The third party adventures industry just doesn't seem to have the margins to support much in the way of royalties. If WotC charge royalties, then the industry will shrink as the small (i.e. low volume/low margin) players get forced out.

The d20 OGL license has been great for the industry - it is healthier and more creative than it has ever been. But it isn't just the OGL that's driven that: the internet marketplace has given players direct access to niche developers that couldn't survive otherwise (WWG being an obvious example).

The d20 OGL has effectively been the Open Source of the gaming world, with all the benefits that come from it. But it can be taken away.

What we (and particularly the third party adventure industry) need is a true Open Source gaming system. And not one tied to the commercial whims of a particular supplier. Perhaps WotC moving on to D&D 4 will be the trigger for the industry to split off and take control of its own destiny.

Umm, the OGL is what caused the glut in the industry and put a lot of people out of business. To say it helped the industry is just not true. It helped Joe Shmoe make a few extra bucks making a half-ass pdf product to sell on RPGNow, but "real" companies suffered very much. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances in the industry (I'm peripherally there) who would say the same. Healthier? Nope, but getting a wee bit better. More creative? As far as D&D products go, no. I guess that depends on how you define creativity.
With the removal of the OGL and a move to online content we should see other companies thrive a bit more with WotC moving into their own sandbox and leaving us in ours.
I was at GenCon this weekend and no one seemed particularly amped about it. They'll line up in droves to buy it like usual but the hype that was behind 3.0 is not there. I'd be pi$$ed if I had to re-buy a few hundred dollars in books to keep playing. Can't wait for the next 126 pages of errata.

Oh my! 4th edition!? I think I'm going to have to pass.

While 3.0 was released in 2000, which is a pretty long time ago, the advent of "3.5" made me and everyone I know have to re-buy all the core rule books. Then came the frustrating process of talking to each DM (including myself) asking what, if anything, would be allowed from the old 3.0 expansion books. And some DM's clearly stated they wouldn't allow any of the old 3.0 content! (I tend to be pretty lenient, I mean, who wants to hear that all the money they spent was a waste?)

I'm not particularly thrilled about the computer content either. One of the best parts of pen and paper RPG's is the use of everyone's imagination. What do I need computer graphics for when I can picture everything clearly in my head? . . Or I could use my painted miniatures and *cough* [plug] beautiful WorldWorks Games cardstock models[/plug] *cough* for all the visualization I could ever need!

So I'll have to add myself with the ranks of the boo'ers and hiss'ers. For me this just feels too soon after 3.5, and 3.5 felt too soon after 3.0.

So 4E is going to fix all those irreparably broken elements of 3.5, the way 3.5 fixed the big problems in 3.0? Coincidentally requiring users to purchase new core books?

No, I don't think we need to look farther than planned obsolescence as an explanation for a new edition. When WotC got (nearly) out of the business of supporting campaigns with modules 'n; stuff, they were counting on sales of core books to drive their profits. Y'all didn't buy 'em fast enough, so they're going to sell you all-new stuff. Starting this fall or winter, they'll be retooled toward rewriting those core books for the next couple of years...and in 2010, they'll tell you that the only way to fix the myriad problems with 4E is via a fifth edition.

I bought 3.0 and 3.5 core books mainly out of curiosity, and have only ever played a handful of games at DragonCon. I won't be getting aboard at all for 4E, unless this online initiative offers exceptional value. It sounds pretty cool, though they could have built it around 3E just as easily, I'm sure.

The business model WotC really wants, deep down, is a subscription-based service. Hollywood tried and failed to do that with DVDs (remember the play-three-times-and-it-breaks idea?), and Microsoft hasn't dared to attempt such an OS quite yet. The business of D&D, though, involves people getting together, so who knows? This might be exactly what a lot of players want.

I'll probably stick with games that are already fully supported.

My thought is that Hasbro saw the subscription sales of the MMORPGs and wanted in beyond DDO. They're looking for a constant revenue stream.

So they decided to take a lot of the 4.0 content online for subscribers. Sure, they say that you won't need the online content to play. And they're probably perfectly correct. But if you want things like prestige classes, campaign settings and all that other non-core material you're going to be hosed.

It's a lot cheaper to put the material online than it is to print a book. And you can tweak it to your heart's content. Errata only annoys people.

Hasbro killed off MageKnight due to invalidating so much earlier content and blindly expecting people to dump loads more money into the game without any expectation they could use the figures in the future. I don't see them doing anything different here.

I've heard about enough changes that it looks like using 4.0 material with 3.5 would be like using 3.5 with 2.0. You can do it but you have to essentially re-write how it all works. And then you're in to home rules anyway.

I'm not at all enthused about the change, if you can't tell. I see it as a money grab and a way to alienate the tabletop players. They don't want us any more - they want online stuff they can milk.

The online character generator is a point in case. How long until you can get a spiffy new upgrade, if you pay $X? Sure you can use the item in play for no cost but if you want it on your digital character you need to fork over some change. And don't tell me this won't happen - the accountants are firmly in charge here.

Bah.

It depends on how fast you get through adventures. But if you do your own adventures, you can always mod adventures from other versions or even systems.

Yes, eventually you want to move on, but by then D&D may be up to v5

Or you can do as we've just done, and discover there are easier, less proscriptive ways to do things (e.g SW). As well as the smoother rule-play, I'm still getting used to how easy it is to put together an encounter in Savage Worlds - I keep thinking "this can't be enough", but it is.

Being a member of the Magic playtest group for the Onslaught/Mirrodin blocks at the end of 2002, I know how Hasbro sizes up competition -

Any competition, no matter how little or how big, has something that should be considered for future releases in the WotC line. If it improves game play and is not exactly patented for the competing game, use it.

What was interesting was the weird interaction between the Warlords CCG by Alderac Entertainment, and Magic the Gathering. We were using the classic card format at the time, and someone actually wrote down, "Wish Wizards would make the Magic card format more streamlined and easier to read like Warlords."

We all laughed because we thought there was no way they'd change the classic look of Sixth Edition, but in less than two months, there was a new card format. That strangely looked like the Warlords and another game's (whose name escapes me at the moment) format. And then I realized that anything we suggested from other competitor's projects WotC considers worth looking at. If it works and draws people in, they figure out how to add that concept into the main game.

The objective is to share players with other games, and possibly win them over to exclusivity.

One thing on the podcasts I heard was that Mike Mearls thought the magic system for D&D was too clunky and had too much downtime for magic-users. He was invited to play another RPG one night (which he makes sure to say, "I won't mention any names,") and realized that the magic system of that game was more flexible and didn't require magic-users to rest for 8 hours before getting their spells back. And that's the kind of INTERACTION AND EASE that he wanted for 4th Edition.

The other thing he mentions is that he saw another game using poker chips to activate special moves for each character class. Which was better and more rewarding for players than the Prestige character system. So action points came about from wanting to give players more flexibility.

Every "new" idea for 4e he mentioned at GenCon this year I was able to put the name of an RPG that was already out there to. Pendragon, Blue Rose, Iron Heroes, Scion, etc. I guess what I see is a bunch of ideas used across the board with d20 or another system, and Wizard's is borrowing things of more popular RPGs to get a mix of "enjoyable and easy" mechanics.

If I have to hear the phrase, "Heroic, Paragon, Epic," as a descriptor of the levels of D&D play again, I will beat Mike Mearls over the head with his own leg.

That's interesting background info. Of course, there isn't really anything wrong with taken a bunch of good idea and meshing them into one package. It has the potential to be great... although poker chips isn't my thing at all.

Arabin