Things I would have done for 4E...

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:47 pm

I could care less about the GSL - it is the "SRD" that sucks.

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:11 pm

serleran wrote:
I could care less about the GSL - it is the "SRD" that sucks.

As compared to the C&C SRD? Just playing devil's advocate here.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:26 pm

What "C&C SRD?" Oh, you mean the one for the d20 license. Yeah... major differences there.

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:22 pm

My point was that C&C doesn't offer an SRD. That makes it difficult to criticize WotC's SRD.

I'm not trying to start an argument....I'm not happy with the 4E SRD, but I thought I'd mention this for the sake of a broader perspective.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:28 pm

Actually it's quite easy to criticize Hasbro's new SRD, just by comparing it to the old one. In keeping with the paradigm of letting the genie out of the bottle, the new SRD, being simply a list, is virtually useless unless of course you happen to have either spent $5,000 to buy in, or bought the rule books when they were released.

Of course, Hasbro is in the business of making money so it's only natural to see them try and get the genie back into the bottle. I just don't think they'll see the results they anticipate. The 3.0/3.5 SRD still has legs and doesn't have onerous legal requirements that tell you how to run your business.

I would have found TLG's lack of a SRD surprising if I didn't think the reason there isn't one is to maintain quality control of the line.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:41 pm

QC is the big reason they never did, from what I understand. And I can't blame them considering the amount of crap that came out during the d20 boom.

Honestly I think the best thing for gamers has been the 3/3.5 srd's since it allows for games like C&C, T20 and Pathfinder to compete with the 800lb gorilla. Also it is a great resource for C&C itself since the things that weren't converted are easy to convert, legal to convert and free to everyone. From a design aspect if your are a small company with limited resources 90% of the work as been done for you. All you have to do is tweak it for flavor.

I think this is something that will be used considerably now that the face of gaming has been changed. One thing is for sure this is going to be some interesting things to watch.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:41 pm

There is an SRD for C&C. Its a $20 buy in, or $10 when its on sale. Unlike the 3E SRD it actually has all the classes, all the races, and all the spells. IF you want the monsters, etc... you can buy into part 2 of the SRD for an additional $20, and again unlike the 3E SRD you get everything.

So you can get the incomplete SRD for 3E for free, or for a fee of up to $40 you can get the C&C SRD and get everything.

Now if you read the C&C OGL license only the logo's and artwork are closed content. The classes, the stat creation, the spell lists, encumbrance rules, etc... are all open content.

The C&C game is very "open". Just if you want to do anything obviously compatible a separate license is needed to allow you to say "C&C compatible".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:44 pm

IIRC the SIEGE engine is closed.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:50 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
QC is the big reason they never did, from what I understand. And I can't blame them considering the amount of crap that came out during the d20 boom.

Now I think quite highly of the Trolls, but I don't buy this. In any case, WotC/Hasbro could make the same claim for why they changed the format of their SRD.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:54 pm

Treebore wrote:
There is an SRD for C&C. Its a $20 buy in, or $10 when its on sale. Unlike the 3E SRD it actually has all the classes, all the races, and all the spells. IF you want the monsters, etc... you can buy into part 2 of the SRD for an additional $20, and again unlike the 3E SRD you get everything.

So you can get the incomplete SRD for 3E for free, or for a fee of up to $40 you can get the C&C SRD and get everything.

Now if you read the C&C OGL license only the logo's and artwork are closed content. The classes, the stat creation, the spell lists, encumbrance rules, etc... are all open content.

The C&C game is very "open". Just if you want to do anything obviously compatible a separate license is needed to allow you to say "C&C compatible".

Tree, with that reasoning, one could say that the 4E "SRD" is available for ~$55 from Amazon and includes three volumes...

The fact of the matter is that the Trolls want more control of C&C than issuing an SRD would allow. There's nothing wrong with this, but let's call it like it is.

AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:11 pm

adaen wrote:
Tree, with that reasoning, one could say that the 4E "SRD" is available for ~$55 from Amazon and includes three volumes...

The fact of the matter is that the Trolls want more control of C&C than issuing an SRD would allow. There's nothing wrong with this, but let's call it like it is.

AoB

In actuality the books are the "useful" version of the SRD for 4E. The 4E SRD is apparently going to be just lists, with no definitions, etc... IE nothing like the 3E SRD.

As for the SIEGE system not being open. Kind of. SIEGE engine is not open, pages 104 to 111 are not open, but describing saving throws, combat, etc... is open. So you can describe the use of the SIEGE engine, but without a license agreement with the Trolls you can't call it "SIEGE Engine".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:57 pm

If I was to try to produce something fro sale that was compatable I would be wary of this. It looks like I could easily and accidentally breech IP with this. I'd rather just pursue a license with TLG or just do fan based material than end up doing something I wouldn't want to.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:11 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
If I was to try to produce something fro sale that was compatable I would be wary of this. It looks like I could easily and accidentally breech IP with this. I'd rather just pursue a license with TLG or just do fan based material than end up doing something I wouldn't want to.

Me too. Plus I don't think the Trolls would be onerous either.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:21 am

adaen wrote:
The fact of the matter is that the Trolls want more control of C&C than issuing an SRD would allow. There's nothing wrong with this, but let's call it like it is.

AoB

I wouldn't call it a fact until one of them says so but I do agree with this.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:34 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
I wouldn't call it a fact until one of them says so but I do agree with this.

I agree too. I see a lot of value in the SIEGE engine, I wouldn't want control of that slipping from my fingers either.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:35 am

The point seems to be missed and it was that some of you seem to judge 4E with a totally differant yard stick than you do C&C or others.

If you understand and are not upset with C&C lack of a SRD how can you in the same breath condem 4E for having one(even if it is limited in a few ways).

Just seems like people look for reasons to get upset/angry with 4E. I for one love C&C and like 4E. I just dont understand.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:24 am

GameOgre wrote:
The point seems to be missed and it was that some of you seem to judge 4E with a totally differant yard stick than you do C&C or others.

We have to. They are totally dependent on differing licenses.

Quote:
If you understand and are not upset with C&C lack of a SRD how can you in the same breath condem 4E for having one(even if it is limited in a few ways).

C&C was made with the SRD. 98% of the game is open, you don't need an SRD for that. It's that 2% TLG kept that some bemoan. Here's a hint, WOTC did the same thing. Do you see any Mind Flayers, Beholders or Mordenkinen spells in C&C? There is a difference between protecting your IP and controlling what is supposed to be an open system.

Quote:
Just seems like people look for reasons to get upset/angry with 4E. I for one love C&C and like 4E. I just dont understand.

Some do look for reasons. I'm not angry with 4e. It seems like and interesting system. What I am upset with is that WOTC has put out a license and SRD that says: You can play but, we can take your toys, toybox and playground if we feel like it.

That is what I am upset with. 3rd party companies like Goodman and others that did good D20 business, and helped propel the sales of D&D are being shat on with this new thinking.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:36 am

GameOgre wrote:
The point seems to be missed and it was that some of you seem to judge 4E with a totally differant yard stick than you do C&C or others.

If you understand and are not upset with C&C lack of a SRD how can you in the same breath condem 4E for having one(even if it is limited in a few ways).

Just seems like people look for reasons to get upset/angry with 4E. I for one love C&C and like 4E. I just dont understand.

Probably because Hasbro's new system is a further departure from the things Gary Gygax held to be essential in the Dungeons & Dragons system. As I mentioned in a prior post, Hasbro's d20 started the job by diluting the archetypes and turning the DM from a referee into an entertainer, and it took the Trolls creating Castles & Crusades to restore the essentials according to Gary. The new system finished the job the d20 system according to Hasbro started. All that aside, I know the game system isn't for me because most of the mechanics of the new rule system remind me of World of Warcraft. It's totally unlike anything that came before, and while that may not be bad in and of itself, it may bite Hasbro in the ass too.

Now, if someone has never played anything other than d20, then they may not understand how some of us older players feel. That's perfectly fine. It really is none of our business what game you play, nor are we in a position to tell you what game you should be playing.

At the time of d20's release, people like me who detested d20 did not take into account that the people who might be playing the new game have never played the old one, and when someone did admit to playing d20, whether new or old, the hounds came a calling. I was one of those hounds. The Castles & Crusades culture, as I would like to coin it, acknowledged tolerance for the d20 system as well as the Dungeons & Dragons role playing games. While some quasi-religious zealots to this day still cling feverently to their AD&D 1st edition books, their intolerance is in the minority these days. These days, I find the SRD to be useful, though I still can't stand the full load of d20 system game mechanics. What I've seen of Hasbro's new game system as mentioned already leaves much to be desired, though I'm sure there are a few good nuggets that can be swiped and added to Castles & Crusades.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:59 am

GameOgre wrote:
The point seems to be missed and it was that some of you seem to judge 4E with a totally differant yard stick than you do C&C or others.

If you understand and are not upset with C&C lack of a SRD how can you in the same breath condem 4E for having one(even if it is limited in a few ways).

Just seems like people look for reasons to get upset/angry with 4E. I for one love C&C and like 4E. I just dont understand.

In case your not familiar with me, let me give you a bit of back ground. I used to be big into 3E, before that 2E. before that 1E. When I say big I mean I owned almost everything for each edition, including third party stuff. For EVERY edition. Then about two years ago 3E had me completely burned out. I almost quit RPG's altogether. Fortunately C&C saved me from quitting.

So with regards to 4E. Its not my kind fo D&D game. I believe in heroic D&D characters, but I don't believe in super powered D&D characters. That is what 4E is to me. So I am not into it. I like a couple fo ideas and will look into integrating them into my C&C. But I am totally apathetic to 4E.

Now the 4E GSL is another story. That actually ticks me off. I won't go into all the reasons it ticks me off, but it has. To the point I want nothing to do with a company that operates like that. So that is why I am acting the way I am towards WOTC. Not 4E itself, but WOTC, as a company.

4E, to me, is not different to me than GURPS and many other games I own but rarely ever play. Its just with 4E I won't own anything. I'll likely play it though, just to see if I do want to use the ideas I think I may.

Thats another reason I love C&C. 4E comes along, a lot of it I don't like, but the few ideas that interest me I can steal and add to my C&C, without buying into 4E.

C&C is a great adaptable system that I wouldn't have to spend a dime to update with cool ideas I see in other games.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:48 am

I started playing D&D back in 1978. Basic,1E,2E and stopped buying new stuff with 3.0

I just HATED 3.0/3,5 so I just played 2E and tried out other games(ok really tried EVERY other game). I can say now that I never really gave 3.0 a shot. Mostly due to having so much ridding on 2E. Thousands of $ and tons of stuff for 2E so I really never had a reason to try 3.5 until about 4 months ago.

I finally played 3.5 and guess what? It was alright. Too many options and too much cool shock and awe! Haha really thats what I called it Shock and Awe.

4E was coming out and so I read up on it and thought it might now be too bad. When I got the books though I spent 2 days reading and then told my players I would not be playing it.I hated it. It was just like all the 4E haters had said it was. I was sad.

BUT.... my players pointed out the many times I made them try something new and said they wanted to play. After a few hours heated debate we all agreed to give it one shot. One 4 hour game and if anyone hated it then thats all we had to do.

10 hours later we stopped and realized that some of us were hooked. We had a blast! Even those of us like me who were not totally in love with the game realized we had indeed liked it.

I realized that many of the things I HATED about the game turned out to be fun and a blast to play.Instead of being stupid and MMOish with superpowered tones it turned into a new fun way to play D&D.

I would say that if you have not actually played it and tried it out you really have no clue what the game is like. I realize that many will insist that you dont have to play it to see how crappy it is but I wish they would keep in mind that many smart good game role players just like them thought the same thing but after trying it realized that they were wrong.

Now dont think that im praising 4E at the cost of C&C. I love C&C and its my main game. I love simple and lite and whatever you want to say about 4E I dont think anyone is really trying to sell its simple and lite.

C&C is the game for me 95% of the time. but I wouldnt turn down a chance to play or run a short 4E game from time to time.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:56 am

Quote:
Treebore

In case your not familiar with me

I know you very well. I have read hundreds of your posts and actually know most of the C&C crowd.

I don't post all that much but I come to the boards and read three or four times a day while at work to catch up.

I can't count the times someone has asked you a question and you helped them out and I ended up going with your ideas about house rules or the way something works. I guess when you talk to soemone by post you really are yelling at them through a huge crowd of listiners.

It's kind of funny that you can know people by reading there posts over a long time and think of them as friends when they don't know you at all.

Life on the net I guess. Strange
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:17 pm

I actually agree I need to play 4E to give it a fair shake. I actually believe you don't know how a game works until you play it. Reading it does not tell you that.

So I will be playing 4E. I am sure I will actually think 4E is fun to play. I just don't think it will be superior as an over all system that I would give up C&C for it. I think I am much more likely to be a happier gamer taking the cool ideas out of 4e and putting it into my C&C.

So I expect 4E to be like many other systems to me. Fun to play, but not my preferred system to play.

I am probably like many gamers, I have a specific system I like for a specific genre. I like MegaTraveler for my sci fi, I like Shadowrun for cyber punkish games, I like L5R for mystical samurai type games. I like C&C for my fantasy and seriously doubt 4E, or any game, will change that.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:45 am

Quote:
I am sure I will actually think 4E is fun to play. I just don't think it will be superior as an over all system that I would give up C&C for it.

Yeah after playing it and reading the books thats my opinion. Fun game but not the Best thing for me to play.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:04 am

Fiffergrund wrote:
While I don't feel the need to justify myself, I will say that my intent in posting the "be careful" warning was not to single anyone out, but to warn people to be careful!

People can get their feathers ruffled over stupid little things. I did point out one statement of Rab's as an example of one that had a small bit of potential to rub folks the wrong way. I wasn't trying to accuse him of posting with bad form. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

My excuses for getting your intentions wrong, then. My answer was not to twist what you meant (a word to those who implied I wanted to do this: you do not know me at all, nor my way of debating; I do not need to "twist" anything to make a point in a discussion), but what I had understood from your post (on which I agree in principle; everyone's informed opinion is valid). Not being an english native speaker did not help, evidently.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:33 pm

Traveller wrote:
happen to have either spent $5,000 to buy in, or bought the rule books when they were released.

Actually, the $5000 buy in was canceled some time back. Just an fyi. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

jeffb · Post by **jeffb** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:13 pm

:shrug:

AFAIC- 4E has a very "Basic" or "Classic" D&D Feel to it. Sure there are difference in character powers and whatnot, and the addition of some funky races (silly demon people and silly dragon people) classes (well the Warlord anyways). But the emphasis on class roles, simplified "common sense" rules (compared to 3.X), O/CD&D-ish cosmology, and the lethality is there as well.

Maybe "Basic D&D on steroids" is a more apt description. Whereas 3.5 is "AD&D on Steroids"... or perhaps "a bunch of guys who hated AD&D but love adding house rules to RMSS get to redesign the D&D game"
I'm as crusty of an old type gamer as it gets (learned how to play with the LBBs in 1978). And I don't think anyone has ever topped the pinnacle of those late 70s/early 80s D&D products, or ever will! But I'd play or run 4E slightly modded no prob, and I'd never run 3.X again. Ever. For everyone calling 4E out for being "over the top" there's a bazillion rules lawyers and stat-mongers who are playing the "build game" of 3E, which is 10 times worse AFAIC (see my sig).

The GSL though? Yup... that SUCKS. I'm gonna be mighy pi$$ed if I cannot buy a module from Necro or Goodman with full stat blocks. I'm very disappointed in the whole GSL thing, though frankly I expected it to be pretty bad if we ever saw it at all. So it's not a surprise, really.

Thanks to Ryan Dancey and the OGL- without whom we wouldn't be here on this board dicussing C&C or 4E!
_________________
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:56 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Actually, the $5000 buy in was canceled some time back. Just an fyi. ^_~`

Probably because no one in their right mind would pay for a game system sight unseen.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

ssfsx17 · Post by **ssfsx17** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:06 pm

I just created a wizard using the 4th edition rules. My thoughts:

- There are definitely some improvements compared to previous WOTC products. The colors and text are very clean and readable, and it is much easier to find what you are looking for.

- The action system is greatly improved from the previous two editions - gone are the days when you would need to spend a very long time to figure out which action could be done when. Sadly, opportunity attacks are still in, but at least they have been simplified.

- The class ability system does not translate well to wizard-style magic. Now the wizard is simply "ranged damage-dealer who prefers not to use weapons or armor." Spells that used to be very handy in a pinch are now rituals that take 10 minutes or more. Spells that used to be very handy for memorizing two or three of are now encounter or daily abilities.

- I can't believe they kept the whole fortitude / reflex / willpower thing. Now it's a bit easier to calculate, but still, couldn't they just go to using all stat checks?

- The skill system is needlessly different from C&C's just for the sake of being different. For skill rolls, you add 5 plus half your character's level.

Once I actually manage to play in a game, I expect that combat will be quite interesting and tactical, but C&C is still by far the best all-around variant for getting things done and jumping into a game.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:23 pm

Traveller wrote:
Probably because no one in their right mind would pay for a game system sight unseen.

I'm sure that would have been a factor, but the biggest factor is WOTC never got the info out in a timely enough fashion for it to be worth paying for anyone's plans.

So it was canceled for WOTC's ineptitude.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:24 am

That's one thing I have noticed. WOTC seems to be having some problem delivering on the development side. That is, while they got the game out the material for the 3rd parties has been delayed. I know i have heard rumors of internal squabbling over the details of the GSL and SRD for 4e but, it makes me wonder if there aren't other internal problems that are causing the delays.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog