Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[Wicht]

I was basing it on pretty extensive analysis done before, but it's not positive. Which is why, ultimately, the answer is "we don't know".

So, to be clear, you admit you're not sure as well, right? That's what "skeptical" means, right?

Do you plan to continue to make firm statements in the future that you're positive Pathfinder was outselling 4e at the time, next time this comes up?

I'd love it for this aspect of edition warring to end. If we could all just say "we don't know", and leave it at that. But, that seems to be a hopeless desire at this point. I'm guilty of it as well. But, it's not a good habit.

No. I am skeptical of your facts. Not of Pathfinder's performance.

To be clear, the "outselling" I was referring to was specifically book sales, which I think is the best long term measure of a Table-top RPG's strength (at least at the moment). All the evidence points to Pathfinder outperforming the competition in this one area at the time in question and I have no legitimate reason to doubt it was so. I am pleased for Paizo, but would be happy for WotC to perform better and for the market to grow for everyone.

I don't think of constructive analysis of the RPG market as edition warring. My point is not to rub 4e fans' faces in the dirt in triumph, saying, "see my game is better." I have a legitimate interest, as both a fan and a designer, in keeping abreast of developments in the market. I also enjoy discussing the ramifications of the evidence, such as it is, and I think it is relevant, in urging WotC to readopt the OGL for 5e, in pointing out the outstanding success of Paizo in utilizing this particular license to good effect for their brand. If there is edition warring, it is not on my part.

 

[Mistwell]

No. I am skeptical of your facts. Not of Pathfinder's performance. [cut continuing the debate]

You're not able to stop, are you. OK. Well, I've explained I think it's a harmful thing you're engaged in, I do not think it's helping anything at all, and I am trying to stop it. If you're OK with it...well, that's just not me.

I don't think of constructive analysis of the RPG market as edition warring.

First, it's not constructive. Second, others do. And as long as others do (many others, I think), then it is edition warring whether it's your intent or not.

We don't have the data, but you're pretending you have the answer. You're not gaining any ground on it, you're not changing hearts and minds, you're not making the industry better with this stuff, you're just re-treading over very old ground with the same arguments we've all heard before dozens of times, for literally years now.

If it's what you need to feel good about talking about RPGs with your peers here, then I hope you find the right people to have that debate with. But, I am no longer that guy, and I think you will find your audience for that sort of stuff is really dwindling. For me at least, it's enough already.

 

[Wicht]

If it's what you need to feel good about talking about RPGs with your peers here, then I hope you find the right people to have that debate with. But, I am no longer that guy, and I think you will find your audience for that sort of stuff is really dwindling. For me at least, it's enough already.

Well then, I am sorry to have dragged you into it. I'll try not to argue anymore when you rebut my posts.

Seriously, I'm not warring. There is no animosity on my part. And I legitimately think it would be good for WotC to adopt the OGL. I get that others disagree, but I don't think I will stop advocating for something I feel is a good idea all around for everyone involved, especially when the opportunity to constructively do so presents itself (as I think it did with Dale's blog post). If it gets your dander up for someone to merely suggest that Pathfinder outperformed 4e in the marketplace at any given period of time, then I am sorry for you. I happily concede that for a time in the lifespan of 4e it was king of the hill. I do not believe that has been the case for a while and I do think it useful to try and pinpoint when the shift happened and why it happened.

 

[Mistwell]

Well then, I am sorry to have dragged you into it. I'll try not to argue anymore when you rebut my posts.

Seriously, I'm not warring. There is no animosity on my part. And I legitimately think it would be good for WotC to adopt the OGL. I get that others disagree, but I don't think I will stop advocating for something I feel is a good idea all around for everyone involved, especially when the opportunity to constructively do so presents itself (as I think it did with Dale's blog post). If it gets your dander up for someone to merely suggest that Pathfinder outperformed 4e in the marketplace at any given period of time, then I am sorry for you. I happily concede that for a time in the lifespan of 4e it was king of the hill. I do not believe that has been the case for a while and I do think it useful to try and pinpoint when the shift happened and why it happened.

You can argue that WOTC should use the OGL again, without re-treading the "who was selling more stuff for a particular 6 month period of time years ago" debate.

It does not even help your case. Pathfinder depended on the OGL for it's own existence. IF Pathfinder ended up outselling 4e using the OGL, the logical conclusion from that is the OGL ending up harming WOTC rather than helping them in the long run. Now, that's a debatable conclusion, and I know you would debate it - but there is no reason to debate it in the first place since the thesis of your support for the OGL isn't that 6 month period of time anyway. It's a list of a whole lot more compelling things than that particular issue.

So why keep at it? How is that debate about that short time frame concerning that vague data something worth fighting about, in support of your larger argument that WOTC should support the OGL? The bottom line for "why the shift happened" is 4e was not as successful as WOTC wanted it to be. No other argument trumps that truth.

 

[Wicht]

I believe, in context, I was replying to something Morrus said that I thought (pedantically on my part to be sure) was off. Morrus responded politely, acknowledged my point and that was that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The OGL is a competitive advantage. I can buy HeroLab or FantasyGrounds and play Pathfinder or 3.5 out of the box. I can reference the SRD online quickly during game prep for free (which has never prevented my from buying a book I liked). Pathfinder is hardly my favorite game, but It's so easy to get resources for because of the OGL. This has made Pathfinder the default RPG in many contexts.

Releasing under the OGL might quickly make D&D the default game again. Or it might not. But not releasing under the OGL (or something similar) means they will never be the default RPG in any third party tools. It means they go it alone.

 

[Mistwell]

For me, the strongest argument in favor of the OGL, for WOTC, is simply goodwill.

There are an awful lot of people who simply are pissed off at WOTC for a variety of things, and not going with the OGL is high on that list of things they're upset about. Remedying that for 5e would help that, along with all the other things they're doing to reach out to those who were upset about the last several years of WOTC actions.

Putting out Dragon magazine, in paperback magazine format you can buy at your local store, would be another thing that would go a long way to repairing goodwill for people. Even if the magazine were merely a break-even or slight-loss venture from a direct profits standpoint, I think it would be a net gain from a marketing and PR standpoint, which feeds heavily back into the profits of the core product itself.

So, do OGL, and do the magazine again (at least Dragon, if not Dungeon as well), and publish stuff for multiple editions of D&D in those magazines (though with heavier focus on 5e), and you'll get a bunch of people back on board with your product line.

 

[Nellisir]

WotC isn't going to do the OGL again. They won't do the GSL either. They're going to aim for a middle ground that allows people to produce supplemental material, like adventures and options, but not wholesale reproduction of the core game. They want weird niche rules, adventures, and little campaign stuff. You'll be able to reproduce monster stats in an adventure, or put out a Book of Monsters, but not reprint the Monster Manual. They want SuperGenius Games, not Paizo. I think they were OK with Mutants & Masterminds, but Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and Iron Heroes, and Spycraft, and Castles & Crusades, are all too close for comfort.

 

[Nellisir]

Putting out Dragon magazine, in paperback magazine format you can buy at your local store, would be another thing that would go a long way to repairing goodwill for people.

Oh, wouldn't I love that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are an awful lot of people who simply are pissed off at WOTC for a variety of things, and not going with the OGL is high on that list of things they're upset about.

I honestly believe that there is a not insignificant number of those people that are a true lost cause. The question as to if the number of very pissed off people that you can ever win back is worth it...