Search results

Yes, you can claim the CC-BY is less open than the OGL (mostly because, you know, it is). Even "crippled" Open Game Content still released the mechanics as OGC, and while having to create new names and write new flavor text was burdensome it was still better than having to create everything from...

It's not disingenuous; I literally didn't know what you meant. I've heard plenty of people use "broken" for "unbalanced," for instance, which makes your use of that term to mean something completely different confusing. There certainly were some publishers who did that, but in my experience...

Can you expound on that? What did they do wrong? (Likewise, I'm mostly sure I provided all of the salient information, but I'm not absolutely certain I didn't leave some crucial bit out.)

I had some similar questions about a product I recently purchased that turned out to use the OGL and ORC licenses, specifically to take PF2 Remastered material (released under ORC) and translate it to PF1 game mechanics (released under the OGL).

I swear, I knew what it really was, but for some reason my brain spent a half-second trying to convince me that the thread title was actually "The Good Sandwich Thread [+]"

I have to disagree with you here. In his interview in Dragon Annual #6 (December, 2001), Dancey openly says: "You could even use the System Reference Document to publish an entirely new roleplaying game!" I think you're referring to Paizo creating Pathfinder here, in which case the emergency...

To say nothing of John Wick (yeah I know he's an assassin rather than a spy, but have you seen the amount of punishment he soaks up in John Wick 4?)

I don't know that anyone here has said it was "purely altruistic." Most of what I've seen has been people pushing back (correctly) against the idea that altruism played no part in the original motivations that saw the OGL's creation.

I'll direct you to my post which also quotes him from much earlier (and which Rick Marshall corroborates in the comments as not being purely a business move).

I'm not sure what you mean by "broken." If you mean things like having the monster's names declared PI and only their stat blocks open (what was often referred to as "crippled content") then that's unfortunate, but still usable; WotC themselves renamed OGC monsters. If, on the other hand, you...

Grognardia also has a post quoting him from the Paizo messageboards back in 2010 (unfortunately, the link doesn't work now) where he says: "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the...

You got out just in time; the singularity has been achieved, and the entire site is now rants about people's racist cats.

He says as much in his interview (i.e. chapter 6) in the Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons book: "The most important thing the OGL did wasn't about the OGL; it was about D&D. The release of the SRD under the OGL means that the game is now immortal. Nothing can be done at the corporate level to...

I believe there was some on the old WotC forums (there was an index by Tebryn14), but I can't find any archives of them.

I disagree. A creator-friendly move would have been to make it available under both licenses, so creators could choose whichever one they felt more partial toward.

You did see the post I was replying to, right?

Of course they didn't mention it; if it's a mute point, then it goes without saying. ;)

So I missed the announcement before, but apparently Raging Swan Press is having an Easter Sale, which ends in the next twelve hours. The following bundles offer 75% savings over what their component products collectively cost, and will only be available until 9 AM BST tomorrow: 2022 5e...

Section 8 of the OGL is the section that requires you to identify Open Game Content. What you seem to be talking about here is the language you'd use to make that declaration. Strictly speaking, that declaration doesn't have a standardized presentation, but there are many examples of it (and...