Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5450527" data-attributes="member: 73683"><p>Rather familiar, yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I realize that 3rd party producers became limited in the number of options that they had in terms of producing products for 4th Edition. You are looking at this, however, from the perspective of a disenfranchised fan, or disenfranchised 3pp developer. Without consideration given to the reasons WotC made the choice they did, I'm sure it could appear punitive if that's the perception you're trying to achieve.</p><p></p><p>The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear. No, the GSL isn't as delicious at the OGL from a developer's standpoint. And that's by design. There is a reason that we very rarely see blanket licenses like the OGL pop up in the interactive entertainment industry. Hell, even the GSL is a rarity by that standard.</p><p></p><p>If you see this decision as bullying, you need to give yourself a bit of perspective. If you believe that anyone in WotC wanted to see the 3pp market shrink, you're mistaken. If you believe they wanted the inevitable fan backlash that came with a more limited license policy, you're mistaken. The decision to produce and release the GSL (on both occasions) was intended to protect them. It's really quite unfair to take such a negative bent towards a company trying to protect itself from the downsides of its own goodwill.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>The idea of "current" and "prior" editions dies at the level of support. Both editions of the game are current, in the sense that both are receiving active support (though, you could argue, Paizo's edition isn't 3.5, but then Paizo wouldn't really qualify as a prior edition competitor anyway, would it?).</p><p></p><p>It really doesn't matter from a business standpoint which one has the higher number stamped on it (though, notably, Pathfinder doesn't have a number stamped on it anyway). One company created a game, and that company and another company built evolutions of that game. Both of these evolutions are currently supported.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You cannot simultaneously make the argument that there was no value in a new edition while also making the argument that Paizo is engaging in solid business. Paizo's current success is predicated on the consumer adoption of what they present as a new edition. If there wasn't enough value in a new edition, you wouldn't be able to say that either company is doing well.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>You're posting on a 4e fansite. This is certainly a site for other parts of the tabletop gaming community to, but you cannot make the case that this is not a very active site where fans of 4e can come to discuss their game of choice.</p><p></p><p>There are countless other 4e fansites. Plenty of blogs, plenty of forum communities, plenty of active if amateur news reporting sites. The fact of the matter is that more fansites aren't really needed because the current array is sufficient. This isn't the old internet, where everyone and their mother felt justified in running their own Geocities fansite. We only need so many distinct subcommunities.</p><p></p><p>But the real question is: if WotC's policy of shutting people down is to blame for a perceived lack of fansites, why is it that Pathfinder, despite its extremely ardent internet supporter base, has a merely comparable fansite presence? The answer is, of course, that WotC's policy of shutting people down <em>isn't</em> to blame, because it doesn't really exist. WotC has shut down a couple of sites because of significant infringement concerns (again, something that is totally legitimate for a business to do, and something that it would be silly to hold against them for). These instances have gotten a rather large amount of coverage among the fan community because, obviously, the people who ran the sites were fans, and fans <em>love</em> controversies within their hobby. Let's not pretend a policy exists where one does not, though. No one in WotC is running a company-sponsored vendetta against fans.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>And, yet, you are. You have applied radicalized language to a company, giving them the traits (and subsequent mental image) that one might normally attribute to a person.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sure that, in your eyes, WotC is indeed a giant bully. I'm not going to delve into the psychology of why that might be the case, but it's certainly worth asking yourself if your decision to view WotC as a bully is something that necessarily follows from their actions, or if that is simply a convenient image to apply to them that gives their actions a <em>motivation</em>, and a <em>sinister purpose</em> that they do not actually possess.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5450527, member: 73683"] Rather familiar, yes. I realize that 3rd party producers became limited in the number of options that they had in terms of producing products for 4th Edition. You are looking at this, however, from the perspective of a disenfranchised fan, or disenfranchised 3pp developer. Without consideration given to the reasons WotC made the choice they did, I'm sure it could appear punitive if that's the perception you're trying to achieve. The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear. No, the GSL isn't as delicious at the OGL from a developer's standpoint. And that's by design. There is a reason that we very rarely see blanket licenses like the OGL pop up in the interactive entertainment industry. Hell, even the GSL is a rarity by that standard. If you see this decision as bullying, you need to give yourself a bit of perspective. If you believe that anyone in WotC wanted to see the 3pp market shrink, you're mistaken. If you believe they wanted the inevitable fan backlash that came with a more limited license policy, you're mistaken. The decision to produce and release the GSL (on both occasions) was intended to protect them. It's really quite unfair to take such a negative bent towards a company trying to protect itself from the downsides of its own goodwill. The idea of "current" and "prior" editions dies at the level of support. Both editions of the game are current, in the sense that both are receiving active support (though, you could argue, Paizo's edition isn't 3.5, but then Paizo wouldn't really qualify as a prior edition competitor anyway, would it?). It really doesn't matter from a business standpoint which one has the higher number stamped on it (though, notably, Pathfinder doesn't have a number stamped on it anyway). One company created a game, and that company and another company built evolutions of that game. Both of these evolutions are currently supported. You cannot simultaneously make the argument that there was no value in a new edition while also making the argument that Paizo is engaging in solid business. Paizo's current success is predicated on the consumer adoption of what they present as a new edition. If there wasn't enough value in a new edition, you wouldn't be able to say that either company is doing well. You're posting on a 4e fansite. This is certainly a site for other parts of the tabletop gaming community to, but you cannot make the case that this is not a very active site where fans of 4e can come to discuss their game of choice. There are countless other 4e fansites. Plenty of blogs, plenty of forum communities, plenty of active if amateur news reporting sites. The fact of the matter is that more fansites aren't really needed because the current array is sufficient. This isn't the old internet, where everyone and their mother felt justified in running their own Geocities fansite. We only need so many distinct subcommunities. But the real question is: if WotC's policy of shutting people down is to blame for a perceived lack of fansites, why is it that Pathfinder, despite its extremely ardent internet supporter base, has a merely comparable fansite presence? The answer is, of course, that WotC's policy of shutting people down [I]isn't[/I] to blame, because it doesn't really exist. WotC has shut down a couple of sites because of significant infringement concerns (again, something that is totally legitimate for a business to do, and something that it would be silly to hold against them for). These instances have gotten a rather large amount of coverage among the fan community because, obviously, the people who ran the sites were fans, and fans [I]love[/I] controversies within their hobby. Let's not pretend a policy exists where one does not, though. No one in WotC is running a company-sponsored vendetta against fans. And, yet, you are. You have applied radicalized language to a company, giving them the traits (and subsequent mental image) that one might normally attribute to a person. I'm sure that, in your eyes, WotC is indeed a giant bully. I'm not going to delve into the psychology of why that might be the case, but it's certainly worth asking yourself if your decision to view WotC as a bully is something that necessarily follows from their actions, or if that is simply a convenient image to apply to them that gives their actions a [I]motivation[/I], and a [I]sinister purpose[/I] that they do not actually possess. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been
Top