Search results

I've said this before, but I think this does a disservice to Level Up. It's not just a "patched up" version of 5e. From what we've seen in the playtest, 1D&D is a lot closer to vanilla 5e than Level Up is. I'd actually really like to see Wizards make a bigger change with 1D&D and for someone...

I mean, no, that’s not worth a whole lot IMO. If it’s not actually true under the common law of contracts, what’s the point in someone currently at WotC making such a statement? On the other hand, they’ve created a truly irrevocable practical disincentive to ever bother withdrawing their offer...

Some of the lawyers have suggested it’s not actually that easy to create a standing offer that can never be withdrawn. That being the case, I honestly don’t know what could possibly say “We’re leaving the OGL alone” more forcefully than releasing 5.1 under a CC license. Everyone’s risk...

No, it doesn't mean that.

There's no share-alike provision in this CC license. It's still a huge win to get D&D in the Creative Commons.

I'm sorry, the legal "demand" was a joke. The letter was a joke. Charitably, perhaps it was simply intended to draw attention from fans.

That's who they are. This was their tweet a day before they received the leak. While I share their perspective and biases for the most part, I do wish the information had been leaked to a more objective news source. I wish we had gotten some real investigative journalism, rather than only...

I'm sorry, this is three weeks old and it's a joke. The "demand" was for a more "definite statement from Wizards." :rolleyes: I guess Wizards has delivered now and are safe, at the moment, from further legal action.

This all sounds rather plausible. The only piece I was contesting was the idea that some kind of more radical design incompatibility was required to wall out other VTTs.

Yeah, this is more or less what I was expecting. I don't know if DDB can "break" #2 on their end, but in any case, if you have to purchase the content on DDB, Wizards is probably just fine with that. It seems to be their objective, in fact. Maybe they start charging extra for data exporting...

Could you elaborate on "new derivative works"? Wouldn't this include any files, modules or applications to "kludge compatibility" with 1D&D? It seems obvious on its face that this kind of thing would have to be "new," since 1D&D doesn't yet exist. I'm not sure how much work "others" is doing...

I agree with you about the real reasons for OGL 1.2, but I'm not tracking this move. Foundry presumably won't obtain/retain a license for any non-SRD material from WotC, and if they continue to use SRD 5 under 1.0a, WotC will presumably begin legal proceedings against them (starting with a C&D)...

Nah. If you want to make your fireball green, that will be $2.00.

I think they're off to a stronger start than last season. I feel like the writing is improved and it's genuinely funny at times. Thumbs up so far.

Acquisition price isn’t equal to one year of revenue.

I flipped out about that after a previous leak, but apparently acceptance doesn't work that way. Foundry's legal analysis is probably incorrect on this count.

I don’t think that’s true. I don’t know what the best 3.x adventure was, but it was either Red Hand of Doom or Age of Worms IMO. I don’t think there’s been a better 5e adventure than Curse of Strahd. On the player side, TCoE isn’t perfect, but it’s better than any similar product released by a...

Maybe the executives in charge at that time agreed with Ryan that even Pathfinder was a net gain for D&D, or maybe the executives in charge at the time disliked Pathfinder but not enough to nuke the creative commons over it. Someone should track down Greg Leeds and ask him.

I think "deauthorization" is pure FUD. More charitably, they're using non-legal language to describe the effects of their action in a way that non-lawyers will understand. Like I said, I'm not expecting them to lay out their legal strategy for us.

I mean, unless I'm still misunderstanding them, we have multiple attorneys here saying Wizards can clearly withdraw their offer under the terms of the license at any time, as a basic principle of contract law. Other attorneys here seem to disagree with that? Or at least that it would depend on...