|
I have not seen the SRD either, no one has. Both of us are drawing conclusions from perception. I am tempering that with how the OGL has been applied in the past. I am hard pressed to figure out how it would be possible to enforce a strong fluff/crunch connection through the OGL. A new 4e OGL would at least have to take into consideration what has come before. Otherwise the 4e OGL would be so prohibitive that publishers would simply ignore it in favor of the easier to use current OGL.
If you've actually seen the SRD, then I'll defer to your judgement. All I've seen are the previews, and these IMPLY (but do not actually state/enforce) a very strong tie between "Fluff" and "Crunch" - one that gives them a much tighter grip on the "brand" and anything done with it.It won't, which may be one reason why they haven't yet released the SRD to "partner companies."
But there is no logic in limiting third party development by insisting all fluff found in the SRD must be used by publishers in their material. Such a restriction would render the contract useless to publishers like Paizo and thus negate the spirit of the license entirely.Which MIGHT (I don't KNOW though...) be part of the plan; release a "useless" license for anyone to use, to help showcase how "awesome" the full version is.
Again, I hope for the best but greatly fear the worst...
Wizards could ignore anything produced by a third party publisher but this action would increase the chances they duplicate efforts, something neither Wizards or third party publishers would want.Why not? See what other publishers do, then do it "better"... That's allegedly a trick Gygax used in the early days, after all (though I admit the person who told me about that was a former employee and self-proclaimed ex-friend of his, who also claimed to be an "uncredited developer" of the original game, so take it with a grain of...
First off, they can still do this with a more permissive license. In fact, it makes more sense for the license to be more permissive in this case so that they expect a wide and varied set of developments from other publishers.
Second, and more importantly, I regret that you didn't answer my question. I asked:
But let's presume your scenario is true. What explicit evidence from the previews leads you to believe Wizards will tie the hands of publishers so completely? What is about the previews that seems to contradict 8 years of a fairly equitable practice? Give me some quotes that seem to imply the limitation of development by third party publishers.
because you seemed to indicate the current previews somehow led you to believe this was the case. I don't see the same scenario unfolding.
We can argue best/worst case scenarios all day. I don't see this as the end of the world personally. But I won't belabor my point because there is nothing you or I can say that will sway the other. We won't know the truth until the game comes out and the SRD/OGL is finished.
I will say this, I respect your opinion. I hope the worst case scenario isn't true and so far I haven't seen anything that makes me feel otherwise. But I respect you are worried for the game you love and how it is developing in the future. Your feelings in this case are just as valid and I hope we are both pleasantly satisified.
|
I won't bother with a prediction. If you asked me five years ago if people would still be playing 1st and 2nd edition, and have tables at major cons filling up with 1e, 2e and Hackmaster players, yearning for the old days, I'd have laughed in your face.
Then I see an Adventure! game listed in the Origins / GenCon list and I nearly wet myself with enthusiasm to play this dead and abandoned game that had exactly one product (only to be disappointed when I get to the con and find out that the jerks aren't actually running an Adventure! game at all and are taken aback that I brought multiple characters and copies of the rules, since it's some sort of live-action system-less thing that I would have known about if I checked their non-existent website...), so what do I know?
I do predict that continuing to call anyone with a misgiving about some of the upcoming changes a 'whiner' or a 'hater' or a hypocrite that's gonna run right out and buy the game the second it comes out is probably *not* the best debating tactic.
Well, unless you are *trying* to use condescending posts to get people to reflexively ignore the occasionally *reasonable* points you are making (in between insults), in which case, you're doing a bang up job, keep it up!
|
|
I do predict that continuing to call anyone with a misgiving about some of the upcoming changes a 'whiner' or a 'hater' or a hypocrite that's gonna run right out and buy the game the second it comes out is probably *not* the best debating tactic.Well, unless you are *trying* to use condescending posts to get people to reflexively ignore the occasionally *reasonable* points you are making (in between insults), in which case, you're doing a bang up job, keep it up!
I didn't think anything I said was condescending. Did I misstep here and not know it? I thought I was presenting points that were pertinent to my thoughts on the matter. I certainly don't recall calling anyone a whiner or a hater during this discussion. 4e has a lot of people charged up and sensitivity is running high on both sides.
I respect everyone's opinion, I just don't see the doom and gloom. I thought I was being very civil but if I wasn't please let me know, point out what was specifically insulting, I will step out of this discussion right now.
|
|
I didn't think anything I said was condescending. Did I misstep here and not know it? I thought I was presenting points that were pertinent to my thoughts on the matter.
I respect everyone's opinion, I just don't see the doom and gloom. I thought I was being very civil but if I wasn't please let me know, point out what was specifically insulting, I will step out of this discussion right now.
By coincidence only, your post was directly before mine.
As your post wasn't calling other posters 'whiners' or 'haters' or suggesting that anyone complaining about 4E this week is gonna be buying all of the books when they come out anyway, no matter what they say, you can be assured that I wasn't referring to you.
Just a timing issue. You happened to be standing closest when I commented about those darn kids on my lawn. :)
|
|
I didn't think anything I said was condescending. Did I misstep here and not know it? I thought I was presenting points that were pertinent to my thoughts on the matter.
I respect everyone's opinion, I just don't see the doom and gloom. I thought I was being very civil but if I wasn't please let me know, point out what was specifically insulting, I will step out of this discussion right now.
By coincidence only, your post was directly before mine.
As your post wasn't calling other posters 'whiners' or 'haters' or suggesting that anyone complaining about 4E this week is gonna be buying all of the books when they come out anyway, no matter what they say, you can be assured that I wasn't referring to you.
Just a timing issue. You happened to be standing closest when I commented about those darn kids on my lawn. :)
:) Okay. I feel better. Thank you.
I know I have consciously worded and even re-edited my recent posts so they don't seem like I don't respect the feelings of others. It is so hard to portray tone in a forum environment that I hate to insult someone without intending to do so. One could say I am nearly paraniod about it. I want to do my part to keep these discussions civil so we can argue the pros/cons and likes/dislikes in a comfortable environment. The discussion should be lively not angry.
|
|
Sorry, I missed the direct question.
Actually, I personally haven't seen anything beyond a few suggestions that link the fluff to the rules very tightly in the Elf write-up, but I've heard comments from some publishers of d20 material (mostly Kenzer & Company staff, and I admit there seems to be a bit of bad blood between them and WoTC, so that may be coloring things) that THEY have seen much stronger hints of this.
Unfortunately, either they are going by supposition based on preview material (as I am), are operating under NDA, or both, so I can't be more specific than this.
Okay, that makes total sense. I can see feeling that way based on that thought. I hadn't paid much attention to what other companies were saying because I kind of assumed they were in the dark as much as we are. I could be wrong about that. Especially in light of how close some of these companies have worked with Wizards in the past.
One point that seems to be missing in this discussion - and which I think is worthy of inclusion - is that 4e will be closely tied to DDI. While the current debate becomes purely academic when applied to those who use strictly tabletop methods of play, those who use WotC's digital table and other tools will be forced to incorporate much of the fluff along with their mechanics. This is a significant point because much of WotC's new product will be available only (or at least primarily) in digital format. Thus, an ever-increasing number of players will be drawn (should I say "forced"?) to DDI to get this new content.
No digital system could possibly incorporate every possible house rule or DM-created variant, so while the DDI might have some flexibility it will have to use much of the WotC-created fluff by default. Also, it should not be overlooked that WotC intended from the beginning for the fluff and crunch to become nearly inseparable, insomuch as they're trying to become a competitor for the WoW market - they want to build a cohesive and consistent online community rather than support a mere "framework" that can be used by disparate groups scattered throughout the real world.
And the earlier poster was right: this is all intended to drive people closer and closer to a completely digital method of play. There may or may not be another printed version of D&D someday, but tabletop RPGs as a hobby are dying out along with building ships in bottles and quilting - there will always be enthusiasts, but fewer and fewer with every passing year. WotC will survive, and D&D will survive, but neither will ever again be what it was.
|
|
No digital system could possibly incorporate every possible house rule or DM-created variant, so while the DDI might have some flexibility it will have to use much of the WotC-created fluff by default.
I imagine this will work like the Magic: the Gathering system. 'Official' tournaments and delves and games at conventions will require DI-supported material only. But it won't stop two dudes from sitting down at a table, whipping out their decks and playing a game that isn't official or supported and uses all sorts of cards that WotC cringes at having introduced in the first place.
|
i am curious - what fluff looks mandatory to you?Several bits in the Elf write-up mostly ("Play an elf if you...") - beyond that, nothing more than a general feeling, which I HOPE to be wrong about but won't be surprised at all if I'm not.
That, and it's one way to further reign in their IP, keeping more of the Cash Cow in their own hands, which seems to be at least 1/3 of their motivation behind this edition.
Not sure I understand - what about that particular fluff seems mandatory? Why can't it imply be changed to fit the campaign setting?
|
|
Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.Never has there been official fluff to speak of.
Never before have DMs had to work much to remove it -- that's likely to change with 4/e. Not arguing, just pointing out an annoying (IMO) point.
Uh, the 3.5 PHB is loaded with official fluff so how is 4E different - considering we have not even had a peek at the PHB?
What will happen in the future? Who knows.
Some will buy the rule books for better rules and discard all lore and make their own up. Some will embrace the change. Others will stick with older versions as they currently are. Some will take a few rules here and there and stick with older versions. Then there will be people like my friend Edd whom when he finds out whats happened to planescape will throw a fit.
-----------------------------------------
"Looking at the cake is like looking at the future, until you've tasted it, what do you really know? And then, of course, it's too late."