D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

I'd consider "low-pro" to be a one-or-two person company that didn't or can't get products on brick-and-mortar store shelves. There are maybe a handful of companies that _won't_, but there's a lot that can't. That doesn't mean they're not professional, but they're not big leagues. I think that's a hugely relevant group of publishers. Without them, you're talking fan creations or established publishers. I also disagree that putting some polish on a product is a sign that you want to "hit it big".

Lotteries rake in billions by banking on the idea that most everyone wants to hit it big. You'll get a lot more people by letting them dream then by cutting them off at the start, especially when the lottery would usually be a more profitable place to put your money then most RPG development.

As to why someone would do it...well, there is no license and Frog God Games is already planning three books. Why would they do that? Obviously for the audience.

But they're also not worrying about the license. They can, or feel they can, push books to game shops. They don't believe that WotC can cut off the license at some point.

That doesn't mean I think it's going to happen.

I think WotC putting 5E under the OGL is incredibly unlikely. But I don't think that any very restrictive license is going to help them, and with people like Frog God Games publishing without a license, a restrictive license may encourage people to publish without a license.

I've yet to see a convincing argument that the OGL would have made 4e a better and more accepted game.

It couldn't have hurt. Some publishers that shut their doors or changed their tactics would have started publishing for 4e. The decision to make their own system would have been much harder for Paizo if they didn't have problems with the GSL. If Pathfinder didn't exist, 4E would almost certainly have been more accepted. If Paizo did create Pathfinder, at least there would have been more 4E support.

 

[Charles Wright]

While there is absolutely no evidence that a lack of an OGL hurt 4E (because there can't be, it didn't exist) there is a load of evidence that being absolutely open with the OGL (and Paizo is far more open than they need to be) has been nothing but an absolute boon for Paizo and Pathfinder.

 

[Mistwell]

While there is absolutely no evidence that a lack of an OGL hurt 4E (because there can't be, it didn't exist) there is a load of evidence that being absolutely open with the OGL (and Paizo is far more open than they need to be) has been nothing but an absolute boon for Paizo and Pathfinder.

Ok, so present that evidence.

Paizo is doing well, and Paizo is OGL. That's not evidence, that's a mere correlation. Pazio is doing well, and Paizo is composed of former WOTC employees. That's an equal level correlation. I bet they all like cake too.

So show me your evidence that the OGL itself is what is causing Paizo to do well.

 

[Charles Wright]

Why do I have to do any work to present anything as evidence? I at no point even called it evidence, I presented two facts. <shrug> Do with that what you will. I am in no way to be compelled to start some kind of forum litigation to prove anything.

I know that Paizo encourages 3rd Party Publishers and Lisa Stephens was personally delighted at our success with The Tome of Horrors Complete. She seems to think that the OGL is good for her company and since she knows far more about the data in these areas and was the person at WotC who correlated the data for the original "will this OGL idea work or not?" for Ryan Dancey (see his interview with Morrus) then I, for one, am inclined to follow her lead.

Do with that what you will. There's not going to be any back-and-forth here, that's what I think after quite a few conversations with people who are directly involved in the matter.

You are also entitled to your opinion. That's great. I don't have the time or inclination to get into yet another hamster wheel argument about it.

(And while I thank for the attempt to educate me, I know the difference between correlation and causation.)

 

[Nellisir]

Why do I have to do any work to present anything as evidence? I at no point even called it evidence

Dude. Everything else aside, could you not look back one post? You said there was "a load of evidence".

I presented two facts.

Umm...one of your "facts" was that there is "a load of evidence [their OGL policy] has been...an absolute boon for Paizo."

I would love some facts. I would love to see what percentage of profits Paizo attributes to their implementation of the OGL. But no one has the information outside of Paizo; Paizo rightly isn't sharing it; and so all anyone ever says is that "it's so obvious we don't need evidence."

There is not one single 3rd-party Pathfinder book in the 3 stores that sell Pathfinder in this town, nor has there ever been. In my current gaming group, I'm the only one that's ever heard of RPG Now, and I'm pretty sure that only one other person has heard of Paizo. So pardon me if I'm not overwhelmed by exactly how obviously Paizo benefits from something that most gamers don't even know about.

 

[Nellisir]

...stuff...

I have no idea what you're arguing for or against or about at this point, but I'm not going to argue about a fraction of publishers that might be affected in some way regarding some kind of content in some method, if that is what you're doing.

I think WotC will adopt a license more restrictive than the OGL and less restrictive than the GSL. I don't think it will have a sunset clause. I do think it'll be a combination of content and trademark license similar to the GSL. I do think it will choke off certain kinds of content in some manner. I don't know exactly what kind of content or how, but I do think it will not significantly affect most publishers and products. That's it. I'm not arguing that they should do those things; I'm saying that's what I believe they will do. I've believed this for several years; I obviously haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise; and I'm exhausted at the thought of talking about it any more. From here on out, I'm just waiting.

Finis.

 

[prosfilaes]

In my current gaming group, I'm the only one that's ever heard of RPG Now, and I'm pretty sure that only one other person has heard of Paizo. So pardon me if I'm not overwhelmed by exactly how obviously Paizo benefits from something that most gamers don't even know about.

I know that I've bought more Pathfinder books then the rest of my gaming group combined, and my DM and I are the main drivers of what system we play in my group. They can't make the seat-fillers too unhappy, but their money stream is the customers that have a subscription or at least buy every book at the game store. And yes, we know about Paizo.com and DriveThruRPG (and possibly even Warehouse23).

Not only that, people are complaining that the developers didn't know 4e. Pathfinder keeps a body of good developers around in part by having a large body of active developers outside the companies, and letting their more innovative employees work on Pathfinder projects for their own side companies, instead of channeling everything straight down what the company wants.

Certainly the fact that the two most successful games this century--D&D 3 and Pathfinder--used the OGL and were surrounded by an active community of people supporting them through that OGL does indicate that the OGL has a hand in that success. Given our limited universe simulation technology, I couldn't take even WotC or Paizo saying (in internal, non-promotional documents) one way or the other as having very conclusive power.

 

[Nellisir]

I would love to see research on what percentage of gaming groups use material from 3rd party publishers in their D&D or Pathfinder game.

 

[sidonunspa]

Paizo is doing well, and Paizo is OGL. That's not evidence, that's a mere correlation. Pazio is doing well, and Paizo is composed of former WOTC employees. That's an equal level correlation. I bet they all like cake too.

The only RPG they produce is the "upgraded version" of 3.5.... they developed pathfinder AFTER WoTC abandoned that system.

without the OGL that would not have been possible, they would not have taken all the disgruntled anti-4e D&D players... those players would have stuck with their 3.X books instead of buying new ones.

the OGL is the ONLY legal reason they where able to pull that off

 

[Sacrosanct]

The only RPG they produce is the "upgraded version" of 3.5.... they developed pathfinder AFTER WoTC abandoned that system.

without the OGL that would not have been possible, they would not have taken all the disgruntled anti-4e D&D players... those players would have stuck with their 3.X books instead of buying new ones.

the OGL is the ONLY legal reason they where able to pull that off

Whereas I agree with Mistwell and only see it as a correlation, because I think what led to Paizo's successs with PF as much if not more than anything else was how they were already firmly established as a top provider of D&D content, so the infrastructure to do this was already there. Remember, you don't need an OGL to put out a 3.5 clone of sorts according to copyright law (since you can't copyright mechanics). Sure it would look slightly different from what it is now, but they still could have put out their own version of it.