I just did something I never though I would do

[Desdichado]

See? No coherence.

Adventures are one of the few things that the GSL will very obviously allow you to do. If it's adventures you want, the GSL isn't going to make that any more difficult for you, at all.

 

[Desdichado]

There's no way I could enjoy such an impoverished system and call it D&D at this point. Call me again in two to three years when there's a lot of supplements out and maybe we'll talk.

Although, I've gotta be fair. I just glanced at the back of the MM and it does give complete rules for using bugbears, doppelgangers (albeit more like changelings), drow, githyanki, githzerai, gnolls, gnomes, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, minotaurs, orcs, shadar-kai, two varieties of shifters and warforged as PCs right off the bat.

That ain't nothing to sneeze at.

I do feel really restricted in class choices, though. I like having lots, and lets face; we don't.

 

[BryonD]

See? No coherence.

Adventures are one of the few things that the GSL will very obviously allow you to do. If it's adventures you want, the GSL isn't going to make that any more difficult for you, at all.

I don't think you read what he said.
He didn't say they can't, he said some of them WON'T, because the poison pill terms of the GSL will scare them off. Certainly a very coherent thought.

We will see if it turns out to be true. Or rather, to what degree it turns out to be true.

The more OGC someone has out there, the more reason they have to be concerned. So, ironically, the better established a 3PP is, the more they stand to lose with the GSL.

 

[Doc Eldritch]

Exactly, BryonD. And those of us who like 4e, but still play 3.X as well, do find it somewhat irritating. I would love to see some of the better gaming mags out there (not that many are left), like Kobold Quarterly be able to have 4e and 3.x material in them. Or for the Pathfinder adventures to be able to have 4e conversions/stats (heck I would even buy them as a separate file if needed). But with the way the GSL is, that is not possible.

So I can not blame those who prefer certain things in their gaming materials to avoid 4e for now. In several months, when enough material has been released, and enough people have been playing for a while to see if they like the game, we will have a better view on if 4e has "succeeded" and pushed 3.X out of the market. I doubt 3.X will vanish as a marketable game for years yet though.
Hopefully, we do see some new publishers, who don't have as much to lose, work up some quality 4e adventures and supplements, that would be great. But I am equally saddened that some of my favorite publishers are understandably stepping back from the game.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I do feel really restricted in class choices, though. I like having lots, and lets face; we don't.

Certainly less than the core when 3.0 came out in 2000. I do think we've got a tighter core of classes this go around. Just my opinion, of course. But back in 3e we had some really bland classes (fighter) some front loaded classes (paladin, ranger), and some dominating classes (cleric, wizard). This time around I think we have a lot more viable options... actually, as far as I can tell, everyone's viable. Are they perfect? Without mistakes? Nah. But as far as I can tell the fixes are a lot easier to incorporate.

We'll get more classes as more books are released. That's not a satisfying answer for everyone, but there it is. What we really need at this point is feats. Way more feats. That's the part of the game I consider really lacking. But it's not so insurmountable that I would call the entire system "impoverished."

 

[lutecius]

Yes. This. I hear this kind of stuff online all the time, and I think "how does that impact your table? How does that impact your ability to make houserules? How does that impact you at all unless you are an actual publisher?"

So far, I've yet to hear a coherent answer to any of those questions.

Me Me Me! I'll try! It matters if you don't like 4e as is, ie if you think 4e is an improvement over 3e in some areas but hate some of its other core aspects.

The GSL ensures that no one tries to fix them. WotC wants 3PPs to support all their rules. God forbid another publisher comes up with a better alternative (like true20, imo) or popular products that make little use of wotc's supplements (they want Eberrons not Midnights)

The reasons why house rules aren't as satisfying as 3pps (posted in another thread):
sound changes to core mechanics demand more effort, time and playtesting than most gamers are willing to put in.
house rules make it more difficult to recruit players. "We're playing the Truenight Ironfinder (TM) variant" sounds way better than "I made all those drastic changes myself, but trust me, they're great. wanna come over? "

So for me the GSL is not in itself a reason to hate 4e, it's one more reason because it makes things i hate irreversible.

 

[Shroomy]

Given that there are multiple sub-types for each of the eight bases classes released so far, I don't think we're exactly hurting for classes right now (unless you happen to be a fan of a class that has yet to make the full transition), and besides, we're getting two more full classes in the next two months (swordmage in the FRCS and the artificer in Dragon, and the bard is floating out there, somewhere). Plus, where already up three new paragon paths.

I do agree about the need for new feats, though I thought this was also a problem with the 3.x core books. The DDI has already introduced a couple of feats and I expect to see more before the month is out, but its definitely a pressing need given 4e's rate of feat acquisition.

 

[Destil]

This is dangerously close to being an edition wars thread.

That said, I find it funny when people call 4.0 "WoW for Tabletop Gamers."

Funny, because there IS a WoW for Tabletop Gamers

Not funny because WoW is "D&D for PC Gamers."?

 

[Desdichado]

Certainly less than the core when 3.0 came out in 2000.

Yeah, but that's not a valid comparison. I'm not talking about going back to 2000 3e, I'm talking about playing robust, product-filled 3.5 vs. newly launched and product impoverished 4e.

I don't think you read what he said.
He didn't say they can't, he said some of them WON'T, because the poison pill terms of the GSL will scare them off. Certainly a very coherent thought.

So that's your defense? Holding out on a technicallity? Granted, though, that's fair.

That's coherent. It's also completely speculative, though, so saying that its a good reason to avoid 4e—because you don't like the GSL—seems very unusual.

Maybe instead of coherent, I should have called it "compelling."

 

[der_kluge]

Was your decision to not buy a game really worthy of its own thread? Sounds a bit like an attempt to stir up more drama, to me.

jdrakeh, I would NEVER start a thread just to stir up a drama. That is so unlike me.