Update SRD - Critters

[The Sigil]

I see what you mean but it has always been the case that some portions were going to go away. Everyone knew the proper names of characters (in spells and items), IP creatures (names if not also stats) and a number of other things were destined for the chopping block. That WotC trusted no one to over extend and take unfair advantage speaks well of the relationship between all parties. Sorry if it appeared I was unfairly jumping on something you clearly posted in a bit of haste. No harm done, I hope?

None at all.

My goal was simply, "if you're along in the process of spending time/money on something, finish it." I don't expect to see an awful lot of stuff about the monsters in question appearing in 3rd-party publications after the next 3-12 months (depending on where people are in their publication prep cycles), but anything that was planned short-term should hopefully be able to proceed.

The thing that strikes me is that with all the nifty 3rd-party open content out there, I could (and am in the process of, actually), assemble a rather nice world with very little of the core rules. This stuff is not needed/essential, obviously - but it is a little disappointing to see some of the "iconic D&D monsters" lost from the open canon.

That said, I'm sure new open "iconic" creatures will eventually surpass closed creatures in popularity because they will be more widely used. I am of the opinion that as the Open Gaming movement continues to grow that we will find that Open Content will become the norm and closed content the exception - because when something genius is released as Open, it will be re-used by everyone else to avoid re-inventing the wheel. The closed stuff will not see re-use. As stuff sees more re-use, it will become more popular, and more widespread. Therefore, in the very very long term, the most successful parts of the system - perhaps not fiscally for the original product but in terms of intellectual legacy - will always be Open Content. Because of this, IMO, closing content does more harm than good.

That's why I think WotC is doing far more harm to their intellectual legacy by closing this content than they could have had by keeping it open. They are inflicting a worse punishment on their control of the game by forcibly closing their own content than I ever could by trying to force it open.

--The Sigil

 

[Jhyrryl]

More Missing Mythos

Again, WotC is weakening its own mythos with this move to "protect" its product identity.

Initially, I thought I understood it. I thought that it wasn't to keep the D20 publishers from using the material, but to keep real competitors (non-D20 publishers) from using those concepts and mimicking that mythos. I mean, who saw Blade II and didn't think to themselves, "Cool! They're mind flayers!"?

But then I realized that couldn't be the case. The stuff was OGC, sure, but that didn't mean you could make a video game or a movie, or even another gaming system that had beholders in them. Did it? Maybe I'm wrong there, but if I'm not, then the only people that WotC is trying to protect themselves from, are D20 publishers.

D20 publishers aren't trying to steal the mythos, they're simply trying to do what the OGL provides for, and in doing so, trying to make their products fit in with the official books that they are sharing shelf space with, in support of those books. Continued lack of support in this area is simply going to alienate the most hardcore gamers of all, D&D players turned D20 publishers, from supporting WotC's interests. The end result will be that WotC will have bred their own demise in the creation of the largest force of independent game developers that the industry has ever seen.

What needs to happen is that WotC needs to provide a mechanism by which D20 publishers can at least reference product identity, some way that wouldn't be construed as an attempt to challenge WotC's ownersihp rights. And if they won't do something like this, I'm all for seeing the existing D20 publishers start banding together to create a common shared mythos, and moving completely away from WotC's lead.

 

[Gez]

I guess a second printing of the ToH would be severely maimed.

Carrion Moth and Slime Crawler both references the Carrion Crawler.

There are Slaad Lords. I suppose they could just be renamed Salad Lords.

The Kamadan is said to be a relative of the Displacer Beast.

The Abomination template mentions Owlbears.

And references to Beholders are made for gas-spore and each beholder-kin (gorbel, eye of the deep).



Also, Green Ronin's Armies of Abyss and Legion of Hell; as well as Mongoose's Demonology, all use and references Baatezu and Tanar'ri.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Uh, you folks realize my comments about Owlbears was in reference to their being unique to D&D, just like Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, and most everything else they decided to keep. Owlbears, however, did make it into the SRD. So did several dozen other "unique to D&D" creatures.

Of course, that's what stinks. The primary villain-race for my entire setting is eliminated, but a creature I've never once used in over 20 years of gaming, as well as several dozen I'll likely never use for the simple fact of not liking them, are released.

Ugh... Time to drink myself to sleep...

 

[arwink]

Of course, that's what stinks. The primary villain-race for my entire setting is eliminated, but a creature I've never once used in over 20 years of gaming, as well as several dozen I'll likely never use for the simple fact of not liking them, are released.

For me, this is possibly the up-side of the ommisions. THey've taken away some of the traditional big-bads, so maybe we'll finally see some of the lesser lights getting some focus.

I'm hanging out to see a Complete Guide to Arenea that turns them into a potentially nasty race of evil overlords

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmmm, the displacer beast itself, both appearance and special ability, is stolen from the story 'Black Destroyer' by A. E. van Vogt, around 1940s or so. Don't know if this in any way helps, it just means that WoTC is treading on somebody elses IP.

The Auld Grump

*Edit* Heh! Found it, published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1939. So I was close anyway....

 

[DungeonKeeperUK]

As has been pointed out by many people in many threads, "It's their license, they can do what they want." Before you take this as the nice, neat simple answer it appears to be consider this; would you trust someone who refuses to drink their own kool-aid ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "fruit flavored soft drink"?

Got to agree with Linnorm here, yes it is a right pain in the ....... neck that certain creatures have been "removed" from the SRD, beleive me I know, gotta go back to the drawing board on something that was near completion.... But at the end of the day what was the alternative, to wait until now for 3rd party publishers to be releasing materila when the SRD is complete....

Like I said it bites that this stuff is gone but at the end of the day its their material and we've been lucky enough to get our hands on the vast majority of the material....

 

[Ghostwind]

Hmmmm, the displacer beast itself, both appearance and special ability, is stolen from the story 'Black Destroyer' by A. E. van Vogt, around 1940s or so. Don't know if this in any way helps, it just means that WoTC is treading on somebody elses IP.

The Auld Grump

*Edit* Heh! Found it, published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1939. So I was close anyway....

Does anyone have a quote from this book that verifies the name or description of displacer beasts?

 

[tensen]

So are tanar'ri, baatezu, and a horde of other beasties. What's happening here just seems arbitrary, as well as unexpected. This deals a rather harsh blow to quite a few d20 companies, and honestly, IMHO, the idea that some monsters "are so D&D that they shouldn't appear anywhere else" just strikes me as ridiculous, as well as puerile, especially given that no warning was given to the myriad d20 companies about this.

Didn't Square Soft Games use a Mind Flayer at one point?

 

[tensen]

I see what you mean but it has always been the case that some portions were going to go away. Everyone knew the proper names of characters (in spells and items), IP creatures (names if not also stats) and a number of other things were destined for the chopping block. That WotC trusted no one to over extend and take unfair advantage speaks well of the relationship between all parties. Sorry if it appeared I was unfairly jumping on something you clearly posted in a bit of haste. No harm done, I hope?

Although I think they were actually a tad late with the spells. They used Mord in the Gentlemen's Agreement spell lists for so long, they appeared to have been included in the Pocket Grimoire Arcane. Now technically they are different spells. Which means if you want to use them, you have to add the section15 block of the Pocket Grimoire... but it isn't completely out of your hands anymore.