Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6568041" data-attributes="member: 59082">That's the sort of thing that I associated with "modularity" early on, but now I see it a bit differently - that the modules can be the building blocks I speak of - not just, or even primarily, rules modules but more so adventure and campaign building pieces that can be easily slotted into a game. I certainly see a place for both, but after having played 5E a couple times and being faced with the time crunch of preparation, I see now that the latter would be far more useful, to me at least.That is certainly a major part of it. The problem I see is that WotC has created this great game but are providing limited resources for it - only the story arcs so far. That would be fine if they were offering a clear OGL of some kind to allow publishers to pick up the slack. But they aren't. There is some material being created anyway, presumably with the hope that WotC won't send cease and desist letters. But I think if there was a clear OGL there would be a lot more stuff coming out.But here's the point: WotC isn't offering what a lot of folks want, but they also aren't allowing others to provide it. I'm not sure why this is - hopefully we'll know soon (whether WotC plans on offering more product and/or what sort of licensing they'll allow).This has been talked about extensively, but I think there's an important distinction to make: the OGL didn't create Pathfinder, it allowed for it. What created Pathfinder was two things: taking away the OGL and replacing it with the far more restrictive (and delayed) GSL, and the fact that 4E wasn't embraced by a large segment of the D&D community. The OGL only allowed for Pathfinder to be published.This seems like one of those problems that is an inevitable consequence of having a lot of freedom, which is a good "problem" to have. Eventually the market (and 3.5) cleaned up the field a bit, so I don't think it is automatic that an OGL = a ton of crappy product. This is why I think a perhaps slightly more restrictive OGL might be a good thing. I haven't thought too much into how that might work.Good idea.</blockquote>

Verification