D&D (2024) Twelve actions for an even fresher 6th edition, or for an ultra-basic retooling of 5e

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Theres no need to make an ‘excursion’ an entire world. Make it a region, or even a locale.

The ideal example is the Menzoberranzan locale, one of the Drow subterranean cities from the Forgotten Realms world. If the players want to explore Drow flavor, just plug the city somewhere in whichever world setting one is using.

Want Gith flavor? Figure out how to fit in a Githyanki city or a Githzerai settlement. Done.

Even a futuristic setting, can be an isolationist utopian city, in a medievalesque world but normally inaccessible.

Settings dont need to be entire worlds. Focus on the interesting stuff, and mix-and-match. Build worlds like lego bricks.

I see your point, but the idea is to get all the worlds updated, reconnected, and done with, so that the entire D&D cultural community is united and satiated. Then bring in new building blocks which will fit in any of those worlds, or which can be used to build one's own world.

 

[Yaarel]

Unlike the 3e-era OGL, but like the Pathfinder Compatible license, none of these Third Party Excursions would be allowed to be standalone. (E.g. the new SRD could not be used to publish something like the 3e-era Conan RPG- or MnM-style standalone d20-based games.) They'd all have to refer back to the Core Rules, thereby fueling Hasbro sales. And it would grow the D&D cultural community, instead of fracturing it in a neverending, mercantile, dog-eat-dog, edition war.

Wait. The very act of flavoring the Core rules for a new setting, necessarily rewrites the core rules. In other words, the core rules generate settings as a stand-alone product complete with core rules.

The same is true for the 3e SRD.

Consider how Dreamscarred Press is an indy publisher that creates a stand-alone product for a psionic setting. It uses the SRD psionic material, and the Expanded Psionic Handbook as an inspiration for the setting.

Pathfinder embraces this indy psionic setting, and features it in the Pathfinder website for all psionic needs. Reciprocally, Dreamscarred updated its products to be fully compatible with Pathfinder products. Pathfinder players buy these stand-alone psionic products, either to play in a full psionic setting with psionic-only classes, or just to add a dash of psionics to their Golarion setting. Even when they use the fully psionic setting, the players still tend to use Pathfinder products, for character options, Rulebook consultation, monsters, treasures, etcetera.

Thus there is a profitable synergy, even when the core rules themselves, the 3e SRD, are free and belonging to the public.

 

[Yaarel]

Personally, I feel WotC does best to release the 5e SRD as OGL.

Likely Paizo would then create products using the 5e SRD system. Some of its Pathfinder customers would then buy WotC products as well.

There would be more adventures.

Other indy companies would help grow the 5e culture too.

 

[Yaarel]

Amazing. Pathfinder is releasing the rules for its Occult Adventures - just hitting the market now - as part of its Open Gaming License (OGL).

This integrates the psionic tradition within the medievalesque Golarion setting. It downplays the parapsychological technobabble, and portrays it as ‘psychic magic’, borrowing flavors from Victorian Era occultism and spiritualism. In this way, the telekinesis tradition comprises the classical five elements (ether, air, water, fire earth) with a dash of Avatar elemental bending.

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Wait. The very act of flavoring the Core rules for a new setting, necessarily rewrites the core rules. In other words, the core rules generate settings as a stand-alone product complete with core rules.

I don't know the exact situation of Dreamscarred Press, yet the Pathfinder Compatible license says:

"In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder."

For the proposed "D&D Compatible" license, the Third Party Excursions could either:
A) Use the Core races and classes as-is. This would be for a straightforward medieval fantasy world-excursion. In this case, they would just point the reader to the class chapter in the Core D&D book.
B) Modify and tweak some or all the Core races and classes to match their setting. E.g. some world might call fighters "Warriors."
C) Or don't use any of Core races and classes, but offer their own, entirely different races and classes.

But in any case, the Third Pary Excursion would have to refer back to the Core D&D for all the basic rules: ability scores, movement, environmental hazards, lighting, and so forth.

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Pathfinder is releasing the rules for its Occult Adventures

The traditional gonzo psionics rules would be in the Dark Sun Excursion.

The 19th-century style Occult/Spiritualist psionics would be in the:

Excursion to Gothic Earth: The D&D World of the Masque of the Red Death

 

[Yaarel]

The OGL itself allows for stand-alone products, using or modifying core 3e mechanics in the SRD.

However, the OGL does not allow use of Intellectual Property of WotC, such as the D&D brand name, settings, and so on.

Dreamscarred originally used the OGL to make stand alone products.

The Pathfinder has a separate contract allowing Dreamscarred to refer to Pathfinder intellectual property. The updating of Dreamscarred products complies with the rules in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. But you can still use the Dreamscarred independently, using SRD.

 

[Yaarel]

The reason Pathfinder exists is, the WotC 4e license tried to reverse the open philosophy of the OGL. Paizo refused, continued with the 3e OGL - had enough customers who wanted to stay with 3e content - and from this, Pathfinder emerged.

4e made the mistake. If it allowed a 4e OGL, Paizo would have continued to make 4e products, Paizo would have filled in the gaps in the consumer base, 4e would be a more enduring endeavor, and the symbiotic relationship would benefit everyone - especially the D&D players. Paizo was symbiotic with WotC until the 4e legal scarcity consciousness.

The main difference between the 3e Open Game License and the 4e Game System License, is the *requirement* to make stand-alone products impossible and to refer to rules in 4e books. This requirement is a mistake.

Stand-alone products - when they are compatible with other stand-alone products - are a successful symbiosis that allow players to mix-and-match.

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

The reason Pathfinder exists is, the WotC 4e license tried to reverse the open philosophy of the OGL.

Exactly.

But the semi-open Pathfinder Compatible license works pretty well too. The "no standalone" requirement works fine for Pathfinder. I think it could be a fitting model for for a "D&D Compatible" license. Believe me, I'm willing to consider even the most totally open option: releasing the D&D game, and even the setting IPs, into the Public Domain. But for this thread, I aim reigning in my Open Culture fervor, and trying to depict the most fitting community license--neither too Open nor too Closed.

The main difference between the 3e Open Game License and the 4e Game System License, is the *requirement* to make stand-alone products impossible and to refer to rules in 4e books. This requirement is a mistake.

The 4E GSL was a disaster for two reasons: 1) it was incomprehensible except to industry insiders with enough money to keep a lawyer on hand, and 2) it was pervaded with ill-will from the start. It was arrogantly crafted to destroy and dicker with Paizo and all Third Party and amateur publishers. The GSL was the fear-based fruit of mercantile-corporatist thinking.

 

[Yaarel]

Pathfinder ‘compatibility contract’ = 4e GSL

The only difference is, Pathfinder itself uses the OGL. So, indys can likewise use the OGL without Pathfinder, and still be compatible with Pathfinder.