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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6205507" data-attributes="member: 2067">Unless the dude said it, yeah?I mean, it sure seems to me, from his actual statements, like one of Dancey's goals was to make sure that D&D was not able to be dragged in any one direction by any one company: that it at least "a" D&D that met Dancey's personal needs would be not part of any one company, so even if WotC "dropped the ball" in one way or another, a version of D&D would live on. If you're into reading tea leaves like that, you could just as easily say that the company only selling legacy product for 2 years shows that they think there's more money in reprinting 2e, 3e, 1e, and OD&D than in printing any more 4e sourcebooks. But basically, D&D's financial position is opaque. One can't say it's been a rousing success any more than one can say it's been a colossal failure. It kind of seems to maybe be a little troubled to me (For the first time, another game is outselling it in the official channels, and 4e kept trying to reinvent itself), but there's a lot of unknowns in play, too (DDI subs could be HUGE! and what may be more important, RELIABLE!), so that could be an inaccurate perspective. I'm not usually one to interrupt a good soapboxin', but I think it'd be a little crazy to imagine it's not an influencing element. Clearly WotC doesn't like the OGL at some level, but change is almost always forced on an institution from outside competition and need. The fact that Pathfinder is so huge is something they need to address. Numenera might be a problem down the road, too. The OGL largely did what its principle architect set out to do with it: it made D&D the dominant market force (at least until D&D abandoned the OGL, possibly), and let people make D&D-style games regardless of what WotC does. The OGL is still there for them to plug into if they want, and it still promises all the things that Dancey promised (and appears to me to have been mostly right about) back in '02. It's not something I think the invested parties are dismissing out of hand, even if it's not exactly something they'd go with now.</blockquote>

Verification