Search results

I started a new thread on this podcast episode:

I used the word contract as the OP was talking about contracts. Splitting hairs between license and contract might be pedantic. From Adobe (I would think their lawyers know which way is up): Yes, Kyle mentioned an NDA, though not how that was agreed to (could have been click-through as well...

All speculation and based on rumors, though I got the impression if what was called 2.0 existed, it was an aborted version that existed between 1.1 and 1.2, with "2.0" being the first try to fix 1.1 and 1.2 being a start over. Not sure this will hold up, but this is how I visualize it: 1.0a----...

IANAL. I've worked with contracts and with in-house contract attorneys. The distinction that is getting lost on many people is there is a difference between a contract review between two parties and an open contract. They also leave out that when sending a review copy, even if the contract does...

Shane Plays podcast talks with Zach Glazar (Frog God Games), Bill Barsh (Pacesetter Games) and Levi Combs (Planet X Games) on how the recent events around the OGL affected them, their views (it is speculation, though some of these people have some connections), and how it impacted their...

At the part about the revenue caps. That just sounds so anti-competitive, is that even legal? Plus, if we are talking Disney or Meta, they are just going to buy another RPG company or partner with one and market the crap out of that attaching to their existing brands in the case of Disney with...

Paizo or the next Pathfinder was the threat they wanted to prevent, as they planned to redefine the OGL into a license without the copyleft part. They got caught and since Meta is at best tolerated and disliked by many, it was a good strawman. That is my take anyway.

Pretty sure the Meta and Disney were never an actual concern.

I could be wrong, but that is how I was reading what Kyle was saying.

The crazy thing about this whole, "we were worried about Meta or Disney," is that their solution was to release the 5.1 SRD into CC?! Now either can freely use the SRD if they really wanted.

It seems they now think of the SRD as a living document that is updated, rather than a point-in-time version.

Their only hope of making the bank they were talking about to investors is by: Growing the market, which means more RPG players or redefining what the brand is and who it targets. Getting players to be bigger payers, closer to DMs. Pretty sure someone at WotC is at a whiteboard working on this...

It is something that is original Gygax and pre-dates D&D. He penned the descriptions of the dragons for a LotR/fantasy Diplomacy zine across a few issues. To date, with no lack of trying, no one has been able to find a source Gary pulled from. Now, some will say the codification of the Dragons...

IANAL, though I see two possible strategies that might be at work here: First, they split the party. Most of the power in the recent revolt came from the number of 5e players that joined in. Releasing the 5.1 SRD in CC, may defuse this contingent, leaving only Pathfinder, OSR, indie RPGs, etc...

Thanks.

Honestly, without ever seeing that SRD, I do not know if it contains anthing not available in 3.5, beyond the rule tweaks between the two.

I think 3.0 SRD is the only one that is a bit hard to come by. Archive.org looks to have 3.5 SRD and Modern d20's SDR.

How many infringe on the IP of various writers? Even though a troll is part of folklore, the OD&D version is adopted from Poul Anderson, as well as the depiction in the MM. The pig-faced orc and hobgoblin's helmets in the MM are taken from the 1976 J.R.R. Tolkien Calendar, by Tim & Greg...

Second question, would there ever be a reason to combine the two? E.g. OGL 1.0a for 3.5 SRD and CC for 5.1 SRD, and would this free up Mind Flayer for say an OSR product?

Yes it does. Ben quotes from Flint's book about that. Both are good.