Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[dmccoy1693]

Isn't it much better for the 3pp to take the OGL and run? Make a complete game of it instead of just an expansion?

In this scenario ... no. As a small press designer, I don't have any interest in making a complete game. Here's why, I have a day job. I have a family and a kid. I don't have crazy amounts of time on my hands.

I recently release a 68-page monster book for Pathfinder this past GenCon. When did I start writing it: the previous GenCon. That's right, it took me a solid year to get a 68 page book out, and that is with one of my awesome editors helping me write some of the NPCs in it and the other editor running a team of volunteers to make sure that the book sang with perfection. I'm not about to create my own game without a darn good reason and (using our combined example) adding in guns and changing the way ranged attacks work is not a darn good reason. Its much, MUCH more reasonable, both from a time investment standpoint and the sales standpoint, to just come up with a PDF of how to change ranged attacks work, add in guns, and add a few subclass options.

What is a reasonable reason to use the rules and go solo: changing the entire feel of the game. Taking the fantasy rules and making a superheroes game or a scifi game out of it. Or getting a super huge license that can make sales on their own like say Conan or the Lord of the Rings. That would make me want to go solo and possibly use the OGL rules as a base. However, if I got the Nina Kimberly the Merciless license, I'd just make a supplement using the existing rules. The game isn't going to sell well enough to justify the time to re-layout the existing rules, make changes here and there to exactly capture the feel of the book, commission artwork in DROVES to cover the hundreds of pages required, and then start writing all brand new supplements to keep the game going.

But frankly, if I did a guns supplement, I wouldn't change how ranged attack works. I'd create new equipment, add in a few subclasses, write a short clarification on how guns worked with the existing rules without changing the rules themselves, make a few organizations and other setting pieces to help incorporate guns into the game and call it a day.

 

[Wicht]

How many years are we all going to engage in this identical argument, with Paizo fans arguing Pathfinder outsold BOOKS, and WOTC fans arguing that WOTC outsold DIGITAL? Can't we all just admit "We don't know" and let it go already?

I don't want to argue with you, because I know you are ready to let it go, so consider your words to merely be a launching point for an observation. I think part of the problem here is the conflation of two separate points of data as being identical in their inscrutability.

We do know, (or least have a really, really, really, really strong set of data points, to indicate) that in point of fact, Pathfinder was outselling in the area of books. Evidence from multiple sources, including Paizo's own statements make the case for this factoid. Call this point A.

What we do not know is the comparison to be made between electronic sales. It is possible that Paizo was on par with WotC, behind WotC or even ahead of WotC in this one arena. Without actual reporting of income and net and gross revenue streams, this is a legitimate area of fog where all we have are conjectures. We shall call this point B.

Now, with these two points in mind, it is not really valid to say because nobody knows the details of point B that point A is therefore in dispute. Point A is not really in dispute by anyone that was paying attention. Lisa Stevens acknowledges the validity of point A in her comments. Many of us, in having discussions of the matter, settle on Point A because we acknowledge the futility of trying to analyze in a meaningful way, apart from the actions of the companies, point B. But, we can't all admit "we don't know," in relation to point A because some of us have a good idea that we do actually "know" point A to be true and therefore it is a viable option for legitimate discussion.

 

[Wicht]

I recently release a 68-page monster book for Pathfinder this past GenCon. When did I start writing it: the previous GenCon. That's right, it took me a solid year to get a 68 page book out,...

Heh. You should try a 200 page campaign book sometime.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Heh. You should try a 200 page campaign book sometime.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't want to argue with you, because I know you are ready to let it go, so consider your words to merely be a launching point for an observation. I think part of the problem here is the conflation of two separate points of data as being identical in their inscrutability.

We do know, (or least have a really, really, really, really strong set of data points, to indicate) that in point of fact, Pathfinder was outselling in the area of books. Evidence from multiple sources, including Paizo's own statements make the case for this factoid. Call this point A.

What we do not know is the comparison to be made between electronic sales. It is possible that Paizo was on par with WotC, behind WotC or even ahead of WotC in this one arena. Without actual reporting of income and net and gross revenue streams, this is a legitimate area of fog where all we have are conjectures. We shall call this point B.

Now, with these two points in mind, it is not really valid to say because nobody knows the details of point B that point A is therefore in dispute. Point A is not really in dispute by anyone that was paying attention. Lisa Stevens acknowledges the validity of point A in her comments. Many of us, in having discussions of the matter, settle on Point A because we acknowledge the futility of trying to analyze in a meaningful way, apart from the actions of the companies, point B. But, we can't all admit "we don't know," in relation to point A because some of us have a good idea that we do actually "know" point A to be true and therefore it is a viable option for legitimate discussion.

For each company P and W, A+B = Total Revenue for that company.

We can say that Company P's "A" was larger than Company W's "A".

We can sort of know what the "B" for Company W was.

We really don't know what the "B" for Company P was.

Which means we can never add up A+B for each company, and compare each result to the other.

And given an inability to do that, we can never say which company was making more money, or selling more products, during that time frame.

Period. That's it. Without the digital sales data for Company P, we cannot even approximate a conclusion.

But good Lord people like to do it anyway. Based purely on data concerning "A", which everyone knows is only half an equation that doesn't, itself, give you a general answer.

When you say "We know Pathfinder sold more than 4e during that time frame", what you're really saying is this:

A=Book Sales
B=Digital Sales
TR= Total Revenue for a company

A+B=TR
Pathfinder=8+B=?
4e=6+12=18

Therefore Pathfinder TR > 4e TR

It's an obviously faulty conclusion. Because you'd have to know Pathfinder's B = 11+ to come to that conclusion. But you don't know that's the case, you're purely speculating on that number. So, why the heck are you drawing the conclusion without the data to support your conclusion? The answer is WE DON'T KNOW. That's it, that's the real answer to this question, we don't know. It's OK to not know.

 

[Morrus]

Guys. Wicht says you know A and don't know B so you should base your conclusions on A. Mistwell says unless you know A and B, you should not come to a conclusion at all. Everyone gets it! There's only so many times you can repeat the same thing in different words until you accept that the other person understands your argument, they just disagree with it; and repeating it won't change that! I know the temptation is to try and win and get the other person to admit they're wrong: but it's the internet. You know that doesn't happen, right?

 

[Wicht]

Guys. Wicht says you know A and don't know B so you should base your conclusions on A.

Actually I'm just trying to say to base your conclusions about "A" from "A." I'm not trying to argue about "B" one way or the other. I quite happily clarified that I was only talking about book sales.

But point taken.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Guys. Wicht says you know A and don't know B so you should base your conclusions on A. Mistwell says unless you know A and B, you should not come to a conclusion at all. Everyone gets it! There's only so many times you can repeat the same thing in different words until you accept that the other person understands your argument, they just disagree with it; and repeating it won't change that! I know the temptation is to try and win and get the other person to admit they're wrong: but it's the internet. You know that doesn't happen, right?

What about C?

 

[Wicht]

What about C?

We don't talk about C around here.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think 3rd parties probably could make 5e products using the OGL right now, based on the 3e SRD. Much like there have been numerous old school products based on it.

What there wouldn't be is some sort of trademark license, to indicate compatibility. They'd have to say something like "For Use with the 5th Edition of the Worlds Most Popular Fantasy RPG"