Search results

It truly is amazing how ridiculously incompetent the folks at Wizards are that they thought demanding 25% of the revenue if you sell more than $750k in a year no matter what your production, printing, distribution, or advertising costs were. It's madness. Very much a "It’s one banana, Michael...

Two weeks ago I would have said probably all of them eventually. Now it's looking very likely that I won't buy any of them. And not just because I won't be buying Hasbro stuff unless there's a major course correction in the company - but because my interest in the overall future direction of...

Yeah. It's a good deal for Wizards. But 15% of revenue is just not a good deal. The only way this looks like a good deal is if you're under the assumption that you have folks over a barrel and that your license is the only way they can create material for any game. That they're not just going...

Not just rumors - they actually tried to get a shareholder revolt going this past summer and failed. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hasbro-wins-proxy-battle-against-activist-investor-alta-fox-1235161588/ They'll try again if they smell blood in the water. That's how...

Not a PDF but there is a web page. You could probably print it to PDF (though no guarantees - webpages often refuse to print to PDF properly). https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq Ninja'd all around - I have to remember to reload the page before I post on a new thread :)

All of this is 100% correct. The absolute best growth that D&D has ever experienced as a game is when the company producing it reduced its publication schedule down to crumbs, put it back under an open license for the fans to support for themselves, and then staffed the product team with a...

(Cutting out the potshot at 4e there because 4e's launch was actually quite good - it took a while before they realized that 4e sales were on the same declining trend that 3e's had been towards the end of 3e and that the 4e launch wasn't doing what they needed it to because they hadn't solved...

I'm giving up. You haven’t convinced me at all that they aren't being deceptive but you have reminded me why I have a rule about not getting into arguments online with people who get paid to argue for a living :)

I'm sorry but no. That may be what the legal boil it down to how the law works contract says. Sure. Fine. They can wiggle out of it maybe. Not a lawyer - fine. But this: In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming...

^this! But they can have all of that. They own the Dungeons and Dragons trademark. Nobody else can use that. As long as they maintain the goodwill of the brand and don't do things that make people think that D&D sucks and they don't want to support it anymore they're gold on the pop culture...

How can you read that sentence in italics and think it means they can deuthorize the ogl 1.0a? It's literally saying that they can't do that. That if they try to change the terms we can still use the old terms. The thing that wizards is expressly saying now we cannot do. I'm serious. I do not...

Ridiculously stupid. They don't even have their own vtt yet. And all of this just because someone "might" make a better vtt? If that’s really all it is they're even dumber than I was thinking they were.

Sure - here's one from the ogl faq: Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even...

No. This shows the same misunderstanding of the ttrpg market that Wizards execs are making. There are no "competitors" to D&D. In the ttrpg space there are people who play D&D and people who don't. People who play other games also usually also play D&D because that's how it works. You don't...

Even if it had had a real srd I probably would have put out some stuff for it myself as a labor of love. Even under gsl restrictive rules.

I'm actually no longer sure what you are arguing :) Let me make my accusation on them being liars clearer. They presented the ogl as irrevocable for 20 years until now. So either they were lying then or they're lying now. Wiggle legal words aside, they presented it as a permanent deal and now...

I think someone in wizards thinks this, but that's because they're bad at their job and don't understand the tabletop rpg market. Because it's not true.

Yah it stinks. If 4e had had a real srd there might still be support for it even under a more restricted gsl license. But it worked the way wizards wanted it to work. They stopped publishing 4e and no Pathfinder type clones showed up so as far as they're concerned it worked.

It's not hyperbole - read what I wrote again. They can jn fact just do whatever they want with that clause as long as they're willing to deal with the pr consequences. The question you have to ask when buying into accepting their license is whether you trust them to act in good faith. There's...

Sorry I forgot - the new lie is that they're allowed to "deauthorize" the ogl. Which is the same result (cutting off access to existing srds that were supposed to be available in perpetuity) but is a different legal lie than the one that was leaked earlier.