Search results

OGL was not made and presented as a way to use and create D&D material. It was presented as a GPL like license tailored for tabletop RPGs. There went significant lawyer resources into trying to ensure it was as good a fit to the needs of the tabletop rpg community in general as possible. Hence...

Clever way to get those that went during dndbegone back..

In D&D3 skill could indeed make a character superior. In 4e level could make a character superior. In 5ed both are heavily watered down due to bound accuracy. My assessment that stat is less important than some might think still stands in either case.

Let us do some math, shall we? The assertment that dump succeed while skilled succeed is less than 20% is true if we look at only a single check situation over very many rolls. The actual chance is just over 11% (0.25*0.45). However the proposition that it might happen 1 in 5 times might still...

I think the dust settled on GPL being more "free", while BSD being more "open"? But this put the GPL at a disadvantage, as it struggle to explain its benefit over BSD without including a multi page essay on how "free" do not mean "free beer" but "freed slave". :/

Actually, most derived OGC is OGC per default, as most of it is what is described as "game mechanics". Per 1.0a section 1(d) this is per default OGC. The way that maybe might prevent such from being ogc is to argue they embody product identity. And thus is the beauty of it! While it might not...

A single license do not need to mean homogenization in terms of content. OGL did draw a bit in that direction, as D20 got a solid head start with it. But it still had room for wildly different systems like fate and traveler. If ORC is good enough that several publishers are willing to put their...

Let me explain a bit better my background for encouraging the use of a single license: OGL1.0a managed something GPL aspired to, but didn't manage. It became a share alike licence dominating commercial creation for an entire industry. As a software developer, and RPG entusiast, it is striking...

Ouch! I was thinking that B would only have to read and adhere to the PI declaration made by A for this case. But I realise now what sort of giant loophole that would have been. So I guess in order to safely use OGC from sources with several entries in section 15, you would need to read adhere...

I think it really depends on the shape of the rerelease. If it is mainly as a full quality vtt experience, I think grooming of powers as mentioned would be the main thing to go for. Many of the other suggestions i see here seem to adress pains that a good VTT would effectively eliminate trough...

Still, if you are only using the non-WotC OGC, you wouldnt be bound by the PI declaration of the PI declaration of the OGL SRD anyway? (So indeed you might not even need CC at all, as the PI words typically are not registered trademarks as far as I know? But now we enter shaky ground with regard...

But if you are using CC you would also have to include the CC atribution. And if you are having to include the CC atribution anyway, it is unclear why you would like to use the OGL version of the SRD at all?

So you were the one giving them this idea!? (Hopefully) joke asside, I want to point out that they haven't actually clarified their legal position at all. They have only made a statement about "no longer authorized" - a statement that as far as I understand is basically void of well established...

Of course it is going to be tricky to use other's 1.0a content exclusively under ORC, as that is actively prohibited trough the 1.0a terms? Dual licenced content like the 5.1SRD is possible to work with, but the wast majority of legacy 1.0a content is effectively stuck there, with CC not really...

I think another thing OGL/ORC provide that CC doesn't is a very easy to use template for how to attribute work from multiple sources. I think there will be at least a period with a lot of confusion among anyone trying to use the CC version of the 5.1SRD regarding how to provide proper...

My understanding is if you modify or expand on the work, creating a derivative work - then share alike require you to license out that derivative work. Without SA, you can publish the changed work without licensing it out. It might be a bit confusing, as certain schemes also require share alike...

Poor Q4 performance on areas unrelated to WotC, causing them to lay of 15% of their workforce. The stock fall coincides neatly with that news breaking. OGL was likely irrelevant for that particular fall.

I have read extensively what the lawyers discussed here. The argument I saw for section 9 not applying to the 1.2 draft was that there are legalese as to what can constitute a new "version" in legal terms, and 1.2 was obviously so completely different that it wouldn't satisfy those criterions...

They did the following with hardly any time to prepare: They did everything they could do really fast to ensure 1.0a is now safe to use. Making a 1.0b might actually be quite a bit more work than just adding an "irrevokable" into the mix. A lot have happened in the last 20 years that make the...

Yes, I suspect using OGL1.0a going forward is still going to be more convinient than using CC. OGL is after all tailored to be convinient for our kind of use- which CC is not. However the CC is still highly significant. That means that wizards will be unable to stop any serious competition by...