Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 3665544" data-attributes="member: 360">Err... nope. The most important thing is that 4e be a good, interesting, and fun game that current gamers want to play and new players want to come back for a second session of. If there's no D&amp;D market, there's essentially no tabletop RPG market.An OGL ruleset would be nice for small publishers. But quite frankly, non-WotC d20 products designed for use with D&amp;D are chump change; the real stars of d20 have been standalone games. And that's really not what WotC wants, I think. They (from a crass, dollars and cents point of view) want the best and brightest third parties putting their creative energies in building things for D&amp;D, not making their own stuff. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, while not being entirely closed, 4e is less 'open' than 3e was, with a license designed to allow supplements and adventures, but discourage raiding mechanics for all-new games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="drothgery, post: 3665544, member: 360"] Err... nope. The most important thing is that 4e be a good, interesting, and fun game that current gamers want to play and new players want to come back for a second session of. If there's no D&D market, there's essentially no tabletop RPG market. An OGL ruleset would be nice for small publishers. But quite frankly, non-WotC d20 products designed for use with D&D are chump change; the real stars of d20 have been standalone games. And that's really not what WotC wants, I think. They (from a crass, dollars and cents point of view) want the best and brightest third parties putting their creative energies in building things for D&D, not making their own stuff. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, while not being entirely closed, 4e is less 'open' than 3e was, with a license designed to allow supplements and adventures, but discourage raiding mechanics for all-new games. [/QUOTE]

Verification