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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 5446487" data-attributes="member: 221">Again though, when you say "WotC" you make it sound like the company is this monolithic entity, but it is and was not. It is a group of people.  In a sense "WotC" could not have anticipated the results of the OGL because "WotC" as it exists today is not the "WotC" which released the OGL. Legally it is the same entity, but the people comprising the entity are different. On the other hand, again, the people that released the OGL wanted to create the possiblity that another company could do what Paizo did. Now, one could argue they were shortsighted in their company decision making, though, personally, I think the OGL was good for WotC D&D sales. It helped create a palpable excitement that invigorated the roleplaying community in a good way. However, one cannot accuse them of not anticipating this outcome when they (read Ryan Dancey) more or less publically stated at various times and in various ways that he had considered the outcome and thought it was a good thing. From a non-company-loyalty, at-will-employee perspective, the OGL makes very good sense. If I have a hand in creating a new and well-recieved product, and am working for another company who is going to own that product; if I can convince the powers to be to allow me the legal right to keep making that product should the company let me go, I am going to try to do so. If the company then mismanages their ownership of the product, I have not only guaranteed that I can continue to make a living, but I can continue to produce the product in a form I personally approve of.</blockquote>

Verification