Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="triqui" data-source="post: 5913221" data-attributes="member: 57948">Fair enough. We don't know the opposite either. We can only make conjetures.Mine is this:Games do not need OGL to be successful. AD&D, D&D 1, Runequest, Vampire, and several others, were successful without OGL.Games do need a good system/gameplay to be sucessful. There are a lot of OGL games, who aren't sucessful, because the game itself sucks (or does not have enough traction in the market). I won't name any, to avoid hurting feelings, but all of us know about at least one game that qualifies. In my opinion, what makes the game succesful, is the game itself. The rules, the playability, the books. 3e was a solid game, with solid innovative rules, a strong backup world, and a style that appealed to a lot of people. That's what made it sucessful, imho. Even without OGL, they would had all of that. Speaking about anecdotal evidence, I didn't buy it because it was OGL, nor did any of the people I know. I did buy *other* games because they were d20, for sure. The OGL helped those *other* companies to get my money: instead of saying "hey look, a game about spies. It's a pity they always have crappy rules" I said "hey look, Spycraft. It's d20, at the very least the system is solid, let's try it". But I would had buy D&D regardless of OGL, because it was a damn good system. Wouldn't you?</blockquote>