Many of the DM’s were actually very good about making sure things kept moving forward, despite numerous rules inconsistencies and questions, which is a very hard thing to do. My comments were in no way meant to be directed towards RPGA or any of your DM’s, and were simply focused on the rules that were being presented at D&D XP.

We weren’t mad at the GM for flubbing the rules, we knew that it was tough to absorb all the rules in a short span of time. We just wanted to play more (and not die.)

As to the dying rules and rolling we’ll just have to apologize on that one. As you know the rules are always changing and R&D is always tweaking things and it’s really easy to mix up something that’s been changed while in the thick of things at the table.

The TPK happened because our DM never let us stabilize, instead we just kept rolling saves while in the negatives and either we got a check, or had to wait until next turn. I hated this rule at the time, and was VERY happy when we played with Mike Mearls that he said this was incorrect.

My impression is that this makes it equally likely that you’ll die if you’re at -1 as if you’re at -10 or -13 (if your bloodied is high enough).

There are definitely going to be things that don’t exist right away in 4e. Many of the playtests talk about redoing their characters as different class combos, and just keeping their same concept. That’s not going to work for everyone, but that should be some idea.

It occurs to me that I did get some email addresses if I have follow up questions, I may be able to ask some things about the GSL.

To disclose, I’m a fan of Paizo’s Pathfinder (and I am *not* associated or affiliated with them in any way other than being their customer). The community has been fairly opposed to 4th edition, but like any community it’s composed of individuals with their own opinions.

The Paizo Editorial Team has been very non-reactionary and open minded concerning 4th edition when speaking to the fan base, expressing confidence that the WOTC Team can make a good game- though they remain cautious in respect to whether they are going to adopt it. If there has been a backlash, it’s been the fan reaction.

As a fan and as a customer, I guess my interest is in whether there’s anything that would prevent conversion to 4th Edition.. in terms of “this concept no longer exists” or “this monster that the setting was dependent upon is not longer available under the GSL”.. That sort of thing.

If a company has to scrap their campaign setting in order to convert, then they’re not going to convert. Which can put a fan in a position to choose between Editions, or play both in some fashion. Whereas if conversion is possible…

And these are not questions to you specifically, no one is really going to know that until the GSL has been released, but hence my interest…

Consider this is a bug in the ear of what this DnD GM while following the news.

-I don’t think a specific company have their OGL revoked by going with a GSL. However, GSL probably does say that a specific product cannot be covered under both… otherwise, there might be some legal trickery to build 4e out of OGL elements.
-I’m 90% sure Metallic Dragons are in. They talked about the changes to them (Adamantine and Iron in, Bronze and Brass I think out). They even showcased the Adamantine dragon for “appreciate a dragon day.”
-At least one company (Necromancer Games) has announced a product that involves 4e versions of classic races/classes. That doesn’t prove anything, but I find it unlikely that WotC has a laundry list of possible classes sitting around that they’d restrict from others publishing. Along with that, Andy Collins said specifically that they haven’t even started designing many of the classes people are asking for.

Hey.. since I got your attention, here’s another question. Have you heard anything about the GSL? And not when it’s going to be out for the 3rd parties… but rather about what it will contain?

I’ll give you some context:

*Is acceptance of the GSL going to have a clause that states that acceptance requires giving up the OGL for that specific company? (I.e. we all know the OGL can’t be revoked, but will acceptance of the GSL have a condition preventing the use of both?)

*No metallic Dragons in the MM1? According to Aint It Cool News who released their 3rd in a series of reviews. This would suggest that Metallic Dragons won’t be available for 3rd party use?

*Clauses that prevent 3rd parties from creating their own classes and races until WOTC releases their own version?

I guess I should have thrown these questions out earlier.

I know they stated at the Seminar that they wanted strong companies to also have campaign setting available (different from their own, but expecting some overlap).. I’m just trying to get a feel for how practical that is going to be for one that is already in existence and is faced with the choice whether to convert or not.

If you have any comments, I’d be delighted to hear them!

My impression of the RPGA in general is that it’s pretty heavy combat. I’ll put it this way: I didn’t see anything at all that indicated that this edition of D&D would be any worse for roleplaying that a previous edition. I hope that helps somewhat!

(I’d call that role-playing, but every time I do, somebody hands me a lecture about role-playing comes from within, not a system.)

I mean resolution of skills that aren’t combat based. It’s probably too late to plug for that, but if you have anything in your notes I’d love to hear it.

James Wyatt in gnome voice: “Rawr! I’m a monster!”