Search results

Well, I can understand how it seems that way, but trust me, when your players can't break every encounter with a single spell, when they actually have to work together as a team, you will start seeing your players have more fun. Also it should be easier, not harder to balance encounters...

Its cool man, but I am seeing a lot of hyperbole here, I think its fair to say that you don't agree, but no need to try and win an argument, because I don't care about any of that. I care about being clear about what constitutes an open license and what doesn't, that has nothing to do with what...

Um, no, they list the 1.0a OGL as one of several open licenses which they list on their website, its right there on the OGF list.

You are of course free to amend your original statement, but I quoted your original words, which were that its "actually really open." see your quote below. You are of course again free to speculate as to the "ideal" of the license, however you are still ignoring the clear fact that requiring...

They make it easier to run as a GM, because you don't have to do as much prep work for one. Back in 3e/PF 1e, the estimated prep time was 3-4 hours per hour of gameplay depending on how much you intend to prep to run a game and depending on the average PC level. Capping the players at 6th...

Look up E6 D&D 3.5, you are sure to come up with a lot of useful information on how to run 3.5/PF games with less prep and more fun. Essentially, E6 games I run go as follows: 1. Players stop gaining levels after 6th level. Instead, after 6th level, they incrementally gain feats as they gain...

I'll post this here so that folks can see what the Open Gaming Foundation defines as an open license:

Except you haven't seen the final draft of the 1.1 ogl, so how do you know that its "actually really open?" A trademarked badge, reporting income, and royalties ARE NOT PART OF ANY OPEN LICENSE. One of the primary definitions of an open license is that its royalty free. Calling it a "tiny...

As much as I would agree that that is the best case scenario, their official statement has a lot to be concerned about for 3pp publishers. Yes it isn't released yet, but so far they have stated several things that I do find concerning. Requiring a badge, & requiring income reporting and...

In the context that the new 1.1 OGL is not likely to be truly "open," and will likely contain new limitations not included in the 1.0a, it is indeed history repeating itself like with the 4e GSL, but under a new "1.1 OGL" name. Different name, same intention. History repeats itself.

I agree that until we see the final draft it is speculative, but history has already repeated itself twice already (wotc revoking the d20 STL & the 4e GSL license), do we need a third time to see what happens next?

You are actually avoiding my comment with this line of reasoning. I was using the D20 STL as a clear example of a limited trademark, with the concept of limited being that once revoked it can't be used anymore as part of any license. If using the new 1.1 OGL requires a trademarked badge, then...

aha, ninja'd

That was after 2003, closer to 2005-06 during the "rise of the retroclones" era.

I'm just on page 214 of the PDF and Carys J. Craig has some interesting thoughts on the OGL and open licenses in general.

How does that have any relevance to what I said? I'm genuinely confused.

Thanks for taking a comment out of context and posting the literal explanation of how expiration dates work. I guess I have to now reword my explanation to avoid the term expiration to get my point across? Yes, its not literally an expiration date. However, every trademark provided by wotc in...

I have pointed this out twice already... The creators badge is a direct callback to the d20 STL, which was trademarked by wotc, and then later revoked. That means that whatever you publish under the 1.1 ogl has an expiration date, while anything published under the 1.0a ogl can remain in the...

Thank you for pointing that out, I will edit the OP to say "same or similar" to clear up any confusion.

So I have seen this pop up in a few places, and if you look at the new dragonlance cover on google, it has the phrase in all caps and with a TM at the end at the bottom of the cover. I don't really have an opinion on it, since you can just claim "5e compatible" or simply put "5e" on your book...