Adamant Ventures 4th early as well

[Tewligan]

Either way, without the D&D name on it, I am not sure things will sell so well. Don't get me wrong, I do (at least for now) plan to buy plenty of 3PP products. But I am not like the average gamer, and neither are you. I doubt AE and GG are known by 5% of D&D gamers, and that is being generous.

Eh, true. Years ago, there was some little-known company that produced a "for any system" book called "Primal Order" that, despite not having an official big name on it, was pretty clearly for use with AD&D. I wonder whatever happened to those guys?

 

[Maggan]

If the GSL had been a reasonable document, publishers would just use it.

I'm all for GSL being more like the OGL, but even the OGL had people looking for ways to circumvent the use of the license. So for some, it has nothing to do with how reasonable the license is, it's enough that it is a license to make them want to avoid it.

/M

 

[Jack99]

Eh, true. Years ago, there was some little-known company that produced a "for any system" book called "Primal Order" that, despite not having an official big name on it, was pretty clearly for use with AD&D. I wonder whatever happened to those guys?

I see what you tried to do there. Didn't work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see what you tried to do there. Didn't work.

Only because most people are ignorant of history.

 

[Tewligan]

I see what you tried to do there. Didn't work.

Really? How so?

 

[The Little Raven]

Years ago, there was some little-known company that produced a "for any system" book called "Primal Order" that, despite not having an official big name on it, was pretty clearly for use with AD&D.

...and a number of other systems, which got them sued by Palladium, nearly drove them out of business, and put the nails in the coffin for their burgeoning RPG business, until they were able to buy a brand that sells.

I wonder whatever happened to those guys?

They finally broke into RPGs in a serious manner by acquiring the D&D brand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm all for GSL being more like the OGL, but even the OGL had people looking for ways to circumvent the use of the license. So for some, it has nothing to do with how reasonable the license is, it's enough that it is a license to make them want to avoid it.

/M

I think this is sillybuggers nonsense, frankly. For some, sure. For most? Including those publishing under the OGL right now? I don't think so. It seems like you're attempting to smear all those who don't like the GSL by hinting that maybe they "Just don't like rules maaaaan!". Which is pretty underhanded of you in my book.

Name names if you have them, don't go for political-style vague smears you don't.

I'm pretty sure that had the GSL been vaguely reasonable, specifically, had it NOT had the "We get to burn your whole stock and ban you from re-using it LOL!" clause, then we'd see a lot more people signing up for it.

 

[Scribble]

I don't believe all of the 3PPs together fractured D&D as much as 4E has already on its own.

The majority of people playing variant games were still buying 3E stuff.

Ok, you can make that argument. But in the eyes of WoTC, it fractured their audience.

You said they should

and not

I see that as saying exactly that. Remember, this conversation is completely in the context of the quite restrictive GSL.[/quote]

I'm either not making myself clear, or you're putting words in my mouth. I'll assume the former.

WoTC says you cannot redefine the rules of 4e that they have defined.

You cannot say a feat is now these rules.

Nowhere in the GSL does it say you cannot come up with an entirely new term, and define that term.

So you could say:

Here is a new creation called Strengths. Here is how they work. Try using them in place of feats.

You're changing the game, but still giving people an incentive to buy / play D&D, which ultimately gives WoTC an incentive to offer up it's brand for others to use.

You're also in WoTC's eyes not confusing the idea of D&D by keeping everyone on the same page. Feats remain feats, but here are optional rules to change them, is a lot easier for someone who isn't an "advanced gamer" to udnerstahnd then "how come feats are this in one book but this other one that also says it's D&D compatible says they're somethign else???"

Yeah, and I think that is a really really bad deal for gamers and in the long run, if not the short run, a bad deal for WotC.

Guess we'll have to dissagree on this one? I see it as a good thing. If WoTC continues to have an incentive to let people use the brand for D&D, it helps gaming as a whole, because of what D&D is and what D&D means to the gaming market in general.

 

[Jack99]

Only because most people are ignorant of history.

What? Maybe it is the language thing playing tricks on me again, but you lost me with your clever comments.

I know that he is talking about WotC. But last I checked, Primal Order didn't make WoTC a big player, quite au contraire. Magic the Gathering did, which enabled them to buy them TSR, making them the leader of the RPG-marked.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So you could say:

Here is a new creation called Strengths. Here is how they work. Try using them in place of feats.

The problem is "trying using them in place of" is not the same thing as "in this setting use them in place of", and inevitably means a crappier product.

Mourn - I know you think D&D is a license to print money, but I don't think 3E would have been remotely as successful as it was without the aforementioned "market-fracturing" companies supporting it and retaining interest in d20 gaming. I know I wouldn't have bought any 3.5E products at all if it wasn't for things like Arcana Evolved. I'd have just stuck to my nWoD and Exalted and ignored D&D. The GSL doesn't encourage those companies to do the same for 4E. This time WotC is going to be running largely alone, or with newbies. We'll see how that goes.