Are people still mad about . . .

[billd91]

I still feel a minor bit ticked that some people feel entitled to an OGL (not necessarily you Voadam as I could see one being annoyed without feeling entitled). Yes, the 3E OGL was a great and generous gift. But how many game publishers offer that? Not TSR for OD&D, BD&D or AD&D. I'm not aware of any other publisher that opened their game to the point that others were distributing their material verbatim for profit. Others please step in and name any other game than 3E D&D that was truly OGL that wasn't already a d20 derivative. I'm sure others exist, but I'm also sure there aren't that many.

There is the FATE system, which is based on FUDGE and is used by Spirit of the Century. It's out there with an OGL that's not based on 3e. Same with Mongoose's version of Traveller.

For me, it's less a case of being actively ticked as much as being terribly disappointed. WotC was such a breath of fresh air after TSR's IP and online presence management style. And then with 3e, they made a terrifically ballsy move of making much of it open content. Much of what has happened since then with 4e, despite big changes in the mechanics, seems a retreat from bold leadership. The fact that I don't really like most of the mechanical and setting changes is just icing on the cake. WotC isn't the same company that knocked my socks off a decade ago.

 

[jdrakeh]

Others please step in and name any other game than 3E D&D that was truly OGL that wasn't already a d20 derivative. I'm sure others exist, but I'm also sure there aren't that many.

Action!
Dominion Rules
Donjon
FUDGE
FATE 2e
Myriad
Shadows
Spirit of the Century (Fate 3e)
The Shadow of Yesterday (Solar System)
vs. Monsters
Wushu Open

I've excluded games with licenses that forbid commercial development. Interestingly, two of the above games predate the OGL.

 

[Siberys]

Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance. [et cetera, snipped for brevity]

To be fair, I'm coming from the viewpoint of someone who is really flexible with fluff, and who likes to homebrew. A player of mine wanted a soulknife, for example. We made him an avenger, filed off the divine stuff, and called his weapons mind blades. No need for a whole soulknife class. And before PH2 came out, we might have done that with the rogue. I might have done gnome using halfling stats, druid using the cleric class, barbarian using fighter or ranger, etc.

So, conversions weren't a problem for me - I never tried direct conversions anyways. Someone who was trying to do that would be stymied. But the idea I always seem to get from those who, like Celebrim, were disappointed with 4es lack of backwards compatibility is that they seem to expect to be able to use their older books for more than just fluff mines.

I'm certain I came across that sentiment a few years ago, though I'm not sure if Celebrim holds that viewpoint - 'backwards compatibility' is a vague enough phrase to create confusion over the 'net. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, after all. That's just what I always seemed to get out of it - "I've already spent so much on D&D products that'll be useless with the new edition! Why couldn't it be backwards compatible?" was quite common, as I recall.

Eh, it's not a big deal in the end. C'est la vie, as I said before. *shrug*

EDIT: On the GSL/OGL thing, I'd have certainly liked a more open license, but considering the Mongoose pocket manuals and things like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc. I see where WotC is coming from.

 

[jdrakeh]

There is the FATE system, which is based on FUDGE and is used by Spirit of the Century. It's out there with an OGL that's not based on 3e. Same with Mongoose's version of Traveller.

The Mongoose Traveller rules are actually released under the OGL (i.e, the Open Game License Version 1.0a used for D&D 3x).

 

[billd91]

The Mongoose Traveller rules are actually released under the OGL (i.e, the Open Game License Version 1.0a used for D&D 3x).

The big point I was trying to make is that neither is a d20-based game, based on WotC's SRD. They have their own, different, rules so it's not like either is riding the coattails of someone else who has already put their rules out there for public use.

 

[jdrakeh]

The big point I was trying to make is that neither is a d20-based game, based on WotC's SRD. They have their own, different, rules so it's not like either is riding the coattails of someone else who has already put their rules out there for public use.

Well, obviously, the Mongoose Traveller rules aren't d20-derived, but the entire open license absolutely came from D&D 3x. The rules largely came from GW. And it did have a d20 incarnation released under the OGL. So, no, they weren't really riding WotC's coattails directly, but they were riding somebody's.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think the big issue with backwards-compatibility has nothing really to do with the manuals, rather the adventures. You can't really use a 2e rules handbook and apply to 3e directly without lots of work. Transitioning characters from one system to the next, while still lots of work, was less so than trying frankenstein a previous edition ruleset with the next.

However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules (same is true for Pathfinder rules) - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.

Trying to do that using 4e is problematic at best. Pacing is different, the mindset is different. You could use an old map, perhaps, but the adventures need radical changes to be compatible.

2e and 3e adventures aren't part of a fluff mine, rather they are aspects of the D&D game which is concrete.

There is really very little compatibility between 4e and any adventure from previous editions. That's the major backward-compatibiliy issue for me.

In the end to both my posts in this thread - was I mad, eh irritated sometimes, flumuxed at others, but I'm not bothered anymore. 4e is not my game - no offense to anyone who likes it, that's just me and my gaming group. Its really a non-issue.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be fair, I'm coming from the viewpoint of someone who is really flexible with fluff, and who likes to homebrew. A player of mine wanted a soulknife, for example. We made him an avenger, filed off the divine stuff, and called his weapons mind blades. No need for a whole soulknife class. And before PH2 came out, we might have done that with the rogue. I might have done gnome using halfling stats, druid using the cleric class, barbarian using fighter or ranger, etc.

So, conversions weren't a problem for me - I never tried direct conversions anyways. Someone who was trying to do that would be stymied. But the idea I always seem to get from those who, like Celebrim, were disappointed with 4es lack of backwards compatibility is that they seem to expect to be able to use their older books for more than just fluff mines.

I'm certain I came across that sentiment a few years ago, though I'm not sure if Celebrim holds that viewpoint - 'backwards compatibility' is a vague enough phrase to create confusion over the 'net. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, after all. That's just what I always seemed to get out of it - "I've already spent so much on D&D products that'll be useless with the new edition! Why couldn't it be backwards compatible?" was quite common, as I recall.

Eh, it's not a big deal in the end. C'est la vie, as I said before. *shrug*

EDIT: On the GSL/OGL thing, I'd have certainly liked a more open license, but considering the Mongoose pocket manuals and things like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc. I see where WotC is coming from.

I think the big issue with backwards-compatibility has nothing really to do with the manuals, rather the adventures. You can't really use a 2e rules handbook and apply to 3e directly without lots of work. Transitioning characters from one system to the next, while still lots of work, was less so than trying frankenstein a previous edition ruleset with the next.

However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.

Trying to do that using 4e is problematic at best. Pacing is different, the mindset is different. You could use an old map, perhaps, but the adventures need radical changes to be compatible.

2e and 3e adventures aren't part of a fluff mine, rather they are aspects of the D&D game which is concrete.

There is really very little compatibility between 4e and any adventure from previous editions. That's the major backward-compatibiliy issue.

For us, who had been playing the same campaign since the 1980's, it wasn't the adventures, it was the rules- we simply couldn't convert our PCs right away, something we were able to do previously. In order to play 4Ed, we would be forced to start anew.

Don't get me wrong- that old campaign wasn't the only one we had active. Nearly everyone in that group was active in at least one 3.X campaign of some sort.

The problem was, even for those campaigns, there was no possibility of changeover- in each campaign, someone had something that couldn't be brought over.

Even changing fluff as you did with the soulknife doesn't get around how the nature-themed classes were largely not in 4Ed out of the gate. Altering a Druid or Barbarian to one of the classes in the first 4Ed PHB leads to jarring dissonances...which pale in comparison to the issues faced by people whose races had been excised. The characters simply wouldn't play the same, feel the same...and the campaign history would definitely not look the same.

And to be perfectly clear, it wasn't just the vets who were put off by this. Even some of the more casual players were displeased with the radical changes. Just as they were learning how to really get their characters to run on high octane, along comes the new system with terminology, math and fluff that just didn't resonate with what they knew about their established characters.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Why don't you folks with your MAD skills! Buy back Wotc from Hasbro's hands, and call it day.

Less mad, more action!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hey...that's an idea!

I have $22.43 to spare- anyone else?