D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Umbran]

It is very hard for WotC to make a wide spread of adventures profitable, for various reasons. Smaller companies can do it easily, partly for those same reasons, and partly because they spread the load across a hundred companies. Therefore, to create a robust and wide support industry for your game, you allow smaller companies to do the smaller stuff.

Well, yes and no. Isn't the common assertion is that Pathfinder is successful because of *Paizo's* adventure paths?

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I think that's a great summary.

The clarification I would make is that I have heard two versions of the network externality argument. The first argument is that the presence of a variety of support materials, e.g., adventures, settings, monster books, directly drives sales of the core rule books. The second argument is that having other systems floating around that are d20 systems, e.g. Mutants and Masterminds, helps ease transition to D&D due to familiary with the d20 system. The second argument provides a reason to let publishers create core rule books, whereas the first argument does not.

It's my suspicion that at the 4e transition stage, the first argument was generally accepted within WotC, but what lead to the delay and eventual terms of the GSL was an internal conflict between those who agreed with the second argument and/or figured that the cat was already out of the bag due to the terms of the OGL, and those who didn't.

I suspect the internal argument this time will be between those who look at Paizo and say "We shouldn't be enabling others to copy our rules and siphon off our player base," and those who say "The damage is already done and the OGL will already permit clones, so the gain we get in good will by going OGL with 5e is greater than what we will get with a restrictive license."

 

[Morrus]

Well, yes and no. Isn't the common assertion is that Pathfinder is successful because of *Paizo's* adventure paths?

Yup. They discovered that continuing a subscription model is an excellent alternative. Although it's not an alternative, of course - they do both. It's worth noting that their subscription model partly works because they had a massive customer database after WotC's magazines shut down and were able to successfully transition the adventure path model from DUNGEON magazine over to standalone products. I'm not sure anybody else could have done that. Many magazine subscriptions simply transferred over to the APs.

Our customers were used to getting something from us every month and we didn't want that to end. But starting a new magazine was not the way to go. Even if we had wanted to try to replace our venerable magazines, we just didn't have the cash reserves needed to make it happen. Besides, the magazine industry isn't what it used to be, and the profit margins on magazines are razor thin; I was very tired of fighting all the inefficiences of that product format.

So we took the thing that was working the best—the Adventure Path concept—and reshaped it into a 96-page softcover book that would provide a full AP over six consecutive monthly volumes. The front half of each book would be the Adventure Path, while the back half would house support articles and a short piece of fiction. In many ways, the front was Dungeon and the back was Dragon. The new book had the same number of pages as an issue of Dungeon, but since it didn't have all the advertisements, we actually had more content to develop each month. Also, it took 12 issues of Dungeon to complete an AP, and we were now attempting to do it in half the time. This task was going to be a tough one.

After much brainstorming, we eventually gave it the name "Pathfinder."
​

 

[Perram]

Yup. They discovered that continuing a subscription model is an excellent alternative. Although it's not an alternative, of course - they do both. It's worth noting that their subscription model partly works because they had a massive customer database after WotC's magazines shut down and were able to successfully transition the adventure path model from DUNGEON magazine over to standalone products. I'm not sure anybody else could have done that. Many magazine subscriptions simply transferred over to the APs.

Our customers were used to getting something from us every month and we didn't want that to end. But starting a new magazine was not the way to go. Even if we had wanted to try to replace our venerable magazines, we just didn't have the cash reserves needed to make it happen. Besides, the magazine industry isn't what it used to be, and the profit margins on magazines are razor thin; I was very tired of fighting all the inefficiences of that product format.

So we took the thing that was working the best—the Adventure Path concept—and reshaped it into a 96-page softcover book that would provide a full AP over six consecutive monthly volumes. The front half of each book would be the Adventure Path, while the back half would house support articles and a short piece of fiction. In many ways, the front was Dungeon and the back was Dragon. The new book had the same number of pages as an issue of Dungeon, but since it didn't have all the advertisements, we actually had more content to develop each month. Also, it took 12 issues of Dungeon to complete an AP, and we were now attempting to do it in half the time. This task was going to be a tough one.

After much brainstorming, we eventually gave it the name "Pathfinder."
​

I think that now that they have proven the format, it will be easier for other companies to offer it. If I was interested in 5e, I would VERY much appreciate the option to subscribe to the different lines, and just automatically get product each month. As it is now, I have to make such arrangements with my FLGS, and... well, FLGS is hit or miss on if they can get enough product or not.

And besides, 4e's digital subscriptions seemed to be successful.

 

[Sadras]

This has been covered ad infinitum by Ryan Dancey and others. There are a plethora of reasons. The arguments are about which reasons are accurate.

True. Thanks, just saw the Ryan Dancey article

I've attempted to summarize the arguments on today's news page. The two main arguments are Dancey's theory of Network Externalities; plus the economic difficulties with large companies producing niche products. Both are compelling arguments on their own.

Perfect, just checked it out. Great summation that set me straight on the topic.

 

[Uchawi]

Paizo has basically taken over everything WOTC has abandoned when taking over control from TSR.

 

[Nellisir]

Pretty cool commentary here from Matt Finch.

 

[Halivar]

Paizo has basically taken over everything WOTC has abandoned when taking over control from TSR.

TSR didn't invent the OGL, the SRD, or the d20 system. These are WotC innovations. WotC bought a dying game and brought it back to life. Hate them or love them, at least give them that​ much credit.

 

[Nylanfs]

Just a quick check, nothing on the licensing for 5e yet right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just a quick check, nothing on the licensing for 5e yet right?

There are two answers

1) some dareing third parties are risking useing the 3.5 ogl

2) some great companies have been licenced to work with wotc