Great City Campaign Setting...not 4e...sucks

[joela]

another one

Oh! Another new shiny for me to purchase in the future. Where shall I stick it in my 3.x/Pathfinder RPG game? Eberron? Or homebrew?

 

[joela]

Paizo

So, why did Paizo decide to go OGL *BEFORE* the GSL was released?

According to the Paizo higher-ups, they didn't like the direction the 4E rules were going (they, apparently, had a chance to playtest them or something) feeling that 3.x fit better with their products AND they couldn't continue to wait for the GSL, which originally had been due in February. There's more, but those seem to be the biggies.

 

[thundershot]

Hey all,

Crucify me if you like, I was the one who made the decision to do the Great City as an OGL product. Work on the Great City project long before 4e was announced and it was designed with 3.5 rules in mind.

That said, anyone familiar with Mario's past work can tell you, he puts the stats in the back of his projects, not wired into the body of the work.
And his maps are just killer. Maps have no system, and three-dimensional maps of an entire city? I can't wait for my copy.

As far as the writing goes, the bulk of the text really centers on describing the City, locations on the map, and details the types of inhabitants, politics, culture, and types of adventures one can expect to find there. So really, with the exception of the chapters on NPC stats and the Bestiary, the rest of it is pretty systems neutral. In the foreward I mention how into the old Flying Buffalo stuff I am, which was all pretty much systems neutral, and I really tried to keep the Great City with a similar design feel. The text was geared towards supporting maps and creating a real mood to the city more than supporting any particular system. On that note, I'd also be curious as to who might be interested in a systems neutral version of the book as well.

Since we're working out a pretty cool series of adventures, I'm also curious to find out what people think would think about the possibilities of systems neutral adventures. It winds up being a little more effort on the part of a GM to be sure, but I'm growing pretty partial to the idea. Thoughts, comments, and suggestions welcome...

Tim Hitchcock

My opinion? Try to appease as many people as possible. Produce the book without the stat blocks, but then have "enhancements" that have 3.X and 4E stat blocks and crunch for people to choose from. If Kenzer can make an entire 4E campaign setting without the GSL, you guys could just make some stats without any fuss.



Chris

 

[Ant]

I feel sorry for you guys. My system is so awesome I don't have to pass on such cool products.

Ohhh! Well said!

 

[mmu1]

My opinion? Try to appease as many people as possible. Produce the book without the stat blocks, but then have "enhancements" that have 3.X and 4E stat blocks and crunch for people to choose from. If Kenzer can make an entire 4E campaign setting without the GSL, you guys could just make some stats without any fuss.

...I'm pretty sure the GSL explicitly makes it impossible to release similar 3.5 and 4E "enhancements". Once you release something under the GSL, you can't make the same title for any other system. It also prohibits companies from releasing electronic materials. (by default, anyway)

 

[thundershot]

...I'm pretty sure the GSL explicitly makes it impossible to release similar 3.5 and 4E "enhancements". Once you release something under the GSL, you can't make the same title for any other system. It also prohibits companies from releasing electronic materials. (by default, anyway)

That's why I said not to use the GSL.




Chris

 

[Psion]

So, why did Paizo decide to go OGL *BEFORE* the GSL was released?

Because they couldn't wait any longer (Paizo has a bigger paid staff than the smaller publishers) and I suspect because they could see the way the wind was blowing.

 

[BryonD]

According to the Paizo higher-ups, they didn't like the direction the 4E rules were going (they, apparently, had a chance to playtest them or something) feeling that 3.x fit better with their products AND they couldn't continue to wait for the GSL, which originally had been due in February. There's more, but those seem to be the biggies.

Well yeah, I know that. I was simply pointing out that the GSL itself was not what held back Paizo. The delay was a piece, but the terms of the GSL itself had nothing to do with it, since they were not even known at the time.

IMO, the Pazio guys were clever enough to recognize that they had a first chance in history to effectively take over a D&D franachise. They don't get the name, but they become the defacto owner of a game that is viewed by a significant number of people as being Dungeons and Dragons.

(And yes, I understand that WotC still "owns" 3E. But that is beside the point in regard to the market reaction. Unless WotC goes back to doing 3E, from the office space on icebergs in Hell, Paizo has firmly staked a claim on the territory.

I also respect things like AE and OSIRIC for making their onw claims to D&D territory, but IMO, those aren't the same.)

Anyway, the GSL didn't drive them off. It just made them that much more happy with their choice after the fact.

 

[BryonD]

Because they couldn't wait any longer (Paizo has a bigger paid staff than the smaller publishers) and I suspect because they could see the way the wind was blowing.

Sorry, clearly I did a poor job of presenting my question as rhetorical.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is an interesting claim on the 4e side.
All we know is core books sales, which says very little about the real long term audience.

And you think the subscriptions are a better indicator? Can't they be canceled?

Whether you order the subscription or the books, you are saying that you're interested enough to spend some money on it. Of course that can change. 4E mechanics might in the end not be for you. Or Pathfinder adventures are all fine and dandy, but the 3E mechanics tire the DM and players anyway.

But I think there is a linear relation between "general interest" and "long-term" interest. And this tells us that both will probably have their measure of success.