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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sunshadow21" data-source="post: 6306103" data-attributes="member: 6667193">For the most part I'm inclined to agree with this, and for all that some don't care for it, I don't think it really hurt anybody that much in the long run the last go around. 4E, Pathfinder, and all the other participants ultimately failed or succeeded on their own merits, not on how loud one side or the other screamed. The one thing that WotC needs to avoid, and they seem to be doing so  this time, is making it look like they are picking a fight that forces  everyone into defensive positions; keeping the disagreements localized  to specific issues and concerns won't necessarily decrease the volume or  amount of fury, but it will ensure that there is a better chance  reaching positive resolution before someone just gives up and walks away  from the system completely. It also ensures that whatever overlap may  exist can be taken advantage of far more effectively. It does show that the OGL did change the game though. Before it was keep playing the same brand with the same company or move on to another company and brand. With the whole 4E/PF/OSR, it was never a question of if people were going to keep playing D&D, it was more of a question of which version and what name would be used. If WotC can learn to accept that, they can still use their superior position within the greater D&D community to their advantage; even now, they have advantages that even Paizo can't even begin to challenge if used wisely and appropriately. They won't crush all other companies out of existence, but I don't think that should be a goal being chased anyway; they need those other companies around to provide the full ecosystem in which their brand can find the most success. Cooperation with the rest of the gaming community will get them a lot farther than the stance they took with 4E.</blockquote>

Verification