Gundark
Explorer
I've seen lots of comments lately about 5e and the possibility that it may go OGL especially that if 5e goes OGL then another Pathfinder like situation will arise (Pathfinder 2….the revenge!!!). I'm personally of the belief that the OGL was only one factor in all of this, there were many other factors that laid the ground work for Paizo and Pathfinder to take off like it did. I've been noodling this of late and I like to discuss them.
#1. The OGL. This gets blamed a lot for Pathfinders rise and the "failure" of 4e. While I believe that it does play a role, it's not the only and especially not the main culprit. There were other OGL games that were released around in the late 3e/ early 4e eras. Paizo has done a remarkable job of taking a game, re-branding it and re-selling it, however there were other innovative games being released around this time. Fantasycraft/crafty games took d20 and really did some amazing innovative work with the system, yet it remains a game that barely anyone knows about or even plays it. Despite it being a great ground breaking game, it did nothing to dent the D&D juggernaut. So while the OGL allowed Pazio to release Pathfinder, without other factors at play Pathfinder would have been just another Arcana Unleashed/Iron Heroes/Fantasycraft and we wouldn't be talking about it today.
#2. D&D 3.5. 3rd edition was released in 2000. 3 years later D&D 3.5 was released and this caused lash back. My home group complained about the change, and I know of others that refused to switch over at all. There were lots of complaints on the message boards (this one and others). I was looking forward to the release of a 3 party campaign setting (Iron Kingdoms) that got pushed back, this disrupted the schedules of lots of publishers who had to change their release schedule. I remember that in the case of the Iron Kingdoms the book was delayed a year or so longer, and people blamed WotC for the delay. Thus the "edition turn over" fatigue began here and gave others the impression that WotC was only interested in the all mighty dollar rather than listening to the fan base. So when in 2007 when WotC announces that 4e is on the way it was seen by some as a money grab and not a necessary change(remember 4e being referred to as 4$).
#3. Dungeon and Dragon Magazine. This was the first time that I had ever heard of Paizo. They gained a lot of "cred" with the community. I had my FLGS bring in Dungeon constantly and enjoyed a lot of adventures. Ironically it was one of their adventure paths (Age of Worms) that turned me off of 3.5 for good. Anyhow WotC cancels the magazines with the plans to bring them in house and part of their digital initiative and the community flips even more against WotC. There are still people to this day that have sworn off any WotC product because of this. Paizo comes out of this with a big PR boost and sets up the Pathfinder APs to come out a short time later.
#4. The GSL. I honestly think that if WotC had their GSL ready to go and in Paizo's hands (along with early access to 4e) the moment that they pulled Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo we might not have seen a Pathfinder. But a lot of us know this story, they GSL was delayed and delayed and when it came out we saw a licence that many refused to go with. Although some publishers where willing and went forward a lot didn't for fear that WotC could pull it at any time (ghosts of 3.5 rears its head). Interesting enough 4e has been declared "finished" and 5e is here and the GSL is still a valid thing (I think).
#5. The “it doesn’t feel like D&D”/ The Edition Wars. This one is complicated and in theory could take a whole ton of discussion. For me, I never once thought that 4e didn’t feel like D&D. There are others that feel the same. However….a lot of others felt different about all of this, from Chris Pramas referring to 4e like a “CCG” to others crying the now famous “it’s a MMO” tagline. The edition wars were ugly, I myself picked up the sword to fight to fight in them. I really believe that the previous points really set the stage for them though. The edition wars weren’t just fought by fans, a lot of publishers unwitting or not so unwittingly fanned these flames….so yeah there is some blame to dish around. While I believe that 4e is a good game and designed well we saw a lot of people that packed up and either went to Pathfinder, back to 3rd, OSR, or another game system altogether. I knew of a game more than one game group that packed up and left for Pathfinder. I should also mention that Paizo apparently has a really good living campaign.
So while there are other factors that I haven’t mentioned. I think that these are the main reasons why we saw Pathfinder become what it has and why I don’t think we’ll see another “Pathfinder” if 5e goes OGL. The Pathfinder phenomenon was a perfect storm of all the right elements.
#1. The OGL. This gets blamed a lot for Pathfinders rise and the "failure" of 4e. While I believe that it does play a role, it's not the only and especially not the main culprit. There were other OGL games that were released around in the late 3e/ early 4e eras. Paizo has done a remarkable job of taking a game, re-branding it and re-selling it, however there were other innovative games being released around this time. Fantasycraft/crafty games took d20 and really did some amazing innovative work with the system, yet it remains a game that barely anyone knows about or even plays it. Despite it being a great ground breaking game, it did nothing to dent the D&D juggernaut. So while the OGL allowed Pazio to release Pathfinder, without other factors at play Pathfinder would have been just another Arcana Unleashed/Iron Heroes/Fantasycraft and we wouldn't be talking about it today.
#2. D&D 3.5. 3rd edition was released in 2000. 3 years later D&D 3.5 was released and this caused lash back. My home group complained about the change, and I know of others that refused to switch over at all. There were lots of complaints on the message boards (this one and others). I was looking forward to the release of a 3 party campaign setting (Iron Kingdoms) that got pushed back, this disrupted the schedules of lots of publishers who had to change their release schedule. I remember that in the case of the Iron Kingdoms the book was delayed a year or so longer, and people blamed WotC for the delay. Thus the "edition turn over" fatigue began here and gave others the impression that WotC was only interested in the all mighty dollar rather than listening to the fan base. So when in 2007 when WotC announces that 4e is on the way it was seen by some as a money grab and not a necessary change(remember 4e being referred to as 4$).
#3. Dungeon and Dragon Magazine. This was the first time that I had ever heard of Paizo. They gained a lot of "cred" with the community. I had my FLGS bring in Dungeon constantly and enjoyed a lot of adventures. Ironically it was one of their adventure paths (Age of Worms) that turned me off of 3.5 for good. Anyhow WotC cancels the magazines with the plans to bring them in house and part of their digital initiative and the community flips even more against WotC. There are still people to this day that have sworn off any WotC product because of this. Paizo comes out of this with a big PR boost and sets up the Pathfinder APs to come out a short time later.
#4. The GSL. I honestly think that if WotC had their GSL ready to go and in Paizo's hands (along with early access to 4e) the moment that they pulled Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo we might not have seen a Pathfinder. But a lot of us know this story, they GSL was delayed and delayed and when it came out we saw a licence that many refused to go with. Although some publishers where willing and went forward a lot didn't for fear that WotC could pull it at any time (ghosts of 3.5 rears its head). Interesting enough 4e has been declared "finished" and 5e is here and the GSL is still a valid thing (I think).
#5. The “it doesn’t feel like D&D”/ The Edition Wars. This one is complicated and in theory could take a whole ton of discussion. For me, I never once thought that 4e didn’t feel like D&D. There are others that feel the same. However….a lot of others felt different about all of this, from Chris Pramas referring to 4e like a “CCG” to others crying the now famous “it’s a MMO” tagline. The edition wars were ugly, I myself picked up the sword to fight to fight in them. I really believe that the previous points really set the stage for them though. The edition wars weren’t just fought by fans, a lot of publishers unwitting or not so unwittingly fanned these flames….so yeah there is some blame to dish around. While I believe that 4e is a good game and designed well we saw a lot of people that packed up and either went to Pathfinder, back to 3rd, OSR, or another game system altogether. I knew of a game more than one game group that packed up and left for Pathfinder. I should also mention that Paizo apparently has a really good living campaign.
So while there are other factors that I haven’t mentioned. I think that these are the main reasons why we saw Pathfinder become what it has and why I don’t think we’ll see another “Pathfinder” if 5e goes OGL. The Pathfinder phenomenon was a perfect storm of all the right elements.
