Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Delta" data-source="post: 4134891" data-attributes="member: 40269">Hey, Clark. Your post about why you're interested and motivated to see D&D do well was downright moving and inspiring. It's comments like that that make me feel good to be part of the D&D community in any way.This quote above I'll quibble with. The text you quoted earlier came from the Open Game Definitions FAQ that's been up since 2001 (with one minor revision in '04). I go to that a lot myself to re-confirm original motivation for the OGL. The box to the right specifically says "The author, Ryan Dancey, is not an attorney and makes no representation about the accuracy of the legal material contained herein." ( <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d</a> )Really, Open Gaming came from Ryan. Once he was gone, I don't think there was much remaining company buy-in for the idea. As soon as 3.5 came out in 2003 I very clearly recognized signs that WOTC was walking away from the principles of the OGL. ( <a href="http://www.superdan.net/down3-5.html" target="_blank">http://www.superdan.net/down3-5.html</a> -- wherein I quote stuff from that very FAQ again). The fact that WOTC has left a web page up for 8 years doesn't really constitute a "policy on open gaming" (as you put it earlier). IMO, it's just an old web page they haven't taken down yet -- all of the publishing actions taken since 2004 have been counter to those principles.That said, all of your motivations and hopes I totally, completely agree with. Me, I've already had to deal with my disappointment over the promise of the OGL and the direction that WOTC has chosen to go in thereafter. I'm sure that when/if other bad news comes down, you're even more invested in the situation, and you have my great sympathies.</blockquote>

Verification