Quote from: Mistwell on Today at 01:05:00 AM

Quote from: swzl on May 09, 2024, 09:15:41 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 09, 2024, 08:15:25 PMCouldn't they just re-release any OGL product under the new license if WotC released it under the new license? Barring any changes they might make due to IP or whatever that is.

Short answer, no. Section 2 of the OGL states:

Quote2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

Not sure that clause means what you think it means. I do think you can republish your own copyrighted content under the CC even if it was previously published under the OGL. It will still be open content under the OGL though. I mean, this is literally what WOTC just did.

Yep. Reading comprehension failure on my part. I read the message as couldn't the third party material be re licensed with the WoTC relicensing. I agree an individual can license their own material however they want.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 06, 2024, 05:37:09 AMI have discovered that there are two D&D-related tabletop rpgs called Baptism of Fire available on DTRPG and that the two games are not at all similar to each other.

When I searched, I found Pundit's game and a WW2 d20 RPG from 2011. Is using d20 your criteria for "D&D-related" or is there another Baptism of Fire that I missed?

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 06, 2024, 05:37:09 AMI have discovered that there are two D&D-related tabletop rpgs called Baptism of Fire available on DTRPG and that the two games are not at all similar to each other.  Anyway, the Polish one has already sold more copies than a large majority of products on DTRPG will sell in their entire lifespans.  I am also reminded of the dismal fact that something like 70% of all products on DTRPG will not reach 51 copies sold and only 201 out of over 100,000 products have sold 501 copies or more. 

Wow.  That's very telling.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 07, 2024, 09:21:04 PMI don't know how "depressing" it is, it's just par for the course with publishing. Look at Amazon, see how many books they have, and then realize just how many books barely sold anything. In almost every category.

Yeah, and the alternative before this was having a few publishers who decided what deserved to be published or not. I much prefer the new "anyone can publish for next to nothing" model where the public gets to decide what's trash or not. Maybe 90% of the books out there fail hard, but we decide that, not a small group of "experts".

Quote from: cavalier973 on May 09, 2024, 08:22:37 AMAlso, why are we not getting a miniature of the adventurers on the front of the Moldvay and Cook/Marsh boxes?

It would cause less contreversey that way.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1710384861/sake-sorcerers-adventures-kings-and-economics-rulebook

To join: https://www.tinyurl.com/randomworlds-discord

Log to be posted at https://gmshoe.wordpress.com/

Quote from: hedgehobbit on Today at 10:32:55 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 09:08:10 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.

Maybe I should use the term that Bob Iger used in his recent earning call and talk about "an entirely new era of mining IP"

I do find it odd that the people who defend these mega corporations care more about the IP being mined for content than the people actually running the corporations. My motto has recently become "If they don't care about it, I don't care about it."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/entertainment/bob-iger-mining-comment-reveals-all-you-need-to-know-about-sorry-state-of-disney/

Mining is certainly a better term, as one definition of it reads, "delve into (an abundant source) to extract something of value, especially information or skill." With both Marvel and Star Wars, there are abundant sources to dig through, even though I can't necessarily say that I've favored all the bits they've chosen to extract and put on screen (big and small).

However, mining would imply that the source is limited, and that what is built upon the extracted material is not itself added back into the source (which is very much how I persoanlly like to view SW 7-9...), so perhaps it's not the best term either.

I see WOTC/Wizkids have learned nothing from Warhammer and their AstartesHasAlwaysHadFemales lil debacle.  The amount of beer holding is going through the roof.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 02:20:07 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on May 09, 2024, 03:30:17 PMIt's obviously a man. No self-respecting woman would wear that outfit.

I think it's the stance more than the outfit that makes the figure look unfeminine. The stance is what I judged most for why I interpreted the original image as a man. I think posed differently, even in the same armor/clothing, no one would have commented. Here's a similarly-dressed mini:



https://ironwindmetals.com/index.php/categories/cat-battletech/cat-bt-rgm/product/fantasy-player-character-03-056/category_pathway-2

There have been lots of minis in women fighters in armor. Especially since there's little detail in the face possible, the two main ways to signal being a woman are (1) a prominent bust, and (2) the pose/stance.

In the spirit of arguing on the internet, that's a totally different outfit. There are way more differences than similarities.

One is a white cloth or silk tunic over a maille skirt, with buff white seal skin boots and a lapis or shell encrusted dome helmet.

The other is an oily hare-fur loincloth with some kind of hardened sooty pig-leather cuirass, accessorized with a cheap horn helmet stolen from a Wagnerian prop closet.