WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox talks about D&D on NPRs Here & Now. Topics include Layoffs and OGL.

[UngeheuerLich]

That is something I would primarily attribute to visibility of female players in streaming, rather than D&D rulebooks.

Not entirely so.
Some images in older rulebooks were quite repulsive for women I know, because of very light and unrealistic dresses and strange poses.
No to speak of attribute maximums for female characters of very old editions.

5e art did a great job of potraying women as equally fit adventurers.

Of course we see more equal female heroes in television too.

Note that i am not saying WotC hasn't helped in the streaming visibility part -- they have. And I think D&D books are certainly less off putting to women and girls now than they were in the Elmore Cheesecake Era, but I think the main draw is the women rocking it in livestreamed games.

I should have read your entire post before responding...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Agree with most of what you said. As for the OGL your certainty is not proof. Again while I believe the OGL benefited WoTC, there is no way to prove or disprove that. And people on these forums tend to have a bias since they like and rabidly support the OGL so we probably aren’t the best people for a nuanced view.

Well, I DO have a bit more hands-on knowledge than that. In that I was actively selling D&D and adjacent-products both before, during, and after the invention of the OGL. Obviously I wasn't privy to across-the-board sales numbers (at least, not specific ones) and cause-and-effect are difficult to parse at the best of times Stil, I think I can reasonably conclude that WotC benefitted from the industry supporting their products instead of competing with it.

The closest they ever had to it "backfiring" was when Paizo used it to make Pathfinder and directly competed with 4e D&D (though not as successfully as is sometimes reported. They were competitive - and very successful as a competitor, but they didn't beat WotC). But it was close enough to be an egg-on-face situation.

But that was the only "real" drawback to the OGL. Everything else, IMO, has always been in WotC's favour. Obviously, opinions can differ, but I'm not making mine without evidence and experience. Or about as unbiased as you're likely to find. I've got nothing for or against WotC. They're a business partner. As one, they're neither the best nor the worst.

 

[Yaarel]

The closest they ever had to it "backfiring" was when Paizo used it to make Pathfinder and directly competed with 4e D&D (though not as successfully as is sometimes reported. They were *competitive), and very successful as a competitor, but they didn't "beat" WotC). Still, it was enough to be an egg-on-face situation.

4e killed the OGL. It legal GSL contract was draconian. 4e destroyed itself because it lacked the OGL.

Paizo BECAME competitive because Paizo honors the OGL − and 4e didnt.

I love 4e. But at its origin, when 4e was coming out, I knew − and said repeatedly on the then Wizards forums − that the lack of OGL would self-destroy 4e. Sometimes I hate to be right.


If 4e respected the OGL. Indy publishers would have created content to fill in the gaps that some customers felt were missing.

With a 4e OGL, PAIZO would also be making 4e content. Pathfinder might never have happened, or have been modest in scale. 4e would have flourished.

Instead the attempt to control IP, caused 4e to wither to death.

 

[Mistwell]

Let's be clear, the thread is not derailed: the OGL has been part of the topic from the get-go. It's just that the usual suspects have come in bemoaning how awful it is that some people are still upset at WotC over it. Because won't somebody please think of the poor corporations?

YOU are the usual suspects my man! Look around and read the room. It's YOU who is the usual suspects on this topic, not me. I was upset about the OGL thing and let it go long ago. No sympathy for corporations, I just got over it once they dumped enough IP intro the CC that I could do whatever I wanted with that amount of IP including replicate anything not already in it and future stuff. You're that guy who remains one of the last usual suspects who goes on about that topic these days making sure everyone must know his ongoing torment about this thing we just don't care about like you do! And you sure don't have to get over it, but you can't go around slinging that "usual suspects" thing without noticing the irony and failing to self analyze that it's you at the top of that suspect list.

And yes, I don't find WotC very convincing in what they say, because they don't seem to follow through on what they say.

Well good, we agree. You can see why I doubt your claim you'd suddenly get over things if they did stuff on your list, right?

Is that review of old SRDs for inclusion in the CC still taking up their time? Is releasing an OGL v1.0b with the word "irrevocable" really a bridge too far? I say no, but apparently your mileage varies.

No I didn't say any of that was asking too much I said I just don't care about that stuff like you do. I see no point in adding the word irrevocable. I think that has zero legal impact on the document (long, LONG ago I stated my legal doubt about that document and it had nothing to do with it's revocability for lacking that term), zero moral impact on the document given the CC context, I see no meaning to it. You do. OK, but you can't make me care about that. Frankly same with the old SRD - you can replicate any of that stuff with the CC, and probably the existing SRD, so I am not seeing the point of that either. You do. OK, cool. I don't have to care about it though.

No, I didn't. Go back and reread what I actually wrote. All I want is for them to make an OGL that's just like the current one, except irrevocable and not under their ownership anymore. That's it. The other two items (because a grand total of three is so unreasonable, amirite?) are things that I'd like them to do also, but aren't necessary.

I don't buy you'd be happy with them again if they did add irrevocable to the OGL, and given you said you don't find WOTC convincing, and what you've been saying for the past years, and how angry and vocal you are about this topic, I don't think it's unfair that I have my doubts.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

4e killed the OGL. It legal GSL contract was draconian. 4e destroyed itself because it lacked the OGL.

Paizo BECAME competitive because Paizo honors the OGL − and 4e didnt.

I love 4e. But at its origin, when 4e was coming out, I knew − and said repeatedly on the then Wizards forums − that the lack of OGL would self-destroy 4e. Sometimes I hate to be right.

If 4e respected the OGL. Indy publishers would have created content to fill in the gaps that some customers felt were missing.

With a 4e OGL, PAIZO would also be making 4e content. Pathfinder might never have happened, or have been modest in scale. 4e would have flourished.

Instead the attempt to control IP, caused 4e to wither to death.

I agree. I was going to put that it was their "own fault" in the part that you quoted, but I felt that if a reader lacked a full understanding of that part of history, it makes me sound biased. But one of the many things that killed 4e was their terrible GSL when compared to the OGL.

WotC didn't need to turn Paizo into a competitor, but they did! Through their own actions. And by creating the opportunity by "leaving the door open" when it came to splitting the D&D fanbase, though that part was more of an accident.

 

[TheSword]

With a 4e OGL, PAIZO would also be making 4e content. Pathfinder might never have happened, or have been modest in scale. 4e would have flourished.

Instead the attempt to control IP, caused 4e to wither to death.

I don’t believe that at all. As a committed 3e and subsequent 10 year Paizo player it really felt the development of Pathfinder was a passion and commitment to the 3e system that they had published pretty expertly for (all those Adventure Paths and dungeon magazines) and that they felt was worth saving and improving.

4e turned its back on the great work they had done at a time when they had built an enormous amount of kudos and popularity by the quality of their publishing. I don’t believe it was just an inability to publish 4e. It was pull factors keeping them with 3e rather than push factors away from 4e.

 

[Oofta]

4e killed the OGL. It legal GSL contract was draconian. 4e destroyed itself because it lacked the OGL.

Paizo BECAME competitive because Paizo honors the OGL − and 4e didnt.

I love 4e. But at its origin, when 4e was coming out, I knew − and said repeatedly on the then Wizards forums − that the lack of OGL would self-destroy 4e. Sometimes I hate to be right.


If 4e respected the OGL. Indy publishers would have created content to fill in the gaps that some customers felt were missing.

With a 4e OGL, PAIZO would also be making 4e content. Pathfinder might never have happened, or have been modest in scale. 4e would have flourished.

Instead the attempt to control IP, caused 4e to wither to death.

In the long term, no amount of 3PP would have made a difference for me when it came to 4E unless it was almost an entirely different game. I doubt it would have made any difference to the people I played with either.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t believe that at all. As a committed 3e and subsequent 10 year Paizo player it really felt the development of Pathfinder was a passion and commitment to the 3e system that they had published pretty expertly for (all those Adventure Paths and dungeon magazines) and that they felt was worth saving and improving.

4e turned its back on the great work they had done at a time when they had built an enormous amount of kudos and popularity by the quality of their publishing. I don’t believe it was just an inability to publish 4e. It was pull factors keeping them with 3e rather than push factors away from 4e.

Yeah, it's not that 4E would have done better with the OGL, but by being so divergent it couldn't take advantage of existing network effects...like Pathfinder did, like 5E was able to do, etc...

 

[Umbran]

YOU are the usual suspects my man! Look around and read the room. It's YOU who is the usual suspects on this topic, not me.

Mod Note:
Read the room yourself, please.

You are making this personal. To a person who was removed from the thread for making it personal.

Maybe... don't do that.

 

[billd91]

I don’t believe that at all. As a committed 3e and subsequent 10 year Paizo player it really felt the development of Pathfinder was a passion and commitment to the 3e system that they had published pretty expertly for (all those Adventure Paths and dungeon magazines) and that they felt was worth saving and improving.

4e turned its back on the great work they had done at a time when they had built an enormous amount of kudos and popularity by the quality of their publishing. I don’t believe it was just an inability to publish 4e. It was pull factors keeping them with 3e rather than push factors away from 4e.

I think it's a mix. Yes, Pathfinder grew out of a set of house rules for improving 3.5e and that could rely on the OGL and dovetail well with their Pathfinder Adventure Path line of products (already steaming away with 3.5e material). But yes, Paizo was in a bind because of the lack of a viable 4e license and had to make a choice - either go with Pathfinder or go an indefinite period of time without a 4e-compatible product, dependent once again on a WotC license (having been burned twice so far).
They laid out their dilemma and sought the advice of participants on message boards and, despite predictions they'd come into the 4e fold, they went with PF and have had a very good run of things. Had 4e relied on OGL, that factor wouldn't have been the issue it was for Paizo. They could have had 4e-compatible materials at launch and not been in license limbo. I think that would have made the decision to go with Pathfinder a LOT harder. As it was, WotC's license fickleness only made it easier for 3PP to stick with the OGL - not just Paizo, but also Necromancer Games and Green Ronin.