Search results

It is still/again not clear to me what you want out of this interaction. I get that you disagree with me on the point. I don't feel a need to get your agreement, or to defend my point against you. If you've said what you wanted to say, I think we are done.

Right. But she's pretty clearly a character visually designed for the male gaze. Sexualized. As are most of the other iconic female art pieces from yesteryear. One thing you can say about the mini they produced is that she means business.

Folks, I recommend you all stop pushing your luck in this thread. If you are not going to be kind, take a hike.

Mod note: I asked folks to keep the rhetoric down. You have abjectly failed to do so. That will not go well for you. Please keep to threads in which you can hold back from fanning flames.

You are free to believe that we are very well informed about all internal WotC activity, if you want.

You do know that D&D Beyond has free accounts, right?

But we would not have heard about it if they were.

Mod note: Folks, keep the rhetoric and vitriol down, please. Hey, gotchas are not helping. Please stop. Everyone who is not willing to be kind in here probably should find another topic that doesn't raise their dander or snide reflex.

Mod note: So the thing you may not see is that what you are telling folks is that being a woman ruins something. That... is kind of insulting. Be aware of that, please. In the meantime, I will refer everyone here to the site's inclusivity policy. Make folks feel uncomfortable, or become too...

I don't. I think it unfair for a third party (you or me) to insert ethical bindings after the fact. If the creator of a work wants to bind someone to giving back to the movement, they can do that. They can choose a license that legally binds giving back. So, who are you or I to gainsay...

Yep. I daresay the minis line wouldn't get a whole lot of attention online if all the sculpts went with the most obvious interpretations of their originals. A little bit of reinterpretation on one, and we are suddenly all talking about it.

Absolutes are challenged with one counter example. Generalizations allow some exceptions.

It isn't an architecture issue when you use a hammer as a screwdriver.

Less "cannot" and more "probably won't". There is nothing stopping them from continuing to sell or broadening access to legacy content. That's just a business decision, not a legal or technical issue.

This thread has devolved into a bunch of folks who are not IP lawyers arguing over IP law. Thread closed.

Mod Note: There's some stuff in the past couple of pages that got a bit heated. I'm here to tell folks that they need to stay respectful, and that if they can't do that, disengaging is likely preferable to the consequences of blowing up at each other.

It is okay to be affected as you are affected. You get to feel what you feel, "should" be darned. You've got a right sea of troubles there. I am not a mental health professional. But to my understanding of stress and depression, cases where there's one clearly identifiable "it" are pretty...

There's a lot of pages here, and I haven't read them all, so maybe someone else has already said this, but if not it ought to be raised: The above is not okay. Ultimatums like what your wife presented are a form of emotional blackmail, pushing all responsibility for dealing with the situation...

You probably still want "content keys" for the SRD content - or how else do you reference that a character has an SRD class, and subclass with a specific ability that references a specific spell on D&DB? When you want to show or reference the mechanics, you want those keys, right? Aside - this...

Well, right there we see part of the issue. Assume that each bit of game-rule content (like a race, a class, a subclass, a monster, a spell, etc) is identified with some key for use by the software. I don't know that is how the architecture works, but let us assume it. Let us also assume you...