![bridge-coloured.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/makerhacks/23tmB3yW6aieEzuELTRHYricVaRuqnYZLDQt3jzCBBdQiTRYbizyYedLR1XfgSsRQkFTr.jpg)


Many people like to paint Wizards of the Coast as bad guys, but in some ways they lead the way in being fair to the community and independents are LESS community-friendly.

Without opening up their licensing around 3rd edition, Pathfinder wouldn't even exist.

And yet, find a lesser-known RPG ruleset or skirmish game, or even game *assets* and you often find restrictive licensing or no thought to licensing at all.

### Check the small print

Even map creation tools. IE. things created for you to make maps with, not pre-drawn maps. Fall in love with an art style, get used to using the assets in your home games so you go to publish ... and find even though the assets are creative commons, they are non-commercial. So you think "fair enough, I am not sharing the assets" or even "this must fall under transformative use" but who has the time or resources to argue?

![Screen Shot 2021-11-19 at 11.16.55 AM.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/makerhacks/23uRJKuxBpr7ofc2tsgHd9JrCYdxXSHwwYNSyM3Soz6VRnqNm4dV9ZneECdq3M2S86KtB.png)

You fall in love with a rule set or setting, and find out the writer is not interested in anyone even creating accessories, let alone campaigns or expansions, so the ruleset goes stale and people stop playing.

And we are back to people being confused why independents get less support, while those same independents make it more difficult to support them.