D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Nylanfs]

No! Say it isn't so, you cranky and opinionated?

 

[Jester David]

I know. Shattering dreams left and right. I'm a monster.

 

[tgmoore]

Inside of every cynic is a Dissapointed optimist.

 

[DaveMage]

So...anything new on a license for 5E?

 

[Nylanfs]

HEY, that's my job to stir the flames.

 

[delericho]

Yes!

Oh, no, wait... I meant "no".

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah... however "but this other company was worse!" is a pretty weak defence. Yes, TSR might of make some terrible adventures, but that doesn't make the WotC efforts better or fix the flaws of current modules.

TSR also produced a heck of a lot of adventures for multiple campaign settings. They did 30 over a decade for Ravenloft alone. It's very much an example of quantity over quality.
Plus, while more was known about gaming and adventure writing during that time than during 1e, they still knew less than we knew during most of 3e and 4e. It should go without saying that after thirty or forty years of gaming we should be better than after five or fifteen years of gaming. We've had time to learn and absorb the differences between railroads and sandbox, seen what works and what failed, and learned the lessons from what came before. The worst modern adventures should be better than average adventures from the past. Should be.

It's generally fair to say that TSR's modules during the 2E period were comparable to the higher end of the industry as a whole. There were better - but not that many. There were a lot worse.

Judges Guild was falling to the wayside as 2E emerged - really good adventures, printing.

Quite a few game lines in that era weren't doing adventures, except as part of general supplements (Palladium Books was one such. Each Rifts and Palladium FRP supplement included one or two adventures...)

 

[pemerton]

In the 1970s everyone was doing class and level systems

What do you mean by "everyone"?

Runequest is not a class and level system.

Tunnels & Trolls is not really a class and level system (not in the D&D sense) - non-magic resolution is driven by stats, not lookups on class-and-level matrices.

Traveller is not a class and level system.

I don't know Chivalry & Sorcery as well, especially not its early versions, but I'm not sure that it was much like D&D either.

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

It's worth noting that, had there been no OGL, those companies would not have suffered that harm, because they would not have been publishing licensed products gambling on the licensor continuing to publish a game for which the 3PPs were publishing supplements.

So the OGL still plays a key role as a cause of that harm.

 

[prosfilaes]

It's worth noting that, had there been no OGL, those companies would not have suffered that harm, because they would not have been publishing licensed products gambling on the licensor continuing to publish a game for which the 3PPs were publishing supplements.

It's not really worth noting that; if Paizo is harmful and wrong for creating Pathfinder, then WotC was harmful and wrong for creating D&D 3.5. The OGL was a done deal at that point.

 

[pemerton]

if Paizo is harmful and wrong for creating Pathfinder, then WotC was harmful and wrong for creating D&D 3.5.

That doesn't follow at all. The objection that was stated against Paizo is that PF was a player-base splitting option for holdouts. WotC publishing 3.5 doesn't create any sort of player-base splitting option for holdouts.