D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[triqui]

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.

It also limits the ability of other competitors to copy and clone 5e, assuming it is successful. Which is what, in my opinion, WotC wants to do

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.

Not exactly. It's like if you are going to build a new ice cream flavor: Chocolemon, as tasty as chocolate and as sweet as lemon. You don't want other companies to make it as well, so you copyright the formula. Sure, they can keep doing their vanilla icecreams, and their frozen yogurts and maybe even chocolate and lemon icecreams, that they do with the formula you gave them for free in 2001. But they can't make Chocolemon. If your company life depends on how good Chocolemon happens to be (because your company is on the verge of being destroyed by competitors), then this might be your only bullet left.

 

[Alzrius]

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

Okay.

That's true.

It's true that you stated that, it's not necessarily true that WotC is thinking that. Just making sure that's clear.

That's wrong.

I don't believe it is.

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*.

You said that WotC would not release Fifth Edition under the OGL because they didn't want another Pathfinder. That is operating under that assumption.

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.

See above.

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.

It's not opposite, it's a reaction to assuming that the above assumption is correct. Your premise is that they won't release Fifth Edition under the OGL...because doing so will result in another major competitor like Pathfinder. As I've stated, that's fallacious logic.

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.

You didn't previously categorize it as a risk, but that WotC thought of it as a cause-and-effect situation.

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.

It's worth noting that you're using incorrect terminology here. This isn't about "another OGL." What's under discussion is the existing OGL. You're talking about a Fifth Edition SRD.

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.

Yes, it is. Just being "related" isn't enough - one has to be the cause of another.

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).

Another faulty analogy. Simply having something make something else possible is not the same as causing it. Hence why this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

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.

IYHO.

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.

As I said previously, this is a simplistic view of the results of the OGL. It reduces the entire existence of the OGL to being the cause of a major competitor a la Pathfinder, which is a fallacy.

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

Again, this analogy is overly simple, and shows no recognition of how the OGL makes it more likely people will buy WotC's products (as I stated above).

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".

First, that's just your opinion. Second, if it's only as long as people's budget is not "infinite," then why did your previous example involve people with an unlimited budget? Finally, you admit that you're making assumptions, which means that you must be aware of the possibility that those assumptions are wrong (which I think they are).

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?

Because, as I outlined, there are other rewards for doing so.

 

[Mark CMG]

It also limits the ability of other competitors to copy and clone 5e, assuming it is successful. Which is what, in my opinion, WotC wants to do.

Seems like if enough people want to play an edition, an OGL clone of it can be fashioned, so I think your theory falls flat.

Not exactly. It's like if you are going to build a new ice cream flavor: Chocolemon, as tasty as chocolate and as sweet as lemon. You don't want other companies to make it as well, so you copyright the formula. Sure, they can keep doing their vanilla icecreams, and their frozen yogurts and maybe even chocolate and lemon icecreams, that they do with the formula you gave them for free in 2001. But they can't make Chocolemon. If your company life depends on how good Chocolemon happens to be (because your company is on the verge of being destroyed by competitors), then this might be your only bullet left.

In your analogy where D&D is "Chocolemon," what is the flavor being sold equally well under the OGL by Paizo?

I see the problem. You seem to believe that WotC is the only one that can make an appealing ice cream flavor rather than realizing that their real strength isn't in copyright it is in trademark and their strategies are making the trademark weaker.

 

[Oni]

Bad analogy. A kitchen without gas stove isn't very useful in general.

I'll let all the people using microwaves, wood stoves, and electric stoves know they're doing it wrong. The OGL was just one way of doing things, the problem is that WotC chose their method, then made a bunch of foolish decisions and tried to abandon it rather than work it to its full potential.

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.

Never made the claim that you can't make a successful RPG without the OGL. I do think that because WotC already made the decisions that they made, for them in particular, their stance on open gaming in the next edition will affect their bottom line, for reasons I've already talked about.

Also keep in mind that this is about more than than selling a bunch of PHBs, MMs, and DMGs out of the gate. Yeah, tons of people will snap up the initial offering just because it is D&D, I'm sure a ton of people did that with 4e too. The effect of the OGL is the continued support, the thing that keeps people playing your game. Keeping the d20 system in the gaming public's eye is what keeps them from moving on to other games. Those sales to other companies ultimately benefit WotC by keeping interest in WotC's products higher. Or they did until all the third party producers were left out in the cold.

I'm not saying a lack of OGL is why 4e failed, I am saying at best it didn't help, and that IMHO it was one of many factors involved. Not just in sense of how it could have been used to drive continuing interest was an opportunity missed, but also how it's rejection damaged WotC relationship with a portion of its fanbase. That latter point is something I think WotC has failed to realize again and again, that fostering a sense of goodwill with your customers has benefits, and the reverse is also true.

 

[triqui]

In your analogy where D&D is "Chocolemon," what is the flavor being sold equally well under the OGL by Paizo?

In my analogy, D&D is not Chocolemon, but Icecreams. D&D 5e is Chocolemon.

D&D is icecream and has a lot of flavors. Vanilla BECMI, strawberry AD&D, 3.0 chocolate, 3.5 Lemon. Paizo sells chocolate and lemon icecreams, with the OGL. Wizard tried a new flavor in 4e, Beef Steak, which was copyrighted. For some reason, Beef Steak Icecream didn't sell as well as the marketing guys thought it did. Some people claim that if it weren't copyrighted, it'll be the flavor of the moment, others don't think so, because they think Beef Steak Icecream is to weird, has too much things that "aren't Icecream".

WotC has now a new plan. They want to release a new flavor, Chocolemon. They think it's going to be the next great idea in the world, and they hope it saves them from the Beef Steak Icecream fiasco. Now they have two options:

a) let other companies (including Paizo) to make Chocolemon flavored icecreams as well.

b) do not let them.

I see the problem. You seem to believe that WotC is the only one that can make an appealing ice cream flavor rather than realizing that their real strength isn't in copyright it is in trademark and their strategies are making the trademark weaker.

I didn't say WotC is the only one who can make an appealing Icecream. White Wolf made an excellent Mint Icecream a decade ago, of a completelly different taste, and Savage Worlds has a very good Banana Icecream too. They have it copyrighted so no other can make them, by the way. FATE has a good Orange Icecream, which isn't copyrighted. The question is only if WotC wants other companies to build Chocolemon Icecreams, or not.

 

[triqui]

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.

Yes, it is. Just being "related" isn't enough - one has to be the cause of another.

Somebody should explain that to the doctors, because they keep saying to pregnant woman that they should stop smoking.

 

[Herschel]

I'll let all the people using microwaves, wood stoves, and electric stoves know they're doing it wrong.

Real chefs use gas. The others are for heathens.

 

[Herschel]

I'm not saying a lack of OGL is why 4e failed,....

Except 4E didn't "fail" any more than 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, etc. "failed" despite what edition warriors want to believe.

 

[Oni]

Except 4E didn't "fail" any more than 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, etc. "failed" despite what edition warriors want to believe.

For the record I'm talking about as an ongoing product it had a pretty short shelf life, I'm not referrring to quality, my own personal feelings aside, I know it has a number of devoted fans. However that it wasn't performing up to snuff in terms of sales, ie failed, seems difficult to argue. Its a bit like television, quality and ratings aren't always indicative of the other.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e "failed" commercially in the sense that WotC promised Hasbro a level of revenue that no RPG had any hope of delivering, and, of course, failed to do the impossible. (Of course, 4e also balanced fighters & wizards, another impossibility - of the two, it should have gone for the impossible revenue.)

Similarly, 5e is going to 'fail' because its pitched as re-uniting the fan base - not just healing the 3.5/4e rift (itself both impossible and inadequate to create a market big enough to satisfy Hasbro), but bringing back everyone who's ever played the game and getting them to drop oodles of money on it. Not going to happen.

But, when you're a creative type working for corporate types, that's what you do. You promise the moon, and you get to do your thing before its declared a 'failure.' Once in a while, you get lucky and start the next fad.

D&D has already had that luck, back in the 80s. That particularly Lightning Bolt is unlikely to strike twice, regardless of the caster level.

30 years ago, D&D was a fad. It's tried to re-capture that level of success by improving and 'breaking out' into a larger post-fad market and failed. Now it's diving into the nostalgia industry, which is sure to be worth some money while the kids who made it a fad the first time go through their peak earning years. After that, it'll be dead as disco.