NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3983151" data-attributes="member: 18280">I view this from a consumer standpoint; if WotC wants my money, they have to provide products that I am interested in.  They intentionally made changes to the base "fluff" of the game that I am not interested in.  It is to their benefit to have 3rd parties willing and able to provide the original fluff material as soon as 4e is released.  The Necromancer announcement is the first thing that has made me even consider changing.Again, from a consumer standpoint, if WotC wants my money, they have to provide products that I am interested in.  They intentionally made changes to the base rules of the game that I do not believe that I am interested in.  I am not going to buy three hardcovers to find out whether I am interested or not.  If there is an SRD that can settle that question, then if the rules are something I am interested in, I am likely to buy the books because (like nearly every other RPGer I have ever met) I like physical product.  It is to their benefit to have an online SRD that accomplishes this function.Now, with 3.5, they might feel burned by having an online SRD, because not everyone jumped ship from 3.0.  Cry me a river, though.  IMHO, 3.5 made some good changes, and some really boneheaded ones.  YMMV.  I know that there are people out there -- perhaps even a majority -- who prefer 3.5 to 3.0 100%.IMHO, WotC is going to need 3rd-party partners and an online SRD to sell the game.  Certainly they will need it to sell to DI.  The DI might sell well on the basis of "added value".  I predict it won't do so well on the basis of "We restricted your access compared to what you were used to unless you fork over the cash monthly, and you can pay more for these value added features if you want".  I'm just not seeing that happen.What really hurt WotC, IMHO, is that third parties produced the books they should have produced, earlier and better (and often using the same group of writers).  Now, I see that they are restricting the license, presumably in part to prevent exactly that, and it makes me wonder exactly how much they intend to stifle innovation.See, the game I am playing...my home campaign....belongs to me in my mind.  It might use IP that belongs to WotC (although it should be noted that the eminant Col Pladoh has put some of that into question, suggesting for instance that Mind Flayers were his IP, not transferred to TSR, and thus not transferred to WotC, and has declared that he made them Open) and to other companies, but that's not what I come to the table for.  I don't say, "What's the best WotC IP I can use?"  I say, "What's the best tool to make the best possible game (according to my own criteria)?"TSR got a lot of flack for trying to restrict end-user expression of creativity in the old days, for the very same "valid business concerns" that are being trotted out now to defend WotC's actions.  And where did it get TSR?RC</blockquote>

Verification