Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5022138" data-attributes="member: 957">No, I'm talking about actions taken by the different D&D publishers which demonstrate their attitude toward other parties creating alternative ways to do things alongside the core approach.That point is about attitude.  The OP very clearly references the idea that the publishers were outspoken against tinkering and instead supported a one true and complete design position.  That is absurd and the reality of them saying here are the rules, here is the OGL, here is the SRD, go and use our tools and bring them back sharper is highly compelling evidence.The idea that the game itself runs contrary to creation of alternatives is disproven by the vast variety of products produced under this allowance, and ten time that by the vast variety of house rules and variations that existed at table after table.  I agree 100% that the variety of houserules is not remotely new to 3E.  But the claim that it was lost in the slightest is asinine.  The OP presents claims from both an attitude position and a mechanics position.  Both are unfounded.  The OGL portion of my response only directly addressed one of the two.  But the complete picture addresses both.</blockquote>