Is Pathfinder basically a "cloned" D&D 3.0/3.5?

[Willie the Duck]

D&D was the first true RPG, others followed, they borrowed things like Hit Points, and leveling, but made their games unique. Read of Dice and Men or Playing at the World or any of a long list of books about the origins and history of RPGs (table and video) and you can see that there is room for more than one game. I believe the OGL was a mistake in that it allowed for a copy of the game to become a competitor and I don't think Paizo is doing anything illegal; but I still don't see any reason to play it or support it. I understand that it all came out of the edition wars and some poor decisions by WotC, I just don't like the game being diluted (my opinion).

I think we've all read Of Dice and Men and Playing at the World. I think they both showcase how what happened between WotC and Piazo is 1) normal, 2) acceptable, and 3) pretty common for the industry. Piazo is similar to Judges Guild, or any other contractor/licensee. They worked with WotC because it benefited them (or else why bother), and the reverse. Of course each partner will secretly hope to gain the greater advantage out of the situation, and there's always a risk that your business partner might steel some of your business, perhaps more than they grow your brand through cross promotion.

Piazo worked with WotC, and when WotC discontinued the avenues which allowed Piazo to have a business model, cast about for another one. They chose to pursue a game based upon a model that WotC was abandoning. They were following the rules as they were laid down, and even pursuing an avenue in which WotC wasn't currently interested. I'm finding it hard to understand what they did that could be called wrong.

Is it simply that they took (legally) game mechanics from D&D and used them to compete with D&D's current producer? If so, why single them out, and not include all retro-clones in this analysis as well? Many of those hew even closer to certain A/D&D editions and even moreso are trying to market their relationship to D&D.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Agreed. And the absolute genius of the OGL was that by its nature, it could not be rescinded. Sure, it got altered after the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but it cannot be destroyed, and has given life to not just Pathfinder, but much of the OSR, and many other fine products (okay, so there were also plenty of stinkers...).

From the perspective of Hasbro I suspect many within the company do feel the OGL was a mistake. If they didn't feel it was a mistake, they would have continued releasing content under the OGL license.

 

[Celebrim]

Agreed. And the absolute genius of the OGL was that by its nature, it could not be rescinded. Sure, it got altered after the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but it cannot be destroyed, and has given life to not just Pathfinder, but much of the OSR, and many other fine products (okay, so there were also plenty of stinkers...).

You have to wonder just how much Ryan Dancey is cursed within the halls of WotC/Hasbro, as that guy that tricked a corporation into giving away its product free to its customers. Just how much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the OGL would you actually hear if you had a secret microphone some place. I'd guess at this point many attribute to Ryan not merely ulterior motives (which he admits he and others behind the OGL had), but unscrupulous ones as well.

Again, I believe that the suits are wrong, and that the OGL was a huge boost to WotC revenue and helped not only revive the brand, but boost it to again having a dominate position in the market. But I can at the same time sympathize with their confusion and dismay, because the OGL strategy is hardly a traditional one.

Nonetheless, I think that the success of Pathfinder itself proves me right. After all, Pathfinder - being published under the OGL - is itself also an open game which means that like D&D 3.X before it, Pathfinder must also be given over to its fans for free and cannot be taken from them either. The Pathfinder System Reference Document is inherently even more open and complete than the one WotC provided, and yet Paizo continues to have profits.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure, it got altered after the Book of Erotic Fantasy

Actually, it didn't. It was the d20 STL that was altered to include a "community decency" (or whatever it was called) clause, and that was done just before the release of the BoEF.

 

[Morrus]

You have to wonder just how much Ryan Dancey is cursed within the halls of WotC/Hasbro, as that guy that tricked a corporation into giving away its product free to its customers.

He didn't "trick" anybody into anything. What an odd thing to say.

As for what the current WotC folks think - well, people like Mike Mearls, Rodney Thompson (though he's since left), and Jeremy Crawford all used the OGL in their earlier works. Crawford got an ENnie for Blue Rose in 2005, Mearls wrote adventures for Fiery Dragon Productions, and later wrote Iron Heroes for Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press, and Rodney Thompson has a range of credits for Green Ronin, d20 Modern, etc. And that's just three of the primary 5E architects.

So I'm sure they don't wander the halls of WotC cursing Dancey. Or, if they do, not because of the OGL.

 

[Celebrim]

He didn't "trick" anybody into anything. What an odd thing to say.

*sigh*

Did I show agreement with this hypothetical sentiment? Did I not suggest that I thought, if such a sentiment exists, that it would be unfair.

The fact remains that D&D is no longer under the OGL, and someone made that decision for reasons that will probably be never publically disclosed in language that isn't typical business double-speak. If the 5e architects you mention believed in the value of the OGL to the brand, simply because they made use if it while working for a competitor, they didn't get to make that call and certainly wouldn't be able to voice their opinions publically. There is often a very sharp contrast between the opinions of development teams and upper management, who we are even less likely to hear from, and upper management no doubt feels (with some reason) that the brand went through a rocky period there for a while whatever else they believe. Certainly WotC/Pazio was not a very healthy corporate breakup, and probably ranks up their with Ford/Firestone.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Interesting, I always figured the two events were connected.

Actually, it didn't. It was the d20 STL that was altered to include a "community decency" (or whatever it was called) clause, and that was done just before the release of the BoEF.

 

[Alzrius]

Interesting, I always figured the two events were connected.

Sorry, I should have expounded more; they definitely were connected, it's just that WotC beat Valar Project (the publishers of the BoEF) to the punch. The BoEF was announced, and even hyped, before its release, so WotC had plenty of time to react before it hit the shelves. Much of hype was by the gaming community, though not all of it was: the official preview booklet for the BoEF was released back in August of 2003 at Gen Con, and it had the d20 logo. When the actual BoEF debuted two months later, WotC had updated the d20 STL and so the d20 logo was nowhere to be found on the book.

For fun, check out this thread on this very subject from back when it happened.

EDIT: And reading through that thread, it appears that I was mistaken about the d20 STL changes being due to the BoEF, but rather was the other way around. Learn something new every day!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sure I'd heard that one reason Dancey sited for wanting to go Open Source was that if WotC ever folded or the D&D IP ever otherwise ended up in some un-useable legal limbo, the game could continue to be supported.

 

[Morrus]

I'm sure I'd heard that one reason Dancey sited for wanting to go Open Source was that if WotC ever folded or the D&D IP ever otherwise ended up in some un-useable legal limbo, the game could continue to be supported.

Provably one of my interviews with him. He says it was insurance against "capricious action by the IP holder."