tussock wrote:
> gleichman wrote:
>
>>tussock wrote:
>>
>>
>>> d20Modern and Star Wars Saga edition are both labelled by WotC as
>>>d20, as were all the optional rules variants in Unearth Arcana, or 4e
>>>style stuff like the Book of Nine Swords: very few 3rd party d20 books
>>>went further away from core DnD than those did, and most simply pushed
>>>WotC to better respond to customer demand.
>>
>>All those came after some serious divergence from previous non-WotC D20
>>games.
>
>
> Hmm, perhaps. The bulk of 3rd-party d20 stuff throughout has been
> pretty conservative design, but there was the occaisional oddball.
>
>
>>With the cat out of the bag, WotC had a simple choice- either join them
>>and tap the same market (and use it for future R&D as rumored elements
>>of 4E show), or let others control the possible future of their market.
>
>
> It's not "their" market, nor can it be well served by a single game
> model due to the differing desires of the end users. The "direction" of
> the market is to diversity and rules ploliferation, periodically folding
> the best new ideas back into the old stalwarts. Always has been.
>
>
>>It shouldn't be a suprise that they selected the former any more than it
>>should be a surpise that they don't want to repeat that loss of control.
>
>
> Bah humbug. /If/ they successfully prevent people doing interesting
> things with compatable material, people will instead do interesting
> things with /incompatable/ material, which will further segment the
> community and make it harder to fold back the best new ideas into 5th
> edition DnD.
>
> The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.
>
Sadly that simple idea is completely lost on American business
managers...
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual
health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
BLUP
|
