Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4200739" data-attributes="member: 8461">But if the title is different, and the listed product line is different, calling the book &quot;itself&quot; doesn't really apply now does it? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Why should the fact that they're lighter than anticipated mean that restrictions should be happily accepted? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />I'm personally very happy that WotC killed the &quot;poison pill&quot; clause. That said, I consider Open Gaming to be something to aspire to, and so far, the OGL is the best representation we've seen of that. The GSL is, in that regard, still a step backwards - it's just now a small step instead of a giant leap (and yes, I know the GSL has provisions that the OGL doesn't, such as using &quot;mind flayer&quot; and &quot;displacer beast&quot; etc. It's still less Open than the OGL).I completely understand why WotC is doing this. I'm also glad 4E will be as accessible as it is. But this is still a regression from what the gaming community had before, and as such I, personally, want to keep looking for ways of working with the GSL that allow OGL-levels of Openness.As it stands now, from the prospective of Open Gaming, the GSL is better than it could have been. But that doesn't mean it's as good as it could be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 4200739, member: 8461"] But if the title is different, and the listed product line is different, calling the book "itself" doesn't really apply now does it? ;) Why should the fact that they're lighter than anticipated mean that restrictions should be happily accepted? :confused: I'm personally very happy that WotC killed the "poison pill" clause. That said, I consider Open Gaming to be something to aspire to, and so far, the OGL is the best representation we've seen of that. The GSL is, in that regard, still a step backwards - it's just now a small step instead of a giant leap (and yes, I know the GSL has provisions that the OGL doesn't, such as using "mind flayer" and "displacer beast" etc. It's still less Open than the OGL). I completely understand why WotC is doing this. I'm also glad 4E will be as accessible as it is. But this is still a regression from what the gaming community had before, and as such I, personally, want to keep looking for ways of working with the GSL that allow OGL-levels of Openness. As it stands now, from the prospective of Open Gaming, the GSL is better than it could have been. But that doesn't mean it's as good as it could be. [/QUOTE]

Verification