Search results

They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it...

Not without reciprocity. Them never having done it under the terms of the old OGL are not really evidence that they will not do it under differemt, much more favourable terms. Directly? Not at all. DMsGuild uses its own separate licence. OTOH, if I were a DMsGuild publisher I would be a little...

Probably moot now, given the recent leak which (if accurate) is even worse than either of us were envisaging. But for the record my logic was thus: If under 1.0 you could mention registered trademarks and 1.0A changed that (rather than merely clarifying it for readability purposes), then it...

I think it is correct, obviously. And flat out telling me I am wrong does not get more persuasive with repetition. The article does not say what you say it says. The symbols are different, but the article you link does not say that registered trademarks are not trademarks. One is clearly a...

Which, if true, proves my point. Calendar year != tax year. Nothing prevents you creating a new licence. But you cannot use that new licence to release (other people's) OGC, because that would be adding restrictions (or removing them, which you cannot do either). It neither added nor removed...

There is a comparison in one of the threads: AIUI, they tweaked the wording on a couple of things, but there is no practicable difference.

Yes of course, but you collate that information in a way required for taxation. And again, separately, in the way that is required for OGL 1.1. Which is based on a subset of income which, despite your protestation to the contrary, is not a subset that you need to care about for any other purpose...

The OP is possibly wrong about why OGL 1.0A and OGL 1.1 are potentially incompatible, but they are not wrong about the incompatibility (section 2 says you may not add extra restrictions and releasing it under OGL 1.1 would be adding extra restrictions). IANAL, TINLA. Can we have a moratorium on...

Sorry for the wall of quotes, but the thread exploded since last time I looked in. Reminds me of rules debates in the early 2000s. For me, it is feeling a lot like they are trying to combine the worst features of the 3.0 => 3.5 transition and the 3.5 => 4e transition. Absolutely not. The time...

I consider this to be a good thing. Public Organised Play stress tests any system, so if it can run smoothly for that, it should be even smoother in a typical home game. For simple monsters, it is pretty much going to be a choice of moving and attacking in various combinations (maybe raising a...

Besides, everybody knows only a 1952 Vincent Black Lightning has a soul.... :D

Emphasis mine. I asked a (highly rhetorical) question. You answered in the affirmative. I asked you to clarify. You said you had not said yes, and then immediately quoted yourself saying "yes". I am now very confused. That much is certainly true.

I am pretty sure both @Ruin Explorer and I know what Basic had. The question was about what OD&D had. I maintain it did not have race-as-class (although it had some features that may have inspired that direction), and I was querying whether it had level limits

No, I was very specifically not saying that. I am saying people's motivations are complex. I am saying that people's understanding of their own motivations are often flawed. I am saying that people emphasise different aspects of their motivations to different audiences. I am saying that even if...

I should have said "originally talking about it"; edited. Nonetheless, people's reasons for doing things are complex and often poorly understood by even the people themselves, so I would not be too quick to take anyone statements on the matter entirely at face value. Particularly in the case of...

When Ryan Dancey was EDIT: originally talking about the OGL he was speaking as a corporate officer, so we must assume his statements included a certain amount of spin.

AIUI (and bear in mind that OD&D came out two years before I was born), elves had a weird thing where they could be decide to be a Magic-user or a Fighting Man on an adventure-by-adventure basis, which was obviously the inspiration as the Basic branch's Elf class but was not the same thing as...

Yeah, but race-as-class was an innovation of the Basic branch; it wasn't in OD&D either.

You guys level up fast!

Are you saying OD&D did not have level limits? Interesting! I always assumed they were there from the start. As for why 2e did not get rid of level limits, it reminds me a bit of random ability scores. From the start, I hated the possibility of rolling crappy ability scores and being stuck with...