OGL vs. non-OGL magazine

[der_kluge]

The news that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible is, IMHO, welcome news. Someone lamented the fact that it meant that Pathfinder no longer has access to print Eberron, or MMII or MMIII monsters anymore.

What does sadden me a bit with this news is that apparently Pathfinder is basing their modules solely on their own campaign world, potentially dismissing all the great 3rd party stuff out there. However, it likely will mean that 3rd party publishers could continue to contribute to that world, making it a rich environment in the long run.


So, where do you stand - are you generally more happy or more sad that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible?

 

[Glyfair]

So, where do you stand - are you generally more happy or more sad that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible?

As compared to what? Not being OGL compatible (i.e. not using any d20 system mechanics)?

I don't understand the direction of the question. Do you still want them to be able to used WotC close content? Do you want them to move away from D&D (and d20/OGL)?

 

[Reynard]

The news that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible is, IMHO, welcome news. Someone lamented the fact that it meant that Pathfinder no longer has access to print Eberron, or MMII or MMIII monsters anymore.

What does sadden me a bit with this news is that apparently Pathfinder is basing their modules solely on their own campaign world, potentially dismissing all the great 3rd party stuff out there. However, it likely will mean that 3rd party publishers could continue to contribute to that world, making it a rich environment in the long run.


So, where do you stand - are you generally more happy or more sad that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible?

It is not just an issue of settings. In fact, I'd say it is only tangentially an issue of settings. The real issue is that D&D has long since grown beyond the SRD, and WotC has decided that adding to the SRD is not worth its effort. That means the vast majority of what *is* D&D now is not available for use by such a magazine. No Hexblade villains. No gem dragons. No magical locations or mobs. D&D is bigger, by far, than the SRD. Dragon and DUngeon gave us "3rd party" content that was as big as D&D was.

We've lost that, and any new magazine would lose it too.

 

[Festivus]

So now with Necromancer being involved, will we see Tome of Horrors creatures included? There are a few hundred of those.

 

[blargney the second]

I'm really sad that there won't be any more Eberron content, and I love the non-OGL classes as well.

 

[der_kluge]

It is not just an issue of settings. In fact, I'd say it is only tangentially an issue of settings. The real issue is that D&D has long since grown beyond the SRD, and WotC has decided that adding to the SRD is not worth its effort. That means the vast majority of what *is* D&D now is not available for use by such a magazine. No Hexblade villains. No gem dragons. No magical locations or mobs. D&D is bigger, by far, than the SRD. Dragon and DUngeon gave us "3rd party" content that was as big as D&D was.

We've lost that, and any new magazine would lose it too.

Dragon already doesn't make use of anything outside the SRD - to be as compatible with as many games as they possibly could. With the exception of Eberron modules in Dungeon, the very Dungeon submission guidelines tell people to stay within the core books.

 

[Arnwyn]

The news that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible is, IMHO, welcome news. Someone lamented the fact that it meant that Pathfinder no longer has access to print Eberron, or MMII or MMIII monsters anymore.

So, where do you stand - are you generally more happy or more sad that Pathfinder will be OGL compatible?

I'm more interested in MM2, FF, FC1&II, etc monsters than 3rd party monsters (if that is even a remotely appropriate response to your question).

 

[Reynard]

Dragon already doesn't make use of anything outside the SRD - to be as compatible with as many games as they possibly could. With the exception of Eberron modules in Dungeon, the very Dungeon submission guidelines tell people to stay within the core books.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on both counts. Do you read the mags? There's a reason why the Class Acts section, for example, changed from the core 11 to the 4 archetypes. And the Dungeon submission guidelines have never told you to stick to the SRD, they have always said to limit your non-core stuff so as to make the adventures generic enough for general use, and provide full stats for anything not core.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Dragon already doesn't make use of anything outside the SRD - to be as compatible with as many games as they possibly could. With the exception of Eberron modules in Dungeon, the very Dungeon submission guidelines tell people to stay within the core books.

The latest Dungeon has an adventure based around a MMII creature, the

Spoiler

meenlock

. A quick scan through the pages revealed stuff from the MMII, MMIII, Fiend Folio, and Book of Vile Darkness, as well as yuan-ti which are not OGL material.

 

[XCorvis]

What does sadden me a bit with this news is that apparently Pathfinder is basing their modules solely on their own campaign world, potentially dismissing all the great 3rd party stuff out there. However, it likely will mean that 3rd party publishers could continue to contribute to that world, making it a rich environment in the long run.

I read that a bit differently. It sounded to me like because they were going OGL, they could choose to include more 3rd party stuff in their game world. Of course, that probably contains a certain amount of spin, and at this point any 3rd party stuff at all is more than they used to. (3rd party meaning non-WotC.)

What I am sad about is that everyone who wants to run in Greyhawk, FR or Eberron is going to have to do their own conversions. At least Rise of the Runelords sounds like it would map pretty easily to any of those worlds...