Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[Ahnehnois]

I'm sure a hybrid would have spring up extremely rapidly, but it would've been a 3e/4e hybrid (ie Book of Nine Swords), not another iteration of 3e.

Pathfinder is a 3e/4e hybrid. It's got rage powers and grit, a condensed skill system, at-will cantrips, and more. It's got about as much of 4e as the market will take, as its 4e-like elements are also inevitably controversial. Independent of licensing, I don't think there's anything in the mechanics that could have supported the kind of gaming environment you're talking about.

 

[Kinak]

That sounds right too. Maybe PF was a response to the lack of communication, and Paizo was going to dual-stat things. I really remember Erik's disappointment with the GSL, though - I knew him through the AOL board back in 1996, and we hung out some at Gen Con in 1999 when 3e was announced, so I pay more attention to what he writes than I do to most other people.

That sounds right. This gets into vague recollections, but I remember some discussion of dual-statting things if the licensing allowed them to.

That underscores just how late the GSL really was. It was supposed to be in place, with 3rd parties having the option to pay to gain early access, so that material could be on-hand for sale at Gen Con. Paizo waited... and waited... and nothing was coming. So they started consulting the community on their message boards about their options.

Yeah, from all reports that was a rough couple months in Paizoland. It obviously turned out fine in the long run, but I don't envy them then.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Wicht]

Actually, as I recall it, Paizo had a two-part response. Golarion was the first part: they had to move forward on something, so they moved forward on a campaign setting. The Pathfinder rules were the second part: the GSL was horrid, so Paizo needed a ruleset.

I might be misremembering, but I clearly remember a lot of anticipation and eventual exasperation waiting for the GSL, and it basically being presented as a fait accompli by WotC, without consultation with the major 3rd party publishers, so they felt pretty blindsided by it.

The Adventure Paths and the Golarion setting were not in any way a response to 4e or the GSL.

Rather Paizo developed the Adventure Paths during the 3.5 era as a response to losing the magazines.

When 4e was announced it was first assumed that the APs would switch, but the 3pps were not given either the rules or the new GSL when promised. There were, I seem to recall, at least three delays in its appearance, each several months long. Thus Paizo elected to develop Pathfinder before either the release of 4e or the release of the GSL.

Then when the GSL was finally revealed, it was... suboptimal in any regards.

 

[Greg K]

With the added effect that with the near death of D&D prior to TSR's acquisition, Dancey wanted to ensure D&D could never die. He succeeded.

Rick Marshall, who was there in the early days of WOTC, stated in comments at Grognardia that it was Adkinson's goal to ensure that D&D could never die. The OGL was a result of the search to ensure that happened:

"When D&D was run into the ground by business interests and TSR got itself stuck - unable to pay bills to get products printed that would have earned the money to pay those bills - many of us were frustrated and outraged. Peter wanted to rescue D&D and ensure it could never be imprisoned again.

When Magic: The Gathering became such a hit and made Wizards of the Coast successful enough to do so, of course he bought TSR and rescued D&D - any D&D fan in a position to do so would have done so.

That was half the deal - to rescue D&D.

The other half required figuring out a way to keep it rescued, and that took more thought and work. The OGL was the direct result of that search. It was sold to Wizards of the Coast's business side of the house using the arguments you have repeated here, but those were never the core reason why it happened. That it made sound business sense made it easier to do what Peter and others at Wizards were already bound and determined to do if they could figure out any way to do it.'

 

[Nellisir]

Rather Paizo developed the Adventure Paths during the 3.5 era as a response to losing the magazines.

Considering the first three Adventure Paths were -in- Dungeon, that seems very prescient of them.

Rather Paizo developed the Adventure Paths during the 3.5 era as a response to losing the magazines.

The announcement that they lost the license was in "early 2007".
In August 2007 WotC announced 4e.
In August 2007 Paizo released the first part of Rise of the Runelords, the first AP not in Dungeon (Paizo's 4th AP)
The magazine license actually terminated in September of 2007.
They announced the Pathfinder RPG in March 2008.
The Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer was released in April 2008.

 

[delericho]

Rick Marshall, who was there in the early days of WOTC, stated in comments at Grognardia that it was Adkinson's goal to ensure that D&D could never die. The OGL was a result of the search to ensure that happened:

"When D&D was run into the ground by business interests and TSR got itself stuck - unable to pay bills to get products printed that would have earned the money to pay those bills - many of us were frustrated and outraged. Peter wanted to rescue D&D and ensure it could never be imprisoned again.

When Magic: The Gathering became such a hit and made Wizards of the Coast successful enough to do so, of course he bought TSR and rescued D&D - any D&D fan in a position to do so would have done so.

That was half the deal - to rescue D&D.

The other half required figuring out a way to keep it rescued, and that took more thought and work. The OGL was the direct result of that search. It was sold to Wizards of the Coast's business side of the house using the arguments you have repeated here, but those were never the core reason why it happened. That it made sound business sense made it easier to do what Peter and others at Wizards were already bound and determined to do if they could figure out any way to do it.'

Assuming that's all accurate (and I've no reason to assume otherwise), then not only was the OGL a really good idea, but it worked perfectly.

 

[Morrus]

There's some weird pronouncements about Paizo's motives and strategies in this thread, as well as what caused their decisions.

Like everything else in this thread, it doesn't need any speculation. They've been quite open about it, just like Dancey was about the OGL. Paizo was a magazine publisher that had their magazines pulled out from under them by WotC; they decided to produce their own game in order to protect themselves in future and build a replacement business. There's nothing vague about it; you can read it all on Lisa Stevens' Paizo blog if you want to.

 

[Wicht]

Considering the first three Adventure Paths were -in- Dungeon, that seems very prescient of them.

I meant the Pathfinder adventure paths. I should have been clearer.

 

[Kinak]

Like everything else in this thread, it doesn't need any speculation. They've been quite open about it, just like Dancey was about the OGL. Paizo was a magazine publisher that had their magazines pulled out from under them by WotC; they decided to produce their own game in order to protect themselves in future and build a replacement business. There's nothing vague about it; you can read it all on Lisa Stevens' Paizo blog if you want to.

Yeah, Lisa Stephens and the rest of Paizo are incredibly transparent about... well, just about everything.

For anyone who wants a link: Auntie Lisa's Story Hour

She does a seminar by the same name at GenCon (and presumably PaizoCon, I dunno), that's basically just her reminiscing about her years in the gaming industry. She's an interesting person and it's a fun way to spend an hour. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the hobby.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Elf Witch]

Agreed. The OGL isn't the problem, the problem was a lot of the older people not liking 4E. The OGL was the weakest spot and thus where the failure showed up (in creating Pathfinder) but that doesn't mean the failure wouldn't have shown up elsewhere anyway.

I don't know if it was just us older players who didn't like 4E. My son's group who are a mixed group of 20 and early 30 year olds didn't like it either. I think it is more a game style issue than an age issue.

But I will admit that for me I am tired of changing DnD editions when I was happy with what came before. I no longer need something just because it is shiny and new.