A small handful of new 5E designers' quotes: Design Goals, Healers, Art, OGL

[Kobold Boots]

This ignores synergy.

I do not know anybody that owns either Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved that doesn't also own 3.X. Also, they pull out Iron Heroes for a change of pace - more often than not they are running 3.X, and these days they are doing so in the form of Pathfinder.

WotC would, I think, be better served putting the whole kit & kaboodle of the OGL back than trying to cherry pick to get the results they want.

Trying to do so when creating the GSL is a large part of what got them into this mess.

And honestly? Pathfinder has enough of a following that genie ain't never going back into the bottle. OSRIC has happened, Fantasy Craft has happened.

Trying to clip the wings of the OGL at this point is closing the barn door after the cows have left. Heck, it is closing the barn doors, then wondering how to get the cows back into the barn, now that the doors are closed....

The Auld Grump

That's a fair elaboration on my core theme but it doesn't really resonate what I'm getting at.

The OGL allowed Pathfinder to happen. That is a serious strategic flaw when combined with the intention of fourth edition's rules changes. So either the OGL shouldn't have happened in its exact form or 4th edition shouldn't have in its form. (and I agree with both as independent options)

This said, if you have a company built on IP you do not open source that IP without restriction if you want to have a profitable company long term. Anyone with a basic business education will tell you that. Sure you may share it and you may license it (even for free) but it needs to be anchored to prevent direct competition of the home company's core game, brand and genre.

If it was done right, Paizo could have put out a generic D20 system, but could not have packaged "medieval fantasy" content with that generic D20 system without paying significant royalties to WoTC. Anyone creating "medieval fantasy" content would have to do so with the intent of supporting D&D exclusively.

.. ergo I expect something like this in the new OGL/GSL.. it would allow for the Mutants and Masterminds of the world, but not the Pathfinders.

To close, as I may be neglecting synergy.. you may be neglecting long term vision. Pathfinder is awesome now.. and it'll surely be awesome in 20 years even in its current form - much as 1e is to those who play it.. but the key right now is to set a foundation for the stability of the D&D brand for the next 10 years if not longer and there's nothing you can do about the 3rd edition/Pathfinder fork now that it's happened.

One of three things will occur:

1. Hasbro will buy Paizo outright.
2. Paizo will buy WoTC or the D&D brand outright
3. The two games will fork here and be materially different as the years pass.

Regardless of which of these or some combination thereof, the OGL matter will be water under the bridge in 3 years.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's a fair elaboration on my core theme but it doesn't really resonate what I'm getting at.

The OGL allowed Pathfinder to happen. That is a serious strategic flaw when combined with the intention of fourth edition's rules changes. So either the OGL shouldn't have happened in its exact form or 4th edition shouldn't have in its form. (and I agree with both as independent options)

This said, if you have a company built on IP you do not open source that IP without restriction if you want to have a profitable company long term. Anyone with a basic business education will tell you that. Sure you may share it and you may license it (even for free) but it needs to be anchored to prevent direct competition of the home company's core game, brand and genre.

If it was done right, Paizo could have put out a generic D20 system, but could not have packaged "medieval fantasy" content with that generic D20 system without paying significant royalties to WoTC. Anyone creating "medieval fantasy" content would have to do so with the intent of supporting D&D exclusively.

.. ergo I expect something like this in the new OGL/GSL.. it would allow for the Mutants and Masterminds of the world, but not the Pathfinders.

To close, as I may be neglecting synergy.. you may be neglecting long term vision. Pathfinder is awesome now.. and it'll surely be awesome in 20 years even in its current form - much as 1e is to those who play it.. but the key right now is to set a foundation for the stability of the D&D brand for the next 10 years if not longer and there's nothing you can do about the 3rd edition/Pathfinder fork now that it's happened.

One of three things will occur:

1. Hasbro will buy Paizo outright.
2. Paizo will buy WoTC or the D&D brand outright
3. The two games will fork here and be materially different as the years pass.

Regardless of which of these or some combination thereof, the OGL matter will be water under the bridge in 3 years.

Pretty sure that both 1. and 2. are out of the running.

The creators of the OGL have been pretty open that people creating their own games as well as supplements was what they expected, and they deliberately made it so that if WotC did flake then somebody would create something compatible.

WotC flaked, and somebody did create something compatible.

I do not call a license doing exactly what it was designed to do a failure - I call the WotC folks that ignored the intent of the license, well, a lot of very bad things indeed.

The failure was not in the license, it was in WotC believing that D&D the brand had enough swing to succeed regardless of dropping that license. (And ignoring their playtesters, and in alienating a fair number of potential customers, and....) Hubris, more than anything else.

The Auld Grump

 

[aboyd]

"And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded."

This is something I find very interesting. As much as I enjoyed the OGL on the customer end, I would find it hard to argue with the idea that their main competitor exists solely because of the OGL. I like that Pathfinder is around, competition is always a good thing and D&D needed it, but from the WotC perspective having such a large competitor is probably not something they were happy about; the idea that when an edition change occurs people may switch to another companies product.

It's weird, but I got the complete opposite interpretation out of that comment.

When I read it, I saw them bemoaning not that the OGL caused Pathfinder to prosper, but rather that the sloppy move from OGL freedom to GSL lockdown caused so many publishers & fans to jump ship. In other words, I don't see them saying "OGL is bad because it caused Pathfinder to exist," but rather, "GSL alienated people, we wish we hadn't shot ourselves in the foot like that."

If my interpretation is correct, then I think that's really big of them and I'm going to be open to hearing what they have to say about it. If your interpretation ("Damn it, we gotta kill Pathfinder") is right, then I'm less interested in what they have to say, as that's just more of the same old hyper-controlling pushiness that lost them fans in the first place.

 

[bhandelman]

It's weird, but I got the complete opposite interpretation out of that comment.

When I read it, I saw them bemoaning not that the OGL caused Pathfinder to prosper, but rather that the sloppy move from OGL freedom to GSL lockdown caused so many publishers & fans to jump ship. In other words, I don't see them saying "OGL is bad because it caused Pathfinder to exist," but rather, "GSL alienated people, we wish we hadn't shot ourselves in the foot like that."

If my interpretation is correct, then I think that's really big of them and I'm going to be open to hearing what they have to say about it. If your interpretation ("Damn it, we gotta kill Pathfinder") is right, then I'm less interested in what they have to say, as that's just more of the same old hyper-controlling pushiness that lost them fans in the first place.

My interpretation of their comments is the same as yours. What I was saying is I was surprised that their attitude isn't "OGL is bad because it caused Pathfinder to exist". I would think a business would look at it that way, but as others have pointed out the guys in charge now benefited greatly from the OGL, so their comments make more sense to me at this point.

 

[migo]

Given the OSR, I'm confident in saying that someone could've made a 3e clone, even without the OGL.

The OSR happened because of the OGL. I'm not sure whether it was Mongoose or Green Ronin who first had the balls to release an independent game using the d20 rules under the OGL, but that's what got it started. Then OSRIC came along, and really got the ball rolling for that. Without the OGL, no OSR. You'd have some people still playing old editions, but the problem with a game going EOL is that it makes it harder to introduce new players. The retroclones solved that.

Pretty sure that both 1. and 2. are out of the running.

The creators of the OGL have been pretty open that people creating their own games as well as supplements was what they expected, and they deliberately made it so that if WotC did flake then somebody would create something compatible.

WotC flaked, and somebody did create something compatible.

I do not call a license doing exactly what it was designed to do a failure - I call the WotC folks that ignored the intent of the license, well, a lot of very bad things indeed.

The failure was not in the license, it was in WotC believing that D&D the brand had enough swing to succeed regardless of dropping that license. (And ignoring their playtesters, and in alienating a fair number of potential customers, and....) Hubris, more than anything else.

The Auld Grump

Do you have a quote of Ryan Dancey saying the OGL was to keep the game going even if WotC didn't? I'd love if that were true, but I'm surprised I haven't heard this tidbit before.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Without the OGL, no OSR.

Yes and no. I think you're right historically that the OGL helped cause the OSR.

I don't think that, legally, the OGL is required for the OSR. So 4e, despite not being OGL, could certainly have its core re-published as an OSR game, if someone wanted to.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It wasn't Dancey, one of the others, in a Blog where he was discussing why WotC sold to Hasbro. (They were in the situation of being personally almost broke, while owning a company that was anything but.

I rember handing out the blogs URL to a bunch of people, I will see if I can track it down again.

Not today though - today was and is full of girlfriend, lead testing, game, and somewhere between all that - sleeeeeep!

The Auld Grump, and too much caffeine.

*EDIT* Or, I could just scroll down through my bookmarks to find it. (I wish that this site had a rolling eyes smiley, I swear that I would be using them on myself all the time!)

And the part that I was remembering was from Dancey - "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners." from a post over to the Paizo forums. - so I am two for two on being hazy....

 

[Alphastream]

My thanks to Morrus for linking to my blog. I've posted part 2 and will post part 3 later today.

I happened to recently come across another mention, tracked down description from back then. The relevant part

Does the quote from that site match what was recorded on the Tome show podcasts? I don't recall that. Regardless, I think the entire subject of the Eberron digital stuff is far from clear. Critical Hits heard at the time that it had been a canceled idea and Jim had forgotten that (instead of being something that was scheduled for later). Given that we haven't heard anything about it, that seems likely. My personal take-home is that the slip at Gen Con really doesn't tell us anything we don't know: Wizards has long considered ways to provide older content in digital form but has never found a proper way to do so. (Of course, we all have ideas, but the company has not found a way to do it that meets their goals).

D&D Next may provide that way, but it remains to be seen. While Dancey has made a really good case for the OGL, on the whole it isn't clear that the OGL has been good for Wizards. Whatever profits were made in the 3E days were likely undone in the 4E days through the edition wars the OGL facilitated. I'm all for a company that chooses to be a non-profit, but Wizards has not been that company. They likely did have the noble cause of protecting D&D (for which I am grateful!), but they did not secure D&D as a non-profit venture. When you have to look at profit you have to do more than want the OGL to foster diversity and collaboration in the marketplace. Looking at the OGL we should immediately see real problems based on the edition wars. D&D Next should take a look at this very carefully. When even Ryan Dancey says D&D is important to the future of RPGs, then I think we all want Wizards to get any future OGL right - and not just with a view of preserving a single edition of D&D; the future of D&D must also be insured.

As a parallel, I'm not a huge fan of FASA's second edition of Shadowrun. I really liked 1st. But, I'm very glad that we saw a third and especially the fourth edition (which is now my favorite). I similarly look forward to an eventual fifth edition of Shadowrun, and while I think SR could benefit from other RPG companies collaborating, I don't want to see anything that would impede a future edition or create edition wars. I feel the same way about all of my RPGs.

 

[migo]

Yes and no. I think you're right historically that the OGL helped cause the OSR.

I don't think that, legally, the OGL is required for the OSR. So 4e, despite not being OGL, could certainly have its core re-published as an OSR game, if someone wanted to.

One of the things the OGL helped with is reprinting a retro-clone that uses the same content rather than stand ins. Same order of stats, same names for the stats, same monsters - that's a particularly big one as the bestiary is one of D&D's strongest aspects. From every edition of D&D, the Monster Manual is usually the one book I'm interested in regardless of the rest of the system. Being able to use the vast majority of the monsters that people grew up with, instead of having to change them up to avoid creating standing for a copyright infringement suit, I think gave it a strong bolster.

Of course there's also PFRPG which pretty unashamedly uses AD&D mechanics, so it wouldn't be a stretch to make an RPG that rips AD&D's mechanics a lot more closely. There's also the Hackmaster approach, which actually brings a question of whether HM would be a much bigger player had OSRIC not gotten the ball rolling.

 

[migo]

It wasn't Dancey, one of the others, in a Blog where he was discussing why WotC sold to Hasbro. (They were in the situation of being personally almost broke, while owning a company that was anything but.

I rember handing out the blogs URL to a bunch of people, I will see if I can track it down again.

Not today though - today was and is full of girlfriend, lead testing, game, and somewhere between all that - sleeeeeep!

The Auld Grump, and too much caffeine.

*EDIT* Or, I could just scroll down through my bookmarks to find it. (I wish that this site had a rolling eyes smiley, I swear that I would be using them on myself all the time!)

And the part that I was remembering was from Dancey - "I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners." from a post over to the Paizo forums. - so I am two for two on being hazy....

Thanks, that's incredibly awesome. I hope he gets inducted into a hall of fame of some sort. If the fears people have that if 5e doesn't produce the results Hasbro wants to see, D&D gets shelved, it'll be thanks to Dancey that we've still got the game to play.

Edit: The comments from Rick Marshall are even more awesome. It doesn't quite bring a tear to my eye, but there is a hint of that there.