WotC Rumor: OGL will not be supported starting with One D&D

[tetrasodium]

The end of the OGL was what drove Paizo to create Pathfinder. But it is not what made Pathfinder successful.

Pathfinder succeeded because of two things. First, there was a huge backlash to 4E. And second, 4E was so different from 3E that there was no way for Wizards to adjust course. The core game engine was what players had a problem with, so the issue couldn't be fixed with splatbooks -- it would have required a whole new edition to bring those folks back. Which, in the end, was what Wizards did, and it worked.

I really doubt 1D&D will encounter either of those issues. There's always some backlash to a new edition, but I can't see it happening on anywhere near the scale of 4E; and none of the changes they are currently contemplating (at least to judge by the playtest packets) are so massive that it would be impossible to course-correct.

The more restrictive 4e GSL is what drove a good chunk of it.

 

[glass]

The only reference I could find was a one time quote from Mike Mearls early on in the development cycle

That's more than I can find now (thanks to WotC purging most of the DDN stuff), but it is a lot less than was there at the time. There was a lot more, over the first few months after the announcement, until suddenly there wasn't.

 

[Morrus]

The end of the OGL was what drove Paizo to create Pathfinder. But it is not what made Pathfinder successful.

Pathfinder succeeded because of two things. First, there was a huge backlash to 4E. And second, 4E was so different from 3E that there was no way for Wizards to adjust course. The core game engine was what players had a problem with, so the issue couldn't be fixed with splatbooks -- it would have required a whole new edition to bring those folks back. Which, in the end, was what Wizards did, and it worked.

I really doubt 1D&D will encounter either of those issues. There's always some backlash to a new edition, but I can't see it happening on anywhere near the scale of 4E; and none of the changes they are currently contemplating (at least to judge by the playtest packets) are so massive that it would be impossible to course-correct.

And third, very importantly, they had all the Dragon and Dungeon subscribers who they were able to directly transfer over. Starting with tens of thousands of subscribers is an excellent way to launch a new line!

 

[Sacrosanct]

And third, very importantly, they had all the Dragon and Dungeon subscribers who they were able to directly transfer over. Starting with tens of thousands of subscribers is an excellent way to launch a new line!

Yeah, that seems to be a big one. A thing that's very evident when you look at Kickstarters. It's all about how many subscribers/followers you have to get the message of a new product.

 

[Oofta]

That's more than I can find now (thanks to WotC purging most of the DDN stuff), but it is a lot less than was there at the time. There was a lot more, over the first few months after the announcement, until suddenly there wasn't.

Like I said, early on there are a lot of ideas floating around that turn out to just not be realistic. The fact that they talked about it is just an indication of bad PR and messaging. There was always going to be compromise, there was always going to be ideas and goals that didn't pan out as much as they may have hoped. I also seem to remember that one of the big proponents was a consultant who's name I sadly forget that was only on the project for a few months at initiation. Of course, as you said, there's a lot of info no longer available.

In any case, I do think we have a modular system, it's just that much of the modularity has been left up to 3PP. To tie it back to the thread topic, is why I don't think they would get rid of the OGL even if they could. WOTC gets a decent amount of support for the core game by letting other companies take the risks and chase after the niche markets.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said, early on there are a lot of ideas floating around that turn out to just not be realistic. The fact that they talked about it is just an indication of bad PR and messaging. There was always going to be compromise, there was always going to be ideas and goals that didn't pan out as much as they may have hoped. I also seem to remember that one of the big proponents was a consultant who's name I sadly forget that was only on the project for a few months at initiation. Of course, as you said, there's a lot of info no longer available.

In any case, I do think we have a modular system, it's just that much of the modularity has been left up to 3PP. To tie it back to the thread topic, is why I don't think they would get rid of the OGL even if they could. WOTC gets a decent amount of support for the core game by letting other companies take the risks and chase after the niche markets.

I would have loved it if WotC had been clear about their idea of modularity, especially as it was obvious some of their fans had a different idea.

 

[Dausuul]

I also seem to remember that one of the big proponents was a consultant who's name I sadly forget that was only on the project for a few months at initiation.

Monte Cook?

 

[Oofta]

Monte Cook?

Probably. I had found some info on it a while back and from what I can remember he was a big proponent of modularity but was only on the project a few months and left because of "differences of opinion".

In any case, water under the bridge. People shouldn't overpromise at the start of a project because some goals, while admirable, are simply not achievable. At least not to the extent that some people want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Probably. I had found some info on it a while back and from what I can remember he was a big proponent of modularity but was only on the project a few months and left because of "differences of opinion".

In any case, water under the bridge. People shouldn't overpromise at the start of a project because some goals, while admirable, are simply not achievable. At least not to the extent that some people want.

And if you decide part way through the project that you did overpromise, or that what you intend and what people think you intend are different, the respectful thing to do is to make sure the public knows this.

 

[Oofta]

And if you decide part way through the project that you did overpromise, or that what you intend and what people think you intend are different, the respectful thing to do is to make sure the public knows this.

First, I don't think Mearls was the best person for PR at times. Second, I think a lot of people took what was said and blew it way out of proportion. They did clarify in the interview that I linked to, it was more about optional rules, which was included, ToTM or grid, rulings over rules.

I read many of the same articles and interviews at the time as everyone else. I think they more-or-less delivered on the core essentials. I guess I just don't see why this has caused such grief even after all these years. We have a reasonably flexible system that people can, and do, tweak. We have optional rules in the DMG, a ton of optional modules from 3PP. I simply don't know what people expected other than the oft repeated "more" or some mythical system that would be a half dozen completely different games rolled into one.