Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars

[Jack99]

Insulting me is not going to further convince me of your assertion.

It was not really an insult, it was an honest question. Lots of people change names (stigma vis-a-vis their old account, loss of pw, because their dog walked left instead of right, what do I know). Besides, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Your short track record has clearly shown you that it would be a waste of time.

I would like to read the original legal complaint documents myself, and possibly the original study which determined that 6-7 million D&D players figure (or at least whatever sections have been published publicly).

I don't take these figures at face value.

Then do a little digging. I have already done you a favor and told you the info is right here on this site. As a bonus, may a recommend a community supporter account, which enables you to use the search function!

 

[jdrakeh]

In the one modern campaign I played, the massive damage rule quickly led me to realize that your HP don't matter near as much as your ability to not get hit and to make fort saves regularly.

As I mention above, high level Defense Option characters have this in spades.

 

[carmachu]

Fading Suns and Deadlands both come to mind. Both of those d20 conversions were poor imitations of the original systems. Also, please note that I'm no huge fan of the original Deadlands mechanics, but still acknowledge that they were a better fit for an Old West RPG than the d20 mechanics were.

Absolutely for deadlands. That was a great game...the d20 version just sucked in comparison.

 

[carmachu]

Companies that do this risk alienating their fan base... Specially in such a small market such as pen and paper RPGs

WotC/Hasbro would be foolish to do such a thing for such a small payoff

In general? Probably. Why? Because the fan base they will most piss off is the one the already wrote off....ie pathfinder players and 3PP followers.

 

[Greg K]

Educate me, then
<shrugs>

1. d20 is the engine that drives DND. DND is not d20

2. SRD is the material that WOTC made open for other companies to use in d20STL and OGL Products

3. Under the d20STL and OGL licenses, companies could use the SRD . However, products under the d20STL and OGL did not have to necessarily be compatible (as in plug and play from one d20 game to another) with DND which many people didn't understand when trying to mix some d20 and OGL products with DND.

The d20 STL allowed third parties to make d20 products and use the d20 logo. In exchange for using the logo the products could not include rules for character generation or advancement. The idea was that requiring the PHB for character generation and advancement would drive sales of the PHB.


The OGL allowed third parties to take the OGL and
a) make products for DND without the d20 logo or claims of compatibility with D&D
b) Take the d20 "engine" and create non-dnd games that included rules for character generation and advancement. The price for including rules for character generation and advancement was the inability to use the d20 logo. WOTC hoped that the familiarity of games using the d20 system would keep people in the d20 loop and, thus, close to DND.
c) keep supporting 3e should WOTC (or, if sold, another company) release a new edition or stop making DND since the OGL cannot be revoked.

Each license had other requirements, but that is the basics of it.

 

[RefinedBean]

In general? Probably. Why? Because the fan base they will most piss off is the one the already wrote off....ie pathfinder players and 3PP followers.

Still, they'll know that if they doggedly pursue a lawsuit against Paizo or whoever, they'll lose some of their existing base as well. It'd be stupid, and they won't do it unless they have a glaringly good reason.

Also, how did they write off Pathfinder players before Pathfinder even existed? Pathfinder's players/followers are surely able to pick up whatever 4E books they want.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

The OGL allowed third parties to take the OGL and
a) make products for DND without the d20 logo or claims of compatibility with D&D
b) Take the d20 "engine" and create non-dnd games that included rules for character generation and advancement. The price for including rules for character generation and advancement was the inability to use the d20 logo. WOTC hoped that the familiarity of games using the d20 system would keep people in the d20 loop and, thus, close to DND.
c) keep supporting 3e should WOTC (or, if sold, another company) release a new edition or stop making DND since the OGL cannot be revoked.

I am well aware of what the OGL allows people to do.
My post's topic centered on the reasons Wizards had to release its core rules in such a license.

The reason, as I see it, was that Wizards wanted third parties to make supplements to D&D, since they had seen that trying to cover each and every single niche had been a big part of TSR's bankruptcy.

Under this scheme, sales of third party supplements would drive up sales of Core Rulebooks published by WotC, and everybody would win.

I don't think anybody in WotC foresaw Arcana Evolved, Mutants and Masterminds or Moongoose's "PHB Lite", which in some way, directly competed with WotC's D&D Core Rulebooks

 

[Morrus]

About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.

As other people have noted, WotC revised the d20 STL by incorporating decency standards, not the OGL. Totally different beast.

The d20 STL (System Trademark License) defined the conditions under which you could slap a d20 logo on your book.

 

[ggroy]

In general? Probably. Why? Because the fan base they will most piss off is the one the already wrote off....ie pathfinder players and 3PP followers.

Has WotC done anything directly and explicitly which has deliberately written off 3.5E/PFRPG players? (That is, without using "the existence and release of 4E D&D" as an explanation).

For example, did WotC do something like repeatedly saying derogatory things about 3.5E in the media which has been well documented? (ie. Has WotC ever officially said anything like, "3.5E sucks!" ?).

Offhand I don't recall anything WotC officially saying, which was extremely damaging to 3.5E.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Has WotC ever officially said anything like, "3.5E sucks!" ?

In the first few months after 4E was announced, many of the "selling points" the designers made in Design and Development articles and interviews were interpreted by some as "3.5E sucks!"

edit: Please note that I said "interpreted by some", not that I actually believe that.
I think the WotC people who made those comments were on "sales mode" only