Search results

And I said I think they will keep printing the books for 6e. But I'm convinced the current leadership sees the fact that D&D can be played by six people for years, with a one-time total expenditure to WotC of not-very-much money, as a major flaw in the brand's business plan. If you think that...

I've been wondering the same thing. As Matt Colville said a couple of days ago, they don't really want analog customers anymore—except as living marketing for their digital subscription services. From WotC's point of view, six people sitting around a table with pens, paper, dice, and a few...

If it's going to be a video rather than text, this opens up the real possibility that it won't be aimed at the 3PP industry or its outraged supporters at all. It could very well just be a video explaining what OGL 1.1 does, why it's a good thing, etc., all pitched at people who haven't yet...

There was an article about the map changes in Dragon magazine a few months before the FRCS was released. They should have put a brief note in the book itself though.

Their initial take was (in part) basically “WotC can revoke, period”—but it didn’t seem to be a fully informed take, instead falling into the now all-too-familiar “doesn’t say ‘irrevocable,’ case closed” camp. As I read it, this update means they still think WotC can stop OGL 1.0a from applying...

Unsurprising, but Paizo has something ready that will drop as soon as (presumably) WotC’s statement does. They were expecting that would be yesterday:

I’m sure you’re right. But that’s not what the quoted material means in the draft. Still, it’s probably best to move on.

It could be accidental. Lord knows I’ve accidentally made worse mistakes. It doesn’t look that way to me, though, and in my view it’s very bad form either way. But I last practiced journalism in an era with standards very different from today’s. As to whether it’s kind to WotC, that’s a matter...

In the leaked draft, WotC admits it might “receive community pushback and bad PR,” and says “We are more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.” The Gizmodo article quotes this. But in the draft, these lines are about any judgments the company might make about licensors who...

Snarf (correctly, I think) wrote that Hasbro never wanted the OGL. It's clear that WotC wanted it, at least at first. Dancey wasn't some anarchist intent on sabotaging the company's business model. The OGL was a business decision, and it achieved its intended effect—at least in the short term...

OA didn't write the word "pitchforks" themselves. In response to a question from someone else ("I want to know if I need to dig out my pitchfork"), OA responded: "against that gizmodo writer? yes." I don't think the distinction matters in this case, but the long-buried professional journalist...

You're right about all of this, of course. But I can't figure out what it has to do with OA's tweet-opinions as I summarized them, except the part about how unusual it is for Pathfinder not to have to pay WotC.

So do many other experts (though still more experts think it’s not so clear-cut). If that were the most notable feature of OA’s position, it would not be notable. It’s the rest that’s the problem. That’s their M.O.

I think you may be right—which is why the OA podcast worries me.

The Opening Arguments podcast will devote their episode to the OGL story this Friday. OA’s Twitter indicates they are absolutely not on the side of open gaming. Seriously: they think WotC is perfectly within their rights to change the license. They think WotC always intended to be able to...

The marketing text for one (I don’t recall which) of the movie tie-in toys mentions a “Golden Archive”—to my mind, confirming that this is the movie tie-in book. Edit: Someone else already pointed this out. I missed that post somehow.

My casual players learned about it today. From mainstream sources, not gamer media. Their responses can’t be repeated on this forum.

If it’s not whoever masterminded it, it should be Williams*—because she is the head of the company. It absolutely should not be Perkins, Crawford, Walters, Di, or any other “creative.” *(Assuming she’s not also behind this.)

Really hoping it’s whoever spearheaded it. We don’t know it was her.

The quoted material in the article’s concluding paragraph is indeed taken out of context. In the leaked draft the line where WotC admits it might “receive community pushback and bad PR, and [also states that it is] more than open to being convinced that [it] made a wrong decision” is about any...