Fine. Add "Imho" before the sentence.
Oh, I do. It's just nice to know that you do too.
It's not the cause, but it is a prerrequiste. They (as any other company) don't want major competitors. So if they can *avoid* the rise of competitors not giving them a prerrequisite, they'd do (imho and all that jazz)
I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking, nor that it's necessarily applicable here. Between the "OGL as enlightened self-interest" idea, and the related "other RPGs aren't competitors; other hobbies are" idea, there's certainly room for seeing the OGL as being good for WotC, even by the people at WotC.
Your calling of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is flawed, because you think it needs to be a causal relation. It does not. It is enough with a correlation. The fallacy is when you assume a relation because of the before-after, and the relation is not there.
The fallacy itself is presented when someone - such as you, in your previous posts - presents a correlation as a causation, without it being so. You stated that WotC will see the causation of Paizo's success with Pathfinder as being because of the Open Game License. Unto itself, however, that view is demonstrably false, as the simple existence of the Open Game License by itself was not enough to
cause (rather than simply allowing for the possibility of) Pathfinder, let alone it's current success.
By your own definition, you have assumed a causal relationship simply because one thing followed another, when that relationship is not there.
My father used to eat a lot of pork, and read a lot of books. He had a heart attack. Saying "my father read books, and he had a heart attack", is a fallacy. But eating a lot of pork actually *does* relates to heart attacks. If my father, after his heart attack, decides to stop reading, he is a fool. If he decides to stop eating a lot of pork, then he is wise.
The relating needs to be
causal for it to not be post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply allowing for something to be possible is not the same as making it happen.
Completelly irrelevant for WotC point of view. What WotC wants, is to impede competition. Which he could had achieved not releasing OGL.
Your lack of "IMHO" is showing again.
WotC left his kitchen gas open. There was a spark, and the kitchen blew. Was the explosion caused by the gas open? Of course not. It was caused by the spark. Is it wise to keep the gas closed? Sure, because it is a necessary prerrequisite, which makes the explosion possible. Without it, there's no explosion. And without OGL, there's no Pathfinder. Even if all the other circumstances (including sparks, and 4e "mmo-like" system) are the same.
See above for why this analogy doesn't work.
Not allowing the possibility that something happens does mean that something can't occur, however.
A is necessary for B. A does not imply B, but No A implies no B.
That's not relevant to the discussion we're having. A lack of A resulting in a lack of B does not mean that A's presence thusly causes B's presence.
Saying that something is dependent on something else does not mean that it is caused by that thing. You keep insisting that it does, which is an "after it, therefore because of it" fallacy.
But not having one of the prerrequisites is enough to forbid you to take class levels in the prestige class. WotC does not want other companies take levels in "major competitors for 5e", so denying them ONE of the prerrequisites is enough to keep the other companies in their basic "warrior" class.
See above for the problems with necessarily assuming, as you do, that WotC even sees Pathfinder as a competitor to begin with. Likewise, saying that they'll not use the OGL again because they don't want another Pathfinder to deal with is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Again.
Have ANY retro clones been subject to a court proceeding yet? The only time I have heard of wotc taking any steps was when they verbally asked the OSRIC author to C&D, which he refused, confident living in another country would deter WotC from taking actual legal action.
