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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fredramsey" data-source="post: 2386318" data-attributes="member: 20274">I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems. This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).And my point was, why? Could D&D really exist totally in a vacuum? In my opinion, no. Nor is D&D threatened by *any* other company. So why engage in such talk to begin with.Again, even though Dancy is no longer in the d20 business, his words obviously carry weight, or this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. So, I made an incorrect assumption about one of the two speakers. I was wrong. But, the impression they give, which is what my point was, does not change. And I consider their exclusionary talk and practices not only in bad taste, but not good business sense, in the long run.How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.So, I got a little hot under the collar when you seemed to imply that RD's employment was the total underpinning of my post. It wasn't. So I have strived here to make it clearer, which is hopefully the course I will endeavor to take in the future. Doing so will help me avoid having to chew Tums... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification