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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 5508950" data-attributes="member: 4275">They did no do "it".They used Open Content twice in two years, almost all of it written by ex-WOTC staffers and published some books written by Monte Cook after he became a 3PP.Now let's look specifically at the things mentioned in the original open letter, did they:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Talk About Us</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Support Us</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reward Us</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sell Us</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Distribute Us</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Talk to Us</li> </ul>I would say the answer is No, No, No, No, No and Yes (Ryan Dancey talked to 3PP directly but that ended when he left the company as I recall).So to sum up, when WOTC was friendlier to 3PP than they are now, and had a VERY generous license, they did one of the things Dias asked for in his letter, thus, I call his letter naive/misinformed.You took my statement that Dias' letter was naive, moved the bar to any isolated instances of "boosting" 3PP (whatever that means) and claimed I was mistaken. So yes, I think Dias' letter is naive. I don't say that to be mean, or even claim that he's wrong.It just seems naive to think that in the days of the GSL, a license most publishers aren't even willing to use, that WOTC would be more supportive of 3PP's than they were in the days of OGL, even in the Dancey-era OGL, which is the closest WOTC ever came to actively engaging the community. By contrast, Paizo DOES have a history of doing this sort of thing. When they took over Polyhedron, they focused on the OGL community.I'm not saying one approach or the other is "wrong". My opinion of the two different histories of WOTC and Paizo doesn't change that history.</blockquote>

Verification