Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 4842616" data-attributes="member: 48135"><p>But the article claims this:</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p><em>Edit</em>: 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fifth Element, post: 4842616, member: 48135"] 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. 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". [I]Edit[/I]: 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars
Top