Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: The reason the OGL was a bad idea for WOTC

[Set]

If the OGL "failed" as an Open Source development project, as Mearls claimed, the fault for that lies entirely with WotC. There must be some sort of central authority responsible for incorporating the best ideas into the core and constantly redefining the "official" rules.

There were quite a few amazingly cool bits in Unearthed Arcana that I really expected to see folded in, such as Fractional BAB and Magic Rating, both of which really made multi-classing viable (while softening some of the spikiness of inflated saves and lagging BAB / caster level).

I wonder how much of that sort of thing would have made it into a theoretical 4th edition based off of the 3.X engine.

 

[drothgery]

Well, it seemed like WotC never really understood how Open Source was supposed to work in that sense.

I always thought it was bizarre for WotC to embrace open source-esque language given what they were trying to accomplish. I said that the day WotC first started talking about OGL and the d20 STL, and still think so. They wanted 3rd parties to build on top of D&D. They didn't want 3rd parties to try and change or replace D&D.

 

[freyar]

I always thought it was bizarre for WotC to embrace open source-esque language given what they were trying to accomplish. I said that the day WotC first started talking about OGL and the d20 STL, and still think so. They wanted 3rd parties to build on top of D&D. They didn't want 3rd parties to try and change or replace D&D.

More importantly, IMHO, they didn't seem to want to build on what 3rd parties did. Who knows what we might have seen then?

 

[Twowolves]

Right now with WOTC changing their GSL, there's all sorts of discussion about the old OGL and new GSL and the pros and cons of each.

I loved the OGL, I loved the freedom it gave publishers, and loved some of the material that came about it.

But for those who are up in arms about the strictness of the GSL, consider this:

The OGL allowed Paizo to create pathfinder, and basically create direct competition to WOTC's 4th edition.

I think you have the cart before the horse. If it weren't for 4th ed and the restrictive GSL, Paizo would never have needed to make Pathfinder under the OGL. In other words, there would not be a direct competitor like this (which, it's not, really) if not for the GSL, not the OGL.

 

[Kzach]

Paizo have, albeit indirectly and mostly through their fans, painted 4e as the devil and 3.5 as the primordial ooze from which only it can rise and evolve into something worthwhile.

And whether indirectly or not, this most definitely has harmed 4e sales.

I think it's somewhat naive or disingenuous to say that there is no competition between Pathfinder and 4e.

 

[Festivus]

I DM both 4E and 3.5... and we are seriously looking at Pathfinder as well. Different groups of people for these two camps.

4E group is all players coming back from 1E/2E or WoW camp, many are younger, artsy types.

3.5 group is all my age, been playing D&D for a while now, more technically oriented and many of them don't want to spend money on the WoTC book treadmill again, they want to use the books they have already.

I like both, but high level 3.5 with all the splatbooks is starting to drag me down a bit... which is why we are looking at Pathfinder. It would be easy to use that, and incorporate those bits we like from 3.5 into it... well, easier than moving them to 4E anyhow.

 

[Agamon]

Want to know what Pathfiner is? It's a small company picking up the scraps that WotC is leaving behind. If anything, it's a good thing because it keeps these people in the industry as buying customers.

I agree with Darrin. As much as I wish Paizo could have went 4e, there is a niche for Pathfinder, and that's not a bad thing for the hobby.

 

[Renfield]

Strange. I live in Anchorage Alaska, biggest small town on the west coast, we have plenty of 3pp at our two, wait... three hobby stores. Not counting the gaming stuff sold at Both Borders and B&N. I was in portland recently and found 3pp stuff in a couple of their gaming stores and I'm pretty sure my friends could locate some in Seattle. I can kind of understand not finding much in a college town but surely you could find Castle Zagyg somewhere in New York City of all places... Or did I miss the point of the post?

 

[carmachu]

Paizo have, albeit indirectly and mostly through their fans, painted 4e as the devil and 3.5 as the primordial ooze from which only it can rise and evolve into something worthwhile.

One could easily say the same about Wotc and 3.5 and its fans definately on Paizo and pathfinder....cuts both ways.

 

[Henry]

Paizo have, albeit indirectly and mostly through their fans, painted 4e as the devil and 3.5 as the primordial ooze from which only it can rise and evolve into something worthwhile.

And whether indirectly or not, this most definitely has harmed 4e sales.

I think it's somewhat naive or disingenuous to say that there is no competition between Pathfinder and 4e.

I'd really love to know how it's harmed sales. 4e sales seem quite brisk locally here in South Carolina, and the number of people who know about Pathfinder versus the number of people who know about 4e D&D is likely on the order of a 1 to 100 ratio. (About 25,000 downloads versus... what, an active 2 to 4 million base who plays D&D at least once a month?)

Paizo will survive and thrive on the "long tail."
WotC, no matter WHAT it says, does, or tries, WILL NOT GET THE SALES from the "Long Tail," by definition.

Therefore, they're not direct competition with one another. I don't think either Paizo OR WotC thinks they're direct competition. Obviously, SOMEBODY at WotC does, or the GSL wouldn't be as restrictive as it originally turned out. But most of the people who know the little close-knit RPG industry pretty well know the truth of the issue.