UngeheuerLich
Legend
That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.
No. But it takes the wind of the sails of those who hyperbole that now OneD&D won't be compatible to 5e anymore.
That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.
I mean, on the one had I'll take them at their word that it's a coding error. The "Settings ever published by Wizards/TSR" field crossed with the "Settings Wizards allows third parties to publish for on DM's Guild" in a bad way.It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:
Cool. Thanks. As noted, not all of those are WotC IP so that makes it a bit...awkward.It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:
I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more openI'm glad the ORC is still in development for folks that want to support open gaming and the OGC ecosystem.
I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open
Never claimed it would be more open, just better for parsing out open and closed material. Very few people designated their entire product as OGC.I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open
So you're saying that people can cook the books?But that's not on WoTC. Nor is it a feature of the OGL- after all, they don't have to put any of the remix in the OGC, do they? They can just, um, Monte Cook it.
Why would they do that, though? There's no point as it wouldn't accomplish any of what they were trying to accomplish when this fiasco started.If that's all they cared about, they could have released 5.1 to the CC and still tried to de-auth the 1.0a. The ability to use the 5.1 SRD would be unaffected.
There's a lack of trust that Wizards isn't going to mess with the rest of the tabletop market just because they can.Why would they do that, though? There's no point as it wouldn't accomplish any of what they were trying to accomplish when this fiasco started.
There is no point. I'm just saying that the status of the 5.1 can't be the only thing that matters to WotC, as has been claimed above.Why would they do that, though? There's no point as it wouldn't accomplish any of what they were trying to accomplish when this fiasco started.
What mattered to WotC was control over 5e content and release(minor) and control over VTT(major). They lost both of those things with the release of SRD 5.1 into CC. They don't care about editions before 5e.There is no point. I'm just saying that the status of the 5.1 can't be the only thing that matters to WotC, as has been claimed above.
Ralishaz laughing around the corner…From your mouth to Beory's ears!
I agree with Snarf that the 50th anniversary would be the perfect time to release Greyhawk 5e (they teased us a bit with Ghosts of Saltmarch)... As for those of us that are creatives in the very active Greyhawk fan community there is a split with those that would use DM's Guild just so something official and updated would be published. Others will continue to publish for profit with the serial numbers filed off. And yet another group is going to continue to use the D&D fan policy to publish things that are not for profit.I mean, as soon as your predicted 50th anniversary Greyhawk release happens it'll happen
(I'm curious to see if Greyhawk would get a massive uptake on DM's Guild or if the intersection of "folks who want to publish Greyhawk stuff" and "folks who want to publish for 5e" is too small to make a large impact).
To be sure, there is a quite a lot of material that appears in the 3.5e SRD, and does appear in 5e but not in the 5e SRD.What mattered to WotC was control over 5e content and release(minor) and control over VTT(major). They lost both of those things with the release of SRD 5.1 into CC. They don't care about editions before 5e.
You are using a different definition of open than I am and calling yourself right. It's tiresome.....because it's true.
It's (CC BY) is the most open CC they have, and it's the best one that they could use.
And PI is defined and pointedly does not include game mechanics in it's definition.. The way that maybe might prevent such from being ogc is to argue they embody product identity.
CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open
You are using a different definition of open than I am and calling yourself right. It's tiresome.
The OGL doesn't either. Does it? I didn't think there was a requirement.CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.
As much as I think that would be fair, OGL also did not require it. And I think, there would be a bigger outcry if WotC used a license that would require so. People would have complained, that WotC would force them to give their own content away...CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.