Search Posts
But TigerDave, those cookies are guarded by an IET soldier of the opposite sex, that happens to be attractive... I'd stay away if I were you. ;)
It's certainly understandable for Wizards to want to eliminate potential competition over their upcoming releases. I just don't feel that it is, in the long term, a good idea. The reason for that is that I think it overestimates the threat from competing third-party sourcebooks. ...and no one would take you seriously, since those are previously defined D&D terms. Maybe WoTC is paranoid about it, but that doesn't mean that it's really justified. I guess I just fail to see how any of it has been a real problem, in monetary terms, for them, under the OGL. To use your example, let's say I do buy your book if it comes out first. If it's crap, I'll probably tell all my friends not to buy it. If it's mediocre, eh. I might use it, but... regardless, I'm still going to look at what WoTC puts out. Furthermore, if definitions are in conflict, anything WoTC puts out is going to be considered D&D canon, and any third-party stuff is going to be on par with house rules. Sure, you can use it, but most people won't be.
I do tend to agree that D&D is now the leading RPG, and I tend to think that this is one of the things driving WoTC to implement the switch from OGL to GSL. However, looking back at the history of D&D, it also occurs to me that D&D was originally the pinnacle and leader of the RPG industry. It was the first game that went into mass publication, and was the one that everyone originally played. Many of the first RPGs that followed copied or emulated it quite closely, and only over time did they start to evolve into significantly different games. The proprietary nature of the D&D rules didn't prevent D&D from losing its luster, though, and moving from emulated leader to derided old has-been. Also, consider the 4E business plan: the core rules are released in installments. Imagine the possibilities for 3rd party publishers if 3E's OGL applied equally now: you'd see a glut of 3rd party "PHB IIs", quickly developed and released before WotC gets to their version. They can't risk that - the core material has to remain in Wizards' hands, that's where the heart of the business is. It's certainly understandable for Wizards to want to eliminate potential competition over their upcoming releases. I just don't feel that it is, in the long term, a good idea. The reason for that is that I think it overestimates the threat from competing third-party sourcebooks. As a D&D gamer, looking at the shelf, am I more likely to buy something from Wizards than I am from someone else, even if both are fully compatible with D&D. I still bought the 3.x PHB 2 and DMG 2, for example, despite the massive amounts of third-party supplements available. Now, what would make me change my mind, and buy third-party material instead? Well, if I thought that the quality of the official Wizards product was significantly inferior, or not of any use to me, I would likely give strong consideration to competing material. So where does the OGL/GSL issue come into this? Well, the main difference is that if there's no competing material that's compatible, and I decide that the D&D material isn't worth my time, I'm going to switch systems entirely - which means I don't purchase any of Wizards' stuff, instead of buying some things from them, and some things from others. Of course, in the case that Wizards' products are superior, I'd be buying them regardless, so the issue is moot.
Hence, the GSL. The OGL produced competitors, not allies. I don't know why anyone's surprised that they didn't repeat that mistake. The OGL did not "produce" competitors. Most of the companies that produced system core rules under the d20/OGL were the companies that previously had released their own rules that were incompatible with D&D. The OGL made it so that they were instead adhering to the d20 standard. Again, it's entirely anecdotal evidence, but from what I've seen, 3.x did vastly better vis-a-vis competing systems than 2nd Edition did. The OGL certainly was not solely responsible for this, but it in no way hurt them. Under 2nd Edition, D&D was a game that most of the serious gamers I knew looked down on, and sought better systems. Conversely, the OGL made D&D the center of the RPG universe under 3.x. Even if you weren't playing D&D, you were still basically playing their game. I could repeat my full explanation from the post I made previously on why I think that is, but I don't want to belabor the point. Personally, I find the switch in the tone from OGL to GSL fascinating. It strikes me as a huge mistake, honestly. Instead of the vast majority of gamers playing by the rules they set as the industry standard, we will instead return a mixture of competing proprietary rules and people still using d20/OGL stuff. Not everyone is going to play D&D, all the time. By making your system proprietary, you just increase the odds that people will say "eh, I don't need those, I'm not that likely to ever use them."
Rifts is not a universal system. Rifts is the bastard child of 1st edition D&D. There were a number of systems prior to the d20 System/OGL that attempted to create a universal ruleset, that could then be applied to any number of settings and genres. "Rifts" was actually just one setting out of the Palladium series of games, and the one that wound up being the most familiar. What really differentiated d20 from any of those predecessors, though, was the OGL. All of the prior efforts had been largely, if not wholly, proprietary. The systems might work great (or might not), but the only people putting out material for it was that company. Third-party stuff was the very minimal exception, and not the rule, even just for support material, let alone actual system compatibility.
The whole point (well not the whole point, but a by product that has become sort of a main point) of the OGL/d20 System is that companies can use the OGL/d20 System to create their own Lisenced games. Well, I can't really speak to what WoTC intended to happen with the OGL. I can, however, speak to what the RPG spectrum looked like before the advent of d20/OGL. There were a lot of different systems out there. D&D was just one of many that someone could choose from, both in terms of genre and in terms of rules. Most gamers seemed to have their preferences, and while some people were interested in more than one game, they tended to stick with a particular system. I also noted that a lot of the gamers I knew seemed to hold a bit of disdain towards D&D. That is, they considered the rules to be inferior, and treated it as if it was the entry-level game kids and teenagers played, before moving on to 'better' systems. Enter the d20/OGL, and 3rd Edition. Maybe it's just me, but I see d20 dominating the gaming scene these days. What really drew my attention was watching Third Party publishers and games that existed pre-d20 dropping their old rules, and converting to use the d20 system. People no longer seem to focus on all sorts of other systems - instead, d20, and D&D, is the focus of the pen and paper/dice/tabletop RPG community. It's completely anecdotal, of course - but I attribute that in large part to the OGL. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the OGL was a huge windfall for WoTC and D&D, because it drew everyone into the same universe, rules-wise. In other words, d20 became an "Industry Standard." I would go so far as to say that 'derivative game systems' really didn't hurt D&D 3.x's product sales at all, and if anything, they helped them out immensely. Why is that? The answer is that WotC shouldn't care if I buy other things, so long as I'm buying theirs. It doesn't matter if you play it or not, ultimately, so long as you bought it. The d20 system minimized or eliminated the sense of "this is a different ruleset, it's worthless to me." That cuts both ways, of course - for instance, I bought the Call of Cthulhu d20 rules because I wanted to use some of the material in my D&D games. It also comes down to a question of, "How many people bought d20 system rulebooks that didn't buy the D&D 3.x rulebooks?" I would hazard to guess the answer is 'very few'. Now let's consider the hypothetical buyer who intends to purchase only one set of core rulebooks. He/she will likely focus on three things: 1- Rules
Under d20/OGL, #1 is no longer a factor. Thus, we're left with #2 and #3. I would argue that anyone who is interested in other genres probably wouldn't be buying D&D anyway. #3 is a win for D&D, because they're one of the giants of the RPG industry, name-wise. Thus, I don't think there was a lot of direct competition between WoTC and companies producing d20 base systems, that wasn't there before. What the GSL seems to be doing, in effect, is trying to return D&D to being the sole center of the universe in terms of rules, and I think this is a big mistake. For one, I think it will discourage a lot of companies that otherwise would have printed their own rulebooks, but lent a good deal of support to the 4e System even just by printing those rulebooks. It's probably also worth noting that Paizo wasn't publishing its own ruleset prior to the announcement/release of 4E. As such, I might suggest that development has nothing to do with any flaws in the OGL, and more to do with the nature of the GSL, and the very fact of the way 4E has been met by many fans.
Pathfinder generally strikes me as an evolution from 3.x, and as such, it does not 'feel' like a markedly different system. On the whole, there really was not a massive difference between 3.0 and 3.5, to the extent that I and those I played with did not have to make any major changes when we 'switched'. In fact, I can't really even recall when we did, because we were still using the same sourcebooks, just with a new PHB/DMG/etc. Rules changes crept in, but it felt as much like collected errata as it did anything else. 4th Edition, by contrast, is such a huge change on so many levels that there is really no mistaking it. It is an entirely different system, that happens to use similar base concepts and terms. This isn't referring to whether or not it's difficult to learn/etc, but no one can mistake that you're playing it. Incidentally, it probably also adds a little bit of confusion that 'Pathfinder' is not just the name of the gaming system rules, but also is used for the module periodical series, and has been used to refer to the game world of Golarion as well. Incidentally, I hear a lot about the differences between the OGL and GSL, and about how some companies intend to get wholly behind this or that, or how they're going to publish. Would anyone be able to publish the details of what it means, legally, to sign, what you can and can't do, etc?
"It doesn't feel like D&D." This was the exact same quote I heard from a fellow gamer at the local gaming store. It was prefaced by expressing positives about the system, but that was the final verdict. For me, it hit on a note that I'd been feeling, but hadn't quite put into words. I tried the system, and I liked it - but on a number of levels, it just failed to grab my interest. The game flowed well enough in combat, and didn't seem difficult to pick up (at least for experienced gamers). However, what grabs my attention about a system tends to be as much 'fluff' as it is how good the rules are. Let's face it, D&D in any edition has never been a 'perfect system'. I've certainly played other RPGs that improved on it in many ways. However, those games never pulled me away from D&D for long. Likewise, I never really had as much interest in playing other 'games' with the D&D rules. I bought the Call of Cthulhu d20 sourcebook, but I did so mainly to use in my D&D games, for example. Would I have played it standalone? Absolutely. Would I have gone back to D&D afterwards? Again, yes. When changing to 2nd Edition, and then later to 3.0/3.5, I still had those familiar backdrops. The campaign settings were still there, by and large, in recognizeable form, and the monsters, planes, etc, all were still sort of there. Sure, we griped about the removal of Demons and Devils in 2nd Edition, but they were later put back in, and in the meantime we just continued using the 1st Ed books when necessary for those. I could live with most of the rules changes. Couple that with an elimination or radical rearranging of all of the traditions that the game carries with it, and I no longer recognize it anymore. WoTC likely believes that this is a necessary thing for their continued business model. They're certainly entitled to make that judgment - many companies do, deciding that they need to cater to certain customers, and not to others. I feel (for a variety of reasons) that I have been subtly told 'this product is not meant for you'.
Hello everyone, I'm looking for a face to face gaming group, playing 3.5 or Pathfinder rules, in the Northern VA/DC/Maryland metro area. Ideally, I'd like to do something on the lines of Savage Tide, Rise of the Runelords, or Crimson Throne, but I'd be open to other things. Evenings and weekends preferred, as is a relatively mature group (i.e., ages 18+).
I would definitely agree. I think we need to not get too far off subject, and perhaps focus more on the themes we would like to see. So far, I'm very positive on the general sound of a vicious, debauched, and depraved demon-worshipping society. I also like very much the idea of a direct relationship between being a dark elf, and being an evil/monstrous/demon-worshipping/etc type, whereby dark elves that do 'turn good' can be turned back into elves, and elves that turn evil can become tainted into dark elves. I like these things because it covers the 'classic' feel of the drow as scary monsters ("oh %$#%, drow!"), provides a reasonable explanation for how the dark elves came to be, and creates a channel for those stories of redemption or fall from grace that may arise, that avoids the cliche stereotypes we normally associate with it from past versions of drow.
I would definitely suggest decoupling from the more specific details, and focusing on the underlying themes (this is generally wise anyway, from the standpoint of copyrights, etc). I like the notion of dark elves that worship various demon lords, definitely. As to the whole 'drow are monsters' bit, as well as Emo-Drow syndrome... I'll definitely echo the suggestion of Feist-style changing of sides. I like this very much. I think it allows for the dark elves to remain 'monsters', and at the same time, allowing for subtlety, nuance, and a greater degree of depth. I don't think the potential to not be evil necessarily undermines their monstrous or evil nature... otherwise, demons and devils would be the only true monsters out there. The physiological differences could have to do, therefore, with the demonic influences on them. An elf who then succumbs to the corruption of the demons might be then altered physically into one of the dark elves. Conversely, a dark elf that seeks redemption might be able to purge that taint, likely with the aid of elven clerics and various rituals, etc. Both instances would probably be extremely rare, but possible. Thus, when you see a dark elf, you know they're evil, the same way that you see an evil cultist in full regalia, or a lich, etc... it's safe to shoot first, shoot again, shoot some more, and ask questions via Speak with Dead. ;) Ultimately, I think it also prevents the otherwise inevitable "but I'm different" streak that spawned Drizzt in the first place, because no matter how much you define them as monsters, someone will eventually want to play one. :P This would also, incidentally, answer the question of where the dark elves came from, too.
My take on the matter: I don't hate the concept of 4e. I'm open to the idea that the core system can be improved, and some of the concepts I've heard sound reasonable or good. I really dislike almost everything I've heard about the non-rule aspects of the games. This includes changes to lore, races, monsters, and in particular, game worlds. I've been a hardcore Forgotten Realms fan for years, and bought every supplement for 3.x FR. However, the changes that they've announced for that world bothered me to the point that I no longer feel interested in playing there. But to echo Molech, what's worse is not the plans, but the response of WoTC to complaints about what is coming. I'm not talking about a negative response to flames, whines, or other general griping. I'm talking about calm, reasoned attempts to ask why, and to then suggest alternatives that would achieve the goals WoTC stated were behind the changes, but with less perceived damage to the feel of the world. The responses to this ranged from poor to condescending, I felt. In short, I feel like I have been told that my opinions are not valued, and that I am a customer are either unwanted, or taken for granted.
That was my take as well - that either they have it determined already, or they're still undecided, but have narrowed it down to a certain date range. Overall, my primary concern with all the changes that have been previewed is the growing sense that much of what made the Realms special for myself and others is going to get radically altered, or killed outright. That is to say, the characters, deities, settings, and so forth are going to go away or become warped in a way that they become unfamiliar. Worse yet, it's all going to happen in a very short period, in terms of real-world time, and that a lot of it will feel forced or contrived. I need only look to the recent deaths of two major Realms NPCs in the prologue setup text of recent adventures (not even in the actual adventure, but "X is dead, and..."). Hopefully it won't wind up being that bad. I intend to try and make my views known as best I can, on the official boards.
Of note, Rich Baker has stated on the WotC forums that they aren't yet allowed to say when exactly the 4th Edition FRCS will be set, so we don't know specifically if it will be 10 years (i.e., 1385 DR) in the future, 100 years, or some other date. All we do know is that it will be at least a jump to 1385 DR or later. |
