Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5607768" data-attributes="member: 18280">Agreed.One of the biggest problems with 4e, from my perspective, is the GSL.With 3e, they tried &quot;Welcome to our house!&nbsp; Come in and play!&quot; with the OGL and it really, really worked.&nbsp; Every &quot;competing&quot; game supplied options for their core game, as well as a reference back to it.&nbsp; But....now, that is not their core game.&nbsp; The OGL effectively supplies options for Pathfinder, and all but references back to it.With 4e, they tried &quot;You just gotta trust us, this is gonna be the most fun you've ever had, but you can't play around with any of the parts.&quot;&nbsp; They tried to take their ball and go home, hoping that we'd all be willing to agree with the designers' idea of what &quot;fun&quot; is.&nbsp; This plan lost market share.But.....I suspect that a return to the OGL would gain 4e market share.&nbsp; With 3pp able to publish varients that cater to more people, using a license that WotC cannot simply pull, there would be motive for more people to make 4e-compatable products that hailed back to the original game.&nbsp; I had been looking forward to Necromancer Games' take before the GSL fiasco.Were some 3pp suppliments better received than WotC's take on the same topic?&nbsp; Sure!&nbsp; But that is an opportunity to find out what the market wants that you aren't providing.&nbsp; It isn't an excuse to stick your head in the sand and demand that people play the way you want them to.And the original hard line of &quot;You can support the OGL with a product (line), or you can support 4e, but not both&quot; really, really backfired....IMHO, at least.Several changes in 4e seem to switch terms simply as an estoppal to the OGL.&nbsp; The idea that you can't change what terms mean?&nbsp; That's way too &quot;One True Way to Play&quot; for my tastes.IMHO, WotC should ditch the GSL, and publish an SRD for 4e under the OGL.&nbsp; Then WotC should pay really close attention to the formats successful 3pp 4e adventures use.....and ditch the delve format (except in special cases, where using it actually makes sense).If you want to charge for electronic tools -- especially on a subscription basis -- they should be tools that are simply too cool to pass up (like the VTT should have been), not tools that are necessary to handle the increasing complexity of character/monster/encounter creation.Bring back pdfs of earlier editions in a big way.&nbsp; You can't control access anyway; you might as well get some goodwill or money for providing access.&nbsp; I would include not only past edition modules, but rulesets, sourcebooks, and even past issues of Dragon and Dungeon as modestly-priced pdfs.&nbsp; If that means you have to cut Paizo in, then do so.&nbsp; In terms of goodwill, it would mean a lot, and you'd stop coming across as &quot;My Way of the Highway&quot; One-True-Wayists.That last point is important, btw.&nbsp; I know people who like the game, but don't want to support the attitude.&nbsp; I'm betting that I'm not alone.WotC can choose to be inclusive, as Paizo has done, and as WotC did in a big way with the enormously successful 3e, or it can continue down the road of &quot;We'll tell you what's fun/how to play&quot; that has cost it market share.That's the way I see it.&nbsp; I hope they choose wisely.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5607768, member: 18280"] Agreed. One of the biggest problems with 4e, from my perspective, is the GSL. With 3e, they tried "Welcome to our house! Come in and play!" with the OGL and it really, really worked. Every "competing" game supplied options for their core game, as well as a reference back to it. But....now, that is not their core game. The OGL effectively supplies options for Pathfinder, and all but references back to it. With 4e, they tried "You just gotta trust us, this is gonna be the most fun you've ever had, but you can't play around with any of the parts." They tried to take their ball and go home, hoping that we'd all be willing to agree with the designers' idea of what "fun" is. This plan lost market share. But.....I suspect that a return to the OGL would gain 4e market share. With 3pp able to publish varients that cater to more people, using a license that WotC cannot simply pull, there would be motive for more people to make 4e-compatable products that hailed back to the original game. I had been looking forward to Necromancer Games' take before the GSL fiasco. Were some 3pp suppliments better received than WotC's take on the same topic? Sure! But that is an opportunity to find out what the market wants that you aren't providing. It isn't an excuse to stick your head in the sand and demand that people play the way you want them to. And the original hard line of "You can support the OGL with a product (line), or you can support 4e, but not both" really, [I][B]really[/B][/I] backfired....IMHO, at least. Several changes in 4e seem to switch terms simply as an estoppal to the OGL. The idea that you can't change what terms mean? That's way too "One True Way to Play" for my tastes. IMHO, WotC should ditch the GSL, and publish an SRD for 4e under the OGL. Then WotC should pay really close attention to the formats successful 3pp 4e adventures use.....and ditch the delve format (except in special cases, where using it actually makes sense). If you want to charge for electronic tools -- especially on a subscription basis -- they should be tools that are simply too cool to pass up (like the VTT should have been), not tools that are necessary to handle the increasing complexity of character/monster/encounter creation. Bring back pdfs of earlier editions in a big way. You can't control access anyway; you might as well get some goodwill or money for providing access. I would include not only past edition modules, but rulesets, sourcebooks, and even past issues of Dragon and Dungeon as modestly-priced pdfs. If that means you have to cut Paizo in, then do so. In terms of goodwill, it would mean a lot, and you'd stop coming across as "My Way of the Highway" One-True-Wayists. That last point is important, btw. [I][B]I know people who like the game, but don't want to support the attitude.[/B][/I] I'm betting that I'm not alone. WotC can choose to be inclusive, as Paizo has done, and as WotC did in a big way with the enormously successful 3e, or it can continue down the road of "We'll tell you what's fun/how to play" that has cost it market share. That's the way I see it. I hope they choose wisely. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification