D&D 5E How WOTC can ensure my support of D&D Next

[forrgott]

I have not yet had a chance to playtest D&D Next, but I do like a lot of what I have read in the playtest packet. So I'll be going into DMing my first playtest session next week with some amount of optimism. I guess you could say, I really want to be a fan of D&D Next.

On the other hand, I do like a lot of what I see in Pathfinder, and it's easy to houserule it to match what I'm looking for. And if those houserules grew large enough, I can even publish my own PF variant. And there's the rub.

If WotC really wants to win me back, I want to see them win Paizo back. I want to see them reach out an olive branch not just to lost customers, but the RPG community as a whole. It seems to me that with cooperation, you can make your "pie" or market grow all around, and then maybe you don't need a bigger piece relative to the others to make a viable business, if that makes sense. Who knows, maybe WotC could pull off an environment where Pathfinder 2.0 could be a rules module on top of D&D Next. But it would have to make good business sense for Paizo, as well (naturally).

Maybe it's part just a "touchy feely" thing. But I want D&D to be "open" again.

 

[Lalato]

I have no idea what you mean by offering an olive branch. WotC didn't attack Paizo so there is no reason for them to make amends for something that never happened.

If Paizo is part of the next iteration of D&D, that's up to Paizo, not WotC. At this point, though, I think Paizo has chosen a path, and it will be nigh impossible to move away from it.

 

[forrgott]

The change from OGL to their new format was the largest factor I ever heard about influencing that switch. The loss of openness meant a much increased risk for Paizo, and others, to continue to support D&D. Pathfinder was primarly born out of the choice to continue with a published open system.

 

[Obryn]

The change from OGL to their new format was the largest factor I ever heard about influencing that switch. The loss of openness meant a much increased risk for Paizo, and others, to continue to support D&D. Pathfinder was primarly born out of the choice to continue with a published open system.

OK, so it sounds like business decisions on both ends?

I am still confused over olive branches.

-O

 

[mkill]

I have no idea what you mean by offering an olive branch. WotC didn't attack Paizo so there is no reason for them to make amends for something that never happened.

Oh hell they did! The withdrew the license for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and they tried to force them to give up support for 3E in exchange for the ability to publish 4E third party material.

That backfired horribly, but WotC shot first!

 

[Sunseeker]

Oh hell they did! The withdrew the license for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and they tried to force them to give up support for 3E in exchange for the ability to publish 4E third party material.

That backfired horribly, but WotC shot first!

And Paizo is certainly suffering for it. /sarcasm

WOTC is a business. They are under no obligation to give their license to others.

 

[am181d]

And Paizo is certainly suffering for it. /sarcasm

WOTC is a business. They are under no obligation to give their license to others.

Nor has anyone suggested that they are.

The original poster simply said that it would be in WotC's self-interest to reach out to Paizo and try to convince them (presumably by offering them cash or a superior business model) to support the new edition of D&D.

While I agree that this would be in WotC's best interest, I have to concede that I don't see an upside for Paizo. Even if WotC doubled the current combined sales of D&D and Pathfinder, Paizo's support material would have a hard time matching the volumes they're doing now as a standalone game.

 

[mkill]

And Paizo is certainly suffering for it. /sarcasm

WOTC is a business. They are under no obligation to give their license to others.

Of course WotC had the right to do it, it's their license. But just because you have the legal right to punch a longtime business partner in the face, doesn't mean you should.

It's ironic that WotC left Paizo no choice than to do PF. Pretty sure they regret it.

 

[Saracenus]

The original poster simply said that it would be in WotC's self-interest to reach out to Paizo and try to convince them (presumably by offering them cash or a superior business model) to support the new edition of D&D.

Strong emphasis mine.

I am confused. Why would WotC offer Paizo cash?

WotC is trying to make an edition that can fit the needs a fractured customer base. This has little or nothing to do with Paizo (except for the fact that Pathfinder customers are some of the folks WotC is going to attempt to woo).

The only thing that is important to Paizo in this is: 1) Is a 3rd Party license (OGL, GSL, or otherwise) tolerable enough that Paizo is willing to invest blood and treasure supporting D&D Next and 2) Does the D&D Next support the design goals and play style of their Pathfinder adventure system.

Beyond that WotC and Paizo owe each other nothing. This is a business decision that each party is going to have to weigh before making a decision. This is not two human adults (despite what the Citizen's United ruling might say) who had a fight and now they need to publicly make up for the good of their children (the customers).

I think Paizo as a company has done a great job looking out for their own economic interests. I don't think they need you negotiate on their behalf.

The only questions I need to ask myself when D&D Next is finally published, is it an edition of D&D that I want to play and does it support the kind of gaming I want to play. Beyond that you are reaching.

My two coppers,

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh hell they did! The withdrew the license for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and they tried to force them to give up support for 3E in exchange for the ability to publish 4E third party material.

So...the magazine license should have been granted in perpetuity? That doesn't sound like much of a business decision. You have a strange perspective on business relationships, my friend.