Recent content by kjdavies

Indeed, as I recall they still have language that says they can change and update the license as they see fit going forward.

MtG is probably more profitable. The claim was that they weren't milking D&D hard enough: only a small fraction of D&D players actually buy books, but if WotC can get them all to pay monthly fees to use the digital platform, that would be some real money.

Huh. I stumbled on a copy yesterday in a FLGS, thought about picking it up but I already had two books in my hand (one of which I'd gone there for) and decided to look for reviews first. Sounds like I made a good call. Save vs. Impulse Buy successful!

"25 XP for stitching my own wounds shut? I'm ripping those suckers out and doing it again!"

The 20/80 thing is going to be hard to overcome. It's a thing that applies almost everywhere spending is discretionary... and if I know gamers, if WotC does manage to make it mandatory for everyone to pay to play, they're going to see a mass exodus from their game because that 20/80 thing will...

Indeed, Wizards has historically had an absolutely horrible time with anything digital. They're just not set up to do this well... and why should they be?

I could argue that technically Pathfinder 1e is based on 3e SRD (copyright date on the SRD entry in the Core Rulebook is '2000', not '2000-2003' of the 3.5 SRD), and that's still pretty relevant... even more so considering how many other third-party 3e sources eventually got used in Pathfinder.

Is it even possible for the hamster to tell the truth?

The 'SRD' in 2008 was for 4e and licensed under the GSL, not the OGL. The SRD was extremely light (basically contained the names of things you were allowed to refer to by name, and nothing else: no rules, no actual content that was usable) and the GSL had terms that were... oh, let's call them...

Edit: oops, saw you said specifically open game content released under OGL v1.0a. My answer below is based on my reading of how to use content released by others under v1.2, under v1.2 (i.e. you use my psychomancer class I released under v1.2 in your book released under v1.2). Yeah, it's totally...

I'd rather they didn't integrate prior SRDs into this license, mostly because it looks like it gets awfully gnarly to use open content from other publishers (which was one of the major drivers behind the OGL in the first place, having a shared ecosystem of game content).

This does allow me to distribute content that I add with content WotC licensed to me. I don't see that it says anything about my licensing that result to others, nor does it say anything about using content from others. Both of which are covered in another section... but not right here.

Unless you go to the trouble of running them down to get a license, or they go to the trouble of having the foresight to offer one before you get there. OGL v1.0a makes them at least think about it, and compliance with OGL v1.0a makes it easy for them to say 'yes' (especially when saying 'no'...

If it's already been published, it's unaffected. That's all they've said.

I contend it's not entirely the IP they're trying to control, but the participants in the market.