D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[triqui]

Except the OGL was less like leaving the gas on and more like owning a gas stove. Leaving the gas on is not unlike any one of the many stupid mistakes WotC made by not using their kitchen appliances (the OGL) with forethought and responsibility. Sure you could remove the chance of a gas explosion in your kitchen by not owning a gas stove, but such an action isn't necessary if you use it intelligently.

Bad analogy. A kitchen without gas stove isn't very useful in general. Several RPG have been successful without an OGL. AD&D or Vampire te Masquerade were, and didn't had OGL. I claim 3e would had been equally sucessful without OGL. I don't know about you, but I bought it when it was released, and bought exactly zero 3PP for a long while. When I took 3PP d20 products, later on, they were in niches that helped none to D&D (ie: Mutants and Masterminds and Spycraft).

WotC could had released 3e without an OGL. Little would had changed for their sales. A LOT would be different in the RPG industry, that for sure. I, as a customer, would regret it. But those are different issues.

 

[triqui]

I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking, nor that it's necessarily applicable here. Between the "OGL as enlightened self-interest" idea, and the related "other RPGs aren't competitors; other hobbies are" idea, there's certainly room for seeing the OGL as being good for WotC, even by the people at WotC.

Sure, it is possible. They can try, and it can work, or fail, however.

The fallacy itself is presented when someone - such as you, in your previous posts - presents a correlation as a causation, without it being so. You stated that WotC will see the causation of Paizo's success with Pathfinder as being because of the Open Game License.

No. I stated that they saw what happened, and will NOT release the new as OGL (imho and all that jazz), to AVOID it happening again.
You should see the difference by now.
A is necessary for B. In this case, OGL is necessary for Pathfinder.
A does not imply B. In this case, OGL does not imply Pathfinder.
However:
No A implies No B. In this case, No OGL means No Pathfinder.

WotC wants No B, therefore, applies No A. In this case, WotC does not want another Pathfinder. Therefore, No OGL.

Could WotC release a new OGL, without it meaning, necessarelly, a new Pathfinder? Of course. You can have A, and not B, because A does not imply B. However, No A implies No B, period.

Unto itself, however, that view is demonstrably false, as the simple existence of the Open Game License by itself was not enough to cause (rather than simply allowing for the possibility of) Pathfinder, let alone it's current success.

It doesn't mind, it was a *prerrequisite*. You could have OGL, and not a succesful Pathfinder, thanks to a miriad of other variables (for example, if Pathfinder would had sucked). HOWEVER, it does not change the fact that, without OGL, there is no way Pathfinder is possible (let alone succesful)

The relating needs to be causal for it to not be post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply allowing for something to be possible is not the same as making it happen.

My father smokes. He got a lung cancer. There is obviously no causal relation (he might had the cancer from his work in a nuclear power plant, from living in a polluted city, or just from randomness). The relation is a correlation, not causal. After surgery, the doctor tells him to stop smoking.

In your opinion, is the doctor suggestion a fallacy?

That's not relevant to the discussion we're having. A lack of A resulting in a lack of B does not mean that A's presence thusly causes B's presence.

No, But the lack of A means the absence of B. Which is, exactly, what I suggested. WotC wants the *absence* of Pathfinder. And No A means exactly that. The fact they might have OGL, and run the risk to see if there is a new PAthfinder or not, is pointless (with A, you *can* have B, or not, depending the circumstances, but with No A, there's no B, in any circumstance)

Saying that something is dependent on something else does not mean that it is caused by that thing. You keep insisting that it does, which is an "after it, therefore because of it" fallacy.

See the above. I have never claimed that, if WotC releases OGL, there would be a new Pathfinder. What I claim is that, if they DONT release a new OGL, there WON'T be a new Pathfinder. Which is completelly different.

See above for the problems with necessarily assuming, as you do, that WotC even sees Pathfinder as a competitor to begin with.

If they don't see the company that has take half his market share as a competitor, they would be supreme idiots. I don't think they are.

That's like saying maybe Nokia does not see Samsung as a competitor

Likewise, saying that they'll not use the OGL again because they don't want another Pathfinder to deal with is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Again.

Nop. Saying that if they do use the OGL they'll have a new Pathfinder *would* be post hoc ergo propter hoc. Saying that if they don't use it they won't have a new pathfinder, isn't.

 

[IronWolf]

Bad analogy.

Analogies are are usually poor as they end up with people debating gas stoves and kitchens instead of the topic at hand.

WotC could had released 3e without an OGL. Little would had changed for their sales.

We do not know this.

 

[triqui]

We do not know this.

Fair enough. We don't know the opposite either. We can only make conjetures.

Mine is this:

Games do not need OGL to be successful. AD&D, D&D 1, Runequest, Vampire, and several others, were successful without OGL.

Games do need a good system/gameplay to be sucessful. There are a lot of OGL games, who aren't sucessful, because the game itself sucks (or does not have enough traction in the market). I won't name any, to avoid hurting feelings, but all of us know about at least one game that qualifies.

In my opinion, what makes the game succesful, is the game itself. The rules, the playability, the books. 3e was a solid game, with solid innovative rules, a strong backup world, and a style that appealed to a lot of people. That's what made it sucessful, imho. Even without OGL, they would had all of that. Speaking about anecdotal evidence, I didn't buy it because it was OGL, nor did any of the people I know. I did buy *other* games because they were d20, for sure. The OGL helped those *other* companies to get my money: instead of saying "hey look, a game about spies. It's a pity they always have crappy rules" I said "hey look, Spycraft. It's d20, at the very least the system is solid, let's try it". But I would had buy D&D regardless of OGL, because it was a damn good system. Wouldn't you?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think there will be licensing, but a lot more restrictive than 3E. I can't see WOTC being foolish enough to allow a competitor to create another Pathfinder.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure, it is possible. They can try, and it can work, or fail, however.

Anything can be summarized as "it can work, or fail." That's not what we're discussing, though.

No. I stated that they saw what happened, and will NOT release the new as OGL (imho and all that jazz), to AVOID it happening again.
You should see the difference by now.

The difference is that WotC will hopefully be cogent, as an organization, to realize that they can avoid that happening again without simply avoiding the OGL altogether.

A is necessary for B. In this case, OGL is necessary for Pathfinder.
A does not imply B. In this case, OGL does not imply Pathfinder.
However:
No A implies No B. In this case, No OGL means No Pathfinder.
WotC wants No B, therefore, applies No A. In this case, WotC does not want another Pathfinder. Therefore, No OGL.

Again, you keep fixating on the idea that because B cannot exist without A, that somehow means that A is the actual cause of B, and that makes your statement that "[the OGL] generated a competitor that is devastating [WotC]" not be a fallacy. That remains a faulty line of logic.

Could WotC release a new OGL, without it meaning, necessarelly, a new Pathfinder? Of course. You can have A, and not B, because A does not imply B. However, No A implies No B, period.

Which doesn't deal at all with the question of your original statement being a fallacy.

It doesn't mind, it was a *prerrequisite*. You could have OGL, and not a succesful Pathfinder, thanks to a miriad of other variables (for example, if Pathfinder would had sucked). HOWEVER, it does not change the fact that, without OGL, there is no way Pathfinder is possible (let alone succesful)

This also doesn't change the fact that this wasn't your original stance on the topic - which was that WotC avoiding the OGL to avoid another major competitor is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, when it is in fact such a fallacy.

My father smokes. He got a lung cancer. There is obviously no causal relation (he might had the cancer from his work in a nuclear power plant, from living in a polluted city, or just from randomness). The relation is a correlation, not causal. After surgery, the doctor tells him to stop smoking.

In your opinion, is the doctor suggestion a fallacy?

No, because the doctor isn't making a statement about causation. You were.

No, But the lack of A means the absence of B. Which is, exactly, what I suggested. WotC wants the *absence* of Pathfinder. And No A means exactly that. The fact they might have OGL, and run the risk to see if there is a new PAthfinder or not, is pointless (with A, you *can* have B, or not, depending the circumstances, but with No A, there's no B, in any circumstance)

It's also pointless to presume that avoiding the OGL will in any way prevent competition, since there are already other popular role-playing games on the market that don't use the OGL, and because the OGL is already out there, and because game rules cannot be copyrighted anyway.

It's also worth noting that this isn't an attempt to say you haven't made a logical fallacy previously, but rather is an attempt to change the issue altogether (see above).

See the above. I have never claimed that, if WotC releases OGL, there would be a new Pathfinder. What I claim is that, if they DONT release a new OGL, there WON'T be a new Pathfinder. Which is completelly different.

This is a disingenuous statement, as I never said you said that if WotC releases Fifth Edition under the OGL there would be a new Pathfinder. I said you were attempting to deny having made a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by insisting that something that is a necessary prerequisite for something else is therefore the cause of that something else, which is false.

If they don't see the company that has take half his market share as a competitor, they would be supreme idiots. I don't think they are.

Again, this is simplistic view, as the tabletop role-playing game market is permeable compared to other entertainment pastimes.

That's like saying maybe Nokia does not see Samsung as a competitor

You've made another poor analogy. Someone who buys a Samsung electronic product is probably not going to want another of that same product. Someone who buys a given RPG is probably going to want to buy another RPG.

Nop. Saying that if they do use the OGL they'll have a new Pathfinder *would* be post hoc ergo propter hoc. Saying that if they don't use it they won't have a new pathfinder, isn't.

You did, in fact, state that WotC thinks that releasing Fifth Edition under the OGL would result in another Pathfinder - you simply stated that in the context of something they wanted to avoid; hence, you did make that fallacy.

 

[triqui]

Anything can be summarized as "it can work, or fail." That's not what we're discussing, though.

True. The difference is that, while with OGL they can, or not, have a Pathfinder, without OGL, they CAN'T have a Pathfinder.

The difference is that WotC will hopefully be cogent, as an organization, to realize that they can avoid that happening again without simply avoiding the OGL altogether.

Sure. They *can* try to avoid that happening again (and they might be sucessful, or not), or they can avoid the OGL (and then that won't happen again, ever, no matter of what)

Again, you keep fixating on the idea that because B cannot exist without A, that somehow means that A is the actual cause of B, and that makes your statement that "[the OGL] generated a competitor that is devastating [WotC]" not be a fallacy. That remains a faulty line of logic.

No. That's you, trying to keep your strawman fallacy. I did not say that A is the cause of B. I said B cannot exist without A. I assume WotC does not want B, and therefore, they can forbid its existence by denying A.

OGL didn't create Pathfinder *alone*. There were other causes as well. However, OGL made Pathfinder *possible*. So No OGL made Pathfinder *impossible*. Which was my statement.

This also doesn't change the fact that this wasn't your original stance on the topic - which was that WotC avoiding the OGL to avoid another major competitor is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, when it is in fact such a fallacy.

Once again, it is not (and this talking in circles). Without OGL, it is absolutelly impossible to have pathfinder, PERIOD. Yes, I agree that, with OGL, there are situations where another Pathfinder is not possible (for example, they release OGL, the Mayas are right, and the world ends. That's a possibiity, for example). But that's absolutelly pointless.

It's also pointless to presume that avoiding the OGL will in any way prevent competition, since there are already other popular role-playing games on the market that don't use the OGL, and because the OGL is already out there, and because game rules cannot be copyrighted anyway.

I never said so (despise your likeness for strawman fallacies). Sure, if they don't go OGL, that does not mean they'll avoid all competitors. Maybe White Wolf makes Vampire 3 and it rocks. However, that's not what I said. I said no OGL means no Pathfinder, and that's undeniable. Even you have said: OGL is a prerrequiste for Pathfinder, and Pathfinder can't exist without it. They might have other competitors, but not that one. And one competitor less is better than one competitor more, especially if that particular competitor happens to be the strongest one.

This is a disingenuous statement, as I never said you said that if WotC releases Fifth Edition under the OGL there would be a new Pathfinder. I said you were attempting to deny having made a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by insisting that something that is a necessary prerequisite for something else is therefore the cause of that something else, which is false.

But I didn't...
I did not say that if WotC release a new OGL, there would be a new Pathfinder. I didn't say that because something is prerrequisite for something else, it is a cause for it. I said they don't want it to happen again. And that can be done, without a new OGL.

I said:

You've made another poor analogy. Someone who buys a Samsung electronic product is probably not going to want another of that same product. Someone who buys a given RPG is probably going to want to buy another RPG.

If everybody's RPG budget is infinite (or they download pirate copies) sure. If it is limited (ie: most rpg gamers haven't found the philosopher stone yet, and thus can't make money from nothing), then that might not be the truth. If I only have 100 bucks to spend in RPG per year, I either buy 100 bucks in Pathfinder, or 100 bucks in 5e, or 50 and 50, or 25, 25, and 50 in some other RPGs.

I'm going to dare to say that WotC would rather be in the case where most people decide to spend their 200 buck in WotC products. Daring assumptions I make. If that premise is false, and WotC preffer people to share their budget with competitors, then yes, the whole "not wanting another Pathfinder" assumption holds no water. But I doubt that's the case.

 

[Alzrius]

True. The difference is that, while with OGL they can, or not, have a Pathfinder, without OGL, they CAN'T have a Pathfinder.

Technically speaking they can have a Pathfinder without the OGL, the same way Technomancer Press can have their [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Players-Companion-Getting-More-Your/dp/0976931028]Player's Companion[/ame] without it.

Sure. They *can* try to avoid that happening again (and they might be sucessful, or not), or they can avoid the OGL (and then that won't happen again, ever, no matter of what)

This is a simplistic breakdown. There are more options than the ones you list here, such as embracing the OGL and using it to their advantage.

No. That's you, trying to keep your strawman fallacy. I did not say that A is the cause of B. I said B cannot exist without A. I assume WotC does not want B, and therefore, they can forbid its existence by denying A.

A strawman is misrepresenting your opponent's position. I have yet to misrepresent you, though you have misrepresented yourself numerous times now, as the following demonstrates:

You stated that WotC will avoid releasing Fifth Edition under the OGL because they wanted to avoid another major competitor like Pathfinder.

I pointed out that this line of thinking operates under the affirmative assumption that simply releasing a game system under the OGL causes it to become a major competitor is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - simply putting a game system under the OGL doesn't necessarily cause it to become a competitor.

Your response to being informed of your fallacy was to state that it wasn't a fallacy, because if "B" needs "A" to exist, then removing "A" causes "B" to not exist.

I pointed out that this is in no way related to the affirmative assumption in your initial statement, and hence it remains a fallacy.

Your response is to repeat the same line about "A" and "B" over and over, and maintain that my response is a strawman.

OGL didn't create Pathfinder *alone*. There were other causes as well. However, OGL made Pathfinder *possible*. So No OGL made Pathfinder *impossible*. Which was my statement.

Your statement was about what WotC will do, which has them operating on the assumption that one thing (the OGL) was the cause of another (Pathfinder as a major competitor), and so they would avoid that. I pointed out how that statement is based on a fallacy.

Once again, it is not (and this talking in circles). Without OGL, it is absolutelly impossible to have pathfinder, PERIOD. Yes, I agree that, with OGL, there are situations where another Pathfinder is not possible (for example, they release OGL, the Mayas are right, and the world ends. That's a possibiity, for example). But that's absolutelly pointless.

I agree that this is talking in circles, since I've already pointed out how your initial assumption is inherently flawed.

I never said so (despise your likeness for strawman fallacies).

See above for why I have never made a strawman fallacy in the course of pointing our your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Sure, if they don't go OGL, that does not mean they'll avoid all competitors. Maybe White Wolf makes Vampire 3 and it rocks. However, that's not what I said. I said no OGL means no Pathfinder, and that's undeniable.

That's not what you said. You said WotC would avoid the OGL because their experience is that they released a game system under the OGL and it became a competitor - that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc line of thought that you have WotC assuming.

Even you have said: OGL is a prerrequiste for Pathfinder, and Pathfinder can't exist without it. They might have other competitors, but not that one. And one competitor less is better than one competitor more, especially if that particular competitor happens to be the strongest one.

In this case, the point is moot, since Pathfinder already exists. If you're referring to some sort of hypothetical Pathfinder-Fifth Edition, then this might be true (see above about copyright). Even then, that's unrelated to your initial point.

But I didn't...
I did not say that if WotC release a new OGL, there would be a new Pathfinder. I didn't say that because something is prerrequisite for something else, it is a cause for it. I said they don't want it to happen again. And that can be done, without a new OGL.

You actually stated why they would take steps to not make such a thing happen again, with the listed reason being the fallacy in question.

I said:

You didn't say that - the quote you give is from me, not you.

If everybody's RPG budget is infinite (or they download pirate copies) sure. If it is limited (ie: most rpg gamers haven't found the philosopher stone yet, and thus can't make money from nothing), then that might not be the truth. If I only have 100 bucks to spend in RPG per year, I either buy 100 bucks in Pathfinder, or 100 bucks in 5e, or 50 and 50, or 25, 25, and 50 in some other RPGs.

A poor assumption, as there are people with RPG budgets between "infinite" and "100 bucks."

I'm going to dare to say that WotC would rather be in the case where most people decide to spend their 200 buck in WotC products. Daring assumptions I make. If that premise is false, and WotC preffer people to share their budget with competitors, then yes, the whole "not wanting another Pathfinder" assumption holds no water. But I doubt that's the case.

The sarcasm aside, this assumes that other RPGs are "competitors" at all. It also doesn't take into account that if people are going to play RPGs, it's better for WotC that they play ones that are compatible with/similar to D&D, since that keeps them thematically "closer" and thus more likely to buy D&D products.

The OGL has a host of benefits that you're not looking at. Likewise, even the idea of "Pathfinder as displacing D&D" can be avoided for Fifth Edition is WotC sticks with the OGL - it wasn't until they abandoned Third Edition that Pathfinder was even created.

None of which, in any event, is relevant to your initial assumption.

 

[triqui]

I'm going to make this my final post about the issue, because this is running in circles.

A strawman is misrepresenting your opponent's position. I have yet to misrepresent you, though you have misrepresented yourself numerous times now, as the following demonstrates:

You stated that WotC will avoid releasing Fifth Edition under the OGL because they wanted to avoid another major competitor like Pathfinder.

That's true.

I pointed out that this line of thinking operates under the affirmative assumption that simply releasing a game system under the OGL causes it to become a major competitor is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - simply putting a game system under the OGL doesn't necessarily cause it to become a competitor.

That's wrong.
I didn't operate under that assumption. I even said "they might be wrong, or they might be right". Simply putting a game under OGL doesn't necessarily cause it to become a competitor, and *I didn't say so*.

What I said, is what you quoted right above: they will avoid releaisng under the OGL because they want to avoid another major competitor like pathfinder. That's what I said, and that's what I keep saying. But that is not working under the assumption that, if they release the 5e in OGL, they'll necessarelly create a competitor. I even said "they might be wrong, or they might be right". That is working under the *opposite* assumption. That if they *don't* release the 5e as OGL, they make sure that there won't be a 5e Pathfinder.

If they release 5e in OGL, they have the *risk* of a 5e Pathfinder. Not certainity, for sure. But the risk. If they don't, they don't have such risk. Because B is a prerrequisite for A. As I work under the assumption that WotC wants to avoid losing customers to competitors (dare assumptions I make), I think they'll avoid *risk* altogether.

Your statement was about what WotC will do, which has them operating on the assumption that one thing (the OGL) was the cause of another (Pathfinder as a major competitor), and so they would avoid that. I pointed out how that statement is based on a fallacy.

No, it was under the assumption that they don't want another pathfinder, and thus they'll make a move to avoid other Pathfinder. No OGL means no Pathfinder, and thus they'll do that.

That's not what you said. You said WotC would avoid the OGL because their experience is that they released a game system under the OGL and it became a competitor - that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc line of thought that you have WotC assuming.

No, it's not. It would be, if they weren't related. They are related, so it's not. Just becouse something bad does not happen always you do something else, it does not mean you shouldn't stop doing it to avoid the risk.
I got hurt playing football. I don't want to get hurt playing football, so I stop to play football. It's not a causation. It's not true that playing football makes you get hurt. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But that's not relevant, the sentence "I don't want to be hurt playing football, so I don't play it" is not fallacious. Sure, there are other ways to play football, and avoid being hurt (get stronger, play cautiously, be lucky, pray a prayer...). But no matter of what, there's *risk*. While if I don't play footbal, I have NO chance to be hurt playing football (I might get hurt in other, different ways, but not playing football).

Same goes with WotC. They released an OGL. They got a competitor. They don't want this kind of competitors. So they won't release a new OGL. This does not work under the assumption that if they release OGL, they'll get a new competitor *for sure* (just like playing football does not mean an injury for sure). It works under the assumption that releasing a OGL means a *risk* of a OGL competitor, while not releasing a OGL means that risk is zero. Like the risk of being injured in a football match, if you don't play football.

In this case, the point is moot, since Pathfinder already exists. If you're referring to some sort of hypothetical Pathfinder-Fifth Edition, then this might be true (see above about copyright). Even then, that's unrelated to your initial point.

I've been talking about a 5e Pathfinder all the time. I thought that was clear.

A poor assumption, as there are people with RPG budgets between "infinite" and "100 bucks."

An irrelevant remark, as 200 bucks, or 300 bucks, or 1000 bucks are, anyway, finite. If the total market budget is 100 millions, WotC would rather have the whole 100 millions, than share it with Paizo (or whatever)

The sarcasm aside, this assumes that other RPGs are "competitors" at all. It also doesn't take into account that if people are going to play RPGs, it's better for WotC that they play ones that are compatible with/similar to D&D, since that keeps them thematically "closer" and thus more likely to buy D&D products.

Yes, this assumes WotC thinks Paizo is a competitor, and yes, it assumes WotC is more afraid of "closer" competitors than unrelated ones. And they'll do so, as long as people's budget is not "infinite" or "nigh-infinite".

The OGL has a host of benefits that you're not looking at. Likewise, even the idea of "Pathfinder as displacing D&D" can be avoided for Fifth Edition is WotC sticks with the OGL - it wasn't until they abandoned Third Edition that Pathfinder was even created.

Never said it didn't. I said that, under my assumption, WotC biggest concern, is Pathfinder success. By far. So, in my opinion (and all that jazz), they'll move toward a goal that try to avoid further "Pathfinders" to appear. OGL is a necessary prerequisite for successful "Pathfinders". So No OGL means No New Pathfinders. Even if, yes, OGL *might* mean no New Pathfinder, depending on the circumstances. But... why take the risk?

 

[Mark CMG]

So No OGL means No New Pathfinders.

There's no OGL with the current edition of D&D and PF is doing fine, as is M&M, C&C, etc. No OGL tied to 5E doesn't affect the number or existence of "PFs," it only limits the potential success of 5E. You've somehow drawn the conclusion that an OGL-less D&D limits the success of non-WotC OGL products in the marketplace when exactly the opposite is what has happened and, ironically, is what you claim to want to avoid by following the same strategy going forward. It's like saying you won't eat ice cream to keep other people from enjoying ice cream when everyone has access to as much ice cream as they desire.