Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5608448" data-attributes="member: 3400">I do not believe this is completely true. Paizo doesn't need to be as open as it has been, particularly now that they're multiple rule supplements past the core rules that incorporate the OGL material. Just how much open content did WotC produce after the core rules were in shape? Not much. The splat books weren't included in the SRD. They had already come to the conclusion that openness wasn't the route they wanted to take. Paizo may be working on the strategy that openness is a strength but I think it's more because they believe it than they really have to follow it with the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic (and Ultimate Combat and a few other books to come).This conclusion that the OGL wasn't a success is dependent on one important thing: that WotC moved away from the OGL in both message and method. Could WotC have continued to have success with the OGL? I think they probably could have. Since Paizo has been successful with it with their strategy, I think it's certainly possible.Now you get into the territory where individual characteristics really matter. Why did WotC look at the D&D market and make one decision while Paizo looked at it and reached another? Because they're run by different people with different perceptions and experiences with different goals. It's as simple (yet complex) as that. It's the same reason that two people, experiencing the same economy and political situation, will vote for opposing candidates at election time. They're different people and they weigh what they witness around them in different ways and reach different conclusions. And, looking at my paragraph above, that's why your last sentence here is wrong. It doesn't follow that that WotC would have pursued more OGL if they thought they could have done so successfully like Paizo is doing now. They may have thought they could have had success with 4e on the OGL, but concluded that another strategy was better for some variety of reasons that made sense to them (even if it doesn't make sense to other some others). In many cases, A + B = C for one person, but A + B = D for another. I can't speak for other people but one thing Paizo has going for it, in my opinion, that WotC does not is: they get me. They seem to be able to reach into my brain, distill what I generally want out of D&D, and give it to me. It's uncanny. Maybe it's because enough of the people in charge at WotC come from the same upper-midwest gaming culture as I do. Maybe they've got the mind-control lasers pointed at me and I don't wear my foil hat enough.I could also speculate on the differences in corporate culture, including differences between being part of a massive publicly held vs privately held smaller company. The view can certainly look different from either perspective.Ultimately, I'm not exactly sure what specific differences in the companies were the deciding factors in why they have chosen the strategies they've chosen. I'm content that Paizo has proven sufficiently different because my preferences have been far better served as a result.</blockquote>

Verification