D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[sidonunspa]

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

 

[darjr]

16 years..........

 

[Jester David]

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.

I meant "bigger" as in planned for the MMO and Organized Play. Which is bigger in the real world and in-world. There's more to coordinate and worry about, and the events have to be farther reaching with more things involved. Pathfinder's APs seldom extend beyond a single nation, often being confined to a city or sub-region. And the stakes are not always as high. They can be, but sometimes the story is just much smaller and focused around the PCs.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

For instance, Pathfinder's most recently completed AP is Iron Gods. I would put both those adventures at roughly equal to Iron Gods. A common complaint about Iron Gods is it's 3 good volumes/adventures stretched out to 6 volumes/adventures by way of grind-based encounters designed to get you the XP you need to reach the levels you need to be to complete the adventure path. That's not to say Iron Gods isn't a good overall AP, I am just saying I think those two offerings I mentioned from WOTC recently for APs are roughly equal to it.

I'd go back further than that, as well. I'd say the 4e AP Madness at Gardmore Abbey (which came out shortly before the 5e playtest) was also equal to the recent Pathfinder APs.

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.

 

[Morrus]

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 agree. Paizo has a lot of adventure paths, and some are great and others not as much.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/produc...th&mfrg=Paizo+Publishing&authors=&sort=rating

Some Paizo APs rate very low; others are very popular. Any claim that one company or the other is better at the process is clearly flawed.

 

[delericho]

I disagree. I would say the Starter Box adventure, and Princes of the Apocalypse, are both equal to what Paizo's been producing lately.

In fairness, sidonunspa made the comparison between Paizo's adventure paths and the WotC equivalents. Neither Lost Mine nor Gardmore Abbey are adventure paths. Of course, that leaves WotC with a sample size of just two, so it's difficult to make any general statement of quality!

FWIW, your critique of Iron Gods is pretty much spot on.

 

[pemerton]

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.

 

[S'mon]

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 default (in English law) would be that the contract is governed by the law of the place where the contract was formed. For this contract that will be where the user agrees to it - since there is no requirement acceptance be notified it's a Carlill vs Carbolic unilateral contract. So if I unilaterally agree to the OGL terms (by using the OGL) in England, an English court will say English law applies.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Re Paizo APs - yes they tend to contain a lot of junk and are poorly presented for actual play, with
the Rise of the Runelords hardback a partial exception. I was going over Shattered Star #1 recently
and was amazed at how badly presented much of it was; they will take 3 pages on a 1 page encounter with the important info buried or left out. That's been my experience running Curse of the Crimson Throne too.

Now WoTC presentation is also poor, I found Phandelver very hard to run, especially the town. If you want good presentation these days it's mostly to be found in OSR stuff from people like Dyson Logos and (for BFRPG) JD Neal.

 

[sidonunspa]

wow we went so off topic waiting for some OGL news