D&D 5E (2014) Hope for an open GSL?

[Alzrius]

So, yeah, 3.5 was pulled in (released early) because 3.0 wasn't doing well (enough for Hasbro, that quarter).

This is a good way of putting it, although it's worth remembering the reasons for the different expectations that Hasbro and WotC had. Hasbro's definition of "good enough" was to pick their books up for the immediate future after their electronic ventures failed to pan out.

By contrast, WotC's definition of "good enough" was that 3.0 be a loss-leader to help grow the gaming community:

Wizards would initially focus on the three core rule books and pour as much production quality as they could into them. The goal was to create three marvelous books that would get everyone's attention and help to lead new people into the game (and old players back to the game), where the smaller companies would be able to offer them their modules and other supplements. Wizards was so committed to this that they were willing to lose money on the core books if it helped grow the game again. This was most evident in the money they poured into the Wizards of the Coast game center in Seattle, which was lavishly designed and pretty much lost money until Hasbro later shot it down. The goal was to lose money if necessary in order to make clear Wizards's commitment to the players and the larger RPG community.

You see, D&D didn't have to make much money for Wizards, because Magic was its bread and butter. That put Wizards in the position of being able to invest in D&D at a level most companies would find financially ruinous. It worked. It generated a ton of goodwill and rebuilt both the D&D community of players and the ecology of small and medium companies - at least until Hasbro took over and threw out the entire strategy.

People who talk about 3.0 not having made enough money often don't realize that that was by design on WotC's part. By contrast, saying that 3.5 didn't make enough money is also true, but that has to be taken in light of Hasbro's very high expectations. This is almost certainly true for 4E and Essentials also...and sadly, will also be likely for 5E as well.

 

[Hussar]

So you agree that Encounters not only requires rules form Essentials, and that one either needs Essentials and/or to supplement their original 4E books from the Internet, but also that in some cases one even needs to supplement their Essentials books from the Internet to run Encounters. Okay, I wasn't aware that it had gone even further into a revisions than I had at first thought. I can get onboard with your asessment that 4E has gone through more than just a 4.5 revision, although it is fair to say that the only revision published as a complete game, an official print published ruleset, was the (4.5E) Essentials.

Umm, Mark, do you have any idea how different 3.5 D&D was for organized play? The Organized Play rules document was a significant departure from the core rules.

I would also point out that the organized play rules for Pathfinder are not the same as home rules as well. It's simply the nature of organized play.

Claiming that the rules for organized play is somehow indicative of the drift of the rules in general ignores the fact that organized play rules are ALWAYS different from core rules. That's not edition dependent at all.

See, the problem is, Essentials never, ever was a revision of the 4e rule set. It was not 3.5 D&D. 3.5 D&D REPLACED 3e. That's why they rereleased EVERY SINGLE SPLAT for 3.5. Essentials has always been designed to run alongside Core, not replace it at all.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) Organized Play rules (. . .)

Organized play run by the publishers generally uses the most recent edition, in this case Essentials, as a standard for gameplay with some adjustments and rules clarifications for the sake of scaling for the size of its membership. "Core" is a tricky word to use when the publisher claims everything is core but in the more traditional sense, Essentials is currently the core rules. The old 4E books are not needed if you have Essentials.


However, this is off topic and we probably should start a new thread if you wish to discuss organized play for 5E specifically.

 

[Hussar]

Organized play run by the publishers generally uses the most recent edition, in this case Essentials, as a standard for gameplay with some adjustments and rules clarifications for the sake of scaling for the size of its membership. "Core" is a tricky word to use when the publisher claims everything is core but in the more traditional sense, Essentials is currently the core rules. The old 4E books are not needed if you have Essentials.


However, this is off topic and we probably should start a new thread if you wish to discuss organized play for 5E specifically.

Umm, well, that's true. It does use the most recent edition. However, there are so many changes that Organized Play is a game unto itself. Again, look at the Living Greyhawk rules during 3e for how different Organized play rules are from home rules.

Thing is, you keep trying to claim that Essentials is a new core rules. It's really not. I can play a core character alongside an Essentials character in organized play and not have a problem.

You certainly cannot play a 3e character alongside a 3.5 character in a Living game. Nor can you play a 3.5 character in a Pathfinder Society game. That's what a new edition means by definition - replacing the previous edition.

Running alongside is not a new edition. Show me a single example of any other edition of D&D that is designed to run side by side with any other edition.

 

[Mark CMG]

Thing is, you keep trying to claim that Essentials is a new core rules.

Essentials is a stand alone set and albeit simpler then the original 4E rules, does not require the original 4E rules to play, Also, while it is compatible in most ways with other supplements, none of those are needed for play either. One can use Essentials as a complete game, and use the supplements with Essentials, rather than using the original 4E rules. It's a simpler revision. It's a rewrite, simplifying the rules to draw new players. One could say it is akin in many ways to the relationship between BD&D and AD&D, both of which could also use supplemental materials and adventurers written for either with its counterpart, with some limited accomodating adjustments.

Now I know you want to keep agreeing to disagree but, again, if you want to pursue this, please start a new thread.

 

[Hussar]

No, I don't want to start a new thread. Because this hits right at the heart of this one.

The persistent tendency of people who want to talk about OGL in glowing terms to rewrite history gets right to the heart of this discussion. Saying that Essentials is 4.5E, is like saying that the Rules Compendium for 3e is another version of the game. But, it's not, because the RC is meant to be used in conjunction with core. Just like Essentials.

And that's where it comes back to the OGL discussion. You keep harping about how great and wonderful the OGL is. Yet, when pressed, you cannot actually provide any solid evidence. You have a gut feeling, and that's great. But, without anything concrete, it's all speculative.

The fact that you would repeatedly, even after being shown to be wrong, insist that you're right about editions, casts serious doubt on your ability to speculate on how well the OGL did for 3e.

Funny thing is, if you swim upthread a bit to Monte Cook's quote about the development of 3.5, we see that 4e actually follows EXACTLY what 3e was supposed to do - wait about 5 years or so, when the sales cool down, and release a new edition. And, this is without an OGL.

So, wouldn't that point to the idea that the OGL actually cooled sales much faster than a non-OGL game? After all, if the OGL was pushing sales, then shouldn't 3e have lasted longer than the 3 years that it did, and shouldn't 4e be the one being replaced after 3 years?

Oh, but, of course, your argument hinges on the idea that 4.5 has already been released. That 4e only lasted 2 years. AHA! Triumph for the OGL. See, if 4e had been OGL, we wouldn't have a new edition two years out. But, the problem is, Essentials is not a new edition. Not in the slightest. It's meant to be run side by side.

Even Basic/Expert and AD&D were never meant to run side by side. You can't take a Basic D&D elf and play it in an AD&D game. It doesn't work. An AD&D fighter is not meant to be played at the same table as a BD&D fighter. Yet, it is entirely acceptable, even at official Organized Play events 100% sanctioned by WOTC to play an essentials fighter alongside a Core fighter.

Heck, even the DDI is set up to give you the options side by side. When you look at the character options, they don't separate Essentials from Core at all.

So, tell me again how Essentials is a new edition.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) how great and wonderful the OGL is. Yet, when pressed, you cannot actually provide any solid evidence.

Right. As long as we ignore the actual success of an edition with the OGL and lack of comparable success from one without it, and ignore what Ryan Dancey has to say, and so, etc.

(. . .) Monte Cook's quote about the development of 3.5, we see that 4e actually follows EXACTLY what 3e was supposed to do - wait about 5 years or so, when the sales cool down, and release a new edition. And, this is without an OGL.

So, you believe that 4.XE tried to duplicate the success of 3.XE but don't recognize some difference in their successes. Plus, you still insist on using some odd timeline where 3.XE is five years instead of eight, and 4.XE is somehow five years when we're still shy of four years.

It's really difficult discussing things with you when you don't want to even agree on some things that others on both sides of the discussion would regular not dispute.

 

[pemerton]

Essentials is a stand alone set and albeit simpler then the original 4E rules

<snip>

It's a simpler revision. It's a rewrite, simplifying the rules to draw new players.

This just isn't true.

The Essentials mage is no simpler than the PHB wizard. (Unless you mean because it lacks rituals. Of all the things that might make 4e complex, I've never heard rituals called out in that respect!)

The Essentials druid is no simpler than the PBH2 druid - it substitutes a pet for wild shape - and is more complex than either of the PHB leaders - because it has a pet.

The Essentials warlock has a complex rule for interaction of weapons and implements - more complex than anything of that sort in the PHB - and gets a pet.

The Essentials rangers I think are both more complex than the PHB ranger, which is a piss-easy class to play - you just stack on the bonuses, point and shoot.

The only classes in Essentials that are obviously simpler than their PHB analogues are the two fighters, with their lack of daily powers and single encounter power. The thief is probably also simpler in play than the rogue - because it brings its own combat advantage so much of the time - but arguably more complex in build, precisely because it has extra moving parts to make sure that it brings its own combat advantage.

As for the general action resolution rules, they are identical to the rules published in the PHB and DMG, subject to the ongoing errata process. The DMG book and the Rules Compendium are both, in fact, almost word-for-word reprints of material from other books - DMG, DMG2 and PHB. To the extent that they have new text governing action resolution, this is clarificatory stuff that actually increases the complexity of the rules (but arguably makes adjudication in the course of play easier).

TL;DR: I don't know what you're basing your characterisation of Essentials on.

 

[Mark CMG]

This just isn't true.

The Essentials mage is no simpler than the PHB wizard. (Unless you mean because it lacks rituals. Of all the things that might make 4e complex, I've never heard rituals called out in that respect!)

The Essentials druid is no simpler than the PBH2 druid - it substitutes a pet for wild shape - and is more complex than either of the PHB leaders - because it has a pet.

The Essentials warlock has a complex rule for interaction of weapons and implements - more complex than anything of that sort in the PHB - and gets a pet.

The Essentials rangers I think are both more complex than the PHB ranger, which is a piss-easy class to play - you just stack on the bonuses, point and shoot.

The only classes in Essentials that are obviously simpler than their PHB analogues are the two fighters, with their lack of daily powers and single encounter power. The thief is probably also simpler in play than the rogue - because it brings its own combat advantage so much of the time - but arguably more complex in build, precisely because it has extra moving parts to make sure that it brings its own combat advantage.

As for the general action resolution rules, they are identical to the rules published in the PHB and DMG, subject to the ongoing errata process. The DMG book and the Rules Compendium are both, in fact, almost word-for-word reprints of material from other books - DMG, DMG2 and PHB. To the extent that they have new text governing action resolution, this is clarificatory stuff that actually increases the complexity of the rules (but arguably makes adjudication in the course of play easier).

TL;DR: I don't know what you're basing your characterisation of Essentials on.

So you feel it is a rewrite/revision of the classes that makes most of them more complex?

See, the problem is, Essentials never, ever was a revision of the 4e rule set.

Let me ask you and pemerton to sort this out.

 

[pemerton]

So you feel it is a rewrite/revision of the classes that makes most of them more complex?

No. It is not a rewrite/revision of any classes, and it's a little mischievous of you to suggest that I said otherwise. It adds 10 new (sub)classes.

And they're not mostly more complex. In my post, I suggested that wizards and druids are at the same complexity. I didn't mention clerics, but I think an Essentials cleric is fairly similar in complexity to a PHB cleric. The warlock is simpler in one respect - no cursing - but more complex in another - weapon/implement interaction, plus pet. I didn't mention the paladin, but I think it's pretty similar in complexity.

Fighters, as I noted, are simpler. The thief, as I noted, is arguably more complex in build but probably simpler in play. The only classes that I think are clearly more complex are the rangers.

Once again, I wonder how familiar with Essentials you really are. What makes you think it is a revision of any classes? That's like saying the Unearthed Arcana thief-acrobat is a rewrite/revision of the PHB thief (ie incorrect!).