Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6293684" data-attributes="member: 22424">I agree with almost everything in your post, including your argument against a 3.75ish 4e.However, what I'm much less convinced of is that going with a non-OGL 4e was a good idea. There's no reason WotC couldn't have opened 4e up in the same way they did 3e (and equally, of course, absolutely no obligation on them to open it up!), so it makes for an interesting question: would 4e have been better received had it been more open? Would it have been embraced by third-party publishers to a greater extent? Would Paizo have been more inclined to support 4e, rather than take the big risk that was PF? (a risk that's paid off hugely, but they couldn't know that at the time)Indeed, I'm inclined to speculate we'd have seen a lot of third-party work done grafting the best of 4e onto 3.5e, and the best of 3.5e on 4e, and might well have seen a version of "Essentials" that was itself much more a 3.75e (but a very different 3.75e than Pathfinder) - and that to the benefit of WotC, the game, and the customers.</blockquote>