Dndtools is dead...


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I was recently looking up some old 3.5 PrCs, and going on to the usual DnDtools , and noticed that it had finally gotten shut down by WoTC layers. Despite never having played 3.5, I quite enjoyed going on that site, using weird prestige classes for NPCs in my games, and looking at the history behind pathfinder. I was quite impressed with the numbers the creator posted (1000 classes! Madness!).

In any case, a very useful tool has been lost, but I have more love than ever for paizo who has allowed their own "info" sites to flourish. I will be the first to admit that if those free info sites (paizo prd, d20pfsrd & archives of nethys) had not existed, I would never have been able to start playing. And now I have spent a hundred dollars on books...

In any case, a useful ressource has been lost, but let it not keep us from continuing to play!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is the first time I am hearing of this site. My guess is it has more to do with Hasbro (WotC's parent company) than WotC itself. Of course, you can never be certain.

Sucks that it has shut down. I know if it wasn't for d20pfsrd, I wouldn't have done nearly as much in Pathfinder as I have.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing the C&D wasn't about the content but the site name since HW says the material was his.

Either that or he got jumped by an IP troll.


Krensky wrote:
I'm guessing the C&D wasn't about the content but the site name since HW says the material was his.

When talking about his material, I believe it refers to software behind the site, not content which (I'm guessing this, since I didn't know about this site till now. Damn.) was probably closed content from 3.x splatbooks.


Yeah. I was, honestly, pretty angry when I saw this. I used DnDTools ALL THE TIME. All the time. It was a huge, huge loss to the community.

Shadow Lodge

Never knew about this site. But, if as some have suggested, it was providing closed content, then it was only a matter of time before someone at Habro noticed it and had it shut down. And deservedly so. WotC provided a wealth of content as OGC, it really sometimes surprises me how much some people here seem to have so much venom for the fact that they held back some things as closed content.

Also, the very name of the site could be viewed as copyright infringement, if you want to get technical.


Kthulhu wrote:

Never knew about this site. But, if as some have suggested, it was providing closed content, then it was only a matter of time before someone at Habro noticed it and had it shut down. And deservedly so. WotC provided a wealth of content as OGC, it really sometimes surprises me how much some people here seem to have so much venom for the fact that they held back some things as closed content.

Also, the very name of the site could be viewed as copyright infringement, if you want to get technical.

Sure, it's infringement on IP/closed content on a game they no longer support and haven't supported for years. They aren't losing sales because of it. I suppose what they did was legal, but it still rubs me the wrong way and is just one more reason WOTC has lost me as a customer. I doubt if I will ever buy anything from them again.

Shadow Lodge

Valandil Ancalime wrote:
I suppose what they did was legal

What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that what dndtools was doing was NOT legal. (again, assuming there was closed content on the site)


Kthulhu wrote:
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
I suppose what they did was legal
What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that what dndtools was doing was NOT legal. (again, assuming there was closed content on the site)

Huh, maybe you misunderstood me. I said "what they(meanining WOTC) did was legal". I never said what dndtools was doing was legal.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you hate WotC because they enforced their ownership of copyright? Seems pretty reasonable to me, even if the game isn't marketed actively anymore - it still has a value that they are entitled to protect. Personally, I've never heard of this site anyway. I'm not close to this anymore, but are pdf's of this stuff available legally anywhere?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did some checking around, and the only source for d&d pdfs I could find is here:

DnD classics

From what I can see, not too bad a site, but they sell the PDFs at paper book prices (Except when on sale, which seems to be the case right now) so it aint tempting. And apparently they canceled a bunch of plans for 5e e-book release midway through the production.

I understand the desire they have to protect their copyright, though I'm doubtful as to it's ability to drum up business. Considering the additional cost of entry into the hobby, I can only see this as being a way to sell to nostalgic folk.

And as TheBlackPlague said, it's a big loss to the community; arguably the most expansive RPG ever not longer has any kind of comprehensive encyclopedia (and considering the sheer number of feats, classes races & spells, I can understand the need).

In any case, WoTC was within their rights, it's just disappointing that they decide to exercise these, and while I dont predict much of a negative effect on them (they arent relying on 3.5 anymore), it may get even more folks to pathfinder (Yay?!).


williamoak wrote:

I did some checking around, and the only source for d&d pdfs I could find is here:

DnD classics

DriveThruRPG.com is also selling a lot of 3.5 PDFs, for much less than paperback price. They also reprinted a bunch of 3.5 books. Much as the forum may hate it, 3.5 is still very much a 'currently supported' system.

Ironically, that means 3.5 e-books are actually being sold in more places than Paizo e-books (DTRPG sells PDFs from pretty much every RPG publisher except Paizo, presumably because Paizo won't let them).
Now, how much revenue was dndtools costing them? We'll never know, they have no incentive to make the sales data public. But since they are still selling 3.5 books, there are still some people trying to get the rules. And, it doesn't cost them very much to send out a cease and desist letter, so they did.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would expect that Hasbro considers 'DnD' to infringing their trademark as well. Trademarks are tricky things -- if you don't defend them you can lose them.

Shadow Lodge

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I would expect that Hasbro considers 'DnD' to infringing their trademark as well. Trademarks are tricky things -- if you don't defend them you can lose them.

Yeah, I've noted that several times already.

DnD Classics is, like DriveThruRPG and RPGNow (which also both offer D&D PDFs) just a storefront for OneBookShelf.


What I am pissed about that there is no online tool like this, even for someone like me who owns most of the 3.x hardcovers (i have all of the monster books, whole of the FR, every "complete" book, all of the environment books and races books...


And the bean-counters at Hasbro scratch their heads about why D&D lost its market-share to Pathfinder..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Sure, it's infringement on IP/closed content on a game they no longer support and haven't supported for years. They aren't losing sales because of it.

WotC literally released 3.5 reprints last year, and multiple adventures published leading up to 5e's release included 3.5 rules.

Quote:
I suppose what they did was legal, but it still rubs me the wrong way and is just one more reason WOTC has lost me as a customer. I doubt if I will ever buy anything from them again.

Ah, yes. It rubs you the wrong way because WotC doesn't support 3.5 (even though they sell a ton of 3.5 material in both print and digital form), they haven't supported it for years (even though they have), and they aren't losing sales because of it (even though they probably are).

Does this still seem like a reasonable stance for you to take? If so, why? All of your stated reasons are based on falsehoods. If not, why did it take my pointing it out for you to change your mind? If this is actually something you care about enough to boycott an entire company, shouldn't you have bothered to check whether your reasons for boycotting were grounded in reality?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
And the bean-counters at Hasbro scratch their heads about why D&D lost its market-share to Pathfinder...

They weren't exactly gaining market share by letting people pirate their copyrighted material. Paizo protect a lot of their stuff under copyright too - all of the Golarion material is non-OGL. Again, I'm not too sure what was on DnDtools but the comparison with Pathfinder is not entirely apt.


Paizo releases *all* of the Pathfinder mechanics under OGL, meaning that all of the *rules* are open content. That's why sites like the Archives of Nethys or d20PFSRD.com can exist.

Paizo keep the non-rules Golarion stuff closed, (e.g. names, plot, adventure summaries, etc) giving them exclusive control over the flavor of the world.

Paizo also has their Community Use Policy, allowing limited non-commercial use of their closed-content IP. From a business perspective, that was a great way to build their community and increase the enthusiasm for PFRPG and Golarion.

These were risky moves, but ultimately paid off!

The Exchange

Not entirely. There's a lot of rules content too, like PrC's, which remain non-OGL with Paizo. Which sounds like a lot of the stuff on DnDtools. And Paizo wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the orignal OGL, written by WotC, didn't allow them access to use 3e as the basis for their own system. Anyway, WotC isn't marketing 3e stuff anymore, whereas Paizo is still using PF, so the commercial imperatives are different in the current day and age. WotC may want to ensure they want to get paid when someone wants to use their IP. Or they may wish to restrict access to old edition material when they have a new editon to promote. Or maybe they don't want some pirate outfit implying it is an official WotC/DnD site when it isn't, using their (still ongoing) brand.


Scott Betts wrote:

WotC literally released 3.5 reprints last year, and multiple adventures published leading up to 5e's release included 3.5 rules.

That I did not know, thanks for the info.


I think Version 5 is aimed at bringing new people into the hobby primarily. I think it will stay 'quick and simple' and be an introductory system for more complex rules ystem like Pathfinder (D&D 6?) In a few months I don't see veteran players playing it other than as 'light relief' in the long term - I kind of view it as D&DDD (Dungeons and Dragons Dumbed Down). It's being hyped right now but the novelty will wear off.

And back to thread I think there is something about Hasbro putting their business interests over the 'D&D community's' and wanting to establish 'brand loyalty' for new players. I personally (for reasons given above) favour Paizo's approach and it does sadden me but every hobby needs new blood and new ideas not to stagnate.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always find it strange that people assume that any company is putting someone else's interests over their own - they exist to make money. Even the seeming altruism of Paizo is really about what they consider to be in Paizo's interests rather than the community's - it just so happens to maybe be a little more enlightened and closer to the fan base, being a specialist RPG firm when WotC is a divion of a much larger entity. I also suspect that Hasbro are probably unkeen on a website branded with DnD when actually it is promoting an old edition.


Scott Betts wrote:
WotC literally released 3.5 reprints last year, and multiple adventures published leading up to 5e's release included 3.5 rules.

For my own education, when you say "multiple adventures", are there more than just the "Murder at Baldur's Gate" and "Legacy of the Crystal Shard" ?

If so, I'd like to track those down for my collection, and download the 3.5 rules for them before they become unavailable...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I would also be interested in the 3.5 rules they put out for those.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the Murder in Baldur's Gate stuff:

(3.5 stuff is at the end of the document - it contains 5E/Next, 4E and 3.5)

Murder in Baldur's Gate PDF

And here's the Legacy of the Crystal Shard stuff:

Legacy of the Crystal Shard PDF - 3.5

Legacy of the Crystal Shard PDF - 4E

Legacy of the Crystal Shard PDF - 5E/Next


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
WotC literally released 3.5 reprints last year, and multiple adventures published leading up to 5e's release included 3.5 rules.

For my own education, when you say "multiple adventures", are there more than just the "Murder at Baldur's Gate" and "Legacy of the Crystal Shard" ?

If so, I'd like to track those down for my collection, and download the 3.5 rules for them before they become unavailable...

As far as I know, it's just those two.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Haladir wrote:
And the bean-counters at Hasbro scratch their heads about why D&D lost its market-share to Pathfinder...

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the main reason they lost their dominance was they had over a year in which they didn't actually release a product. At least not a major release.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
They weren't exactly gaining market share by letting people pirate their copyrighted material. Paizo protect a lot of their stuff under copyright too - all of the Golarion material is non-OGL. Again, I'm not too sure what was on DnDtools but the comparison with Pathfinder is not entirely apt.

One thing Paizo has done very well is separate their rule content from their campaign content. And so far the only things that are not OGL are abilities and classes that directly depend on a specific element of the campaign setting. For instance, I think the Dawnflower Dervish is closed content because of the name "Dawnflower" and the tie to Sarenrae. However, change the name to "Dervish of Dawn" and someone else can put it up on their site for reference (though he should probably do something about the URL there). So a lot of what they hold back is specifically campaign setting, and they have rules for community use on that.

So, while I don't have problem with WotC protecting their IP, and I don't think Paizo is "letting people pirate" theirs, Paizo has certainly somehow maintained a major market share while giving away most of their material for free. And WotC is still hung up on DRM for their current rulebooks.

So my point is that even though they're not letting people pirate it, they're still letting it out for public consumption under conditions they dictate. While WotC has every right to shut down dndtools (which I also hadn't heard of until this thread), they could learn a bit from their competitors.

The Exchange

Paizo follows a model whereby it gave away the mechanics for free, and then made its money producing adventures for those mechanics. In other words, it gave you something to play on the system with. WotC decided that they would give a small bit of their mechanics away, hold the rest as IP so they could flog it, and outsourced the production of adventures almost entirely. I always maintained that if WotC had decided to actually produce adventures, rather than just splatbooks, during the time of 3e they wouldn't be in the problem they are now.

But in many ways, you can rewind further. The OGL was never really a master stroke for WotC. It was good for the industry but it's debatable how good it was for WotC - after all, they were keen to abandon it when 4e came along (don't know what the arrangements are for 5e, haven't paid attention). It is the OGL which allows Paizo to create Pathfinder and use it as the basis for its business, thereby using what is essentially WotC's creation to cannibalise their profits. In the end, how smart was that?

Liberty's Edge

I'd argue that WotC's failure with the OGL stemmed mostly from very poorly articulating what it and the d20 license actually meant and did. Then when they made the 3.5 changes thee way they did it screwed over a lot of publishers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
They weren't exactly gaining market share by letting people pirate their copyrighted material. Paizo protect a lot of their stuff under copyright too - all of the Golarion material is non-OGL. Again, I'm not too sure what was on DnDtools but the comparison with Pathfinder is not entirely apt.
One thing Paizo has done very well is separate their rule content from their campaign content. And so far the only things that are not OGL are abilities and classes that directly depend on a specific element of the campaign setting. For instance, I think the Dawnflower Dervish is closed content because of the name "Dawnflower" and the tie to Sarenrae. However, change the name to "Dervish of Dawn" and someone else can put it up on their site for reference (though he should probably do something about the URL there). So a lot of what they hold back is specifically campaign setting, and they have rules for community use on that.

The issue with the url, from what I have heard, is they originally had things up under the actual name, referencing what was written in the book. Paizo said to change the names into something more generic or we will be forced to make you shut the site down. So they changed it, but I guess they forgot to change the urls of the pages.

Why this applied to d20pfsrd.com and not Archives of Nethys (who still have the campaign specific names and such), I don't know.


Adjule wrote:
Why this applied to d20pfsrd.com and not Archives of Nethys (who still have the campaign specific names and such), I don't know.

d20pfsrd.com started out as a simple rules-reference site. When they added a web store to sell PDFs and things, they became a commercial entity. For some reason, different rules apply to commercial sites than to fan sites. They and Paizo figured out a way around the strictures of the OGL in this case by removing all Product Identity names.

Archives of Nethys is still a rules-reference site, not a web store, so they didn't have to do that.


You cant use the community use license if youre a publisher. This is true even if the book or website in question is free.

Only fans can use it (and therefore use paizo's IP - within the scope of that license).

If paizo regard you as a commercial user you are restricted to the PF Compatibility license.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that part up for me. :)


They'd be much better off realizing that sites like DNDtools promote, rather than threaten, D&D, but we are talking about the company which flatly refuses to release the current edition in PDF. Or the four or so editions before it, as it happens. :-/

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
I'd argue that WotC's failure with the OGL stemmed mostly from very poorly articulating what it and the d20 license actually meant and did. Then when they made the 3.5 changes thee way they did it screwed over a lot of publishers.

It was extremely clear what it mean and did, there were a crap ton of companies big and small that used OGL to publish works with varying degrees of success from licensed D20 versions of Diablo, Warcraft, World of Warcraft, Everquest, to full settings such as Sovereign Stone, and Monte Cook's work.

The problem was that none of these successes were funneling money into WOTC's coffers and people playing these settins weren't buying Forgotten Realms material, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, or in some cases the splatbook/month, since these third parties could not make use of them.

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:
They'd be much better off realizing that sites like DNDtools promote, rather than threaten, D&D, but we are talking about the company which flatly refuses to release the current edition in PDF. Or the four or so editions before it, as it happens. :-/

Except for the material they release in pdf.

For which I get updates every week from RPGNow.

I may not necessarily buy any of it, right now, since much of it I already have from before 2008, or can't spare the price they're asking for a system I'm not actively running.
But it is out there, and the inventory is growing every week.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Snorter wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
They'd be much better off realizing that sites like DNDtools promote, rather than threaten, D&D, but we are talking about the company which flatly refuses to release the current edition in PDF. Or the four or so editions before it, as it happens. :-/

Except for the material they release in pdf.

For which I get updates every week from RPGNow.

I may not necessarily buy any of it, right now, since much of it I already have from before 2008, or can't spare the price they're asking for a system I'm not actively running.
But it is out there, and the inventory is growing every week.

I haven't looked in a while, but I noticed they were issuing supplemental books without releasing core rules. Did they ever get around to releasing the PHB/DMG of 1e/2e?


Snorter wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
They'd be much better off realizing that sites like DNDtools promote, rather than threaten, D&D, but we are talking about the company which flatly refuses to release the current edition in PDF. Or the four or so editions before it, as it happens. :-/

Except for the material they release in pdf.

For which I get updates every week from RPGNow.

I may not necessarily buy any of it, right now, since much of it I already have from before 2008, or can't spare the price they're asking for a system I'm not actively running.
But it is out there, and the inventory is growing every week.

You can't buy the PHB for 5E.

Or 4E.
Or 3.5E.
Or 3E.
Or 2E.
Or 1E.

You can buy supplements, sure, but not the rules to actually play the game. The last time you could do that was 2009, right before they pulled them off the market because (by their own admission) piracy.

Now they're C&Ding sites out of existence because they supposedly compete with their (non-existent) digital tools.

WotC is like the pre-iTunes record industry...they just don't get it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:


Now they're C&Ding sites out of existence because they supposedly compete with their (non-existent) digital tools.

WotC is like the pre-iTunes record industry...they just don't get it.

Actually most people don't get it. At least not the ones posting here. When you hold copyright, product identity, IP in general you are required to defend any violations of it... otherwise it gets ceded to general use. Which is why Beyer does not have exclusive use of the word "Aspirin", despite being the inventor of the drug. Also the reason for Xerox's "Xerox is not a verb" campaign.

WOTC can afford to ignore sites which stay under the radar, but once they surface to general ken, they MUST invoke the lawyers, or lose the IP for lack of defense.

The Exchange

Presumably why no one using the OGL was allowed to mention DnD but instead referred to "the world's favorite roleplaying game" or some such wording.


LazarX wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


Now they're C&Ding sites out of existence because they supposedly compete with their (non-existent) digital tools.

WotC is like the pre-iTunes record industry...they just don't get it.

Actually most people don't get it. At least not the ones posting here. When you hold copyright, product identity, IP in general you are required to defend any violations of it... otherwise it gets ceded to general use. Which is why Beyer does not have exclusive use of the word "Aspirin", despite being the inventor of the drug. Also the reason for Xerox's "Xerox is not a verb" campaign.

WOTC can afford to ignore sites which stay under the radar, but once they surface to general ken, they MUST invoke the lawyers, or lose the IP for lack of defense.

Not exactly. That is true of trademarks, but not copyright. So they could easily have protected the name "D&D" without requiring him to pull down the site. It's also debatable whether "DnD" (as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons or D&D) is actually a trademark, but that's another story.

BTW, IANAL, but I have completed collegiate business law classes. I'm quite certain that trademarks and copyright are very different animals.

The Exchange

IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer? It's a sad development when that becomes an internet acronym. ;-P

Though maybe IAAL is possibly worse.

Anyway, who am I fooling - I'm a banker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The OGL was never really a master stroke for WotC. It was good for the industry but it's debatable how good it was for WotC - after all, they were keen to abandon it when 4e came along (don't know what the arrangements are for 5e, haven't paid attention). It is the OGL which allows Paizo to create Pathfinder and use it as the basis for its business, thereby using what is essentially WotC's creation to cannibalise their profits. In the end, how smart was that?

How smart was it to terminate anyone and everyone involved with the project, and then, by and large, ignore it?

People always seem to forget that the whole OGL deal is a two-way street, and WotC basically squinched their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "NA NA NA NA NA" when it came to their ability to use open content to their own benefit.

The OGL was certainly a master stroke. Their inability or unwillingness to embrace that which they created was the problem, not the thing they created itself.

We've all heard about the whole "D20 Glut" and all of the oh-so-horrible stuff there. WotC, as the gatekeepers to the game, were in the perfect position to seperate all of the diamonds from the rough and polish them up, incorporating that into the system, enhancing and expanding it.

Their keenness to abandon it simply underscores that those that made that decision just flat didn't understand it, and refused to try to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Now they're C&Ding sites out of existence because they supposedly compete with their (non-existent) digital tools.

WotC is like the pre-iTunes record industry...they just don't get it.

Looking at cached versions of that site, it's pretty quickly clear that the C&D was issued because that site was pretty much playing cut-and-paste with stuff out of the books.

They weren't using the SRD for their content, and they weren't limiting things to books that provided open content.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer? It's a sad development when that becomes an internet acronym. ;-P

Though maybe IAAL is possibly worse.

Anyway, who am I fooling - I'm a banker.

LOL...yes, you got it, and it's been around the Internet a while. And I am definitely not a lawyer, so my belief that WotC could have asked him to change the name of the site to avoid any trademark concerns while allowing it to continue to operate might be mistaken. There are a couple of resident lawyers here...maybe one will jump in an clarify.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Now they're C&Ding sites out of existence because they supposedly compete with their (non-existent) digital tools.

WotC is like the pre-iTunes record industry...they just don't get it.

Looking at cached versions of that site, it's pretty quickly clear that the C&D was issued because that site was pretty much playing cut-and-paste with stuff out of the books.

They weren't using the SRD for their content, and they weren't limiting things to books that provided open content.

Again, that's a copyright, not a trademark, issue. But yeah, it wasn't too bright to cut and paste stuff right out of the books.

I'm simply suggesting that trying to stamp out copyright violation via C&Ds or legal action is an ultimately futile -- and somewhat customer hostile -- course of action. You're much better off making your content available in a legitimate digital format so there is no reason for a site like dndtools to exist in the first place.


Or develop a licensing system so that site and others can exist, and such licensing creates a revenue stream...

The Exchange

Brian E. Harris wrote:

How smart was it to terminate anyone and everyone involved with the project, and then, by and large, ignore it?

People always seem to forget that the whole OGL deal is a two-way street, and WotC basically squinched their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "NA NA NA NA NA" when it came to their ability to use open content to their own benefit.

The OGL was certainly a master stroke. Their inability or unwillingness to embrace that which they created was the problem, not the thing they created itself.

We've all heard about the whole "D20 Glut" and all of the oh-so-horrible stuff there. WotC, as the gatekeepers to the game, were in the perfect position to seperate all of the diamonds from the rough and polish them up, incorporating that into the system, enhancing and expanding it.

Their keenness to abandon it simply underscores that those that made that decision just flat didn't understand it, and refused to try to do so.

See, I don't really see that. I think you aren't really getting what would be the only motivation for WotC - namely, the bottom line. The OGL was good for RPGs in general and d20 specifically but whether WotC genuinely got much benefit is doubtful - it didn't share the profits of those using the system, it just gave the IP away for free, so there was no immediate benefit to them.

In theory they could have benefitted if the sales of 3PP material led lots of people to rush and buy the WotC rules as the engine, but I'm not sure that would have happened. I would imagine you would buy the rules and then explore 3PP stuff, rather than buy a 3PP product and say, "Hey, I really need to check out those D&D rules!" So I can't really see it driving sales in that way.

And as I said above, the big mistake that WotC made was to not provide their own product for their engine because they didn't make adventures except once in a blue moon - otherwise, they relied on Paizo in the magazines era one a semi-detached basis. Paizo benefitted from all the people who were playing 3e and didn't want to stop when 4e came out, so I'm not sure WotC's experience would be the same. And Paizo's strongest suit is adventure design, so a free engine isn't really such a big sacrifice for them.

No one outside Hasbro has seen the figures as WotC is only a part of a much larger company, but I would be surprised that the OGL really drove much business for them. That was partly their own fault but even with the best will in the world, their approach to driving profits, and their business model, was very different to Paizo. On that basis, ending their involvement with the OGL would be perfectly rational.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Or develop a licensing system so that site and others can exist, and such licensing creates a revenue stream...

And/or that. :)

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Dndtools is dead... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.