I had no problem w/all the crap produced b/c a)it's called reviews on the internet people! and b)I'm fully capable of flipping thru a product, deciding it is overpowered and/or a pain to try to find things in and passing it over. I dearly wanted the d20 take on the Trinity Universe to take off b/c I loved the original version of Aberrant and I wanted more development for the system, but I couldn't make myself buy the d20 books b/c I looked thru them several times and they were just terrible conversions. They should have gone more like M&M and made the system conform to the game idea instead of the otehr way around.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 4E Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies?
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
I see it and interpret it differently. (The numbers have changed since you posted but I think the % is still basically the same)Orcus said:
Only those who voted for the first option really care about open gaming.
The people in the second option just want 3rd party products, they don't care if 3pps have a special license or if they made the products based on a OGL. Openness is not important for them.
Those who voted for the third option are ok with only WOTC products.
So, "openness" itself only matters for 7-8% of the voters from this poll. The others 76% will naturally purchase 4E the way things are going, with WOTC's plans of a more restricted GSL.
ainatan said:
You're spinning things too far to favour your own bias. I _do_ care a lot about open source in general and the OGL in particular, yet I did not select the first option. I would have to guess that I'm not the only one. I'm just not ready to be a total crusader on this particular issue and state categorically that I will never buy the 4E core rules on a matter of principal. I may not like what Wizards is doing (assuming they are actually doing what is rumoured), but I am curious about the final rules even if I never actually do bother moving my games there.
So like Orcus said in an earlier post from this thread, the lack of an OGL/GSL and the ensuing variants from the standard base are likely to result in me falling away from the fold. Right now, I'm leaning towards just sticking with 3.5 or perhaps Paizo's Pathfinder; the lack of any deviations from the 4E core (because of a lack of the GSL) is one more thing to make me suspect that 4E will be the edition where I finally get off the "official" D&D train.
So there, I may still buy the initial 4E core books , but I am probably never going to play it seriously if the GSL/OGL is gone. And I did not select option (1).
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Orcus said:
Thank you for that thoughtful opinion of my sanity concerning this issue. In the future, it would probably be more productive if you didn't start with an insult and considered the possibility that we just don't see some things exactly the same.
I'm sure you would. But, that leaves out something I think is important. The question to me isn't "some level of open" but "how much open".
I see in your interpretation as spin. You combined "somewhat open" and "fully open", and pretended like they were equal.
And yet, in other threads, you've said loudly and frequently that the two are not the same, and there is a vast gulf of difference between the two, and you are fighting for fully open as opposed to one-off licensing because you care about that difference a lot.
Somewhat open, to me, means larger companies will be able to buy a license for individual products. You and I both posited in another thread that Necro would probably be able to do that, regardless of whether or not 4e is "fully open".
And I feel fairly confident that sort of this WILL happen with 4e, regardless of an official open license policy. And you also said you thought it likely Necro would be able to pull off a deal like that. So we both agree, at least partially, on that aspect of the issue.
And it is also that aspect that some people seem to care about. It's not 25% of people who care about "open". It's not 50% won't buy without "open". The part where it breaks down is when you ask about "fully open", and in that part this poll shows exactly what I said - people really do not care about that aspect as much as you seem to care about it.
Which was the focus of my post - what you thought was a "crazy interpretation", despite the fact that elsewhere you seem to feel it's actually quite a relevant issue to consider, and involves a much finer distinction than "open". People care if the generally more established companies be able to publish some 4e stuff, and that can be done through one-off licensing. People do not care much about the game being fully open. Which was my point.
Last edited:
ainatan said:
The key word in here is special. Exception to the rule. Non-standard. How many companies would actually get a special license if they approached WotC about one? My guess is very few. The people voting for some form of 3rd party products are also posting in here saying how much they really want to be able to keep getting new products from Necro, GR, whoever that are 4E compatible. They still want to be able to get products from the companies they like and trust. Whether that tacitly means they want to have the OGL vs special licenses doesn't make that much difference to me, as I don't see licenses like that as a very common item in the RPG market to say the least.
Hussar
Legend
SSquirrel said:
Really? Look at Mongoose. They have licensed products for EVERYTHING. My mind has gone blank, but look at the Dragonlance guys. Kalamar. Ravenloft was a licensed product. Dungeon and Dragon magazine. Necromancer's Tome of Horrors.
Heck, would we even know who Paizo was if they didn't do Dragon and Dungeon?
There were quite a few licensed products in the 3e days. A fair number of the most popular 3rd party products were not fully open material.
the Jester
Legend
Of course I'd buy 4e even if it were completely closed.
I am an epic-level Gaming Whore.
I am an epic-level Gaming Whore.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I voted 2nd (partially open).
I'm usually not interested in 3rd party crunch. Heck, I'm not that interested in WotC crunch past the three core books.
However, I would like to see 3rd party adventures, and I'm pretty sure that takes some kind of license.
I'm usually not interested in 3rd party crunch. Heck, I'm not that interested in WotC crunch past the three core books.
However, I would like to see 3rd party adventures, and I'm pretty sure that takes some kind of license.
Jack Colby
First Post
I'd absolutely buy 4E no matter what. Having open rules is nice since other companies can have a shot at developing interesting new things for the game, but it's certainly not a deal-breaker.
Wyrmshadows
Explorer
Mistwell said:
Its unfortunate really when so few care about open gaming when open gaming brought about some truely great 3rd party companies like Necro, Paradigm, Privateer Press, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, Mongoose (in the post Quintessential Series era what I refer to as the Conan D20 and Runequest era), Goodman, Paizo, etc.
I love True20 and ca thank the OGL for its existance.
Honestly, I am teetering on the 4e fence leaning toward "4e can piss off" but a retreat from open gaming would make me fall off onto the "4e can piss off" and "WoTC will never get another dime from me" fence.
Wyrmshadows
Similar Threads
