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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 6305206" data-attributes="member: 16726">I don't agree with this at all.Ryan Dancey understood that core rulebooks drive WotC's profits and that a vibrant third-party adventure marketplace would actually increase core-book sales, raising profits for the entire industry including WotC.  He saw the OGL as the means to accomplish this end and it worked even better than he thought it would.The OGL also reassured on-the-fence purchasers that third-party support for their rulebooks would remain available even if WotC tried to muscle them into adopting a new edition that didn't meet with their approval.  This worked as well and drove core-book sales still higher.When WotC eventually did try to muscle them into adopting a new edition that didn't meet with their approval, the OGL's "insurance" against this worked like a charm, with third parties emerging to serve an edition WotC had elected to abandon.  But blaming the OGL for this is like blaming your car insurance for reimbursing you after you're hit, when the fault instead lies clearly with the other driver for doing what he knew in advance would trigger the insurance.  Of course Pathfinder wasn't an unintended consequence of the OGL -- it is exactly what Ryan Dancey intended to happen if WotC did what it did. WotC just drastically overestimated their ability to muscle people, and the fact that they're now paying the piper for this is a testament to the OGL's success rather than proof of its failure.  None of this is meant to imply that 4e is a "bad" system.  I use 4e in one of my three campaigns and have argued many times on these boards that its innovations, from backgrounds to at-wills, would make sound additions to just about any gaming table.  I'd even agree with those who say 4e didn't get a completely fair shake in some quarters from people who were upset by the degree to which it deliberately severed itself from pre-4e continuity and mechanics.  But I don't think it's inconsistent on my part to like 4e for what it is while simultaneously sympathizing with this feeling that too much of the past was jettisoned for too little benefit.</blockquote>

Verification