Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 6016352" data-attributes="member: 10479">In a way, in that I think I meant to type OGC, Open Game Content, but with your suggestion I added SRD/OGC instead.  Thanks.Could have gone a lot of ways, including creating a whole new RPG under the OGL or a whole new RPG without the OGL.  Let's face it, it was mostly their adventure paths and the fact that the majority of the staff had been culled from WotC over the years that put them in a position to take half the market from WotC when 4E is generally rejected.  That so many still wanted to play a variation of 3.5 just made it easier.  The biggest mistake WotC ever made (and still makes) isn't coming up with the OGL or turning away from the OGL but rather training their own competition and regularly laying them off as part of the WotC business model.Which leads to the sticky discussion of whether or not something is D&D by virtue of the trademark owner simply saying so and attaching the trademark.  That's a dark road, so let's not take it.Oh, no one says they aren't "different" but I do refute those who say it is of no importance to OGL Era WotC.</blockquote>