Mike Mearls On the OGL

[xechnao]

I didn't say it wouldn't exist. I said it 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.

You have a point.

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.


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


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.

I was disagreeing above because I wanted to emphasize on what was IMO more precise in terms of context of our argument.

Regarding depth: look, D20 can mostly provide a linear distribution of setting chances. You can only play with target numbers in one way. Yet , still you can build combination but it is not suitable for intuitive patterns. See how 4e skill system is broken for example. It is not that they got it wrong. What they got wrong is that this idea could be feasible with a D20 for tabletop gaming.

EDIT2: regarding mystical: yeah, I know I came out as an idiot. But its really late here so excuse the dumbness of my expression.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Following that example every other rpg system is a failure.

As for modular builds, that is also part of the subjective aspect of the game. The heros system has greater modularity and complexity, the storytellers system less so. Both are popular with their perferred groups.

 

[xechnao]

Following that example every other rpg system is a failure.

Other rpgs did not have the chance to gain as much recognition as it was possible with the OGL.

As for modular builds, that is also part of the subjective aspect of the game. The heros system has greater modularity and complexity, the storytellers system less so. Both are popular with their perferred groups.

Hero system is not mathematically modular. It uses one basic mechanic: roll 3d6 and add each dice to get result.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Some folks are worried that some of those changes might affect backwards compatibility, but that's what the year-long open playtest is about.

.

You know -- as long as there is sidebar text indicating major deviations from the old 3.5 ruleset, it shouldn't be a big problem.

The difficulty in the change from 3.0 to 3.5 is that there were so many changes, and the documentation of those changes was not user friendly at all.

 

[Storyteller01]

Other rpgs did not have the chance to gain as much recognition as it was possible with the OGL.



Hero system is not mathematically modular. It uses one basic mechanic: roll 3d6 and add each dice to get result.

Even with that, the OGL couldn't get its recognition without D&D. It puts them in the same boat.


d20 is just as simplicitic at its core.

 

[xechnao]

Even with that, the OGL couldn't get its recognition without D&D. It puts them in the same boat.

Yes, I see what you mean.

d20 is just as simplicitic at its core.

I know.

 

[Maggan]

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.

They might very well be hokum, but that raises the extremely important question, one to which any answer will have ramifications for an entire industry ...

What the heck is "hokum"?

/M

PS. And let me just say, for the record, that backwards compatibility will be the key point for me getting into the Pathfinder RPG.

 

[Samuel Leming]

They might very well be hokum, but that raises the extremely important question, one to which any answer will have ramifications for an entire industry ...

What the heck is "hokum"?

"Just a bunch of song and dance" would be the most polite reading. I suggest you google it.

Perhaps he really meant bunkum.

Sam

[edit]
I should have taken my own advice and googled it before responding. Connotations can be... regional.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Some folks are worried that some of those changes might affect backwards compatibility, but that's what the year-long open playtest is about.

It's not about how compatible it actually is, it's about how compatible folks think it is.

There's already considerable fracturing around the edges, and I think Paizo has more work to do to hold onto those players than, "Wait and see."

For the record, I think that perception of incompatibility is wrong, but folks can be petulant about it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know many people who would. And who do. The D&D fan sites are one aspect of this, with tons of "improvements" to D&D.

The publishers might not want to do this, but I think that many fans/designers do/did it. Come to think of it, suggesting improvements to rules that are owned by someone else is a staple of gamerdom, I've done it lots and lots of times.

Just a clarification (the discussion has moved on): I meant "improve it in a unified way".