NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8879929" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, I'm still stupidly far behind on this news, but I'm piecing things together and trying to figure out.... well, the logic here. And I have a thought of maybe something that is threading a needle here. Let's take Grimhollow, a 5e compatible set of books that I own. Revoking the 1.0 OGL cannot get rid of the Grimhollow books currently in print, it cannot stop their sales. It was published under a valid license, and they can't do much about that. Now, in the thread made by the lawyer I think it was, there was an idea floated about derivative works. They were talking about how it would be hard to publish a new Druid Subclass for One D&D, because the subclass is a derivative of the Druid, which is under the new license. But... does that street go both ways? If Ghostfire publishes an adventure book in the One D&D era, as a derivative of their completely legal Grimhollow series... then with or without the license they should be fine, right? They wouldn't be able to make OD&D monsters in the adventure, but they have a full monster book to pull from. And since it is a derivative work, it doesn't need the new license. Now, I'm not a lawyer, this is just some speculation, but I wonder if THAT is the tactic at play here. Less ruining every business that isn't WoTC and more preventing a proliferation of more and more companies specifically copying the work that WoTC is doing. I could be wildly off base, but that tactic makes more sense to me than nuking every most of the major players in the RPG scene.</blockquote>

Verification