Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4547740" data-attributes="member: 7635">I'd caution going too far with this; D&D has PLENTY of its own personal IP that it needed to watch. While D&D to the uninitiated is that weird game you play an elf in (a description that makes it fall in line with hundreds of IP-blurring games) WotC knows it has a finer line to tread.To start, WotC wants to protect its novel IP: Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and the stuff included in it. That includes how D&D defines it dark elves, draconians, kender, etc. It has good reason to want to; things based on these IP sell money. (well, with the exception of the DL movie). Even lesser known settings like Ravenloft generate revenue (witness Arhaus's decent success with the RL IP and WotC Expedition to Castle RL). Also, WotC wants some control over how it defines its world. This is why the GSL had a "no definitions" clause. They saw countless books that changed various elements of its own IP to suit different (and competing) tastes. Drow and Demons were classic examples. I recall a poll long ago more people owned Tome of Horrors than they did Monster Manual 3. While the choice of how things like that are good for consumers, it creates a glut of material on things WotC would like to exploit: Drow of the Underdark (3.5) sold relatively poorly because by that point the market for dark elf material was pretty saturated with 3PP.</blockquote>