Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4160460" data-attributes="member: 58105">4E is not a service. It is Wotc's rpg attached on the D&amp;D brand name they own. Brand names are not services. Can you understand this? There is still OGL and most importantly other rpgs out there because nobody can copyright game rules. If game rules or ideas were copyrightable, yes there could be a monopoly here but this is not the case.EDIT: I understand what you are saying about market control. My feelings are against this too, but this is how the system works now. Nevertheless I believe that in the RPG market giving too much power on the leader (even more than what herself can control) harms the whole market and hobby and potentialy even the leader too. Regarding small publishers, I believe they should have been expecting this. You can't consider an attachment to the leader's casual market aggressiveness (3e SRD) a long term viable solution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="xechnao, post: 4160460, member: 58105"] 4E is not a service. It is Wotc's rpg attached on the D&D brand name they own. Brand names are not services. Can you understand this? There is still OGL and most importantly other rpgs out there because nobody can copyright game rules. If game rules or ideas were copyrightable, yes there could be a monopoly here but this is not the case. EDIT: I understand what you are saying about market control. My feelings are against this too, but this is how the system works now. Nevertheless I believe that in the RPG market giving too much power on the leader (even more than what herself can control) harms the whole market and hobby and potentialy even the leader too. Regarding small publishers, I believe they should have been expecting this. You can't consider an attachment to the leader's casual market aggressiveness (3e SRD) a long term viable solution. [/QUOTE]

Verification