D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[sidonunspa]

regardless their adventure paths are FAR better then the current WoTC ones

 

[Jester David]

regardless their adventure paths are FAR better then the current WoTC ones

They've also had a LOT more experience. Both in writing adventures but also in writing Adventure Paths. You have to compare the currently WotC efforts to the Dungeon Magazine efforts, like Shackled City. WotC is likely still finding their footing and groove for the storyline projects.

However, Paizo has access to the names of great adventure writers. WotC is mostly relying on game designers who operate their own design studios, which doesn't necessarily equate with good stories.
And WotC is doing storylines that are bigger than just the APs, which is both a perk and a liability.

 

[delericho]

I thought the comparison was they didn't have the OGL and had to create Pathfinder as a new RPG rather than as D&D 3.6...

Oops, yes, you're right - that's what I get for having two slightly different conversations in different places and not taking the time to check. My mistake.

 

[delericho]

They've also had a LOT more experience. Both in writing adventures but also in writing Adventure Paths. You have to compare the currently WotC efforts to the Dungeon Magazine efforts, like Shackled City. WotC is likely still finding their footing and groove for the storyline projects.

Yes and no. After all, WotC don't get to compete in the marketplace of eight years ago - they have to compete in today's marketplace. So if the state-of-the-art for Adventure Paths has moved on, they have to compete with Paizo's offerings now, not what they achieved on the first attempt.

But, yes, I'm aware that's a rather unfair stick to beat them with, given that Paizo do indeed have that wealth of experience. Sadly, life isn't fair.

 

[tomBitonti]

Kindof off topic (Adventure Paths, Hasbro, and Paizo), but if we are going to run with it:

Something to look at is the two different companies business models.

A company generally focuses on a particular model and get good at just that model. To expect them to excel using a different model, at least in the short term, is unreasonable.

To get good at a new model takes investments of various sorts. And, an honest company desire to make changes to meet the new model.

Put another way, if the executive team is comfortable with their current model, getting them to switch to a new strategy is unlikely. More likely, a new crew of executives will be needed to run a new business unit. That would lead to structural challenges, with the first team perhaps not wanting the change.

Bringing this back to Hasbro and Paizo, I think it's key to look at each of their business models, and whether those models are fit to selling adventure paths.

Then, look at the question of whether teaching Hasbro to create, market, and sell adventure paths really fits what Hasbro wants to be doing.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Jester David]

Yes and no. After all, WotC don't get to compete in the marketplace of eight years ago - they have to compete in today's marketplace. So if the state-of-the-art for Adventure Paths has moved on, they have to compete with Paizo's offerings now, not what they achieved on the first attempt.

But, yes, I'm aware that's a rather unfair stick to beat them with, given that Paizo do indeed have that wealth of experience. Sadly, life isn't fair.

Very true.
Of course, realistically, most Pathfinder APs are still available in print and all are available digitally. So both companies are competing with the storytelling of Paizo six years ago.
And with D&D Classics, both companies are competing with 40 years of adventures.

 

[see]

I know that the law of consideration in the US is generally different from Anglo-Australian law - adequacy of consideration is not a requirement in Anglo-Australian contract law, whereas it is in US law as I understand it (and as you state it above).

Which actually brings up another problem in any theoretical effort to kill the license – the OGL lacks a choice-of-law provision, while explicitly granting a worldwide license. Consideration differs between US and English law, while not even being part of Scots law . . . but a worldwide license acquired under a contract engaged in Scotland is still a worldwide license.

 

[sidonunspa]

And WotC is doing storylines that are bigger than just the APs, which is both a perk and a liability.

No, it's not

some of the AP's are just as grandiose... the structure of the current WoTC adventures is the issue

also the lack of "twists" and "got ya" moments you see in several AP's

I see WHAT they are going for, but its the way they are putting it together that is the issue..

now to be fair they ARE improving.

 

[sidonunspa]

Which actually brings up another problem in any theoretical effort to kill the license – the OGL lacks a choice-of-law provision, while explicitly granting a worldwide license. Consideration differs between US and English law, while not even being part of Scots law . . . but a worldwide license acquired under a contract engaged in Scotland is still a worldwide license.

people need to simply except the current OGL is not going to die off...

 

[Morrus]

people need to simply except the current OGL is not going to die off...

I don't think they need to do anything of the sort. On the contrary, I'm sure people will continue discussing it for the next 10 years, just like they have for the last 16.