D&D 5E A 5e OGL isn't going to cause another Pathfinder scenario and here's why

[Alzrius]

As far as I can see, this is the decisive factor. Because Paizo had access to the thousands of Dragon subscribers, they had a massive leg-up on the competition. Without that, I doubt Pathfinder could have succeeded.

The idea that this gave them a built-in customer base cannot be over-stated. In fact, it's something of a literal truth; if you had excess issues in your subscription when Dungeon and Dragon expired, you were eligible to roll them over onto a Pathfinder adventure path subscription. I suspect that helped to transition most of their existing customers over.

 

[delericho]

if you had excess issues in your subscription when Dungeon and Dragon expired, you were eligible to roll them over onto a Pathfinder adventure path subscription. I suspect that helped to transition most of their existing customers over.

Yep, including me - I was offered 14 issues 'free', and figured that I had nothing to lose (since I'd prepaid my subscriptions), so gave it a go. And then, of course, they nailed it with "Burnt Offerings", and the rest is history - I'm still a subscriber, despite having never actually played Pathfinder.

 

[Jester David]

I've seen lots of comments lately about 5e and the possibility that it may go OGL especially that if 5e goes OGL then another Pathfinder like situation will arise. I'm personally of the belief that the OGL was only one factor in all of this, there were many other factors that laid the ground work for Paizo and Pathfinder to take off like it did. I've been noodling this of late and I like to discuss them.

I have to agree. The rise of Pathfinder was an anomaly, only partially the result of the OGL.

#1. The OGL. This gets blamed a lot for Pathfinders rise and the "failure" of 4e. While I believe that it does play a role, it's not the only and especially not the main culprit. There were other OGL games that were released around in the late 3e/ early 4e eras. Paizo has done a remarkable job of taking a game, re-branding it and re-selling it, however there were other innovative games being released around this time. Fantasycraft/crafty games took d20 and really did some amazing innovative work with the system, yet it remains a game that barely anyone knows about or even plays it.

Yeah, everyone seems to have forgotten the plethora of stand alone d20 games that existed during the 3e era. And everyone also seems to forget that while Paizo created the most successful 3e with revisions, other 3PP did as well. Pathfinder was just the most successful because it was the one backed by a published capable of print products and high production values. I'm not sure this will be as possible for future editions. If we do see a new OGL and WotC moves to 6e, there's less chance of a single voice emerging like Pathfinder.

Now, I doubt that Pathfinder alone killed 4e. Pathfinder's sales were good, but didn't match 4e's early sales. For every person that left 4e for Pathfinder another left for 3e or another game system (or just left gaming). Of course, without a visible alternative, 4e might have limped along for another year before ending. But maybe not. There were signs of worry over sales prior to Pathfinder's release and prior to Pathfinder really taking off.

#2. D&D 3.5. 3rd edition was released in 2000. 3 years later D&D 3.5 was released and this caused lash back. My home group complained about the change, and I know of others that refused to switch over at all. There were lots of complaints on the message boards (this one and others). I was looking forward to the release of a 3 party campaign setting (Iron Kingdoms) that got pushed back, this disrupted the schedules of lots of publishers who had to change their release schedule. I remember that in the case of the Iron Kingdoms the book was delayed a year or so longer, and people blamed WotC for the delay. Thus the "edition turn over" fatigue began here and gave others the impression that WotC was only interested in the all mighty dollar rather than listening to the fan base. So when in 2007 when WotC announces that 4e is on the way it was seen by some as a money grab and not a necessary change(remember 4e being referred to as 4$).

I definitely remember being upset at the quick edition change, still thinking 3e had lots of life.
The edition turnover also hit the Ravenloft community hard. White Wolf had licensed the campaign setting for their 3e line but a stipulation was they had to reprint any campaign sourcebooks with an edition update. So in 2003 we saw a re-release of the campaign and monster book (badly) updated from 3.0 to 3.5. Having to wait longer for new material delayed to reprint books didn't help my opinion of WotC.

#3. Dungeon and Dragon Magazine. This was the first time that I had ever heard of Paizo. They gained a lot of "cred" with the community.

The magazines certainly helped, as it allowed the company to get used to producing monthly products and get started on making the type of content they wanted to make. It made the first few Pathfinder products much more solid as they already had a wealth of artists and writers and experience. Plus the reputation/cred.

#4. The GSL. I honestly think that if WotC had their GSL ready to go and in Paizo's hands (along with early access to 4e) the moment that they pulled Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo we might not have seen a Pathfinder.

Maybe. Maybe not. But if Paizo had the GSL from the start they might have opted to go the safe route and produce 4e content. The fact WotC didn't share the ruleset or get the GSL out certainly made the choice easier for Paizo.

#5. The “it doesn’t feel like D&D”/ The Edition Wars. This one is complicated and in theory could take a whole ton of discussion.

One of the reasons for the OGL was encouraging quality. It was remarked that WotC couldn't just publish a new edition and expect everyone to follow along because the old books were out of print. The new edition had to be undeniably better and designed for the broadest possible audience. And 4e was very much a deniable improvement. A lot of people were unhappy from the very start, from before the edition launched, and that really gave people time to make an alternative product. And there were people with a fanbase positioned to make an alternative. And those people were not given a reason to not do their own thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

As far as I can see, this is the decisive factor. Because Paizo had access to the thousands of Dragon subscribers, they had a massive leg-up on the competition. Without that, I doubt Pathfinder could have succeeded.

And because of that, I don't see how a "second Pathfinder" could come about - nobody else gets to start with that in-built market. More likely, IMO, is that if 5e does indeed go OGL then Paizo might adapt some of the more popular mechanics for the second edition of Pathfinder, if and when that comes about.

Well Paizo have out right said the retention rate of Dragon and Dungeon subscribers was what kept them going. I would assume they got that 66% or 67% retention rate because of the quality of the magazines.

The other OGL companies did not have that advantage and 4E provided the push effect. I think those 2 factors are the key ones. Some try and blame the economy as well which may have been a small factor but Paizo had to deal with the same thing.

The OGL was relevant as well as it allowed Paizo to stick with 3.5 but without 4E providing a push effect that would not have mattered that much either. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink.

66% retention rate with the magazines.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ldp4?Paizo-Publishings-10th-Anniversary

 

[gribble]

Maybe. Maybe not. But if Paizo had the GSL from the start they might have opted to go the safe route and produce 4e content. The fact WotC didn't share the ruleset or get the GSL out certainly made the choice easier for Paizo.

I seem to recall someone at Paizo (Erik Mona?) stating flat out that their intention was always to support "the current version of D&D" if possible. However the commercial realities around having to keep content flowing to pay the bills, and the lack of information from WotC around 3rd party publishing meant they had to pursue other alternatives.

Edit: Can't seem to locate the article I'm thinking of now, but here are a couple of quotes from another article:
"[WotC] made all sorts of assurances to the community of third-party developers about how open the new game would be, how they planned to share the rules early with key publishers, and how we could all get on board with supporting the new edition," Mona said. "But something happened behind the scenes over there at about that time, and a licensing agreement that had been touted as a 'more open than ever' failed to materialize."

"All of a sudden our subscribers started begging us not to convert to the new game system," Mona said. "The fact that many members of our editorial staff shared some of these concerns underscored our uneasiness with the dragged out licensing situation. We finally made the decision that if we weren't able to support the game at launch, we might as well not bother supporting it at all. So we decided to stick with [D&D] 3.5."

 

[Jester David]

Well Paizo have out right said the retention rate of Dragon and Dungeon subscribers was what kept them going. I would assume they got that 66% or 67% retention rate because of the quality of the magazines.

(Of course, the magazine retention to Pathfinder APs happened before the announcement of 4e. The first volume of PF was released at the same GenCon as the announcement, so people opted to continue their subscription prior.)

 

[Jester David]

I seem to recall someone at Paizo (Erik Mona?) stating flat out that their intention was always to support "the current version of D&D" if possible. However the commercial realities around having to keep content flowing to pay the bills, and the lack of information from WotC around 3rd party publishing meant they had to pursue other alternatives.

Edit: Can't seem to locate the article I'm thinking of now, but here are a couple of quotes from another article:
"[WotC] made all sorts of assurances to the community of third-party developers about how open the new game would be, how they planned to share the rules early with key publishers, and how we could all get on board with supporting the new edition," Mona said. "But something happened behind the scenes over there at about that time, and a licensing agreement that had been touted as a 'more open than ever' failed to materialize."

"All of a sudden our subscribers started begging us not to convert to the new game system," Mona said. "The fact that many members of our editorial staff shared some of these concerns underscored our uneasiness with the dragged out licensing situation. We finally made the decision that if we weren't able to support the game at launch, we might as well not bother supporting it at all. So we decided to stick with [D&D] 3.5."

It'd be interesting to think about a world where WotC got the GSL out earlier and Paizo opted to support 4e. But that's pretty far off topic.

 

[Zardnaar]

It'd be interesting to think about a world where WotC got the GSL out earlier and Paizo opted to support 4e. But that's pretty far off topic.

Its not an article but a what do you want us to do forum post from 2007.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hnth&page=1?40-PAIZO-IS-STILL-UNDECIDED

From the horses mouth so to speak.

 

[casterblaster]

Sorry if I am restating what has been said or whatever...

If 4e had been OGL and PF never existed I still believe some other form would have emerged. I love DnD and I bought the 4e core books but I couldn't get into it, and just didn't like the feel of it overall. Saying that I did jump over to PF and turns out it wasn't what I wanted either, too complicated (and now bloated) for my casual gamer group. Before 5e officially launched we had turned back to 2e for our DnD fix. So if 4e was OGL and Pazio hung with them producing amazing adventure content (albeit with hour long battles) I don't think 4e would have had a different fate. We would be debating this topic still with some other form of competition that emerged and took advantage of WOTC's risk with 4e.

 

[aramis erak]

Sorry if I am restating what has been said or whatever...

If 4e had been OGL and PF never existed I still believe some other form would have emerged. I love DnD and I bought the 4e core books but I couldn't get into it, and just didn't like the feel of it overall. Saying that I did jump over to PF and turns out it wasn't what I wanted either, too complicated (and now bloated) for my casual gamer group. Before 5e officially launched we had turned back to 2e for our DnD fix. So if 4e was OGL and Pazio hung with them producing amazing adventure content (albeit with hour long battles) I don't think 4e would have had a different fate. We would be debating this topic still with some other form of competition that emerged and took advantage of WOTC's risk with 4e.

Arcana Unearthed probably would have gotten a share if Pathfinder hadn't been launched. Or one of the other pre 2008 alternate corebooks.