NEWS: OGL and SRD dates/info announced

[helium3]

7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?

The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.

Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.

So does the above also mean that any 3rd party 4E material MUST include Tieflings and Dragonborn as racial options for players?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I am a big fan of www.d20srd.org and its fired up at the start of every session I DM. The lack of online ruleset will suck, but if the DDI has a good, hyperlinked, easily searchable ruleset for subscribers, then it will be OK. It needs to be as good or better than what we already have, though.

Obviously 4E will be so smooth and easy that you won't need to look up stuff during game time, at least thats what the devs are saying! mmmm......
BOT: it is a worrying development, the restricting of the SRD/OGL, but I really hope that (although they are not a charity) WotC leave it flexible enough for the continual indie development of the game. Until I can see a copy of said docs or, more importantly, until the indie publishers react to the docs it really is a wait and see

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Obviously 4E will be so smooth and easy that you won't need to look up stuff during game time, at least thats what the devs are saying! mmmm......

Citation?

 

[Gundark]

So does the above also mean that any 3rd party 4E material MUST include Tieflings and Dragonborn as racial options for players?

I think this is the extreme case senario. Hopefully it isn't the case. My favourite setting the Iron Kingdoms would be up the proverbial creek as far as 4e is concerned.

I think you're allowed to deviate from the core ules (adding races, omiting races for example).

Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.

What I think this means is that the core books have to be the foundation (meaning you need the core books to play), however you can deviate add new classes/races/feats etc. If it wasn't the case, why would you have the OGL in the first place?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

the srd will contain rules.

It will have the complete game system required to run the game.

However, it will not have fluff; it may not have certain classes or their abilities, it may not have certain paragon/epic paths, certain types of maneuvers, etc etc.

So basically, it could have say, a couple of classes as examples, some of their talents/tree's to again serve as examples of how classes and trees are made; it could have 1-2 paragon/epic paths to serve as...examples of how these paths are made, etc etc.

Using these examples 3rd parties will have to creatively make up their own stuff instead of copy pasting. They hwill have a working skeleton but will have to come up with the rest.

I believe Dragon lords of Melnibone d20 to be the sole reason of all these changes.

Where are you getting this from? Citation?

 

[Ander00]

As another one of those DMs/players who finds www.d20srd.org invaluable, I was afraid of such a development, because they haven't exactly made it easy to be optimistic about the DDI, so far. It would be a shame if for all the streamlining of the rules they say they are doing, the process of looking them up would become more cumbersome.


cheers

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This could simply be the same way that the 3.5 SRD is incomplete -- in that there are two key pieces of information missing: how to generate ability scores, and experience tables.

I'm probably just being overly optimistic, though. :\

Yeah, it sounds to me like they're planning on leaving key items out. Perhaps they're planning to leave in things like names for classes, and names of powers, but not what they do. That way you'd be allowed to reference them because they're in the SRD, but you couldn't use the SRD as a standalone game document without also having the PHB for the parts you need for play.

Consider all the rules that aren't present in a 3.5 statblock. You don't need to include those rules in the SRD, if the purpose of the SRD is to provide a document allowing compliance with the system. The statblock will say something like "Feats: Toughness, Power Attack, Dodge". You don't need to have permission to reprint those feats, only to name them. I get the impression that this is the way they're taking the SRD.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The also stated very specifically that there would be an OGL and no tiered STL, but it looks like what they are calling an "OGL" is really a tiered STL.

So, buyer beware.

RC

Yes, look at this Q&A

Q. What about the d20 license? Will that still exist in 4th Edition?
A: We are making the OGL stronger by better defining it. We’re rolling certain elements that used to be in the d20 license into the OGL, things like community standards and other tangible elements of the d20 license.

I am particularly concerned about "community standards" and how that can/will be enforced. The OGL worked in part because WotC didn't have to look at or enforce anything that fit under the OGL but not the d20 License. Now it would seem that WotC will have enforcement authority of its interpretation of "community standards" of everything done under the new OGL from printed books to websites. This paragraph seems to be imply the exact opposite of what an OGL is and is instead a no-cost restricted license.

I find it particularly amusing that, way back when 4e was announced, and some of us were concerned about whether or not it would be OGL, a loud group of folks said "of course WotC will make 4e OGL". When we were concerned about the type of content, the same group said "Of course WotC is listening to its consumer base". When I express concerns about what the Gleemax terms actually mean -- and what WotC intends to do about rival sites like EN World and www.d20srd.org -- the response is (predictably) "Of course WotC wouldn't use your material posted to Gleemax" (despite their setting up the language to allow themselves to do just that, even though it is demonstrably true that they could protect their IP legally without resorting to such language).

From the Unofficial 4e Info Page:

D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse has confiirmed unequivocably that there will be no d20 System Trademark License for 4th edition. "There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear." Note that the Open Gaming License will still be around (which allows for third party products) - the d20 STL deals with the logo usage only. Scott adds that "We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."​

Yet what we are getting is a tiered STL called an OGL.

And some folks still think "Just Trust 'Em" is the best policy......

No 4e for me, thank you. I'd rather continue with a vibrant, healthy community of 3e-ers, even if that community becomes necessarily smaller.


RC

 

[mach1.9pants]

Citation?

The first part was just a joke towards the emphasis that is on streamlining and reducing complexity (e.g. monster stats)...should have put at the end, sorry
I really can't see that happening at all
Edit: s'pose it must have been a rubbish joke if I had to explain it

 

[JohnSnow]

From the Unofficial 4e Info Page:

D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse has confiirmed unequivocably that there will be no d20 System Trademark License for 4th edition. "There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear." Note that the Open Gaming License will still be around (which allows for third party products) - the d20 STL deals with the logo usage only. Scott adds that "We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."​

Yet what we are getting is a tiered STL called an OGL.

No. What we're getting is an OGL. And a developers' kit that will be available early to publishers who are serious enough about their business to pay a nominal fee of $5,000. Developers who don't have that kind of ready cash, but want to "play with the big boys" and think they have a potentially hit product idea could get a business loan to cover the cost. The person who can't afford it is the guy in his basement who wants to develop RPG product as a hobby. Or the guy who's not sure he's got a hit on his hands and isn't willing to take the risk.

You know what they say - "Fortune favors the bold."

By this time next year, there won't be any difference in the rules. WotC could have decided to just hold the OGL back from anyone until June. Instead, they're offering an option for those who want to get in on 4e development early.

It seems to me that the restriction on publication date is to provide some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000.

You may not agree with their strategy, but it's certainly not a tiered license. But hey, if you don't want to play 4e, nobody's gonna hold a gun to your head.