Everybody happy now?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Pretty much. I'm gonna be sending in my acceptance very soon.
My only gripe - if it can be called that - is not being able to reprint mosters in adventures, but it's such a mild gripe to me that it's hardly worth mentioning.
The important thing was being able to publish 4E stuff without obliterating my 3.5 catalogue.
My only gripe - if it can be called that - is not being able to reprint mosters in adventures, but it's such a mild gripe to me that it's hardly worth mentioning.
The important thing was being able to publish 4E stuff without obliterating my 3.5 catalogue.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I am pretty certain we could make an entire thread out of this!
I would see this as an annoyance factor,definitely.
It seems to me the real problematic parts are gone.
Flood of 3pp material, here you come.
CapnZapp
Legend
I would have liked an option saying
"o Happier, but not happy - mainly because some fracturing damage is already done. The expended energies of Paizo, for instance, will not be directed towards my edition of the game. This is a shame - converting from pre-4E into 4E is non-trivial, which significantly reduces my enjoyment potential of said expended energies."
If you had one, I would have chosen it and voted.
"o Happier, but not happy - mainly because some fracturing damage is already done. The expended energies of Paizo, for instance, will not be directed towards my edition of the game. This is a shame - converting from pre-4E into 4E is non-trivial, which significantly reduces my enjoyment potential of said expended energies."
If you had one, I would have chosen it and voted.
arscott
First Post
Well, I'm glad that they decided to put the demons and devils back in and some stuff from the new books, but I'm disappointed that they didn't create a way for direct copy/pasting monster statblocks into an adventure, or find a way to make a few more bits of 'product identity' available--I still don't see why 3rd parties can't use beholders or zehir in licensed D&D products.
As for the big changes and removals of clauses, I don't really care that much. If it leads to more good 4e material, then that's obviously a good thing, but I was never worried that WotC would enforce them in unfair ways.
As for the big changes and removals of clauses, I don't really care that much. If it leads to more good 4e material, then that's obviously a good thing, but I was never worried that WotC would enforce them in unfair ways.
Sammael
Adventurer
I'm not a publisher. I am also not a consumer of 4E products, so it is pretty much irrelevant to me. I am glad that WotC made the effort to improve the license (and the new GSL is obviously an improvement over the old one), as it shows willing on their part to further their cooperation with 3pp and the community.
However, if I were a publisher, I would never, ever agree to the book-burning clause (which was also present in the d20 STL).
Good luck to WotC and all 3pps who sign the GSL. I hope that 4E players will get a host of high-quality products to supplement their game.
However, if I were a publisher, I would never, ever agree to the book-burning clause (which was also present in the d20 STL).
Good luck to WotC and all 3pps who sign the GSL. I hope that 4E players will get a host of high-quality products to supplement their game.
Poor poll choices, I did not buy much third party stuff in the 3e era and am largely indiferent to the poll as writen.
By the way what did hte poor jackals do to deserve being treated like that?
By the way what did hte poor jackals do to deserve being treated like that?
delericho
Legend
It's certainly better, but still not perfect. For me, though, the real test of whether or not it's a 'good' license isn't so much the text itself - it's whether companies produce books I (would) want under the license. Which remains to be seen.
Also, I can't help but consider that if I wanted to kill off 3pp support, but wanted to look like I was fully committed to it, then I would do exactly what WotC has done - make big promises, then delay, then release a useless first version, then delay, more promises, delay delay delay, and then finally release a useable version once most people have moved on.
Then again, WotC didn't have to offer anything at all to enable 3pp support, so they've still done much more than they needed to.
Also, I can't help but consider that if I wanted to kill off 3pp support, but wanted to look like I was fully committed to it, then I would do exactly what WotC has done - make big promises, then delay, then release a useless first version, then delay, more promises, delay delay delay, and then finally release a useable version once most people have moved on.
Then again, WotC didn't have to offer anything at all to enable 3pp support, so they've still done much more than they needed to.
That's the Lemoncontract option.
For those criticising the options, let me say this: I could've posted an endless amount of options to cater to every possible whim and variant that people could invent. At the end of the day, either you like it or you don't. And if you're in between, you have the Lemoncontract option and can represent your opinion in several threads.
The poll is fine because it serves the purpose I wish it to and that is to find out whether or not the majority of people are liking it or disliking it. I don't need ten-thousand options representing the minutia of everyone's personal opinions to represent that.
Similar Threads
- Poll
