Search results

If we have to have obsenity rules, my opinion is that it's an elected board of 3PPs and they have the power to hold WotC to the exact same standards as everyone else.

Yeah. I think 3PPs need some rather important clarifications on where this leaves them. The most important question seems to be - Is it still possible to reuse 1.0a content from another publisher without requiring that publisher to issue a 1.2 license. If so, how? We can't use 1.2 because...

Concensus on this seems mixed so far. Pretty much everyone was agreed they cannot do that for existing uses, and they are not trying to so that's fine. They almost certainly have the right to prevent anyone entering into new OGL 1.0a license arrangements with themselves by just pulling their...

Depends on what your project is. If you're writing your own game in a setting that isn't D&D-ish, that's not a problem, you wouldn't want those things anyway, and can use the CC version. Works perfectly for something such as Fria Ligan's LotR RPG or the 5e-compatible "Doctors and Daleks" by C7.

I would say that legally there is absolutely no problem with that. I still want to see it in writing from WotC that they understand that.

As long as WotC understand 3PPs may still used their de-authorized 1.0a between one another for their own contributions, that's fine. My question is whether they do ;)

Well. If 1.0a is deauthorized*, and I want to use a spell from a 1.0a-licensed 3PP in my own product, I cannot actually do that under 1.2. * As I've mentioned above, I dont think their deauthorization can legally prevent two other parties using 1.0a between themselves, but the new system...

Oh, GOOD catch. This makes it even more important we get a clarification on whether OGL 1.0a can still be used between 3PPs, and is unaffected by WotC's deauthorization of it. Otherwise it's just pulled up the drawbridge for anyone wanting to use content from a 3PP work licensed under 1.0a...

Indeed, the CC part is the most surprising of the lot, given that it really does come with zero obligations beyond attribution and making a copy of the original work available to your audience. You don't even have to open anything of your own work through CC to use it.

Most likely nowadays, the word "owlbear" makes people think of Moonkin from World of Warcraft before they think of D&D ;)

Depends what you're making. If you're making a VTT with the SRD integrated and want to have animated spells or animated characters+monsters, then this license will kill your project. (Thankfully, I am not doing that, but I can imagine someone is). See my earlier post for suggestions how to...

The way I tend to differenate myself: That's 100% of the D&D rules, and 0% of the D&D data. Which is perfect for anyone who wants to write a D&D-alike but for their own setting.

Important distinction here on the Creative Commons licence they've chosen. They did not pick the ShareAlike variant, which means the license is not viral. Your work can include the core rules under the CC license, but does not also become CC-licensed as a result. You do have to add attribution...

The 3e SRD was under OGL 1.0a, which states any authorized version of the OGL can be used. I'd take that as a clear sign we can take any 1.0a content (including the earlier SRDs) and re-release it under 1.2 (possibly with adjustments made to fit 1.2's extra requirements) I do see some problems...

And this is where we get into interesting loopholes used in many cases of someone wanting to publish an application with an open-source component. If your VTT is licensed under the OGL/VTT license from WotC, then correct, they appear to be clamping down on the stuff that makes it "video-gamey"...

That appears to be what they're saying. Legally, I don't think they can actually stop third parties from offering 1.0a licenses, they can just stop offering them themselves. So, if everyone starts using the Mongoose pocket handbooks under 1.0a...

OGL 1.1! No, wait, it's going to be OGL 2.0! No, wait, OGL 1.2! Most notably: While the open licensing of their mechanics and various clarifications are welcome, the big worry here is still the "de-authorization" of 1.0a. In fact, stating this while also stating existing content licensed...

Yeah. Still, while they couldn't lose the mechanics for failure to protect, they could still end up with the terror of a ruling making it clear to the world that they don't actually own anything other than the specific text expression.

This idea kinda reminds me of the huge company Valve have become on account of owning and controlling the storefront, rather than from producing a dozen AAA games a year.

All this talk of D&D and the SRD being used to make movies just reminds me how distant from any existing property all the "D&D" movies have been so far. So what makes something a "D&D" movie anyway? Literally only the "D&D" brand on it, the rest is all just generic fantasy 101. "D&D" really...