Search results

No, you cannot mingle them. I wish you could, but there's no legal way to do that. If you use another publisher's OGL content, you cannot publish it under ORC. Same if you use another publisher's ORC content, you cannot publish it under the OGL. As a downstream publisher, the licenses are...

As others have said, other publishers not using the CC-BY 5e license has no impact whatsoever on WotC's bottom line. However, I think you might be saying something more like lack of use of WotC's CC-BY content is an indirect barometer for how robust the third party market is which is an indirect...

Correct. They just have to VERY careful about what sources they use if they are reusing content. For example, I’m planning on releasing multiple versions of the stuff I’m working on for different licenses & games. But I need to triple check not to mingle OGL and ORC content. If it’s a standalone...

Exactly! Not sure what kind of world it is where a company in a small industry like this can make well over a million dollars in a single day with name recognition alone is an example of "amazingly bad" marketing??!! Plenty of companies wish their own marketing was that bad! :ROFLMAO:

True, although to be honest, even if it was Renegade Studio’s idea, the law firm won’t be hurt by it at all, and likely got more than the usual number of billable hours out of it! After all, it's not like their reputation has taken a hit here, just Renegade Game Studios'.

I hope any lawyers who advised you that this was legally necessary charged discount rates. This is actually somehow even more nonsensical than the previously assumed reasoning and I'd hate to think you paid full price for that legal advice! :ROFLMAO:

Also add in the fact that looking at their product catalog, they have exactly ZERO products with the word "Renegade" in the title. In fact, the only time that word ever appears on a product is only tiny in the corner and always as part of the Renegade Game Studios logo. (As if the evidence...

Wait, are you saying that the guy whose biggest political donors just happened to be several people with names one letter different from his might have some questionable business dealings??? 😂

Oh, exactly, I agree! But with OGL usage in practice, even 23 years ago, you need the OGC declaration to understand what is open. You could never just check the PI declaration (which is actually optional) and then presume about the rest. That was never accepted industry practice even back in the...

But to know what's open, you also need the OGC declaration: So the entire thing except for the World-Building chapter, and stuff outside statblocks of the Friends & Foes chapter. But it's still evidence to what you said, back in the day, games were (generally) far more open, and it does seem...

I'll just note that seeing several publishers and content creators very angrily calling out WotC during the OGL Fiasco and changing their avatars to "Open DnD" while simultaneously opening up little to none of their own content by using highly restrictive OGC declarations that back in the 3.x...

Yep! I agree 100%, and the ORC FAQ even explicitly mentions that as one of the motivations now. Unfortunately, when some people want to debate on the internet, it doesn't matter whether it's a silly argument to make or not. ;)Sometimes it seems the only "win" they are interested in is drowning...

I think the biggest improvements are in the AxE (FAQ), and overall I'm certainly happy with both and very excited for them to be official soon! There was a vocal minority in the ORC Discord that were pushing to have the viral aspects of the license removed, but I'm very glad Azora and Paizo...

Plus it is far more than just a simple matter of excessive load. Load is the easiest thing to account for, even if it isn't always feasible/worthwhile to manage. Vastly expanding the number of users is also more ways they will try to use it, more people with a wider variety of ideas pushing it...

Exactly! As a programmer, opening a completely new system built entirely in-house that is unlike anything you have built before and then allowing others to add content to it via a marketplace by first opening it up to literally everyone and anyone all at once is very, very much not the "safer"...

Plus doing that on Kickstarter rather than DMs Guild, especially with a tagline like that, is really asking for a nastygram from WotC.

Citation?

Funny how reading the document helps answer some questions. :ROFLMAO:

Possibly, but it's also been that way for 9 years with 5e. Current PHB has always had the Attack action allowing you to make an attack. They are also consistent in being "Attack action" as a whole phrase, not just "Attack" and "attack." I just mentioned the capitalization to make it clearer. But...

The equip/unequip is only part of the Attack action (capital 'A' since it's the name of an action). The Light property allows you to make one extra attack (small 'a'), not an extra Attack action. So the bonus action attack does not include the free equip/unequip no more than it includes the...