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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lrsach01" data-source="post: 4135676" data-attributes="member: 18397">OK...just slogged through 7 pages of this topic. Wow...look, I don't think there is any reason to start screaming about the falling sky, but the topic is worth a good discussion.One point I think is getting and that is the reason the OGL was started in the first place. Ryan Dancey, I believe, stated that WotC was going to make a small consistent amount of money as the creator of the rules books and SOME adventures. The OGL would let lots of others to come up with the games and some side content WotC wasn't interested in doing. AT THE SAME TIME, making sure that the content was available to them IF they thought they could do something with it. Sure, lots of small companies came out with lots of bad stuff...and they are gone now. It was only when WoyC decided they wanted to make the cash from successful third parties that you saw them start doing more modules, more settings books and LOTS more rule books.The point is, the OGL was there to make money for WotC. Someone earlier stated that gaming companies didn't license their work? But they do...the engines! The game engines are licensed all the time. Doom, Quake, Monolith are the ones from when I used to play PC games. If WotC wants to pull out from their GSL, they can. Its their party and they can do what they want. But, they need to be ready for the backlash when people start complaining about the modules (either quality or quantity). They've already pulled back EVERY setting and the magazines. This means THEY are going to be accountable for EVERYTHING. After 3.0 came out and people started complaining about quality, WotC could say, "Hey, its third party! If you want quality, come to us!" Not if they kill the GSL. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Ok...time for this post to go through the buzz saw. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification