Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 5972444" data-attributes="member: 17551">Since WotC took over the D&amp;D brand, they have in rough chronological order:1.&nbsp; Licensed Hackmaster, a mock tribute to AD&amp;D;2.&nbsp; Issued the Silver Anniversary collector's set, which reprinted the 1978 Basic rules, contained a number of O(A)D&amp;D modules including a never before issued 1e module;3.&nbsp; Released (via Paizo) the CD-Rom archives of Dragon magazine, containing the entire run The Strategic Review and the first 250 issues of The Dragon;4.&nbsp; Licensed and then took in-house the release of a huge chunk of OOP materials for download;5.&nbsp; Offered a number of OOP materials for free download on their website;6.&nbsp; Issued the OGL, which effectively allowed for copyright clean versions of OOP D&amp;D to be published by others;7.&nbsp; Released very nice collector's editions of the 1e core books;8.&nbsp; Announced (but have not yet released) collector's editions of the 3.5e core books.I'm sure I'm forgetting something.Many or most of the above have been problematic in some regard.&nbsp; WotC has been far from systematic or consistent with regard to their OOP materials, maddeningly so.&nbsp; However, I don't think it can be claimed that they haven't made an effort.&nbsp; I feel that they understand that there's a market for the material and I think they feel that they have an obligation to the franchise to preserve its history.&nbsp; They just don't seem to have any idea at all as to how to go about doing it.Hopefully, after 5e comes out, they can devote some resources to taking a serious look at their OOP intellectual property and come up with a means of sharing it with their customers that respectfully serves both the customers and the brand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rogueattorney, post: 5972444, member: 17551"] Since WotC took over the D&D brand, they have in rough chronological order: 1. Licensed Hackmaster, a mock tribute to AD&D; 2. Issued the Silver Anniversary collector's set, which reprinted the 1978 Basic rules, contained a number of O(A)D&D modules including a never before issued 1e module; 3. Released (via Paizo) the CD-Rom archives of Dragon magazine, containing the entire run The Strategic Review and the first 250 issues of The Dragon; 4. Licensed and then took in-house the release of a huge chunk of OOP materials for download; 5. Offered a number of OOP materials for free download on their website; 6. Issued the OGL, which effectively allowed for copyright clean versions of OOP D&D to be published by others; 7. Released very nice collector's editions of the 1e core books; 8. Announced (but have not yet released) collector's editions of the 3.5e core books. I'm sure I'm forgetting something. Many or most of the above have been problematic in some regard. WotC has been far from systematic or consistent with regard to their OOP materials, maddeningly so. However, I don't think it can be claimed that they haven't made an effort. I feel that they understand that there's a market for the material and I think they feel that they have an obligation to the franchise to preserve its history. They just don't seem to have any idea at all as to how to go about doing it. Hopefully, after 5e comes out, they can devote some resources to taking a serious look at their OOP intellectual property and come up with a means of sharing it with their customers that respectfully serves both the customers and the brand. [/QUOTE]

Verification