D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[triqui]

I've introduced 7 new people to RPGs in the last year, Pathfinder in particular along with a couple of my other favorites. While that number might pale in comparison to some people, I'd say it speaks pretty well to whether or not I'm helping out the hobby. And frankly I don't even consider myself a particularly hardcore fan, there are a lot of people that pursue this with a lot more gusto than I do. If every face in the mob was doing that then everyone wouldn't be bemoaning the health of the hobby, thank you very much.

In the meanwhile, how many of them did go to Barns & Nobble and bought the book without you in the country?

My message wasn't to say do what I want or I'll crap on your game and make sure no one buys it. My message your devoted fans happy by doing the sorts of things they care about (that simultaneously don't make the game less accessible to others) and they will help sell the game for you. However the reverse is also something to be kept in mind, pissing off your ardent supporters is generally not the brightest move.

My message is there are like 20 gamers writting in this thread. And like 6 millions who don't. WotC should not try to catter the 20 people writing in this thread just because they are more vocal. Specially when they are *trying to be vocal on purpose* to direct the game design. They should try to make a game that the other millions do want. Yes, it's a hard job, it is not easy to do. But the first step is being focused in your objetives and do not confuse *posts* with *surveys*

And let's get this bit of fiction out of the way, the OGL didn't create Pathfinder or make WotC's biggest rival, it only made it possible. There is a difference. What actually created those things was WotC choices when it came to radically changing the game, ditching the OGL and simultaneously making it harder for other companies to work with the new game while at the same time insisting that if they did they would be mandated to stop supporting the OGL game that had been their bread and butter.

So you are saying that without OGL, Paizo would had been impossible. I agree 100%. That's the point.

 

[triqui]

Yes, but I imagine a fair argument could be made that WotC leaving the edition and OGL behind played a significant role in the rise of the pathfinder issue. Seems like something of a perfect storm to me.

Sure. That's the point. TSR and others *did* the same thing a lot of times before. Yet no company rise to be a threat, because no one had the possibility.

No OGL means the company can make a new edition when they see they need to do so to keep the sells high. With OGL, you aren't free for such decision, because you gave your competitors a tool to fill the void you leave behind you.

 

[jsaving]

Does 5E need the OGL? I often wonder how much it impacted the success of 3E, and now I wonder if it would make the difference with 5E. It seems that it was a move that generated an immense amount of good will during 3E, and, thanks to the genie being out of the bottle, an immense amount of ill-will when 4E didn't follow suit. And with Pathfinder there as a constant reminder that a company have their game system open and still not only thrive, but stand toe to toe with the 800lb gorilla in the room, is it something they can ignore?

I think having an OGL is absolutely critical, but not for the reasons people most commonly give.

When Ryan Dancey used to talk about the OGL for 3rd edition, he listed two primary benefits. One is that the OGL fosters the development of third-party content like adventures that drive sales of the core books and thereby boosts WotC's profit. In essence, making part of the ruleset freely available and usable by others makes the D&D marketplace healthier than it would otherwise be, which benefits us as consumers and also happens to give more $$ to WotC.

The second thing Ryan used to mention is that the OGL places needed pressure on WotC to ensure that future edition(s) will be stronger than what came before. Because the OGL would enable 3e to survive and perhaps even thrive in the presence of a less-than-perfect future edition, designers would have to step up their game to provide a truly better product instead of just counting on "the herd" to adopt whatever changes WotC decided to make in a new edition. And because consumers knew this, the 3e OGL would act as a "quality guarantee" of sorts and encourage wavering skeptics to buy the initial 4e books. Of course, this wouldn't by itself guarantee that 4e sales would stay strong regardless of its quality, but it would help drive initial sales at least to some degree.

I think he was absolutely right on both counts. I'd go further and say the lack of an OGL has harmed 4th edition, not necessarily because of a loss of "good will" (though this may be part of it) but because it's just harder for third-party ideas to drive D&D forward the way they could in a 3e OGL environment.

Some might say that 3e/Pathfinder's surprising strength proves the OGL was a bad idea, because without it, people would have been compelled to use 4e whether they liked its changes or not. But I think it's hard to have much sympathy for this line of argument either. Even my 4e gaming group agrees that "forcing" people to "upgrade" isn't the way to improve people's gaming experiences. They wonder in retrospect whether 4e went too far with some of its changes, particularly with respect to flavor and history (not so much for mechanics), and wonder whether WotC's apparent goal of "making 4e incompatible with past editions" inadvertently fractured rather than united the player base. It may be true that the OGL gave people who disliked these changes a somewhat stronger position, but blaming the OGL for this dissatisfaction is just shooting the messenger -- in my view at least.

To sum up, I think 5e absolutely does need an OGL, not because of the "good will" it engenders (though that's a useful side effect) but because an OGL helps consumers and WotC alike.

 

[Mark CMG]

So you are saying that without OGL, Paizo would had been impossible. I agree 100%. That's the point.

Not anymore. The OGL genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

No OGL means the company can make a new edition when they see they need to do so to keep the sells high. With OGL, you aren't free for such decision, because you gave your competitors a tool to fill the void you leave behind you.

That was the theory with the latest edition which WotC has decided to abandon. It's clear they feel the direction you propose hasn't and won't work. If they had even half the supposed 6 million that aren't in this thread as customers, WotC would still be supporting the latest edition, not talking about a new edition, and this conversation wouldn't be happening.

 

[triqui]

Not anymore. The OGL genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

You seem to be in a mistake. I WANT the OGL. And I think in the current conditions, they need some version of the OGL. The question is not what *I* think, but what *Hasbro* thinks. And I doubt they praise OGL as much.

That was the theory with the latest edition which WotC has decided to abandon. It's clear they feel the direction you propose hasn't and won't work. If they had even half the supposed 6 million that aren't in this thread as customers, WotC would still be supporting the latest edition, not talking about a new edition, and this conversation wouldn't be happening.

The 6 million (or whatever is the real number) was not supposed to be the WotC sells, but Paizo sells. The other poster said he introduced 7 guys into Pathfinder, so he is important to the hobby (to Pathfinder, that is). I say he is making wishful thinking.

In any case, WotC lost the battle not because 4e was not OGL. They lost the battle because 4e was a productthat half their customer base didn't want to buy. If 4e wouldn't had daily powers for fighters, would had Vancian magic for wizards, wouldn't pack non-magic healing or healing surges, or whatever other design decisions that were unpopular, 4e would still be running strong, OGL or not, and Paizo probably wouldn't. If 4e would had been OGL, but have AEDU system, fighters that Come and Get It, "tanks, dps and healers", healing surges, etc, the people who dislike those mechanics would be playing 3.5, or any other 3.5 pseudoclone anyways.

 

[Mark CMG]

You seem to be in a mistake. I WANT the OGL. And I think in the current conditions, they need some version of the OGL. The question is not what *I* think, but what *Hasbro* thinks. And I doubt they praise OGL as much.


The 6 million (or whatever is the real number) was not supposed to be the WotC sells, but Paizo sells..

If Paizo is just beating WotC in the market, then it is likely they have about the same market share with but a slight difference, whether that is roughly 40% each, or 45% each, or 35% each, regardless of if it is 6 mil each, or 2 mil each, or 350K each.

The other poster said he introduced 7 guys into Pathfinder, so he is important to the hobby (to Pathfinder, that is). I say he is making wishful thinking.

I've been watching people dismiss annecdotal evidence for years, and claiming that no matter how much of it you hear, it isn't data. And then I watch what actually happens in the market, as far as we can discern from what little actual numbers we can gather, and it somehow manages to coincide. I've come to find it fascinating when individuals dismiss a preponderous of annecdotal evidence. I've come to the conclusion that ignoring annecdotal as not indicative of what the market comes to profess is unwise.

In any case, WotC lost the battle not because 4e was not OGL.

I think it has been key to the shift in the market. What we know for sure is that the market has shifted and that WotC was sure that moving away from the OGL wouldn't be a problem. What we know for sure is that the shift away from the OGL wasn't as fruitful as WotC desired or expected. What we don't know is what would have happened if WotC continued to embrace the OGL beyond roughly 2005 when, seemingly, some of their management team decided that they could move away from the OGL. What we do know is that Paizo was able to take the existing ruleset, tweak it somewhat, and capture roughly half of the WotC market share through providing what WotC has been unable to produce with lasting consitency. So here we are. We can ignore where we are and make many claims about why we are where we are, but it doesn't change where we are. Nor does it change the choices that were made regarding the OGL.

They lost the battle because 4e was a product that half their customer base didn't want to buy. If 4e wouldn't had daily powers for fighters, would had Vancian magic for wizards, wouldn't pack non-magic healing or healing surges, or whatever other design decisions that were unpopular, 4e would still be running strong, OGL or not, and Paizo probably wouldn't. If 4e would had been OGL, but have AEDU system, fighters that Come and Get It, "tanks, dps and healers", healing surges, etc, the people who dislike those mechanics would be playing 3.5, or any other 3.5 pseudoclone anyways.

An OGL 4E would have allowed 3PP to come up with solutions that WotC might have incorporated in revisions, but once those who understood the OGL were gone from WotC and only its detractors were left that was never going to happen. However, the OGL wasn't gone, and isn't going away, and the management at WotC still seems to be unable to realize that fact. So, what they are left doing is skipping stones across a green screen with a delusion that the market is still OGL-free if they so decide. The fact that they haven't embraced it for 5E out of the gate, and that they aren't talking in terms of the innovations they can glean from twelve years OGC, is evidence enough that they haven't learned a lesson from the GSL and have no real clue that the market has already decided the direction to take. Others aren't ignoring the lessons. Others are embracing the OGL. With each consumer who claims to be playing D&D while playing Pathfinder or some other non-actual-D&D ruleset, the brand continues to weaken.

And, seriously, is it impossible for anyone to see that if D&D once controlled all of the market with (O)D&D, and then controlled less of the market with AD&D, and now splits the majority of the market with Paizo, and that D&D doesn't even control half the market? Even if one assumes that between them Paizo and D&D have 80% of the RPG market, and if Paizo holds roughly half that, then it stands to reason that D&D holds only 40%, or less than half the total RPG market. It boggles the mind that folks can ignore this likelihood.


In the meantime, plenty of serious projects (OGL and otheriwse) are progressing and WotC's chance to capture or recapture a significant market share continues to diminish. And the sad part is that the designers who are at the mercy of the legal geniuses who are thwarting the progress that could be made will likely be the ones most remembered for the whatever comes of this NEXT debacle. Some of the designers who made their name with the OGL, who came onto the WotC radar because of the OGL, will become the ones renown for being on board as D&D lost the market with 5E because some folks in a legal department wouldn't let them mine the veins of ore they helped discover while being discovered themselves. Cruel irony, indeed.

 

[triqui]

I've been watching people dismiss annecdotal evidence for years, and claiming that no matter how much of it you hear, it isn't data. And then I watch what actually happens in the market, as far as we can discern from what little actual numbers we can gather, and it somehow manages to coincide. I've come to find it fascinating when individuals dismiss a preponderous of annecdotal evidence. I've come to the conclusion that ignoring annecdotal as not indicative of what the market comes to profess is unwise.

I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence of market. I dismiss his claim that he is so incredibly important to the game. That's just nerd wishful thinking, of someone who wants to feel he is important to the game, and being vocal in the internet does make a change. It doesn't. It is just a "I'm the center of the universe complex"


Do you want anecdotal evidence? I know like one hundred gamers, thanks to the local store. More than half play Pathfinder instead of 4e. I'd go as far as to say I'm the only one in the forums (this ones, Paizo, or any other). 90% of them don't care about what it's said here, and 90% of those don't even *speak english* to begin with. Yet they made their choose. Some choose 4e, some others choose pathfinders, and some others play other RPGs.

I have no data to back up the claim, (nobody does, except WotC and Paizo), but I'm willing to believe that the number of people who has an account in their forums (let alone the number of people who actually post), is just a tiny fraction of their sells.

I think it has been key to the shift in the market.

So, in your opinion, if WotC tomorrow changes his plans, and instead of delivering 5e, they deliver an OGL for 4e, and doesn't change anything about 4e (healing surges, AEDU, non-vancian, different rules for monsters, and all the things that make some people hate it), it will beat paizo?

I don't.

An OGL 4E would have allowed 3PP to come up with solutions that WotC might have incorporated in revisions, but once those who understood the OGL were gone from WotC and only its detractors were left that was never going to happen.

How much of Pathfinder success do you think it is due to Pathfinder 3pp?
I'd go with a dire guess: 2%.

And, seriously, is it impossible for anyone to see that if D&D once controlled all of the market with (O)D&D, and then controlled less of the market with AD&D, and now splits the majority of the market with Paizo, and that D&D doesn't even control half the market? Even if one assumes that between them Paizo and D&D have 80% of the RPG market, and if Paizo holds roughly half that, then it stands to reason that D&D holds only 40%, or less than half the total RPG market. It boggles the mind that folks can ignore this likelihood.

You skipped 3e. Did 3e control more or less market than AD&D? If it controlled higher share of the market... is that feat (regaining control of the market) a unique achivement that can't be reproduced, ever again, for the centuries of the centuries, until the Eons end? Why so?

There is no reason to believe 5e will be successful and take over the majority of the market again. There's no way to be sure of the oppositte either. Not only because it the game is good, it will sells. Also because you don't play the game alone. Pathfinder game *will* need a second edition, some time in the future. While I admire Paizo intelligent bussiness model (focusing on adventures), which disminisses this need, sooner or later, in one year or ten, the system would need a revamp. When they do, they can either be sucessful, or drop the ball. Just like any other company.

 

[Croesus]

I've been watching people dismiss annecdotal evidence for years, and claiming that no matter how much of it you hear, it isn't data. And then I watch what actually happens in the market, as far as we can discern from what little actual numbers we can gather, and it somehow manages to coincide. I've come to find it fascinating when individuals dismiss a preponderous of annecdotal evidence. I've come to the conclusion that ignoring annecdotal as not indicative of what the market comes to profess is unwise.

Of course anecdotal evidence sometimes matches what happens - and sometimes it doesn't. The purpose of data is find out which is which. Lacking data, anecdotal evidence cannot prove anything - each person can simply choose the anecdotes that most closely match their preconceived notions. One of the things RD stressed when he first worked with TSR was that they had no mechanisms for collecting customer data - that, in effect, they were flying by the seat of their pants. Anecdotes work great in such an environment...until they don't.

(BTW, I highly recommend "The Believing Brain", where the author discusses the idea that too often beliefs come first, then data is fit to match those beliefs. Fascinating book.)

Where anecdotes can be very helpful is in suggesting what questions to ask, which points to what data to collect. Example: I hear some co-workers complain that their VOIP phones don't seem to work well on a particular floor of our building. There are several possibilities here: maybe nothing is wrong, maybe the wireless network is not working correctly, maybe it's user error and we need better training. Until I collect data, however, I could spend a great deal of time fixing something that isn't broken, while ignoring something that is.

One theme I see in threads on the OGL is how much weight individuals give to "superuser" gamers. Those connectors (to use Malcolm Gladwell's term) who can bring multiple individuals into the hobby. No one questions that such folks are important to the hobby. But how important? How much should WOTC cater to their wants? How much should WOTC ignore them, as a vocal minority distinct from the majority of their customers? Without data, it's far too easy to make the wrong choice. And without data, any discussion on this topic basically boils down to each individual's preconceived notions - people making assertions, but never really convincing the other person.

 

[Croesus]

Not anymore. The OGL genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

This (to me, at least) is the best argument for WOTC to support some form of OGL/D&D license. While a specific DDN OGL would make it easier for 3PP's to produce DDN material, the existing OGL will likely be used to produce such material regardless. I can see an argument that WOTC should attempt to control such material, rather than just hope the existing OGL doesn't cause them too many problems.

For example, WOTC could try to craft a specific DDN OGL that limits the ability of 3PP's to produce different rulesets and/or electronic aids for DDN. Nothing prevents 3PP's from attempting to produce such products using the old OGL, but if the newer OGL makes it much easier to produce DDN material, I suspect most 3PP's would go with the path of least resistance. Would this be a good bet for WOTC to make? From a business perspective, I'm still not entirely convinced, but I can see the merits of this argument.

 

[frankthedm]

This brings up another good point. Because game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and because the OGL opened up so much of the terminology and content of D&D (that's what made all the retro-clones possible)

Have ANY retro clones been subject to a court proceeding yet? The only time I have heard of wotc taking any steps was when they verbally asked the OSRIC author to C&D, which he refused, confident living in another country would deter WotC from taking actual legal action.