D&D 4E speak with money

[GMforPowergamers]

so in another thread I was reminded that speaking with your wallet works both ways. Not only do you have to not buy what you don't like you must buy and support things you do.

4e came out June 6, 2008 and this lead me to a hypothetical... imagine that in June of 2023 they had a 15 year anniversary for 4e and released the old compendium and character/monster builders for a price to down load. Would you buy it?

I wonder, because as much as 4e is my favorite edition it still is not perfect and I would want more of the system to be the base of a 6e, but how could I show that? Should I go onto DMs guild and buy all the books in PDF? should I bomb WotC with request? How do I show I want 4e, but updated?

 

[GreyLord]

I would, but I think it is of limited attraction to others, thus probably not worth WotC putting it out in that manner.

Edit PS: I have bought many of the 4e books off of DMs Guild, mainly the hard print copies. They are decent quality, though the originals are better (IMO).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4Ed wasn’t my favorite, but I bought a fair amount of the books. Since the group I was in only played one long campaign, they’re still in damn good shape.

Soooo, while I really wouldn’t need such a product, it could be popular- 4Ed was a pretty big seller. Thing is, I don’t see WotC taking another step down that road in the near future. Pestering them won’t change that unless you get hundreds of thousands of others to do likewise…and even then, that might not be enough.

The most realistic possibility of 4Ed type products returning to the commercial market in the foreseeable future is in a clone of some kind from a different company.* See Paizo’s success with Pathfinder.





* again, reiterating my thought that a classless version of 4Ed could be a killer toolbox system.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

But to what end? Without a fair and open license, the system can only get minimal support from anyone. So unless they're willing to update the books, or include all the errata that came out over the years, I (and more importantly, the company) don't see any benefits of supporting the same, untouched reprints of old material.

 

[Blue]

But to what end? Without a fair and open license, the system can only get minimal support from anyone. So unless they're willing to update the books, or include all the errata that came out over the years, I (and more importantly, the company) don't see any benefits of supporting the same, untouched reprints of old material.

3rd party publishers for D&D content existed well before the OGL. It definitely makes it easier, but the OGL didn't even exist until 3ed. Don't mistake the ease whihc may current RPGs allow content for the only way, or even a way that existed for the first decades of RPGs.

 

[Richards]

Speak with money sounds like a spell a dwarf would create. Elves might want to speak with animals or speak with plants, but a dwarf would much rather speak with money.

Johnathan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

“I am Gold Piece, and I used to belong to Merchant Potter. Before then, I was…”

 

[Jacob Lewis]

3rd party publishers for D&D content existed well before the OGL. It definitely makes it easier, but the OGL didn't even exist until 3ed. Don't mistake the ease whihc may current RPGs allow content for the only way, or even a way that existed for the first decades of RPGs.

That's because those other OGLs didn't include a "poison pill" clause like the 4e GSL did. It could effectively nullify all previous licenses for the publisher who accepted use of the GSL at the discretion of WotC. 4e seemed hellbent on doing everything it could to take back the market and undo the Open Game License. Needless to say it does a good job of scaring away potential publishers, effectively pushing them towards any other licensed system.

 

[Blue]

That's because those other OGLs didn't include a "poison pill" clause like the 4e GSL did. It could effectively nullify all previous licenses for the publisher who accepted use of the GSL at the discretion of WotC. 4e seemed hellbent on doing everything it could to take back the market and undo the Open Game License. Needless to say it does a good job of scaring away potential publishers, effectively pushing them towards any other licensed system.

There was legal 3PP publishing well before the OGL existed. Since that also means before the GSL existed there were ways to legally publish without it as well.

Just because there is one easily available license, do not mistake it for the only option.

And if you want to go the route Dannyalcatraz suggested and make a clone-ish like Pathfinder was to 3.5 remember mechanics can't be copyrighted. Avoiding their trademarks and IP, exact wording, and trade dress (including stat block layout and icons) can go a long way without needing any license.

 

[TerraDave]

It should be possible to do a close clone, even under, say, the more general OGL and other SRDs, as there is so much in common (or not even using the OGL, as noted).

I think some attempts have been made, though they tend to have some major deviations from (errated) 4e.