Mike Mearls On the OGL

[Nellisir]

This is exactly what we intend to do, and while this is not the thread to discuss them I must say that I think most of the "backwards compatibility issues" are hokum.

The OGL has not failed. It has hardly even started.

--Erik

You're still my hero, Erik.

 

[Nellisir]

Do you want OGL or D&D? You can't have both. 4e has proven this: Wotc, or lets just say the big players capital's power, is not to be trusted as a pure and only condition for OGL's health, if another power is under the big players control.

The OGL failed because it was attached to D20 and D20 was D&D's system. It did not fight D&D as much as it should. If Conan or whatever was build on another system the OGL would have more power and the D&D brand less power. In this case 4e D&D would be open and D&D as a brand less powerful. OTOH OGL would be more powerful and still accessible to everybody under OGL's conditions.

I agree with some of what you're saying (ie, WotC, or any profit-oriented company, cannot be trusted to protect the interests of the OGL movement in the long run), but not other parts.

There are other game systems beyond d20 attached to the OGL. They have not, as of yet, measurably improved the OGL movement (though this may in large part because they are -different- game systems, and their effect is thereby not readily perceptable from our d20 oriented view).

The d20/D&D attachment is both boon and bane. Without that link, the OGL movement would be virtually nonexistent. d20 brought literally thousands of people into contact with the OGL.

It remains to be seen whether an alternative to D&D can grow out of d20. WotC has broken the d20/D&D connection, forcing the d20 companies out into the proverbial cold. I don't agree that no game rooted in d20 can outcompete the D&D brand - while it won't happen if everyone slavishly devotes themselves to mimicing 4e, I think most companies will try and learn from 4e and incorporate it into a new iteration of the d20 system. That iteration then becomes further divergent from D&D of the "now", and will become increasingly divergent as time passes and further editions of D&D are released.

 

[xechnao]

The key phrase in your statement, of course, is "for now". We'll see what the future brings. Paizo is 100% committed to open gaming.

--Erik

Of course.

As you see, what I am talking about above is the D20 system. For the good of the OGL's distant future, OGC has to consider how to grow independently to D20 so it can also best it and overall win any propriety brand powers in terms of overall recognition.
As long as we keep this in mind I appreciate Pathfinder's effort to breathe some oxygen to whatever open gaming living flame is out-there now. I really do. What you are doing is very important for the good of the hobby.

Heck 4e being closed will be a good thing for the hobby and open gaming. This way you people may finally see what open gaming movement should have been.

 

[xechnao]

Without that link, the OGL movement would be virtually nonexistent.

I do not believe this. Someone would have started eventually.

d20 brought literally thousands of people into contact with the OGL.

Wrong. Wotc's D&D ogl attached system (aka D20) did this. But this tell nothing really. Your father and mother brought you to life. Yet you have to grow up and eventually you have to be able to open your own way if you want to be able to trust yourself.

It remains to be seen whether an alternative to D&D can grow out of d20. WotC has broken the d20/D&D connection, forcing the d20 companies out into the proverbial cold. I don't agree that no game rooted in d20 can outcompete the D&D brand - while it won't happen if everyone slavishly devotes themselves to mimicing 4e, I think most companies will try and learn from 4e and incorporate it into a new iteration of the d20 system. That iteration then becomes further divergent from D&D of the "now", and will become increasingly divergent as time passes and further editions of D&D are released.

I disagree. I know the limits of D20. D20 can only expand in surface level really. There are systems that can have less limits by adding more depth. Why not choose the deeper way?

 

[Storyteller01]

Of course.

As you see, what I am talking about above is the D20 system. For the good of the OGL's distant future, OGC has to consider how to grow independently to D20 so it can also best it and overall win any propriety brand powers in terms of overall recognition.
As long as we keep this in mind I appreciate Pathfinder's effort to breathe some oxygen to whatever open gaming living flame is out-there now. I really do. What you are doing is very important for the good of the hobby.

Heck 4e being closed will be a good thing for the hobby and open gaming. This way you people may finally see what open gaming movement should have been.

For all intents and purposes, 4e has distanced itself from the original d20 model. The new game is dramatically different from 3rd ed, attempting to capture a different consumer base. This leaves a heck of a base for Paizo and others two work with, especially since most gamers support several gaming systems.

 

[xechnao]

This leaves a heck of a base for Paizo and others two work with, especially since most gamers support several gaming systems.

4e is D20. It is both an improvement and disimprovement of 3e.
Systems should look how to improve as far as they can and if they reach their limits they should look for new designs.

 

[Storyteller01]

4e is D20. It is both an improvement and disimprovement of 3e.
Systems should look how to improve as far as they can and if they reach their limits they should look for new designs.

Which would be fine for systems with definite signs for improvement. Unfortunately RPG's are subjective. The only real result is in one's head. Some folks like faster combat, some folks like more comprehensive combat, some like simulationist games, others prefer storytelling. You can't create or evolve a perfect rp system.

WotC's decision to go to 4e was for sales, not for the improvement of the game.

ANyways, sorry for deviating on the topic. I don't think OGL has failed, but it has opened doors for competition that wizards doesn't want. So the GSL was created.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Paizo is 100% committed to open gaming.

Both altruistic and conveniently, just plain good business sense.

Paizo's motherlode is Product Identity-- meaning not only what the folks call fluff, but also PI in the larger sense of the Paizo corporate identity: quality writing, cartography, graphic design, customer interaction and responsiveness, etc.

It doesn't matter that their ruleset is Open Content, they'll mine their PI for years to come. The Pathfinder brand-- the Paizo brand-- is so much larger than the OGC. Nobody can duplicate it.

This is a recipe for OGL success.

This recipe would also have worked for WotC.

 

[xechnao]

Which would be fine for systems with definite signs for improvement. Unfortunately, RPG's are subjective, as the only real result is in one's head. Some folks like faster combat, some folks like more comprehensive combat, others prefer storytelling. You can't create or evolve a perfect rp system.

WotC's decision to go to 4e was for sales, not for the improvement of the game.

ANyways, sorry for deviating on the topic. I don't think OGL has failed, but it has opened doors for competition that wizards doesn't want. So the GSL was created.

OGL has failed in means that D&D is more successful than OGL itself. But this is for now. OGL can win. Nothing is ever settled.

Regarding subjectiveness, this is true. It is a fundamental element of the rpg hobby. In fact a bigger depth of the basic architecture of a system's design allows more modularity and more surface levels to be picked, expanded and combined to fit one's subjective tastes.

 

[Nellisir]

I do not believe this. Someone would have started eventually.

I didn't say it wouldn't exist. I said it (meaning the OGL community and movement) would be virtually nonexistent. Virtually no one would have noticed if some obscure RPG invented the OGL. Just because it exists doesn't mean it would've been a tremendous success and swamped D&D.

Wrong. Wotc's D&D ogl attached system (aka D20) did this.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Because you just said exactly what I said. D20 brought people into contact with the OGL. If you're going to disagree, say something different.

But this tell nothing really. Your father and mother brought you to life. Yet you have to grow up and eventually you have to be able to open your own way if you want to be able to trust yourself.

And yet I will always be the product of my parents' genes and upbringing, and hopefully surpass my parents. Bad example for you.

I disagree. I know the limits of D20. D20 can only expand in surface level really. There are systems that can have less limits by adding more depth. Why not choose the deeper way?

Oh, right...you have mystical knowledge, and d20 isn't "deep" enough for you, in whatever subjective way you define depth. That's pretty far over the line into personal opinion there, so OK. You have your opinion, and I'll have mine.