D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[an_idol_mind]

yes, it works the way ryan thought it would... and hurt the entire hobby and WotC properties in the process... you can't tell me you believe pathfinder is anything but an unforeseen consequence... The OGL was ment to have a big partnership... instead it made a rival.

1) I don't see how it hurt the entire hobby. Last I checked, the hobby is doing just fine.

2) While the OGL allowed Pathfinder to exist, what really created it was WotC breaking away from it so abruptly. Had they produced a timely and acceptable GSL, Paizo probably would have continued doing what they were doing. Heck, had they not pulled the magazine licenses away and let Paizo continue producing the quality D&D content it was producing in the first place, Pathfinder probably never would have existed in the first place.

Or, for that matter, if WotC had presented something like 5th edition rather than the dramatic break that was 4th edition, fans probably wouldn't have split the way they did.

The OGL didn't make a rival. WotC decided to abruptly cut ties with companies that were helping the D&D brand, including folks like Paizo who had created a renaissance for the magazines and the gents at Margaret Weis Productions who had stewarded the Dragonlance franchise well. Then they rolled out a dramatically different game than what had come before, assuming that people would jump on board with it because it had the D&D name on it.

The OGL may have allowed for Pathfinder's success, but only in tandem with a series of missteps from WotC that could have been prevented had the company not overestimated the strength of the D&D brand name.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out that the idea of having to negotiate a license for each and every printed product that any company wants to produce is

... not necessarily what I said. I said negotiated. I didn't say negotiated by individual product. You could negotiate for an adventure path, for example, or some set of books. Exactly what you get to produce is *part of the terms* which, if they're negotiated, are not set by what we say here.

So, yes, you are confusing the model with the terms still.

Open is the means that leads to all ends.

All your ends. I don't think you get to speak for WotC's ends - unless you've become a high-level employee without telling us.

 

[Mistwell]

1) I don't see how it hurt the entire hobby. Last I checked, the hobby is doing just fine.

Is it? I think the edition warring did serious harm to the hobby in general. So did the company-warring. I think a lot of gaming groups that had played for decades broke up in battles between whether they would play a Paizo game or a WOTC game, or what edition or version. I do not think what's happened since the end of 3e has been good for the hobby in general - I think it's done much more harm than good.

 

[Umbran]

ok, I know you are joking... but damn I just got scary cold chills reading that...

I'm not joking. I'm brainstorming. I am not expecting another OGL. I don't expect we'll see another "do anything you want with our content, in perpetuity" license from WotC in our gaming lifetimes. So, I'm thinking about other ways for us to get stuff we like. Some good stuff has come out of Kickstarter, so I don't see why WotC could not adapt the model in some way.

 

[Alzrius]

... not necessarily what I said. I said negotiated. I didn't say negotiated by individual product. You could negotiate for an adventure path, for example, or some set of books. Exactly what you get to produce is *part of the terms* which, if they're negotiated, are not set by what we say here.

This is a semantic distinction, and a minor one at that. Being able to negotiate for a small body of related products is only negligibly better than being able to negotiate for one. It still means that every time a company wants to product something else outside of that license, it needs to go through the entire process again. That still produces the same strong disincentive to bother going that route at all - hence, the model defeats the license itself.

So, yes, you are confusing the model with the terms still.

Not so; see above.

All your ends. I don't think you get to speak for WotC's ends - unless you've become a high-level employee without telling us.

I don't need to speak for WotC's ends. Ryan Dancey already did that (see the quotes above). Given that, you're not really in a position to say that this doesn't speak towards WotC's ends. Unless of course the secret high-level employee was really you all along!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a semantic distinction, and a minor one at that. Being able to negotiate for a small body of related products is only negligibly better than being able to negotiate for one. It still means that every time a company wants to product something else outside of that license, it needs to go through the entire process again. That still produces the same strong disincentive to bother going that route at all - hence, the model defeats the license itself.

not really...

Imagine if (and I don't really know morrus so I am going out on a limb) Morrus negotiated a licence for spelljammer... then he went and published 1 book per quarter...

year 1 basic campaign setting, campaign players guide, World setting 1, Space pirates,
year 2 Magi tech of spell jammer, world setting 2, adventure A, adventure b
year 3 DM's guide to spell jammer, adventure c, world setting 3, adventure d
year 4 Cross over guide to spell jammer, adventure e, world setting 4, SUper adventure THE SPELL JAMMER

mean while my friend ross negotiates for dark sun (he is like the biggest fan and has every book across the edition and 2 binder full of notes on the world)
now he can't put the full force of enworld behind it like Morrus could so he just makes PDFs

year 1 5e campaign setting, Prism pentead time line/adventure suggestions
year 2 The onex tower, the city of XXX
year 3 The city of XXX, the Dragon of Tyr

yea he puts out less and there is no print version, but it puts a lot of info out there...

then they licence Onex path to redo the scared lands...
then they licence kobold games to do grey hawk...

1 time negotiation for years of products...

 

[Umbran]

This is a semantic distinction, and a minor one at that. Being able to negotiate for a small body of related products is only negligibly better than being able to negotiate for one. It still means that every time a company wants to product something else outside of that license, it needs to go through the entire process again. That still produces the same strong disincentive to bother going that route at all - hence, the model defeats the license itself.

*shrug*. I think the question depends upon the publisher's goals. If the publisher wants, in essence, to have its own game that folks buy, without customers ever having any need or desire to go back to WotC again, then, yes, the license is defeated. However, I don't think the, "you bought the PHB, and now never have to buy from WotC again" end serves WotC well at all anyway, so I don't see defeating that end is not an issue.

I don't expect WotC wants whole new games. Those don't serve WotC much. WotC probably wants support products. Adventures, adventure paths, adventure hooks, occasional really interesting rules supplements, setting and fluff variations. Now, maybe nobody wants to get into that business for WotC, and maybe WotC would be better served with a really active contracting program. Then, you get no licenses at all.

Ryan Dancey already did that (see the quotes above).

Mr. Dancy spoke to WotC's ends nearly a decade and a half ago. The world has changed. And, he has made it very clear, he was serving ends that were not actually WotC's! Maybe WotC has seen a problem with that since?

Given that, you're not really in a position to say that this doesn't speak towards WotC's ends.

Nope. But, I'm willing to listen and think on other options. Open License or not - *I* am open. Are you?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1) I don't see how it hurt the entire hobby. Last I checked, the hobby is doing just fine.

I'm not going to argue, but I disagree, the D&D hobby is fractured and the whole RPG hobby is dieing... we just have to disagree here.

2) While the OGL allowed Pathfinder to exist, what really created it was WotC breaking away from it so abruptly. Had they produced a timely and acceptable GSL, Paizo probably would have continued doing what they were doing. Heck, had they not pulled the magazine licenses away and let Paizo continue producing the quality D&D content it was producing in the first place, Pathfinder probably never would have existed in the first place.

so that story of a paizo guy playing and disliking 4e was what propaganda in the edition war? I thought they were the 'true soul of D&D', or are you admitting this was all about money?

Or, for that matter, if WotC had presented something like 5th edition rather than the dramatic break that was 4th edition, fans probably wouldn't have split the way they did.

maybe... but 4e wasn't as dramatic as people like to pretend.

The OGL didn't make a rival.

It allowed a rival to cash in on the edition war (making it worse then ever in the process) and basicly take 10ish years of wotc hard work and cash in on it... love pathfinder or hate it, it is still a series of codified house rules (some ok, some great, some terrible) for the system someone else made.

WotC decided to abruptly cut ties with companies that were helping the D&D brand, including folks like Paizo who had created a renaissance for the magazines and the gents at Margaret Weis Productions who had stewarded the Dragonlance franchise well. Then they rolled out a dramatically different game than what had come before, assuming that people would jump on board with it because it had the D&D name on it.

or just to remind you that narrative is very biased, WotC tried to grow the brand and move the game forward correcting large issues(lfqw,outdated rules) complained about by a large amount of there fans. They tried to make the game better, and in the process leaped before they looked because they as RPG FANS where excited to get out a game they thought would be the next great edition of the best fantasy rpg in history, and the GSL fell behind because as gamers they were more focused ont he game.

The OGL may have allowed for Pathfinder's success, but only in tandem with a series of missteps from WotC that could have been prevented had the company not overestimated the strength of the D&D brand name.

I believe the biggest mistake WotC made is one I am very familiar with, thinking that people are basically going to be friendly and keep moving and not take an opportunity and cause a huge wedge in the community...


if you asked me in 2005 at gen con what I thought was the friendliest place for RPGs if I could imagine a few years later players in MCdonalds Berating other players for playing the wrong version of D&D I would have laughed... then I saw it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Mr. Dancy spoke to WotC's ends nearly a decade and a half ago. The world has changed. And, he has made it very clear, he was serving ends that were not actually WotC's! Maybe WotC has seen a problem with that since?

you know that is the funny part... he pretty much wanted X (witch includes pathfinder) and knew it might not be in the best practice for the company, so said he wanted A, B and C and used that to push his own agenda.

In this case even believing it didn't end well I don't think it that sinister, but damn taken out of context that is some lex luther supervillian stuff there... (again in context it isn't, I do not dis like or wish to defame mr dancy, I would even say all of this to his face and expect him to laugh about it)

 

[Morrus]

I'm not going to argue, but I disagree, the D&D hobby is fractured and the whole RPG hobby is dieing... we just have to disagree here.

It's not. Tabletop gaming is up according to a variety of sources, including ICv2 and the like. It's actually enjoying a bit of a resurgence due to Kickstarter. Big hits to the hobby were the rise of CCGs, MMORPGS (Warcraft and Eve and the like), and - surprisingly - miniatures gaming from the Games Workshop quarter. Three major booms have occurred - the advent of desktop publishing, the d20/OGL period, and Kickstarter. Edition wars and 4E and Pathfinder may have upset you personally (well, clearly they did) but they didn't appreciably harm the hobby as a whole.

Hobby Games Up 20% in 2013 - Fifth Consecutive Growth Year

After 40 years, popularity of tabletop gaming rises despite high-tech competition

2013 Game Industry Survey reveals tabletop gaming, Pathfinder on the rise

High-Tech Push Has Board Games Rolling Again (this one's a bit more board game focused, but that's because it's the New York Times)