Search results

To be fair, that’s just the copyright process. Lots of stuff gets copyrighted.

The lesson here is that licenses shouldn’t be static. If there isn’t a neutral owner with both the funding and the desire to update them to reflect new case law and precedent, there’s some degree of risk. This holds true whether or not a court would rule that WotC can deauthorize the OGL 1.0a...

You’d probably want to negotiate a standalone license with WotC in cases like that.

I am not a lawyer but I would certainly recommend holding off on your Kickstarter until the license is actually out and possibly consulting a lawyer at that point. Right now there's just a ton of speculation, some of it more informed than the rest.

Minor note: they added CC BY in 2013, but as of right now their SRDs are still dual-licensed.

Edit: misread the thread, sorry!

I hadn’t heard that the prospective OGL 1.1 requires approval, but otherwise yes. None of the Savage Worlds licenses are open by the generally accepted definitions.

PbtA is not generically under any version of Creative Commons. Vincent and Meg, creators of Apocalypse World (the first PbtA game), have encouraged people to make games inspired by theirs because they know mechanics can’t be copyrighted. Their formal statement is here. Several PbtA games do...

The CC licenses are explicitly irrevocable as of at least version 4 (see section 2.a.1 of the CC-BY license, for example). So is the GPL 3. I don’t have an informed opinion on the legal debate but I have always wished Dancey and/or the lawyers involved were better at this. It’s also just good...

I let my computer tell me the differences between the 1.0 Morrus posted and the 1.0a on the OGF site. The only difference it found was in the Grant and Consideration section: royaltyfree changed to royalty-free. So I would say that's a fairly insignificant difference.

You are 100% correct -- I was just doing a compare of the two versions (thanks, Morrus) and I noticed the same thing. I'd be interested in putting a small bet down on WotC deciding that the new license will be completely new, and not just a new version.

We can't know for sure until the final version is published, but based on this I would certainly assume that One D&D will only be licensed under OGL v1.1. This is a normal kind of practice; if you look around in the world of Creative Commons you'll see material licensed under specific versions...

Swords of the Serpentine: currently in pre-order, but actually shipping in 2022. The Paragon Blade. Yeah, two GUMSHOE fantasy games, I was dubious too. But they play differently!

I've played in games with PCs with conflicted sexuality. At least one of them, a male player was playing a male PC who had a covert crush on my male PC, and I'm a guy. No big deal. It's just another potential interesting roleplaying aspect.

That's how the Well World worked, actually. There were teleport nexii scattered on Markovian colony worlds all over the place, and if you got too close you got sucked down to the Well World. Not as random as the Well of Many Worlds, but pretty similar. Hard to say if there was inspiration there...

Cool cool. I'm patient.

Any way to copy and paste cards?

Black Diamond Games reports that they simply can't get a lot of 4e titles any more, here: Quest for Fun!: Inflection Point I don't completely buy his alarmism and I think his point about Paizo is well-made, but it is definitely a contrast to the 3e days. Perhaps keeping everything in print...

Heh. I find it tempting to provoke OAs when I have someone dominated, as player or as GM, but I also find it possible to resist. My general feeling is that charop tends to make the game break down, since the game isn't designed for optimizers. This doesn't make optimizers bad people, it's just...

There's an RSS feed of all new articles here: Wizards.com - Dungeons & Dragons It seems to be very reliable.