sidonunspa
First Post
I don't think they need to do anything of the sort. On the contrary, I'm sure people will continue discussing it for the next 10 years, just like they have for the last 16.
fair enough... fair enough
I don't think they need to do anything of the sort. On the contrary, I'm sure people will continue discussing it for the next 10 years, just like they have for the last 16.
No, it's not
some of the AP's are just as grandiose... the structure of the current WoTC adventures is the issue
also the lack of "twists" and "got ya" moments you see in several AP's
I see WHAT they are going for, but its the way they are putting it together that is the issue..
now to be fair they ARE improving.
regardless their adventure paths are FAR better then the current WoTC ones
I disagree. I would say the Starter Box adventure, and Princes of the Apocalypse, are both equal to what Paizo's been producing lately.
I disagree. I would say the Starter Box adventure, and Princes of the Apocalypse, are both equal to what Paizo's been producing lately.
This seems like a fairly typical conflicts-of-laws issue. I don't know anywhere near enough conflicts-of-laws to try and resolve it, but [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] might be able to shed some light.the OGL lacks a choice-of-law provision, while explicitly granting a worldwide license. Consideration differs between US and English law, while not even being part of Scots law . . . but a worldwide license acquired under a contract engaged in Scotland is still a worldwide license.
This seems like a fairly typical conflicts-of-laws issue. I don't know anywhere near enough conflicts-of-laws to try and resolve it, but [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] might be able to shed some light.
I think sometimes people are a bit overly harsh in their judgement of WOTC's APs, and too lenient on Paizo ones, based on expectations and reputation alone. In terms of actual on the page content, I think WOTC's been doing pretty good with their APs overall, with some exceptions.