>>47824029
There IS no ogl for 4e. It's all proprietary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_System_License

File: 73[1].jpg (170 KB, 640x481) Image search: [Google]

170 KB, 640x481

>>47824080
>>47824052
So how do games like Open4E and The Sacred Barbecue exist?

>>47824144
The license is permissive enough to allow those, not permissive enough to allow all the official rules to be listed for free. Simple stuff. At least Wizards is mending their ways and going back to an OGL like license for 5e.

>>47825953
>going back to an OGL like license for 5e
It's explicitly the same OGL, actually. Easier than coming up with a new open license, for sure.

>>47826007
Oh, that's even better
Having a SRD for anything more complicated than Risus is immensely useful

File: delve[1].jpg (143 KB, 720x649) Image search: [Google]

143 KB, 720x649

>>47825953
So I can make up whatever I want that's like 4E, so long as I don't quote any rules or setting-specific content, or art, or anything directly form 4E?

And, from what I understand, if I wanted to make content actually for 4E I couldn't list anything related to Character Creation from the core book. Right?

It's almost like, "You can make up stuff for 4E, as long as it doesn't include anything that's already in 4E."
Which is kinda' dumb.

>>47826567
Can you even say it's for the 4e system? I'm pretty sure you would need permission for that as well.

File: latest[1].png (609 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

609 KB, 1280x720

>>47826721
Well yeah, you'd need permission for anything.
I don't though; I'm mostly aiming to reverse engineer the bits I do like and replace everything else.

>>47826825
Good! I love me some 4e clones. Speaking of which...

>>47824144
In case you missed it, Sacred cow BBQ had been published under the name Strike! It's a mixed bag, but the combat side of things is pretty cool.

>>47827018
Strike! hurts me to read, so I never actually got through the entire rulebook. It did an impressive job of draining every last drop of flavor out of what's marketed as an RPG

>>47830035
Definitely a shitty book, but an okay game. Has as much flavor as core Savage worlds/Fate/probably other generic systems at least.

>>47832294
I'd say the main problem with strike is that it's advertised as a generic system when the massive rift between combat and non-combat pretty much means that it can never be used as such

>>47832310
Have you ever considered just making characters that don't have that massive rift, if the setting you play in requires it?

>>47832361
It goes beyond character capability

There are out of combat rules for injured characters, but you aren't expected to carry injuries over from in-combat. Similarly, there are out of combat conditions like enraged or depressed that don't carry over into combat.

Now I'm not saying you can't explain these things away, or houserule conditions in, but these features as RAW still strike me as creating more problems than they could ever fix. Which is the sign of a poor system

>>47832397
>There are out of combat rules for injured characters, but you aren't expected to carry injuries over from in-combat.

You do. What do you think the strikes are you collect during combat? You take injuries based on the number of strikes collected in combat, and you get one when you drop below half/0 hp and when you roll a 1.

They actually rack up a bit fast normally (at least on the team level), making combat a bit too punishing for my taste.

> Similarly, there are out of combat conditions like enraged or depressed that don't carry over into combat.

I'm pretty sure you actually do carry in conditions that would affect your character. If you get a -1 from either of those, you get it in combat, (making them ridiculously harsh).

>Now I'm not saying you can't explain these things away, or houserule conditions in, but these features as RAW still strike me as creating more problems than they could ever fix.

Well, your current post indicates you are actually wrong about the issues you listed so maybe you also misread the rest of the problems?