Search results

I'm about to start my first A5E campaign, and one of my players was planning to play a Machinist Artificer. After making our characters during Session 0, he began looking deeper into the Artificer mechanics and noticed that, unlike the O5E version of the Artificer, there doesn't seem to be...

Doesn't sound like the proposed update includes making the new OGL include the sub licensing provisions of the original OGL. Those are some of the provisions I find most important, as they allow the entire system to be built up on by multiple creators working with each other's content.

A truly contentless statement already has been published via D&D Beyond, which is the official news source for D&D from WOTC and Hasbro. Any further statement will need content of some kind.

There are a number of major software corporations that do open licensing and release open source software.

1. Create a homebrew feat version of Fey Touched and add it to your character. 2. Add the familiar to your character sheet and click it to customize its stats. 3. Make a homebrew magic item based on a Longsword and add Finesse to it under traits.

OGRE as the name for a roleplaying game, while cool, is probably a little too close to OGRE the name for a board/war game about giant sentient tanks.

If they want 6E to not be usable by competitors, they can just release it under a different license than a version of the OGL. You can freely mix OGL 1.0a content with stuff licensed under a different license.

That doesn't give WOTC monopolistic VTT rights, though. VTT competitors would still be able to use your OGL 1.0a license to include your content in a VTT, or you could separately license it for the VTT.

They clearly don't have the ability or authority to do that. The hobbyists would need to create their works under a different license for WOTC to have monopolistic VTT rights to it.

Probably identical to OGL 1.0a, but actually having been challenged in court and the court ruling in favor of it being unrevocable.

The document has had hyperlinks removed and the contents of those hyperlinks copied into the posted document. This is almost certainly the full license text and you're simply mistaken.

If they believe what they're saying about the OGL, they likely do believe they can D&D folks from hosting the OGL 1.0/1.0a or any items derived from such, including the SRDs.

I'm failing to see anything that Kickstarter the company has done that would lead to them being boycotted over this. The "worst thing" they did was advocate for their people and get a slightly better royalty agreement; they never had the power to negotiate all the way down to "don't deauthorize...

I'll just point out that the people who distributed the OGL 1.1 to the community have indicated that this is the legal text plus commentary and that the linked-to "just the legal text" document is not materially different. You might be correct, but if so all the reporting from Gizmodo on down is...

It's right here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/ The license starts on the very bottom of Page 2. All formatting has been stripped out, and as I mentioned it has commentary embedded (and clearly marked) so it's a little harder to read than the original would be.

The part at the beginning is a FAQ; everything else is the actual license/agreement. It is interspersed with "explainer" sections listed "COMMENTS:"; this is because the original hypertext document included them as separate information that expanded when clicked and is not part of the actual...

Other lawyers in those same threads strongly disagree with that take and seem to have the evidence to back it up, such as the GPL 2.0 lawsuit that has similar language (lacking the term 'irrevocable') but in court was deemed to be irrevocable anyways.

I already have my copy on my desk. Have had it for a month. I was a Kickstarter backer, but if physical copies have been released it probably shouldn't count. Edit: Whelp, I should read the rules. Not how I would have done it, but OK.

It was a rumor they've heard, not something they are claiming is in the current playtest. Doesn't mean it's accurate, of course.

The playtest packet isn't the entire playtest. It's only the first part, the "races" with a few bits here and there to clarify rules that the race changes touch upon; future weeks will have more/different things for people to playtest. Personally I hope they remove the standard 'alignment'...