Are we fair to WotC?

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=75787]GrahamWills[/MENTION]

OGL was not a disaster for WoTC, the GSL was the disaster.

The OGL was in part developed to provide a safe haven for the game given potential debtor asset rights with TSR bankruptcy, providing a worse case scenario survivability for D&D if creditors tried to assert ownership: (that's my understanding)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

OGL was a disaster for WotC (but not for players!) because it failed to get fans to play lots of small variants of D&D while buying WOTC core rule books and it succeeded in allowing another company to do exactly what WOTC used to do. This happened when a significant fraction of WOTC customers was unhappy with the new version. If the OGL had not been made, Pathfinder would not exist and they would instead have 2/3 happy customers, and 1/3 disgruntled customers who stayed with them because they preferred bad supported D&D to unsupported D&D. We are better off for the OGL, but Wizards are not.

Folks may quibble with some of the quantity estimates but overall I think your entire post is an excellent analysis.

On the OGL ... Paizo is clearly showing that there is a successful business model using the OGL. Yes, they're the beneficiary of WotC's decision, but I think it indicates that WotC could, with different business decisions, have continued to profit from the OGL. Whether that profit would be enough to meet their expectations is another question.

I say that because I think there is a significant difference between saying "an open gaming license is always bad for business" and saying "the way WotC followed up the 3E OGL was bad for their business". We want this distinction, because as consumers I think we want to see WotC execute some sort of OGL with 5E.

 

[Cadence]

Having started with 2e myself, I never understood that sentiment. <snip>
To me, 2e-3e was not much bigger of a deal than 3.0-3.5. Very intuitive, very easy to learn, played the same way. A few details and idiosyncrasies lost, a lot of clarity and consistency gained. I'm not sure on what level it was a different game.

Started with Moldvay/Cook's B/X and agree -- I don't think our group reacted much differently going to 3e from 2e than we did going to 2e from 1e.

To be honest, I expect a Pathfinder 2e eventually (I would guess 2015-2016), but I also suspect it will be more or less the same game; that is, an actual new edition fully compatible with the first in much the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0, if not more so.

I'm really hoping its no more than that. Would a 2nd base campaign world give a bump too, or just splinter things?

 

[Warbringer]

Started with Moldvay/Cook's B/X and agree -- I don't think our group reacted much differently going to 3e from 2e than we did going to 2e from 1e.

I was "what the hell is this" ... and then we saw the multi-classing rules

I didn't even notice going from 1e to 2e, aprat form all the god awful kits

 

[Wicht]

- When the OGL was released, a ton of companies tried their versions of stuff based on the OGL, and failed to get much traction and gave up. The basic reason was that the OGL seemed pretty much only good for heroic fantasy, and, if you want that, why not just use D&D?

I don't think you mean OGL, I think you mean D20. The OGL is a non-system specific license and can be used for any genre of game.

But I think you are a bit off on this point; there were several successful uses of the d20 core that were not fantasy based. I would agree if you said that d20 lent itself to heroic RPGs, but its robust enough to support horror, super-heroes, romance, etc. if one feels so inclined.

 

[Wicht]

On the OGL ... Paizo is clearly showing that there is a successful business model using the OGL. Yes, they're the beneficiary of WotC's decision, but I think it indicates that WotC could, with different business decisions, have continued to profit from the OGL. Whether that profit would be enough to meet their expectations is another question.

I say that because I think there is a significant difference between saying "an open gaming license is always bad for business" and saying "the way WotC followed up the 3E OGL was bad for their business". We want this distinction, because as consumers I think we want to see WotC execute some sort of OGL with 5E.

Exactly.

 

[Cadence]

I was "what the hell is this" ... and then we saw the multi-classing rules

2e to 3e multiclassing seemed like a smaller change than going from races being classes to them being two different things We had one game with OD&D, B/E, and AD&D all rolling along at the same table. Maybe it was easier to enjoy things pre-internet?

 

[Cybit]

The problem is, the creator of the OGL was never in the best position to profit from the OGL; the best licensee was. Of course Paizo has made a ton of money on the OGL...Wizards subsidized their game development and design costs by 95%. The OGL was built for an era where WotC could never imagine not being the dominant RPG creator; as well as dealing with any TSR related shenanigans that came up.

The OGL was a bad idea for WotC as it was, because it was going to make ever transitioning to another d20 system very difficult, because of the nature of the OGL. It was fantastic for gamers and 3PP, however, as well as the overall TT RPG market. The GSL had the asinine clause of "no competition for 6 months" as well as "can't sell 3E products any more". Had they removed those two clauses, the GSL probably would have had Paizo's support.

Also, see earlier posts about the PRD -- due to the OGL, Paizo is required to keep their core mechanics under the PRD. The reason the PRD is considered "everything" is because d20pfsrd.com exists -- it has everything. The PRD itself (paizo.com/prd) has far less than d20pfsrd.com does.

From earlier
"Yes, Piazo is obligated to put under OGL any derivative content, but clearly they have decided to embrace more than just the spirit of the law and clearly publish IP under said licence. I'd go even further and say Paizo understands the play for free model better than any publisher (Savage Worlds excepted) out there."

I suspect 5E will have somewhere in between the OGL and GSL. I'm hoping the rumored digital / print plan goes through; they have been tossing around the idea of having people get a PDF copy of a book for free if they buy a print version -- I think that would be fantastic. Going to quiz them about it at PAX.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Fate and their Creative Commons license is different, in that it is an OGL, but not the WoTC OGL. I think though they understand the real value of the model, unlike the new masters at WoTC

My copy of Bulldogs! (a FATE game) has a copy of the Wizards of the Coast Open Gaming License in it. I assumed all FATE games used the OGL.

 

[Zardnaar]

OGL was great probably should have put a 10 year limit on it as the early success they did have I think was influenced by the OGL. Even then I think they could have made a good 4E game while overhauling a 3.x game or even doing an AD&D/3rd ed hybrid. A drastic departures from 3.x/D&D with 4th ed and the GSL was the direct cause of Pathfinders rise IMHO.