Third party publishing and Essentials

[Solvarn]

I am curious if Essentials will fall under the GSL.

Is it even viable anymore to put out third party material for D&D?

How great would it be if the functionality of Character Builder was improved? It'd be nice if third party supplement info could be loaded to allow access to third party material.

4E just seems so much more unfriendly than 3E. I know there was a glut of utter crap put out, but there were also some really good stuff that was published.

 

[tyrlaan]

Maybe this is splitting a hair, but the OGL doesn't cover any of 4e. The OGL is firmly in 3e. The GSL covers 4e and is in many ways much more restrictive.

I would expect the Essentials line to fall under the GSL, but I don't expect that to make 3PP any more or less viable for 4e than it is today, for various reasons that will likely come up as this thread swells

 

[Artoomis]

Essential is part of 4e, and, as far as I know, falls under all the same intellectual property rules as the rest of 4e.

It's not a separate game.

 

[malraux]

I doubt that essentials will change anything any more than PHB2 or Arcane Power changed things.

 

[Odhanan]

I can't name names, but I know for sure that some publishers are in a "wait and see" position vis a vis Essentials D&D, trying to figure out whether publishing using straight 4E rules or the specific Essentials builds/variants will be beneficial for their products.

So some people are wondering, clearly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One does have to wonder really about GSL though, does it REALLY create any significant problems for 3PPs? Maybe if you're going to come out with a rules expansion, but you can certainly do a setting, adventures, and even a lot of rules supplements without any problem. I mean look at what Goodman etc have produced. The game is still YOUNG. It isn't quite the free-for-all that 3e d20 under the OGL turned into, but really I think the whole license thing has been a bit overblown. It is really no harder to make a 4e adventure than a 3e one.

 

[tyrlaan]

One does have to wonder really about GSL though, does it REALLY create any significant problems for 3PPs? Maybe if you're going to come out with a rules expansion, but you can certainly do a setting, adventures, and even a lot of rules supplements without any problem. I mean look at what Goodman etc have produced. The game is still YOUNG. It isn't quite the free-for-all that 3e d20 under the OGL turned into, but really I think the whole license thing has been a bit overblown. It is really no harder to make a 4e adventure than a 3e one.

The original GSL created significant problems, but the updates made to it, at least in my eyes, removed most if not all of the initial concerns 3PPs may have had.

On the other hand, the GSL, or rather the lack of certain references in the SRD make things kind of silly. For example (unless this changed since I last looked), I can't publish an adventure with an NPC warden because "warden" is not in the SRD. Similarly, I couldn't make warden powers or feats either.

But frankly, the real killer in my eyes for 3PP that isn't an adventure is the CB. And when you're already trying to eke out a buck in a niche market against veritable "titans" within the market, that's just another nail in the coffin for the viability of being a successful 3PP.

 

[Scribble]

3pp should make things not found in the CB, or required to be in the CB.

I'm not going to buy a book of classes/powers/feats/magic items from a 3pp.

I will buy a book of skill challenges, a book of terrain type elements, and usable terrain. I'd buy a book filled with vehicles.


I'll even buy monsters since adding them to the MB isn't particularly hard.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

On the other hand, the GSL, or rather the lack of certain references in the SRD make things kind of silly. For example (unless this changed since I last looked), I can't publish an adventure with an NPC warden because "warden" is not in the SRD. Similarly, I couldn't make warden powers or feats either.

This is nothing new. The same was true of nearly all non-PHB classes in 3.x: you couldn't use Hexblades or Warlocks or Favored Souls in an adventure because those things weren't in the SRD. And yet, 3.x had a thriving 3rd party market.

On the other hand, the workarounds for such a problem are simple (a lot simpler than in 3rd ed). Just make a human monster using the monster creation rules that has a few nature based defender sorts of powers. It's not hard and likely to work better than using the NPC creation rules and citing PC powers anyway.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

But frankly, the real killer in my eyes for 3PP that isn't an adventure is the CB. And when you're already trying to eke out a buck in a niche market against veritable "titans" within the market, that's just another nail in the coffin for the viability of being a successful 3PP.

Yes, I think the main limitation for 3PP is the fact that player options don't show up in the Character Builder. Most players I know use the CB (I was a grognard hold-out much longer than my fellow players, in fact). If the option is in a book, but not in the CB, then it is a hassle to integrate on the character sheet.

As other posters have mentioned, this leaves room for monsters, traps, dungeons, fluff, accessories, and so forth. But player options (which I bet is the biggest seller) seems relatively lost.

Well, it's not as if there aren't already tens of thousands of options with WotC stuff anyway...