Search results

I would be concerned about a morality clause in an open licensing schema, mostly because of well-meaning people inadvertently misusing it, and somewhat because of the possibility of bad actors "weaponising" it. I don't see anything objectionable about a "morality clause" in a licence that, say...

I should ask if there's any way to tell what my RRSP or my son's RESP portfolio has. If our funds include Hasbro stock, mebbe I should reach out to the fund manager or something.

If you don't think lots of people wouldn't spring for a D&D-branded dice tray that was at least comparable to other dice trays in terms of quality - the way they already do for Avengers t-shirts, Star Wars cosmetics, or official Harry Potter scarves (etc. etc. etc.) - I'm not sure what to tell you.

No, you're right, those properties don't have any open licensing (that I know of) - but as you say, that has to do with D&D's history, one which Hasbro and WotC executives have ignored, possibly to their peril. I guess all I'm saying is that with some forethought, they could have realised that...

I'm inclined to say that there's plenty of stuff to build a D&D brand on - and to my mind none of it requires closing off the OGL. The brands that Hasbro/WotC might choose to emulate - LotR, Harry Potter, or Marvel/DC, in particular - aren't rulesets. They're characters. They're stories...

I mean, if the VTT has a monthly subscription and you run, like, one game a month on it, wouldn't that amount to the same thing?

"partially due to the fact that WotC has recently downsized the D&D Beyond support team." Because of course they did.

I made a dwarf fighter using Player's Option who was almost invulnerable to poison. Naturally, he died failing a saving throw against poison within an hour or so of beginning play.

I dunno, I think this three-headed beast might be a better fit.

Fair enough, although I'm not on Twitter - the only reactions I've surveyed are here, and the post(s) I was responding to seemed to be speaking to this thread as well.

I think I'd like to see some actual quoted examples of Manichean purity test talk. I'm reading the exact same thread and all I'm getting is "huh, not much there, that's fair" or "huh, not much there, kinda disappointing" or "there's a soupçon of pro-3pp sentiment, not bad".

It's vague and entirely noncommittal, but given how entangled CR is with D&D at the moment, I'm sure it's the best they can do for the time being - whatever their actual feelings (pro-WotC or pro-OGL), they want to alienate neither WotC nor their fanbase writ large, and too strong a statement...

The Mary Sue has today an article about the OGL controversy, and not-entirely-coincidentally, an article about alternative games that folks can try. (The list includes Pathfinder, and mentions their recent decision to back a new open licence.)

I feel like this probably should have been a Winnebago with wings for maximum nerdiness. But I'm not gonna complain, it looks great!

I suppose. It just feels like distancing between who is delivering the message and who is responsible to me.

The fact that this is appearing on dndbeyond and not the primary D&D website or the WotC website concerns me.

There have got to be at least a few folks at WotC and Hasbro thinking... It also wouldn't surprise me if the Guardian gets taken to task by fans in the comments (if their articles still allow them?) for inaccuracies. Maybe enough to make some corrections? But maybe not.

That last statement is frankly an unwarranted personal attack. I don't think anyone ignores what corporations often get up to, although some folk downplay or support such behaviour (just look at how many have carried water for tobacco or fossil fuel interests over the years - often the same...