thejeff's page

Organized Play Member. 30,087 posts (31,320 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Organized Play characters. 13 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 30,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm missing something legal here, but the ORC license doesn't really fix the whole problem. It gives creators access to new material published under it, which is definitely good, but it doesn't give access to the WotC SRD material or anything derived from it, which touches a lot of games. WotC killing the OGL 1.0a would still be a huge disruption.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if their supposed evil plan is to do really well because they've got a really great product that appeals to people and they can dominate without interfering with other creators, then I don't really have a problem with that.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trust me, you can absolutely play scenarios outside of PFS no problem. Ask Clinton Boomer about True Dragons of the Third Riddle sometime.

Obviously you can. I said it "might be fun anyway", but I suspect it wouldn't translate into the suggested

"huge boost in play (and sales)". Certainly not as much as if they were official.


Cori Marie wrote:
Arutema wrote:
Alison-Cybe wrote:
I think the 1st edition org play scenarios were popular enough that if a 1st-2nd edition conversion guide were a thing, they would see a huge surge in play (and sales), if such a product were ever released (HINT HINT!)
Call me a curmudgeon if you must, but the point of 2e is to sell new, incompatible products, not give you a new way to play old content you already own.
While it's probably not something Paizo is looking to do directly, it is a very good project for someone to put on Infinite. There are conversion guides for a few 1E APs on there already, scenarios could sell pretty well too if you did the whole metaplot of each season as a thing.

Scenarios would be weird, since you couldn't play unofficial conversions for credit. Might be fun anyway, but it would need to be entirely outside of PFS, which would take away much of the appeal for many people I suspect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cindy Robertson wrote:
After watching what a really horrible person is doing with Star Frontiers and the TSR name, I can completely understand why a company would want a morality clause. No one who wants a successful business wants to be associated with literal Nazis. That's what they are probably trying to address ahead of time.

But that's a matter of trademark ownership and branding, not of anything that would be covered by an OGL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Or we could all just behave.

Don't be absurd.


breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, that is the big fear that everyone has about this 'deauthorization' clause in the draft versions of OGL 2.

But that is also the opposite direction from what I am trying to mention.

I think it is perfectly legally reasonable (though it may still be a socially bad plan) for OGL 2 to have a restriction on not allowing OGL 2 content to be used and distributed in products published under an OGL 1.0a license. So D&D6e can't be used by the community if they don't want to sign up for OGL 2.

That wouldn't affect anything released under OGL 1.0a - the language of that license would still allow people to use 'any version' as it currently does. So people could continue to release PF1 or D&D3.5 content under OGL 1.0a.

It just means that you couldn't create D&D6e add-on products using OGL 1.0a.

And like I mentioned, GPL already does this. GPL 3 is not compatible with GPL 2. And some of the GPL 2 products (most notably the Linux kernel itself) specify that they can only be redistributed under the GPL 2 license - not any later version.

That last part is not something that OGL 1.0a could do because it does allow 'any authorized version' in its language - so it couldn't do the forward license version upgrade prevention that GPL 2 can. If someone wants to create a D&D3.5 module under OGL 2 license, they certainly could do so.

But OGL 2 probably can do the backward license version downgrade prevention that GPL 3 does - and prevent D&D6e modules from being published under OGL 1.0a.

And if that was all they were doing - there would be annoyance, but it wouldn't be an existential threat.

Though I don't think they can go quite that far even. They can prevent you from using the 6e SRD except under the new license, but especially if 6e isn't too different from 5e, that doesn't mean that you won't be able to use the OGL 1.0a 5e SRD to create content that's essentially 6e compatible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.
Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

I'd say it's close, but 5e is way more dependent on the GM's skill. PF2's conditions are exceptionally simple, especially with a VTT or someone (GM or otherwise) with an internet connection to quickly look one up. I haven't memorized most of them, but it's so easy to check AoN that it's no issue.

5e's bad encounter balancing? The expectation that you bust out some improv whenever the PCs go beyond the fairly minimalist system? The lack of any coherent crafting system or guidance for when PCs should get which magic items? Those are a lot more challenging for me.

I think we forget that rules-light doesn't inherently mean "easy". Lined paper is easier to write on than printer paper.

Ah yeah gotcha. I dont use technology at the table and grew up with rulings on the fly, no such thing as RAW. So i guess 5E would be easier for me but not for many.

Depends on what you have more trouble with. Keeping the rules details straight or improvising when things aren't covered.

Different styles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

At least with a morality clause in the license, you know where you stand. With this, every publisher gets to add their own morality clause and have it enforced under ORC terms.

You absolutely know some will use this to ban queer or trans content made with their material. Or to block "wokeness" in general.

So let them. I imagine they will have a tough time hiring creative types and/or persuading people to buy their products if they can get them made. If for some reason they sell really well, that would mean that social attitudes have changed radically from what they are today, and nothing we say today would matter in that hypothetical distant future.

Remember, all anyone had to do to tank sales from the nu-TSR Star Frontiers was post excerpts of its racist portions. The free market did the rest.

The main risk to publishers is having their brands tainted by material published by their licensees, but a big requirement of the OGL and probably the ORC as well is the inability to claim compatibility with the source product in the absence of a secondary license that allows it. The place for a morality clause (preferably one that is clear in intent and that can be modified as social attitudes evolve) is in said secondary license.

Yeah, as long as it's a secondary license tied to compatibility claims/logo/branding or use of product identity, not something tied to the ORC open content, that's cool.

I was reading that as a mechanism in each SRD to add their own restrictions to the actual SRD content, which I would have a problem with.


AceofMoxen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.
Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.
Speaking of Amber, everyone see we might be getting a tv show? A year ago, I would have been discouraged, but after Sandman, I have some hope.

I did see that. Colbert is apparently involved and a fan.


Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.

Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.
Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

'Morality clauses' are commonly attached to trademarks and IPs not included in SRDs, which is a different licence/contract.
So stop panicking, please ;)

That's how I expected it to work, but "there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises" implies otherwise.

Though Leon Aquila could have gotten it wrong, I suppose. Or I could be misreading it.

And I'm not panicking, I'd just hate to see this approach taken in the ORC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

At least with a morality clause in the license, you know where you stand. With this, every publisher gets to add their own morality clause and have it enforced under ORC terms.

You absolutely know some will use this to ban queer or trans content made with their material. Or to block "wokeness" in general.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
PF1 being written in natural language (and thus running into various issues out of that, such as "what action is this???") and PF2 being written in technical/legal language. ("Stride once and Strike twice") is probably the biggest barrier for somebody moving from one to another)

I actually have more problems with PF1 there, since it's written in a mix of natural and legal language, without always being clear about which is being used.

Part of the problem with PF2 though is that legal language, which means you often have to chase through several terms to figure out what something actually does. Until you internalize what the terms mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Frankly, a morality clause could be fine, as long as it's not vague as hell, something that is frequently reviewed/revised and is not intended to be used as a weapon to score points.

Unfortunately they require a lot of trust on the part of the signer/user.

If it can be frequently revised, how does that work with an irrevocable license? If it can be revised, it can be changed to block things we don't want blocked.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
if you have an entire table of newbies can be a bit brutal to learn.
Any game that has more than 500 pages of rules can be a bit brutal to learn.

Even more so if you bring in a mindset from another superficially similar game.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I also like the wording on this better than WotC's. You must make your best effort, so trying and screwing up isn't grounds for termination, intent is important. One example I'm thinking of was some of the concept art for PF2, showing Orcs with very gorilla like features, such as knuckle walking. This was apparently intended to be a way to make PF's style unique, like they did with Goblins and Ogres in Rise of the Runelords and Kobolds in the new edition. But it was brought up that it was kind of getting into Unfortunate Implications territory with all the racial baggage around orcs and the history of depicting other races as more like apes, so was scrapped. So I'd say if that wasn't caught and scrapped, it wouldn't be a violation. It'd be an embarrassment and probably get an apology and ceasing to use the style when it was called out later, but the intent wasn't malicious, so wouldn't result in a license termination.

I also like how instead of making Paizo the sole arbiter of what is offensive, it defines it as what "the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive or inappropriate for minors." Which makes it so it's not as easy to use as a loophole to terminate a company's license unless they actually did intentionally do some awful stuff (like the case with Star Frontiers, which is being used as the justification for this clause).

So I'd hope any morality clause in the ORC would be more like the one in the Pathfinder Compatibility License and not the WotC one. But I'm not sure it really should have a restriction on Adult Content. That's fair to not want associated with the Pathfinder brand, but having an actual open license I think should be open for exploring more mature themes (Paizo of course leaned into this a bit early on). So would probably be more appropriate to be left to the individual companies and their brand licensing.

I think any "adult content" or "morality" questions should be left to specific brand licenses. The ORC should emulate the old OGL in being content neutral - releasing rules elements to be used as anyone sees fit. If you want to use another company's logo or brand your product as "Pathfinder compatible", that's where you need to match their moral standards.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:
I dont understand why you need to play something in order to review it I mean after all hasent James Jacobs himself said these are intended almost as much to be read as to be played? Plus if at the end of the day if something reads so bad you dont want to play it is that not a valid reason for a bad review? (I mean end of the day he has paid money for the product and if a person dosent like it they dont like it.)

Also, if reviews shouldn't be given until it was played, it would likely be months after publication before reviews start trickling in, which makes them not work very well for helping people decide to buy them or not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson from 15 years ago. But they have not. This time it's even worse. They're still trying to put that OGL genie back in the bottle, but it was designed specifically so they couldn't.
I think the lesson they learned was to burn down the previous edition so their rivals couldn't use it to publish their own content and compete for the customer base.

Basically. There's a decent argument that the OGL was a bad business decision in the first place, but the attempts to kill it have been self-destructive.

They'd probably do better by just forgetting it and not having any kind of open licensing for new editions, while not trying to control stuff based on the old SRDs.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah - I expect “compatibility licenses” will still be a thing.

Like you could release things using just the OGL but had to euphemistically refer to “the worlds oldest roleplaying game” - the OGL specifically rules out “compatible with <trademark>” unless you utilise a further, separate license.

Wizards had the d20 license which imposed further restrictions.
Paizo has the Pathfinder Compatibility license.

(I never read it, but I think this was technically what the GSL was for 4th edition - you could still release 4E compatible products using just the OGL, you just couldn’t say that).

You could with 4e, but only because of being able to hack together material from the 3.5 SRD with uncopyrightable rules elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'm quite curious how the ORC's lack of content regulations will interact with Paizo's fairly strict "round down from PG-13" implications (explicitly stated under Pathfinder Infinite, only hinted at with the license). I'm guessing we'll be in Book of Erotic Fantasy territory--works can't be officially licensed under PF, but it can be marketed as "2e compatible" or the like as long as there's no explicit reference to Pathfinder, like how unofficial D&D products brand themselves as "5e-compatible".

Essentially the same place we're in now, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
12Seal wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Hasbro's not selling D&D. They'll mothball it for a few years in the worst case.

And that's only if the movie completely flops. To them, it's an IP more than it's a game.

Well, I mean the modern trend seems to be taking legacy IPs and the utterly destroying them for short-sighted cash grabs and poorly-conceived political and activist agendas that might have been decent if people cared about the product and audience as much as they did their bottom lines and big ideas.

Hatewatching shouldn't be a thing, but it is, and I weep inside for it.

It's off-topic, but most of those "poorly-conceived political and activist agendas" are really just more cash grabs. Corporations don't care. Their political agendas only involve making and keeping more money.

If they're playing to activist agendas you don't like, it's because those agendas are popular and they think they'll get more audience/consumers that way. Same for the ones that seem to be on your side.
(At least for big public corps - like Hasbro. Small private companies can still reflect individual owners personal values as long as it doesn't conflict too much with making money.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Storm Dragon wrote:

I had to go back and reverse-engineer where i got that from. You're correct that it's not in the current OGL, it's part of Paizo's compatibility license.

Quote:

4. Usage Restrictions

The license granted hereunder is expressly limited to use of the Compatibility Logo and Font in printed books, electronic books, and freely available websites that are compatible with Pathfinder Second Edition. Anyone seeking a license for any other use should contact Paizo at licensing@paizo.com.

You may not use the Compatibility Logo or Font in a way that suggests Paizo owns, endorses, or is in any way responsible for any part of your Product, or for any conduct of your business, or that suggests that you have any relationship beyond a mere license with us, unless we have a separate agreement that lets you do so. You also may not state or suggest that we guarantee your Product's compatibility with Pathfinder Second Edition.

The titles of your Products may not include any Paizo trademarked terms (or marks confusingly similar thereto), including "Pathfinder," "Pathfinder Second Edition," or "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."

You may not use Paizo's trade dress for your Products or advertisements—that is, you may not design your Products or advertisements to look confusingly similar to Paizo's products or advertisements.

You may not do anything illegal in or with your Products.

You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.

You may not release any Products under this License until August 1, 2019 (the release date for Pathfinder Second Edition).

Yeah. Very different thing. That's where it belongs, not in an Open content license.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Storm Dragon wrote:

The brouhaha over the morality clause is mostly due to a lack of trust in Wizards to fairly uphold it, given the moves they're currently making. The wording is so vague, and so favored toward Wizards, that it essentially reads "we can remove your material for any reason, at any time, without telling you why, and you can never republish it again...and also you're not allowed to sue us".

Since it's pretty clear that the entire point of this OGL update is to kill their competition, and ensure another Paizo never rises from the ashes of their own mistakes again, why WOULDN'T they abuse that part of the license to stifle competition?

The current OGL, to my knowledge, also has a "morality clause", but it's much more strictly defined to "something which would be deemed unacceptable to the general public", and I would expect the ORC to have the same, with the added bonus that a 3rd party arbitrator will be in charge of enforcing the ORC, which will reduce the chance of people using it for their own self-serving gains.

As far as I can tell it doesn't. It's pretty short and I don't see any such language in it.

Such a clause is appropriate for licensing where you want to use the other party's branding/logos, but for open rules content, I think it's not a good idea. Nothing in such a product really ties it to WotC (or to the ORC group), so I think it's best to be able to disclaim any control over such content than to have to either block it or take responsibility for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hasbro's not selling D&D. They'll mothball it for a few years in the worst case.
And that's only if the movie completely flops. To them, it's an IP more than it's a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Here's an ENworld blog post about the latest(?) WotC/Hasbro position. I think Princessmaker explained it best in comment #7: "It looks like the lawyers took extra care to separate what parts of the SRD would make them lose a court case against the "you can't copyright game mechanics" and they just closed the rest of the SRD."

Yeah that seems to be the case. Stuff like "experience points" are so prevalent across gaming outside of DnD that they couldn't really claim exclusivity, while concepts like Vancian casting are just straight up stolen from pre-existing fantasy literature.

Even then, pretending that things like classes or many of the races and monsters are somehow exclusive DnD ideas is still bs.

The very basic concept of Vancian casting comes from Vance, but the modern D&D spellcasting systems are so loosely derived from that if the name hadn't stuck early on it would be hard to spot the resemblance.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Hassan Izhar wrote:
Critical Role is a popular web series that features a group of voice actors playing the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. The show originally used the 3.5 edition of the rules, but later switched to using the 5th edition of the rules.
Actually, by now, it is a group of actors playing people playing the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. If that's not mostly scripted these days, I'll eat my hat.

Ah yes, the very easy task of writing, memorising and perfectly acting 4 hours of new scripted content weekly.

If it is scripted they aren't just voice actors, they are the greatest thespians in history.

I've watched every episode of Critical Role, Dimension 20 and other actual play shows, and not one I've watched appears scripted.

But it's a pretty great compliment to give improvisers that you feel that way.

Would you like any condiments for your hat?

Not only that, but if it's scripted it's deliberately scripted to be less tight, less dramatic, to include more wasted time and floundering around.
You make it sound as if it's difficult. Throw in time for ad lobbing and it's quite easy.

Not just some ad libbing, but there's plenty of sequences that sound like any party floundering around not knowing where to go next and the GM trying to get them back on track without being obvious.

They're better at doing it all in character than most groups I've played with, but they're not better at making progress.
And that makes it worse as a narrative.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Hassan Izhar wrote:
Critical Role is a popular web series that features a group of voice actors playing the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. The show originally used the 3.5 edition of the rules, but later switched to using the 5th edition of the rules.
Actually, by now, it is a group of actors playing people playing the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. If that's not mostly scripted these days, I'll eat my hat.

Ah yes, the very easy task of writing, memorising and perfectly acting 4 hours of new scripted content weekly.

If it is scripted they aren't just voice actors, they are the greatest thespians in history.

I've watched every episode of Critical Role, Dimension 20 and other actual play shows, and not one I've watched appears scripted.

But it's a pretty great compliment to give improvisers that you feel that way.

Would you like any condiments for your hat?

Not only that, but if it's scripted it's deliberately scripted to be less tight, less dramatic, to include more wasted time and floundering around.

It's certainly a more narrative game style than a lot of people like and I wouldn't be surprised if they talk about aiming for some character/plot points ahead of time, but not much more than that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking a bit more about the morals clause.

Just having it in there puts WotC in more jeopardy. Currently someone can publish something nasty under the OGL and WotC can just go "Not associated with us. Not our problem." Once their license says they can block the publishing of objectionable content, anything they don't block is on them. It's by default something they approve of.


I think the distance that comes from PI is easily enough. If you want a license to use the logo and other branding or the PI, that's an entirely different license category and can reasonably come with a lot more control over content.


Themetricsystem wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Yeah, they played PF1E prior to Critical Role, but switched to 5E for "brand recognition" reasons. Hence why Percy is a gunslinger, when none existed in 5E at the time...they homebrewed it.

There is that plus the fact that for audiences it is WAY better to eschew as much of the fiddling with sheets, checking numbers, referencing specific rules, and rolling dice when you're putting on what is essentially an improv show that has underlying randomization elements to it.

Undoubtedly, 5e is way easier to film than PF1 or even PF2 for that matter.

Somewhat. They do plenty of the fiddling with sheets, checking numbers, referencing specific rules, and rolling dice.

There are other groups streaming PF2 as well. None with the fanbase of CR, but I doubt that's entirely based on the game mechanics.

A lighter game is probably better suited to the gming style, even without the show aspects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

I said this in another thread, but Justin Roiland being arraigned on felonies doesn't mean that the Rick and Morty splat should be yanked from D&D Beyond and its remaining run pulped. And that principle extends to pretty much any TTRPG book I can think of that isn't otherwise violating the terms of a license.

If anybody's worried about people writing about awful things that they've done and putting it in a campaign setting, there are Son of Sam laws for that kind of thing.

I mostly agree. Though I wouldn't object if D&D Beyond wanted to drop it - I don't think the OGL obligates D&D Beyond to support anything.

Just that I can see where it's coming from. It's an echo of clauses that show up in more traditional licensing. I can see why lawyers who don't really get the OGL wanted it in there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
OGL 1.2 's morals clause says not just "content" but "conduct" which seems to imply to me that if you say the wrong thing on a message board and it gets tied back to you, they can shut you down.

This is one of those things that I can see why they want to have it and how it could even be well-intentioned, but it's so incredibly broad that it's prohibitive.

It's likely based off standard clauses in more traditional licensing - like if you're making a licensing deal for a D&D movie, you don't want it turned into a porn flick. Or you want to be able to pull out if the director or lead gets caught up in a major scandal - sexual harassment or something. But with a deal like that, with serious money involved, there's strong incentive not to back out and the other side probably would sign on to anything that made it entirely up to the licensor anyway.

But this version basically says "we can shut you down for anything we claim is bad and there's no recourse for you to challenge it." No go. No one builds a business model off of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hassan Izhar wrote:
Critical Role is a popular web series that features a group of voice actors playing the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. The show originally used the 3.5 edition of the rules, but later switched to using the 5th edition of the rules.

If we're being technical, they originally played Pathfinder when it was a home game, but switched to 5e when they started the show. Or maybe shortly before.

The show itself has been 5e from the start.


Samurai wrote:
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Darrington Press isn't the same as CR. Tal'Dorei Reborn is 5e compatible but not printed under the D&D brand. I'd be shocked if they were foolish enough to lock it in with some exclusive license*.

*Especially because they didn't even get to use the D&D brand on it!

Actually, page 280 of Tal'Dorei Reborn is the Open Game License v1.0a. This book may have needed to be done that way because much of the book is the same as the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book that was released by Green Ronin back in 2017, and pg 143 of that book is the 1.0a Open Game License. If something was once released under 1.0a, I don't think you can legally do a "2nd edition" that is closed or not part of the Open Game Licensed.

I think you could.

The second edition couldn't include any of the content you used the OGL to get access to, unless you had a separate licensing agreement for that. And any content from the original edition would still be usable under the OGL of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
For ability generation, I always understood it to be the original roll 3d6 and assign in order as the only official D&D method and all others ere optional methods, even if printed in their books, and thus could be used in your own rules system without worry.

I don't think that makes sense. Optional or official, they're still printed D&D rules. I don't 3.x even suggests 3d6 in order as any kind of default.

PF1 does use 4d6d1 as the default ability generation mechanic, so if that's not in WotC's SRD, it's probably treated as pure uncopyrightable mechanics. Just too simplistic to protect. The 3.x stat buy details weren't duplicated in PF1, so they may have felt that wasn't safe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SpaceDrake wrote:
WildManPiet wrote:

No Darrington Press eh?

How sad.
Well at least they have their loyal fanbase.

Like others have posted, the Darrington crew almost certainly have metaphorical - and perhaps literal - guns to their head. Hasbro will want them to continue to promote the D&D brand, and are certain to face major repercussions if they just cut out and run in the middle of a campaign.

If Matt's been smart (and I hope he has), any such agreements will only last to the end of the Bell's Hells campaign.

Probably spelled out on some kind of time basis rather than something as easy to change as a campaign.

Unless the campaign really are scripted enough that they can guarantee a certain number of episodes.


MMCJawa wrote:
Antony Walls wrote:

Paizo have already shifted the presentation and mythology of many creatures away from legacy tropes. For instance, drow in the bestiary are described as

"The hues of their eyes became sinister red or bleached white, and their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable."

This serves the, welcome, purpose of shifting them away from real-life analogies and moves them away from their previous trade dress.

There are close comparisons in Scots and Norse mythology.

Yeah...I am aware of the shift in coloration (although I think that was less to do with DnD comparison and more about some unfortunate implications of having evil elves turn dark-skinned).

There are dark elves in Norse Mythology, however their never really described, and at least some scholars think they are the same thing as Dwarves. I'd still say the PF version isn't terribly dissimilar to the DnD version.

It was also because a lot of Drow art was already using purple shades because black highlights on black don't work well.


Driftbourne wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I kind of hope they don't create their own system. I mean, some of the basically home brew stuff they have put it seems cool, but putting out an entire new game system and continuing to expand and support it is a big project. And one that's really completely different from their core business model. Probably far less profitable as well.

I'd hate to see them get bogged down in game design and support and lose focus on what they do well. Or tie themselves to a new game that turns out to fail.

But it's a hard question for them, because they wield a lot of influence and if they do choose an existing system to play, they'll likely be a huge boost to that system.

Kobold Press is doing the same thing Paizo did with 3.5e but with 5e. It went well for Paizo. 5e is bigger than 3.5 was, so there's a good chance Kobold Press could be bigger than Paizo because of their own game. Core rule books tend to be more profitable than adventures and supplements. It's one of the main reasons Wotc made the OGL in the first place. It sounds like Kobold Press was already working on their own game before the OGL1.1 leak even started. It sounds like Kobold Press is hoping to have the early playtest out next month and playable by Gen con.

Yeah, I'm all in favor of that. Good for Kobold Press. I intend to check it out.

I'm just hesitant about Critical Role trying to switch into the game publishing business for themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:

OGL 1.1 wrote:

X. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated.

A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL
1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason
whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the
revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels. B. Termination:
If the released version of the OGL has anything like this in it, every other concession is worthless because it gives Wizards the right to change it later, with a limited notice period and no recourse.

Even if it doesn't have anything like this, but doesn't explicitly state they can't do this, it leaves them where they were before, which means they're not saying they can't try again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I do sometimes get overly carried away with things, especially when I'm hyperfixated on something. I'm, like, trying to not completely make a scene like I usually do. I sent an email to both CS and Community, and I'm waiting on a response.

I don't foresee this being another "KC posts a ten-page thread" situation, even if it's confirmed. I honestly doubt I have energy for that, and I doubt I'd help matters. If it gets confirmed, I'm just gonna leave.

It does look like most of yesterday's derail with DLH disappeared as well, so at least it's not one-sided.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I don't want to prematurely sound any alarms, but this post just got deleted. I think we might want to consider the possibility that a new Paizo leadership policy, as they welcome disgruntled 5e players, may be to try to pivot towards a new, less progressive community that will allow them to get away with more.

I don't know, and I'm not allowing myself to jump to conclusions. I can't recognize any good reason to delete the post I made, unless you see "I'm glad there aren't bigots in this space" as baiting?

By the way, ketfiu, I haven't been sending the mods a lot of emails because I still haven't gotten any replies on the ones I've already sent, including a "thread is in wrong forum" request from a week ago. I emailed them on this one, though.

That's really not encouraging.


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:

To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?

Besides “foundational” documents, like the SRDs for various games, One condition of the OGL is that you specify, in each book, what is open content and what is product identity. (In Starfinder CRB, for example they specifically called out the drift as PI - so if you make an OGL Starfinder product, you can’t reference the drift in it - that’s not open content. You have to say “hyperspace” or something like that).

Ah, now I see it. It's in the fine print and in most cases it's not actually a list of things, but categories - like "names and artwork and ..."

Which brings us back to the Creative Commons license. I don't think you can do that with it. You might be able to publish all the open content separately as an SRD in addition to using it in your own works that include setting and adventure material, but I'm not sure and it would at least be a separate step.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Dancing Wind wrote:
you don't understand, keftiu, if it's painful then you're becoming a better person.

*Bo Burnham's How the World Works starts playing in the background*

It's funny when people say "I'll fight for you when you're being oppressed, just don't bother me in my favorite media" as if queer visibility isn't very obviously a part of the fight for our rights. I mean, he probably knows that on some level, he just doesn't care.

Anyone saying "I'll fight for you when you're being oppressed" is already implying you're not being oppressed now, so they're either oblivious or disingenuous already.


I kind of hope they don't create their own system. I mean, some of the basically home brew stuff they have put it seems cool, but putting out an entire new game system and continuing to expand and support it is a big project. And one that's really completely different from their core business model. Probably far less profitable as well.

I'd hate to see them get bogged down in game design and support and lose focus on what they do well. Or tie themselves to a new game that turns out to fail.

But it's a hard question for them, because they wield a lot of influence and if they do choose an existing system to play, they'll likely be a huge boost to that system.


To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It might interesting playing a dungeon crawl with an AI GM just as a curiosity, but I suspect it would be more like a standard video game RPG at best. Anything outside that is way...

Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) is a thing.

It's been around for a while - to the point where it has issues on newer machines - but is actually pretty fun (and has deviated from it's 3.5E origins significantly by now).

It doesn't feature AI GMs or anything, but the game is presented as adventures where the GM narrates events and voices most characters as you explore Xen'drik (and Cormyr via planar travel), or go through classic modules like Keep on the Borderlands. It's still a computer game, but it remembers its origins.

Noting that while it has a standard staff of people who narrate adventures, they've had a bunch of guest narrators including Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Ed Greenwood, Keith Baker, Travis Willingham, Wil Wheaton, Satine Phoenix and so on. There is something special about going through Delara's Tomb with Gygax himself doing the narration.

It's old, it's clanky, almost every male character except half-elves looks atrocious... but I recommend it anyway.

YEah, I played it for a bit years ago. Like Neverwinter Nights better. Or for that matter Kingmaker.

Video games are their own kind of fun, but even ones that are based on TTRPGs are really very different.

The more it tries to move towards replicating a real GM and a real table top game with AI instead of doing what a scripted video game can do well, the worse it's likely to be.


Xenagog wrote:

In a thread on rpg.net, there's considerable skepticism as to whether the leak about the $30/month charge and the AI DMs is genuine—while the people who provided that information claimed to have sources, neither specified what their sources were or has proved reliable enough in the past to be fully trusted without evidence of their claims, and some people in the rpg.net thread think the claims in the leak are suspiciously similar to those in a "leak" five months ago that was proved to be a fake.

But if it is genuine, and if Wizards of the Coast genuinely plans to have an AI DM, yeah, that's something I have absolutely zero interest in. I can see an AI being good at running combats, sure, but to me combat is one of the least interesting parts of the game. I much more enjoy creative problem-solving and interaction with NPCs, and those are things that AI would be terrible at. Chatbots have come a very long way since Eliza, but they're still nowhere near good enough to substitute for a real GM. I suspect a game with an AI GM would be heavily focused on combat, and that's exactly the type of game I'm least interested in playing.

There's also the fact that I'm a GM a lot more often than I'm a player, and generally I enjoy GMing more than I enjoy playing. So that makes me even less interested in an AI DM. (Though AI players... hm. ;) ) But even setting that aside, as a player I would not want to play in a campaign with an AI GM. Maybe players who mostly enjoy combat and don't care so much about other aspects of role-playing games might feel differently.

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines as well.

It might interesting playing a dungeon crawl with an AI GM just as a curiosity, but I suspect it would be more like a standard video game RPG at best. Anything outside that is way beyond anything I've seen from AI.

1 to 50 of 30,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>