Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="king_ghidorah" data-source="post: 4025432" data-attributes="member: 18404">The OGL was never the same as open computing, and never intended to create an open official product worked on by the community. Bugs were never posted and fixed by the developer community, the final product was not worked on in the same sense. In fact, an early complaint about the OGL was that it wasn't actually an open system like open computing. It was a reasonable and factual complaint. The "open" nature of the OGL was about developing add-on products that promoted the main product-- that d20 system games built on the engine was a byproduct of the system, not its intent. OGL was never entirely open, and always about selling core D&D books, no about opening up the core product to change. Playtesting of D&D 3.0 was done in house, not in an open development setting. 3.5 changes were done in house, not in an open development setting. 4.0, done in house, not in an open development setting. No changes in procedure at all.That there may be a change in how supplementary or derivative material is developed does not change the core product development process.</blockquote>