Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5813998" data-attributes="member: 16726">This.One of the best features of the OGL -- and one about which Ryan Dancey used to constantly remind -- was that it ensured WotC would be subject to market discipline in crafting the next edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; If a large chunk of the gaming community decided the new edition (what we now call 4e) was inferior to the previous one, then they could go the Pathfinder route (though he obviously didn't mention Pathfinder by name!) and simply not make the transition.&nbsp; Knowing that, WotC would have every incentive to make sure 4e would be a clear improvement over 3e, and knowing *that*, gamers could look forward to that new edition with confidence rather than the trepidation that accompanied the introduction of 2e in 1989 and 3e in 2000.People can and probably will debate until the end of time whether 4e was &quot;better&quot; than its predecessor -- and I certainly have a view on this -- but I think such a discussion ultimately misses the mark.&nbsp; The key question with which WotC seems to be preoccupied at the moment is why a large chunk of the gaming community found 4e to be unappealing, and what can be done to bring disaffected gamers back to D&amp;D proper *without* driving away those who prefer 4e.&nbsp; And doing that necessarily entails &quot;stealing back&quot; current Pathfinder players, whether or not this is ever specifically mentioned as a goal of the new edition.One early indicator of potential success will be whether WotC proves willing to &quot;put its money where its mouth is&quot; and bring back the kind of expansive OGL we saw with 3e.&nbsp; While having an expansive OGL doesn't guarantee that the new edition will be good, it does set the stage for a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship between WotC and third-party devs in the RPG marketplace, which is in my mind one of the reasons why D&amp;D did so well in the 3.0 days.&nbsp; And that could ultimately benefit Paizo as well as WotC, even if it did ultimately redirect some of Paizo's efforts from Pathfinder to 5e-compatible products.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5813998, member: 16726"] This. One of the best features of the OGL -- and one about which Ryan Dancey used to constantly remind -- was that it ensured WotC would be subject to market discipline in crafting the next edition of D&D. If a large chunk of the gaming community decided the new edition (what we now call 4e) was inferior to the previous one, then they could go the Pathfinder route (though he obviously didn't mention Pathfinder by name!) and simply not make the transition. Knowing that, WotC would have every incentive to make sure 4e would be a clear improvement over 3e, and knowing *that*, gamers could look forward to that new edition with confidence rather than the trepidation that accompanied the introduction of 2e in 1989 and 3e in 2000. People can and probably will debate until the end of time whether 4e was "better" than its predecessor -- and I certainly have a view on this -- but I think such a discussion ultimately misses the mark. The key question with which WotC seems to be preoccupied at the moment is why a large chunk of the gaming community found 4e to be unappealing, and what can be done to bring disaffected gamers back to D&D proper *without* driving away those who prefer 4e. And doing that necessarily entails "stealing back" current Pathfinder players, whether or not this is ever specifically mentioned as a goal of the new edition. One early indicator of potential success will be whether WotC proves willing to "put its money where its mouth is" and bring back the kind of expansive OGL we saw with 3e. While having an expansive OGL doesn't [i]guarantee[/i] that the new edition will be good, it does set the stage for a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship between WotC and third-party devs in the RPG marketplace, which is in my mind one of the reasons why D&D did so well in the 3.0 days. And that could ultimately benefit Paizo as well as WotC, even if it did ultimately redirect some of Paizo's efforts from Pathfinder to 5e-compatible products. [/QUOTE]

Verification