D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[pemerton]

When WotC made changes to the d20 System Trademark License, the so-called morals clause, it gave them a mechanism to revoke anyone's use of the d20 System Trademark License (though not the OGL) based on WotC's unilateral decision. They only did this once to my knowledge. But they also were no longer updating the OGL frequently

In that last sentence, do you mean "no longer updating the SRD frequently"?

you claim the OGL is responsible for PF to make millions, money you claim WotC would have made in its absence, while simultaneously arguing that the OGL had nothing to do with the millions WotC made while utilizing it.

Well, Paizo couldn't publish Pathfinder but for the OGL (or, at least, it would have to defend some pretty expensive IP law suits before it could be certain one way or the other). The OGL is, for Paizo, a necessary condition of their existence as a largescale RPG publisher. I mean, it's not as if Pathfinder is successful because it's an OGL game! It's successful because it's D&D (and as this poster clearly indicates, Paizo is not exactly shy about this).

[section][imagel]http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZOP/PZOPFLAUNCH_500.jpeg[/imagel][/section]

Whereas WotC, unlike Paizo, has the right to publish D&D (whichever edition) independently of the OGL (being the owner of all IP rights in respect of D&D).

So of course the financial viability and flourishing of each company is differently related to the OGL!

 

[Mallus]

How do you have a 'obnoxious design philosophy' ?

Step 1: find an overly-sensitive part of the fan base.

Mod Note: Folks, if you find someone to be overly sensitive, poking them with barbed words sure isn't going to make them less so. So, please, don't continue this line. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[Mark CMG]

In that last sentence, do you mean "no longer updating the SRD frequently"?

In a way, in that I think I meant to type OGC, Open Game Content, but with your suggestion I added SRD/OGC instead. Thanks.

Well, Paizo couldn't publish Pathfinder but for the OGL (or, at least, it would have to defend some pretty expensive IP law suits before it could be certain one way or the other). The OGL is, for Paizo, a necessary condition of their existence as a largescale RPG publisher. I mean, it's not as if Pathfinder is successful because it's an OGL game! It's successful because it's D&D (and as this poster clearly indicates, Paizo is not exactly shy about this).

Could have gone a lot of ways, including creating a whole new RPG under the OGL or a whole new RPG without the OGL. Let's face it, it was mostly their adventure paths and the fact that the majority of the staff had been culled from WotC over the years that put them in a position to take half the market from WotC when 4E is generally rejected. That so many still wanted to play a variation of 3.5 just made it easier. The biggest mistake WotC ever made (and still makes) isn't coming up with the OGL or turning away from the OGL but rather training their own competition and regularly laying them off as part of the WotC business model.

Whereas WotC, unlike Paizo, has the right to publish D&D (whichever edition) independently of the OGL (being the owner of all IP rights in respect of D&D).

Which leads to the sticky discussion of whether or not something is D&D by virtue of the trademark owner simply saying so and attaching the trademark. That's a dark road, so let's not take it.

So of course the financial viability and flourishing of each company is differently related to the OGL!

Oh, no one says they aren't "different" but I do refute those who say it is of no importance to OGL Era WotC.

 

[Jupp]

I see a few posts that somehow bring the image of Paizo being the nice guys that did rescue the "good D&D" while WotC went on to further "dilute" the IP that is Dungeons and Dragons.

What actually happend is that WotC did release a new edition of D&D and Paizo created a clone of the previous edition because they had the luck of having the OGL behind their back. This desciption is not meant to kick down Paizo, it is just a matter of fact that was well played out by them. They understood to do the right steps at the right moment.

In the end both companies exist because they cater to their particular audience. The only question is which company (or product) has the better chance to still exist in 10 years time and which strategy is the better one to achieve that goal.

 

[Mark CMG]

In the end both companies exist because they cater to their particular audience. The only question is which company (or product) has the better chance to still exist in 10 years time and which strategy is the better one to achieve that goal.

With much of the same creative talent?

 

[pemerton]

Could have gone a lot of ways, including creating a whole new RPG under the OGL or a whole new RPG without the OGL. Let's face it, it was mostly their adventure paths and the fact that the majority of the staff had been culled from WotC over the years that put them in a position to take half the market from WotC

By their own testimony at the time, it wasn't just "adventure paths". It was 3E D&D adventure paths - they had to plan their paths, in doing so had to commit to a system.

I think that if Paizo had tried to build its success on an RPG (OGL or otherwise) that was not based extensively (almost entirely?) on WotC's SRD, they would not have prospered as they have, however great their adventure paths. To me, this in fact seems so obvious as to be beyond argument.

I mean, Monquest's Runequest is released under the OGL (via the Runic SRD), and while by all accounts a reasonable implementation of a classic game, it has hardly conquered the RPG world!

EDIT: good catch - that should read "Mongoose"!

 

[Mark CMG]

By their own testimony at the time, it wasn't just "adventure paths".

Yeah, I don't buy that even if they felt that way at the time. I think things like Monte Cook, another former WotCer, doing half a MM the other day on a yet unwritten RPG shows the market would have followed the multiple creative talents that came from that fold years later any way they would have taken them. They may have actually underestimated themselves and even locked themselves into an unnecessary battle of the giants that PF/5E might become. We'll see how that plays out in a year or so.

And you and I should have a beer over it sometime down the road, too, pem, as I think we both enjoy watching how the market evolves and comparing our opinions regularly, while respecting what one another proffer as potential outcomes.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, I don't buy that even if they felt that way at the time. I think things like Monte Cook, another former WotCer, doing half a MM the other day on a yet unwritten RPG shows the market would have followed the multiple creative talents that came from that fold years later any way they would have taken them.

Maybe. I'm not sure, though - I mean, it didn't work for WotC, did it! (4e was hardly put together by unknown hacks.)

If WotC is still serious about trying to leverage D&D into a $50 million per annum "core brand", what can we infer from that?

Let's say that they're currently at $30 million per annum. (And let's assume we're talking sales here, rather than profits.) Anything less than that and I would have though it's madness to assume you can make the core brand target (though I'm not in business, so what would I know?).

Is half of that novels? More? I'm going to knock off the novels and say I've got $15 million left to make up in sales.

The board games have been very successful, it seems. Plus there's probably other D&D-branded stuff I'm not thinking of. I'm going to call all that $5 million.

That leaves me with RPG sales of around $10 million per year. Does that seem right? Too high? Too low?

Now we know that PF is nipping at the heels of that figure, or has even overtaken it (depending on data set, period, inclusion or exclusion of subscription sales, etc). While Monte Cook's half-million is pretty impressive!, my rough-and-ready maths puts Paizo at 20 times that size. I don't think they were going to do that with Runegoose, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Burning Wheel. I think it was D&D that took them there.

They may have actually underestimated themselves and even locked themselves into an unnecessary battle of the giants that PF/5E might become. We'll see how that plays out in a year or so.

That is an interesting hypothesis. And an interesting scenario. I think the bigger threat might be "Pathfinder 2nd ed", if they ever have to do it - is D&Dnext really going to pull people away from PF when 4e couldn't hook hem in the first place? (Also, what will the clone of Pathfinder 1st ed be called if/when PF2 comes?)

And you and I should have a beer over it sometime down the road, too

You're in Chicago, right? In my case, Melbourne Australia. Though I have been to Chicago a couple of times. A very striking skyline!

 

[Emerikol]

I see a few posts that somehow bring the image of Paizo being the nice guys that did rescue the "good D&D" while WotC went on to further "dilute" the IP that is Dungeons and Dragons.

What actually happend is that WotC did release a new edition of D&D and Paizo created a clone of the previous edition because they had the luck of having the OGL behind their back. This desciption is not meant to kick down Paizo, it is just a matter of fact that was well played out by them. They understood to do the right steps at the right moment.

In the end both companies exist because they cater to their particular audience. The only question is which company (or product) has the better chance to still exist in 10 years time and which strategy is the better one to achieve that goal.

If you are referring to editions like Pathfinder 1e or D&D 4e then it's already clear. Pathfinder will outlive 4e. 5e has been announced.

If you mean the "brand" Pathfinder vs the "brand" D&D then I'd say they are both very likely to exist in 10 years. I would of course give the edge to D&D if I had to pick. D&D is an iconic name. But I would assume that both games are here to stay and thrive.

 

[Emerikol]

That is an interesting hypothesis. And an interesting scenario. I think the bigger threat might be "Pathfinder 2nd ed", if they ever have to do it - is D&Dnext really going to pull people away from PF when 4e couldn't hook hem in the first place? (Also, what will the clone of Pathfinder 1st ed be called if/when PF2 comes?)

Are you kidding? Of course they expect 5e to get them some Pathfinder players back. One of the major reasons Pathfinder took off is 4e. People didn't abandon a game they'd played for twenty years on a whim. 5e is being built to draw back some of those fans. If a genie appeared and told the president of WOTC that no Pathfinder fans are returning no matter what, then 5e would be canned immediately. Instead they'd start working on 4.5e.