Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6141142" data-attributes="member: 37579">They went with Pathfinder because WotC didn't release the GSL and Paizo needed to go to start writing and printing products. And WotC was being silent. So they sent ONE employee to D&DXP in 2008 and based on his opinion the company opted to go their own route. WotC could have easily partnered with Paizo, giving them the GSL and promising them continual access to the playtest if Paizo agreed to swap to 4e at launch. Plus, this would have gotten more playtesters looking at 4e which might have caught some of the earlier problems sooner. Paizo, being nervous and uncertain about the future, would have happily signed at that time. Especially since they were very happy being the Adventure Path people.While I think the OGL went a little too far, it's easy to have open content and make the game accessible to 3rd Party Publishers and the fans without going as far as they did. Just having a restriction on reprinting the core rules or capping it at a percentage would be fine. "You can copy the text of class features, spells, feats, and skills but no more than 30% of any one section can be copied." Bam. Stops that problem from happening again but still permits 3PP. Add a clause saying "You can copy the complete rules but cannot sell access, publish physical copies, or modify the content of the text" and it even allows things like the hypertest SRD.</blockquote>