D&D 4E A couple of things that suck about the 4e SRD/OGL

[DragonBelow]

liked most of the announcement about the SRD/OGL, there were some things that were understandable, like the early access fee and phased release schedule, but there were others I really don't like.

1) All OGL products will require the PHB. Third party publishers have proven they can create good and successful d20-based games that don't really need WotC books. Locking them into requiring the PHB is the worst possible way they could acknowledge that. What this means for those games is an unavoidable fork in the road.

2) No third party support for the digital initiative, this would maim games that use 3rd party material. To me this is a defining factor in the success of the Digital Initiative, in this era, being able to customize a product for ones' tastes is *mandatory* (WoW's scriptability, myspace customization, internet mashups, etc).

 

[helium3]

1) All OGL products will require the PHB. Third party publishers have proven they can create good and successful d20-based games that don't really need WotC books. Locking them into requiring the PHB is the worst possible way they could acknowledge that. What this means for those games is an unavoidable fork in the road.

What exactly does this mean? No variant rules? If so, yeah, that sucks pretty hard.

2) No third party support for the digital initiative, this would maim games that use 3rd party material. To me this is a defining factor in the success of the Digital Initiative, in this era, being able to customize a product for ones' tastes is *mandatory* (WoW's scriptability, myspace customization, internet mashups, etc).

Of course, if the DI ends up being a big pile of useless trash, then it's not really that big of a deal.

 

[Scribble]

1) All OGL products will require the PHB. Third party publishers have proven they can create good and successful d20-based games that don't really need WotC books. Locking them into requiring the PHB is the worst possible way they could acknowledge that. What this means for those games is an unavoidable fork in the road.

Wasn't the whole point of the SRD a way to help sell D&D?

If we don't need the D&D books, then it failed its goal.

2) No third party support for the digital initiative, this would maim games that use 3rd party material. To me this is a defining factor in the success of the Digital Initiative, in this era, being able to customize a product for ones' tastes is *mandatory* (WoW's scriptability, myspace customization, internet mashups, etc).

I didn't see anything one way or the other on this?

Perhaps there appears to be no support simply because we have no real knowledge yet of how it works. Perhaps it will be a simple task of a company creating a database set for the DI?

 

[Sitara]

First, I believe #1 is being done to keep customers who buy 3rd party products abreast of DnD; the entire reason for the oGl was first and foremost so the d20 system would spread and it would lead to more sales for WOTC, since customers would indirectly come over to buy their games.

However, with the superb success of independant games (conan, iron heroes, etc) perhaps WOTC decided to keep a tight rein on their intellectual property? (its certainly their right)

And hey, whatever the cae the OGL has been responsible for the prosperity of many companies (mongoose for example). I don't think anyone has the right to bad mouth WOTC for any decision in this regard, especially since they are NOT yanking the 3E OGL.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm absolutely certain that the reason they said that third party support in the DI was only in the discussion phase is because its hard to know what third party support would be wanted, or would be feasible, before you know what people have written.

If someone like Paizo makes a campaign in a world like the Pathfinder series, I'm sure supporting that in the DI would take all of 15 minutes to implement. After all, remember that the DI does provide support for house rules, which is of course quite easy because the digital tabletop doesn't adjudicate rules. So implementing support for something like Pathfinder would mostly require some prewritten houserule nodules (or whatever we'll call them) covering new weapons, feats, and monsters. MAYBE it would require a few 3d models, so that you could have Pathfinder style goblins instead of regular ones.

Heck, if you wanted to play a Pathfinder campaign on the DI, you could probably just type in the relevant bits on your character yourself, just as you would a homebrew.

On the other hand, implementing a 3rd party product that majorly altered rules of character construction might be harder.

So who knows. I'm not too worried yet. We'll see what's possible after we hear what's desired.

 

[DragonBelow]

What exactly does this mean? No variant rules? If so, yeah, that sucks pretty hard.

Don't think it means no variant rules, but for sure it means no "4e updates" for M&M, Spycraft, Arcana Evolved, or anything else of the same vein.

Of course, if the DI ends up being a big pile of useless trash, then it's not really that big of a deal.

Disregarding the very much crappy collectable aspect of the DI, I believe they can do it right.

 

[TerraDave]

In some podcast interview, Christopher Perkins (I think) noted that they where looking forward to fan-created material for the DI.

Of course, that doesn't address making something and selling it.

 

[DragonBelow]

Wasn't the whole point of the SRD a way to help sell D&D?

If we don't need the D&D books, then it failed its goal.

Right, however the purpose of the OGL, like in other open source licences was to promote innovation, tinkering, and freedom.

Perhaps there appears to be no support simply because we have no real knowledge yet of how it works.

If they are planning to launch this in June, they most likely know by now

Perhaps it will be a simple task of a company creating a database set for the DI?

Hopefully it will be something like that.

 

[helium3]

Don't think it means no variant rules, but for sure it means no "4e updates" for M&M, Spycraft, Arcana Evolved, or anything else of the same vein.

Why not? It doesn't have to be an elegant solution.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm absolutely certain that the reason they said that third party support in the DI was only in the discussion phase is because its hard to know what third party support would be wanted, or would be feasible, before you know what people have written.

Yes. I was on the call; they aren't opposed to it necessarily, they just haven't looked at the issue in any sort of depth yet.