D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[houser2112]

Will you at least admit without pathfinder there would be LESS arguments

I already did:

because they can't confiscate the old books or prevent people from moving to other systems entirely.

There would be fewer arguments, because there would be fewer players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I right now wish I had ignored the person who quoted me, I really do this thread does no one any good... sigh

fine I will try again to not be misreprented...

Yes, because the OGL would have stopped people from thinking we need a cyberpunk-fantasy or a western-fantasy game or a science-fiction-cyberpunk-kitchen-sink-fantasy game.

re read what I wrote, instead of interesting systems they all would just use the more popular open source system... so again great way to miss the point.

And that's why we don't proclaim that someone is harmful and wrong just based on our own experiences.

wait what?
I can't say something is wrong or harmful based on my experience??? OK, so then in what context can ANYTHING EVERY be called wrong or harmful if we have to ignore the people who proclaim it did harm or was wrong???

So you are anti-choice. Saying that people who like the existing edition need to be forced to change is anti-choice.

I am not anti choice, that is something you are making up. I never said you can't play 3.5, or 2e, or basic D&D, or pathfinder or candy land... stop misrepresenting what I am saying!

To make it clear, Pathfinder found a market (People who had not yet moved on). Historically that market would get smaller and smaller each year, but never fully disappear (people still play 1e). There choice was to go for that market (Hey look one of those choices I hate so much...) that choice had an affect (by the way the affect is the real problem in case you actually want to understand my POV).

Every edition has it's warriors, and I have lived through 2e becoming 2e+options both of them going into 3e (witch in my mind is the biggest change in any edtion) and 3e going to 3.5 and 3.5 going to 4e, and 4e going to 5e. so why did piazo v wotc become the one that was the loudest???

There was vicious edition warring on all sides, but you're proclaiming that it was "harmful and wrong" to let us play the game we wanted to play. That doesn't sound like "why can't we all get along?" to me.

yea except I was part of the pathfinder playtest (the free one I don't pay for beta) and got pretty much no where. ANd when I was playing 4e I never went to pathfinder threads... but somehow I kept getting into fights with pro pathfinder people... and 3 times at conventions I was harassed for having the wrong book (4e)...

so sorry it was at least HARMFUL if not wrong... it CAUSED HARM

 

[Morrus]

re read what I wrote, instead of interesting systems they all would just use the more popular open source system... so again great way to miss the point.

That has demonstrably not happened. The OGL exists, and yet we have a plethora of big new games over the last few years. Edge of the Empire, Numenera, Fantasy AGE, Fate, Savage Worlds, and so many more; and Shadowrun an the like are doing just fine.

but somehow I kept getting into fights with pro pathfinder people... and 3 times at conventions I was harassed for having the wrong book (4e)...

I dunno, man. You keep telling us how you keep getting into fights with people, and how people are always up in your face about games... but this doesn't really happen to the rest of us. Do you think maybe you're a little too sensitive about the issue, and that if you relaxed, the fights would stop? I keep seeing you using CAPS and shouting at people on the boards here; you get upset an awful lot. Maybe just chill out a bit and ignore these threads, instead of diving in and getting into fights in them?

Remember, it's a discussion board. People are welcome to disagree with each other. That's what drives debate.

 

[prosfilaes]

re read what I wrote, instead of interesting systems they all would just use the more popular open source system...

History does not agree. In the 1970s everyone was doing class and level systems, and even the later RIFTS uses a system that's a lot more similar to D&D then a lot of OGL games. If Steve Jackson had wanted a D&D rip-off, he could have wrote one instead of GURPS. Yes, when the OGL was a bright and shiny new thing, everyone did OGL. Now that it's not, it provides options, options that a lot of people don't use.

Shadowrun has gone through a lot of systems; it doesn't seem that any one of them was important enough to be worrying about its possible non-existence. Deadlands came out in GURPS and D20; apparently it was more important to reach people in the systems they played then to sell them the one true system.

I can't say something is wrong or harmful based on my experience???

Not and be taken seriously. If you want to say something is wrong or harmful, you have to look at the big picture.

I am not anti choice, that is something you are making up. I never said you can't play 3.5, or 2e, or basic D&D, or pathfinder or candy land... stop misrepresenting what I am saying!

You said that people who want to play 3.x-style game should be deprived of new material until they move on. If you said that Candy Land should be taken off the market, but people can play it, as long as they can find a copy, I would say that was anti-choice too.

so why did piazo v wotc become the one that was the loudest???

Because people had choices.

so sorry it was at least HARMFUL if not wrong... it CAUSED HARM

The release of 3.5 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of quantifiable harm to various RPG companies. The release of 4 destroyed quite a few of those left. The release of all of those and 5E has left a number of game stores with shelves of D&D product they will never sell, at least not without a serious discount. All these actions of Hasbro caused people to lose their jobs; doesn't that matter more then the fact you got in a few arguments? I'm not blaming Hasbro, for the most part; everything has consequences, both good and bad.

 

[delericho]

It's hard when dealing with something that's already hypothetical...

You're absolutely right. And I'm sorry, but at this point I've wasted too many electrons on that hypothetical. As I said waaay up-thread, I don't believe Hasbro are particularly worried about either the OGL or about Paizo/Pathfinder in particular. Nor do I think they'd even consider a buy-out. The whole thing is predicated on "if Hasbro felt they had to deal with the competition...", and since I'm pretty certain they don't...

So, if you don't mind, I'd rather bow out at this point. Too many hypotheticals stacked one on top of another. Sorry!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That has demonstrably not happened. The OGL exists, and yet we have a plethora of big new games over the last few years. Edge of the Empire, Numenera, Fantasy AGE, Fate, Savage Worlds, and so many more; and Shadowrun an the like are doing just fine.

I'm going to ignore the second part, because it was entirely about me and not my point...

those systems are great (well some but that's just opinion) but when the OGL first came out if you noticed we saw a lot less of it. You also saw people taking those systems (I'll use deadlands as my example) and making them D20... because it homogenized the industry for 5 or 6 years. That is also something I don't want back. I want a stargate game to work on it's own, not be stargate d20, or in this case stargate using 5e rules...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

History does not agree.

I disagree I see the history of 2001-2007 as being pretty much what I said

In the 1970s

there was no ogl...

everyone was doing class and level systems, and even the later RIFTS uses a system that's a lot more similar to D&D then a lot of OGL games. If Steve Jackson had wanted a D&D rip-off, he could have wrote one instead of GURPS. Yes, when the OGL was a bright and shiny new thing, everyone did OGL. Now that it's not, it provides options, options that a lot of people don't use.

and a bright and shinny new OGL for 5e I fear would be a repete... you know of history

Deadlands came out in GURPS and D20; apparently it was more important to reach people in the systems they played then to sell them the one true system.

the company actually decided to go back to it's own system to not water donw with things like d20... and good for them.

Not and be taken seriously. If you want to say something is wrong or harmful, you have to look at the big picture.

how? How can anyone look at the big picture if people who feel harmed are told "You can't say it was harmful"

it's like saying "Everyone loves X" "I don't love X" "You don't count we can only talk about likeing and loving X" and then saying "After discounting everyone who didn't love X we can prove everyone loves X"

You said that people who want to play 3.x-style game should be deprived of new material until they move on.

yes I did... in fact that is what happened in every edition change ever...

If you said that Candy Land should be taken off the market, but people can play it, as long as they can find a copy, I would say that was anti-choice too.

that is what happens... you can't ge the board I have in my bedroom anymore, they changed it, now they only sell the new one. If you don't understand that is not limiting choice, it's moving on. COmpanies do it all the tiem.

The release of 3.5 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of quantifiable harm to various RPG companies.

none of it would have happened with out an OGL... so are you on my side now of OGL has good AND bad things??

The release of 4 destroyed quite a few of those left.

and with no OGL??

everything has consequences, both good and bad.

except the ogl or pizo... those no one should point out anything bad...

 

[prosfilaes]

when the OGL first came out if you noticed we saw a lot less of it.

You'll notice it's no longer when the OGL first came out. The response to 3rd Edition/OGL was a one-time thing. It is entirely possible that without an OGL, a number of the companies putting out D20 material might have just been hurt or killed by the overwhelming reaction to D&D 3. Without the OGL, D&D 3 wouldn't have been nearly the success, or money that was going to these companies would have been going to WotC; probably some of both. Either way, these companies would have been hurt by a lack of an OGL.

I want a stargate game to work on it's own, not be stargate d20, or in this case stargate using 5e rules...

I don't. If the Stargate game can have this really awesome system, then great (and they can do that whether or not there's an OGL for 5th edition), but if the system is just going to be different for the sake of being different, I'd rather have a system I and my players know then something where we have to search for rules half-way through. Learning new rules for the sake of learning new rules is not fun.

I disagree I see the history of 2001-2007 as being pretty much what I said

Recessions never end--look at 1931-1937. History is longer then six years.

there was no ogl...

So? There being no OGL did not stop Tunnels and Trolls, or any number of similar games. Everyone in the 1970s were doing D&D rip-offs, and if you're going to get annoyed about Mutants and Masterminds, you have to get annoyed about games that were more similar to D&D, even if they didn't summon up the power of the OGL. The fact that there was an understand standard of class/level systems did not stop innovation all over the place.

and a bright and shinny new OGL for 5e I fear would be a repete... you know of history

Why? There's a small group of companies that are already doing 5e, a small group that are waiting for OGL, and a large group that don't care.

the company actually decided to go back to it's own system to not water donw with things like d20... and good for them.

Which disproves your argument; companies are capable of picking and choosing whether or not to use other systems. And also, GURPS is not like d20; no OGL involved, yet people still make licensing contracts with Steve Jackson Games.

how? How can anyone look at the big picture if people who feel harmed are told "You can't say it was harmful"

If you feel harmed, try "I feel it harmed me." You can't say that it was harmful overall based on just that.

they changed it, now they only sell the new one. If you don't understand that is not limiting choice, it's moving on. COmpanies do it all the tiem.

It is limiting choice. It is reducing the choice that people have. Corporations do it all the time; that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

none of it would have happened with out an OGL... so are you on my side now of OGL has good AND bad things??

Nothing is without mixed consequences. But the OGL brought a lot of people into the hobby as publishers, and as I said above, it seems quite likely that some of the publishers who turned OGL would have been seriously hurt sans OGL when 3rd Edition sucked the wind out of their sails.

and with no OGL??

With no OGL, the end of 4th Edition meant that large 4th edition collections lost a lot of their value; both players and store owners were hurt by that. My FLGS has probably 15 D&D4 books sitting on the shelf that I would be surprised if they sell at more than 1/3 cover price.

 

[Morrus]

I'm going to ignore the second part, because it was entirely about me and not my point...
.

It is about you. Your anger issues are becoming a problem here. I need you to consider ways of participating in the boards without becoming upset in every conversation and taking everything personally. It's starting to affect the boards overall. I'm trying to be nice here, man, but we need to address this.

 

[Wicht]

What goalposts? This isn't a game, it is how I feel. There are no goals there are no points... is that what you want to score points?

I have been operating under the assumption that English is your primary language. If it is not I apologize.

"Moving Goalposts" is a term used in arguments for one side shifting positions so that the refutations of the other side are never applicable. It has nothing to do with scoring points.

Your original post said

"well in my day dream future the OGL would be destroyed, and all the pathheads would have to either play an orginal game or play an older one... and no company could ever make money off of someone else work... "

My assertion was that your criteria of no company ever making money off of the work of others was a rather bleak one. You just destroyed nearly every board game on the market, wiped out over 98% of the field of literature, shut the doors on every restaurant ever, destroyed the movie industry, closed down the car manufacturers, textile mills, dismantled the internet, etc. etc.

You then proclaimed the work of Paizo to be of a different category than all other derivative works (or most others) which I called "moving goalposts" on.

Again, if the phrase is new to you, or English is not your primary language, then I apologize for not being clearer.

Now, on to another important point that I really and truly and earnestly beg you to think on...

What they did was split the fanbase, and make my, and my friends experience worse. It doesn't matter one lick if they set out to do it or not....
and one of my friends will never go to gen con again because of the argument that book caused when all we wanted was to buy McDonalds across the street.

I am really sorry that you and your friends had a fight. Over a game. During what should have been an enjoyable time.

But,... and here is the part you really need to consider,...

No company has the responsibility to make sure you don't have a fight with your friends.

That's it. In a nutshell. You are blaming others for the immaturity of either yourself or your friends and that is simply wrong on your part.

In essence, you are mad at Paizo for producing a product that other people preferred more than the product you preferred. But that's both childish and selfish on your part. A company has every right to produce the very best product they can and if that product attracts customers then the company is doing good. It is irrelevant that someone, somewhere might fight over whether they prefer one product or the other. The fight is not the fault of the producers - it is the fault of the ones doing the fighting.

Moreover, Paizo did not attract their fans after the production of 4e. They attracted a solid base well before 4e came out from both their stint as magazine producers and through their Rise of the Runelord AP. Many of us were on record as being willing to go to whichever gamesystem Paizo used because we liked their adventures. There was nothing malicious about it. It was not a choice made out of ire at WotC. It was simply a preference for the products of one company over the products of another, and Paizo won some of us simply because WotC stopped producing material we wanted sometime during the life cycle of 3e. We, as consumers made a choice. Which is how the market works. It is rather silly to start talking about one company doing "HARM" to the industry because they produced a superior product (in the eyes of some) to another company. Generally, in economics, a superior product is not "WRONG," rather it is "desirable."

EDIT: And seeing how Morrus is getting ired, this will be my last post along these lines.