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

[Kzach]

I'd really love to know how it's harmed sales.

In all honesty, I can't answer that question without turning this thread into a slagfest. In retrospect, I shouldn't have posted at all.

 

[Sunderstone]

In retrospect, I shouldn't have posted at all.

The start of your previous post would support this. It's Pot. kettle. etc.

 

[Orius]

Who is buying Pathfinder? It's either the people who don't like 4E or the people who want to keep playing 3.5 but have a new and improved version. That isn't direct competition. 4E is getting just as many sales as it would have gotten based on the decisions that these players have made. I seriously doubt that the existence of Pathfinder has cost them a single 4E sale since the Pathfinder customers would simply not spend money on any new system and stick with 3.5.

...

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.

That would be my guess for now. Most people going over right now either don't want to drop 3.5 because they don't want to spend money on new 4e books, they don't like the multiple PHB/DMG/MM philosophy of 4e, or they don't like how 4e plays or it flavor. The earliest adopters know it from the net. Anyway, it's basic capitalism at work, that is Paizo is essentially providing something like continued 3.5 support for people who want it, even if WotC finds it unprofitable.

Now in a few years, should Pathfinder survive, it might be different, you know one of those other RPG systems players learn about after getting into probably D&D. They try it and decide they like it more and switch over. In this case, even though they might drop D&D, they might have dropped it anyway, but went to another system like back in the pre-3e days. The only difference is if Pathfinder and 4e don't diverge so much that their material is compatible enough to convert for either system, where this might be harder to do with a non-D&D game.

IF Wotc had made the GSL 3pp friendly, but restricted, they wouldnt have been facing this "problem" in the first place. This is all a problem of their own making. It gave the grognads a place to go to.

Haven't the grognards pretty much gone over to C&C already?

Besides, I don't really agree. I think someone out there might have tried to continue the 3.5 stuff no matter how lenient WotC would have been because some people can just be that contrary. It also depends on how many spin-off games wanted to continue using the old rules instead of upgrading.

As was said in another post, we already have enough ranger variants to shake two scimitars at... Instead of creating a new one, and testing it, why not find the BEST already existant OGL variant out there and use it.

I think hell would freeze over before the gaming community really decided on which ranger was the "best".

 

[Spatula]

I'd really love to know how it's harmed sales.

If you think that people are essentially sheep that have to be told what to like or dislike, then negative talk of 4e (which existed long before Pathfinder was announced, so maybe this theory doesn't work if you're going to blame PF specifically) would hurt its sales. Not attributing this view to Kzach, but I've seen one or two people make this case back in some of the old 4e threads.

 

[catsclaw227]

... people are essentially sheep that have to be told what to like or dislike ...

Yea, I grew tired of the "if you like 4e, you are a sheep blindly following the shepherd" posts a long time ago...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yea, I grew tired of the "if you like 4e, you are a sheep blindly following the shepherd" posts a long time ago...

I just as easily got tired of "If you dislike 4e, you're just a dumb grognard who hates changes, adapt or die, etc, etc" posts.

 

[Korgoth]

Looks like most people don't understand the point of the OGL: all non-WOTC rpg sales would ultimately make money for WOTC. Why? Because as the hobby in general thrives, D&D thrives. If people are brought into the hobby via some other game, they usually try D&D at some point. So D&D will get some sales. Even if they tried D&D and then went to something else, they still "speak D&D" and are a potential market. As the hobby grows, however it grows, the D&D brand will prosper. And everyone will feel right at home with the core mechanic... people will mostly speak the same language and D&D will stand as a game that is easy to learn, easy to play and has quality products (and this is where WOTC initially fell down in implementing the OGL: they made a game which was actually too complicated, slow and unfamiliar and their quality was spotty).

If the OGL is biting WOTC now, it's mainly because they opted out of it (instead of just making sure that they had a truly entry-level rpg with high quality product support, which they easily have the resources to do). They decided to take their game in an entirely new direction. Those who did not want to go that direction were even sneered at publically by WOTC staff. So they did the exact opposite of what the OGL was trying to do: they went back to the "Tower of Babel" business model where everybody speaks a different rules language. With the GSL they even force you to sit under a contractual Sword of Damocles if you want to intone the sacred syllables of the 4E rules language.

The only embarrassment to the OGL as far as Paizo (and a few others) is concerned is that a bunch of rebel farm boys can consistently turn out higher quality products than a corporate empire with a bazillion dollars. But that's not a problem with the theory of the OGL, that's a problem with WOTC/Hasbro's use of their own vast resources.

If the OGL has a flaw, it's the assumption that the company with a bazillion dollars will natuarally turn out a better product than the amateur with five dollars. But in any event, that's not a flaw from the standpoint of the consumer, who gets to enjoy a quality product from whichever merchant of whatever means actually produces it.

 

[Treebore]

Haven't the grognards pretty much gone over to C&C already?

Nope. They went back to OD&D, 1E, and 2E as well. Plus 4 of the people I play C&C with started playing RPG's with 3E. It doesn't take a Grognard to realize complexity can be a bad thing.

Complexity leads to lots of book keeping, lots of prep time, lots of rules referencing.

Simple is good if those are things your looking to get rid of.

 

[Vanuslux]

Yea, I grew tired of the "if you like 4e, you are a sheep blindly following the shepherd" posts a long time ago...

I just as easily got tired of "If you dislike 4e, you're just a dumb grognard who hates changes, adapt or die, etc, etc" posts.

And since I dislike neither edition, I got tired of both.

Back on topic, though, I seriously doubt that Paizo or Pathfinder in and of itself has caused WotC any significant damage. The sales lost to Pathfinder are mostly sales that never would have been 4E sales anyway and the handful of people who might have bought 4E is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of fans the OGL brought to the D&D fold. I remember before the OGL, people were playing a rich diversity of games and systems...after the OGL, you almost never see people playing anything that isn't somehow connected to D&D 3.x.

 

[Renfield]

And since I dislike neither edition, I got tired of both.

Back on topic, though, I seriously doubt that Paizo or Pathfinder in and of itself has caused WotC any significant damage. The sales lost to Pathfinder are mostly sales that never would have been 4E sales anyway and the handful of people who might have bought 4E is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of fans the OGL brought to the D&D fold. I remember before the OGL, people were playing a rich diversity of games and systems...after the OGL, you almost never see people playing anything that isn't somehow connected to D&D 3.x.

Here here. Granted that in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing. One of my friends was disgusted with how many good solid RPG's went to d20 for no other reason than to make money and jump on the bandwagon. I think what tipped him over the edge was when Monte Cook published World of Darkness D20 he went on an entertaining rant that I fed with enough counter arguments to keep it going. I do agree with him, despite WotC's claims to the contrary (back with the old guard and original d20) it wasn't a system for everything. Level based systems in general lack any good application to a more realistic RPG system. I enjoyed Cthulhu d20 and I'm certainly glad it was something made on the side rather than a full conversion like Traveller made (thank god they're back to their own system, none of this GURPS or D20 B.S.) Still, the D6 system for Star Wars was fine and dandy, didn't really need changing, the game itself might have needed the financial backing the d20 system brought but the RPG system itself was just fine. I won't say the OGL is bad, it was damn good for D&D, but it pushed a lot of diverse RPG's that honestly didn't need conversion off to the side.

*Sigh* the eternal love hate relationship goes on.