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

[Darrin Drader]

Yeah I think, now that they don't have to "compete" with D&D, I think they could use this opportunity to really push the OGL into what it was designed to do. Make Pathfinder the game the gamers built, and go from there.

That's exactly what they're doing. They have the play test forums setup so that people can break the system or suggest ways to improve it. Many, many of the things that are now in the beta came from player suggestions on their boards.

If they can just manage to fix high level play by the final release, I'd call it a huge success that has utilized every positive thing about open development.

 

[Scribble]

If the OGL "failed" as an Open Source development project, as Mearls claimed, the fault for that lies entirely with WotC. There must be some sort of central authority responsible for incorporating the best ideas into the core and constantly redefining the "official" rules.

That was WotC's responsibility, and they dropped the ball.

It remains to be seen whether Paizo is going to pick up the ball or not, but they certainly have the clout to do it.

I'm not going to get into a "place the blame on someone" game.

I'm simply posting my thoughts, and what I see as an opportunity for Paizo to really make the OGL work as intended.

I think with WoTC and the D&D name out of the way it will be easier actually.

The D&D name skews the data. It performs the "best" int he market partly because it's D&D.

 

[Scribble]

That's exactly what they're doing. They have the play test forums setup so that people can break the system or suggest ways to improve it. Many, many of the things that are now in the beta came from player suggestions on their boards.

If they can just manage to fix high level play by the final release, I'd call it a huge success that has utilized every positive thing about open development.

From what I can tell they're starting from scratch... They have people designing new concepts, and THEN playtesting them... Why do that? We have 8 years worth of playtesting on already existant OGL stuff.

As was said in another post, we already have enough ranger variants to shake two scimitars at... Instead of creating a new one, and testing it, why not find the BEST already existant OGL variant out there and use it.

 

[amethal]

"Loss of unit sales" is not the issue.

It is far more likely that WotC does not want to see spinoffs off Mutants and Masterminds ilk because the rule systems are too divergent from their house system. That forces the change in the GSL, because the alternate systems were slowly breaking down the network externalities that justified the OGL in the first place.

They don't want people playing rules systems other than their rule system. Nothing's changed about that philosophy as far as I can tell.

Interesting stuff, as usual.

Do you think Mutants and Masterminds would not exist without the OGL?

The non-GSL products that are being produced for 4th edition have been a real eye-opener for me. Could Green Ronin have published 1st edition M&M pretty much in the same form it is now (maybe renaming some of the terms, if they wanted to be cautious) without using the OGL?

Would it have been as successful? I bought it because it seemed to me it was the best d20 supers system available. However, it was the OGL which had got me thinking that way. If there's no OGL, then I think I'd have bought it simply because it looked like the best supers system available.

Maybe I'd have bought Champions instead. But I wouldn't have bought a PH or a MM2 (I already had them), and I wouldn't have bought another WotC book because :-

a) If I'd liked the look of it then I'd have bought it anyway
b) It wouldn't have helped me run the supers game I wanted to play

 

[Darrin Drader]

From what I can tell they're starting from scratch... They have people designing new concepts, and THEN playtesting them... Why do that? We have 8 years worth of playtesting on already existant OGL stuff.

As was said in another post, we already have enough ranger variants to shake two scimitars at... Instead of creating a new one, and testing it, why not find the BEST already existant OGL variant out there and use it.

Because the other variants had very different design goals. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a D20 overhaul was done with the intention to improve upon the original system. Most of the time the overhaul was to radically change the flavor (Arcana Unearthed), or adapt it to some licensed property (Conan, Babylon 5, Farscape), or radically change gameplay while keeping the same core rules (True20, M&M, Spycraft 2.0). Simply grabbing a handful of variants is not going to solve most of the issues.

Aside from that, the revamped classes are only the surface tweaks. The amount of changed or new material is roughly equal to half of the PHB.

 

[Scribble]

Because the other variants had very different design goals. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a D20 overhaul was done with the intention to improve upon the original system. Most of the time the overhaul was to radically change the flavor (Arcana Unearthed), or adapt it to some licensed property (Conan, Babylon 5, Farscape). Simply grabbing a handful of variants is not going to solve most of the issues.

Aside from that, the revamped classes are only the surface tweaks. The amount of changed or new material is roughly equal to half of the PHB.

You're talking about the full system options, but there are also tons of variant rules tweaks out there that weren't full systems.

 

[hopeless]

OGL and GSL

None of this would have happened if Wotc wasnt late on the GSL and had it so draconian.
Pathfinder RPG would NOT have come out in 3.5....as its not needed. Its ONLY needed to support paizo's AP's and Adventures....since there is no longer a "core ruleset" for 3.5 in print. Pathfinder RPG isnt needed in 3.5, but it is in 4e.
OGL isnt really the problem. Wotc's handling of the transition to a new license was.

The truth is that if they hadn't removed dragon and dungeon from Paizo they might still have sorted out the mess their pr and whoever decided 4e was essential and that the 3e crowd was so much loose change.

Had they kept Paizo in the loop and not played petty tyrant there might not have even been any sign of Pathfinder instead rather than Paizo biting the hand that reared it, its more like WOTC decided to abandon the kitten only to find the kittern was now more of a tiger than some backstreet wildcat with no interest in what their former owner was doing.

Sorry hope that was clear enough.

Now had WOTC had had someone with some idea of what they were doing, it might have gone entirely different at the moment the only way I can see them getting themselves out of the barbeque they're cooking themselves in is either getting Hasbro to buy out Paizo or seriously think of a way to make amends perhaps even produce some webisodes to highlight 4e you know sort of an internet version of d&d the series for the 21st century sort of thing...

I mean come on, after those little strange introductions of the tiefling, gnome, beholder and mind flayer wouldn't you want to see something concrete to make you say, how did they do that?

They claim to be trying to encourage a new generation of kids to play d&d, yet aren't too interested in getting the existing crowd to help... well WOTC ask Gamer Zero why people are watching his youtube videos, you have an audience and you aren't treating them properly, get someone Keith Baker, James Wyatt better yet Ed Greenwood write up a multiple episode webisode series you can host on the d&d website introduce the new cast of 4e and what they can do make it halfway decent (ie better than those other ones) and you'll find more interest.

The GSL might then not be as important to the other companies if people want to play 4e.

At present I'm only playing and I prefer 3.0, Eberron got me to buy 3.5 and if it wasn't for dragon and dungeon that might not have even made me buy 3.0. Your internet replacement isn't up to scratch, best of luck then.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ok, lot of interestign point jade in this thread. One thing I wonder though is;
It seems to me that the online shared gaming tools (game table, and so forth) could not be exclusive to WoTC under the OGL, is that so? As far as I know all or most of this was available in various third party tools and usually for free under the OGL.
So, as far as i can see, the GSL is necessary for a subscription based acces to rules data and shared gaming tools to be a viable proposition.
Is this a valid assertion? If so, is this not sufficient motive to superceed the OGL?

 

[Treebore]

And, according to WotC themselves, sales have never been better. The OGL grew the market, as it was intended to, and sales of 4E have been described as better than any sales that came before, so it doesn't appear to be 'horrible' for WotC.

Or, if it is, it's the sort of 'horrible' that they'd like to happen every time they release some books.

Yep, companies always tell the consumer sales suck. Well, when the quarterly stock reports are due, they might.

Other then that standard statements are always "positive" until they have to tell the truth.

I agree that Amazon supports these statements, but I don't know if book store sales reinforce that. I see a lot, a LOT, of 4E books sitting on book shelves in the stores I have been to. I do know D&D is about as big in Tucson and Sierra Vista as it is anywhere.

Plus every gamer I have talked to in the LGS' I have been to are not excited by 4E. I am not saying that reflects even the majority of gamers, but for me to so consistently run into people thinking of staying 3E or using other systems (even one interested in C&C!) the "Afterglow" of 4E is not very strong.

So initial sales of 4E may be strong, so were 3E's, but the sales of 4E may drop off faster then even 3E did.

Remember, WOTC did not tell us 3E sales were sinking until it was obvious. So don't expect them to give you the truth about 4E until they have to.

 

[Scribble]

Yep, companies always tell the consumer sales suck. Well, when the quarterly stock reports are due, they might.

Other then that standard statements are always "positive" until they have to tell the truth.

Well... what I;ve noticed is that to figure out how a company is doing in part you need to:

1. Listen to the amount of announcements.

2. Listen to the tone of the announcements.


When it's not performing as well as it should be the amount of announcements tapers off to what needs to be said, and when it is said it gets somewhat neutral. "We're performing as expected." and stuff...

Stuff like: "We're doing way betetr then we expected, and will probably break our total expectations" are things you hear when something actually IS performing well...