Pics or it didn't happen.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars
- Thread starter roguerouge
- Start date
3e had nipples in the MM?! Man. 3e did have rules for everything.
There's no point revising the OGL, since one of the OGL's terms is "You may use any edition of this license" - the OGL is a beautiful poison pill vs future shenanigans by whoever owns D&D.
AngryMojo
First Post
Last edited:
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
That's right. I'd agree that the OGL is beautiful, but I woudn't characterize it as a poison pill, even versus shenanigans (or tomfoolery).
AngryMojo
First Post
As I said, it wound up being you can only use the d20 logo if you follow the criteria. You can still do whatever the hell you want, and that's how Pathfinder is even being published right now. It just lacks the logo.
roguerouge
First Post
No, it's a serious journal, albeit a very, very new one. I've met Kristina Busse, one of the editors, probably at Slayage. She's got a good head on her shoulders.
I think the symposium is the academic version of the op-ed piece, so perhaps saying "studies" was a bit strong in my title. Note that the word limit is 2500 words, whereas the Theory or Praxis articles can range to 8000.
Fifth Element
Legend
But the article claims this:
Changing the d20 STL, which was not an open license, does not constitute WotC having "attempted to recall the open license." This implies they tried to revoke the OGL, which they didn't. Language in the OGL, which WotC wrote, prevents revocation of the license.Article said:
The OGL and the d20 STL are (were) very different beasts. This section of the article reads as if the author does not know the difference between the OGL and the d20 STL, or at least glossing over the distinction. This is common enough, but certainly hurts your credibility when writing a "serious" article.
As for the article as a whole, it's good for a laugh, if you enjoy that sort of thing. To me, it reads like a "Wot$ is EEEEEVIILLLLLL, 3PPs RULE!" post, but written in a pretentious manner. I find the conclusion in 4.4 that with 4E, WotC may have "created their own competition" rather strange. You could argue that was a result of the OGL in 3E, where publishers published self-contained RPGs using the license, and that's one reason they wanted to move away from that degree of openness. It's also strange considering the admission in the next paragraph that the 3PPs have a "tiny market".
Edit: Wow, paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 read exactly like an anti-4E post on any message board, but once again couched in academic-sounding language (to a degree). It hits on many empty buzzwords.
Last edited:
From what I got from someone I talked to, one of the big reasons for the change was 3PPs taking the 3e rules wholecloth and reprinting them (like Mongoose's pocket player guide). WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."
Fifth Element
Legend
Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.
Similar Threads
