Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: The reason the OGL was a bad idea for WOTC

[Stalker0]

Right now with WOTC changing their GSL, there's all sorts of discussion about the old OGL and new GSL and the pros and cons of each.

I loved the OGL, I loved the freedom it gave publishers, and loved some of the material that came about it.

But for those who are up in arms about the strictness of the GSL, consider this:

The OGL allowed Paizo to create pathfinder, and basically create direct competition to WOTC's 4th edition.

For us consumers, that's great. Two systems to choose from! But from WOTC's standpoint, that's horrible. The dnd market is already a tight market, and consistent profits are already hard to come by.

So its just something to remember when you consider the new GSL. WOTC has some good reasons to want to restrict things this time around, and while we gamers want our cake and the ability to eat it too...companies only make products when they make profit. Cut into that profit, and you potentially cut out the product.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm going to disagree with you here.

Who is buying Pathfinder? It's either the people who don't like 4E or the people who want to keep playing 3.5 but have a new and improved version. That isn't direct competition. 4E is getting just as many sales as it would have gotten based on the decisions that these players have made. I seriously doubt that the existence of Pathfinder has cost them a single 4E sale since the Pathfinder customers would simply not spend money on any new system and stick with 3.5.

What the OGL did was increase the health of the RPG marketplace by allowing other publishers to focus on their IP and not create systems that compete with D&D. The decision to move D&D into a brand new, non-compatible direction is more likely to hurt WotC than the OGL is.

And of course this doesn't take into account that Pathfinder doesn't qualify as direct competition anyway. The only company that pulls large enough numbers for that is White Wolf, and I don't hear a lot of complaining about them these days.

Want to know what Pathfiner is? It's a small company picking up the scraps that WotC is leaving behind. If anything, it's a good thing because it keeps these people in the industry as buying customers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pathfinder is only bad for 4Ed like RuneQuest, Fantasy HERO, or any other fantasy RPG is bad for 4Ed.

For people like me, 4Ed is a game for which I'm not going to buy anything more than the Core 3. If Pathfinder didn't exist, I'd find another game to play or save even more money and just use my 3.X stuff.

Heck, I'm not even sold on Pathfinder, yet. I haven't gotten a good look at it. When its in stores, I'll give it a good once over and consider it for purchase...just like I'm doing for True 20.

IOW, even though Pathfinder exists, its not necessarily going to get 100% of the gamers who don't like 4Ed. After all, besides it and True 20, there's Castles & Crusades, Midnight 2Ed, AU/AE, Iron Kingdoms, Iron Heroes, and even Mutants & Masterminds (which is definitely capable of running a fantasy game- just see Fantasy HERO). I'm sure there are others.

And that's just in the D20 derived systems.

Given the popularity of the D20 derived systems, there is a possibility- an extremely remote possibility, but extant nonetheless- that one or more of those systems could gain enough market share to challenge 4Ed's sales and present WotC with a serious problem. This is the "New Coke" scenario.

However, by any stretch of the imagination, its highly unlikely, even though there are several polls that show that as many as 50% of D&D players aren't converting to 4Ed.

 

[Treebore]

Pathfinder is only bad for 4Ed like RuneQuest, Fantasy HERO, or any other fantasy RPG is bad for 4Ed.

For people like me, 4Ed is a game for which I'm not going to buy anything more than the Core 3. If Pathfinder didn't exist, I'd find another game to play or save even more money and just use my 3.X stuff.

Heck, I'm not even sold on Pathfinder, yet. I haven't gotten a good look at it. When its in stores, I'll give it a good once over and consider it for purchase...just like I'm doing for True 20.

IOW, even though Pathfinder exists, its not necessarily going to get 100% of the gamers who don't like 4Ed. After all, besides it and True 20, there's Castles & Crusades, Midnight 2Ed, AU/AE, Iron Kingdoms, Iron Heroes, and even Mutants & Masterminds (which is definitely capable of running a fantasy game- just see Fantasy HERO). I'm sure there are others.

And that's just in the D20 derived systems.

I'm reading through PAthfinder Beta, I definitely feel its going to help keep the 3E market alive. I like a lot of the decisions made, I like what they did to the classes, I've always thought PrC's were supposed to be weaker then the core classes, over all, and the PF changes will help keep people interested in playing the Core Classes rather then PrC's, or even multi classing.

I like the Hit Die changes, I like the Rage points and Ki points, I like the alterations to the skills, in particular Craft.

Now I just need to take a look at the combat rules, AoO, Grapple, etc... and see if things look simplified there.

Then see what the current tweaks to spells are.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In the long run and in the big picture I don't think Pathfinder is going to compete with people playing 3.5E D&D.

4E D&D? Pathfinder isn't on the radar.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm reading through PAthfinder Beta, I definitely feel its going to help keep the 3E market alive. I like a lot of the decisions made, I like what they did to the classes, I've always thought PrC's were supposed to be weaker then the core classes, over all, and the PF changes will help keep people interested in playing the Core Classes rather then PrC's, or even multi classing.

Heck, I'm going to be allowing prestige classes and some 3.5 splatbook material in my Pathfinder game. There's no reason not to.

Now I just need to take a look at the combat rules, AoO, Grapple, etc... and see if things look simplified there.

In my opinion, this is one of the areas where the improvements really shine.

Then see what the current tweaks to spells are.

Basically, save or die is gone. Those spells translate to damage now. It's another one of those areas where the improvements are noticeable.

 

[Treebore]

4E D&D? Pathfinder isn't on the radar.

You just proved it is. Otherwise you wouldn't know about it either.

Besides, I think Paizo has shown they are likely to have thousands of regular customers. That is all they need.

The more the better, though. Still, they are showing up on the radar loud and clear.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm going to disagree with you here.

Who is buying Pathfinder? It's either the people who don't like 4E or the people who want to keep playing 3.5 but have a new and improved version. That isn't direct competition. 4E is getting just as many sales as it would have gotten based on the decisions that these players have made. I seriously doubt that the existence of Pathfinder has cost them a single 4E sale since the Pathfinder customers would simply not spend money on any new system and stick with 3.5...

Maybe initially or in the short term this is correct. However, in the mid to longer term I disagree.

A lot of gaming groups are in the position of finishing up (or perhaps continuing their 3.x campaigns/games in some form) and thus the inevitable question for a gaming group is "Do we give this 4E thing a go or do we stick with what we know". Some are adamant one way or the other, but I dare say there is a significant consumer slice in the middle. For these groups, the decision of forging ahead into the new edition is one they will grapple with over the coming months (and even years). The fact that a publisher as well respected as Paizo is producing a highly supported 3.x product (Pathfinder), acts as a magnet, keeping some of the fence-sitting groups on the 3.x side of the equation. Effectively, in the long term, I think it will trim the numbers supporting the new edition.

Is this a bad thing for D&D? Paizo? The RPG community as a whole? I'm not too sure. I don't think the market will become so fractured that the D&D brand will lose its momentum. However, WotC's pending revision of the GSL to get more 3PP on board would seem to indicate that they're playing it safe in this regard. The last thing that WotC would want (and that I think any supporter of the hobby would want) is for the market leader to become isolated in the direction they're taking.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: In regards to my personal opinion, I'm slowly warming to 4th edition (it is going to take time though for it to grow on me - but I don't doubt a couple of years down the track it will have). However, I love what Paizo has done in the past and a quick readthrough of the Pathfinder Beta gives me the feeling that whatever they do, they will do it very well. Is it enough for me to finish up my 3.5 Age of Worms Campaign and get my group on the pathfinder bandwagon... we'll have to see.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The last thing that WotC would want (and that I think any supporter of the hobby would want) is for the market leader to become isolated in the direction they're taking.

There isn't a company on Earth that would mind being a monopoly or lead dog in an oligopoly.

As long as they still have people buying their products, WotC won't be saying "I'm their leader, which way did they go?"

 

[Darrin Drader]

Maybe initially or in the short term this is correct. However, in the mid to longer term I disagree.

A lot of gaming groups are in the position of finishing up (or perhaps continuing their 3.x campaigns/games in some form) and thus the inevitable question for a gaming group is "Do we give this 4E thing a go or do we stick with what we know". Some are adamant one way or the other, but I dare say there is a significant consumer slice in the middle. For these groups, the decision of forging ahead into the new edition is one they will grapple with over the coming months (and even years). The fact that a publisher as well respected as Paizo is producing a highly supported 3.x product (Pathfinder), acts as a magnet, keeping some of the fence-sitting groups on the 3.x side of the equation. Effectively, in the long term, I think it will trim the numbers supporting the new edition.

While that's a possibility, I don't think it's overly likely. I agree that Pathfinder is in a position to pick up a lot of customers over the coming years, but in order for them to hit the kind of critical mass where they would be in direct competition with WotC, they would have to first overcome their largest challenge, which is making the average gamer aware of their existence.

Anecdotal evidence is crap, and I know that, so take this with a grain of salt, but the biggest thing that Pathfinder had going against it at the convention I attended a couple weeks ago was that almost nobody I talked to knew who Paizo was or what Pathfinder was. They were clueless when it came to True20 and most other brands that we take for granted as well. Joe average gamer associates D&D with roleplaying. That's going to take a lot of marketing and a lot of word of mouth advertising to get over.

Now you go to the larger conventions like Gen Con and there will be greater awareness because all the companies hit those cons, but get to the smaller areas and the awareness drops like a rock.