PDA

View Full Version : What's keeping 5E from being replicated by OGL



Lokiare
2014-07-26, 05:56 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?

I mean they could at this point put 5E under the OGL and it would work perfectly. The only new things are the (dis)advantage mechanics which are not copyrightable (because nearly every modern RPG uses some form of it).

In fact I'm wondering why a bunch of us don't just get together and release a fixed version of OGL that does everything 5E does, but better?

Beleriphon
2014-07-26, 06:06 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?

I mean they could at this point put 5E under the OGL and it would work perfectly. The only new things are the (dis)advantage mechanics which are not copyrightable (because nearly every modern RPG uses some form of it).

In fact I'm wondering why a bunch of us don't just get together and release a fixed version of OGL that does everything 5E does, but better?

In theory they could, but they'd need to use a whole host of different terms for different things, depending on what was going on. I think the other issue that you're going to have is that while specific terms might not be under copyright, the text as a whole would be as a complete work. So if you reproduce anything even close to the original text, or even just large portions there of, you'd have a problem.

As it stands though there isn't much stopping people from doing such a thing beyond not being jerks and the amount of work it would take to make the new game different enough to not just be a copy of an original work but similar enough to actually be compatible iwht D&D. Even if somebody did make Not-D&D and have no brand recognition, which goes a long way towards adoption of a product.

Lokiare
2014-07-26, 06:13 AM
In theory they could, but they'd need to use a whole host of different terms for different things, depending on what was going on. I think the other issue that you're going to have is that while specific terms might not be under copyright, the text as a whole would be as a complete work. So if you reproduce anything even close to the original text, or even just large portions there of, you'd have a problem.

As it stands though there isn't much stopping people from doing such a thing beyond not being jerks and the amount of work it would take to make the new game different enough to not just be a copy of an original work but similar enough to actually be compatible iwht D&D. Even if somebody did make Not-D&D and have no brand recognition, which goes a long way towards adoption of a product.

Actually due to the OGL they could use much of the same terminology as 5E completely legally. If you haven't looked at it, you should. The OGL is just about 90% of 3E given away for free.

Why would they be jerks to fix a game that was produced in such a way to exclude a portion of its fans? I would consider that poetic justice myself.

Basically as long as they paraphrased using their own words legally there would be no recourse for WotC. The OGL is a non-revocable license that gives away D&D terminology and mechanics for free, even for commercial usage.

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 07:35 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?

I mean they could at this point put 5E under the OGL and it would work perfectly. The only new things are the (dis)advantage mechanics which are not copyrightable (because nearly every modern RPG uses some form of it).

In fact I'm wondering why a bunch of us don't just get together and release a fixed version of OGL that does everything 5E does, but better?

Nothing's particularly stopping you, though my personal question would be why use 5e as a base? There are problems with the system math, that can't be solved without breaking the system apart entirely, at which point, you might as well base it off another system, entirely, and importing the good portions of 5e into that system's base. Though, as I've learned from my many attempts at homebrew design, that if you let yourself go too far down that path, that that way lies madness, where you can easily cobble together great mechanics of different systems into a very disjoint system. However if you stick to d20-esque games (particularly ones with a more solid system math base) things won't get too disjoint.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-26, 08:52 AM
I don't think there is an OGL out yet. Everyone is in limbo waiting for them to put out a license. Unless I missed something.

If you start making your own stuff now and they out out a mega poison pill then you just wasted your time.

The free basic PDF is not an OGL that I'm aware of.

Beleriphon
2014-07-26, 09:10 AM
I don't think there is an OGL out yet. Everyone is in limbo waiting for them to put out a license. Unless I missed something.

If you start making your own stuff now and they out out a mega poison pill then you just wasted your time.

The free basic PDF is not an OGL that I'm aware of.

No, its more that the existing OGL can be used to essentially recreate D&D Fifth Edition, in much the same way there are AD&D 1E and 2E clones created using the OGL. All it really requires is the names of the scores, class and monster names which D&D 3E had as part of the OGL (and happen to be shared with other editions). Everything might have been patentable at one point but that option has long since expired and copyright only applies to the text as a whole not specific terms/names unless they are wholy unique to the D&D (illithids, beholders and the like are examples). It's kind of hard to copyright natural language words like wizard, or rogue which is why the stuff like Castles & Crusades work or ACKS.

You might be thinking that the current edtion needs to be released under the OGL but that isn't strictly necessary to do what is being proposed. I still think it's a bit of a jerk move much like somebody remaking a game like Dragon Age: Origins with different visuals and names but its essentially the same game.

Madfellow
2014-07-26, 09:16 AM
I don't think there is an OGL out yet. Everyone is in limbo waiting for them to put out a license. Unless I missed something.

If you start making your own stuff now and they out out a mega poison pill then you just wasted your time.

The free basic PDF is not an OGL that I'm aware of.

He means the OGL for 3e.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-26, 05:05 PM
That's actually already been done to a limited capacity, Lokiare. The Wizard's Amulet was a short 5e Adventure put out by Frog God Games and they used 3e OGL as the framework and just added hit dice, advantage, and disadvantage, took out the F/R/W saves, and a few other fiddly bits to make it match up. If you give it a read it's pretty apparent that it's OGL dependent, they even went as far as to credit the SRD and PRD in their credits for the amount of info they used from it.

That said, I think the basic rules will become the 5e OGL, but not before they're done updating it. I think the idea is that they're going to give us just the standard fantasy flavor and then companies can take any rendition on it they please with what they provide. I imagine they're doing it to keep their artistic representation of the other base classes their own while still allowing people to make a game system using the spine of 5e, just not as fruitfully so as with the MASSIVE 3e OGL(which nobody I play with even knows that it includes Psionics, Epic Rules, Deities and Demigods, and Unearthed Arcana).

Knaight
2014-07-27, 12:16 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?


It's not out yet, and that right there prevents actual cloning. Once it is, making and distributing one using the 3e OGL is entirely doable. The only terms that might be of any concern are Advantage and Disadvantage, plus whatever new monster names crop up. The rest are either in the OGL, or in enough RPGs that D&D has no real claim to them (e.g. backgrounds).

The brand name pretty much guarantees that it won't matter to Hasbro.

Warskull
2014-07-27, 12:40 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?

I mean they could at this point put 5E under the OGL and it would work perfectly. The only new things are the (dis)advantage mechanics which are not copyrightable (because nearly every modern RPG uses some form of it).

In fact I'm wondering why a bunch of us don't just get together and release a fixed version of OGL that does everything 5E does, but better?

The fact that Wizards is famously litigious.

You can't copyright game mechanics, so in theory someone could rewrite the whole rulebook and sell it (or make it OG.) They would have to be careful about using different wording for everything. The catch is even if the people who did this were on solid legal ground, Wizards would still sue. The would use the legal fees to bury whoever tried to do it. That way even if they lost, they still win.

Just look at what Wizards is doing to Hex. The game borrowed quite a bit from M:TG. Wizards is suing them and busting out a patent on the 'tapping' mechanics. It will cost Hex quite a bit of money, even thought Wizards is probably in the wrong legally.

Knaight
2014-07-27, 01:51 AM
Just look at what Wizards is doing to Hex. The game borrowed quite a bit from M:TG. Wizards is suing them and busting out a patent on the 'tapping' mechanics. It will cost Hex quite a bit of money, even thought Wizards is probably in the wrong legally.

The retroclones are doing fine though. MTG is a vastly more profitable line than D&D, and Wizards puts way more effort on "protecting" it.

TheOOB
2014-07-27, 02:07 AM
Well, you can't copyright game mechanics, as they are an expression of math, and math is a universal constant, thus, you never really needed the OGL to make a game that was even functionally identical to D&D. You did need the OGL to use some D&D terms, and to say your product is a d20 system, product or compatible with D&D.

Ergo, I *could* come out with a system that's basically D&D 5e right now, and as long as I didn't copy any text directly or use any trade marked terms, I'd be fine. I imagine I could even make extra content for the system, classes, feats, ect, and as long as I didn't say they were for D&D I'd also be fine(though good luck marketing something as an expansion for something when you can't name what it's an expansion to).

Chaosvii7
2014-07-27, 04:00 AM
Ergo, I *could* come out with a system that's basically D&D 5e right now, and as long as I didn't copy any text directly or use any trade marked terms, I'd be fine. I imagine I could even make extra content for the system, classes, feats, ect, and as long as I didn't say they were for D&D I'd also be fine(though good luck marketing something as an expansion for something when you can't name what it's an expansion to).

There's one Pathfinder 3rd party book I can think of off of the top of my head that I know of, that does exactly this by literally stretching out the references and their explicit definitions to the point where they didn't steal a single word but your imagination should be able to put two and two together without any guesswork.

Frankly, I like it when something is built entirely around the concept of not using the terminology. It's made for some funny game manuals, and I'm all about the game manuals fun.

Sartharina
2014-07-27, 11:11 AM
There's one Pathfinder 3rd party book I can think of off of the top of my head that I know of, that does exactly this by literally stretching out the references and their explicit definitions to the point where they didn't steal a single word but your imagination should be able to put two and two together without any guesswork.

Frankly, I like it when something is built entirely around the concept of not using the terminology. It's made for some funny game manuals, and I'm all about the game manuals fun.

I think my favorite case of this is 3.0's 3rd-party splat Chainmail Bikini talking about "Brain-Eating Tentacle-Faced Things"

Person_Man
2014-07-28, 07:43 AM
The fact that Wizards is famously litigious.

This.

It can be done. In fact, I'm betting it will be done. But whoever does it first will probably get sued. Hasbro is a $4 billion dollar a year company.

If you were to do it, your best option is to simply wait until 5E is no longer profitable and they don't care if you clone it or not.

Either that, or you could do a parody version. You could basically take every game mechanic, rename it, and surround it with sarcastic/humorous/critical fluff. If Hasbro sues you, claim Fair Use, which protects criticism and parody of copyrighted work. Any reasonably competent judge would throw out a lawsuit against it. But you'd still have to show up for court with a competent lawyer.

You'd also want to have a reasonably popular blog or something similar. Companies hate bad PR, and don't want to have a reputation for suing their fans. If you have a loud enough megaphone, you can usually get lawsuits dropped by complaining loudly enough about it.

Millennium
2014-07-28, 07:53 AM
No, really what is going to keep people (or companies) from completely replicating and/or improving on 5E by creating an OGL clone that does everything that 5E does and more?
The same thing that prevents them from doing this with 4E, which is to say, not all that much.

In fact I'm wondering why a bunch of us don't just get together and release a fixed version of OGL that does everything 5E does, but better?
You go right ahead and do that.

Millennium
2014-07-28, 01:09 PM
I *could* come out with a system that's basically D&D 5e right now, and as long as I didn't copy any text directly or use any trade marked terms, I'd be fine. I imagine I could even make extra content for the system, classes, feats, ect, and as long as I didn't say they were for D&D I'd also be fine(though good luck marketing something as an expansion for something when you can't name what it's an expansion to).
Also worth pointing out here is the cottage industry of retroclones. People have been cloning 1e and even B/X -systems which are not only non-OGL, but which predate the open-source movement that inspired it- since before 4e was announced or, likely, even conceived. Lokiare himself has occasionally called 5e a retroclone: a testament not only to the term's popularity, but also the concept's widespread appeal.

My question is, what stops him from doing that with 4e? Why even bother with this pretense of starting with a system he wants nothing to do with? We all know that 4e is what he really wants anyway, so why not do it under the same principles that he'd use to "clone" 5e?

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 01:30 PM
The fact that Wizards is famously litigious.

You can't copyright game mechanics, so in theory someone could rewrite the whole rulebook and sell it (or make it OG.) They would have to be careful about using different wording for everything. The catch is even if the people who did this were on solid legal ground, Wizards would still sue. The would use the legal fees to bury whoever tried to do it. That way even if they lost, they still win.

Just look at what Wizards is doing to Hex. The game borrowed quite a bit from M:TG. Wizards is suing them and busting out a patent on the 'tapping' mechanics. It will cost Hex quite a bit of money, even thought Wizards is probably in the wrong legally.

This right here is probably the only real reason it won't happen.


Also worth pointing out here is the cottage industry of retroclones. People have been cloning 1e and even B/X -systems which are not only non-OGL, but which predate the open-source movement that inspired it- since before 4e was announced or, likely, even conceived. Lokiare himself has occasionally called 5e a retroclone: a testament not only to the term's popularity, but also the concept's widespread appeal.

My question is, what stops him from doing that with 4e? Why even bother with this pretense of starting with a system he wants nothing to do with? We all know that 4e is what he really wants anyway, so why not do it under the same principles that he'd use to "clone" 5e?

Because I don't want 4E. Yes you heard right. I don't want 4E.

What I want is what 4E gave me which is a game where the players choices affected the outcomes more than random chance. A game where you don't play bumbling farm hands with weapons or ultra-powerful demi-gods with magic. A game where everyone gets a chance to shine and has the same narrative control as everyone else. A game where characters are balanced against each other and where the system works like a Swiss clock (and by that I mean very very smoothly). So far 13th Age is doing a fair job of it, but I could also play a well balanced 3E retroclone if it were done properly (so far one hasn't materialized).

Millennium
2014-07-28, 02:01 PM
What I want is what 4E gave me which is a game where the players choices affected the outcomes more than random chance. A game where you don't play bumbling farm hands with weapons or ultra-powerful demi-gods with magic. A game where everyone gets a chance to shine and has the same narrative control as everyone else. A game where characters are balanced against each other and where the system works like a Swiss clock (and by that I mean very very smoothly). So far 13th Age is doing a fair job of it, but I could also play a well balanced 3E retroclone if it were done properly (so far one hasn't materialized).
Have you ever considered diceless systems? Amber is the most famous, but there are others, such as Baron Munchausen.

SCAL37
2014-07-28, 02:16 PM
Have you ever considered diceless systems? Amber is the most famous, but there are others, such as Baron Munchausen.

Don't forget Lords of Gossamer and Shadow (basically an updated version of Amber) and Nobilis.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 03:35 PM
Have you ever considered diceless systems? Amber is the most famous, but there are others, such as Baron Munchausen.


Don't forget Lords of Gossamer and Shadow (basically an updated version of Amber) and Nobilis.

I don't want to remove randomness. I want the ability to react to it. In 4E a player can use a power or feat to roll an extra saving throw to shrug off some negative effect before the end of their turn. That allows you as a player to have agency and attempt to change the outcome through player choice. In 5E and other editions its just a single roll and if you roll low its over.

Sartharina
2014-07-28, 04:07 PM
This right here is probably the only real reason it won't happen.



Because I don't want 4E. Yes you heard right. I don't want 4E.

What I want is what 4E gave me which is a game where the players choices affected the outcomes more than random chance. A game where you don't play bumbling farm hands with weapons or ultra-powerful demi-gods with magic. A game where everyone gets a chance to shine and has the same narrative control as everyone else. A game where characters are balanced against each other and where the system works like a Swiss clock (and by that I mean very very smoothly). So far 13th Age is doing a fair job of it, but I could also play a well balanced 3E retroclone if it were done properly (so far one hasn't materialized).

I find 5e to deliver almost perfectly. If I want to do something I usually can. If there's a reason what I want to do isn't guaranteed, I don't need to have my character be built by a math-wizard to be able to have a chance of doing it anyway. I think a lot of complaints against 5e haven't bothered to read the actual rules, and merely the soundbite mechanics.

Knaight
2014-07-28, 05:23 PM
It can be done. In fact, I'm betting it will be done. But whoever does it first will probably get sued. Hasbro is a $4 billion dollar a year company.

D&D is also one of their least profitable, smallest product lines. Hasbro is going to crack down on a knock off of just about any of their action figures way before D&D. WotC in general is a pretty small subsidiary, and MtG is WotC's cash cow.

Jeraa
2014-07-28, 05:49 PM
D&D is also one of their least profitable, smallest product lines. Hasbro is going to crack down on a knock off of just about any of their action figures way before D&D. WotC in general is a pretty small subsidiary, and MtG is WotC's cash cow.

I got to looking because of a thread on another website. No Dungeons and Dragons books, for any edition, even appear on Hasbros website. Magic The Gathering cards do, but the only thing on the site for D&D is a Lego knockoff, KRE-O. (KRE-O Drizzt (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DB712754-5056-9047-F528-EC0126DAC9D5:en_US))

Hasbro doesn't even care enough about the D&D RPG to even advertise it among all their other products.

Knaight
2014-07-28, 06:29 PM
I got to looking because of a thread on another website. No Dungeons and Dragons books, for any edition, even appear on Hasbros website. Magic The Gathering cards do, but the only thing on the site for D&D is a Lego knockoff, KRE-O. (KRE-O Drizzt (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DB712754-5056-9047-F528-EC0126DAC9D5:en_US))

Hasbro doesn't even care enough about the D&D RPG to even advertise it among all their other products.

That makes sense. Hasbro is a serious competitor to Mattel in toys, and Mattel has such lines as Barbie. I can easily find people who have no idea what D&D is, doing that with Barbie is somewhat difficult. While Hasbro doesn't have anything quite that prolific, they do have Nerf (which is everywhere), My Little Pony (which is pretty close to Barbie), G.I. Joe, etc. D&D is worth basically nothing to them compared to all that. WotC as a whole is nowhere near the likes of Nerf financially. Etc.

Sartharina
2014-07-28, 07:41 PM
but the only thing on the site for D&D is a Lego knockoff, KRE-O. (KRE-O Drizzt (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DB712754-5056-9047-F528-EC0126DAC9D5:en_US))Oh god why can I not stop laughing that this is a thing?

Millennium
2014-07-29, 08:29 AM
I don't want to remove randomness. I want the ability to react to it. In 4E a player can use a power or feat to roll an extra saving throw to shrug off some negative effect before the end of their turn. That allows you as a player to have agency and attempt to change the outcome through player choice. In 5E and other editions its just a single roll and if you roll low its over.
So then it's not so much that you want to remove randomness; you just don't want to lose.

eastmabl
2014-07-29, 09:22 AM
The fact that Wizards is famously litigious.

You can't copyright game mechanics, so in theory someone could rewrite the whole rulebook and sell it (or make it OG.) They would have to be careful about using different wording for everything. The catch is even if the people who did this were on solid legal ground, Wizards would still sue. The would use the legal fees to bury whoever tried to do it. That way even if they lost, they still win.

Just look at what Wizards is doing to Hex. The game borrowed quite a bit from M:TG. Wizards is suing them and busting out a patent on the 'tapping' mechanics. It will cost Hex quite a bit of money, even thought Wizards is probably in the wrong legally.

Suing over the violation of a patent is a little easier to pursue on the merits, which is what makes patent trolls so effective at what they do. When it comes to RPGs, which are systems and cannot be copyrighted (although the individual expression of the system can be), it could be tougher to get a result on the merits of the claim.

Nevertheless, given that the cost of litigating IP issues to trial runs around $1.5 million on average, a cease and desist order for even more specious claims has a tendency to get the desired result of getting the so-called offending party to

Sartharina
2014-07-29, 09:45 AM
I don't want to remove randomness. I want the ability to react to it. In 4E a player can use a power or feat to roll an extra saving throw to shrug off some negative effect before the end of their turn. That allows you as a player to have agency and attempt to change the outcome through player choice. In 5E and other editions its just a single roll and if you roll low its over.The way you control randomness is by controlling the situations you put yourself into - not throwing yourself into a dangerous, risky situation and throwing a hissy-fit when the situation proves to actually be dangerous and the risk bites you. It's your fault for putting yourself into a situation where a roll can harm you in the first place

Beleriphon
2014-07-29, 09:50 AM
Oh god why can I not stop laughing that this is a thing?

They have orcs and stuff too. And a "castle". In all honesty though KRE-O isn't that bad a building toy, although it doesn't have the ubiquity of LEGO. Personally, I'd use those as minis since you can buy poly bags of them for $10 and get a half dozen orcs, and you can mix and match.

Person_Man
2014-07-29, 11:07 AM
That makes sense. Hasbro is a serious competitor to Mattel in toys, and Mattel has such lines as Barbie. I can easily find people who have no idea what D&D is, doing that with Barbie is somewhat difficult.

And now I want to make a Barbie roleplaying game that is basically a 5E retroclone and get Mattel to publish it, simply so that Hasbro would sue Mattel, and it would become better established case law that you can't copyright game rules or generic fantasy terms, so that we can just make our homebrew in peace without any looming fear of a lawsuit.


Separately, apparently there's a small line of Dungeons and Dragons Lego sets. Lego Warriors Eye of Gruumsh (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DC36F330-5056-9047-F586-F5BE80175FB4:en_US) is hilarious. I'm also deeply surprised that Hasbro didn't mandate that the standard mode of play for 5E would use of Lego. (5 ft = 1 block?). If there were decent dungeon construction kits, I probably would have spent hundreds of dollars on them as soon as my son is old enough not to swallow the pieces.

Beleriphon
2014-07-29, 11:45 AM
Separately, apparently there's a small line of Dungeons and Dragons Lego sets. Lego Warriors Eye of Gruumsh (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DC36F330-5056-9047-F586-F5BE80175FB4:en_US) is hilarious. I'm also deeply surprised that Hasbro didn't mandate that the standard mode of play for 5E would use of Lego. (5 ft = 1 block?). If there were decent dungeon construction kits, I probably would have spent hundreds of dollars on them as soon as my son is old enough not to swallow the pieces.

I'm not actually, D&D is a minor line item for Hasbro. The amount of effort and expense that it takes to bring D&D to the level of mainstream toy lines like Barbie or G.I. Joe is probably not worth the expense. Its a valuable brand for sure, but it would take a ton of marketing that Hasbro doesn't necessarily want to pursue for possibly limited returns. Remember that even if it would totally awesome for us to have D&D toys we aren't the target market, kids are the target market and parents are the cheque book. If it doesn't meet mommy and daddy's approval the toy is a no go. I know that D&D branded child appropriate toys are possible but the association with the somewhat more mature RPG and video games make that harder since no company likes to present two or three versions of the same brand.

Could you imagine if Barbie was also more maturely themed Barbie FPS video game where he had to solve Ken's murder? Does that really fit the Barbie brand? I can imagine such a game being pretty entertaining, but it doesn't fit the image that Mattell wants to have for Barbie any more than Hasbro wants to have kids toys be associated with the Monster Manual.

da_chicken
2014-07-29, 01:30 PM
A better question is: "Why doesn't someone do the same thing with 4e?"

It's now basically a defunct game as far as WotC is concerned. It probably can't be sold as a version of D&D again, unless they do something weird like release it as a spinoff miniatures wargame. Dungeons & Dragons: Special Tactics Unit (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/The_Clang_%28from_Law_%26_Order%29.ogg). WotC isn't going to tap the full 4e market with 5e. That means there's an untapped market for high balance, high tactics, expert level table top encounter-based skirmish games.

The core math is largely just fine. Rolling in enhancement bonuses and feat taxes would probably help. At that point you just take the d20 OGL combat rules, add in rules that mimic the 4e modifications, and you're good to go. You can recreate classes as you want. Outside the name, flavor line, and layout of a power, each block is a giant square of uncopyrightable game rules.

I'd guess that if it actually got popular that WotC/Hasbro would still litigate because that's how corporations do business with competitors in the 21st century, but I don't see why it wouldn't be technically legally possible.

Knaight
2014-07-29, 01:33 PM
And now I want to make a Barbie roleplaying game that is basically a 5E retroclone and get Mattel to publish it, simply so that Hasbro would sue Mattel, and it would become better established case law that you can't copyright game rules or generic fantasy terms, so that we can just make our homebrew in peace without any looming fear of a lawsuit.

I'm pretty sure Hasbro wouldn't sue Mattel over this. For one thing, Mattel also has money and lawyers, and it's not like the case would actually be winnable.

eastmabl
2014-07-29, 02:07 PM
I'm pretty sure Hasbro wouldn't sue Mattel over this. For one thing, Mattel also has money and lawyers, and it's not like the case would actually be winnable.

Secondly, Hasbro doesn't want to make clear case law which gives smaller gaming companies a leg to stand on. You fight the battles you want to win.

Gnaeus
2014-07-29, 02:28 PM
Separately, apparently there's a small line of Dungeons and Dragons Lego sets. Lego Warriors Eye of Gruumsh (http://www.hasbro.com/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=DC36F330-5056-9047-F586-F5BE80175FB4:en_US) is hilarious. I'm also deeply surprised that Hasbro didn't mandate that the standard mode of play for 5E would use of Lego. (5 ft = 1 block?). If there were decent dungeon construction kits, I probably would have spent hundreds of dollars on them as soon as my son is old enough not to swallow the pieces.

I'm sold. Please produce this so I can give you all my money.

Millennium
2014-07-29, 02:40 PM
I'm sold. Please produce this so I can give you all my money.
First, figure out how to engrave a 2-peg-square grid into the big flat plates, so that I can use minifigs on a grid. Then you can have all my money.

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 02:05 PM
I find 5e to deliver almost perfectly. If I want to do something I usually can. If there's a reason what I want to do isn't guaranteed, I don't need to have my character be built by a math-wizard to be able to have a chance of doing it anyway. I think a lot of complaints against 5e haven't bothered to read the actual rules, and merely the soundbite mechanics.

That's strange because I've read and played with all but the most recent PDF that's come out (and I've read it) and I've crunched the numbers and in no way do the numbers show that 5e is not swingy. In fact the opposite is true. 5E is swingier than any edition before it.

Also you are conflating separate issues:

Having things guaranteed or not has nothing to do with swingyness.

Character optimization has nothing to do with negating guaranteedness.

The fact of the matter is that 5E is extremely swingy and where its swingy there is no chance from the players to react to that swingyness.


So then it's not so much that you want to remove randomness; you just don't want to lose.

Not even close. I want to lose, but I want to do it because of my choices, not because of the random roll of a dice. I want to lose because I foolishly charged into a horde of orcs, not because a single orc critted me.


The way you control randomness is by controlling the situations you put yourself into - not throwing yourself into a dangerous, risky situation and throwing a hissy-fit when the situation proves to actually be dangerous and the risk bites you. It's your fault for putting yourself into a situation where a roll can harm you in the first place

Yes, and its so binary in 5E that the only choice you are given is to have your character stay home and not adventure. Instead of being able to adventure and choose the risks you take. If you put yourself into a position where you can get into combat in 5E, you then have a very swingy non-choice driven chance of dying.

Shinken
2014-08-05, 07:56 AM
A better question is: "Why doesn't someone do the same thing with 4e?"

It's now basically a defunct game as far as WotC is concerned. It probably can't be sold as a version of D&D again, unless they do something weird like release it as a spinoff miniatures wargame. Dungeons & Dragons: Special Tactics Unit (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/The_Clang_%28from_Law_%26_Order%29.ogg). WotC isn't going to tap the full 4e market with 5e. That means there's an untapped market for high balance, high tactics, expert level table top encounter-based skirmish games.

The core math is largely just fine. Rolling in enhancement bonuses and feat taxes would probably help. At that point you just take the d20 OGL combat rules, add in rules that mimic the 4e modifications, and you're good to go. You can recreate classes as you want. Outside the name, flavor line, and layout of a power, each block is a giant square of uncopyrightable game rules.

I'd guess that if it actually got popular that WotC/Hasbro would still litigate because that's how corporations do business with competitors in the 21st century, but I don't see why it wouldn't be technically legally possible.

*cough*Dungeon Command*cough*