Search results

We only have a retelling of what the FAQ claims so we don't know what the actual OGL 2.0 says so we have no clue what WotC are currently thinking.

The original Gizmodo article said the plan was to publicly announce the OGL 1.1 last week: "io9's source indicated that the final version of the document was originally intended for release on January 4, which would have given companies and creators seven business days to agree and comply."

This comment in response to a question of why thinks WotC would do this also interesting:

"Rent-seeking" is about getting money from other people's work, but as the commentator explained that is  not the goal of such a punitive royalty. The point of the royalty is to keep all 3PPs below the $750,000 mark and thereby prevent anyone becoming a competitor to D&D as happened with...

You don't know what the risks are let alone that they are "small". Under the OGL 1.1 WotC could easily lower the threshold for royalties to something much less than $750,000, and the $50,000 reporting requirement leaves the door wide open to do exactly that. They can also raise the royalty rate...

What do you mean by "shops on four continents"?

It's obviously a joke.

I'm starting to think that Lanasa and his cohorts are actually super brilliant geniuses who are just pretending to be bungling, incompetent blowhards. There's no way this can all be accidental...

I don't see how that's possible. The court already has the draft manuscript of SF:NG so they can’t just publish that under a new name so they'd have to write something new from scratch. In which case, it would genuinely not be SF:NG. But I don't know what hare-brained scheme they're cooking up.

Your general point is right, but the specific instance of LaNasa's message about Kim Mohan really is an example of him being ice cold. He couldn't be bothered to write anything himself about Mohan but instead literally just copied and pasted some dry, basic facts from Wikipedia. That's not only...

These are extremely generic, but that's a complement because it means they read like what millions of actual DMs and adventure writers would come up with. You could drop either in a game and no one would consider them to be in anyway out of place for D&D.

So that is actually very impressive, in the sense that it reads like it was written by a human who has a clear grasp of what is being asked and the issues involved.

In other words, it reads like it was ripped from Wikipedia. And that's its best responses. It's not-so-good and outright bad responses are even worse.

But the same would be true for a response by a person. If you were to provide a single paragraph summary of each edition people would be highly critical that some of what you wrote is wrong and that you left out some of the most significant qualities.

You speak of "rumors" and "leaks", plural. As in more than one rumor/leak. Do you have sources for multiple rumors and/or leaks, or is it simply various people hyperventilating about the single claim reported in this thread?

Right, it's speculation. And since the issue is whether Mearls really did that or not means that simply stating that Hill believes that is what Mearls did doesn't resolve whether anyone should believe he did do it. In other words, Hill can be 100% honest and 100% wrong, the two are not mutually...

First off, if by your admission Hill was speculating about what Mearls did, then it isn't simply a matter of "believing" Hill or not. Hill can honestly believe something that is actually false. People are often mistaken about things. Anyway, you are doing more than merely stating your belief...

Yeah, if anything a "rulings not rules" game has more need for examples precisely because the system doesn't spell out how to handle things.

Who is Ryan Palmer?

There is no endgame, he simply is incapable of doing anything but attacking. Once he threw the rock at the bees nest there was no turning back. He was just going to keep on the offensive in any way possible regardless of how pointless and self-defeating it was.