catsclaw said:
Nope. You're still wrong. If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you might understand why.
You claiming you haven't personally benefited from the OGL is like a native New Yorker saying they haven't personally benefited from the Interstate Highway System. To the extent that the OGL expanded the size of the industry, employed a number of people who were able to freelance for WotC, and made it more profitable for WotC to publish books--you have personally benefited. Without touching a single d20 product yourself.
WTF are you talking about? I'm telling you that aside from the core books, we bought the Forgotten Realms book, and a VERY small handful of other class books.
You're *STILL* telling me that I've benefited from an expanded industry... even though I've not bought/used/read/cared about/had any interest in/etc any product created by this industry?
LOL!
People who've never touched "a single d20 product" have benefited from the OGL?
LOL!
You crack me up!
Lets try someone different, see if they make more sense.
Wystan said:
Well, simply put, those third parties did have an impact on the books you name. The people that worked on them got their start in the 3rd party 'stuff' that you tend not to use. They added and changed D&D for all players with their innovations and they were absorbed by Wizards to do it on a more broad scale...
Any other questions?
Um? Yes?
First question: How does this effect someone who still uses almost exclusively core books? How does this 'back slide effect' help people who don't use content that was released after said 'back slide'?
You're all still assuming that everyone is using new books. You're all still assuming that everyone is going out every month and buying DnD content. That simply isn't true. I've tried to say that ten times now. Some groups are happy with the content they had with the edition came out, and don't generally expand upon that.
Your "reasoning" (and I am being generous) requires that a person be constantly buying books... and that they be buying WotC books. I entirely agree, as was indicated in my previous post (the part where I said something to the effect of 'if you buy enough books that the books you buy have been influenced by the newer books'), that the new WotC books have something to be thankful of from the third party books. It is, as is any, a synergistic market. Product A builds to product B, which was necessary for Product C.
If you enjoy product C, you can't say it would have happened without product A (well, you can... but even I'm not arguing that at the moment).
I'm however saying that while "Product A" (first party content) led to "product B" (third party content), which in turn led to "product C" (another piece of first party product)... none of that matters if all a person plays with is "Product A".
The person who plays with "Product B", and "Product C" might be beholden to the person who created "Product A", but yet the person who only plays with "Product A" is in no way beholden to the person who created "Product B", or "Product C".
This is simple economics, and wishful thinking is interfering. That so many fail to recognize the bias interfering with their opinions is just sad. That so many think there personal preference would be for the best of WotC is pathetic.
Not everyone has the same gaming trends as you. Not everyone has the same gaming trends as me.
The problem is that I'm allowing for other people to trend differently from myself, and you are not.
Epic. Fail.