Search results

I don't think this action changes their plans one bit. They release a vtt for 6e. They only release the base game as paper and pdf. All the main content is released through the vtt. 3pp can't release content through the vtt. They have a GSL like license for 3pp. The vtt and library of content...

You couldnt create a Fighter subclass (by way of example). With the CC version you couldn't do that because you couldn't reference the definition of the Fighter (it's level progression, the term Martial Archetype, etc)

Sooo. Same situation as yesterday if you want to make D&D content. Under CC: Can't make subclasses as the classes themselves aren't covered, can't make settings that mention the licensed content (even the content name). So no adventures that say have a monster name in encounters, or item names...

Their (WotC) expression of the mechanics is copyrightable, so this is giving the community something. What would be interesting is if the "structure" of class definitions and monster stat blocks and magic item descriptions are being released under this model

You always could publish for those other systems, as long as you dont use Product Identity or any of the specific phrasing that is in any WotC (or any other companies!) copyrighted material. Probably the best discussion of it that I have seen in my (limited) trawling of the youtubes:

Biggest issue with this mess, and how it kinda works at the moment unfortunately, is the sheer volume of OTHER commentators (video or text based) that are quoting him (DS) as a reliable source. Its bias confirmation at its ugliest. Did wotc try and pull a swifty? Yep, totally did. Are they in...

That is one thing that they cant actually legally change. and never could. Its there in section 9 of 1.0a. So, there was nothing to walk back from. They always were saying that the above was the case. That one is to throw you off guard, make you think that they are doing something to "fix" the...

See, I still believe this is FUD. They cannot recind the original license from content that has already been produced from OGL 1.0a. section 9 explicitly states that. You can continue to modify, copy and distribute that content using OGL1.0a. what they are trying to do is for new content. They...

Doesn't stop each company signing into the license from revoking their individual SRDs, or from releasing content not tied to the SRDs, or from suddenly going "version X of our product will no longer be licensed under ORC". It just gives 3pp a license to release content under that is...

Don't have any of their stuff, but wasn't the majority of their work not based on the OGL? (Like they have always had a separate licensing agreement as a hold over from the 4e days - someone should check some of those books mentioned)

Absolutely agree Ryan. The irrelevant point being that WotC will argue that they can change that license / enact a new license as per the use of the word "authorised" in the terms. It infers that there was intent for there to be unauthorised version of the license. As stated in another thread...

They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1 (like the royalty clause). Based on the...

Quick question for those a little more knowledgeable: How the Open Gaming License ever actually been "Open". As in owned by someone NOT WotC?

All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now

Only for EXISTING works. Once the 1.1 drops you cannot go back and use 1.0 to create NEW works

But section 9 DOESNT state what you are saying. It says you can continue to sell EXISTING works through future revisions of the OGL

Cos videos are published works. And if they allow a published work, but then in the OGL say you can publish something outside of the express terms of the license then the license can be deemed invalid. (if someone wanted to fight it). Also, would mean that WOTC could arbitrarily ask YouTube...

It may do currently - but they will have to remove it, or it could contradict the new OGL and MAY invalidate it.

Dont agree with the statement that the old content would have to be removed. It wouldnt. NEW content couldnt be created with that license.

They can make it so that no new content can be created by making it "unauthorised". Means existing created content can still be sold, but new content cannot be created with this license. As an aside - seems like after 22 pages noone has mentioned the other implications of this new license...