Pramas on the OGL

[BryonD]

I was there, too. As a playtester. As the moderator of the official DND-L mailing list. On about 20 other mailing lists. On RPGnet.

And you're wrong.

No I'm not. But you are.
Two can play that pointless game.



Again, I did see lots of debate. And *early on* tons of concern. But that changed strongly and steadily as August approached.

Just because you can point to the reality that there WAS concern is meaningless. And if you think it matters then you have a total misunderstanding of the point. You can say that at X point in time there was a lot of concern. But if your claim is that the level of acceptance that 4E is achieving as it approaches is anywhere remotely near the level of acceptance that 3E achieved, then your memory has greatly failed you.

I'm not sure why you think it's particularly bad this time around.

Perhaps it has to do with what trancejeremy said. When 3e rolled out, this place was new. It was 3e that created it. Membership has grown over the years and so it's not surprising that there's more negativity here about the new edition - there are more people.

I think you have his point backwards.

There have been complaints in the 4E forum here that ENWorld is the "kindest" place for 4E. There is nothing for 4E that compares to what Eric's page was for 3E. Which is an interesting point of its own.

And everywhere else is more harsh. Which is also an interesting point.

And, as many others have said, when 3E came along, people were hungry for a new game. That isn't true now. Not by remotely the margin that there was then.

But again, two months before release, what I see is vastly beyond what I saw anywhere. Yeah, Eric's board was the pro-3E place and there were some detractors at other places. But it just doesn't compare.

 

[Seanchai]

Your entire point boils down to "The OGL is better for *GAMERS* because it puts more content on the shelves". I agree 100% with this.

It's not necessarily better for gamers. It's better for gamers if the products are all basically of a consistent quality. It's better for gamers if Joe Gamer can pick up Random Games' recently release, the Battle of Waterloo d20 Companion, and be reasonably assured that it's got a) decent production values, b) good, useable content, and c) workable rules.

But most of what the OGL/d20 license brought us was crap, however.

I can go to my FLGS, browse the shelves, and pick up something with a fair degree of confidence. But that's not because of the OGL, it's because company that makes the product. Last week, I did just what I describe at the beginning of this paragraph and purchased the first installment in the new Pathfinder adventure. I did so without any real hesitation or consideration because I know Paizo will do a bang up job.

I've gotten plenty of other OGL/d20 products and been burned, however (i.e., the Foundation and Dragon Lords of Melnibone).

But here's the real rub: Without some method of determining which products are worthy and which aren't (such as reviews, prior experience, word of mouth. etc.), all the products on the shelf are competing for my dollar. The OGL/d20 license put a bunch of stuff on the shelf for me, but its not keeping the stinkers at bay. The expanded choices can be just as bad for me as they can be good.

Seanchai

 

[Seanchai]

Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that Monte Cook has changed his opinion in the last two years?

Nope.

If not, why would you assume he has?

I wouldn't. But he might have. Things change. For example, he has, as I understand it, basically left the industry.

Here's something else I wouldn't do: Post a blog entry from two years ago and try to pass it off as something he said about an issue that sprang up days ago.

Seanchai

 

[Orcus]

Nope.



I wouldn't. But he might have. Things change. For example, he has, as I understand it, basically left the industry.

Here's something else I wouldn't do: Post a blog entry from two years ago and try to pass it off as something he said about an issue that sprang up days ago.

Seanchai

Of course, what you fail to mention is that that article from two years ago appears to be exactly 100% accurate

Believe me, Monte is opinionated and not afraid to share. If he had revised his opinion, you would know.

I dont approve of people passing of an old post as a new though (seemingly in reaction to current events, which it isnt). But the bottom line is that Monte nailed it 100% and he disagrees with the things Pramas says now.

Clark

 

[Seanchai]

I also hope that people who make the decision take the advice of people who were there and who were a part of it and who are well respected in this area. And I mean Monte, by the way.

What's interesting to me about the pointing to Cook's opinions about this or that is...well, didn't he leave the industry? If you value his opinion so highly, shouldn't you do the same?

Seanchai

 

[Seanchai]

But that changed strongly and steadily as August approached.

And it has for 4e, especially after the recent round of demos.

But if your claim is that the level of acceptance that 4E is achieving as it approaches is anywhere remotely near the level of acceptance that 3E achieved, then your memory has greatly failed you.

It hasn't.

But I don't have to rely on my memory. I can look at pre-order for 4e, for example, and determine the level of acceptance of the new edition. Hmmmn. The core rulebook set is #78 on Amazon.com. Or we can look at polls here and elsewhere. For example, one on RPGnet asks folks which they're more excited about, 4e or Pathfinder. Out of 280 respondents, 189 say they're excited more for 4e. An additional 15 say they're excited about both.

Sure, you'd like to believe that people hate 4e like you do, but that just isn't the case.

When 3E came along, people were hungry for a new game.

Aren't you just contradicting yourself now? You said people were upset with 3e when it was announced, but steadily grew less concerned. If they were as hungry as you say for a new game, why push back so hard against a new edition?

Seanchai

 

[Seanchai]

Of course, what you fail to mention is that that article from two years ago appears to be exactly 100% accurate

For two reason. One, I didn't read the articles in question. I only noted that they weren't, in fact, written in reponse to the current brew-ha-ha. Two, not having read is opinion, I wasn't attempting to address it.

Believe me, Monte is opinionated and not afraid to share. If he had revised his opinion, you would know.

Thing is, I don't believe. As I said before, I don't know you and have no reason to believe you. That's why the blog in question being over two years old matters. I don't need to believe what you're telling me to see if a date is recent or not.

But the bottom line is that Monte nailed it 100% and he disagrees with the things Pramas says now.

Really? One hundred percent? Everything is correct? Or are you overstating the case again?

Seanchai

 

[Oldtimer]

Thing is, I don't believe. As I said before, I don't know you and have no reason to believe you.

You are more or less accusing Clark of lying?

You're not here to make any friends, I take it?

 

[Orcus]

What's interesting to me about the pointing to Cook's opinions about this or that is...well, didn't he leave the industry? If you value his opinion so highly, shouldn't you do the same?

Seanchai

I'm sure one day I will.

Though I guess your post reminds of 2nd grade: "If you love him so much, why dont you kiss him!" I'm not sure how it follows that because I respect Monte I should leave the industry. But hey, one man's logic is another mans... well, I dont know what that is.

I'm not sure why I am even responding to this post... Its the end of the day on Friday. That must be it.

Clark

 

[Xath]

Seanchai,

You're new here, so I'll direct you to the ENWorld rules. We maintain a policy of civility here. Please respect that.

The Rules: http://www.enworld.org/faq.php?faq=faq_rules

- Xath