DMG2- will its rules appear in the SRD?

[Maggan]

Yeah, well, you'd feel differently if'n you'd see'd the same goat entrails I have.

Well, if you say so. If so, those goat entrails should be shared with more people than the three or so usual industry suspects who claim they are 100% sure that 4e will be closed. Might even want to share them with the gaming community, but hey ... let's not get crazy and all that! Let's keep the pot boiling with implied knowledge and speculation from the "inside".

4e might be closed. It might not be. It might not matter. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there. Not many of the predictions about the future of d20 and the OGL (good or bad) have proved correct, so I'll wait and see.

Heh, this is a great setup to 4e btw. On the day it is released and WotC says "Open!" or "Closed!" a lot of people will be saying "told ya so!". It's gonna be fun seeing which group is the lucky one ...

Cheers!

/M

 

[Nightfall]

*is going to be in the group that has Scarred Lands Reborn.*

 

[Alzrius]

I'm less eager for them to add new material to the SRD, than for them to simply update/errata the material they already have up there.

I admit I'm not sure if basic material (e.g. monsters for the Fantasy SRD, or the basics for the Modern SRD) has had the errata included, but things like the Divine content and the Epic content haven't even been updated for 3.5E, which puts some publishers in the very awkward position of having to put out material that they might know to have errors in it.

 

[Len]

I admit I'm not sure if basic material (e.g. monsters for the Fantasy SRD, or the basics for the Modern SRD) has had the errata included, but things like the Divine content and the Epic content haven't even been updated for 3.5E, which puts some publishers in the very awkward position of having to put out material that they might know to have errors in it.

Yes, it looks like they have included the errata (at least some - I didn't check for all of the errata).

Yes, it'd be great if they updated those other sections to 3.5.

 

[DaveStebbins]

In order to close 4e they would have to be so different from 3/3.5 that it would hardly be recognizable as DnD. The magic system (and tons of variants), majority of spells, majority of monsters, AC system, base 20 rolling system, skills system, feat system, class system, level-based system, etc. are all open content. The cat is out of the bag.

Correct. Since the OGL specifically states that it cannot be revoked, for 4E to be closed it would have to be extremely different from 3.5, otherwise, most of the mechanics changes could be built based upon existing OGC and then you essentially have an OGC 4E anyway.

-Dave

 

[Nyeshet]

Regarding UA, DMG2, etc in the SRD, it seems to me that they typically add such content after it has been on the market for a couple years. Sometimes as little as a year to year-and-a-half after it hits market they'll put it out, in fact. So we still have a (more or less) short wait regarding UA, and a rather long wait regarding DMG2. My perceptions on the matter are based on when other books (XPH, PsiH, etc) were placed in the SRD.

I note that the original splat books did not make the SRD, so I seriously doubt the Complete series ever will either. Same with setting / environment books (although I really wish they would - eventually - place the environment books into it). So we also are unlikely to be seeing the Artificer in it (unless it is also in the PHB2, which should enter the SRD in ~3 years from now). Note, incidentally, that some of the first part of the UA is already posted on an SRD site (hypertext d20, or something like that).

Well, that's just my impression on it.

 

[Turjan]

In order to close 4e they would have to be so different from 3/3.5 that it would hardly be recognizable as DnD. The magic system (and tons of variants), majority of spells, majority of monsters, AC system, base 20 rolling system, skills system, feat system, class system, level-based system, etc. are all open content. The cat is out of the bag.

Interesting thought . If 4E were too close too 3.5E and not open, some other companies might feel compelled to continue with their support for 3.5E, producing material for the older version. Though I don't think this would be profitable for a large number of d20 companies (I guess the market share would be too small for lots of competitors), it would be the first time that people who wanted to stick with their familiar version of D&D would not have to rely solely on out of print material. Making 4E open would be a much better incentive for d20 companies to switch and to support WotC's newest product. If this line of thinking makes still sense with all the alternate d20 versions out there .

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Correct. Since the OGL specifically states that it cannot be revoked, for 4E to be closed it would have to be extremely different from 3.5, otherwise, most of the mechanics changes could be built based upon existing OGC and then you essentially have an OGC 4E anyway.

-Dave

Wizards is not bound by the OGL. [slightly OT: Similarly, a GPL'ed program written by one person can have a completely closed version based off of it written by the same guy.]

Here's the real kicker. IANAL, but WotC has no legal ground to sue ANYONE for posting the rule info (Stripped of all flavor) for a so-called "Closed" item. Ever seen those ripoff "-opoly" games? Game RULES are not copyrightable. Just Flavor text. The OGL is just a great way to spin this and make it work FOR Wizards.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

UA was open content because most of it was open content taken from d20 games and supplements.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I'd also like to see some of the rules from d20 Apocalypse added.

That would rawk.