D&D 4E Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies?

[SteveC]

Call me foolish, but I still hold out hope for Wizards just using the OGL. I know, I have said I think it is more likely that they use a GSL or STL-style license with restrictions. But I dont want to say the OGL approach for 4E is dead. I'm still holding out hope.

So I guess I would change your comment to "#1 is likely not going to happen." I wouldnt say "clearly dead."

But maybe I am just a silly optimist. I did take it as a prestige class, after all... Demon Lord 10 / Evil Wizard 10 / Paladin (fallen?) 10 / Silly Optimist 4

Clark

I wish I still had this kind of hope. I think that continuing the OGL, and really working to partner with some of the companies that do the kind of work that WotC isn't so great at would be the best solution. I'll have hope that this will all work out until they announce otherwise, but at this point it wouldn't surprise me if they said, "after review by our lawyers, we're canceling out participation in the OGL, and there will be no new GSL."

That would make me

--Steve

(Still also hopin')

 

[Roman]

AFAIK, the only OGC Dragon produced was a single special issue.

I didn't even know that.

Was Polyhedron OGC? I'm not sure.

I sincerely doubt it was.

 

[ruemere]

I believe I'm going to have a look at 4E once it comes into open and judge on its own merits before making a purchase.

The lack of 3rd party electronic products, lack of 3rd party game manuals (i.e. settings with unique rules) will probably discourage me from buying further products under 4E brand.

I support third party publishers and third party utilities (and I own 40+ products to prove it).
I also happen to believe that any kind of monopoly or censorship is an invitation to stagnation, while existence of competition ensures the quality of top products.

The richness of open market brings also mediocre (or worse) products, but, since I am a customer, I am free to ignore stuff I don't like.

That's why I'd like to ask those who do not care about openness of D&D, to stay tolerant and support OGL in 4E. Things you don't buy cannot hurt your game, while enriching others'.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Some third party publishers I'd like to continue for 4E (in no particular order):
Paizo, Necromancer Games, Sword and Sorcery Studios, Monte Cook.
PS.2. PcGen!
PS.3. EDIT: errors.

 

[xechnao]

I also happen to believe that any kind of monopoly or censorship is an invitation to stagnation, while existence of competition ensures the quality of top products.

What monopoly or censorship? RPGs are neither monopolized nor censored. D&D and D20, as BRAND NAMEs are owned by Wotc and Wotc has the absolute right to do with these names as wishes. There just is NO invitation on this here. If the rpg business has no resources to deal with the lack of this invitation, then it is dead already. But guess what: it isn't.
The sky hasn't fallen yet and I don't know if it ever will.

 

[Roman]

I wish I still had this kind of hope. I think that continuing the OGL, and really working to partner with some of the companies that do the kind of work that WotC isn't so great at would be the best solution. I'll have hope that this will all work out until they announce otherwise, but at this point it wouldn't surprise me if they said, "after review by our lawyers, we're canceling out participation in the OGL, and there will be no new GSL."

I doubt that. There has been no indication that WotC has changed its plans on the GSL. There has been a delay, yes, but so far I would be hesitant to speculate about cancellation.

 

[Ranger REG]

There has been some recent speculation on whether 4E will in fact be open and if there will be a GSL. I am wondering whether this would affect your purchasing decisions regarding 4E. So... would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies or fans?

Please vote on the poll and elaborate on your thoughts in the thread.

Assuming I want 4e -- which I'm not interested even though it's coming out in less than two months -- and it's good, I'd buy it. I will still lament 4e not being Open though, but I am relieved that Paizo decided to make Pathfinder and that 3e will evolve on its own direction through 3PP. It's possible that some rules concept in 4e may make its way through future-gen 3e (though best not to use the 4e copyrighted books).

I will continue to support OGL.

 

[Roman]

Assuming I want 4e -- which I'm not interested even though it's coming out in less than two months -- and it's good, I'd buy it. I will still lament 4e not being Open though, but I am relieved that Paizo decided to make Pathfinder and that 3e will evolve on its own direction through 3PP. It's possible that some rules concept in 4e may make its way through future-gen 3e (though best not to use the 4e copyrighted books).

I will continue to support OGL.

I will not buy 4e unless it is open, though I am not sure about what degree of openness would be sufficient a d20-like license would do the trick. If it is open then I don't know whether I will buy it or not. That said, I do think it will be open, so I am still undecided on 4e.

 

[Hussar]

I will not buy 4e unless it is open, though I am not sure about what degree of openness would be sufficient a d20-like license would do the trick. If it is open then I don't know whether I will buy it or not. That said, I do think it will be open, so I am still undecided on 4e.

Out of curiousity, may I ask why? Given that there are so many RPG's out there that are completely closed, why should the openess of D&D be a deciding factor?

 

[Roman]

Out of curiousity, may I ask why? Given that there are so many RPG's out there that are completely closed, why should the openess of D&D be a deciding factor?

Because I dislike many aspects of 4e.

Firstly, there is the issue of the rules. I feel that simulationism (and I like me my simulationism) has been trampled over - basically, the designers paid no attention to it whatsoever and whatever simulationism is present in the rules is there not by deliberate design, but arising coincidently out of their gamist rules. Simulationism in the rules is especially important for me as a DM and less so as a player (though I do like it as a player too), but I am almost always the DM.

Then there is flavor. Even though I do like many of the flavor changes individually, their extent makes it feel like not D&D for me anymore - I do enjoy my D&D tropes - that is one of the reasons I play the game.

These are all reasons for me not to buy 4e... if it is closed. If it is open at least to some extent, some of these problems of the new edition might be eliminated or at least mitigated by third party products. There are some aspects of 4e that I do like (for example, every class getting something interesting at every level, or the elimination of iterative attacks), so eliminating/mitigating the above issues through third party options may make me buy the game. Still, it is uncertain whether third party companies would actually provide this kind of support, so my buying of 4e would not be guarranteed even if it were open.

As to other closed RPGs, I don't currently play RPGs other than D&D (and if I don't switch to 4e, I will stay with 3.5E or go to Pathfinder, but I won't go looking for some completely different RPG). Nevertheless, if I liked the rules and flavor of an RPG such that I did not need them supplemented/redefined by third party products, I would not care much as to whether it were open or closed. Indeed, 3.5E is such an RPG for me and I would have bought it even if it were closed.

 

[Roman]

Just to elaborate on the above... I voted that I would only buy 4E if it were at least somewhat open (though of course I would not necessarily buy it even then).