussion about what pieces of the 2003 document to include. I know that I, personally, would lobby to include the grappling rules, for example .

With all that said, I think this is a good idea. At the very least, it will provide WotC with some feedback on what about 3.5 was just a matter of a habitual game designer being given carte blanc, rather than a needful change.

 

[nsruf]

I voted Other, since I don't care much. I have yet to see a change in 3.5 that I consider worse than the corresponding rule in 3.0. While some of the changes seem unnecessary, none are bad enough to warrant a house rule, IMO. And I consider it much easier to use 3.5 as is (or with my few 3.0 house rules ported over), than to create some bastard-child of the two versions.

YMMV

 

[Umbran]

We know that many fans are unhappy with 3.5, that they really wanted a "corrected" version of 3.0.

The problem (and it's a biggie) is that folks who don't like 3.5 generally won't agree on what "corrections" should be included. Each person likes and dislikes different things about the new system, you see. So, this will be a nightmare if done by a large fan committee.

Legally, of course, such a 3.0a SRD wouldn't really be an SRD - it could only be an OGL document. But as both the 3.5 SRD and 3.0 SRD were OGL themselves, it should be doable.

Actually, it would be an SRD. SRD stands for "System Reference Document". What you propose would be a reference document for a system. It just wouldn't be a WotC d20 SRD. It'd be a fan d20-ish SRD.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Quick answers...

Re: Which Corrections...
1) Yeah, I see a lot of polls being involved. Enough that the project (if it gets off the ground) would probably need to be on a separate board/forum.
2)Certain groundrules would have to be applied - official 3.0 errata, for instance, should probably go in no matter what.

Re: SRD status...
1)While I understand the nitpicks, I hope y'all understood what I meant - the outcome of this project would *not* probably be usable to create d20STL-compliant products. And since it would be necessity include character creation and advancement rules, it could not itself be a d20STL-compliant product.

Re: Two documents
Not a bad idea, possibly. Personally I was shooting for a single document somewhere in between, but emphasizing the 3.0 compatibility over anything else. Placing them on a scale something like:

3.0.....3.1.....3.0a..............3.4........3.5

In other words not just errata, but the *incredibly* obvious changes, the ones we knew were coming as soon as 3.5 was announced. Things like the bard's upgrade to 6 skill points, the 3 H spell revisions, a revised ranger, etc. (Yes, I know we'd need a poll for this).


And since seasong mentioned his pet, here's mine: I'd love to see a better system for determining CR (though UpperKrust's is probably a bit much), and the book desparately needs a "How to Create a PrC" section (which I'd have rather seen than the 5 new PrCs), for which Monte's board already has a *very* good start.

 

[Maggan]

Not a fan based effort

I think you would get a much better result just doing the GuardianLurker SRD, without involving a lot of other people. I think that the polling system for determining rules changes won't work, except for major conceps, maybe. You run the risk of voting for one rules change, and the finding out that a previous vote invalidates the rules due to some bizarre twist.

Eg, a vote to keep the old ranger might be invalidated by accepting the new spell descriptions. (Just an example).

Changes has a tendency to cascade through a system, and I don't think voting wil do the trick.

Just go for it yourself, and create an SRD you like, and then see how it is recieved.

And also, calling the version 3.0a is confusing to me, and also your listing of 3.0a coming AFTER 3.1. Or maybe I misunderstood that part.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[GuardianLurker]

Re: Not a fan based effort

I think you would get a much better result just doing the GuardianLurker SRD, without involving a lot of other people.

I already do, sort of - it's called my house rules (which are fairly extensive). However, one of the main points is that my house rules are just that. MY house rules. They aren't to everyone's taste, and I'm not sure how well they'd do at serving as a "generic" base system, which is what the SRD is for.

Also, this isn't really for my aggrandizement. Frankly, while I'm more than willing to help, I'm not sure I have enough time to lead. My point is that we (the fans) COULD, if we chose, put together our own version of what we think the revision should have been. Right now, looking at the voting, it seems to be that the fans *aren't* so choosing. Yet another example of the silent majority being overwhelmed by the vocal minority, I suppose.

I think that the polling system for determining rules changes won't work, except for major concepts, maybe. You run the risk of voting for one rules change, and the finding out that a previous vote invalidates the rules due to some bizarre twist.
{snip}
Changes has a tendency to cascade through a system, and I don't think voting wil do the trick.

Possible, but unlikely. And speaking from personal experience, it's not perfect, but its FAR better than unilateral decisions.

As for the cascading changes, I doubt they should be a problem. Those kinds of problems arise when you change basic core mechanics (or make other sweeping changes) - which is exactly what this proposed "alternate" SRD is in response against.

And also, calling the version 3.0a is confusing to me, and also your listing of 3.0a coming AFTER 3.1. Or maybe I misunderstood that part.

I understand - I tried to merge my original terminology with bret's, and it didn't work as well as it could have. Putting everything on to the same numerical scale, I think it would work more like this:
3.0...3.1...(3.15/3.2).......3.4.....3.5

 

[jezter6]

I didn't vote, because honestly I don't care either way, but I figure this would be a good place to post what I would like to see.


I'd like to see ONE big document. This document would have each section just as the SRD is normally, but with 3 sections. 3.0 (w/errata), 3.5, and your 'alternative'

That way you don't have to run between documents, and you have one GOOD resource that lists old rules, new rules, and these house rules.