Search results

Out of curiosity, what does "effective horror" look like to you?

Gatekeepy how? You responded to my interest in wondering if established companies would support Daggerheart, due to the revocable nature of its license. That was the initial question. "Gatekeepy." Seriously.

Given the current situation, I think the opposite is more likely. I want to be clear: that would be a travesty. But in the era of tech oligarchy, I would not be the least surprised to see an interpretation of Fair Use that essentially gave AI companies carte blanch with scrapable data.

Which one is that? Is it by a established company?

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe I wasn't clear: I do not think Daggerheart's mechanics will support horror gaming. At all. Even with some setting rules.

I disagree with this because of the input of the dice and the players. As long as you are good at that sort of improv, I think the result will be inherently better than prep done solo.

In fact, I would say any license meant to pull people to GURPS was released with at least the GURPS Lite rules built in.

From my perspective, WotC should have released the 5.1 SRD CC-SA. But I know I am in the minority on that. Darrington's license is intended only to support Darrington. It will be interesting to see if any professional companies actually publish for Daggerheart.

Ok. Sure. But my issue with.CC is that it does not require users to open the mechanics etc they created as derivative of the SRD. I understand this is by design and that's how the publishers want it. I just think it is crappy.

Can we define "prep" as "writing down concrete gameplay related information prior to the start of the session"? Just so we have a common starting point?

QFT

I completely agree. That's BS and it makes me less inclined to support ToV. As a point of order, though, it was Paizo not Kobold that spearheaded ORC, and Paizo has in fact released their mechanics under ORC. I am pretty sure that's what I said. I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the DMsG...

Also, they pinch.

You need to define "more closed" here since you are making accusations. And for clarity: it is my belief that if you build a game off an Open SRD (such as the 5.1 SRD under CC) then you should -- because it is the right thing to do -- put your own mechanics/SRD into CC or whatever. The reason I...

If we can convince legislatures to enact such regulations. Unfortunately in the US, getting Congress to do anything related to AI has been next to impossible. And now with so much regulatory capture by the tech industry, it is even less likely.

Because it requires share alike? I guess. But that's the thing that was missing. Without it, creators lock off content that is clearly derivative of the SRD and they should not be able to do that. And probably can't, in actuality, but (as has been noted many times) it has never actually been...

Those are important aspects, but I think it is unhelpful to call it "easy." Building a system for identifying, contacting, negotiating with and ultimately paying copyright holders would certainly not be "easy." Determining how royalties would work would be equally complex: what portion of the...

"We refuse to act" sure sounds like a Golden Opportunity to me.

What do you mean "locked away in ORC.? That's not how ORC works.

That's not the point. If you create a game off 5E (Shadowdark) I think people should be able to build off your derivative mechanics. Full top. You took advantage of an open or free system designed by other people. You should pay it forward. Just for clarity: I am NOT saying that you should give...