Should rings be able to function for low level characters?

[Drkfathr1]

Of course, the depends on the "O"GL. Since it merges (by WOTCs admission) the old STL into the "O"GL, it might (as the STL did) include limits on changing the meaning of terms. The STL defined many game terms and did not permit them to be altered. It would not surprise me if the new "O"GL says things like "Magic rings cannot be below 11th level" or the like.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's no copyright on the term: magic ring. There's no way WOTC could claim IP on something like that. Nor do I really think the OGL will work that way.

 

[Lizard]

Exactly, and that's reason enough.

Uhm...

"So, Mr. DM, what's cool about your new game world?"
"You need to be 11th level to wear magic rings!"
"And...uhm...why?"
"Just 'cause!"
"Uh...how does that fit in with the rest of how magic works in your world?"
"It doesn't! Isn't it cool?"
"Mmmm...yeah. Right. Say, anyone up for some Hackmaster?"

There's also a painful element of circular logic (pun intended) here.
"Why do you need to be 11th level to wear rings?"
"Cause rings are so amazingly powerful!"
"Why are rings so amazingly powerful?"
"Because you need to be 11th level to wear them!"

 

[Lizard]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's no copyright on the term: magic ring. There's no way WOTC could claim IP on something like that. Nor do I really think the OGL will work that way.

There's no need for copyright or claiming IP.

Did you read the STL? (Not the OGL, the STL)

It specified many game terms and what they meant. In order to use the STL (the trademark license), your game could not change the meaning of a term. Here's an example:

Defined Game Terms:
If a definition is specific to one game it will be indicated in brackets after the term.

• ability check: A check of 1d20 + the appropriate ability modifier vs. a DC.
• ability modifier: The bonus or penalty associated with a particular ability score.
• alignment: One of the nine descriptors of morality and ethics: lawful good (LG), neutral good (NG), chaotic good (CG), lawful neutral (LN), neutral (N), chaotic neutral (CN), lawful evil (LE), neutral evil (NE), and chaotic evil (CE).
• Armor Class (AC) [D&D]: A number representing a creature’s ability to avoid being hit in combat. An opponent’s attack roll must equal or exceed the target creature’s Armor Class to hit it.
• attack of opportunity: A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
• blinded [D&D v.3.0]: Unable to see. A blinded character suffers a 50% miss chance in combat, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, moves at half speed, and suffers a 4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Any skill check that relies on vision automatically fails. Opponents of a blinded character gain a +2 bonus to their attack rolls, since they are effectively invisible.

Etc.

Here's the source: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20Guidev5.rtf

Want to change what 'blinded' means in an STL product (a product with the D20 logo)? You couldn't. This has zip to do with copyright or IP and everything to do with being licensed to use a trademark, so please do not invoke copyright law here. It's not relevant.

We do know the new "O"GL will be much more like the STL than the OGL. I see no reason not to believe similar "This is what terms mean" rules will be in it. I see no reason not to believe we will see something like:
Ring:Rings are items which grant Paragon or Epic level powers. Only one ring may be worn by a Paragon-level character. Rings may not be used by Heroic level characters.

They might not do this; they might. It certainly wouldn't be a major change from the way the 3x STL worked.

 

[gizmo33]

I really don't understand the uproar, I think some are over-reacting, and we have to keep in mind that we're still only getting snippets of info. We're not seeing the full picture yet.

I don't like what I've heard about the magic ring rule. Maybe I don't know what "magic" means in 4E. Maybe I don't know what "ring" means in 4E. If every word in the snippet relies on a special 4E definition that we don't know, then what's the point of posting the snippet? Why would they try to communicate with an audience of 3.5E gamers and change all the definitions and contexts on them without them knowing, and then be surprised at the reaction?

DnD is a shared device that our community uses to play the game we enjoy. It's not like some online game where, if it sucks, I can just go on to some other game. From the beginning of the game, the rules and materials have been driven by fan input and feedback, in Dragon magazine (remember that?) or whatever. Acting like there is an ivory tower of "gaming scholars" out there that's guarranteed to give us the right RPG IMO is unwarranted. I'm not saying that rude comments about 4E are ever warranted, if that's what you're getting at. But being rude isn't justified regardless of the amount of information, so your statements in that case would be beside the point anyway.

 

[Drkfathr1]

And what's to stop you from running the game the way you want to? Is D&D not a game of creativity and imagination?

Once again, I ask, what's to stop anyone from house ruling away (or back in) what they don't like?

Does anyone honestly think WOTC is going to rigidly define something like a "ring" in the new "O"GL? I mean really?

 

[Drkfathr1]

DnD is a shared device that our community uses to play the game we enjoy. It's not like some online game where, if it sucks, I can just go on to some other game.

Of course it is. There are dozens and dozens of RPG's out there, you are free to quit D&D and go play any of them.

You're telling me that every gaming group out there plays D&D exactly like every other group?

 

[Lizard]

And what's to stop you from running the game the way you want to? Is D&D not a game of creativity and imagination?

Once again, I ask, what's to stop anyone from house ruling away (or back in) what they don't like?

"We've put in a rule which says your characters die automatically at 12th level, but you can houserule it away if you want."

For the umpteenth time:Being able to ignore a bad rule doesn't make it a good rule.

Does anyone honestly think WOTC is going to rigidly define something like a "ring" in the new "O"GL? I mean really?

They felt obliged to define lots of other things. Did you, ah, bother to follow the link to see what the 3x STL defined? "Masterwork Weapon", "Frightened", "Dazed"....

 

[gizmo33]

Of course it is. There are dozens and dozens of RPG's out there, you are free to quit D&D and go play any of them.

You're telling me that every gaming group out there plays D&D exactly like every other group?

Ok. Good point. I need to be clearer about what I mean. People are much more invested in time and energy for their current game system (including other RPGs) than with computer games, for example. I can't just go to another RPG and play it that night - they don't work like that. For one, there's the issue of getting other players for it. There's also a learning and design curve that's often prohibitive, which is why everyone wants the game to be designed according to their preferences, and why the edition threads are so potentially contentious.

Changing the way that rings function in my campaign world is going to force me to change the rule or make a difficult decision about what RPG I play. Changing the rule might be difficult/impossible if it's too heavily bound to the other rules of the game, the way that many 3E rules were.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Um, maybe you need to cool off a little, but for your information, I am fully aware of what the STL says. Yes, there are a lot of things that are defined in it, but do you really think they are going to arbitrarily begin defining things in 4E that way?

Are the following terms rigidly defined: Sword, duck, shirt, moon, shoe?

And if you're not a publisher, why would you care what was in the OGL or the STL?

I never said anything was or wasn't a "good" rule, but I am trying to point out that there are very simple solutions to something that some folks seem to be getting awfully worked up over.

Solutions as simple as: It's your game, run it the way YOU want.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't like what I've heard about the magic ring rule. Maybe I don't know what "magic" means in 4E. Maybe I don't know what "ring" means in 4E. If every word in the snippet relies on a special 4E definition that we don't know, then what's the point of posting the snippet? Why would they try to communicate with an audience of 3.5E gamers and change all the definitions and contexts on them without them knowing, and then be surprised at the reaction?

I definately agree with you on WOTC's marketing strategy so far. I think they're giving us too little info and not enough context to go with most of it. I get the feeling that they actually enjoy the uproar that alot of things cause, just so they can come back later and do somewhat of a "bait-and-switch".