Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribe" data-source="post: 8896169" data-attributes="member: 6807152">Absolutely it has. The name itself, has literal decades of history, of weight, of import. Thats it though. The editions are not all the same, so we cannot pin it on 'mechanics'. The lore, the canon? Well they were more than happy to throw that all away recently! The art style? Changes all the time, and the quality of much of it is absolutely in the eye of the Beholder (now theres some IP/Branding!).Its a farce however for anyone to keep saying that the SRD's, dry as dust, or the OGL is 'D&D Brand'. It is not, and frankly Pathfinder proves it.Unless Wizards believes in their twisted heart of hearts, that all RPGs are simply beholden to D&D, and all must come under their control...but I dont think that is it.I think, as others have noted, its down to 3 things.1. Control.2. The virtual space.3. The fact that the OGL 1.0 has 5e, and Wizards doesnt want to ever have to create a 'new' edition again.Emphasis on the last 2. Virtual is where they can extract the most value, but the fact their 'evergreen' edition is literally in the wild and provided by others as well, is a massive red flag to them and why?Because they want others (3PP) to provide the products for them, and they dont want to have to define a 'brand' that people can find fault with. They want the totality of the 'brand' to be "D&D, its every RPG you could be playing."Thats it.</blockquote>