Search results

No sessions until new year.

Normally I would be right with you, being all in on de gustibus as I am. But in this case I cannot really get behind "a mechanic should do what it is designed to do" as being a matter of opinion.

I wondered if they meant that, but don't they refer to trademarks, which is a no-no under the OGL? They obviously know exactly how much everyone who using DMsGuild is making from it, but since DMsGuild and the OGL are incompatible, none of that can be "OGL-related revenue". The latter could be...

Actually, since there is no current requirement for them to report their OGL-related revenue, I wonder how WotC knows that. Maybe the behind-the-scenes negotiation have been going on longer than we realise?

I think you did say that, and it may well have been what was meant at the time. But that does not mean the vulnerability is not there, even if accidentally. This OTOH, I fully agree with.

Yes, I know you do not think there is anything to worry about. But I do, and as much as I hope that you are right and I am wrong, I am usually only wrong when I don't want to be.... :( The question is, "authorized" for what? 1.0 and 1.0A can (and indeed must) remain "authorized" for things...

That's almost what I was saying, except it is not "no longer". Since an SRD that has not been written yet has by definition not been released under any version of the licence, its authorization status is currently undefined. If my fears are grounded (and to be clear, I am not saying they are -...

I do not think there is any case to be made that OGL 1.0A was not the "authorized version" for any content released under it. The only concern in my mind is about future content (not so much even for 5.5, but 6e and beyond could be increasingly more different).

I really hope you're right, but I still have my doubts. If "authorized" does not mean what I think it means, then what does it mean? Why is it there in the first place? Nobody is talking about anything being "de-authorized". That is clearly impossible. This is about the 1D&D SRD which has not...

Well, "not at all" seemed to work for 1.0A. Exactly. The licence that has to be "authorised" is the one you want to publish under. Far from alleviating my concern, that is the source of it.

I did not say it was "awful". I did not even say it was unexpected. I just said it was shaping up to be a new edition, because it is. Just like 2e was and just like 3.5 was.

OK, to be fair I forgot about aarokokra and bullywugs. OTOH, I would not count wemic any more than I would count the actual centaurs, and minotaurs I suppose should technically count but they are not what people normally mean when they say "furries" either. But even if you count all three, that...

100% backwards compatible? No. At least as backwards compatible as 2024 from 2014 is shaping up to be? Plenty of precedent: Definitely 1e => 2e and 3e => 3.5, probably B/X = > BECMI, although I am less familiar with those last two. Designers say one thing and do another all the time. EDIT...

I am not @darjr, but for me the revenue reporting requirement seem unnecessarily intrusive. Not to mention, un-open. Or you have a product idea that can only be done on DMsGuild. IANAL, but I fear the word "authorized" is doing some heavy lifting in the existing s.9. Possibly 1.1 could include...

Me, for example. I am frankly rather baffled how anyone is looking at the playtest packets and not seeing an edition change. While the extent to which they screwed up the marketing is often overstated (see all the complaints about non-existent insulting videos), I certainly agree it could have...

The Complete Book of Humanoids was goblins and orcs and giants, not furries (I guess gnolls count, and one or two more if you include scalies, but it is very much not the focus of the book). I also never quite understood the point of level limits. Either you hit them and the character rapidly...

Then stop misrepresenting it. They did not use the word "promise", but they did talk in unequivocal terms about what you "will" be able to do. Not "might be able", not "we hope", not "we aim". "You will". I cannot show you the articles in question, because WotC purged them from their site years...

Was that his take on the classes that weren't in PHB1 (like Druid)? If so, how was it? I was always curious about that, but I never managed to track it down. (I wonder if @Mouseferatu himself is still getting notifications.)

No it wasn't. It was many statements in many articles over several months, at least some of which were pretty unequivocal.

Yes, edition warring. You were pushing the edition-warrior lie of 4e being a financial failure, when in fact it was stupendously successful by any standard other than "Hasbro Core Brand". I cannot read your mind as to your motivations for doing that, so if you quack like a duck I am going to...