Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2731816" data-attributes="member: 6777">And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.The former is sort of the whole point of the OGL.I don't understand why MoI is being singled out as representative of WotC's entire design strategy and R&D capability. Why is the fact that you didn't happen to like the book proof that WotC solely targets the lowest common denominator? Isn't the book actually proof that WotC was willing to take a risk on something different? Isn't Eberron?Then how are you qualified to make blanket assessments about the objective quality of WotC's products?This whole line of argument reminds me a lot of a <a href="https://www.enworld.org/index.php?threads/132722/" target="_blank">thread from a while back</a> where one person was laying blame for the RPG industry malaise (yup, still talking about it then) on the fact that WotC didn't produce enough adventures. Or, more specifically, enough adventures that he considered to be really good. Just like here, the thesis boiled down to "WotC is the source of all evil because I don't like their products."</blockquote>