Pathfinder 1E Ryan Dancey Predicts Pathfinder RPG in '06

[buzz]

Would you have said that in 1997?

I would.

 

[dmccoy1693]

If WotC wanted out of the OGL business, all they needed to do was not release 4e under the license. There was no need for any extensive mechanical changes. They could have created Pathfinder and just not made it open.

If WotC released a 3.75 that was not open, that would do nothing. Companies could still release 3.5 products that a DM could eyeball. While they would be "out" of the OGL, they wouldn't be. The only real way they could get out of the OGL is if they made a new edition that was so radically different that it was barely had anything in common with previous editions, and that is what they did.

 

[Bacris]

If WotC released a 3.75 that was not open, that would do nothing. Companies could still release 3.5 products that a DM could eyeball. While they would be "out" of the OGL, they wouldn't be. The only real way they could get out of the OGL is if they made a new edition that was so radically different that it was barely had anything in common with previous editions, and that is what they did.

Exactly.

Although, as OSRIC has shown, there are ways to be compatible with a system without a license or violating copyright / trademarks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would you have said that in 1997?

Yep.

I don't think this is pretty clear at all. In fact, I think it's actively contradicted.

If WotC wanted out of the OGL business, all they needed to do was not release 4e under the license. There was no need for any extensive mechanical changes. They could have created Pathfinder and just not made it open.

No, they can't-- you completely missed Dancey's point. If 4e is close enough (mechanically) to 3e, which is Open, then it is a trivial matter for any 3rd party to release a divergent, and Open, "4e."

If WoTC wants to close 4e, then it has to be divergent enough from 3e that it cannot be derived from 3e. Dancey's further point is that anything divergent enough from 3e won't be accepted by the existing player network.

Honestly, buzz, read it again. It's as if you didn't read a word Dancey said, and that confuses me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ryan is a wise man. Nonetheless, Pathfinder isn't going to "crush" D&D in any way, shape, or form.

I agree that there's no way that Pathfinder will crush 4e.

But it might outlive it.

(You know... Like a cockroach!)

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think in part the designers wanted to improve the game.

But I also think the rules changes as well as the setting changes are designed to do two things--make D&D more "unique" and less "generic" so it's distinguished from the clone settings and games, and to make it so different that the existing OGL ends up being a lot different and hopefully less palatable to players.

Because, to be honest, traditions matter and you could have improved D&D without having to step on many of the classic traditions the 30+ year history of the game has established. Making such changes is always very risky, especially to your hard core loyal market.

I'm just curious what will happen when the final thing is released. Will there be a significant rejection from the player base, or will enough new people come in to make that irrelevant? If D&D 4e became a huge flop, what would happen? I think Ryan is basically right in that another might step into D&D's place, but I think that rather than one big player the playerbase will factionalize and develop into a half-dozen players. So you might end up seeing a non-D&D game get the upper hand.

 

[BryonD]

Yep.

Ok

I'd say that the brand name was much weaker in 1997 than it is in 2008. But that doesn't mean it wasn't still strong enough, even at its weakest.

I agree that there's no way that Pathfinder will crush 4e.

But it might outlive it.

(You know... Like a cockroach!)

Or they may die a shared death if 5E rocks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Or they may die a shared death if 5E rocks.

We'll know in four years!

 

[JDJblatherings]

I don't think 4e was intentionally designed to be so different as to be incompatible with previous editions,

Really, then why is it so different? I'd say it is the intention behind 4e to design it to be different and virtually incopatible with previous editions, it's a logical business move.

They've gone beyond "fixes". Many of the monster and multiverse re-imaginings were pointless beyond establishing an IP that has not been infringed upon to the point it's old hat to folks that never actually played D&D.

They also need to make it different enough that folks are gogin to want to buy it. Folks don't keep buying the same thing over and over.

 

[buzz]

If WoTC wants to close 4e, then it has to be divergent enough from 3e that it cannot be derived from 3e. Dancey's further point is that anything divergent enough from 3e won't be accepted by the existing player network.

Honestly, buzz, read it again. It's as if you didn't read a word Dancey said, and that confuses me.

Okay, I see what's being said now. I guess I still don't see how the divergence thing really matters, though. If third parties don't have access to the ruleset and don't have access to any branding that lets them indicate compatibility, what does it matter that they can fudge a mostly-compatible product? And why would WotC care?

My main point, though, is that I don't think the design goal was purely "Make this incompatible with 3.5". I think that the goal was to improve the game. I can't attest to 4e other than what I've read, but from what I've seen and played in SWSE, they've succeeded.

As for the tolerance of those invested in the player network, I think it's not as dire as Dancey believed.