It looks like that is a regularly scheduled stream.So it looks like WoTC were going to stream on Twitch today, but now not until Tuesday. Screenshot from my PC just now:
View attachment 272202
It looks like that is a regularly scheduled stream.So it looks like WoTC were going to stream on Twitch today, but now not until Tuesday. Screenshot from my PC just now:
View attachment 272202
No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.Pretty much everyone disputes (not necessarily repudiates, but disputes) WotC's right to terminate 1.0a, and the only change that is possible is by creating a new version of the OGL, which, according to the OGL 1.0a, doesn't do anything to the OGL 1.0a.
No, that's a classic No True Scotsman logical fallacy of the googlefarbing silliest kind. You're not presenting argument, or even really an opinion, you're just No True Scotsman'ing.No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.
No. People dislike it. But people in the know agree they can legally do this.
Not that this matters, since the OGL was only ever as good as the trust licensors put in the license.
Which today is zero.
Even if WotC completely pulled back, it would not change a thing.No, that's a classic No True Scotsman logical fallacy of the goddamn silliest kind. You're not presenting argument, or even really an opinion, you're just No True Scotsman'ing.
I agree that it's better to be able to plan your exit from the D&D ecosystem than it is to be booted with no warning. But at the end of the day, you're still out. I don't think that's a beneficial position for 3PP. That's why I'd like to see an explicitly irrevocable 1.0b, even if I'm not hopeful.No, being worse of because of OGL 1.1 is because your existing rug is pulled from beneath you with little warning.
Nobody is getting scared away from the millions of fantasy gamers. Just scared away from doing business with WotC.
Yes, it's making the rounds. IIRC, it has been confirmed as authentic. In any case, it does look quite plausible.
I agree fully with this.The value of the OGL was in its ability to make 3PPs trust WotC.
Nobody (nobody that counts anyway)
IIRC, it has been confirmed as authentic.
I mean, with journalists from like actual news sources (which would include Linda Codega), you don't necessarily expect named confirmations of the identities of sources, especially as an identity could be confirmed in a number of ways, and because the new source has some kind of reputation to protect (and lawyers, and so on)If you cannot state who confirmed it, it isn't really confirmed.
I mean, with journalists from like actual news sources (which would include Linda Codega), you don't necessarily expect named confirmations of the identities of sources, especially as an identity could be confirmed in a number of ways, and because the new source has some kind of reputation to protect (and lawyers, and so on)
I would reply, but I fear I have to go to the hospital for the whiplash from this sudden change of direction.It doesn't matter. It's dead now. Not because of any legal argument, because nobody trusts it anymore.
OK, fair enough. I went back and looked. Linda Codega confirmed it, for one.If you cannot state who confirmed it, it isn't really confirmed.
Mod Note:Yet Pathfinder came into existence because WotC chose a similar path to what they're choosing now.
And you still choose to dismiss upcoming games as heartbreakers? You must be just as smart as the bigwigs over at WotC!![]()
I mean, I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't know how you could keep sources confidential and say who confirmed it, especially if they confirmed it with materials/evidence they themselves possessed. What am I not getting?Yes, that's exactly why you need to say who confirmed it. Our confidence in the piece of information lies in our confidence in the news source. Vaguely asserting that someone confirmed it is insufficient.
Even if it feels repetitive - there's a bazillion threads and posts on the general topic, and any particular bit you've seen may have not been noted by someone else.
Might not be the same thing, but I often hear things like "According to sources close to the company who asked to not be identified".I mean, I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't know how you could keep sources confidential and say who confirmed it, especially if they confirmed it with materials/evidence they themselves possessed. What am I not getting?