D&D 4E Is the OGL the reason for WOTC's secrecy about 4E?

[xechnao]

Xechnao, why do advocate more gaming systems and what would you like to see more of?

I am puzzled because before 3.5E, I too loved the variety of many different types of games, but so many of them are broken and open to abuse that I haven't played any others in a long time; I guess modern players don't seem to like DM fudging so much either.

Why should they be emerging?

I'm pretty much a classic case study of how they were right about system proliferation. While I never enjoyed new systems for their own sake, I used to change systems with different games because there wasn't any choice, and the learning curve for a new system often meant that I didn't bother.

Now I'm at a point where I turn to a d20-based derivative for pretty much anything I could concievably want to play, and because of the rather modular nature of the rules, I can find tweaks that give me what I want without me having to relearn the system.

For all intents and purposes, I've done exactly what Dancey wanted the marketplace to do; I'm migrated nearly 100% to a d20.

IMO there is so much you can actually do with the SRD or D20. It is a solid and concrete system but limited. However even the philosophy of the SRD is the result of an evolution due to system proliferation. 4e now also borrows many elements from other systems and it is fairly different than the SRD (and even more limited -but I cannot say it is less fun: probably withing its limits it will be more fun: these limits is the key reason to the need of more rpg systems. Hey, also there is a fair chance that 5e's design will follow an even more different way.

If others systems do not emerge you will be fairly stuck with what there is now out there. This is not a good thing. There is still place for improvement -be it evolution or revolution. And there will always be as long as there are different and new needs about different tropes to play.

 

[Desdichado]

Can you spell out some of these limitations? Because when the d20 conversion of CoC was released, I pretty much decided that if it was successful, then d20 had no appreciable limits in terms of what kinds of games it could emulate.

For the record, the d20 CoC is my favorite RPG book bar none. I'm in the camp that says it was very successful. And I've yet to find any type of game I could imagine that I felt d20 couldn't handle.

 

[xechnao]

Can you spell out some of these limitations? Because when the d20 conversion of CoC was released, I pretty much decided that if it was successful, then d20 had no appreciable limits in terms of what kinds of games it could emulate.

For the record, the d20 CoC is my favorite RPG book bar none. I'm in the camp that says it was very successful. And I've yet to find any type of game I could imagine that I felt d20 couldn't handle.

I believe I already did. The SRD and 4e are not so compatible, are they? They are two different games. If there were no limitations they would be easily compatible.

Every system and game has its limitations. There is not such thing as a perfect general universal system. Some systems are more suitable for certain styles, some systems are more suitable for others.

 

[Spatula]

I don't agree with the OP, but he does have a point. If someone were to make an OGL "3.9" edition that wasn't technically, but functionally compatible with 4e, I'm not sure that there's a legal way to keep them from doing so.

The OGL is immaterial as far as that goes, really - there were attempts by third parties to publish AD&D-compatible supplements waaaaaay back in the day. As Mourn notes, the threat of a lawsuit from a much bigger entity has kept anyone from seriously testing the limits of copyrights on game systems.

Anyway, absent the actual rules, it's impossible to make anything that's functionally compatible (whatever that means). That would be true regardless of the amount of preview information WOTC gave us.

 

[tomBitonti]

I am wondering, and I am mixing different areas, but what are the resulting issues that are of concern? For example, I can list:

*) Limited abilities for 3'rd party publishers to create 4E material?
*) Limited ability for 4E fans to create material and to place this on public web sites?
*) No more SRD (in the style of the 3.5E SRD)?

I may list as well:

*) Annoyance with the closed nature of the 4E development?
*) Frustration with the current unavailability of the 4E license?
*) Issues with fracturing the community?

I personally am not getting a good "community vibe" out of the licensing issues. This is IMHO, but I'm concerned about how the community will evolve with the new license and with the push to DDI.

I also personally think that the restrictive license is functionally a non-starter: I don't see the fanbase paying attention to the license. Publishers are stuck, but the web simply doesn't support preventing fan based wiki's and rules references, and custom material. (The flip side of this is RIAA type intimidation lawsuits, which is how I see this would be policed. That's part of the "not getting a good community vibe".)

Thx!

 

[Desdichado]

I believe I already did. The SRD and 4e are not so compatible, are they? They are two different games. If there were no limitations they would be easily compatible.

That's its limitation? That it's not 4e?

I thought you were going to say that it doesn't do something well, not that it's not technically 4e. A certain genre or playstyle that it doesn't do well.

Every system and game has its limitations. There is not such thing as a perfect general universal system. Some systems are more suitable for certain styles, some systems are more suitable for others.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am asking for you to tell me specifically what certain style d20 can't do. 'Coz I've tried an awful lot of styles in d20 and done them all well (IMO).

The OGL is immaterial as far as that goes, really - there were attempts by third parties to publish AD&D-compatible supplements waaaaaay back in the day. As Mourn notes, the threat of a lawsuit from a much bigger entity has kept anyone from seriously testing the limits of copyrights on game systems.

How is the OGL immaterial as far as that goes? It's the vehicle that would legitimize the effort. I understand what you're saying about the practicality of anyone (other than an eccentric millionaire trying to prove a point) doing it, but I'm saying from a theoretical standpoint there shouldn't be any reason why it can't be done.

Anyway, absent the actual rules, it's impossible to make anything that's functionally compatible (whatever that means). That would be true regardless of the amount of preview information WOTC gave us.

Yeah, but notice that I didn't say anyone could do it right now. I said, merely, that in theory someone could take the SRD, and rework it into a game that was functionally compatible with 4e. They wouldn't be able to claim compatibility, because that would require a different license which I don't see WotC granting, but it could be functionally compatible, i.e., it could work just fine with 4e.

 

[xechnao]

That's its limitation? That it's not 4e?

It is just an example that I thought it was needed.

I thought you were going to say that it doesn't do something well, not that it's not technically 4e. A certain genre or playstyle that it doesn't do well. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am asking for you to tell me specifically what certain style d20 can't do. 'Coz I've tried an awful lot of styles in d20 and done them all well (IMO).

It is a matter of taste and personal experience. I could not prove with facts what you are asking about here. This is why for example the promotion of 4e follows a narrative style along with the crunchy bits. I should provide you crunch and/or start a narrative about a system regarding a game experience and confront it with 3e regarding that kind of game experience. But is this the right place to do it?

 

[Desdichado]

It is just an example that I thought it was needed.

I think that as an example it was both obvious and meaningless, but maybe I had a different understanding of what you meant by "there are things the SRD can't do well" than you did.

In fact, obviously I did.

It is a matter of taste and personal experience. I could not prove with facts what you are asking about here. This is why for example the promotion of 4e follows a narrative style along with the crunchy bits. I should provide you crunch and/or start a narrative about a system regarding a game experience and confront it with 3e regarding that kind of game experience. But is this the right place to do it?

Why not here? Here's where you brought up the idea that we need more systems, and where I said that I don't need more systems because I have yet to find something that d20 doesn't do passingly well. If you want to start up another thread specifically to discuss this in General Discussion, I'd certainly be interested. I think it's an interesting topic.

Obviously, I've already got a pretty strong opinion based on several years of using d20 for a lot of different things, though.

 

[Spatula]

How is the OGL immaterial as far as that goes?

The OGL doesn't buy you, the knock-off publisher, anything worthwhile as far as sales go. The OGL just allows other entities to make use of your knock-off without your explicit permission. In what way does it confer legitimacy onto the effort?

Yeah, but notice that I didn't say anyone could do it right now. I said, merely, that in theory someone could take the SRD, and rework it into a game that was functionally compatible with 4e. They wouldn't be able to claim compatibility, because that would require a different license which I don't see WotC granting, but it could be functionally compatible, i.e., it could work just fine with 4e.

Sure, but they could (attempt to) do that anyway. And that sort of thing was tried in the 1e days, and the threat of lawsuits from TSR forced the publishers in question to mask their compatibility ("Compatible with your fantasy role-playing game!" on the cover or somesuch). Those efforts subsequently died.

 

[Desdichado]

The OGL doesn't buy you, the knock-off publisher, anything worthwhile as far as sales go. The OGL just allows other entities to make use of your knock-off without your explicit permission. In what way does it confer legitimacy onto the effort?

It's not "legitimate." That's exactly what I said; it doesn't give you the license to claim compatability. It does, however, give you a license to develop actual, functional compatability. You have to kinda count on your buyers to be smart enough to recognize that.

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. That I can see. The only thing I'm saying is that the OGL (not to mention the precedent of OSRIC) lends a little more legitimacy than prior attempts would have had.