Other folks did.I didn't say anything about word count?
Other folks did.I didn't say anything about word count?
Chapter 3: DMs Toolbox, is really the equivalent but it's much more expanded on it's topics since it's giving advice, not rules. There is the lore glossary though..I was very surprised to find that there was no equivalent section in the DMG.
Yeah. To my mind that is a big waste of DMG space, but I also understand that WotC is really leaning into their "multiverse" with this version of the game.Chapter 3: DMs Toolbox, is really the equivalent but it's much more expanded on it's topics since it's giving advice, not rules. There is the lore glossary though..
Considering the 5e rules are in the CC for all to use, I guess they feel that they need to lean heavier on their IP. Hence the push to codify more heros, villains and settings. Anyone can make a 5e clone, no one but WotC can make Dragonlance.Yeah. To my mind that is a big waste of DMG space, but I also understand that WotC is really leaning into their "multiverse" with this version of the game.
Weeelll, people can still make Dragonlance and the like in DM's Guild. WotC gets part of that money, but it isn't exclusive so "IPing up" seems a bit silly if they're just going to throw the playground doors open up to everyone anyway.Considering the 5e rules are in the CC for all to use, I guess they feel that they need to lean heavier on their IP. Hence the push to codify more heros, villains and settings. Anyone can make a 5e clone, no one but WotC can make Dragonlance.
Without getting into a long winded and thread derailing tangent, I think DMs Guild is far more what WotC would have liked the OGL to be (play with our toys, but we have final say on them) than what OGL became. But the genie is out of the bottle now so WotC is leveraging what it still can.Weeelll, people can still make Dragonlance and the like in DM's Guild. WotC gets part of that money, but it isn't exclusive so "IPing up" seems a bit silly if they're just going to throw the playground doors open up to everyone anyway.
I don't think so. the architects of the OGL were pretty up front about what they wanted out of it: for other people to shoulder the cost of the lower selling supplements and adventures to provide a major source of support for D&D that WotC benefits from but doesn't have to pay for.Without getting into a long winded and thread derailing tangent, I think DMs Guild is far more what WotC would have liked the OGL to be (play with our toys, but we have final say on them) than what OGL became. But the genie is out of the bottle now so WotC is leveraging what it still can.
Yeah, I don't think they expected that they would make Pathfinder or Tales of the Valiant.I don't think so. the architects of the OGL were pretty up front about what they wanted out of it: for other people to shoulder the cost of the lower selling supplements and adventures to provide a major source of support for D&D that WotC benefits from but doesn't have to pay for.
Interviews with Dancey suggest he considered it and did not care (that's why the d20 License existed) but he was also out long before Pathfinder made it a real thing. In either case, I think you are right about DMsGuild being similar in the support way but providing WotC more control. I legitimately wonder who came up with DMsGuild. It was a smart move and many other companies have followed suit.Yeah, I don't think they expected that they would make Pathfinder or Tales of the Valiant.
Anyway, not going to rehash that argument.