Comments on: 3rd Party D&D GSL/OGL Publishers

By: Dr. Checkmate

Dr. Checkmate — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:24:17 +0000

Does anyone know what Privateer Press plans to do with their RP stuff? Dr. Checkmate's last post: The Value of a (Savaged) Dollar

By: Questing GM

Questing GM — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:22:15 +0000

That's quite a list. Phew, should have checked here before I posted about this. Questing GM's last post: Big News and other stuff

By: Trask

Trask — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:07:29 +0000

Here is another company not interested in the GSL

http://blog.healingfireball.com/2008/08/02/our-current-4th-edition-plan/

http://www.healingfireball.com

Not a huge company, but another nail in the GSL coffin.

Trask

Trask’s last post: Complete Gencon 2008 Exhibitor List with Hyperlinks and Descriptions

By: Bartoneus

Bartoneus — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:28:55 +0000

I actually agree with the MainEvent quite a bit, there are far less systems needed to facilitate good roleplaying than good encounters/fights. I predict / assume / surmise that what has been done with 4E is a boiling down of things, and in that process an exclusion of many options, in order to get the basis of a good encounter system in place. In a year or two, the options / customization possible in 4E will begin to rival previous editions and more people may begin to see the benefits it provides.

Think about how with just the addition of a few powers and feats, they could allow for players to create a Ranger that is so unlike the current 4E ranger. They could easily release a supplement book with a few powers and feats for each class that greatly multiplies the possibilities inherent in the game. That’s what I’m excited for!

By: TheLemming

TheLemming — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:07:22 +0000

@TheMainEvent: Yes you are right, the nitti-gritty of combat is enjoyable and most of us like it as one of the factors of an rpg. ( I think at least) -
On the other hand, I think that the fourth edition takes a lot more player-action to create characters that are “different” in their ways, in their style, in their options and I think this is one of the points that are quite handy when you’re playing in a party / group of a few players… A group of five fighters is with the new system very likely that every fighter is more like the other one, than it was in the older editions. The possibility for customizing is (at least in this early stage of 4e) compared even to early stages of 2nd or 3rd edition. Not that given.

TheLemming’s last post: Shadowrun Cyberpunk Imaginations

By: TheMainEvent

TheMainEvent — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:22:05 +0000

Call me crazy, but in terms of “roleplaying” v. “combat” I have always found that detailed systems don’t seem as necessary for “roleplaying.” Player talks in character, GM assesses its effective in regards to the NPC and sets some appropriate difficulty to the system. Hell, you don’t even need to have a system at all for interactions. You could do combats the same way if you wanted… but most people seem to enjoy the nitty gritty of combat (myself included).

By: The Game

The Game — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:01:09 +0000

neal: Without getting into an argument, I doubt you’ll find any serious statements blaming the 4e ruleset for lack of roleplaying as a reason companies are not signing the GSL. Nearly all of them cite issues with the GSL’s clauses that allow WotC to pull the license at any time and the inability to maintain both OGL and GSL products.

By: neal5x5

neal5x5 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:42:06 +0000

IMHO, 4.0 is an adequate combat system but a poor roleplaying system. Those going OGL or Fair Use believe they can fix this bug by adding their own elements that will allow a more complete story to be told rather than a series of combats that has the superficial form of a plot. I’m not suggesting that Mongoose or anyone else who is going GSL doesn’t or won’t produce good, fun material, but I believe that most of those avoiding that path have established worlds where the 4.0 style of gaming would be difficult to adapt to.

By: Trask

Trask — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:37:54 +0000

You can add this one as well, http://www.paradigmconcepts.com

They are creating a home-grown system for the next version of their “Arcanis” campaign. There other major product, “Witchhunter” is already on another system.

Trask

Trask’s last post: Paizo Pathfinder Society Chat Report

By: TheLemming

TheLemming — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:26:45 +0000

Interesting thing, in my understanding a change of license is probably the only long-term solution and -survival for the 4th edition as one of the larger systems on the market.
Actually I have to admit, I think it’s great that NG are sticking rather to Pathfinder than Wizards in this and keep my fingers crossed that Pathfinder will be a utter success.

TheLemming’s last post: Technical Update(s) / Plugins

By: The Game

The Game — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:00:32 +0000

Clark Peterson, head of Necromancer, cites a number of problems in using the GSL with his lines, and how he’d sign the GSL if it were revised to take into account his concerns.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how it shakes out by next year’s Gen Con. Kenzer is interesting in two ways: one, they have lawyers, and two, they were an actual second party publisher with a direct agreement with WotC. To go from a direct relationship with WotC to stating that they don’t want any formal relationship really says something.

By: MadBrewLabs

MadBrewLabs — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:56:28 +0000

Well it is interesting that Necromancer isn’t going ahead with the GSL. Anyone know why they changed their minds? Did they see the logic behind Green Ronin’s decision or Kenzer’s?

It will be interesting to see how many people are using the fair use doctrine, OGL 3.x, or 4e by this time next year. Myself, I like Kenzer taking the Fair Use battle standard and can’t wait to see how it plays out.

MadBrewLabs’s last post: Echelon Races