QuoteThis is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players.

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Jackalope:eyepop:

Why even bother to call them settings anymore?  It's all just one big D&DLand Fun Park now.

EDIT: I think some of you aren't getting what Bill is saying.  There will be player's guides that say you can use them in any setting.  Don't want dragonborn in your campaign?  Tough, your player does, and the rules as written are on his side.  Don't want warforged?  Tough, once the eberron book comes out (unless they made warforged core).  Don't want Kender?  Pray they don't release a Dragonlance combo.

4E is killing the DM's ability to set limits on his or her campaign.

Hehehe that is just about the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Someone comes to my table saying I want to play a Dragonborn or a Night Elf or whatever and I have decided those races are out or that everyone has to be a dwarf because this is a dwarf campaign then ... well tough.

The DM is in charge they set the parameters of the game if there is something they don't like its gone. The only rule is that this stuff has to be done up front. You can't allow something then when the PC exploits it change your mind and take it back.

Quote from: The_Shadow4e sounds increasingly like a giant vanilla blancmange.

It depends on the approach. I'm hoping it'll be more "setting smorgasboard" than "setting soup", where as DM I can pick and choose which elements to use and which to leave alone.

In other words, I think it could work if they are very firm that every setting-specific book is non-Core. If we start seeing core rulebooks which require the use of, say, the FR setting guide then we're moving in the wrong direction.

Quote from: WarthurIt depends on the approach. I'm hoping it'll be more "setting smorgasboard" than "setting soup", where as DM I can pick and choose which elements to use and which to leave alone.

I agree. The article doesn't suggest that you must use every element from every setting, it merely encourages GMs and players to mine all the available settings for material which they can use to realise their own setting.

I guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

To me, this either means that absolutely nothing has changed from the way past editions worked (meaning its just marketing speak nonsense).  Or, it will have one or more negative consequences:

* The products will all actively encourage you to use everything from every book in your campaign.  Players will get even more grumpy when a DM tries to limit anything - effectively forcing the DM into running nothing but kitchen-sink games of high-powered madness (which will get even worse as each new book inevitably introduces more power creep).

* The small rule changes that did make the different settings unique will finally disappear, making them all more bland.  There's not much point to the Birthright world if you aren't using the blood rules, for example.

* Every book will start assuming you've purchased every other book (this happens a lot with Rifts books).  Suddenly rule books, possibly even future "core" books, could have pieces you can't use because you don't buy every book they put out.

I get a feeling that there is going to be a misguided marketing ploy in future WOTC products.  I think the idea went something like this:
 
"Why did book A sell so much more than book B"
 
"That's because A is a core book and B is only for those who play in the lame-ass elf setting. Almost everyone buys the core books."
 
"Hey! Let's make all the books core books!"
 
They've said stuff about producing new core books every year.  Does this mean that, instead splat books, they'll package stuff of that nature together along the lines of the original Unearthed Arcana and call it a new core book?  I'm curious how well that will go over.

Quote from: Jackalope:eyepop: 4E is killing the DM's ability to set limits on his or her campaign.

Yes, WOTC has plans for a squad to enforce player choice.  Every book will have a 900 number in the back to ensure that  a player gets to use anything from a book they buy.  A simple call will bring in "fair play" goons to use physical and legal intimidation on DMs.
 
Or, maybe you're full of alarmist tripe and things will be the same as they've always been with DMs making calls on what they'll allow.  AD&D had the same thing with players wanting to use stuff in Dragon and Unearthed Arcana yet DMs still managed to run games.

Quote from: jgantsI guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

Thank you, jgants. I asked the same question over on d20 Haven. Am I missing something? This seems like a cosmetic change at best. The whole point of products that were published by TSR/WotC (or with the OGL/d20 srd) was that you could use them across the spectrum. If you were doing something in you homebrew, you might have to adjust.

So, like I asked over on d20 Haven - can someone provide an example of where something could not be used? Am I just missing something - which I'm fully ready to admit, but I'm truly perplexed...

Quote from: jgantsI guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

I think it's indicating a subtle shift in the sort of setting products they put out - they're going to consciously try to make the sort of product which people can easily grab material from and slot into their own campaign. So, more spells, races, classes and monsters, and less all-fluff like the Grand History of the Realms.

Quote from: NicephorusYes, WOTC has plans for a squad to enforce player choice.  Every book will have a 900 number in the back to ensure that  a player gets to use anything from a book they buy.  A simple call will bring in "fair play" goons to use physical and legal intimidation on DMs.
 
Or, maybe you're full of alarmist tripe and things will be the same as they've always been with DMs making calls on what they'll allow.  AD&D had the same thing with players wanting to use stuff in Dragon and Unearthed Arcana yet DMs still managed to run games.

In previous editions, the rules specifically stated that such decisions were in the hands of the DM.  DM Fiat was not something DM's invented, it was something the rules asserted.  The concept of DM Fiat has been under attack in recent years

In the post-Forge 4E, who knows what the rules will state?  It sounds from Bill's comments that there will be player options books that officially state that they may be used in any campaign.

Will DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Quote from: JackalopeWill DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

GMs have been homebrewing for years making such radical changes to the rules/settings which have not been supported by the official rules except with a brief "it's up to the GM" without complaint from their players. Also I doubt players are going to buy books for use in a campaign simply because WotC says there will be options for use in any campaigns without checking with the GM first or even if it's the usual practise for players to buy books. Home play is not tournament play. If players start calling their GMs cheaters it's a symptom of group or individual dysfunction rather than anything to do with these new rules.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JackalopeIn previous editions, the rules specifically stated that such decisions were in the hands of the DM.  DM Fiat was not something DM's invented, it was something the rules asserted.  The concept of DM Fiat has been under attack in recent years

In the post-Forge 4E, who knows what the rules will state?  It sounds from Bill's comments that there will be player options books that officially state that they may be used in any campaign.

Will DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Fuck dude, it's like you never even cracked open these dreaded books that do exist. You remind me of the little old ladies in the small rural town where I grew up. The got these grossly distorted ideas of the outside world from the Christian Ministers on the TV that painted an alarmist picture of crap that barely has a kernel of truth to it.

Oh noes, maybe the DM will be encouraged to work with the players to figure out what the world is going to be like rather than just showing up and dishing out the gruel and the players are expected to say (according to page 135, paragraph 4) "yum, can I have some more"! :rolleyes:

Looks like WOTC had reverted and will now only enforce the 4e GSL on a product-by-product basis instead of a company by company basis. Sooo... companies can now produce by 0GL and 4e GSL material as they choose.

One just can't make or distribute an OGL version of any 4e GSL licensed product. Reference:

Wizards News Release

Actually, Jackalope may have more of a point than some here credit.

Young gamers, gamers in their teens for example, often don't realise you don't need to use the rules or that you can change the rules.

OWoD used all the time to say "with book X you can now play y".  I remember gamers on rpg.net saying "I could always play y, I just made up rules for it".  They didn't get it.

When Unearthed Arcana came out for AD&D I was a teenager.  It was an official book, official rules.  It let us play things that previously the rules had not allowed, Cavaliers for example.  Duergar I think was another.

The GM was just one guy in the group, it changed which of us it was, but to not allow official rules was not ok, arguably it was cheating.  Those were, after all, the rules of the game we were playing.  So, we created Duergar, Cavaliers, whatever.  Our game crashed and died.

So, we couldn't run a meaningful campaign anymore using those rules, at which point all the experienced gamers here would ditch those rules.  We didn't, it didn't occur to us - after all they were official rules, you couldn't just pretend they didn't exist.

We stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster and Runequest instead, where the rules worked for us.

Immature gamers often play games by the official rules, and place great weight on what is and is not allowed in those rules.  It's actually why the golden rule matters more than many thirtysomething indie gamers realise, it means there is an official rule allowing the GM to make shit up.

Without that, just banning something because you don't like it, well if it's offical that's tough - like banning getting £200 when you land on go in Monopoly.  Those are the rules of the game, we play by the rules, if you don't you're cheating.

Now, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

Quote from: BalbinusWe stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster and Runequest instead, where the rules worked for us.

That sounds like a good outcome to me.

QuoteImmature gamers often play games by the official rules, and place great weight on what is and is not allowed in those rules.  It's actually why the golden rule matters more than many thirtysomething indie gamers realise, it means there is an official rule allowing the GM to make shit up.

I suggest that that is why the "golden rule" as it exists in D&D is pretty fucked up.

QuoteNow, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

Hey, even you'll have to get your mother's permission if you want to sign up for Gleemax. Seriously. Welcome to beta.