The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Steerpike
The OGL wasn't perfect, but it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the GSL.  It's not without any restrictions, but it lacks the sweeping impositions and aggressive, guarded clauses of the GSL.

Which is why I was focusing on the d20 Logo License, rather than OGL. The GSL is downright Totalitarian compared to the OGL.  :)

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental Elf3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).

This is fair enough - I hadn't researched this as much and was unaware of just how much 3.5 hurt 3PP.  Still, at least 3,5 was OGL, so at least 3rd party publishers could theoretically adapt, re-release their books, etc.  I don't think it's fair to call Pathfinder "completely self-contained," however, because it's guiding purpose is that it's fully useable with other 3rd edition material.

Theoretically they could, and many did but a majority could not jump the gap. Sad too, since many of those companies were really great.

What I meant by self-contained is that they are complete games independent of WotC's (or any other company's) products (compared to say releasing a book that just focuses on the culture of Gnolls and creates Spells, Feats, Sub-races and PrC's for that race).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfDesign Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.

I agree that principles can be system neutral, but I don't feel that Pathfinder and 4th edition share many design principles.  The things you mentioned like at-will cantrips and a lack of dead levels strike me as specific mechanical choices rather than core design principles.  Unless we go really broad, of course, and say that they share design principles like "this is a fantasy adventure role-playing game."

[/quote]

I was delving a bit into how the mechanics were designed. If I were to use over-broad terms, I would say "Allowing Spellcasters to contribute to a longer portion of the work day without being taxed by the spellcasting system, especially at low-levels." "Allowing mundane classes to feel as if they contribute to the adventure at high levels." "Ensuring a better balance between classes." "Simplifying how PCs interact with the non-combat world."etc. :)

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfD&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness: Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open

This is a very interesting list, though unsurprising.  Note that the majority of the not-open games that sold well are tied closely to preexisting properties (Star Wars, Marvel, A Song of Ice and Fire, Warhammer), which by their nature aren't inclined to being open, because the system is being crafted with a particular (copyrighted) property/setting in mind.  Amongst the more "general" or non campaign/setting-specific systems, like D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, and Dungeon Crawl Classics, openness is much more common.  This makes sense, and suggests that an open-source publishing model is better for setting-neutral systems (like D&D), whereas closed publishing is better for setting-specific systems.

[/quote]

Interesting point! I wonder if the thought behind creating a new system for an established campaign isn't partly due to the idea that you need something more unique to capture the feel of the property. Take Marvel for example. I have played d20 Super Hero games before but none quite capture the feel of Super Heroes quite as well as Marvel Heroic Role Playing. The system is very narrativist and rules light, allowing players to do crazy/weird/specific/cool things that a d20 based system really could not handle. The 40k RPGs too, do a great job of creating the feeling of playing in the 41st Millennium, from being just another nameless soldier (Only War) to being a nigh invincible god of war (Deathwatch).

Dragon Age, however, did not quite do this for me. The game feels very lethal (like DA:O on harder difficulties) but the mechanics are more open ended and rules light, which feels a bit contradictory when compared to the much more rigid mechanics that govern the video game.

When I was looking into A Song of Fire and Ice RPG, I was surprised to see that the current game was not the first. The first was actually a d20 based game. Sadly, the company went out of business after producing a handful of books (which was long before Game of Thrones became popular).

Quote from: Elemental ElfWhich is why I was focusing on the d20 Logo License, rather than OGL. The GSL is downright Totalitarian compared to the OGL.

My apologies - in the vitriolic throes of GSL-hate I misread your remarks.  My bad!

Quote from: ibid.What I meant by self-contained is that they are complete games independent of WotC's (or any other company's) products (compared to say releasing a book that just focuses on the culture of Gnolls and creates Spells, Feats, Sub-races and PrC's for that race).

Gotcha gotcha - I see what you mean.

On the subject of design principles - OK, I see where you're coming from.  I think that the differences in design principle are still pretty large between Pathfinder and 4th edition, but I will grant there are some similarities in terms of, for example, a desire for better balance between classes or getting more use out of low level spells.  I'm just not convinced Pathfinder lifted/appropriated/adapted those things from 4th edition per se.

Quote from: Elemental ElfInteresting point! I wonder if the thought behind creating a new system for an established campaign isn't partly due to the idea that you need something more unique to capture the feel of the property. Take Marvel for example. I have played d20 Super Hero games before but none quite capture the feel of Super Heroes quite as well as Marvel Heroic Role Playing. The system is very narrativist and rules light, allowing players to do crazy/weird/specific/cool things that a d20 based system really could not handle. The 40k RPGs too, do a great job of creating the feeling of playing in the 41st Millennium, from being just another nameless soldier (Only War) to being a nigh invincible god of war (Deathwatch).

...

When I was looking into A Song of Fire and Ice RPG, I was surprised to see that the current game was not the first. The first was actually a d20 based game. Sadly, the company went out of business after producing a handful of books (which was long before Game of Thrones became popular).

I think this is exactly right - when you're dealing with a very specific property a unique system might make more sense.  On the other hand, the GSL probably discouraged designers from adapting existing mechanics and made them veer towards custom-building their own (closed) systems.  The fact that the first Ice and Fire RPG was d20 while the second is not, as you point out, is a good case in point.  Had 4th edition kept the OGL, perhaps the publishers would have tried adapting it instead of building something from scratch (although given the specifics of the setting, it's a very poor match for 4th edition anyway, so maybe not).

Incidentally, the original Song of Ice and Fire rpg is really weird, in that it actually used two systems - d20 and a system called "Tri-Stat dX," both of which were offered up as alternatives.  A very unusual approach to game design.  One wonders whether this contributed to the book's failure, although I think it was mostly a case of bad timing.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: SteerpikeI don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have.

The thing about White Wolf is that pretty much everyone acknowledges they have (generally) awesome fluff and (generally) awful crunch. Anything you'd want to lift from them would be considered "Product Identity" and wouldn't be covered by the OGL anyway.

Be that as it may, if the original criticism was not sharing crunch is mean-spirited, one can hardly claim "our crunch sucks so bad nobody wants it" as a defense--it would be irrelevant as to whether WW is mean-spirited or not. By which I mean to say, I think it an unfair criticism of any company, pen-and-paper or digital, that they not offer their material as open source. We may laud those that choose to do so, but it is hardly their responsibility to allow other companies open access to their system.

I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms against the 4e design decisions, and in some cases against WotC in general, but this hardly seems a fair one to me.

Quote from: Matt Larkin (author)I think it an unfair criticism of any company, pen-and-paper or digital, that they not offer their material as open source. We may laud those that choose to do so, but it is hardly their responsibility to allow other companies open access to their system.

My criticism isn't that not sharing crunch and/or not openly licensing a game is intrinsically mean-spirited.  It's that Wizards went from being open source to being closed; they'd previously opened up their game to third party publishers and encouraged a lot of creativity, and then they made a change.  I don't like that change.  I think that change is to the detriment of the hobby I feel passionately about.  What's more, I feel that change had ignoble motivations connected to greed and control.  Some of the specifics of the GSL seek to exert drastic control over other companies in ways I find extremely distasteful.  The sudden shift from one form of licensing to another, coupled with some of these restrictions, really pulled the rug out from under third party publishers.  It feels to me like Wizards went from regarding such publishers as collaborators to regarding them as "people to give us money."

Of course Wizards are entitled to make money from their products and protect their product identity, but Paizo has proved you can do that while still retaining an "open source philosophy."  Given that 3rd edition was written before Hasbro's takeover of Wizards of the Coast while 4th edition came out well after the takeover, I'd strongly speculate that the people at the top of Hasbro's corporate hierarchy - people who almost certainly care not a whit for gaming or the gaming community but only about profits - were ultimately the ones pulling the strings.

EDIT: Some of the revisions to the GSL have improved matters considerably, although it still leaves a tremendous amount to be desired, and by the time the revisions came out, the damage was pretty much done.  The revisions are (I think) pretty clearly a frantic attempt to back-track on Wizards' part following the fallout from the GSL as originally written, although there may also have been some designers and other employees who fought back against the guys upstairs on this; we'lll probably never know the details.  Still, companies can at least now publish 4E and 3E products simultaneously (although within specific books, you must consider 4E's definition of terms of things like "Cleric," for example, the "official" definition).

I agree it's good to praise companies that do release their stuff "open source" or some other more permissive license, but I don't agree that it's unfair to criticize ones that don't. In short, while you see it as +1 or 0, I see it as +1 or -1. This is an ideological disagreement that is probably beyond the scope of the thread.

On the topic of White Wolf specifically, I see what you're saying, but I also think that part of the reason OGL d20 took off is that d20 was-- at least by the standards of RPGs in 2000-- a pretty solid and well constructed system. People might have still made stuff for D&D because D&D is D&D but I don't think there would've been a push to make d20 versions of all kinds of everything if the system was terrible.

Understanding short term money is easy, longer term sustainability is hard for many companies to understand.

It occurred to me that many in this debate may not have played, or at the very least, seen D&D next being played. WotC has produced a bunch of podcasts and videos of people actually playing the game. I have organized the various videos and podcasts and posted links to each.

Note many of these podcasts contain adult content (mostly profanity). So you have been forewarned.  

Note: the latest podcasts are at the bottom and contain the most up-to-date rules.

Also Note: Acquisitions Incorporated is a long running series of podcasts that started just before 4E was released. They star Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik (from Penny Arcade), Scott Kurtz (from PvP), Wil Wheaton (series 2, 3, 5, as well as PAX 2010, PAX 2011 & PAX 2012) and Patrick Rothfuss (series 6). The Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts linked in this thread contain spoilers from the Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts that cam before. If you would like to start back at the beginning with their podcasts, go here.

Without further adieu, the list:
- Acquisitions Incorporated PAX 2012

- Mines of Madness pt. 1, pt. 2, pt. 3, pt. 4, pt.5

- Designer Playtest: Against the Slave Lords pt. 1, pt. 2, pt. 3

- Mike Mearls' and Rodney Thompson's discussion about the "Against the Slave Lords": pt. 1, pt. 2, pt. 3

- Designer Playtest: The Lich-Queen's Beloved Pt. 1

- Acquisitions Incorporated: Ark of the Mad Mage pt. 2, pt. 3, pt. 4, pt. 5

I spoke to someone who playtested it; he said it was essentially the same as 4E's combat system/style and he couldn't see much different in it. His description confused me. Certainly there has to be a decent amount of differences in the edition.

Quote from: Light Dragon
I spoke to someone who playtested it; he said it was essentially the same as 4E's combat system/style and he couldn't see much different in it.

It isn't even close at all. The base assumption in D&D Next is all theater of the mind, so the tactical/gridded combat that 4E thrived on is simply not present.

If anything Next is a lot like a very slimmed down version of 3.5 but without the board and a lot of the complex rules that bogged combat down in previous editions.

So it's like the 13th Age game in that respect? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/20/13th-age-review-the-excellent-new-tabletop-game-from-the-lead-designers-of-3rd-and-4th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

QuoteAlong with all these story-game elements is a somewhat overhauled d20 combat system that's fast and loose and high-powered. In other words: Fun.

While 13th Age doesn't abandon miniatures (they're optional) it does abandon the grid. No counting little square boxes. This isn't a board game or a war game, it's an RPG, and the combat reflects this.

Quote from: Light Dragon
So it's like the 13th Age game in that respect? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/20/13th-age-review-the-excellent-new-tabletop-game-from-the-lead-designers-of-3rd-and-4th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

QuoteAlong with all these story-game elements is a somewhat overhauled d20 combat system that's fast and loose and high-powered. In other words: Fun.

While 13th Age doesn't abandon miniatures (they're optional) it does abandon the grid. No counting little square boxes. This isn't a board game or a war game, it's an RPG, and the combat reflects this.

In some ways yes and in many ways no.

It's not OP the way 13th Age is in terms of damage. It feels far more like LotR in that respect. Everything has bounded accuracy, which means low level creatures are still a threat at higher levels (compared to other editions where a Goblin was not a threat past level 3 or so). The game drastically de-powers spellcasters compared to 3.5 but maintains (a version of) vancian casting. Classes can be built very simply (Mike Mearls had a 17th level Fighter completely contained on a memo pad) or hugely complex like in past editions. The game will be modular, allowing DMs to use add-ons to tailor the game into what they want to DM. Ability Scores are much more important as Ability Checks are very common. The difference between a character who is trained in a task and one who is not is noticible but it is not a stark difference compared to past editions.

Hey Elemental Elf, it seems those links aren't working for some reason, just to let you know.

The URLs were formatted badly. I fixed the links.

Anyway, at one point I tried to watch one of these. Mike Mearls showed up with some ridiculous immersion-destroying dwarf rapper called "MC Killzalot" or something like that, and wearing a steel top hat and steel tuxedo. I stopped watching at that point, figuring that if he cares that little about his game, why should I care at all?

Did that seriously happen or is your satire simply too oblique for me to understand?

Because that sounds very stupid.

That actually happened.