Search results

Of course they didn't mention it; if it's a mute point, then it goes without saying. ;)

So I missed the announcement before, but apparently Raging Swan Press is having an Easter Sale, which ends in the next twelve hours. The following bundles offer 75% savings over what their component products collectively cost, and will only be available until 9 AM BST tomorrow: 2022 5e...

Section 8 of the OGL is the section that requires you to identify Open Game Content. What you seem to be talking about here is the language you'd use to make that declaration. Strictly speaking, that declaration doesn't have a standardized presentation, but there are many examples of it (and...

You have to list everything in the Section 15 of the sources you use; that's the viral nature of Open Game Content posted under the OGL. What I listed above constitutes the combined Section 15 listings of each of the sources you named.

If the full list of sources that you used were the 3.5 SRD (rather than the Player's Handbook, which technically has no Open Game Content) and the three titles you listed, i.e. Experts v.3.5, 101 Skill Uses, and The Ultimate Game Designer's Companion, then your OGL listing should look like so...

From what I can tell, that's a homebrew feat, so you'd have to ask them if they wrote more than what they posted. Personally, I'd be leery of something which allows for multiple attacks to be made as part of a single attack of opportunity, as that seems too powerful. That said, I'd presume that...

Creative Mountain Games has marked all of their products 50% off! There was no notice how long this sale will last, so hurry and take advantage of it before it ends! Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

That was the determination that I came to also.

Ah, that makes more sense, though I don't know if there's any easy way to check who's using which license (or why they chose the one(s) that they did). I'm not sure there's any easy way to tabulate that (short of going on a spending spree) let alone verifying what their motivation was.

It's too bad the publisher isn't here on these boards so we could ask them. :P

In the order they were asked: yes, yes, and yes. ;) I was under the impression those used all three of them.

I don't agree to that. :P Again, over ten thousand products made under the OGL, easily. You can't really count the number of products that weren't made because of it. Which leaves open a scenario where they decide that something that's derivative from open content shouldn't itself be open...

If you use open material to create derivative material, said derivative material should itself be open; one fish being able to choose not to do that is not a good reason why everyone else should be able to. I'm not sure what you mean by "carve-outs," but if they're in violation of the OGL then...

I suspect it'd be easier/simpler/better to just retool the 5.1 material (possibly with other OGC) to more closely resemble what's in the 5.2 SRD, though we'll have to see the latter to determine how feasible that is.

My goal is for there to be a healthy and vibrant open gaming community; more open content is the direct way in which this is abetted, and so a license which requires that material derived from open content be itself open is therefore a good thing.

So long as it's their own content, and not derivative, sure. That part isn't really germane to what's being discussed, though, and so goes without saying. Well over ten thousand products created under the OGL to date suggest that this "stifling" effect is minuscule at best, and is most likely...

I disagree that it's not a great license; the fact that it mandates that content derived from open content be itself open makes it superior to the CC BY. That's why I'm sad that WotC won't be releasing the 5.2 SRD under the OGL. Well, I'd prefer to know if I'd be supporting someone who doesn't...

Right, but isn't that what WotC did? They put out an SRD under the OGL that was a subset of their own material (otherwise not released under any license), forcing everyone downstream of them (i.e. using the SRD) to release everything derived from that even though they themselves did not. Just...

I've never been a fan of "I got mine, so nuts to you all" standpoints, which is why I think that making derivative content necessarily open is a good thing. That way, you can not only help folks navigate this, but also provide them with content they can use to make a richer and more vibrant...

The little fish cannot decide what's open and what's not, insofar as derivative content goes. And that's to the benefit of all the other little fish, who can use that content which might otherwise not have been released if the publisher had instead elected to keep it closed. More open content...