The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.
Let me note something about real world economics. A healthy market sector means more for everyone. My IRL company has been posting record revenues for many consecutive quarters. Our stock took a big hit lately. Why? Because our major competitors posted big losses. This cast the entire sector in a bad light. Doing well in a bad sector isn't any better than doing poorly in a good sector, and is arguably worse, to investors.
Industry economics are different from "small company" economics and you have to make the adjustment. The naive businessman says "us doing well is good, our competitors going well is bad." The smart businessman knows that's not true. It's time Wizards looked at this from a big economic picture point of view. My company (a leading hardware/software manufacturer in its niche field) actively releases free standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board with them, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard. Wizards and D&D got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.
Competition never drove anyone out of business unless they were a) a small storefront or b) sucked and deserved it. Competition is good. In fact, speaking with VCs at Web coferences, they prefer for there to be competition before they invest in a field; that way they know it's likely to be lucrative! Read a business book published in the last decade before making any more GSL/open gaming "decisions."
The best thing you could do right now is to say "Actually, we'll release 4e under the existing OGL." Then, this weekend, mail 4e galleys to all the third party publishers who have expressed interest in the GSL. (Yes, without the $5k per head fee.) Throw in some extra swag. Put an NDA in (assuming there's not already one in place with most of these guys from 3e) saying "the books are under NDA until June, do not open if you don't agree." Say "Hey, sorry, what can we do to help you get some D&D 4e product out ASAP?" That's leadership. Market leadership is the way to great success. There's only so many people you can or want to directly hire. But if your industry follows you, they may as well work for you! You get the glory, the movie licensing deals, and the profit from being the preeminent provider of the thing. Everyone else wants to contribute to your success, not sabotage you, because they share in the overall success.
Why Open Gaming Is Good For Business
The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.
Let me note something about real world economics. A healthy market sector means more for everyone. My IRL company has been posting record revenues for many consecutive quarters. Our stock took a big hit lately. Why? Because our major competitors posted big losses. This cast the entire sector in a bad light. Doing well in a bad sector isn't any better than doing poorly in a good sector, and is arguably worse, to investors.
Industry economics are different from "small company" economics and you have to make the adjustment. The naive businessman says "us doing well is good, our competitors going well is bad." The smart businessman knows that's not true. It's time Wizards looked at this from a big economic picture point of view. My company (a leading hardware/software manufacturer in its niche field) actively releases free standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board with them, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard. Wizards and D&D got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.
Competition never drove anyone out of business unless they were a) a small storefront or b) sucked and deserved it. Competition is good. In fact, speaking with VCs at Web coferences, they prefer for there to be competition before they invest in a field; that way they know it's likely to be lucrative! Read a business book published in the last decade before making any more GSL/open gaming "decisions."
The best thing you could do right now is to say "Actually, we'll release 4e under the existing OGL." Then, this weekend, mail 4e galleys to all the third party publishers who have expressed interest in the GSL. (Yes, without the $5k per head fee.) Throw in some extra swag. Put an NDA in (assuming there's not already one in place with most of these guys from 3e) saying "the books are under NDA until June, do not open if you don't agree." Say "Hey, sorry, what can we do to help you get some D&D 4e product out ASAP?" That's leadership. Market leadership is the way to great success. There's only so many people you can or want to directly hire. But if your industry follows you, they may as well work for you! You get the glory, the movie licensing deals, and the profit from being the preeminent provider of the thing. Everyone else wants to contribute to your success, not sabotage you, because they share in the overall success.
This is absurd.
1: The original OGL is very specific about various points, for it to apply to 4E would require a complete re-write. Rather the invalidate the old OGL and institute a new one, they chose to leave the old one in place and make a new one.
2: The $5K buy in is only for early releasers, after 4E launches it will become free for everyone like the old one.
3: WotC does more [threw things like OGL] to encourage competition in the industry then any one else, a lecture such as yours would be more appropriate on the WW or Hero System boards.
4: With all due respect to your business experience, WotC as well as other major RPG developers are large and highly profitable companies who hire very talented people to know this stuff. If you truly feal your knowledge and experience with business exceeds this then you should have little trouble securing a job with them, where you will no doubt have the power to exercise your convictions.
This is absurd.
In the sense of "true?"
1: The original OGL is very specific about various points, for it to apply to 4E would require a complete re-write. Rather the invalidate the old OGL and institute a new one, they chose to leave the old one in place and make a new one.
That's completely untrue. You must mean the SRD. Here's the open gaming license: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf. It was specifically be designed to be generic and usable by other games; nothing in it is d20/D&D specific.
2: The $5K buy in is only for early releasers, after 4E launches it will become free for everyone like the old one.
Tha was the originally stated plan, however, WotC reps as recently as yesterday have said that the entire GSL concept is still under review (see http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/wotc-rethinking-open-gaming/ for more). You'll notice that not only have they not gotten the new rules to any of the 3p publishers despite promising that in Januarey (http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/the-new-open-gaming-license-is-revealed-kind-of/ - and don'e give me any crap about "it's not ready yet" or "they don't have time", they sent it to the printers already), but that they haven't even shown anyone the license itself yet.
3: WotC does more [threw things like OGL] to encourage competition in the industry then any one else, a lecture such as yours would be more appropriate on the WW or Hero System boards..
"Did", not "does." That's the problem. Sure, other folks should go open too, and many are - the new Mongoose Traveller, Pathfinder, etc. But WotC committed to openness and now is stepping back from that, so that's worth a letter.
4: With all due respect to your business experience, WotC as well as other major RPG developers are large and highly profitable companies who hire very talented people to know this stuff. If you truly feal your knowledge and experience with business exceeds this then you should have little trouble securing a job with them, where you will no doubt have the power to exercise your convictions.
Well, there's two issues here - one, believing that any big company knows what it's doing at a given time because it's big. TSR had come on the brink of going out of business with D&D. Wizards came in and turned them around. All the people who were in on that are gone. Is Wizards going to run D&D into the groupd like TSR did? Saying "no of course not, they're a cummpany" is absurd.
Also - frankly, I suspect I get paid more working for a profitable computer company than working at WotC; I've seen some of their job postings and besides my love for D&D, they don't look like postings I'd respond to.
In the sense of "true?"
That's completely untrue. You must mean the SRD. Here's the open gaming license: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf. It was specifically be designed to be generic and usable by other games; nothing in it is d20/D&D specific.
Tha was the originally stated plan, however, WotC reps as recently as yesterday have said that the entire GSL concept is still under review (see http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/wotc-rethinking-open-gaming/ for more). You'll notice that not only have they not gotten the new rules to any of the 3p publishers despite promising that in Januarey (http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/the-new-open-gaming-license-is-revealed-kind-of/ - and don'e give me any crap about "it's not ready yet" or "they don't have time", they sent it to the printers already), but that they haven't even shown anyone the license itself yet.
"Did", not "does." That's the problem. Sure, other folks should go open too, and many are - the new Mongoose Traveller, Pathfinder, etc. But WotC committed to openness and now is stepping back from that, so that's worth a letter.
Well, there's two issues here - one, believing that any big company knows what it's doing at a given time because it's big. TSR had come on the brink of going out of business with D&D. Wizards came in and turned them around. All the people who were in on that are gone. Is Wizards going to run D&D into the groupd like TSR did? Saying "no of course not, they're a cummpany" is absurd.
Also - frankly, I suspect I get paid more working for a profitable computer company than working at WotC; I've seen some of their job postings and besides my love for D&D, they don't look like postings I'd respond to.
My bad, I was un-aware of these new developments with regards to the OGL/SRD.
I still contend that they know what they are doing, not because there a company but because there a successfull company.
I believe that WOTC has every right to make money and protect their IP. But how long have they known that they will doing 4th Ed? And yet still no license. It makes my inner conspiracy theorist twitch. We have no idea if it's designers vs suits or designers vs lawyers or what. That's their business they can deal with it. But the license should be done and out there. Some folks do have the fear that WOTC will go off the deep end and overly protective to the point of strangling out the third party publishers.
I agree most game publishers don't have openly licensed systems. I wish they would, even a realistically priced pay to publish license would be acceptable (I'll say it even for WOTC and 4th ed). A good example is Pinnacle with Savage Worlds. Yes, they will license their system for a reasonable fee.
To paraphrase GI Joe: "Not knowing is half the battle."
My bad, I was un-aware of these new developments with regards to the OGL/SRD.
I still contend that they know what they are doing, not because there a company but because there a successfull company.
Faith is something to have in the God of your choice, not a company. Everyone was saying the same thing about TSR even as Dancey was looking through their books thinking "WTF?"
1: The original OGL is very specific about various points, for it to apply to 4E would require a complete re-write. Rather the invalidate the old OGL and institute a new one, they chose to leave the old one in place and make a new one.
Rewrite?
Meh. The GSL -- which was nothing more than a trademark license and OGL concept rolled into one -- could just rename it as D&DSTL.
All they need is remove the open gaming text and terms and just use the current OGL.
4e SRD will remain page reference rather than copy-n-paste content SRD as the current 3e SRD.
2: The $5K buy in is only for early releasers, after 4E launches it will become free for everyone like the old one.
It will be released free but they're putting an injunction to "open" publisher to delay their product until 2009.
Those who are willing to pay $5K (assuming the GSL reaches into their hands) can start releasing their products early. But at the rate the GSL is being reviewed and approved, it's not going to leave much time for early publishers to get their products out (unless they skip playtesting and thorough editing) by September.
3: WotC does more [threw things like OGL] to encourage competition in the industry then any one else, a lecture such as yours would be more appropriate on the WW or Hero System boards.
Like our soon-to-change government, many supporters, including the creator of the WotC's Open Gaming Movement are no longer employed there. Those remains face growing influence and pressure within their office building that believes OGL (and Ryan Dancey) is wrong in the first place.
Besides, most diehard D&D fans only care about D&D-labeled products, not d20 System labeled products.
4: With all due respect to your business experience, WotC as well as other major RPG developers are large and highly profitable companies who hire very talented people to know this stuff.
If by "talented" you mean folks hired/approved by Hasbro? Can a toymaker knows what we RPG hobbyists want?
I still contend that they know what they are doing, not because there a company but because there a successfull company.
I'm not going to bother responding to your earlier statements, as you've retracted them. I will however point out that the above quoted statement is an example of the fallacy of false authority. Basically what your saying is:
1) Successful companies never make mistakes.
+
2) WotC is a successful company
-----------------------------
WotC never makes mistakes.
Unfortunately successful company's can, and do, make mistakes. For example: TSR was a successful company for at 20 years before it went under.
I'm not going to bother responding to your earlier statements, as you've retracted them. I will however point out that the above quoted statement is an example of the fallacy of false authority. Basically what your saying is:
1) Successful companies never make mistakes.
+
2) WotC is a successful company
-----------------------------
WotC never makes mistakes.
Unfortunately successful company's can, and do, make mistakes. For example: TSR was a successful company for at 20 years before it went under.
I concur. If they were successful, we wouldn't have needed 3.5e to revise the newly-introduced 3e. We wouldn't have needed 4e before 2010.
They also didn't need to flip-flop on the polymorph rules.
The Chainmail miniatures line would have continued, rather than the repackaged, renamed DDM line.
Believe me, I've seen them make a fair share of business and creative mistakes.
It will be released free but they're putting an injunction to "open" publisher to delay their product until 2009.
Those who are willing to pay $5K (assuming the GSL reaches into their hands) can start releasing their products early. But at the rate the GSL is being reviewed and approved, it's not going to leave much time for early publishers to get their products out (unless they skip playtesting and thorough editing) by September.
Except the longer the delay the less value these companies get for the investment. If it was worth $5000 to get a 1 year jump on the competition is it worth that same $5000 now that 1/4 of the year is gone? Is Wizards limiting non-licensees from publishing adventures? It seems unlikely. When you really think about it the 1 year head start was really a 6-9 month head start (from January until June when the books are published for everyone) since it takes time for companies to actually produce materials and publish it. I thought the goal was for third parties to be able to present their stuff at Gen-Con but that is increasingly unlikely.
The big question is what exactly are people getting for that $5000? They say it will reference page numbers... but I can use page numbers to reference rules without a special license. Can you actually paraphrase content from the book or publish modified versions of something?
Besides, most diehard D&D fans only care about D&D-labeled products, not d20 System labeled products.
We may find out how true this is before too long. I'm on the fence on the 4th edition but I'm getting frustrated things like this. Too many missed deadlines and broken promises.
They say it will reference page numbers... but I can use page numbers to reference rules without a special license. Can you actually paraphrase content from the book or publish modified versions of something?
We don't know until we see the text of the new license. Using the old d20stl you could NOT reference page numbers because of repagination in later re-printings. You could only reference chapters and sections.
I believe D&D survives and is the 900# gorilla it is because they created the OGL.
Should 4e be released with the same OGL and same type of SRD? I would say yes because the cat is already out. I think the original SRD probably was a little too easy to use (although I’m not personally complaining!) but at this point it is out there so there is no turning back.
This is the key things that a lot of corporate lawyers and managers from the “old school” don’t yet get.
For any open source material, you can not take it back.
You can try but it doesn’t work. If you embrace the possibilities open source give you, the advantages usually outweigh the disadvantages, so long as your business model does not require monopolistic practices.
Usually.
Sometimes a company dies because they get it REALLY wrong and the companies that come up to fill the gap…or buys them out…gets it right.
It’s tough because with this kind of stuff we are still learning how it works, what is not enough, what is enough and what is too much. To make it worse the conventional wisdom taught in business school often isn’t wise any more.
All in all I’m cutting WotC a little slack (and Hasbro too)…after all I have a clean out.
If they release 4e under a clean OGL/GSL/etc. ...great! If they do a page reference version of the SRD…excellent! Probably how it should have been in the beginning. It will be a little interesting learning how to use it but no big deal.
If they do not…I will continue to support the game by using the old OGL and hacking the SRDs into the games I want to publish with the idea that I will build it to be as compatible as possible with the published 4e material without getting into legal trouble or plagiarizing their material.
If I can state that I’m compatible I will be VERY happy. If I can’t it just means that I will have a more difficult marketing campaign…and that could be fun!
Just my two coppers.
WildWalker
Believe me, I've seen them make a fair share of business and creative mistakes.
Emphasis mine. Everyone makes mistakes, but WotC has been lucky (or good, depending on your point of view) not to totally screw the pooch over D&D, Its not they are pulling a GW. You want to see horrid business practices, look at GW.
In any event, that's why I think it's a mistake to get rid of the OGL.
I'm not going to bother responding to your earlier statements, as you've retracted them. I will however point out that the above quoted statement is an example of the fallacy of false authority. Basically what your saying is:
1) Successful companies never make mistakes.
+
2) WotC is a successful company
-----------------------------
WotC never makes mistakes.
Unfortunately successful company's can, and do, make mistakes. For example: TSR was a successful company for at 20 years before it went under.
I disagree strongly with this interpretation of what I have said.
Of course WotC can and will make mistakes, my only statement was to the fact that they have thus far done a great job and been very successfull with the D&D license. I have yet to see anything which would give me cause to think this track record will change, and while of course it could to dwell on the prospect based solely on the fact that it's possible does about as much good as living in a bomb shelter because nukes could fly one day.
I have faith in those things which have earned it, and nearly a decade of great games counts heavily towards that.
I don't see the new edition as a sign that WotC has been unsuccessfull with 3E, but rather the opposite. There great success with 3E has afforded them the money and opportunity to bring the system forward to reflect 30 years of cultural advancement.
The OGL and SRD have been both good for the game and bad.
When the SRD serves to help people refrence the rules from say work or to help a game designer with work, these things are great.
When it serves instead to replace the need to buy the rules anf denies support to the industry from those who claim to be it's true fans, that's bad.
The OGL is great for allowing 3rd party developers to build new content and adventures for the core system, but when it allows them to make cosmetic changes then compete with WotC using it's own creation that's bad.
They must see a need to preserve the best aspects of these things while removing those elements which hurt it's intent, I hope they succeed.
I agree with everything the OP stated. However, I would like to add one more thing that wasn't mentioned. Allowing people to reprint the SRD made it possible for third parties to create utilities like the Hypertext d20 SRD; a fantastic utility that provides users with the ability to quickly reference rules, spells, monsters, etc. at the touch of a button. To create a similar utility for Fourth Edition, Wizards of the Coast would have to invest their own capital towards its development. That's money that could be put towards other projects. It also assumes that Wizards would be willing to invest capital towards such a project, and so far, I haven't heard any rumblings to suggest that they've even considered developing such a utility, much less considered investing capital towards its development. Not having access to such a utility will be a major disappointment.
In any event, that's why I think it's a mistake to get rid of the OGL.
Meh. In hindsight, they could have formatted the existing SRD into a page reference index since the start of the OGL, rather than copy-n-paste version it is now. Not many players really care about the lack of the XP award table (that's for the DM).
As it was said before, the existing SRD toolkit (or template) is a too-convenient tool for publishers with an additional benefit for players.
I believe D&D survives and is the 900# gorilla it is because they created the OGL.
Just for this point, I recommend that people read Chris Pramas' blog posting here. The point he makes that I quote below rebuts the above statement quite solidly:
[indent]Third Edition D&D was a success only because of the Open Game License.
This is the easiest one to debunk because I was at the epicenter of both the 3E launch and the beginning of open gaming. When 3E came out, open gaming was a new concept and barely anyone knew about it. The game debuted after an intensive year-long marketing campaign. It was the first new edition of D&D in over 10 years and people were excited about it. By the time the first d20 products, Death in Freeport and Three Days to Kill, were in stores, there were already at least a quarter million Players Handbooks in retail channels. The brand power of D&D at 3E's launch was enormous; that of the OGL was nil. I think it's fair to say that 3E would have been a hit OGL or no.
(snip)
[/indent]
I have to disagree with you.
Initial launch numbers have nothing to do with long term success. 3e might have been a "hit" without the OGL but I beleive it would not have been more than a good sized splash without 3rd party development.
By releasing the OGL they kept developers from fragmenting the "base" by writing different systems to capitalize on the popular resurgence of role-playing caused by the release of 3e.
Whether this was good for the industry as a whole is still an open question but there is no doubt in my mind that it was a good thing for WotC's D&D.
WildWalker
Mudbunny,
I have to disagree with you.
Initial launch numbers have nothing to do with long term success. 3e might have been a "hit" without the OGL but I beleive it would not have been more than a good sized splash without 3rd party development.
By releasing the OGL they kept developers from fragmenting the "base" by writing different systems to capitalize on the popular resurgence of role-playing caused by the release of 3e.
Whether this was good for the industry as a whole is still an open question but there is no doubt in my mind that it was a good thing for WotC's D&D.
WildWalker
Not sure I agree with this, plenty of companies have released non-D20 fantasy RPGs sense 3E released.
The only thing I see spliting the base are companies who abuse the license to create alternate competing D20 rules, leading people to have to ask which version of D20 D&D there group will be playing. Fortunitly this has only resulted in two competing lines [three now that Pathfinder RPG is in the works] but it still proves quite irritating.
Mudbunny,
I have to disagree with you.
Initial launch numbers have nothing to do with long term success.
:evillaugh
Long term? Yeah, if you count that it only takes three years (not five) for a 3e revision to come out. :rolleye2:
That is what makes it tough sometimes to see how an open source project is, or is not, successful.
While market share and market penetration are the big indicators for open source success just like in the closed/profit model, immediate profit is not necessarily a good indicator of success for an open source project like it is for a close source project. Having a "long tail" is the big indicator of success for an open source project.
By that indicator the OGL was a massive success.
The problem for a company like Hasbro is that, since they run on a closed source/profit model, they may not see the "long tail" as necessarily good things. Market share and penetration are equally important to the close source model but it is at the expense of a "long tail". The 'long tail" in a closed source model looks like profit lost to competitors.
Looks like.
The truth is that most customers in the "long tail" are purchasing product that the primary would not or could not make and that most (although not all) also purchase from the primary those products that the primary does provide that they would purchase in the first place. The trade off is that with larger market share and deeper market penetration of the open source product the total market is so much bigger that perceived loss of sales to the long tail is smaller than the total difference in sales for the primary if the product was closed in the first place.
I think I said that right...
D1Tremere,
I do not have more than anecdotal figures but I based on what I've seen the total amount of business that non-D&D pencil and paper fantasy RPGs generate is a lot smaller than the total business D20 based fantasy supplements have generated over the same period. So what I see is a goliath driving the market and a really big "tail" taking some of the profits on products the primary wouldn't or couldn't make (Green Ronin's Testament...). By open source standards this is highly successful.
Ranger REG,
Using the open source model, 3.5 was a mistake as it was done. Open source operates on a patch and release cycle. Once the patches reach a certain critical mass the system is "re-released" and the cycle continues. On the surface 3.5 looked like an attempt to do this but in practice missed the mark. It really was a re-release while the system still wasn't "fixed" to a stable level...a "functional beta" and those have a tendency to "fragment the base" or cause "forks" to appear...which happened. In open source these "forks" either point to things that need to change and die when the primary fixes them or are "category killers" and eventually take over because the "fork" is so much better. There really has not been enough time to see if that evolution is taking place.
WildWalker
Ranger REG,
Using the open source model, 3.5 was a mistake as it was done. Open source operates on a patch and release cycle. Once the patches reach a certain critical mass the system is "re-released" and the cycle continues. On the surface 3.5 looked like an attempt to do this but in practice missed the mark. It really was a re-release while the system still wasn't "fixed" to a stable level...a "functional beta" and those have a tendency to "fragment the base" or cause "forks" to appear...which happened. In open source these "forks" either point to things that need to change and die when the primary fixes them or are "category killers" and eventually take over because the "fork" is so much better. There really has not been enough time to see if that evolution is taking place.
So, basically you agree with me. 3.5e should never have come out in 2003, because they haven't had ample time to fix it. They keep flip-flopping the polymorph rules (last I heard we went back to the original ruling), for example. That and some of the presentations and applications of new material (like the CW Samurai class) suck. It's not 3.5, it's 3.11 (to steal from Microsoft).
I think that 3.5 could have come out when it did if it had been introduced as a patch.
It wasn't.
It was introduced as a reset similar to how 4e is being introduced ... but it wasn't a true reset (as 4e looks to be) and it definately wasn't fully baked. Truth to tell, 3.5 was actually a correct designation...if it had been treated as a patch.
As it was released and implemented (IMnsHO), you are absolutly correct, it was a bad release and the Microsoft comparison is irritatingly accurate.
In fact, I never actually bough any 3.5 stuff because I was treating it like a patch and wasn't interested at that point in monkeying with the system as I was playing games in the lower levels (3-7), with limited rulebooks, the 3.5 SRD had the crunch I was missing and real problems didn't appear until later levels. I also have to point out that I was GMing games in other systems because I couldn't stand the time it took to put together a game with the 3.x rules.
Unfortunately, I don't think WotC knew, at the time, how to release a patch for the game. I think they eventually figured it out. Still not 100% but getting there.
Star Wars Saga Edition, to me, was presented as a patch to the Star Wars RPG and I bought it, with zero hesitation, for that very reason. If WotC re-released d20 Modern the same way, and with the same level of polish, I would snap it up too.
The flip side is Tome of Battle. I'm told that it was awesome for fixing the Fighter issues in 3.5 and creating a "real" Sorceror (Warlock). If it had been presented as a patch I would have snapped it up. As it was, I thought it was just another "crunch/splat/options" book and never gave it a second glance.
WildWalker
RangerREG,
I think that 3.5 could have come out when it did if it had been introduced as a patch.
It wasn't.
It was introduced as a reset similar to how 4e is being introduced ... but it wasn't a true reset (as 4e looks to be) and it definately wasn't fully baked. Truth to tell, 3.5 was actually a correct designation...if it had been treated as a patch.
It didn't feel like a reset. It feels like an incomplete patch for my Might & Magic IX. They only made baby-step improvements, like adding a new combat style for the ranger as well as more option for the monk.
It didn't feel like a reset. It feels like an incomplete patch for my Might & Magic IX. They only made baby-step improvements, like adding a new combat style for the ranger as well as more option for the monk.
Ranger REG,
Exactly my point. Patch. But introduced like a "WhooHOO!!! We're gonna fix it all!"...and punishing their 3rd party support in the process...it was bad juju... if they really wanted to support an open source paradygm.
Or that's my take...
WildWalker