Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gryph" data-source="post: 5809774" data-attributes="member: 98071">Isn't every third set of MTG a core set that replaces the previous core set?  I believe that is the business model here with a lower frequency of core replacement. 5e will release, a bunch of expansion modules will release, then 6e will release with about an 80 - 90% rule overlap with the rest coming from previous expansions. From an IP protection viewpoint, that seems a poor business model to run under an OGL. I admit to some bias here, I felt that there was more garbage than quality released by the TPPs. A more generous GSL license that retained some QA review by WoTC on the efforts of TPPs would, I believe, lead to a healthier third party market place. The problem for Wizards, as I see it, is that third party support in settings and adventures adds real value to brand, so long as the quality level of the products is good. On the other hand, poor quality releases and alternate rulesets have a negative impact on the brand. That's why I would prefer non-revocable GSL, but one that required review by the D&D team of all product published under it.</blockquote>