Search results

Or, potentially, Pathfinder, since PF1e uses open content via OGL v1.0a and PF2e licenses open content to other publishers.

Indeed they could use third-party open content, and they did... a couple times. Having to comply with OGL v1.0a put a bit of a crimp in their style in doing so, though, so they didn't do it very much at all. I agree that having the ability to deny the creator use of it is a bad, bad addition.

Also, I'm pretty sure '5e' cannot be a trademark at this point, even if it is taken to be largely synonymous with "D&D 5e". Who claims it? Who has been defending it? At this point it's the Kleenex of RPG publishing. If anything, I'd say '5e' means not D&D. But stands a good chance of being...

Do they need to? nuTSR's Star Frontiers was already a subject of derision, even in the (unfairly maligned, IMO) OSR crowd. nuTSR wasn't going to get very far with it once people saw what it was. I saw a lot of people that might have been expected to be 'on their side' choke on the race...

That's what then did with 4e, and I didn't hear a murmur at all that it was unfair or wrong to do that. I did hear "GSL is a terrible license and I'm refuse to accept, guess I'm not publishing for 4e" and "I guess they want to hamstring their market, not a great idea, bet it won't work", but I...

A copyright holder can put something in the public domain. However, if it's in the public domain then everyone has free license to do whatever they want with it. This means it can be reused freely (yay!) but they could not place other guidelines in place (identifying other sources of content...

Valar Project's Book of Erotic Fantasy. Denied use of the d20 logo (via d20 STL) but still was released under OGL.

Does this mean the SRD 5.1 -- previously released under v1.0a -- is unaffected? What about SRD (2000, 3e), RSD (2003, 3.5), MSRD (2002, Modern)? If these SRDs licensing under OGL v1.0a is unaffected, does that mean the clause allowing sublicensing is unaffected? Does this really mean what we...

Ask yourself: have you been persuaded? Do you believe them?

But the current version -- v1.0a -- says we can use whatever version has been authorized. The fight is about what 'authorized' means. According to those who were there, 'authorized' means 'has been released by WotC', not 'has not been revoked'. This is supported by the OGL FAQ. Question was...

I agree. As anything that is presented -- not leaked! presented -- in draft, you expect it to not be perfect. That is what drafts are for. We can expect that the early drafts will have errors and oversights, and honest mistakes. Unless they try to put in something obviously very bad (such as we...

"Rolled a 1" doesn't mean "we did the wrong thing". "Rolled a 1" means "what we tried didn't work"... I expect them to try again.

The writing of the draft is a bit ambiguous on this, IMO. Or perhaps equivocation. OGL v1.1 licenses SRD 5.1 content ("Licensed Content"), and OGL v1.0a is no longer authorized; What used to be described as 'Product Identity', and all SRDs previously published by WotC, are "Unlicensed Content"...

I asked a friend -- avid 4e fan -- if there are still people creating 4e content. "Oh yes! I'm well-connected. There are dozens of people!"

(I would call that a fair assessment; they raised the cost of playing in their playground -- 4e -- to the point many publishers decided to go somewhere else... starting with one of them building a new playground that looked a lot like the old one.)

d20srd has no connection to WotC I am aware of, beyond hosting certain content (3.5 SRD, 5e SRD, Pathfinder 1e SRD). Ah yes:

Accordlands from AEG had a similar thing. Elves lost their immortality and turned to necromancy to try to prolong their existence. Instead of 'wood elves' and 'moon elves' and all that it's 'bone elves' and 'blood elves', etc., based on their chosen abominat means of reaching for persistence.

I actually expect to see something as a starting point, probably pretty quickly, once ORC is in place. I expect to see several, in fact. It would stand to reason that major proponents would release something via ORC as soon as possible to help demonstrate that it's now available and usable...

I do appreciate the time and effort you've put into the conversation. I don't deal with legal matters much -- as little as possible, in fact -- but I do like to understand them when they potentially affect me. I spend a fair bit of time mentoring others, mostly in technical subjects but...

I think what @Anon Adderlan meant has been called elsewhere in the thread a 'gratuitous license'. That is, I think Anon is saying the OGL isn't something one person can offer and take away once accepted (unilaterally revoked), though I agree it does not require formal response to the offeror.