|
I see a bunch of companies essentially leaching of of WotC's intellectual property.The SRD wasn't their "intellectual property" by the fact that it was OGL. Some things in D&D were and some things were not. If they were not part of the SRD then they were wotc's intellectual property and people could not use them. There is a difference. That is why they are changing the rules this time around so they can use an iron fist over what is and is not done by other companies. It is also an obvious push to shove the "little guy" out of business or at least keep him from using " the new toys".
The SRD is WotC intellectual property. They have an open license for it but that does not mean that they do not own it.
So you think its a good thing to take the work another company has done and change it just enough to be familiar but different enough to be less than compatible?
Who cares about compatibility? At least, I mean int he cases of M&M and True 20. They are different for different types of games. True 20 was for people who wanted a less chunky more open, streamlined game, but with the basic concepts and mechanics of d20.What about M&M, it's a superhero game. Unless you are doing some weird crossing, you wouldn't NEED it to be compatible with D&D. Compatibility is not an issue. Just because wotc wants to do something with "their game" that doesn't mean its automatically the "correct" thing to do.
How exactly does the proliferation of d20 knock offs help the market? Why should any company open up its IP to this kind of manipulation?
So you do not believe that anything good came from D20 being OGL? I definitely have to disagree. A large amount of fantastic ideas and projects came out because of OGL. Many people who needed a break into the industry got their chance. Heck the fact that PAIZO just had the RPG superstar is a prime example of this. I most definitely feel the good far outweighed the bad.
The SRD is WotC intellectual property. They have an open license for it but that does not mean that they do not own it.
But not in the way you were implying. You were implying theft by your use of the term "leeching".
Works like Star Gate d20 won't be possible any more. True 20, Arcana Evolved and the like will not be possible any more,True - and i see that as a good thing. The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.
I call shenanigans on this. Hell, I'd call something else, but I like posting here. I don't know about you CWM, but it sounds like KaeYoss and I have something in common; We both want options. It's like my mother told me, "If you don't like the food I make for you, make your own!" If I don't like what WotC has done to my game, but I think I can do it better, why should I, why should anyone be stopped from trying? This spoon-fed "We own it, so we do it best" drivel that I hear oh so much of smacks of laziness and complacency. I want a multitude of choices to supplement my hobby. I want more than one company working on my hobby. I want to be able to do it myself one day if I so choose.
If you think you can make heavy metal better than Metalicca, you start your own metal band.
If you think you can make burgers better than McDonalds, you start your own burger joint.
If you think you can make a better game than Wizards of the Coast, you start your own company.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but that's just my opinion... [/rant]
While I can't speak for CWM, I agree with what I (assume) his point is. I'm not for no StarGate game, but a non-d20 version sure would be swell. More games, good! More games crammed into a mechanical framework that may or may not ideally support them soley because its popular, bad!
Games like M&M were never the idea behind the OGL, and while I wouldn't say they were stealing WotC's work, they WERE using the base mechanics for essentially $0. If I were WotC I'd be mad too!
Games like M&M were never the idea behind the OGL, and while I wouldn't say they were stealing WotC's work, they WERE using the base mechanics for essentially $0. If I were WotC I'd be mad too!
Really? If I were WotC, I'd be beeming with pride. Someone liked what I did so much that they're implementing it in a way I'd never even thought of. Again, maybe that's just me.
Although, I do have a question: If there are multiple car companies, why does every car have four wheels? Why didn't Ford tell Chevy "Screw you, we're using the four-wheel model! Use three or five, but 4W is our creation and you can't use it unless we say it's ok!"?
Seems a little silly if you ask me...
|
So you think its a good thing to take the work another company has done and change it just enough to be familiar but different enough to be less than compatible?
Don't blame us. WotC thought it was a good idea when they made the Open Gaming License, and even took advantage of it themselves to make d20 Modern, and d20 Star Wars.
They might consider it the evilest thing that ever eviled *this week,* but they built the darn robot in the first place. I didn't invent Christmas Tree Syndrome, or make chargen 'like boring homework,' or make the Realms too darn rich and wondrous and beautiful that it needed to be chopped down and made into an endtable. And I didn't write the OGL, so they can bloody well stop blaming and punishing me, the fan, for it.
How exactly does the proliferation of d20 knock offs help the market?
By getting more people into buying role-playing games and walking past the shelves full of WotC product in the first place. Every time I walk in and get a new Mutants & Masterminds books, I *also* see if Wizards has any new D&D stuff on the shelf.
And did Mutants & Masterminds take one single shiny copper piece away from WotC's super-hero RPG? Apparently not, since I can't find such a beastie anywhere. Oh look, it's the new Unearthed Arcana, now with some rules systems taken directly from Mutants & Masterminds, to tweak your game! (And we didn't have to pay Steve Kenson nuffin! Just put his name in the front of the book!)
The 'd20 knock offs' worked in genres that WotC didn't seem to be covering. WotC handed the Ravenloft license off to Sword & Sorcery, since it was a niche *that they didn't want to explore.* They got paid for the Ravenloft license being used, and, thanks to the OGL, got to use any rule they wanted from the various license-users.
"You guys can sell stuff using our rules, rather than create competing systems like GURPS or Storyteller, that we get nothing out of, and we'll just take whatever the heck we like of your work!"
Brilliance. Cherry-pick the absolute best, re-purpose them, and ignore the rest. Scarred Lands had Sorcerous 'Scion' feats long before mainstream D&D adopted them, as well as 'Locus Feats' that have reappeared in a different form under the name 'Reserve Feats.' They not only took from the licensees, they *improved* these things, and that's the strength of the OGL. Instead of one or two dudes writing a sourcebook, limited to their own ideas, which may or may not resonate with a large chunk of the fanbase, they've got *hundreds* of writers out there, and they can scoff at about 90% of it, and look very seriously at the other 10% and say, 'This. This is COOL! Yoink!'
[Note, WotC designers may or may not have even seen the S&S stuff before coming up with their own versions. Hard to say. Parallel evolution does occur, although since some of the S&S writers went on to work for WotC, it's possible that both types of feats were written by the very same dude!]
Best of all, you've got former writers for D&D, like Sean Reynolds and Monte Cook and Skip Williams, writing their own books, each of which is *adding* to the 'slush pile' of ideas. They may not get their paychecks from WotC any longer, *but they are still working for them,* so long as the OGL-derived work they are writing can be adopted whole cloth by WotC, and, in any event, builds on the WotC core books and system.
Why should any company open up its IP to this kind of manipulation?
All the reasons listed above.
The OGL seems to have been a raging success at growing the market.
Shrinking the market and shutting out potential customers at this particular juncture might not be the best idea ever.
Games like M&M were never the idea behind the OGL, and while I wouldn't say they were stealing WotC's work, they WERE using the base mechanics for essentially $0. If I were WotC I'd be mad too!Really? If I were WotC, I'd be beeming with pride. Someone liked what I did so much that they're implementing it in a way I'd never even thought of. Again, maybe that's just me.
Although, I do have a question: If there are multiple car companies, why does every car have four wheels? Why didn't Ford tell Chevy "Screw you, we're using the four-wheel model! Use three or five, but 4W is our creation and you can't use it unless we say it's ok!"?
Seems a little silly if you ask me...
well said
|
|
The SRD is WotC intellectual property. They have an open license for it but that does not mean that they do not own it.But not in the way you were implying. You were implying theft by your use of the term "leeching".
More parasitism, I think, was the implication.
The correct term, since WotC was also taking back from the users of the license, by repurposing some of their work in books like Unearthed Arcana, would be symbiosis.
Really? If I were WotC, I'd be beeming with pride. Someone liked what I did so much that they're implementing it in a way I'd never even thought of. Again, maybe that's just me.
Although, I do have a question: If there are multiple car companies, why does every car have four wheels? Why didn't Ford tell Chevy "Screw you, we're using the four-wheel model! Use three or five, but 4W is our creation and you can't use it unless we say it's ok!"?
Seems a little silly if you ask me...
I'd guess all cars have four-wheels because of simple physics. But then I don't make cars so thats just a guess.
With a game system though, you can have lots of different mechanics and still be viable. I'm surely not the only one who has tried other systems, like Rifts, GURPS, Hero, ShadowRun, or CoC hmm? I find new systems intriguing, and have bought a handful of games over the year with no intention of ever running them, just as reading material.
And at the end of the day, I'd hazard a guess that there is likely a difference in the material 3rd party publishers put out and how far out of bounds WotC might have felt it was. I'd think it was less games like M&M (which, as Set says, explored an area WotC wasn't going) and more games like Arcana Unearthed (directly competing with 3E). As far as Scarred Lands, I would think campaign settings are something would still want to encourage, although until the GSL is released I guess we won't know. (That is, a campaign setting, even if competing with a WotC campaign setting, still requires people to buy the three core books. And those are their big money makers!)
I'd guess all cars have four-wheels because of simple physics. But then I don't make cars so thats just a guess.
With a game system though, you can have lots of different mechanics and still be viable. I'm surely not the only one who has tried other systems, like Rifts, GURPS, Hero, ShadowRun, or CoC hmm? I find new systems intriguing, and have bought a handful of games over the year with no intention of ever running them, just as reading material.
And at the end of the day, I'd hazard a guess that there is likely a difference in the material 3rd party publishers put out and how far out of bounds WotC might have felt it was. I'd think it was less games like M&M (which, as Set says, explored an area WotC wasn't going) and more games like Arcana Unearthed (directly competing with 3E). As far as Scarred Lands, I would think campaign settings are something would still want to encourage, although until the GSL is released I guess we won't know. (That is, a campaign setting, even if competing with a WotC campaign setting, still requires people to buy the three core books. And those are their big money makers!)
Good point, but there's a reason that so many 3rd party publishers use the d20 system; It's what they know and it's what they know will sell. Back to the "I can do this better" statement, what's wrong with doing just that?
Games like M&M were never the idea behind the OGL, and while I wouldn't say they were stealing WotC's work, they WERE using the base mechanics for essentially $0. If I were WotC I'd be mad too!
Why? It makes people play a superhero game that is based on their ruleset.
Later, when those superhero-players decide to venture into fantasy gaming, they might take up Warhammer, or Middle Earth - or D&D, which basically uses the same rules, so you don't have to learn everything again.
Or they want to play in a modern setting, maybe with some supernatural stuff added, maybe not. They again have a number of choices: WoD, Unknown Armies.... or d20 Modern, which uses the d20 System, which they already know.
Even those games that directly compete with D&D, like Arcane Evolved or True 20 have the advantage that they let you get to know the ruleset in general, so in case a different group forms, and a number of possible games is considered, you might lean more towards those you already know: True 20 might out of the question (too obscure), but D&D surely is not.
And frankly, this "it all robs wizards of money" argument doesn't hold that much water, anyway, since even without rulesets that don't use the Core 3 at all, the d20 books compete with wizards' books: So you want to buy a book on wizards and their magic. You could buy Complete Mage or Complete Arcane - or one of the numerous d20 books about arcanists. If you don't want to create your own game world, you could buy wizards' FR or Eberron, or one of the many other campaign settings (many which can easily compete with those two).
it sounds like KaeYoss and I have something in common; We both want options.
I'm all about options. 3e is all about options. The rules are made up of options rather than restrictions, and you even have a lot of great options for worlds, accessories, even the rules themselves.
It's one of the thigns I love about d20: Without learning 10 different rulesets, I can play a dozen genres in a hundred worlds. I can play high fantasy, wuxia, horror (gothic and lovecraftian), spionage, future, Star Wars, romantic fantasy, grim fantasy, and so much more - and I while there's always differences, I already know the way things generally work: You mainly use the d20, have bonuses instead of pools (at least most of the time), get levels, skills, feats, and different damage dice for different weapons.
Under 3e, d20 was all that and more. Under 4e, it won't be. For me, that alone makes 3e the better system.
If I don't like what WotC has done to my game, but I think I can do it better, why should I, why should anyone be stopped from trying? This spoon-fed "We own it, so we do it best" drivel that I hear oh so much of smacks of laziness and complacency.
It seems something only their fans buy into. Wizards themselves seems to know that others are better at their own game - that's why they pulled back all those licenses. Why improve your own performance if you can sabotage the competition?
|
|
So you do not believe that anything good came from D20 being OGL? I definitely have to disagree. A large amount of fantastic ideas and projects came out because of OGL. Many people who needed a break into the industry got their chance. Heck the fact that PAIZO just had the RPG superstar is a prime example of this. I most definitely feel the good far outweighed the bad.
I think the d20 license was great. d20 gave us some fantastic worlds to explore and mods to run.
I think the OGL was too often used as a crutch by companies that wanted a piece of WotC success without doing the work of creating a game of their own.
I know that d20 sometimes gave us crap and that some folk like some OGL games but in general I think the OGL was abused did more harm than good.
|
|
Although, I do have a question: If there are multiple car companies, why does every car have four wheels? Why didn't Ford tell Chevy "Screw you, we're using the four-wheel model! Use three or five, but 4W is our creation and you can't use it unless we say it's ok!"?
Seems a little silly if you ask me...
Four wheels - my guess is that no one owns the patent.
But the Toyota Prius has a proprietary drive system that other car manufacturers can license for a fee.
That is the heart of intellectual property - companies can only make money from their ideas so long as no one else can just steal them.
I do not think that WotC intended to create the OGL so that people could just write their own self contained games that never feed any sales back into WotC products. If that is the case then my guess is a whole lot of people lost their jobs because they gave the store away.
I think the OGL was too often used as a crutch by companies that wanted a piece of WotC success without doing the work of creating a game of their own.
and didn't most of them fail?
|
|
and didn't most of them fail?
I think the OGL was too often used as a crutch by companies that wanted a piece of WotC success without doing the work of creating a game of their own.
Success or failure is not the problem. When the OGL came along the diversity and creativity dried up in the area of mechanics and rules design. Anyone that wanted a game published seemed to turn to d20 rather than do what they used to do which was to cook up a new system. On top of that there were plenty of solid games that hopped on the d20 band wagon like 7th Sea and L5R. Even Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer tried d20. I am glad to see many of those efforts simply fade away.
Success or failure is not the problem. When the OGL came along the diversity and creativity dried up in the area of mechanics and rules design. Anyone that wanted a game published seemed to turn to d20 rather than do what they used to do which was to cook up a new system. On top of that there were plenty of solid games that hopped on the d20 band wagon like 7th Sea and L5R. Even Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer tried d20. I am glad to see many of those efforts simply fade away.
Yes, WotC having a monopoly on the d20 system is a good thing... [/sarcasm]
Bottom line: The fear/hatred/animosity/disdain for 4E is fundamentally stemming from our lack of understanding of the system.If you have been paying attention, we know lots of stuff about the system already. You can no longer say "hate" or "fear" of the unknown is why people have problems with 4.0.
Well, I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that now we only have the ability to see the tree and not the forest.
We have some glimpses of the 4th edition, but how they interact with each other and the system as a whole we certainly do not know.
Well, I have to disagree with you. It seems to me that now we only have the ability to see the tree and not the forest.
We have some glimpses of the 4th edition, but how they interact with each other and the system as a whole we certainly do not know.
What was it about the five blind monks who each felt a different part of an elephant and decreed that it was five very different things instead of one animal..?
|
*snip* The d20 rules consistantly take decisions out of the DM's hands and either make arbitrary rulings or give them to the players *snip*
I agree. Its one of the annoying things about 3E. Its not a problem with my "old crew", they expect me to do what I think is right as DM to make it a great game. But every "new" group I have ever run usually gets derailed due to this problem. I've even gone so far as to print out an "errata" for all my house rules for the players. The very first line reads: The DM reserves the right to cheat, If that bothers you then you are welcome to leave". Yeah, I have had people walk out. I respect that. But bothers me more are the people who stay and then continue to harp about what the rules as written say...
And I am sure if any of you have faced this, its usually the player whose character is in no way "behind the curve"...and probably outshines all the others, but dammit, they just HAVE to be able to jump off the 200 foot cliff and walk away without getting a "critical" card from the critical hit deck...
(side note, instead of using the massive damage rule, try using the critical hit deck from paizo...awesome)
On top of that there were plenty of solid games that hopped on the d20 band wagon like 7th Sea and L5R.
Ah yes. Legend of the Five Rings. Interesting concept there: First, there's one book expanding d20 with oriental themes, using lots of stuff from L5R, and then there was additional, dual-system material.
The interesting part is that Oriental Adventures was done by wizards of the cost, not Alderac. It was also wizards who released the Clan War and Four Winds novels for Rokugen.
The Alderac Rokugan books, with the exception of the original campaign setting Rokugan d20, was dual-system, meaning that they didn't give up their own system. They just expanded on what wizards started.
Those books were actually quite good. Mostly, of course, they were setting information. The rules content - both for L5R and d20 - was rather small.
So if you keep slandering those deadbeat companies who didn't want to create different systems for some game worlds, you should start laying it on wizards, because they were the first to make a book with L5R stuff for d20 (Oriental Adventures). All Alderac did was give people the choice - L5R or d20.
With the third edition of L5R rules, they no longer supported d20, but I'd say that with the existing material, you have a lot of good material.
I also want to point out that AEG made their rules stuff open content. Basically all L5R d20 from AEG is open to us all to use in products. Just like many other companies.
The notable exception is, of course, wizards. Only the Core rules (and not even all of them, see Mind flayers, for example), Psionics, Epic, Divine, and Unearthed Arcana Stuff was made available to others (As well as the d20 Modern core rules).
All the other stuff, like the Tome of Battle Classes, all the monsters from the Monster Manuals (except MMI), Heroes of Horror, and, of course, all Complete books are not available to the rest.
So if you want to have an adventure with a ninja (with an actual ninja class, not a rogue with a different name), you couldn't use the Complete Adventurer rogue. You could, on the other hand, use AEG's rokugan ninja.
Even Call of Cthulhu tried d20.
It would, of course, be more correct to say that wizards tried CoC d20. It's a book published by wotc, not Chaosium. It was written by Monte "Mister d20" Cook.
The d20 rules consistantly take decisions out of the DM's hands and either make arbitrary rulings or give them to the players
All the d20 rules do is save space by not repeating endlessly how the DM is such a great guy that he can order gods around in his world and that you'd do well to regularly bribe him with money, food and drink, and sexual favours (if applicable).
A competent DM will make it clear that he's the one wearing the trousers and that his word is the last one.
I'd rather have the books say that the rules are like this and state only once that the DM is always right instead of repeating over and over that the rules may be like this unless the DM thinks otherwise. People already complain that the D&D core rules are too long. If you add that drivel, you'll have something like 2000 pages. :P
Hmm - either you're being sarcastic or you haven't run into many "But that's not what the BOOK SAYS" players...
I have. That's when I institute my "I'm the DM, that's my hard and fast ruling." law. I tend to believe it's combination of the two on KaeYoss's part.
|
|
Hmm - either you're being sarcastic or you haven't run into many "But that's not what the BOOK SAYS" players...I have. That's when I institute my "I'm the DM, that's my hard and fast ruling." law. I tend to believe it's combination of the two on KaeYoss's part.
When a GM is consistent in his or her rulings then this works well. If a GM does something one way in one session and another way in another session then it kills the whole DM/player contract and the game becomes less enjoyable.
Success or failure is not the problem. When the OGL came along the diversity and creativity dried up in the area of mechanics and rules design. Anyone that wanted a game published seemed to turn to d20 rather than do what they used to do which was to cook up a new system. On top of that there were plenty of solid games that hopped on the d20 band wagon like 7th Sea and L5R. Even Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer tried d20. I am glad to see many of those efforts simply fade away.
But wait a minute, which point are you arguing? You both complain about people not creating their own rules, and also about expanding and improving, or modifying the rules enough that they require their own book, yet still have a clearly distinguishable mechanic that players can use as a bridge between games/genres? That is like telling someone you own the color blue and they are not allowed to use the color green because it is a secondary color of blue and requires blue to make it. You are saying wotc "got screwed" where as if they actually had they would be suing people, not just rewriting the license. (maybe they have I haven't heard about it).
My point is this, "what is your point?" you argue both for and against basically the same thing. People are using the base mechanic and developing their own game. You say you want people to write their own mechanics but make everything compatible. (I know that isn't exactly what you meant but I'm making the point that it could be argued by what you have argued). I just do not believe that wotc is any worse off than they would have been if every Joe Schmoe out their who made a d20 spin-off had created his own mechanics. In fact, I think they are much better off the way things are. I think they were able to make more money the way things are.
Think about it, everyone knows d20 is wotc. They got their name and &D plastered on basically every d20 book out their. It's simple advertising at it's best. Do you know how much that ad campaign would have cost them? Yet they got it for free, just by letting people swim in their pool. Now they are giving that up, charging for exclusivity, with (what appear to possibly be) severe restrictions.
I swear I am not picking on you. I just do not understand how you can see it the way you do.
|
|
I swear I am not picking on you. I just do not understand how you can see it the way you do.
Here is how I see it:
Too many games today use a d20 variant based on the OGL.
Creativity and innovation have been stifled by the d20 bandwagon effect.
WotC was convinced that it was doing the gaming world a favor when all it did was give away its IP in exchange for nothing.
Companies that raked in the cash from d20 are now setting a course with far less reliance on WotC or d20. Instead they are now setting themselves up as direct competition.
Why is anyone surprised that the new GSL will be more restrictive?
That is what I don't get.
|
|
Works like Star Gate d20 won't be possible any more. True 20, Arcana Evolved and the like will not be possible any more,True - and i see that as a good thing. The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.I call shenanigans on this. Hell, I'd call something else, but I like posting here. I don't know about you CWM, but it sounds like KaeYoss and I have something in common; We both want options. It's like my mother told me, "If you don't like the food I make for you, make your own!" If I don't like what WotC has done to my game, but I think I can do it better, why should I, why should anyone be stopped from trying? This spoon-fed "We own it, so we do it best" drivel that I hear oh so much of smacks of laziness and complacency. I want a multitude of choices to supplement my hobby. I want more than one company working on my hobby. I want to be able to do it myself one day if I so choose.
If you think you can make heavy metal better than Metalicca, you start your own metal band.
If you think you can make burgers better than McDonalds, you start your own burger joint.
If you think you can make a better game than Wizards of the Coast, you start your own company.Maybe I'm old fashioned, but that's just my opinion... [/rant]
Yes but your options are just repurposed d20. The options we should have are different games and not just D&D with guns, D&D with super powers, D&D with light sabers.
I want options too, but to me options are not shades of the same color.
|
|
Creativity and innovation have been stifled by the d20 bandwagon effect.
Ah, I think laziness had more to do with it than anything else - "Hey! WotC gave us an engine to use instead of creating our own! Let's churn something out today instead of spending a year playtesting, writing, editing, etc.! We'll make millions!"
That attitude helped the industry initially, letting a lot of companies come into being overnight, putting a lot of new product on the stands, then body-slammed it and stomped on it's unconscious form, since the rules didn't mesh well with every setting, a lot of these books WEREN'T playtested, well-edited, well-written, or even, in some cases it seemed, thought out AT ALL.
No, I'm not surprised they're being more restictive; the intent was to let other companies put out the "low profit" items (modules) while they put out the rules you needed to use them.
Yep. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
|
|
Success or failure is not the problem. When the OGL came along the diversity and creativity dried up in the area of mechanics and rules design. Anyone that wanted a game published seemed to turn to d20 rather than do what they used to do which was to cook up a new system. On top of that there were plenty of solid games that hopped on the d20 band wagon like 7th Sea and L5R. Even Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer tried d20. I am glad to see many of those efforts simply fade away.
Some thoughts:
What is so bad in using the d20 system? Why cook up a system if the d20 system is solid and works?I concede there were a lot of very bad adaptions done by people who did not understand the d20 system. Stormbring/Elric and Engel 1st edition come to mind.
There were some adaptions who, though they were mechanically sound, did not capture the Fluff of the Setting as well as the original game. Call of Chtulu comes to mind.
But then there were some d20/ogl products who used the engine and created flavorfull games. Look at Green Ronins Mutants and Masterminds, The Black Company Campaign Setting and Thieves' World Campaign Setting or Mongoose' Conan Setting or the Dino Setting that got Goodman Games started or Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes
There was and is a lot of creativity in the mechanics department.
But instead of dozens of different systems all use the engine d20 as basis.
For me that is a huge bonus. If I want to DM any of the above, my players already know the basics: 6 stats, 3 saves, higher is better, roll a d20 to pass save, DC for Skills or hit AC.
With a little work I can even mix and match the different d20 systems. I can play a AE Magister in Core d20 without a problem and the Iron Heroes PCs can fight a Rust Dragon from the Draconomicon. I can port the Black Company magic system to Iron Heroes and use the Thieves' World take on Magic with my WoC Spell Companion.
Why is anyone surprised that the new GSL will be more restrictive?
That is what I don't get.
I've never been surprised by that. Pissed? yes. Irritated? yes, but never ever surprised. I don't blame them for being greedy, we all are to a certain degree. What I hate is the "we are doing it for the betterment of the hobby and gamers all over and you should bow down and kiss our butts for it and thank us" crap. Many people are going along with it. It's ludicrous, IMHO. They are not the Mother Theresa of gaming.
|
|
I've never been surprised by that. Pissed? yes. Irritated? yes, but never ever surprised. I don't blame them for being greedy, we all are to a certain degree. What I hate is the "we are doing it for the betterment of the hobby and gamers all over and you should bow down and kiss our butts for it and thank us" crap. Many people are going along with it. It's ludicrous, IMHO. They are not the Mother Theresa of gaming.Why is anyone surprised that the new GSL will be more restrictive?
That is what I don't get.
The trouble is that the OGL was way too open. Business does not run like that. Nothing like that has ever happened before and it will not happen again. It was like some weird utopian dream that had to end.
I understand why you are irritated but it was never going to last.
|
|
But instead of dozens of different systems all use the engine d20 as basis.
Sure - some people do not want to learn more than one game. But the question is this - is that level of homogeneity really a good thing?
My point is that it isn't. Systems that lose diversity stagnate. In my experience diversity and innovation go hand in hand.
|
|
Sure - some people do not want to learn more than one game. But the question is this - is that level of homogeneity really a good thing?
My point is that it isn't. Systems that lose diversity stagnate. In my experience diversity and innovation go hand in hand.
I honestly cannot follow you here. I thought I pointed out that there is a lot of diversity in the d20 games.
I think I can only agree to disagree with you.
Fluff diverse is very different from crunch diverse.
If it's a good game and the mechanics make sense for it... Why should you care?
|
|
If it's a good game and the mechanics make sense for it... Why should you care?Fluff diverse is very different from crunch diverse.
Far too often, as others have pointed out, the mechanics are not appropriate. Or the game had great mechanics already but d20 was bait to snare more players.
I play D&D to play D&D. I have yet to find a non-fantasy version of d20 that is in any way superior to other games that address the same subject matter but use different mechanics.
Heck, even way back when TSR developed completely different rules for Top Secret, Marvel Super Heroes, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, Alternity, etc.
Rules homogeneity is a recent development, and in my view an unwelcome one.
Traveller d20? Why? Heck, I'll play New Era before d20.
I remember DMs being able to do that back before 3e, and it might viable either in some areas or even in general again...
But I also know several groups where the players WALKED after a DM tried to do something like this - and COULD because there were so many other 3.x games out there, back around the time 3.5 came out.
DM takes a hard line - loses all players. Sad, really...
That isn't a problem with D&D, though. Unless you call the game being popular a problem. I know I wish it were more popular around here, that way we wouldn't have to abtuct people from the street and brainwash them into playing RPGs.
Of course, anyone who ignores other people's wishes runs the risk of losing his group as they don't want to play with him any more. That goes for players AND DMs.
The DM has the last word how the rules are. But if he doesn't listen to the players at all, they might just walk away from the table.
Hmm - either you're being sarcastic or you haven't run into many "But that's not what the BOOK SAYS" players...
I'm not being sarcastic. And I saw one or two such players. I just say that this isn't the fault of the d20 rules system. No matter what ruleset you use or what world you play in: Unless it's homebrew, every change from the official wording will upset some people.
D&D. World of Darkness. Star Wars. Star Trek. Whatever.
They're everywhere. But that doesn't change the fact that the DM can change the rules, and the story, in any game and world.
Of course, he should always listen to the players, should, if possible, make his changes known to the players (I make a small booklet with my houserules, which goes to every player as a PDF and is always available in print at the table.) and remain consistent with his rulings.
Ah, I think laziness had more to do with it than anything else - "Hey! WotC gave us an engine to use instead of creating our own! Let's churn something out today instead of spending a year playtesting, writing, editing, etc.! We'll make millions!"
I agree. It's laziness, or the desire for a quick buck, that resulted in a number of really bad d20/OGL products.
That doesn't mean that d20/OGL automatically means bad product.
Just take a look at Pathfinder. Outstanding stuff!
And there's other d20/OGL stuff that is really high quality. Some of my favourites include:
Midnight: A hell of a game world. The races just rock on toast. So does everything else
Rokugan d20: I love those books, though, to be honest, their main advantage is the great setting info you get in them. Not that the rules mechanics are bad or anything. I personally think that both Legend of the Five Rings 3rd Edition and Rokugan d20 are excellent ways to play a Rokugani game.
Monte Cook's World of Darkness: This monster book gives us two really great things. The first is a "WoD20" ruleset that lets you play World of Darkness games with the d20 Ruleset - and in my opinion does a great job of it. The other is another version of the WoD that is different from both the Old World of Darkness and the New. I love the concept of truly alien beings invading our universe and messing with spirits and all that to stop mankind preventing the end of our reality.
In fact, besides playing it just off the shelf, you could use the Storyteller/WoD rules and play in Monte's WoD, or take the Old or New WoD and play it with d20 rules.
|
|
Kae,
Midnight would have been great with any rules. Same with Pathfinder. I would also add the Iron Kingdoms.
There are great d20/OGL publishers. There will be great GSL publishers too. I just hope that other systems can grab some of the RPG mindshare. That won't happen if everyone just grabs the 3.5 SRD and runs with it.
I would also add the Iron Kingdoms.
I would almost go the opposite way. God knows I love Warmachine, but the the IKCG is an utter mess. Game balance is nonexistent, rules that are supposed to exist don't or are incomplete, and there's no official errata for it. The Witchfire Trilogy has some major balance issues, too, although some of those don't really come up unless you're trying to run the modules in the Iron Kingdoms using the IK rules; since Witchfire was written before the IKCG, it doesn't account for some fairly major problems with subsequent material.
So, I would say that the Iron Kingdoms core books would have been terrible with any rules. Having said that, the second core book had no rules, and all the subsequent material has been pretty good.
Midnight would have been great with any rules. Same with Pathfinder.
That's not the point here. The point is that those are d20/OGL products that are not the result of some lazy/greedy publishers churning out some shoddy stuff to make a quick buck.
There are great d20/OGL publishers. There will be great GSL publishers too. I just hope that other systems can grab some of the RPG mindshare. That won't happen if everyone just grabs the 3.5 SRD and runs with it.
I think the situation as we have it now is pretty good. It's not as if d20-derivatives are the only systems out there.
And d20 is hardly the only universal system out there. There are others who are used for a multitude of settings and genres. I think we need those just as we need individual stuff like, say, the Firefly RPG.
I don't see using OGL as a "cheap option" for lazy people. It's a lot like those 3d game engines out there: The Steam Engine, the Quake Engine, the Unreal Engine, and so on.
Just like with d20, there's been a lot of garbage that was the result of someone taking someone else's engine, adding some shoddy textures and stuff on it, and releasing it as a game.
But there's a lot of great stuff out there that is based on someone else's engine.
Half-Life, one of the most important First Person Shooters, for example, was based on the Quake Engine. Deus Ex, in my opinion one of the best computer games of all times and a great FPS/CRPG mix, was based on the Unreal Engine. Vampire Bloodlines was based on HL2.
You could compare those to things like McWoD or True20 - someone took the game "engine", modified it (heavily, in some cases), and came up with something really good.
And since we are talking about shooters already: d20 products could be compared to "mods" (Game modifications). I don't know about everyone else, but I spent countless hours playing Team Fortress, Team Fortress Classic, Counter Strike, and other mods. In many aspects, those "games" were better than the originals they were based on. No one criticises them for being cheap and using someone else's ideas for himself.
