Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 4833274" data-attributes="member: 59096">Looking at the game itself, not to mention WotCs action, I can't really believe there was ever any plan to release 4E under the OGL. The entire 4E model seems to have &quot;disengage D&amp;D from the OGL&quot; built into it, right down to the game mechanics. I think Scott and Linae wanted Goodman style support in a lot more quanitity than has been the case, and that got derailed, but I really believe the 4E and the OGL was a dead duck no matter what happened.This could be true, where WotC tried to use the language of the GSL to control what could be produced to avoid another d20 glut. Maybe this caused the delay which derailed the support WotC was hoping for. Still, I think disengaging D&amp;D from the OGL was always the plan. From my bystander's perspective, I don't think the 3E era was a complete success. It started off with a bang and went out with a &quot;meh&quot;. Looking at 4E's very focused business plan, its hard to come up with any conclusion other than dividing the customer base by focusing on core D&amp;D only and not supporting alternate interpretations was the plan. If anything about 4E can be said, it is that the game is focused like a laser on what it wants to do. I don't think WotC means to demean those who don't adopt the new hotness, but they are making it clear that they aren't part of the business plan anymore.As someone who wasn't convinced by 3E's inclusive philosophy or the OGL movement, I think this attitude hurt as much as it helped. It opened new doors and blazed new horizons, but it weakened what D&amp;D was at the core. As somebody who has been a player of &quot;Core D&amp;D&quot; since the middle of 2E's run, adapting with the changing game as it progressed, watering down &quot;Core D&amp;D&quot; was something that I both noticed and disliked. The delay killed things, but I think people would have been similiarly disappointed no matter what, because the GSL wasn't the OGL and never was going to be so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thecasualoblivion, post: 4833274, member: 59096"] Looking at the game itself, not to mention WotCs action, I can't really believe there was ever any plan to release 4E under the OGL. The entire 4E model seems to have "disengage D&D from the OGL" built into it, right down to the game mechanics. I think Scott and Linae wanted Goodman style support in a lot more quanitity than has been the case, and that got derailed, but I really believe the 4E and the OGL was a dead duck no matter what happened. This could be true, where WotC tried to use the language of the GSL to control what could be produced to avoid another d20 glut. Maybe this caused the delay which derailed the support WotC was hoping for. Still, I think disengaging D&D from the OGL was always the plan. From my bystander's perspective, I don't think the 3E era was a complete success. It started off with a bang and went out with a "meh". Looking at 4E's very focused business plan, its hard to come up with any conclusion other than dividing the customer base by focusing on core D&D only and not supporting alternate interpretations was the plan. If anything about 4E can be said, it is that the game is focused like a laser on what it wants to do. I don't think WotC means to demean those who don't adopt the new hotness, but they are making it clear that they aren't part of the business plan anymore. As someone who wasn't convinced by 3E's inclusive philosophy or the OGL movement, I think this attitude hurt as much as it helped. It opened new doors and blazed new horizons, but it weakened what D&D was at the core. As somebody who has been a player of "Core D&D" since the middle of 2E's run, adapting with the changing game as it progressed, watering down "Core D&D" was something that I both noticed and disliked. The delay killed things, but I think people would have been similiarly disappointed no matter what, because the GSL wasn't the OGL and never was going to be so. [/QUOTE]

Verification