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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MichaelSomething" data-source="post: 5031310" data-attributes="member: 51168">You think it would be in WOTC's best interest to attempt to accommodate more groups by "stretching out" the brand.  For whatever reason, WOTC has decided <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/michaelsomething/1411-blog-post-26-economic-realities.html" target="_blank">not</a> to.  It's either a smart move or a dumb move, but that's not the point to me.  Why does WOTC have to be the one who does it?  They obviously don't want to.  If you aren't getting what you want out of RPGs by going with WOTC, why go with them in the first place?  There are dozens and dozens and dozens of RPG companies/projects out there who would love to have your money/attention. If you're willing to look, there's plenty of good material that would match your taste/preferences perfectly.  Yet that doesn't stop people from wanting WOTC to do it anyway.  It seems to me some people rather complain about WOTC instead of simply going to another company.  It's basic free market theory that people will go to the places that serves them best.  So what's up with some people not doing that?The reason people want to <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/michaelsomething/1443-blog-post-42-buy-great-product-now.html" target="_blank">lobby</a> WOTC instead of defect is because of D&D's name brand power.  What people really want is the power of D&D brand name to attract people to their game table.  If WOTC puts out a game that disagrees with a person, they have few good choices.  Either they have to put up with a game they don't like or they must assemble/convince a group to play an RPG they never heard of before.   Of course I might be wrong.</blockquote>

Verification