Quote from: jhkim on December 24, 2022, 01:11:02 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 23, 2022, 09:30:28 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on December 23, 2022, 10:52:25 AM
It seems to me that WotC are just repeating the errors of TSR. But we will see.

TSR never even remotely went this far off the deep end.

I'm not sure how to compare. TSR never came even close to anything remotely open license. Related behavior is how TSR sued Mayfair Games, New Infinities, GDW, and others for trying to publish similar or compatible material -- as well as many cease and desist notices that they sent out over the Internet at people creating material online.

Quote from: jhkim on December 26, 2022, 12:27:33 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
My suggestion is that, even beyond sticking with the OGL1.0a, does your product even NEED the OGL at all?

I'd actually argue that the core OSR doesn't need it. Everyone is building towards the unstated standard of compatibility with TSR era D&D and the numbers are close enough that a B/X adventure could be run for an AD&D party or an AD&D adventure run for a B/X party. The individual product identities (specific settings, specific NPCs, etc.) are already covered by general copyright law and the compatibility with B/1e standard keeps everything else interoperable with no further license needed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that retro-clones are vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit if they don't use the OGL.

However, any of the games with significant differences probably aren't. Many of the OSR products have less resemblance to the SRD than many pre-2002 RPGs that were similar to D&D but never sued. I was reading over Pundit's Arrows of Indra, for example, and as far as I can see, it uses almost nothing from the SRD, to the point where I don't see why it would cite that.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 26, 2022, 09:09:16 AM
Basically, the freedom to create by the GM's basically IS the value of tabletop gaming. Rulebooks are just handy tools so a GM doesn't have to create all the rules from scratch each time; they're basically blueprints the GM uses as a foundation for them to create their own worlds.

No matter how WotC will try to push it, you can't monetize what a GM builds. At best they can supply raw materials to go along with the blueprints they supply. They can't force a carpenter to follow their blueprints to the letter.

I think it's possible to monetize GMing by expanding the paid GM market. In most tabletop RPGs, it usually seems there are more players willing to play than GMs willing to run for free. That doesn't mean WotC would necessarily benefit - but it's possible they could get in on it, such as by making a service that hooks up GMs-for-pay to players. But others could easily create rival services.

"WoTC's Money-Grab" sheds light on financial concerns within the context of a well-known entity. Faced with uncertainty about where to invest, the provided https://icoholder.com/blog/how-to-turn-bitcoin-into-usd/ on converting Bitcoin into USD is a timely addition. This dual perspective encourages a nuanced understanding of financial landscapes, helping me make informed decisions and navigate potential investment opportunities more confidently.