Search results

The only actor demonstrating entitlement here is WotC. They authored a license which has been tremendously beneficial to them, but now their shareholders are upset they aren't profiting enough from other people's labor, so now they plan to abuse their financial power to violate the plain meaning...

I think this is really the only way for anyone to sign onto a new OGL. WotC has "irrevocably" demonstrated they can never be trusted again as stewards of an open license. Any future OGLs must be authored in such a way that they cannot be revoked, not just because of specific wording, but because...

This is good information. I have to imagine WotC's actions may greatly accelerate the move to a new OGL. I hope that it's a "TOGL" and not just Paizo-specific, because it would be a shame to have a bunch of balkanized TTRPG licenses.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Obviously the most valuable part of the OGL was D&D content being in it, but that does not demean the value of a new TOGL (True Open Gaming License). You need the license before you can put anything valuable in it. Again, obviously it wouldn't...

The OGL is dead. We're living in a post-OGL era now, regardless of what WotC decides to do now. You can't put the "Well we might decide to destroy your material forever" genie back in the bottle. I think it would be prudent for 3PPs to focus on creating a new, true OGL which is not owned by...

3PPs and streamers are simultaneously stealing all of poor widdle WotC's rightful money and so irrelevant that nothing they say or do can stop the invincible D&D juggernaut.

Oh, it's simple, the terms are 1) WotC gets to eat the carrots, all of the carrots 2) If you have a problem with that, you get the stick

There are multiple D&D-related subreddits. I haven't seen any kind of support for this at all on any I've checked.

If I were Paizo, or any of the numerous 3PP who make OGL products, what I would be seriously thinking about, and discussing openly with allies, is the idea of writing a truly open-source gaming license, one which is not owned or copyrighted by anybody. This would obviously be a time-consuming...

Actually, now that I think about it, this is being too fair to nuWotC-- given the proposed rule in the new "OGL" where they can revoke your license at any time, it's more like they're saying "Oh yeah, I can sting you again at any time if I want, but don't worry, you're safe as long as you do...

I think you misread my post.

This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you again."

While it would be nice to have better wording in the OGL, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that would stop what is clearly a bad-faith, malicious reading of it. The decision makers chose to do this not because the OGL allows it, but because they think they can get away with it. It's very...

The issue is not just how bad attempting to destroy the OGL 1.0a would be(it's obviously extremely bad), but that they're essentially setting fire to the entire community and proving themselves completely untrustworthy in all future contractual dealings. You can't unring that bell-- if they're...

I feel like focusing on "free will" is a rabbit trail. The issue is fantasy races/species propagating real-world stereotypes and caricatures, whether or not fictional people have free will, if anyone can even define that, is besides the point.

I like this because each path has a unique theme and isn't just "let's actually give the wizard 5 million subclasses and claim it's 4.

This is just a variation on the Thermian Argument. It is obviously possible for a fictional god to do whatever it wants. Notably, multiple real-world religions have, at various times, attempted to justify racism with the "God made us better" argument. I'm sure you can see the problem with that...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with settings where different species of sapient beings, with very different physiology, exist. However, if we're talking about D&D, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs are absolutely terrible examples of doing that. Elves and Dwarves are very obviously just Tolkien with...

I think "peoples" and "kind" are both okay to use to describe groups of people. Peoples is nice in the sense that it obviously emphasized the humanity of the group.

I don't want to say species is as bad as the term race now, because it isn't. Removing the term was a necessary and good change because of the long, sordid history of the word race in our own world and how it was used by people, so this is a welcome change. I do still think there are problems...