Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5913403" data-attributes="member: 8461">Technically speaking they can have a Pathfinder without the OGL, the same way Technomancer Press can have their [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Players-Companion-Getting-More-Your/dp/0976931028]Player's Companion[/ame] without it.This is a simplistic breakdown. There are more options than the ones you list here, such as embracing the OGL and using it to their advantage.A strawman is misrepresenting your opponent's position. I have yet to misrepresent you, though you have misrepresented yourself numerous times now, as the following demonstrates:You stated that WotC will avoid releasing Fifth Edition under the OGL because they wanted to avoid another major competitor like Pathfinder.I pointed out that this line of thinking operates under the affirmative assumption that simply releasing a game system under the OGL causes it to become a major competitor is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - simply putting a game system under the OGL doesn't necessarily cause it to become a competitor.Your response to being informed of your fallacy was to state that it wasn't a fallacy, because if "B" needs "A" to exist, then removing "A" causes "B" to not exist. I pointed out that this is in no way related to the affirmative assumption in your initial statement, and hence it remains a fallacy.Your response is to repeat the same line about "A" and "B" over and over, and maintain that my response is a strawman.Your statement was about what WotC will do, which has them operating on the assumption that one thing (the OGL) was the cause of another (Pathfinder as a major competitor), and so they would avoid that. I pointed out how that statement is based on a fallacy.I agree that this is talking in circles, since I've already pointed out how your initial assumption is inherently flawed.See above for why I have never made a strawman fallacy in the course of pointing our your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.That's not what you said. You said WotC would avoid the OGL because their experience is that they released a game system under the OGL and it became a competitor - that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc line of thought that you have WotC assuming.In this case, the point is moot, since Pathfinder already exists. If you're referring to some sort of hypothetical Pathfinder-Fifth Edition, then this might be true (see above about copyright). Even then, that's unrelated to your initial point.You actually stated why they would take steps to not make such a thing happen again, with the listed reason being the fallacy in question.You didn't say that - the quote you give is from me, not you.A poor assumption, as there are people with RPG budgets between "infinite" and "100 bucks."The sarcasm aside, this assumes that other RPGs are "competitors" at all. It also doesn't take into account that if people are going to play RPGs, it's better for WotC that they play ones that are compatible with/similar to D&D, since that keeps them thematically "closer" and thus more likely to buy D&D products.The OGL has a host of benefits that you're not looking at. Likewise, even the idea of "Pathfinder as displacing D&D" can be avoided for Fifth Edition is WotC sticks with the OGL - it wasn't until they abandoned Third Edition that Pathfinder was even created.None of which, in any event, is relevant to your initial assumption.</blockquote>

Verification