D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[Mark CMG]

What a horrible analogy. The OGL isn't going away. I suppose you might say that WotC showed the community a type of fertile soil, in the form of the OGL, in which things might grow very well. The fertile soil cannot be taken away and anyone can plant something in it. The question, of course, is whether WotC thinks it wil be useful to grow something using it as well.

 

[triqui]

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.

Once again: They won't use it because they don't want to further create new competitors. Without it, Paizo wouldn't be a competitor, period. Sure, there are hypothetical situations where they could had OGL and Paizo wouldn't be a competitor. So what?

WotC stored pyrotechnic stuff in his garden. Due some "perfect storm", a few circumstances were added (a dry sunny day, someone lighted a cigarrette, strong wind). There was an explosion. WotC learned his stuff: Even if the pyrotechnic accident was not caused *because* he had stuff in his garden, (rather it was caused by several circumstances), the accident would be *impossible* without pyrotechnic stuff in his garden. Regardless of how sunny is the day, how many cigarrettes are lit, and how much wind is blowing, without pyrotechnics, there's no pyrotechnic explosion.

Back to Paizo: WotC released OGL. Due to a serie of circumstances (4e not being liked by some player base, GSL being lackluster, bad communication, and whatever you want to add), Paizo made a strong D&D competitor. But without OGL, Paizo *could not* build a strong OGL competitor, regardless of any other circumstance (including 4e not being good for some people, GSL, bad communication, and any other you want to add). OGL didn't *create* Pathfinder, but Pathfinder *wouldn't be possible* without OGL. Just like a seed does not create a plant (it needs also water and sun), or a mother does not create a baby (it needs also a father). But you can't have plants without seeds, or babies without mothers.

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.

It's not. It would be, if OGL wouldn't be a necesary condition to have Pathfinder. But it is. I would avoid using rose seeds because I don't want roses in my garden too. And yes, seeds aren't the cause roses grow: they need a plethora of other things.

 

[triqui]

What a horrible analogy. The OGL isn't going away. I suppose you might say that WotC showed the community a type of fertile soil, in the form of the OGL, in which things might grow very well. The fertile soil cannot be taken away and anyone can plant something in it. The question, of course, is whether WotC thinks it wil be useful to grow something using it as well.

If you want to use that analogy instead, fine for me.

Then the question is if WotC wants to show the community a different type of soil, so they can not only keep using the one they use now to plant old things (3.X), but also the new, rich, R+D expensive soil that they put all their company hopes, where you can plant new things (5e).

 

[Zireael]

If you want to use that analogy instead, fine for me.

Then the question is if WotC wants to show the community a different type of soil, so they can not only keep using the one they use now to plant old things (3.X), but also the new, rich, R+D expensive soil that they put all their company hopes, where you can plant new things (5e).

I like the analogy.

 

[Alzrius]

Once again: They won't use it because they don't want to further create new competitors. Without it, Paizo wouldn't be a competitor, period. Sure, there are hypothetical situations where they could had OGL and Paizo wouldn't be a competitor. So what?

You keep stating declaratively that WotC won't do this, and then stating why they won't do it. Unless you work at WotC and have the authority to decide if they use the OGL in Fifth Edition, you need to stop doing that. You don't know what their decision will be, nor how they'll reach it.

Moreover, as I've stated previously, the answer to your asking "so what?" is post hoc ergo propter hoc. WotC is smart enough to realize that just posting the OGL was not the cause of Paizo becoming a major competitor to them.

WotC stored pyrotechnic stuff in his garden. Due some "perfect storm", a few circumstances were added (a dry sunny day, someone lighted a cigarrette, strong wind). There was an explosion. WotC learned his stuff: Even if the pyrotechnic accident was not caused *because* he had stuff in his garden, (rather it was caused by several circumstances), the accident would be *impossible* without pyrotechnic stuff in his garden. Regardless of how sunny is the day, how many cigarrettes are lit, and how much wind is blowing, without pyrotechnics, there's no pyrotechnic explosion.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, because it misunderstands the nature of the difference between allowing for the possibility that something could happen, and the actual cause of something happening. This misunderstanding has been a recurring theme in all of the analogies you've made on this topic to date.

Back to Paizo: WotC released OGL. Due to a serie of circumstances (4e not being liked by some player base, GSL being lackluster, bad communication, and whatever you want to add), Paizo made a strong D&D competitor. But without OGL, Paizo *could not* build a strong OGL competitor, regardless of any other circumstance (including 4e not being good for some people, GSL, bad communication, and any other you want to add).

This "serie of circumstances" that you note include, among other things, the actual cause(s) of Paizo's becoming WotC's major competitor among RPGs, which is the point of talking about the "after it, therefore because of it" fallacy.

OGL didn't *create* Pathfinder, but Pathfinder *wouldn't be possible* without OGL. Just like a seed does not create a plant (it needs also water and sun), or a mother does not create a baby (it needs also a father). But you can't have plants without seeds, or babies without mothers.

Again, that's not relevant to the discussion we're having. Simply allowing for the possibility that something can lead to something else does not mean that it's what causes that something else to occur. Saying that releasing the OGL is what made Paizo become WotC's major competitor is a fallacious statement.

It's not.

It is. See above.

It would be, if OGL wouldn't be a necesary condition to have Pathfinder. But it is. I would avoid using rose seeds because I don't want roses in my garden too. And yes, seeds aren't the cause roses grow: they need a plethora of other things.

There is a difference between meeting a prerequisite and actually making something happen. Meeting all of the prerequisites to taking levels in a prestige class is different from then actually taking levels in that prestige class.

 

[Otakkun]

Let's try a different approach then. Why in God's name would they risk using an OGL again? Last time they tried, the result was WotC losing it's monopoly on D&D.

 

[mudbunny]

Let's try a different approach then. Why in God's name would they risk using an OGL again? Last time they tried, the result was WotC losing it's monopoly on D&D.

Because a non-insignificant part of the population of people that *would* play Next and bring it to their friends will not touch it with a 10 foot pole if there is not some sort of OGL attached to it.

Now, if WotC is smart, and I think that they learned a lot from the GSL and 4E, they *will* have some sort of OGL attached to 4E. I do not think that it will be anywhere near as open as the OGL from 3.X, but at the same time it will not be as restrictive as the GSL.

 

[Alzrius]

Let's try a different approach then. Why in God's name would they risk using an OGL again? Last time they tried, the result was WotC losing it's monopoly on D&D.

I believe the answer is "enlightened self-interest," specifically by way of using it to grow the entire hobby.

For more on that, check out this article by Ryan Dancey, and this follow-up material.

 

[Hussar]

Went back through and read this thread and something struck me. Well, that's not true. It's the same thought that always strikes me when I hear this argument: there is so little actual evidence that the OGL has any actual effect on the success of an edition.

I mean, you could point to the D&D Miniatures and say that that's the reason that 4e "failed". After all, DDM was very popular during 3e and 3.5 and quite likely had a pretty strong effect on D&D sales as DDM was strongly linked to 3e books. They were being sold side by side, advertised side by side and very strongly pushed side by side by WOTC. How much of an effect did DDM have on 3e sales?

Now, 4e didn't have DDM because the bottom fell out of plastic crack. 4e was not tied to any tabletop wargame at all.

The argument that I see goes something like this. 3e had the OGL, 4e didn't. 3e was very successful and 4e wasn't. Therefore, we should have the OGL in 5e.

Yet, you can make almost exactly the same argument for DDM. Did 3e do well because of 3rd party support externalities, or was it partially (in large or small) driven by the wild success of the DDM line? Was the death of the DDM line the signal for the release of 4e? After all, they do coincide. And, did the lack of some sort of tabletop wargame play a role in the lackluster performance of 4e?

See, I look at all the back and forth and I notice a few things. The people really, really pushing for OGL have a vested interest in it. So, there's a pretty obvious bias going on here. Yet, for all the obvious complexities of this issue, we hear time and time again the same old refrain - no OGL=no success.

I'm just very tired of people trying to simplify the issue to such black and white lines without any regard for the changes that the hobby has gone through in the past few years.

 

[Scribble]

As a player and a customer I love the OGL. It allows for a wide range of products, and options for the game. But that brings up:

During my 3e days, I very rarely purchased anything from WoTC. I have a few of their rule books, but the bulk of my gaming money was spent on 3pp products. I'm guessing I'm not a truly unique person.

So what incentive does WoTC have to use the OGL? It might be great for the players, but if it doesn't translate into any added income... Why do it? (Would you go out of your way to take on say working an extra day a week at work without compensation?)

One thought could be that it increases overall desire for people to play the game- so more potential customers... But I guess then the question is, does the income increase from that customer pool offset the money lost by people buying from 3pp instead?

I think THAT will be the biggest determining factor.


Personally I think the OGL is much better for smaller companies.

Smaller companies need less overhead.
They tend to be faster at, listening to feedback and changing direction when needed/
They release less product, but tend to do it in a much quicker turn around. (IE Oh the people want the Ice Monkey Pirate class source book? Let's do that!!! As opposed to Ice Monkey Pirate source book is slated for out fall of 2013 product rollout.)


People also seem much more willing to do things that undercut a large "faceless" corporation then they are when it comes to a smaller company where the owner shows his/her face a lot.