Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[Alzrius]

However, I think that Paizo would have gone with Pathfinder or some OGL-version of the game regardless of a new OGL for 4E. When they announced Pathfinder, they said that they had been working on this since 2007, way before 4E was announced.

I don't think this is quite correct. While it's possible that I'm misremembering, I recall it differently.

I remember that shortly after we were told that the magazines would be ending (in early-mid 2007) Paizo let people know that they were starting a new monthly book of 3.5 material called Pathfinder, and that was all.

Later on (I think a few months after Gen Con that same year, which was when 4E was announced) Paizo announced that they would be releasing their own RPG, also called Pathfinder. We were told that Jason Bulmahn had basically been writing his own set of house rules for 3.5, and that these were the basis for the new game.

The open playtest then began in March of 2008, and lasted for about eighteen months before the final game came out.

In other words, at the time 4E was announced, Paizo hadn't made up their mind to publish their own game yet. It was the lack of announcement for what opportunities would be made available for third-parties regarding 4E that basically left them little choice but to go their own way (since they need to work several months in advance).

 

[Wicht]

Oh, I agree completely. I understand the legal nature of the OGL. What I am saying is, that they should have thought about the effect of the OGL when they created it (1999?) and should have asked the question: What will happen if we release a new version of the game? Will that enable other companies to seriously compete with us? And they either did not do that at all or they thought that everything would be fine for them. Which it is not. This is their own fault.

Except, Ryan Dancey understood completely what he was doing and as far as I can tell, from what he has said, designed it so that if WotC dropped the ball with D&D, others would be able to pick it up and run with it. So the ones in charge at the time did think about it. What happened is that after the ones who created the OGL left, the ones who came in did not seem to understand how to use it.

One should always remember that WotC is actually a group of people and the group of people there at the moment, living with the ramifications of the OGL are not the ones who released the OGL. The ones who released the OGL knew exactly why they were doing it. They were, in essence, putting the game ahead of the company; though at the same time, again, WotC evolved into a company which did not take advantage of the OGL like they could have.

 

[Wicht]

Your post included a lot of things in a context I had not thought about before. And I mostly agree with you.

However, I think that Paizo would have gone with Pathfinder or some OGL-version of the game regardless of a new OGL for 4E. When they announced Pathfinder, they said that they had been working on this since 2007, way before 4E was announced.

Yeah, as Alzrius said, that's not quite right. Jason had been developing his own rules beforehand, but it was not with the intent, originally to go up against 4e. I get the feeling he was just messing around with "house-rules." Paizo was very much publically on the fence leading up to their announcement with the Alpha rules. There was no secret plan being developed all along. They were playing it be ear right up till the last moment as far as I could tell, following along.

 

[TheFindus]

Yeah, as Alzrius said, that's not quite right. Jason had been developing his own rules beforehand, but it was not with the intent, originally to go up against 4e. I get the feeling he was just messing around with "house-rules." Paizo was very much publically on the fence leading up to their announcement with the Alpha rules. There was no secret plan being developed all along. They were playing it be ear right up till the last moment as far as I could tell, following along.

You are correct. They decided to do the Pathfinder RPG after 4E was announced. They began design on the Pathfinder RPG in 2007 before the final version of the 4E GSL was released (WotC went back and forth on that final version a couple of times). However, they saw that there would not be another OGL, but a (limiting) GSL instead. So they decided to use the old 3.x OGL.

Still, staying with 3.x was their way to become independent from WotC after having successfully published the iconic DnD magazines. They were able to build a fanbase around that. To stay with WotC and their latest version of the game while at the same time neglecting the old version would have meant for them to continue to be dependent on WotC. With the 3.x OGL, there was no need for that anymore, especially because WotC had decided to cancel the printed version of the magazines anyway. Why stay with 4E then? Add to that the fact that a lot of people did not like the new design of 4E and wanted to continue playing 3.x.

Paizo saw an opportunity and made a wise business decision. And as far as I can tell, it paid off.

However, I am not so sure if this is still on topic with the title of this thread.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I don't think this is quite correct. While it's possible that I'm misremembering, I recall it differently.

I remember that shortly after we were told that the magazines would be ending (in early-mid 2007) Paizo let people know that they were starting a new monthly book of 3.5 material called Pathfinder, and that was all.

Later on (I think a few months after Gen Con that same year, which was when 4E was announced) Paizo announced that they would be releasing their own RPG, also called Pathfinder. We were told that Jason Bulmahn had basically been writing his own set of house rules for 3.5, and that these were the basis for the new game.

The open playtest then began in March of 2008, and lasted for about eighteen months before the final game came out.

In other words, at the time 4E was announced, Paizo hadn't made up their mind to publish their own game yet. It was the lack of announcement for what opportunities would be made available for third-parties regarding 4E that basically left them little choice but to go their own way (since they need to work several months in advance).

Thats how i remember it, was just going to say that with a XP but it wouldn't let me. Apparently I have given you to much.

 

[TheFindus]

The ones who released the OGL knew exactly why they were doing it. They were, in essence, putting the game ahead of the company

In my opinion, putting the game ahead of the company was a mistake for WotC. Cooperating with other companies and allowing them to use what you have created is one thing. Giving them a chance to compete with you in the long run, is another. I would say that, for a company, the game is neither more important than the company. Nor are the rules in the OGL the best DnD rules there can be.

I am not sure whether WotC would have sold less books without the OGL if they had cooperated with other companies on a different basis. Can anybody educate me on this? Would you have stopped playing DnD without the 3.x OGL in 1999/2000? At least I was drawn back to DnD and the third edition not because of the OGL but because of the rules.

 

[billd91]

In my opinion, putting the game ahead of the company was a mistake for WotC. Cooperating with other companies and allowing them to use what you have created is one thing. Giving them a chance to compete with you in the long run, is another. I would say that, for a company, the game is neither more important than the company. Nor are the rules in the OGL the best DnD rules there can be.

I am not sure whether WotC would have sold less books without the OGL if they had cooperated with other companies on a different basis. Can anybody educate me on this? Would you have stopped playing DnD without the 3.x OGL in 1999/2000? At least I was drawn back to DnD and the third edition not because of the OGL but because of the rules.

So we can assume you think the game should be second to the company's interests? They shouldn't necessarily do what's best for the game if it might not be good for the company?

I don't think it matters that any single consumer thinks that 3e wasn't the best D&D possible. The OGL, had WotC actually put some leverage to it, could have been a powerful tool for improving the game. By incorporating ideas and revisions, the game could have been really progressive, like AD&D was intended to be when it first debuted.

 

[TheFindus]

They shouldn't necessarily do what's best for the game if it might not be good for the company?

I do not expect them to. Being able to pay for food and health insurance is more important than "the game". I would hope the two go hand in hand most of the time, though.

I don't think it matters that any single consumer thinks that 3e wasn't the best D&D possible. The OGL, had WotC actually put some leverage to it, could have been a powerful tool for improving the game. By incorporating ideas and revisions, the game could have been really progressive, like AD&D was intended to be when it first debuted.

I know a lot of people who think the rules of the new version of DnD are progressive. They most certainly were the result of the 3.x experience and what the designers of 4E thought was not so good about third edition.
But I was not comparing different existing editions of DnD. I will not start or participate in an edition war. What I am saying is that when you make rules for a roleplaying game, any game really, and offer these rules to other companies, your competition, forever and for free without being able to take that decision back, you have to think about what will happen if you - as WotC/TSR have done at least two times before - publish a new version of these rules. After all, rules do evolve and at some point you will want to publish a new version. What is the competition going to do with the free old rules that they can continue to publish new material for? What impact will this have? I think these are valid and important questions before you create an OGL.

And I would like to know if WotC would have sold less books if they had not created the OGL but instead found some other way of cooperating with competing companies without giving them the legal right to use the rules forever for free. I am not so sure that they would have made less money.

 

[Wicht]

Again though, when you say "WotC" you make it sound like the company is this monolithic entity, but it is and was not. It is a group of people. In a sense "WotC" could not have anticipated the results of the OGL because "WotC" as it exists today is not the "WotC" which released the OGL. Legally it is the same entity, but the people comprising the entity are different.

On the other hand, again, the people that released the OGL wanted to create the possiblity that another company could do what Paizo did. Now, one could argue they were shortsighted in their company decision making, though, personally, I think the OGL was good for WotC D&D sales. It helped create a palpable excitement that invigorated the roleplaying community in a good way. However, one cannot accuse them of not anticipating this outcome when they (read Ryan Dancey) more or less publically stated at various times and in various ways that he had considered the outcome and thought it was a good thing.

From a non-company-loyalty, at-will-employee perspective, the OGL makes very good sense. If I have a hand in creating a new and well-recieved product, and am working for another company who is going to own that product; if I can convince the powers to be to allow me the legal right to keep making that product should the company let me go, I am going to try to do so. If the company then mismanages their ownership of the product, I have not only guaranteed that I can continue to make a living, but I can continue to produce the product in a form I personally approve of.

 

[TheFindus]

Again though, when you say "WotC" you make it sound like the company is this monolithic entity, but it is and was not. It is a group of people. In a sense "WotC" could not have anticipated the results of the OGL because "WotC" as it exists today is not the "WotC" which released the OGL. Legally it is the same entity, but the people comprising the entity are different.

I do not know what you are trying to say here besides stating the obvious. The people at WotC have to make the business decisions. At the time they work there. And their decisions influence the decisions other people working at WotC have to make at some later point in time.

On the other hand, again, the people that released the OGL wanted to create the possiblity that another company could do what Paizo did. Now, one could argue they were shortsighted in their company decision making, though, personally, I think the OGL was good for WotC D&D sales. It helped create a palpable excitement that invigorated the roleplaying community in a good way. However, one cannot accuse them of not anticipating this outcome when they (read Ryan Dancey) more or less publically stated at various times and in various ways that he had considered the outcome and thought it was a good thing.

I know they wanted the OGL and thought it was a great idea. But in my opinion they only made more money through the OGL if
1. that would have been their only option of giving other companies the right to use the 3rd edition material without being able to stop them from using that material at some later point,
2. a OGL product published by another company was the reason why somebody bought WotC products that would not otherwise been purchased.

I claim that they could have given other companies the right to use the material with a time limit, a cancellation time frame if you will ("you have to stop using our rules in 3 years").
I also claim that people jumped on the 3rd edition train because they were tired of the old rules, the 3rd edition rules were good and people liked them. The content was there, support through the magazines was stable and campaigns like Eberron were a huge success. I would therefore guess that the amount of people who only wanted to play with the product of a third party publisher or otherwise not play 3rd edition at all is very limited.