Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sledge" data-source="post: 2812332" data-attributes="member: 9324">I too like to see open content in my books.  I especially dislike the crippled OGC from the original definition.  However I'm just assuming here that Wulf is not being deliberately trouble making.  After all he said, "I've conceded it ain't great, so you won't offend me."  So if even one of the perpetrators thinks it isn't working then we have a real problem.  Did Monte Cook clear improve his declarations for the compiled eldritch book?Anyways I think the crippling techniques are going backwards here.  They are preventing any good usage in other products.  The most important things to declare as absolutely open are the names of things.  Then people can expand upon and support your products without having to restate EVERYTHING.  Anyone that wants to find out more details than are absolutely necessary for the product need only check the section 15 to see the sources.Don't look at the OGL as your enemy, it is your friend.  To cripple content in order to prevent people from directly quoting your product, while you do the same from other products is quite hypocritical.So Wulf was your intent to truly make people work to use what you have "derived" without that same type of work being necessary?(BTW with regard to the initial mass release and very rapid reissuing in a couple of compilations, I've carefully examined many of these and gotten very few because much of these products were ugly garbage.  There is not much of this going on anymore, and I am unaware of any successful direct rupublishing of content outside of the Pocket Player's Handbook types.  Am I missing something here, or is this "danger" a paper tiger?)</blockquote>

Verification