D&D 5E Jonathan Tweet & Rob Heinsoo: Making their own 5th Edition?

Griego · Apr 15, 2012

Mark CMG said:
We don't know their perspective. The problem wasn't sharing IP, which worked great as long as WotC was selling 3.XE and leveraging the OGL to its fullest (something they curtailed a year or so after releasing 3.5E), the problem was moving away from the OGL while simultaneously creating Paizo by stripping away your own talent pool and trying to push a market away from 3.XE when it apparently wasn't ready. To blame the OGL for WotC's problem, you'd have to also believe that Paizo isn't as talented, that 4.XE is clearly a far better game than 3.XE, and that the customer base won't play what they prefer to play. You'd basically have to believe that without the OGL Paizo wouldn't be doing as well it is, 4E would have twice the market share it has, and al of the customers playing PF or sticking with 3.XE would have moved on to 4.XE instead of merely sticking with 3.XE as their game of choice. I don't believe any of those things.

I don't believe any of those things either. But I still think the OGL (and the killing of a herd of sacred cows in 4e) put WotC and Paizo where they are today. And moving from the OGL to the GSL gave us a pretty strong hint of WotC's perspective. Dollars to doughnuts the next license (if there is any) will resemble the GSL a lot more than the OGL.

Mark CMG · Apr 15, 2012

Griego said:
I don't believe any of those things either.

Yup, I believe most people would agree with us but it gives context to our further conjecture, I think. I'm going to take the rest of your post somewhat out of order.

Griego said:
And moving from the OGL to the GSL gave us a pretty strong hint of WotC's perspective.

I was more hoping that the results of that would give them a better perspective, but the lack of an OGL announcement yet makes me skeptical they have learned what I feel I know, and what I think many companies including Paizo have discovered about the benefits of the OGL moving forward.

Griego said:
But I still think the OGL (and the killing of a herd of sacred cows in 4e) put WotC and Paizo where they are today.

I think this conflates things that aren't as closely related as it seems. What WotC did, by moving away from the OGL and creating 4.XE, might have very little to do with folks who picked up PF as opposed to not moving away from 3.XE. We might just as likely have found that, as with folks who never moved on from 1E or 2E, that the same folks who didn't move to 4.XE just stuck with 3.XE were there no Paizo on the scene, or even would have moved on to a different Paizo game with no OGL on the scene.

Griego said:
Dollars to doughnuts the next license (if there is any) will resemble the GSL a lot more than the OGL.

I'm not convinced of that just yet. I think they are stumbling about whether to include any licensing or not but I also think that, if they go with any licensing at all, they will compare the results of using a GSL to that of using an OGL and find the latter more beneficial. It's not like the OGL will go away if they don't use it. If WotC doesn't use it and Paizo develops their own "Next" edition when PF begins to wane, and if Paizo makes their next edition OGL, WotC will likely be losing even more customers through their continued inaction on the OGL front. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to explain to Hasbro how the D&D brand slipped even further than just losing a few quarters to a company full of their former employees who then came up with a whole new game on their own.

Hal G · Apr 15, 2012

While this has gotten farther away from the actual theme of this thread, I for one am reading this and finding all of the comments interesting and well thought out and am keeping an eye on this conversation.

Nellisir · Apr 15, 2012

Mark CMG said:
I think this conflates things that aren't as closely related as it seems. What WotC did, by moving away from the OGL and creating 4.XE, might have very little to do with folks who picked up PF as opposed to not moving away from 3.XE. We might just as likely have found that, as with folks who never moved on from 1E or 2E, that the same folks who didn't move to 4.XE just stuck with 3.XE were there no Paizo on the scene, or even would have moved on to a different Paizo game with no OGL on the scene.

It's worth remembering that Paizo didn't create Pathfinder until -after- it became clear that WotC wasn't going to open up 4e.

Paizo didn't create PF to compete with 4e; they created it because they couldn't use 4e.

triqui · Apr 16, 2012

Mark CMG said:
We don't know their perspective. The problem wasn't sharing IP, which worked great as long as WotC was selling 3.XE and leveraging the OGL to its fullest (something they curtailed a year or so after releasing 3.5E), the problem was moving away from the OGL while simultaneously creating Paizo by stripping away your own talent pool and trying to push a market away from 3.XE when it apparently wasn't ready. To blame the OGL for WotC's problem, you'd have to also believe that Paizo isn't as talented, that 4.XE is clearly a far better game than 3.XE, and that the customer base won't play what they prefer to play. You'd basically have to believe that without the OGL Paizo wouldn't be doing as well it is, 4E would have twice the market share it has, and al of the customers playing PF or sticking with 3.XE would have moved on to 4.XE instead of merely sticking with 3.XE as their game of choice. I don't believe any of those things.

That's assuming the only problem D&D had is the recent Paizo overtake. It might not be the case. While it's obvious that Paizo did beat them out, we don't have the market share values or selling power of WotC. They do. It's perfectly possible that 3.5 went out because they felt their selling power was being drained by a miriad of 3.0 clones. Yes, none of them was so powerful as Pathfinder is. But they were there, none the less. You start adding "world of warcraft rpg" and "Legend of the five rings d20" and "mutant and masterminds" and "spycraft" and "freeport" and "sword and sorcery" and... I think you get the point. None of those were a threat. But *all* of them might be a drainage on their revenue (we have no way to know, we don't now how much they were selling. But they *do* have ways to know)

That said, as a customer, of course I'd like to see OGL again. It does not mean it could be a good idea for them, from a economic perspective.

Mark CMG · Apr 16, 2012

triqui said:
That's assuming the only problem D&D had is the recent Paizo overtake. It might not be the case.

It isn't the case at all and I didn't assume that in the slightest but we clearly disagree where the problems lie, you suggesting they are external and me suggesting they lie within.

triqui said:
While it's obvious that Paizo did beat them out, we don't have the market share values or selling power of WotC. They do. It's perfectly possible that 3.5 went out because they felt their selling power was being drained by a miriad of 3.0 clones. Yes, none of them was so powerful as Pathfinder is. But they were there, none the less.

There's no evidence of this in regard to tabletop RPGs and I'm not of a belief that they were putting a significant dent in the D&D marketshare any more so than the other games that have come and gone since the Seventies when folks first began trying to compete with D&D. I also don't believe that the tabletop RPG market is a zero sum situation. I don't believe that the market cannot grow to accomodate many good games and I question the motivations of any company that reacts to market forces with such a mentality.

triqui said:
You start adding "world of warcraft rpg" and "Legend of the five rings d20" and "mutant and masterminds" and "spycraft" and "freeport" and "sword and sorcery" and... I think you get the point. None of those were a threat. But *all* of them might be a drainage on their revenue (we have no way to know, we don't now how much they were selling. But they *do* have ways to know)

Naw, I won't be comparing the tanletop RPG market to the non-tabletop market, CRPGs, MMORPGs, console games, etc. (I addressed tabletop RPGs above). There's no comparing tabletop RPGs to non-tabletop RPGs except in superficial ways, and there's no realistic way to claim that the customers of one are lost customers to the other, IMO. Clearly, it might be one of the internal mistakes/problems of WotC, to make this comparison and believe it is something they can address. But I am of a belief that it isn't really something you can do anything about directly. It's like wondering why people spend money (that they don't spend on food, shelter and clothing) on hammers and wrenches. Sure, they're both tools but they serve different needs and you'd be foolish to believe that if you put a wrench-like opening on a hammerhead you'd put a dent in the wrench market. You'd also wind up with a crappier, gimmicky hammer. I agree it is possible that some in the tabletop RPG business may not yet have learned this lesson.

triqui said:
That said, as a customer, of course I'd like to see OGL again. It does not mean it could be a good idea for them, from a economic perspective.

I believe evidence points toward the OGL being a huge success for 3.XE for the time that WotC embraced it. I'm not convince there is any real evidence or argument against it.

Nellisir · Apr 16, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Naw, I won't be comparing the tanletop RPG market to the non-tabletop market, CRPGs, MMORPGs, console games, etc. (I addressed tabletop RPGs above).

Everything in his quote was a tabletop product for RPG gaming, although Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, & World of Warcraft were the only actual RPGs. Rokugan (ie Legend of the Five Rings) was a setting, as was Freeport, and Sword & Sorcery was a product line. WoW is the only one that was arguably in direct competition with core D&D.

The fantasy RPGs that I can recall that might spun out of d20, and might have been considered " direct competition" were Conan, WoW RPG, Black Company, Thieves World, True20/Blue Rose, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Iron Heroes. Conan, WoW, and True20 were the most open ended of these.

...you'd be foolish to believe that if you put a wrench-like opening on a hammerhead you'd put a dent in the wrench market. You'd also wind up with a crappier, gimmicky hammer.

And yet they sell them. Have you looked at hammers recently? It's all about the gimmicks.

Mark CMG · Apr 16, 2012

Nellisir said:
Everything in his quote was a tabletop product for RPG gaming, (. . .)

I assumed the mention of WoW had something to do with the misguided notion I have sometimes seen floated that tabletop RPGs were somehow in competition with the non-tabletop (so-called) RPGs. My bad if that wasn't the intent but it's probably good I mentioned it in this context anyway.

Nellisir said:
And yet they sell them. Have you looked at hammers recently? It's all about the gimmicks.

Oh, I've seen them. The junk drawers of America are loaded down with these worthless items and I doubt they have any real impact on the sale of true hammers and real wrenches.

triqui · Apr 16, 2012

Mark CMG said:
It isn't the case at all and I didn't assume that in the slightest but we clearly disagree where the problems lie, you suggesting they are external and me suggesting they lie within.

There's a kind of formal fallacy called fallacy of the single cause Just because they have inner problems it does not mean there aren't external problems as well, that can be, and should be, dealed with regardless of the inner auditory.

There's no evidence of this in regard to tabletop RPGs and I'm not of a belief that they were putting a significant dent in the D&D marketshare any more so than the other games that have come and gone since the Seventies when folks first began trying to compete with D&D. I also don't believe that the tabletop RPG market is a zero sum situation. I don't believe that the market cannot grow to accomodate many good games and I question the motivations of any company that reacts to market forces with such a mentality.

There's evidence that they built a new 3.5 edition after 3.0. They did so for a reason. If they were earning as much money as they wanted with 3.0, they wouldn't had made 3.5, or 4e.

Naw, I won't be comparing the tanletop RPG market to the non-tabletop market, CRPGs, MMORPGs, console games, etc. (I addressed tabletop RPGs above).

I wasn't comparing them either. Warcraft rpg and world of warcraft rpg are, both, d20 games. So were swords and sorceries, mutant and masterminds, conan d20 and so on.

There's no comparing tabletop RPGs to non-tabletop RPGs except in superficial ways, and there's no realistic way to claim that the customers of one are lost customers to the other, IMO. Clearly, it might be one of the internal mistakes/problems of WotC, to make this comparison and believe it is something they can address. But I am of a belief that it isn't really something you can do anything about directly. It's like wondering why people spend money (that they don't spend on food, shelter and clothing) on hammers and wrenches. Sure, they're both tools but they serve different needs and you'd be foolish to believe that if you put a wrench-like opening on a hammerhead you'd put a dent in the wrench market. You'd also wind up with a crappier, gimmicky hammer. I agree it is possible that some in the tabletop RPG business may not yet have learned this lesson.

The fun part is OGL gave tabletop RPG business the technology to build solid, good hammers. It's hard for some chinese car company to build a car that can compete with Ford. But if Ford makes his enginery Open Content, it's trivial to build one and just change the color. I probably wouldn't had bought some random "Conan" game or "Elric" game, because a lot of those have crappy mechanics. But giving those the "d20" logo made me sure that they have a solid base to start with. Much less room for mistakes. OGL is like allowing local soda companies to put a label that says "made with CocaCola formula"

I believe evidence points toward the OGL being a huge success for 3.XE for the time that WotC embraced it. I'm not convince there is any real evidence or argument against it.

The fact that the only ones who have real data about it (WotC) have a different stance is a hint, however.

Mark CMG · Apr 16, 2012

triqui said:
There's a kind of formal fallacy called fallacy of the single cause Just because they have inner problems it does not mean there aren't external problems as well, that can be, and should be, dealed with regardless of the inner auditory.

Only a fallacy of there is evidence of external causes which I am not convinced there is. Nor have I said there is a single internal cause, since I've cited their gutting of their institutional memory, shunting talent off to other companies in the industry, moving away from the OGL, creating a double-sided PR nightmare with the GSL and the denegrating of 3.XE as they moved to 4.XE, and I'm sure I could come up with a few others, and some other folks would likely come up with more, but that's besides the point, IMO. I've refuted the belief that the external situations are causal in their circumstances in any significant way, and though I understand the arguments to the contrary I don't feel the evidence supports those arguments.

triqui said:
There's evidence that they built a new 3.5 edition after 3.0. They did so for a reason. If they were earning as much money as they wanted with 3.0, they wouldn't had made 3.5, or 4e.

That's evidence of an internal decision but note that they continued using the OGL with 3.5, initially.

triqui said:
I wasn't comparing them either. Warcraft rpg and world of warcraft rpg are, both, d20 games. So were swords and sorceries, mutant and masterminds, conan d20 and so on.

I addressed this in a previous post reply to Nellisir.

triqui said:
The fun part is OGL gave tabletop RPG business the technology to build solid, good hammers. It's hard for some chinese car company to build a car that can compete with Ford. But if Ford makes his enginery Open Content, it's trivial to build one and just change the color. I probably wouldn't had bought some random "Conan" game or "Elric" game, because a lot of those have crappy mechanics. But giving those the "d20" logo made me sure that they have a solid base to start with. Much less room for mistakes. OGL is like allowing local soda companies to put a label that says "made with CocaCola formula"

I don't believe the OGL gave folks outside of WotC the ability to create any better hammers than what was done prior to the OGL in the form of things like GURPS or the White Wolf games, none of which I see as having been a threat to D&D dominance and, as I said, I'm also not convinced it is a zero sum market.

triqui said:
The fact that the only ones who have real data about it (WotC) have a different stance is a hint, however.

The only non-WotC sources we have suggest that 3.XE (all OGL) lasted 8+ years and that 4.XE (non-OGL) has lasted about half that time, and that in recent years the first real competition D&D seems to have is from an OGL, non-WotC D&D-like game. Though, again, I'm not convinced that the former WotC employees of Paizo couldn't have created that competiion without the OGL. I'm more convinced that the lack of customer support for 4.XE opened the door for Paizo (OGL or no) and also prompted WotC moving on now to create a 5E. WotC moving on twice as quickly from 4.XE to 5E, as opposed to 3.XE to 4.XE, does seem to offer us a hint.