New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[mamba]

For some people, apparently quite a significant number, 4E was the death of D&D.

It wasn't for me. I like it! But like for other people, that was it, that's not D&D anymore!

For some this already happened with 3e, I am sure we can find others that think this happened with 2e already too

And when Pathfinder got announced and so on, as someone who at the time wanted 4E to succeed, and supported WotC's vision of D&D, I never thought "Those dirty scoundrels abusing the OGL!". In fact I thought the opposite! "Oh good, well if they don't like 4E, those philistines, they can go play their own version of D&D, and no-one even needs to get mad, because they can coexist, thanks to the OGL!". Indeed that was a relatively common viewpoint that people often used to attempt to defuse edition warring threads.

Imagine incredibly the edition wars 4E would have caused without the OGL!!!!!

would be interesting to know how that version would have played out

 

[mamba]

My point was that when the OGL was drafted, it would for a niche industry with little worldwide visibility with a bunch of tiny companies and one major corp. WOTC wasn't worried about competition.

we are pretty much still in the same spot, it's just that the whole pool got larger. WotC still is the big fish and does not need to worry about competition, they just got greedy.

That is the main difference, back in 2000 WotC was run by gamers and idealists, today it is run by the machines

 

[Cadence]

For some this already happened with 3e, I am sure we can find others that think this happened with 2e already too

Was it the OGL that gave a lot of new opportunities to those who missed B/X or 1e or 2e?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No guarantee.
Nothing stopped PF from being made and the process was royalty free.

If WOTC just continued 3.5e which was getting stale, anyone could have use the OGL to make a fresh 3.75e. In most industries, that isn't allowed.

lets be honest an OGL is going to split the fan base good/bad/indiffrent some will play level up some will play pathfinder some will play 5e some will play a mix.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point was that OGL allow 3.5e to live.
It wasn't intended for someone to use 3.5e to make 3.75e, 3.8e, or 3.9999e and compete with 3.5e or the eventual 4e. Especially not for free.

This not an intellectually sustainable argument.

By your logic here, WotC would have opposed the gigantic flowering of d20 games the OGL caused, any of whom could potentially have become a competitor to D&D. It did the opposite - it cheered them on. If the intention was as you say, there'd have been a crackdown in the early '00s.

 

[Olrox17]

The ability to do that wasn't an oversight with the OGL, it was fundamental to it.

I don't think anyone can dispute that the creation of Pathfinder, the greatest competitor of WotC's brand of D&D, was fully in line with the OGL's clauses.
I also don't think we can dispute that, in hindsight, making the OGL the way we know it proved to be a bad financial decision on WotC's part. A "mistake" that worked great for the community and 3PP publishers, but that they would correct in an heartbeat if they had a time machine.

Well, they don't have a time machine, so now they are destroying their reputation and their community for a chance (no guarantee, expert legal opinions vary!) to undo that "mistake". Extremely dumb, selfish and unnecessary on their part, IMO, but I'd lie if I said I can't see their reasons.

 

[Minigiant]

This not an intellectually sustainable argument.

By your logic here, WotC would have opposed the gigantic flowering of d20 games the OGL caused, any of whom could potentially have become a competitor to D&D. It did the opposite - it cheered them on. If the intention was as you say, there'd have been a crackdown in the early '00s.

My point is that WOTC never saw the d20 D&D like games as being competition. Until 4e split the community and PF cropped up.

The OGL was designed shortsighted. Almost no major corporation would create an OGL like OGL 1.0, today.

 

[FrogReaver]

The OGL was designed shortsighted. Almost no major corporation would create an OGL like OGL 1.0, today.

And almost no corporation would have then either.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think anyone can dispute that the creation of Pathfinder, the greatest competitor of WotC's brand of D&D, was fully in line with the OGL's clauses.
I also don't think we can dispute that, in hindsight, making the OGL the way we know it proved to be a bad financial decision on WotC's part. A "mistake" that worked great for the community and 3PP publishers, but that they would correct in an heartbeat if they had a time machine.

Well, they don't have a time machine, so now they are destroying their reputation and their community for a chance (no guarantee, expert legal opinions vary!) to undo that "mistake". Extremely dumb, selfish and unnecessary on their part, IMO, but I'd lie if I said I can't see their reasons.

Would like to respond but i feel like i may have inadvertently veered the + thread off it's path. So i'm going to refrain so hopefully it gets back on topic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point is that WOTC never saw the d20 D&D like games as being competition. Until 4e split the community and PF cropped up.

The OGL was designed shortsighted. Almost no major corporation would create an OGL like OGL 1.0, today.

This argument, I repeat, is not intellectually sustainable.

Even AFTER the OGL produced Pathfinder, what did WotC do? According to your logic, they must have quit the OGL right?

But in fact they went straight back to the OGL, after it produced Pathfinder.

There is no intellectual consistency to what you're arguing. It cannot be supported by the facts of WotC's actions. As for "well they wouldn't make it today", that's totally irrelevant and has no bearing on the argument.

To get us back on topic, certainly claiming "WE MADE A MISTAKE!" whilst lying about well-recorded recent history (which is what WotC seems to be doing) is not a persuasive argument which will render a fairly horrific document acceptable.