D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Jupp]

Not only from a financial point the basic/advanced way would be the most sensible solution.

You do not have to support multiple settings (=dev teams) at the same time which saves money and prevents splitting the player base into multiple parts. It also helps to prevent rules clutter (remember the different rules for different settings in 2e?). With the basic/advanced path you only split the user base in two, and if you do it right it is not really a split but a way of saying "if you want it easy or if you are a beginner then go basic, once you want more go advanced". But everyone basically plays the same game.

Not only would WotC earn more $ because they could sell the same product (D&D) twice to the same customer (basic first, advanced later). They would be able to keep the dev team more focused in what they do. They could sell basic accessory material as well as stuff targeted to the advanced player, etc. etc. So basically they could have a 5e within 5e without having to invent something new, and it would be consistent in itself. There are a lot of ways how they could play it out.

 

[Bluenose]

But maybe this is getting too far from the Branching discussion. So, in the interest of keeping that alive, which works better: A Basic/Advanced setup or a parallel multiple-playstyle approach tied to various settings, ALA 2E's Ravenloft/Birthright/DarkSun/etc.?

I think there's a division along two axis. High fantasy, probably heavy on story-telling where the goal might be to save the world and there's a party of heroes involved; sword and sorcery, perhaps more suited for sandbox play, where the goal is to get through another day alive and maybe a bit better off. And a high magic/low magic split, depending on the amount involved. In high fantasy, characters should advance through achieving goals, completing quests, and acting according to their character. In S&S, characters advance through defeating enemies and grabbing treasure. So you'd have to write experience rules to cover both those options, and have modules to cover the two alternatives. Then you also need to make a division according to the amount and/or power of magic, because having a large number of magic-using enemies and characters does not fit into a setting where magic is limited, and also has significant implications for things like healing. I think that the amount of magic around requires much more difference in the rules, since it's going to be rather pointless if a third of the PHB is devoted to spells and classes that hardly anyone is going to use; arguably, the approach in D20 Modern (or Mongoose's Conan) to magic is more suited to low magic, but it wouldn't suit Forgotten Realms in any way. So not so much Basic/Advanced, but High-/Low-Magic instead as the primary division in the rules.

 

[pemerton]

Paizo has already added tons of rules that don't exist in the OGL.

<snip>

There is no law against mixing OGL and new rules.

By your first occurence of OGL, I think you mean SRD. And you are correct that there it is not unlawful to mix OGC and non-OGC content, but the OGL mandates certain categories of content, including derivative content, to themselves be OGC.

Even though technically I know Pathfinder has no predecessors

Huh? Pathfinder's predecessor is 3.5. This is indicated in its legal text (its OGL declaration, of drawing on the 3.5 SRD). And in the promotional poster that I linked to upthread.

I'm not sure any RPG has ever had a clearer predecessor!

 

[Emerikol]

Huh? Pathfinder's predecessor is 3.5. This is indicated in its legal text (its OGL declaration, of drawing on the 3.5 SRD). And in the promotional poster that I linked to upthread.

I'm not sure any RPG has ever had a clearer predecessor!

You seem needlessly argumentative. My point was that even if you rightly claim that Pathfinder is not a version of D&D, it is at least a "spiritual" successor. I do not consider every game that invokes the OGL to be a version of D&D. I actually consider D&D to be something published by the owners of the D&D ip. But obviously you agree with my main point.

 

[Mark CMG]

This is indicated in its legal text (its OGL declaration, of drawing on the 3.5 SRD).

Do you mean to say the OGC Declaration or the Section 15 of the OGL placed in the product?

 

[pemerton]

My point was that even if you rightly claim that Pathfinder is not a version of D&D, it is at least a "spiritual" successor.

Maybe you misunderstood me. My point is that Pathfinder is self-consciously a version of D&D - there is no other conclusion to be drawn from the "3.5 Thrives" slogan on the poster.

I do not consider every game that invokes the OGL to be a version of D&D.

Agreed. Nor is every game that uses the OGL to draw upon the SRD a version of D&D - for example, Mutants & Masterminds is not. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and d20 Conan I would say are on the cusp of being versions of D&D - same PC build and action resolution structure, but different combat rules in Conan and different magic rules in both marking a significant departure. Pathfinder strikes me as so obviously a version of 3E D&D in everything but branding - and even there it comes as close as it legally can, with its "3.5 Thrives" slogan - that I find it odd that the matter is contentious.

Do you mean to say the OGC Declaration or the Section 15 of the OGL placed in the product?

I meant the declaration in Section 15. In PF Beta, it reads:

System Reference Document. Copyright 2000. Wizards of the Coast, Inc; Authors
Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary Gygax and
Dave Arneson.​

I actually think there is an error in that declaration: given that PF (even in Beta) includes 3.5 material like Polar Ray in place of Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, the reference should be to the 3.5 SRD, which ought to be cited as follows:

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.​

I assume that they got that right in the final version.

EDIT: Maybe they didn't. I've just had a look at the online Pathfinder SRD. It has the same reference to the 2000 SRD in its Section 15 declaration, and it also has the Polar Ray spell with text that is identical to that of the 3.5 SRD except for changing the range (from Close to Medium), adding "and 1d4 points of Dexterity drain" to the end of the effect description, and deleting the word "small" from the description of the white cone that is a focus for the spell.

I wonder whether the website copied this from the final Pathfinder book or an earlier version (like the Beta).

Anyway, I think that puts the website in breach of the OGL, given that they are reproducing content that is derivative of the 3.5 SRD, and is therefore Open Game Content (per the definition in Section 1 of the licence), but they have not updated their Section 15 declaration "to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content [they] are copying, modifying or distributing", as required by Section 6 of the licence.

It seems a careless error that needlessly exposes the Pathfinder SRD website to the possibility of complaints from WotC for breach of contract and/or breach of copyright.


FURTHER EDIT:

I just had a look at some of my Arcana Unearthed/Evolved stuff, and it all seems to get the declaration right (although my PDF of Plague of Dreams seems to be missing the legal stuff altogether!). This fits with my expectations - Monte always seems to have been very accurate in his treatment of the legalities of publishing under the OGL.

That said, it really would be very bizarre if Paizo have made such a basic error in their Section 15 declaration, given how central the technicalities of the OGL are to their business model!

 

[timASW]

This assumes the stockholders actually see a breakdown of numbers by department- I doubt they do.

Anyone who owns common stock in a company can request that breakdown and by law the company must provide it.

Also many companies simply issues a stockholders report once a year on various performance metrics.

 

[timASW]

Paizo has already added tons of rules that don't exist in the OGL. They could easily build on top of Pathfinder. Just produce a version of D&D that looks like it came from Pathfinder and the D&D's that came before. There is no law against mixing OGL and new rules.

As for creative ability? I don't see Pathfinder lacking any more than WOTC. And if they were going to do a new edition, I'm sure they'd hire some extra talent focused specifically on the new edition. If I thought Pathfinder 2e was coming I'd be excited. I would like something new but something that respects the past editions as well. (Even though technically I know Pathfinder has no predecessors, I imagine 1e,2e,3e as it's predecessors. 4e to me is the totally new game.)

I would be more excited for pathfinder 2e then i am for 5e. Especially if I heard they were going further away from 3e and more in their own direction then before.

I like the work and they have a lot of creative people over there but I didnt love 3e, I think that team could put out a better, more interesting game then what they have now by not playing it so safe and close to 3e.

 

[timASW]

Again, all this seems fine, and I don't disagree, but then you add in the part I don't understand, " leveraging their novels (which have their own following now independent of rpgs)." Why? How? There are thousands of fiction options and if D&D the RPG(s) itself isn't the draw, what built the independent following? As to the part above of lapsed gamers still keeping a toe in the water, well they were drawn by the RPG earlier so they wouldn't be part of the independent following, I suppose. Clearly there seems to be one but I'd not seeing how it came about.

I think your over-thinking it.

WoTC does a great job of putting evocative art and good descriptions that make a game or book sound interesting on all its packaging for that stuff. So if your just out browsing you may know nothing about D&D but you probably dont know anything about the competition either.

And so you pick up the box or book that looks the most fun. There really doesnt need to be any more to it then that.

 

[Mark CMG]

I actually think there is an error in that declaration: (. . .)

(. . .)

It seems a careless error that needlessly exposes the Pathfinder SRD website to the possibility of complaints from WotC for breach of contract and/or breach of copyright.

Have you checked your PF products? This might be more problematic than you think but not for the PF SRD website. That website is bound to reproduce the section 15 of the products whence they gathered their OGC, so as long as they have done that they aren't themselves in error. As discussed above, Section 9 allows you to use a later version of the license to include OGC released under earlier versions but not the other way around. So it might be that any product getting their OGC directly from the SRDs is where the problem lies and that the website, getting their OGC from those products is merely reproducing the Section 15 of those products and likely covered even if in error. Should this become and actual issue, whoever is in actual error has Section 13's 30 day cure period to handle their error but, those in error further down the line are in the clear due to the last part of Section 13 which doesn't hold sub-licensees responsible for the errors proliferated higher up the chain.