Search results

This seems highly speculative, and (I think) very unlikely to be correct, but if you're right, they have dumb lawyers. There's no reason for any of this if other companies can ignore 1.1 and still get 95% of the OneD&D content. That being the case, and given Section 9, it's much more interesting...

I'm just going to focus on this, because the whole post reads similarly. I agree that one could argue this. I think the available evidence suggests Wizards/Hasbro doesn't find the argument particularly persuasive. If we're trying to make sense of why they're doing this when (we think) it's "so...

I agree, which is why I said, "I don't think they can put that horse back in the shed, but maybe they think they can at least make it less likely that the next horse gets out."

I should have responded to this at the same time, but I screwed it up. I don't think the royalty will be based on "profit." I don't care how well you run your business. When the OGL was originally drafted, I doubt anyone anticipated Kickstarter--let alone $2MM campaigns. So if I'm wearing the...

No, I mean it's a risk for Wizards/Hasbro that someone will uses 1.0/a to clone 5e.

I guess I'd just say, it probably isn't about "so little money," which was your comment that I was responding to. I don't know how much revenue the top 20 are generating, and I'm not going to go crawl through Kickstarters to try to figure it out, but I don't think Wizards is doing it for a...

"No wonder no one ever comes in here--it's too crowded!" Maybe we've never seen an influx of new players like this before, and maybe that's to 5e's credit rather than a problem that needs to be solved by [insert favorite game here].

We don't know the rate, or whether it will be progressive, but it would seem to offer Hasbro some protection for certain kinds of scenarios. For example, just making numbers up here: Do you think Paizo would have chosen to build a business on the OGL if they'd been required to pay a royalty...

I don't think there's any possible universe in which WotC could manage an approval process for everything that's published under the OGL. Even in the GSL, they reserved a "right of review" but they didn't require prior approval, assuming the product otherwise conformed to the terms of the...

Maybe it depends on the particulars of the "web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible." What could go wrong?

Honestly, I never would have believed that we would see this kinder, gentler Hasbro back in 2000. On the other hand, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they sit down each new generation of executives and explain the OGL and the history of Pathfinder/4e to them. ::blinkyguy.gif::

This is where I put my money, but "New Classification Content" should be called "One System Rules" for maximum trolling value. Also, I'm not sure about the definition of "carrot" in this scenario.

Not in the context of classic D&D, it's not, because it's not a resource that's consumed.

As far as I can tell, he never shared the email from "the paralegal."

I mean, it meets the requirement of the OGL. But if the license from Stafford's company didn't grant rights to license or sublicense the property, satisfying any requirements in the OGL isn't relevant, as far as I can see. That said, from what you say, it sounds like Stafford didn't own the...

Sounds like more of a "clone" than a "retroclone," since it wasn't based on any open content. It seems odd that it had the "tacit approval" of Adkison and Stevens, since they were both gone by 2001. How would their approval have been relevant to something published 2007+?

So they just cloned it (the "yolo" option), but Stafford couldn't really have objected because he didn't own that IP -- Hasbro did (does). Is that right? Or did Stafford eventually get the IP back, but only after Legend had been created? So confusing!

Their own product marketing says this: !!! I'm still reading the thread that was linked earlier. Rick Meints' comments are really interesting: and... Bold is mine. This is super spicy! And a little sad. :( ETA: I should add that while @Mongoose_Matt doesn't make an appearance in the...

What was the legal basis for Legend? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create Legend? Really curious how this went down!

I guess, but even then, it seems like characters have sufficient resources just on the spell lists that the "survival" elements are rather undermined, at least compared to the dungeon survival elements in low-level classic D&D. You can always trade spell slot(s) for food and water, for example...