D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[GMforPowergamers]

Probably because that's not what happened, despite assertions to the contrary. And it ignores the new material Paizo has produced for the OGL.

You are also moving goalposts.

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?

They may not have sat there and twirled mustaches and said that, but it is what they DID...

just to be clear, Pathfinder was made by people... just like everything else. People in general are not villains or evil doers... I doubt anyone at piazo is anything but a good person... HOWEVER what they did was harmful and wrong, and that is what I have said from the beginning of this thread. Depending on your point of view they may have had good or bad reasons, and you can debate that with someone else, I don't care. 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.

I did not ignore anything 'new' they did. In fact I like some of what they did (because I can admit there is good and bad in everything) and none of that matters. They put out a book that was an alpha test that you could buy at gen con, 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.

well you are trying to 'score through goalposts' maybe you could take a moment to look at my actual perspective....

 

[delericho]

How? If RPG people were easily motivated by money, they wouldn't be working in this field. If they want to just leave, Hasbro can't stop that.

When I was part of a company that got bought out, we all got stock options that were potentially a serious chunk of money... provided we stayed.

But there are other ways to sweeten the deal. Most likely, the guys currently working on Pathfinder would find themselves working on exactly the same product (see below), but with D&D on the cover and using 5e mechanics (at least starting with the next Path). So they'd be doing essentially the same thing, but for more money and with a higher profile.

And if some key people were still determined to leave, well fair enough. Hasbro would then most likely offer them a package: here's a decent chunk of money, and all you need to do is agree not to work on a competing subscription-based RPG product for 2 years. Given that almost nobody in the industry even does subscription-based products, why not take the money?

That's not guaranteed, of course, but they could expect to tie up enough people to prevent a New Paizo forming.

So justify this: why could the market support multiple AE-level successes back in the 3.5 days, and not today?

It still does: Goodman's DCC RPG, Numenera, and a few others. But the thing is that each of these is distinctly different with their own niche. Half a dozen near-clones of Pathfinder would find themselves fighting to differentiate themselves against all the others. It's unlikely any of them would get much traction.

Where do you think all these Pathfinder players are going to go?

In this scenario, most of them would transition to 5e. And they'd do that because Hasbro, playing on the 'genius' part of "evil genius" wouldn't simply kill Pathfinder dead, but would instead transition the Pathfinder Adventure Path into a monthly D&D Adventure Path, offering essentially the same product but with D&D on the cover and 5e mechanics inside.

So those people who buy the APs to read would continue to buy them to read, the people who are loyal to the Paizo staff would continue to buy them to continue supporting those same staff, and those who are too apathetic to cancel their subs would continue to be apathetic. They would, of course, lose some subscribers, but they'd also hold onto a lot.

And if they're really not interested in producing a monthly D&D Adventure Path, then they'd gradually bleed away staff. But, again, they'd do it a few at a time, to make sure there's never a nucleus for a New Paizo to form around.

 

[prosfilaes]

HOWEVER what they did was harmful and wrong

Giving people choices is harmful and wrong? That's, um, a radical economic theory.

make my, and my friends experience worse.

And made many other people's experiences better, by giving us a chance to play a supported edition we enjoyed more.

one of my friends will never go to gen con again because of the argument that book caused.

Then every game company that has ever put out a new edition is harmful and wrong. Fan arguments will happen no matter what anybody does.

 

[houser2112]

I doubt anyone at piazo is anything but a good person... HOWEVER what they did was harmful and wrong, and that is what I have said from the beginning of this thread. Depending on your point of view they may have had good or bad reasons, and you can debate that with someone else, I don't care. 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.

Paizo didn't split the fanbase; WotC did, when they announced 4E, just like 3E did when it came out. Regardless of the relative merits of 3E and 4E, if 4E was different enough from 3E to be considered a new edition, it was going to split the fanbase, because they can't confiscate the old books or prevent people from moving to other systems entirely.

All Paizo did was provide supply for the demand that was still out there.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Giving people choices is harmful and wrong? That's, um, a radical economic theory.

funny how you pretend I am anti choice when one of the reasons I think the OGL was a mistake is it make 10x the products become d20, and not new systems... if the OGL had come out with 1e I doubt we would have shadowrun, or gurps, or Deadlands, heck even rifts... and all of those are systems I love... and guess what, a choice...

And made many other people's experiences better, by giving us a chance to play a supported edition we enjoyed more.

yes different people have different experiences, and then come to different conclusions... it's why we talk about those points of view.

Then every game company that has ever put out a new edition is harmful and wrong. Fan arguments will happen no matter what anybody does.

I'm not sure why you can't understand that I feel A is bad, but B was worse...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Paizo didn't split the fanbase; WotC did, when they announced 4E, just like 3E did when it came out. Regardless of the relative merits of 3E and 4E, if 4E was different enough from 3E to be considered a new edition, it was going to split the fanbase, because they can't confiscate the old books or prevent people from moving to other systems entirely.

All Paizo did was provide supply for the demand that was still out there.

once again.. piazo made it worse... they didn't create the hole, they made it deeper and harder to pass...

http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/innovation-early-adopters-beyond-the-bell-curve/

when a new edition is announced, there are some people supper excited about it (in 3-4e that was me, but not in 2-3 or 4-5) these people are inovators... they follow the news, and are pre ordering books, and already wanting new stuff. Then comes Early adaptors, the people that buy it, try it and like it... and in this case review it so others will also try it. Then comes the Early Majority, these in rpgs are people that would have stayed but are just moving because they heard good things and are part of the crowd...

now comes the rub. Every other edition hit this point and had no one putting new books out. If you stay with an old edition at this point you are going with no new products, no support and as time goes on less and less community. One thing was different at this stage though, not only was there a company proudly thumping the edition war but catering to the nostalgia and 'I don't like any change' it is a hurdle no edition before ever faced...

The fans of piazo also pushed us out... because you can't just want to play a game...

 

[prosfilaes]

When I was part of a company that got bought out, we all got stock options that were potentially a serious chunk of money... provided we stayed.

And it's entirely possibly you were getting paid more then any non-CEO in RPG history has. RPG employees have chosen their goals in life, and it's not to get rich. Besides which, where's the money coming from? It's hard when dealing with something that's already hypothetical, but Hasbro isn't going to spend more to keep people then it looks like they'll make from keeping them. Large sums to existing employees make this even more financially absurd from Hasbro's perspective.

Half a dozen near-clones of Pathfinder would find themselves fighting to differentiate themselves against all the others. It's unlikely any of them would get much traction.

Where do you get six near-clones of Pathfinder? I see two, maybe. Anybody with the money to be a serious contender knows there's no money to be made if there's six near-clones; either they will work with the leader or they'll stay out of the market.

most of them would transition to 5e

If we wanted 5E, we knew where to find it. You've destroyed the system we invested hundreds into and you think we're just going to wander towards Hasbro?

offering essentially the same product but with D&D on the cover and 5e mechanics inside.

That is not essentially the same product.

But, again, they'd do it a few at a time, to make sure there's never a nucleus for a New Paizo to form around.

Let's say that Microsoft bought out Apple. Do you think that Apple people would leave Windows 10 slowly? Hasbro, an international conglomerate with 10,000 employees has just bought out a small private company for the purpose of crushing a competing game. The response is not going to be quiet or slow, and I don't think there's much that Hasbro could do about that . A good number of their customers are going to swear to never buy anything from Hasbro, and if there is no heir apparent, they may stop buying any significant amount of product at all. We all know groups that played 3.5 for years after it stopped being supported.

 

[houser2112]

once again.. piazo made it worse... they didn't create the hole, they made it deeper and harder to pass...

From your point of view. From others' point of view, they did this:

And made many other people's experiences better, by giving us a chance to play a supported edition we enjoyed more.

now comes the rub. Every other edition hit this point and had no one putting new books out. If you stay with an old edition at this point you are going with no new products, no support and as time goes on less and less community. One thing was different at this stage though, not only was there a company proudly thumping the edition war but catering to the nostalgia and 'I don't like any change' it is a hurdle no edition before ever faced...

I don't dispute that, merely your assertion that Paizo did the splitting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From your point of view. From others' point of view, they did this:



I don't dispute that, merely your assertion that Paizo did the splitting.

and again you ignore what I say to point out something... Paizo fueled the fire of the edition war, and profited from it, it did so by reprinting the work of another company to apply to people not to change when that company changed...

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

 

[prosfilaes]

if the OGL had come out with 1e I doubt we would have shadowrun, or gurps, or Deadlands, heck even rifts...

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.

yes different people have different experiences, and then come to different conclusions... it's why we talk about those points of view.

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

'I don't like any change' it is a hurdle no edition before ever faced...

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

The fans of piazo also pushed us out... because you can't just want to play a game...

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.