Quote from: Chris24601Speaking as someone working on one such project (though likely not one you've heard of) my fix for the expertise/defenses/masterwork bits was to institute much flatter math

I don't hang there anymore, but I remember seeing your project on 4enclave.

Quote from: Chris24601To avoid Hasbro lawyers coming after you (they don't have to be right, they just have to outlast your legal budget), I recommend against overt AEDU design if you plan to take a fan project commercial.

Oh yeah, I totally get why y'all 4e cloners put so much energy into changing the details. Maybe WotC would come after a clear 4e clone or descendent, maybe they wouldn't. To non-lawyers, the issue is a misty bog of legalese, if's, and's, and but's. Best to play it safe!

Quote from: Chris24601I'd agree here too. My solution for the roles was to tie them into specific minor actions available to each class (and remove the ability to spend your move action to take another minor action). The striker's extra damage, the defender's marking, the leader's buffing/healing and the controller's AoE's and improved control come from their minor actions. Multi-classing gives you additional minor action options, but since you can only expend your main or minor action to use them you either have to stop performing your main role or give up your main attack in order to use that alternate ability.

Nice! I've seen a very similar solution in another 4e project, and I'm very excited about it!

Quote from: Chris24601You'd be amazed the degree of difficulty I have had during both 4E and early on in my playtesting that people had letting go of concepts they associated with the older D&D names. The example of the guy wanting to play a Bow-using Fighter being told to make a 4E Ranger and insisting "No, I want a FIGHTER" is not a myth. I've encountered it first hand. They spent a ton of effort trying to fight the system because to them it is the NAME of the class (and the innate fluff associated with it in past editions) that is more important that its actual mechanics and then are unsatisfied when the result isn't nearly as effective as the guy who just made a 4E ranger with the archery build.

It can be stunning how hung up on conventional understandings people can get. :/

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;967036Oh yeah, I totally get why y'all 4e cloners put so much energy into changing the details. Maybe WotC would come after a clear 4e clone or descendent, maybe they wouldn't. To non-lawyers, the issue is a misty bog of legalese, if's, and's, and but's. Best to play it safe!

If you are planning a commercial publication, and fear of WoTC lawyers is distorting your work that much (as it seems to be), and you don't trust random guy on Internet, I'd suggest taking legal advice from a copyright lawyer in your home jurisdiction. As far as I can see the kind of stuff discussed - taking general ideas & processes - has nothing to fear, but taking formal advice would be best. Heck you & other 4e fans could kick together to pay for it if cost is an issue. Stuart Marshall paying for legal advice re OSRIC kickstarted the OSR, so IMO the investment is worth it.  Obviously if you are using tons of D&D content you should use the OGL so you can take from the 3e or 5e SRD, but there's nothing to stop you using 4e type processes & structures such as AEDU in combination with SRD material. It sounds like you just need someone to confirm that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967001You checked out Adventures in Middle-Earth?  Fucking brilliant.

It's on the list! You guys have all said a lot of things that I find intriguing. The unfortunate part is that the 5e line will never follow this path on its own. But I'm fine with 5e being the parting love-letter from my relationship with D&D. I'll always support it in terms of the brand. I feel my time with it as a my go-to system is behind me.

4e was the anvil on that camel's 3.x overloaded back. 5e is the sweet kiss goodbye.

Quote from: Chris24601;966801Not counting fluff, the only really iffy things you can't get out of the 3.5 SRD that 4E has are the save ends mechanic for durations, healing surges, the AED power structure

Fortunately, those can all be pulled out of the 5e SRD.

Quoteand the specifics of how the 4E classes are put together (i.e. the benefit schedule of when you get what type of power or feat and how much XP it takes to get there). Those are the areas I think you'd want to be the most careful with when trying to put together a genuine 4E spiritual successor

I thing the biggest thing to watch out for, based on what I remember of the GSL, are the mechanics and names of specific powers and feats that aren't in the 3.x or 5e SRDs.

Quote from: Omega;966849This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

That doesn't follow from what I said. But it is an issue with any OGL product whether OSR or Pathfinder or 5e. CKKrugeur correctly notes that some publishers are pretty much a dick when it comes to option content. As a general comment, the dick move is a variant of this declaration of open content/product identity.

QuoteEverything in this books is declared product identity except what is derived from blah System Reference Document.

The latest example of this type of declaration is Adventures in Middle Earth.

Having said that, except for special cases, expect adventures to use this. Unless they have some type of appendix with items and monster, pretty much the entire content of a adventure is textbook example of what Wizards meant by product identity when they released the OGL. The exception being the actual statistics of the monsters.

This is the one I used for Scourge of the Demon Wolf. I admit is only a hop and a skip from the above. But Scourge has little if anything in the way of rules. Plus it incorporates Judges Guild IP.  Finally I am not willing to share my Majestic Wilderlands material as open content even the Judges Guild IP wasn't an issue. That what my Blackmarsh and Points of Light stuff is for.

QuoteDesignation of Product Identity: The following items are here by designated as Product Identity in accordance
with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0; Any and all Judges Guild logos, identifying
marks, and trade dress; Any and all Bat in the Attic Games logos, identifying marks, and trade
dress; all artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations; all of Underworld and Adventures is designated
Product Identity; except such items that already appear in the System Reference Document.

Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all creature and NPC
statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or
other open content sources.

With Majestic Wilderlands that is a little different. I strongly feel that if I am going to use open content as the foundation of a rule supplement that I should make it as open as possible. So I did this.

QuoteDesignation of Product Identity: The following items are here by designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0; Any and all Judges Guild logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; Any and all Bat in the Attic Games logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; all artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations; all of Underworld and Adventures is designated Product Identity; except such items that already appear in the System Reference Document.

Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all of Men & Magic, all of Monster & Treasure. It is the intention that any rules or items in those two sections may be used freely under the OGL. Any specifics related to Judges Guild, or the Majestic Wilderlands are Product Identity.

On one level, I plead 100% guilty to trying to cater to my audience sense of nostalgia by dividing the book into OD&D's three sections of Men & Magic, Monsters and Treasures, and Underworld and Wilderness Adventures.  But using the three part structure wasn't just about that, it also simplified my declaration of open content and product identity. The stuff you can freely use is in Men & Magic, and Monsters & Treasure, the stuff I am keeping closed is in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

The way to do this is to think it through, decide what YOU are comfortable with and make it abundantly clear what open and what not by the layout and by the declarations. If I have to puzzle out what is what then the author has done a poor job and certainly not following the spirit of the OGL.

For me, I generally just make things 100% open content unless they pertain to the specifics of the Majestic Wilderlands. When I want to share adventures and setting stuff as open content, I will release it as part of my Blackmarsh style stuff. However my choice is not everybody's choice. As long as I feel the other author thought it through and is not whining about the consequences then I am OK with whatever they want to do.

A final comment, given the small numbers of hobbyists and the how RPG campaigns are the textbook example of do-it-yourself. In general is very good PR to be as open as possible. While people will take your stuff, be rude about it, and use it in ways you find objectionable, in my experience that it outweighed by the goodwill generated by being known as person willing to give back. That goodwill, which is a real business concept, translate into more sales, and more opportunities to find help for the things you are weak at.

It like what I say about being a Sandbox referee, if you are not willing to let people trash your work, then you will not find it enjoyable.

Quote from: Omega;965723I thought the pogs and maps were a 3e thing and that 4e just focused on it?

It was.  It's clearly detailed in the 3e books about the 5 foot move and the like.