Why do people think these are mutually exclusive?I don't think they opened up DNDB as an act of good faith, I think they probably get royalties for anything sold on their site.
Why do people think these are mutually exclusive?I don't think they opened up DNDB as an act of good faith, I think they probably get royalties for anything sold on their site.
I'm going on three editions that I haven't bought. It's like leaving behind Velveeta and cheddar after discovering that there are different kinds of cheese - all better than what you used to eat.I have never NOT owned a copy of the current edition of D&D, and I played/ran all of them except OD&D (though 4E was admittedly brief).
Yeah they have. They did us the favor of not releasing a "new edition." Oh, and they're giving us male medusae. Thanks, WotC.I am also still mad that WotC has not released the 3.5 SRD into CC, and about the OGL debacle in general. But they have also done some things as shows of good faith . . .
Or, you're willing to pay more to keep your favorite FLGS or smaller online RPG retailer in business. (I recognize that many can't afford to do that, including my past selves. And that not everyone has a FLGS, or even an LGS...)If you’re paying full MSRP for a used product, you’re getting ripped off.
It's not irrelevant; I'll refer you to the point I raised before:But if the 5.2 SRD is complete, it is irrelevant because then both the 5.1 SRD and the 5.2 SRD are both in CC and anything compatible with either can just use CC.
If anyone out there wants to back-convert the 2024 materials to an OGL system (and yes, there are products out there which do this for extant 5E OGL materials), then you need them under the OGL.
Is that a niche case? Absolutely. But niche cases are the hallmark of the proverbial "little guy," the small-press third-party publishers contributing to an OGL ecosystem which now has nearly a quarter-century's worth of additions that anyone can use.
Sure, that’s a different storyOr, you're willing to pay more to keep your favorite FLGS or smaller online RPG retailer in business. (I recognize that many can't afford to do that, including my past selves. And that not everyone has a FLGS, or even an LGS...)
no one ever disagreed with thatAnd my point is that if you can only use it in your product by utilizing two different licenses simultaneously, that's more trouble for the publisher than it would be for WotC to just release it under the OGL also.
What do you consider good faith here? WotC gets a royalty, they control the platform, they control what gets added to it. If there is any faith here it is on the side of the 3ppsWhy do people think these are mutually exclusive?
Well clearly that's not true.no one ever disagreed with that
I have never NOT owned a copy of the current edition of D&D, and I played/ran all of them except OD&D (though 4E was admittedly brief).
I am also still mad that WotC has not released the 3.5 SRD into CC, and about the OGL debacle in general. But they have also done some things as shows of good faith, particularly opening up Beyond to 3rd parties and making 2024 available to other VTTs (which legitimately surprised me).
I am teetering on the fence whether to break my "no money for WotC" rule and getting the 2024 core book.
Help push me to one side or the other, please.