Search results

During 2e era there was also significant leakage into other RPGs. It was the age of MANY games with principal feature of "this game has a unified rule system instead of a bazillion different ones", which was a very appealing prospect after having wrestled with 2e. None of them became as huge...

I know of one instance of him having been wrong. That error was publicly acknowledged by him, and apologized for. Please substantiate your claim of being wrong several times, or correct your statement. Yes, he is not a reporter, and that shows - but that is a different kettle of fish.

Full agreement. I think there are several very plausible variations where they could have gotten most what they wanted, but all of them require a certain amount of openness. The maximum amount of sneakiness they IMO could have gotten away with is on the level of: "Wut, owlbear is now listed...

Thank you! That's a great video (ok, first half an hour is great, still watching). Anyone interested in the situation who is not lawyer should probably watch it.

That's 3.0, they're using 4.0. Differences between versions: What's New in 4.0 - Creative Commons Simplified summary of 4.0: Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 Full 4.0 legalese: Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0

Cringe is fun!

Since it strictly limits the meaning to what is in the terms, doesn't it therefore exclude any post-contractual representations? Given the nature of an open license, there are no pre-contractual negotiations that I can see, only WotC's representation of the license, and the text of the license...

That is what I was referring to, since it was the reason GSL never really took off, IMO. I had completely forgotten they ended up removing it. The Trademark License was AFAIK reasonably popular until they killed it. I think a Trademark License would be their best bet now to get what they want...

GSL also had a poison pill clause. d20 Trademark Licence did not, and was apparently quite popular: D20 System Trademark License

I think 20-30% active users out of total users is the rule of thumb. So it could be upto 2% of active users - and I'm guessing they look at people spending money vs free accounts as well, which could plausibly push that up by x 10. We obviously don't know, but they had a very strong reaction...

I apologize if I've missed it, but I haven't seen lawyers discussing 9(b) of OGL 1.2 draft yet: (b) Entire Agreement and Disclaimer of Reliance. This license governs your use of Our Licensed Content. This license consists only of the terms expressly included herein, and not any matter not...

It is not limited to products. It is not limited to future behaviour. The consequences are not limited to the offending product. ...or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful... You...

1. I have zero trust in US conception of morality and obscenity. (Y'all are prudes from my POV.) 2. There is hue and cry now about 1.0a "de-authorization". They're still going through it through FUD and threat of lawfare. How much impact do you think hue and cry over an individual publisher...

Yes. Ditto for Fan Policy. (Which is already abusive as all, though, so it would be hard to make it worse...)

It can IMO be trivially separated. Put the modified rules in a different section from your own material that uses the rules.

CC has the massive advantage that it is a well known set of licenses. It should be easy to find competent legal advice on CC anywhere in the world. Finding competent legal advice on 1.0a or another custom US agreement, especially if you live in a civil law country? It seems that no-one for 23...

A crapton of the specific expression comes from Tolkien and other fiction that predates D&D, and is used by some mildly popular MMOs as well. Claiming ownership of "fantasy elves" even with some specifics attached would be wrought. Claiming ownership of a specific fantasy elf character or...

This is incorrect in my understanding. The word is there, but the language as a whole includes ways for the license to be revoked at WotC's sole discretion - either universally, or for a single creator. First, look at the part that actually talks about irrevocability: "... irrevocable...

I think these are deeply linked. "Selling lists of elements" is such a successful business model that most games want to do it. If your game really is "just one book", you will have a much harder time building a business around it. This makes it much easier to find games following this model...

Oh, I've had players like this - and guess what: they're the same in boardgames. They can still play just fine, they just need a bit of support. I've also seen people fail to become GMs or DMs, but mostly because of unrealistic expectations related to either performance at the table, or...