Search results

Add Financial Times with, Dungeons & Dragons & fear & loathing: When Wizards go rogue. Edit: sorry, the link goes to a paywall, you can find it on news.google.com search for "Dungeons & Dragons"

Financial Times has chimed in as well with, Dungeons & Dragons & fear & loathing: When Wizards go rogue. Edit: try this link: Financial TimesDungeons & Dragons & fear & loathingIf FTAV had a quid for every time we've written about Wizards of the Coast in the past couple of months, we'd have £2...

This is the part that blows me away. TSR in the 70s and 80s went after competition over use of the trademark. They prevented Judge's Guild from using it after a time, they went after Role Aids for "Suitable for use with AD&D." And now, we learn, you can totally say something like "Suitable for...

Not only that. WotC created a thing called OneD&D and the result looks to be a fracturing of the industry. Also, this year is the 50th anniversary of the year that Dave showed Gary his game he called Blackmoor, the year of their collaboration on the draft that would become D&D. And this is the...

They are hoping if they wait long enough the outrage will die down.

Yes, and the rule set has to fit CR's style of play and the quick adjudication and flow needed for live play. Would not be surprised if the CR rules or rules that attract them are more rules-light than 5e, and still retains character options.

Casting Resurrection on this thread as the OGL discussions make it relevant again. Just think, TSR and later WotC spent all that time and effort trying to get movies and tv shows off the ground. Sure there was the Saturday morning cartoon, and there is the upcoming movie and 8-episode show...

By that definition, to get certified as a heartbreaker, the only test is if it breaks Ron's heart? No one else can define an RPG as a heartbreaker. Edit: This is a joke, of course.

What if it incorporated other pre-1982 rule sets like Traveller, Runquest, etc.?

This is why we should not deify other people—they become angels and devils, and often the Janus with both.

DCC does. Goodman also has a bunch of 5e products, including some old TSR modules converted to 5e.

Ah, that is different. So, basically another no comment.

Ooph... No comment makes sense for now. Telling people to cool it is, well not cool. Edit: Got a source on the CR part? Edit 2: Sounds like someone at CR gave an ineloquent "no comment."

Who is left that are conspicuously missing? Goodman Games, Piazo and Critical Role. anyone else?

Right best and worst case from WotC's POV since they are the ones making the bet. For the community, it sounds like the best case and the OMG they just gave away the farm case.

He is. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Ryan's assessment of how big the stakes are. Sounds like it can go from, the best case of 1.0a can't be revoked to the worst case of finding out the IP (if rewritten) is not protected (with the ORS swooning if that happened).

Ryan Dancey just confirmed the above is the correct intention of "authorized," it was a method to differentiate the draft v. authorized version. Source: Roll For Combat YouTube channel, One of the Architects of the Original OGL, Ryan Dancey, Discusses Its Creation | Roll For Combat

They are, and yet it is odd that DDB would comment rather than the Wizards or D&D Twitter accounts. Wonder if something happened that affects DDB directly.

As a consultant, I respect your "it depends." On the creatures, it always seemed odd that they selected a handful and left out others like the owlbear and bulette.

Did you hear that? The sounds from all the way across the Atlantic? Perhaps they were faint. The sounds of my head popping, followed by a slat sound. OK seriously now, and be gentle, layperson honestly trying to understand this. In the OGL, is Product Identity meant to carve out just the name...