OGL licences?

[the1weasel]

My quick two cents:

I'm really psyched about anything that provides more material for TFT. In general, more is better as can be witnessed by the success of things like IWIA backer levels for the KS campaigns. For a game that would appear to those newly introduced to TFT as having been dormant or "simmering on low" for many years, I'm sure that there are more than just a couple of us who have continued creating material for this game...

[philreed]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

This is DEFINITELY not the intent of the license. We're supporting The Fantasy Trip, not Some Other Game That Happens To Borrow Some TFT Mechanics.

Seconded.

No new rules will be one of the biggest rules. This isn't about creating new spells, rules, and complexities for the game. This is about setting and story that work within the mechanics of the game.

[JimmyPlenty]

Originally Posted by philreed

Seconded.

No new rules will be one of the biggest rules. This isn't about creating new spells, rules, and complexities for the game. This is about setting and story that work within the mechanics of the game.

I can see why. With TFT being so bare bones, it would be easy to create complication. Even though there is nothing wrong with making your own house rules for your group, if these get pro-published, it could become a "community rules creep".

Next thing you know, new players that get introduced to the game will only be introduced to the "unofficial-but-everyone-plays-by-all-these-extra rules" rules and turn into an intimidating mess.

[hcobb]

But this will include the required Monster Of The Week with some strange attribute to give the party Naturalist something to roll for?

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by philreed

No new rules will be one of the biggest rules. This isn't about creating new spells, rules, and complexities for the game. This is about setting and story that work within the mechanics of the game.

I understand why you would want to exclude new mechanics, but no new spells or other elements that work within the existing ruleset seems like a limitation that might discourage some really creative content.

[philreed]

Originally Posted by JimmyPlenty

I can see why. With TFT being so bare bones, it would be easy to create complication. Even though there is nothing wrong with making your own house rules for your group, if these get pro-published, it could become a "community rules creep".

Next thing you know, new players that get introduced to the game will only be introduced to the "unofficial-but-everyone-plays-by-all-these-extra rules" rules and turn into an intimidating mess.

Yep. You've nailed it.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I understand why you would want to exclude new mechanics, but no new spells or other elements that work within the existing ruleset seems like a limitation that might discourage some really creative content.

We would rather proceed with caution than encourage a lot of things that could cause troubles. As always, GMs can create whatever they want for their home campaigns.

[the1weasel]

Originally Posted by philreed

This isn't about creating new spells...

If your supplemental material had such a NPC as The Huntmaster, would only altering the name of the spell and it's visual/role-playing effect with no rule changes be acceptable? Example:

Summon Large Dog (C): Brings a large dog (ST 10, DX 14, IQ 6, MA 12, bite does 1d+1 damage, fur stops 1 hit) to follow wizard’s orders....

I admit at this initial stage, the easiest answer would be a flat 'No.' Would that even be considered a new spell?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by philreed

No new rules will be one of the biggest rules. This isn't about creating new spells, rules, and complexities for the game. This is about setting and story that work within the mechanics of the game.

There's a potentially problematic edge case here: an adventure wants to introduce an obstacle, opportunity, or similar for which there are no pre-existing rules. The adventure does have to say how you overcome the obstacle or exploit the opportunity, and that's a new rule (it can be a one-off, but then you have the problem of the same situation coming up in two different adventures and working differently).

[philreed]

Originally Posted by the1weasel

If your supplemental material had such a NPC as The Huntmaster, would only altering the name of the spell and it's visual/role-playing effect with no rule changes be acceptable? Example:

Summon Large Dog (C): Brings a large dog (ST 10, DX 14, IQ 6, MA 12, bite does 1d+1 damage, fur stops 1 hit) to follow wizard’s orders....

I admit at this initial stage, the easiest answer would be a flat 'No.' Would that even be considered a new spell?

Please wait for the license to be released. That will cover the specifics.

[JimmyPlenty]

Broadly, in which ways will the OGL differ from the writing guidelines SJG has already posted? Which specific categories?