NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4434354" data-attributes="member: 52839">You believe, I believe, so you just feel like going around in circles with an argument that doesn't make ground just because you don't agree? Then if you just want to argue endlessly without making ground, there would be no point, except that I accept that you made slight progress with the next point... Mike very likely got into his position for other reasons, not simply for whatever role he played in getting the OGL instituted. You have to already have the pull to influence heads to such a great change in operation as instituting the OGL. It's the idea that the pool of writers to choose from was improved by the OGL that I accept as a benefit. The larger the pool of writers, the better the quality that can be provided and thus the more interest in those products, especially with names that have become big in the d20 branch of the industry in other games. I'll accept that as a minor example of WOTC's benefit, but seeing as it has the same effect for other games in the market You referred to people who left the game, I assumed you meant those who left 2e. I should have considered your post a little more carefully. But what does that so-called misunderstanding of your point have anything to do with the OGL theory? I was simply addressing a single fine point, making a minor concession, in your argument. My statement was not a commentary on the purpose of the OGL or its theory. Look, you're the one who brought up bringing back past players as indicated by the rest of your post. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning as applying to 1e. Thank you for clarifying. As for the whole intent of your number 3, again, another small step, only because it accomplishes the raising of the waters scenario.Taken together, they make a single effective step towards profit. But I can still contend that it provides nothing but floating. So even if this was the intent, there was room for more. So I will concede in light of your finally careful argument that the OGL worked exactly as intended, but I will not concede that it wasn't a flawed document in that more advantage could have been taken to raise WOTC's bottom line through the license, but wasn't, and I believe it is that problem which WOTC wishes to amend in the GSL.</blockquote>

Verification