D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[tuxgeo]

. . .
finally, forcing folks to change editions, it isn't a straw man. It's one of the reasons TSR sued Mayfair, it's one of the reasons 4e was so different. Getting people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do is the definition of force.
. . .

"Getting people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do" is the definition of "persuasion," Sir.
"Force" refers to a special kind of specific means to that end.

It's better not to mistake the means for the end; they can be different things.

 

[Mistwell]

This assumes that all things are inevitable.

LOLwut?

No, it does not. It assumes one of the many many many companies that were supporting 3e, would simply continue to support it once WOTC stopped supporting it. It does not assume all things are inevitable, just one fairly rationale thing which was already happening before Paizo even did it. They were not even the first to market on this concept.

I certainly think that other companies would have /tried/ to fill the gap. Certainly some did. But I would be surprised if they rose to the level of success that Pathfinder did without a similar set of advantages that they had.

OK, so we agree someone would have filled the gap. It does not matter if they were as successful as Paizo was. We're not talking about levels of success, we're talking about whether or not it makes things hard for WOTC. If they were only 25% as successful as Paizo, that's still 25% more of a drag on what they're trying to do than the zero that happens with almost every other company out there. And this is something they have to deal with forever! Again...100 years from now, on whatever edition they're on, they will STILL be dealing with this issue. Some company could be twice as successful as Paizo in that time. Heck, they can use the original OGL to replicate most of 12th edition and stomp WOTC in the year 2056! There was simply no need to make this thing last forever. It's nonsensical to think the short term benefits they gained from giving away hugely valuable intellectual property forever were worth that cost. It should have had some sort of expiration date. Even Hong Kong had an expiration date!

 

[darjr]

"Getting people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do" is the definition of "persuasion," Sir.
"Force" refers to a special kind of specific means to that end.

It's better not to mistake the means for the end; they can be different things.

Persuasion requires an appeal to logic or emotion, doesn't it? I don't mean physical violence, but the elimination of choices by an entity that has a disproportionate power in the relationship. For instance Coca Cola could try and force people to not drink classic coke by making it unavailable.

People who like classic coke could horde supplies, or make knockoffs, or seek out dwindling supplies.

but I admit to a bit of being on the deep end and unwilling to continue here, so sure, I'll just concede and endeavor to understand.

 

[darjr]

If they were only 25% as successful as Paizo, that's still 25% more of a drag on what they're trying to do than the zero that happens with almost every other company out there. And this is something they have to deal with forever! Again...100 years from now, on whatever edition they're on, they will STILL be dealing with this issue. Some company could be twice as successful as Paizo in that time. Heck, they can use the original OGL to replicate most of 12th edition and stomp WOTC in the year 2056! There was simply no need to make this thing last forever. It's nonsensical to think the short term benefits they gained from giving away hugely valuable intellectual property forever were worth that cost. It should have had some sort of expiration date. Even Hong Kong had an expiration date!

I think it was only workable if WotC stayed with the OGL. I think the 'forever' was integral to the OGL making any sense at all. Without it it might be pointless.

But really any company could replicate a rule set without an OGL. What level of success would it take? Without the OGL it'd be harder to be successful but only 25% as successful as Paizo may be achievable regardless of any OGL. In fact I think Paizo could have done that.

Everything else being equal, without an OGL, Paizo would have had to face very similar issues.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it was only workable if WotC stayed with the OGL.

How? Making each new edition OGL doesn't decrease the third party support for the prior editions.

But really any company could replicate a rule set without an OGL.

No they could not. And we don't have to guess at that - companies had been trying, and getting sued for it and losing, for 30 years over that issue. And with the way Trade Dress laws are moving, I think it will get even harder to try and copy too much of the look and feel of D&D games.

 

[darjr]

How? Making each new edition OGL doesn't decrease the third party support for the prior editions.



No they could not. And we don't have to guess at that - companies had been trying, and getting sued for it and losing, for 30 years over that issue. And with the way Trade Dress laws are moving, I think it will get even harder to try and copy too much of the look and feel of D&D games.

Mayfair didn't lose their case. Rules are not copyrightable. At least for now.

 

[darjr]

How? Making each new edition OGL doesn't decrease the third party support for the prior editions.

Some of the objections to 4e was the licensing. If they had announced it as OGL early on it may well have changed quite a few things. Things that, in my opinion, would have made it easier to compete against Paizo.

 

[Mistwell]

Some of the objections to 4e was the licensing. If they had announced it as OGL early on it may well have changed quite a few things. Things that, in my opinion, would have made it easier to compete against Paizo.

All you're really arguing, each step of the way, is "it could have gone better".

That'a not a good argument. My point is there is no good reason it should be a concern at all. However good it could have gone, it still would have been a drag on them, taking up resources from the company to deal with it, constraining their strategy to just one path, and always dealing with SOME level of lagging consumer support due to ongoing support for all prior editions. No company should NEED to deal with these issues 40 years after they agreed to a license that gave them a short term boost. It's just not a wise thing for the company to agree to...not forever.

A 15-20 year OGL would have gotten them more than 50% of the benefits of the OGL with significantly less than 50% of the harms (and in fact as the harm is infinite, it's an infinite reduction in harms).

 

[darjr]

All you're really arguing, each step of the way, is "it could have gone better".

That'a not a good argument. My point is there is no good reason it should be a concern at all. However good it could have gone, it still would have been a drag on them, taking up resources from the company to deal with it, constraining their strategy to just one path, and always dealing with SOME level of lagging consumer support due to ongoing support for all prior editions. No company should NEED to deal with these issues 40 years after they agreed to a license that gave them a short term boost. It's just not a wise thing for the company to agree to...not forever.

A 15-20 year OGL would have gotten them more than 50% of the benefits of the OGL with significantly less than 50% of the harms (and in fact as the harm is infinite, it's an infinite reduction in harms).

That's only a small part. The OGL is fantastic and it was for WotC. It can be again.

 

[Mistwell]

That's only a small part. The OGL is fantastic and it was for WotC. It can be again.

They have no choice now. You can use the existing one to replicate anything they can come up with that even vaguely resembles D&D. So they always have to be the best at it, or else they fail horribly. Before, they could fail, but at least they never had to compete against themselves, their own intellectual property. Now, they always must be the best at using that intellectual property, or else they lose much bigger than they would have.

They could get most of those benefits by using limited time frame OGLs for each edition. Ones that expire when they think they will move on from that edition, so they never have to compete against themselves indefinitely. Now, the genie is out of the bottle - they have no choice.

And it's a very bad thing that essentially one ex-employee made a choice for the company years ago that impacts the company forever. However you look at it, some part of it always functions as a constraint on what they can do.