D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[triqui]

You might have.

I expressed myself badly then.

What I wanted to say is: you entered the game 7 people in three years. In the same time, much more people went to Barnes and Nobles (or whatever other bookshop company there is in your country, if you aren't in the US) and bought the game by themselves?

Sure, you, and other devoted fans, might introduce people in the game. But that's not the only way to get new gamers, and WotC shouldn't make decissions thinking about what does the "devoted fans" want. They should try to make the better game they can think of, for the majority of their player base, not the better game "devoted fans" want. Especially if we are not talking about "devoted fans", but "devoted fans that are vocal in the internet", which is, actually, a subset of the devoted fans subset.

 

[Alzrius]

"Maybe is nnot a given, but is what happened" is a sentence I copied, word by word, from your own post.

I find that to be a disingenuous statement. First of all, you didn't quote me "word-for-word." What you're referring to comes from this post, where I said:

People talk about this like it was some sort of inevitability that the OGL would bring about a major, direct competitor to WotC. In fact, while that is what happened, it was by no means a given.

There's nothing in that statement that links any sort of correlation with causation. In fact, it's a statement that just because something did happen in a certain way, that doesn't mean it had to.

IAnyways, the fallacy is not valid in this case, because OGL *did* make Paizo's Pathfinder viable. It might not be the only variable, or the most important one, but it is a necesary one. Paizo could had not made Pathfinder, even with OGL, if some other things were done different. But Paizo couldn't had made Pathfinder, at all, without OGL, regardless of the other variables.

You're attempting to redefine your previous statement here. You said:

WotC might be right about how inevitable the OGL was, or they might be wrong. Maybe it was not a given, but it is what happened. People learn by their experiences, and that's what WotC will do. 100% of the times I threw a stone to a dog, the dog bited me: 1/1. There won't be a second try.

In other words, you aren't talking about how viable Pathfinder is. You're talking about WotC's reaction to Paizo's success with Pathfinder. You objectively stated "that's what WotC will do" because "people learn by their experiences," and since something happened one way the first time, "there won't be a second try."

That's the very definition of saying that because something happened after something else, it was caused by it. Hence, it is illogical when held up against post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Giving nuclear weapons to a country that later became your enemy and attack you might not be the reason that country became your enemy, but it is a necessary step to be attacked with nuclear weapons. So it's quite unwise giving nuclear weapons to other countries.

The only thing this shows is that your analogy is imperfect. Paizo and other publishers are not other countries, and the OGL is not a nuclear weapon.

You stated that WotC won't use the OGL again because Paizo made a success out of Pathfinder. You said:

I once throw a stone to a dog, and the dog bite me. It was by no means a given, the dog might had run frightened, but that's what happened. So I won't throw stones against dogs, ever.

That's a fallacy. You can try and say how it isn't really a fallacy in this particular circumstance because sometimes correlation is causation, but you're wrong to do so.

 

[mudbunny]

To say that the existence of the OGL resulted in the appearance of Pathfinder is to ignore a number of other things that also resulted in that happening. If any one of them had not happened, it is unlikely that PFRPG would exist:

1 - GSL and the language contained within.
2 - Lateness of the GSL
3 - The familiarity of Paizo with the 3.5 ruleset.

It ended up being a perfect storm of circumstances.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

To say that the existence of the OGL resulted in the appearance of Pathfinder is to ignore a number of other things that also resulted in that happening. If any one of them had not happened, it is unlikely that PFRPG would exist:

1 - GSL and the language contained within.
2 - Lateness of the GSL
3 - The familiarity of Paizo with the 3.5 ruleset.

It ended up being a perfect storm of circumstances.

I'd add

4 - Taking Dragon and Dungeon away from Paizo.
5 - Not communicating effectively with Paizo about 4e.

 

[triqui]

That's a fallacy. You can try and say how it isn't really a fallacy in this particular circumstance because sometimes correlation is causation, but you're wrong to do so.

No. It's a fallacy when you claim something happening after another is a cause-relation effect, when the events don't have a relation. It is not, when they do. I once eat a certain kind of mushroom, then I brushed my teeth. Later in the night, I had a strong stomach ache. If I claim that brushing my teeth made me had a stomach ache, it's a fallacy. However, if those mushrooms were poisonous, and I claim eating them made me to have a stomach ache, it is not a fallacy, because *there is* a causation.

So WotC and OGL is a fallacy if there is no causation, but it is not if there is one. And I claim it would be absolutelly impossible for Paizo to build Pathfinder, without OGL.

 

[triqui]

To say that the existence of the OGL resulted in the appearance of Pathfinder is to ignore a number of other things that also resulted in that happening. If any one of them had not happened, it is unlikely that PFRPG would exist:

1 - GSL and the language contained within.
2 - Lateness of the GSL
3 - The familiarity of Paizo with the 3.5 ruleset.

It ended up being a perfect storm of circumstances.

I didn't say that. I said it was an absolutelly necesary step. Without OGL, there wouldn't be Pathfinder, even if everything else would be the same: WotC could had 4e with GSL, put it late, remove Dragon and Dungeon from Paizo, not communicating to them about 4e, and whatever. But without OGL, Paizo wouldn't had Pathfinder, period.

To have a plant, you need a seed, and also soil, water, sun, and protection from wind. That's true. But without seed, there's no plant.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Without the OGL Pathfinder would not use the rules it currently does, but Paizo may very well have developed their own system.

 

[Alzrius]

No. It's a fallacy when you claim something happening after another is a cause-relation effect, when the events don't have a relation. It is not, when they do. I once eat a certain kind of mushroom, then I brushed my teeth. Later in the night, I had a strong stomach ache. If I claim that brushing my teeth made me had a stomach ache, it's a fallacy. However, if those mushrooms were poisonous, and I claim eating them made me to have a stomach ache, it is not a fallacy, because *there is* a causation.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with your previous statement. See below.

So WotC and OGL is a fallacy if there is no causation, but it is not if there is one. And I claim it would be absolutelly impossible for Paizo to build Pathfinder, without OGL.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed the following:

I once throw a stone to a dog, and the dog bite me. It was by no means a given, the dog might had run frightened, but that's what happened. So I won't throw stones against dogs, ever.

WotC might be right about how inevitable the OGL was, or they might be wrong. Maybe it was not a given, but it is what happened. People learn by their experiences, and that's what WotC will do. 100% of the times I threw a stone to a dog, the dog bited me: 1/1. There won't be a second try.

100% of the times WotC went with an OGL system, it generated a competitor that is devastating them. Right or wrong, that's their experience.

You weren't stating "Pathfinder followed the OGL, therefore it was caused by the OGL," though for what it's worth, that's also a fallacious statement. Rather, you were stating that WotC wouldn't use the OGL again because the OGL led to Paizo's Pathfinder becoming a major competitor to WotC's D&D - that is a fallacious statement, because simply releasing the OGL did not necessarily cause Pathfinder to become a success, and it certainly didn't cause it to become a success to the point of being a major competitor to D&D.

To reiterate, you stated that WotC would avoid using the OGL again because of how much of a success Pathfinder is. That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Oni]

I didn't say that. I said it was an absolutelly necesary step. Without OGL, there wouldn't be Pathfinder, even if everything else would be the same: WotC could had 4e with GSL, put it late, remove Dragon and Dungeon from Paizo, not communicating to them about 4e, and whatever. But without OGL, Paizo wouldn't had Pathfinder, period.

To have a plant, you need a seed, and also soil, water, sun, and protection from wind. That's true. But without seed, there's no plant.

Like I said before, the OGL made Pathfinder possible, it's not the cause for its existence. There is a difference.

 

[triqui]

Like I said before, the OGL made Pathfinder possible, it's not the cause for its existence. There is a difference.

Nor the seed is the cause of the existence of the plant. But it is what make the plant possible.