D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Morrus]

A large part of Paizo's success is because it is composed of top designers and run by Lisa Stevens. We're talking incredibly competent people here, many of whom came through TSR or WotC and D&D. Added to that an enormous existing customer base for their very highly regarded DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines, and an excellent AP based subscription publishing model, their success shouldn't be a massive surprise.

Laying all that credit at the foot of the OGL rather undervalues them. They're clever folk, and if the OGL contributed, it only did so in part.

Plus other companies have used the OGL and not become the world's best selling RPG.

 

[Mistwell]

The only RPG they produce is the "upgraded version" of 3.5.... they developed pathfinder AFTER WoTC abandoned that system.

without the OGL that would not have been possible, they would not have taken all the disgruntled anti-4e D&D players... those players would have stuck with their 3.X books instead of buying new ones.

the OGL is the ONLY legal reason they where able to pull that off

What he said was, "there is a load of evidence that being absolutely open with the OGL (and Paizo is far more open than they need to be) has been nothing but an absolute boon for Paizo and Pathfinder."

Paizo was dong well before they were an OGL company as well, when they were a licensee of WOTC (direct license, not OGL). All the employees have a history of doing well int he RPG industry even without an OGL. There is no evidence that, had there been no OGL, that Paizo would not have done something that was just as popular as what they are doing right now. They are competent people, with a lot of experience, a lot of exposure, and they were all those things before they became a primarily OGL company. Indeed, they still produce a lot of products that are not related to the OGL. I've used their initiative tracker quite a few times, and that is not an OGL product.

Where is your evidence that, but-for the OGL, Paizo would not be doing well as a company? Saying they are doing well with the OGL is not proof that they would not have done just as well without the OGL as a company. Show me this supposed ton of evidence that it's the "being open" that's the reason Paizo has done well, instead of the, "being a bunch of highly experienced and smart RPG designers and marketers" is the reason. If there is a "ton of evidence" like he said, then there sure should be more than merely speculation based on a correlation.

 

[Nellisir]

The only RPG they produce is the "upgraded version" of 3.5.... they developed pathfinder AFTER WoTC abandoned that system.
without the OGL that would not have been possible, they would not have taken all the disgruntled anti-4e D&D players... those players would have stuck with their 3.X books instead of buying new ones.
the OGL is the ONLY legal reason they where able to pull that off

There are two things being confused here. One is use of the OGL, which Paizo must do, and the other is how freely they allow others to use their own developed content via the OGC. That's what's being discussed. Pathfinder is undoubtedly built on 3.5 and requires the OGL, but Paizo could have locked it down much more than they did. Look at Malhavoc Press for a counter-example (and also for an example of a company that did well without being particularly free with it's own content).

There's also trademark issues as far as indicating compatibility with Pathfinder; that's at least as notable IMO. Kudos to Paizo for all of it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

There are two things being confused here. One is use of the OGL, which Paizo must do, and the other is how freely they allow others to use their own developed content via the OGC. That's what's being discussed.

I think [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] is pretty clearly saying that he believes that Paizo would have done just as well without an OGL ever existing in the first place. In other words without Pathfinder as we know it.

 

[Mistwell]

[3D][/3D]

I think [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] is pretty clearly saying that he believes that Paizo would have done just as well without an OGL ever existing in the first place. In other words without Pathfinder as we know it.

Yes.

They did well without it, and were trending better every year.

They did well with it, and are trending better every year.

This tells me it's not the OGL that is the link to them doing well and better every year, it's something else.

And I think the something else is they are a core of experienced, competent people in this marketplace.

These experienced, competent people used the tool of the OGL to do better, but if that is a tool that they didn't have at their disposal, they'd have used other tools to do well instead.

Show me the tons of evidence that demonstrates it's the OGL that is the source of their success, as opposed to the people running Paizo.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Show me the tons of evidence that demonstrates it's the OGL that is the source of their success, as opposed to the people running Paizo.

Personally I would say this.

Pathfinder owes its success to the OGL. Without it, I don't think it would be where it is right now.

Paizo does not owe its success to the OGL. Without it, I believe they would have still found success.

That's where I would stand. I don't know if you would agree with this or not.

 

[Nellisir]

I think @Mistwell is pretty clearly saying that he believes that Paizo would have done just as well without an OGL ever existing in the first place. In other words without Pathfinder as we know it.

Mistwell was initially responding to the statement that "there is a load of evidence that being absolutely open with the OGL (and Paizo is far more open than they need to be) has been nothing but an absolute boon for Paizo and Pathfinder." Emphasis mine.

That statement presumes use and speaks to openness/reuse. Mistwell's response is ambigious, but since CharlesWright was talking openness, it's reasonable to think Mistwell was also. Sidonunspa's response to Mistwell, though, clearly spoke to use and not openness, switching the conversation from one meaning to the other.

A conversation in this thread about whether or not WotC needs to use the OGL in the same sense that Paizo needs to use it is pointless/nonsensical; WotC is the originator of the content and does not need to use the OGL. There's nothing to discuss. What potentially affects WotC is how openness and allowing reuse of material is beneficial (or not) to the company.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355286-So-5e-OGL/page27#ixzz3D7gBz79B

 

[aramis erak]

Fair Use in the US applies to:
* Criticism (including parody)
* Review
* News
* Education
* Scholastic research
The UK law seems similarly restrictive, and is aimed at not limited free speech or news.

Making homebrew content is none of those.

Fair use of COPYRIGHT applies in that narrow realm... tradmark is different, but also has fair use. See TSR vs Mayfair, and TSR vs Judges Guild. Both of which establish that you can make commercial expansion without license, provided the trademark references are not overly visual. (In other words, Mayfair's problem was use of the Logo, not producing unlicensed materials obviously for use with D&D.)

What you can legally do for money, you can legally do for free.

Copyright also explicitly (black letter) does not protect game rules in the US. It does protect the specific wording... so OSRIC is theoretically legal even without the OGL. Using the direct text isn't. (Hasbro's had issues with boardgames in this area... hence the issue of all the monopoly derivatives.)

And before you even go there, ADB vs C. Henry Shutte dba Companion Games wasn't for trademark violation, but for literal text duplication (the weapons tables), violation of Trade Secret (use of the BPV formulae, which he had prior employee level access to), and breach of contract (non-compete). Henry shut down when the court ordered him to stop.

Palladium's efforts likewise have all apparently been resolved by settlements, not by the courts. Which means they don't have to be based upon the law, and don't count as precedent (since they aren't settlements with the government). Some have been notable - Palladium going after Atlas... but it wasn't resolved by the courts.

 

[Jester David]

Yes.

They did well without it, and were trending better every year.

They did well with it, and are trending better every year.

This tells me it's not the OGL that is the link to them doing well and better every year, it's something else.

And I think the something else is they are a core of experienced, competent people in this marketplace.

These experienced, competent people used the tool of the OGL to do better, but if that is a tool that they didn't have at their disposal, they'd have used other tools to do well instead.

Show me the tons of evidence that demonstrates it's the OGL that is the source of their success, as opposed to the people running Paizo.

I kinda agree with Mistwell on this.
Paizo owes a lot to the OGL at the start, and 3rd Party companies supporting them, but over time their dependence on 3PP has diminished and they could easily cease updating the PFRD or even switch to a non-OGL game system and still do well.
This is really demonstrated by the success of the Adventure Card Game.

 

[prosfilaes]

Remember, you don't need an OGL to put out a 3.5 clone of sorts according to copyright law (since you can't copyright mechanics).

Of sorts. It's easy to say, but nobody has legislated out the exact line between protected literary content and game mechanics. I wouldn't think you can copy their versions of color-coded dragons, for example. Spell names? Monsters? Selection of public domain monsters? At a certain point, you're creating another fantasy heartbreaker instead of a 3.5 clone, and the market for those is pretty weak; at another, your lawyers will urge you to settle with Hasbro. How far the space is between those lines is hard to tell.