Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3879840" data-attributes="member: 158">When it's ajar? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />One possibility -- the OGL version 2 (or whatever) has some different clauses involving more creative control over products released under it, BUT includes some incentives to use it, such as greater usage of "compatible with D&D" clauses and the like. People could still use the OGL version 1, there's no question there, and any material released under the OGL, no matter the version, can be used with an older version. However, if they want that "compatible" clause, they have to use OGL version 2 (or whatever it's called). It's not the Open Content they have to convince people to use, it's the license version itself, so the license has to be the carrot, not the content released under it.Reason for support of the OGL (as opposed to trying to make a unique 4e OGL) is the same as it has been -- if they don't support it, the possibility strongly exists for people just duplicating the content anyway in a different format, through "forward-engineering" the existing Open Game Content, to be compatible ENOUGH to make stuff usable with 4E, and all that work on content usable only with a separate OGL is wasted, anyway.It's the "free gift with purchase" idea, in a way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I have no clue how it'll pan out, and to be honest, I don't know if the WotC managers do at this stage, either. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But they do have to satisfy both the legal and accounting, as well as the publishers, so I don't envy their positions on that.</blockquote>

Verification