I already have a working streamlined 4e Retroclone? Which at some point I must develop more.
Yeah...it's the sixth word of that sentence that sets my teeth on edge. "Streamlined" is possibly the most political word one can use in the context of game design, because nobody wants whatever the opposite of "streamlined" is (probably "clunky," though Thesaurus.com recommends "rough," "coarse," and "inefficient"), but not everybody wants whatever "streamlined"
does mean. It's a beautiful paradox, where one can claim to be pursuing an unequivocal good--because nobody wants its opposite--while creating something that
isn't unequivocally good.
I have always seen the need to have online tools as a problem of 4e. If the game is so complex that it needs a computer program to set up your character - well, for me that is sign of a problem.
While it is hard to disagree with the latter point, I still think there are particular elements of 4e that could have broader appeal to some segments of the 5e community. I am sure there are some that would like the option of more complex melee classes for instance.
But this leads to me to think that the SRD may be a chance for someone to create 4e inspired modules for 5e, rather than revamping 4e itself.
First: Do not conflate
need with
desire. It is, was, and always will be completely possible to create a character with just a book or two (typically, the book where the class was first published, plus whatever *Power book is appropriate). The only thing the tools do for you is make it
super duper ultra incredibly easy to do it, and give you
super duper ultra convenient access to all the various and sundry additional sources (setting books, mag articles, little bonus books like the PHB Races stuff, etc.) all at once.
You don't need a computer--to say nothing of an internet connection--to create a 4e character any more than you needed one to create a late-era 3.5e character, nor to create a current-day Pathfinder character. But if you want to make
optimal use of
all possible resources for creating a character, then some kind of electronic aid makes things
easier. Alternatively, you could just do what I've always done (even when I *had* a DDI sub): Check out the 4e class guides, now transferred from the WotC forums to ENworld. They're harder to use, now that they've undergone a double format shift (first the total trashing of WotC's old format stuff, and then dropping the forums entirely), but TBH they're
even faster than using the digital tools was.
Second: Yes, god yes, please give me classes with more levers and switches that aren't spellcasting.
Third: The appearance of several previously-copyright-locked terms in the SRD is certainly
useful for anyone pursuing a clone. I agree that it's still about the same task it was before, this has just done away with an inconvenience that would have affected both the writer (coming up with, and consistently using, "copyright-safe" terms) and the reader (making sure to dislodge those connections held in the head). Most people who have enough interest to
clone 4e are also aware of its flaws, and thus interested in
tinkering with it anyway. (See the previous reply
)
Also, [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION]: The name of a mechanic
may actually be copyrightable. It's a bit of a legal grey area, as I understand it (standard disclaimer, IANAL, etc.) Words like "card" and "dice," which refer to implements, cannot be copyrighted. And certain terms that have been in use by too many other companies (like "HP," "experience," "level," etc.) can't either. But something pretty specific, e.g. "Healing Surge,"
may be copyrightable...and given the toeing-the-legal-limits nature of most "cloning" projects, it's usually considered unwise to do anything that even
might be a problem.
I mean, remember that the color and shape of the Tetris blocks--which, incidentally, are merely the mathematical set of "one-sided" tetrominoes, that is, ones that can be rotated but not reflected, plus particular associated colors--is considered something that can be protected by copyright, at least in conjunction with enough other similarities (the precedent set by the Xio/Tetris case is...a bit fraught, I'm afraid). Now, the name of one specific mechanic might not meet such a critical-aesthetic-component-of-the-game standard, but freely "stealing" such terms without care and without a license can be invitation for a C&D or a
threat of suit...which, given that it would be Hasbro's legal team on the case, would bankrupt any potential "cloner." So the threat is usually enough to end any aspirations.
