D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

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.

WotC publishing 3.5 just caused our fellow gamers to lose their jobs. But, no, offering players an option is much, much worse, then crashing a large part of the RPG industry.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

I'd like to add to this thought that the biggest OGL game before Pathfinder was Mutants and Masterminds (I presume) and it has no classes. So even WITH the OGL, class and level systems are not required.

 

[Morrus]

I'd like to add to this thought that the biggest OGL game before Pathfinder was Mutants and Masterminds (I presume) and it has no classes. So even WITH the OGL, class and level systems are not required.

The OGL does not require any rules. You can make your name OGC. Fate uses the OGL. At least one edition of Traveller does. My WOIN system does.

 

[pemerton]

So even WITH the OGL, class and level systems are not required.

The OGL does not require any rules.

I think that what jmucchiello had in mind was the OGL used as a licence for printing material derivative of the 3E or 3.5 SRD.

If you don't use classes and levels, then you need some other way to generate the bonuses to the d20 rolls that are at the core of 3E/3.5 action resolution. Points buy (as per the 3E skill system) is one natural way to do it. I don't know M&M except by reputation, but I gather it uses an approach that combines points buy with caps.

 

[pemerton]

WotC publishing 3.5 just caused our fellow gamers to lose their jobs. But, no, offering players an option is much, much worse, then crashing a large part of the RPG industry.

Publishing 3.5 offered players an option too, namely, the option to play that new system. Those who wanted to stick with 3E, and to use d20 material that fitted 3E but not 3.5, were completely free to do so.

The complaint that was made about Paizo wasn't about their role in offering a choice, but about the particular nature of the choice they offered.

If someone had tried to do the same thing at the time of the 3E/3.5 transition, and had succeeded, I suspect that [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] would make the same complaint about that publisher.

 

[Yaarel]

I want a 5e OGL.

I am frustrated with the core setting (gods, great wheel, multiverse).

I want independents to rewrite the rules with different settings, from a fresh start, and to be able to sell these settings.

It seems like the Basic Rules are suitable for OGL. For gutting and reflavoring.

From what I understand, WotC plans to provide an OGL but intentionally delays it. It wants players to fully understand the 5e system, and catch any problems, errata or missing pieces. Once the system is understood - and players can modify it and add to it while knowing how to sustain balance - WotC plans to open it up for use by indies.

 

[aramis erak]

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 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.

I've encountered one total ass myself - a regional coordinator type, for Paizo - who was at the same place that Expeditions was scheduled, was playing a minis game, and making snarky and rude comments about 5E much of the time. The other DM (also the store's rep, and also a venture lieutenant) pulled him aside and it stopped...

The only reason his toxicity is important is that he's a representative of Paizo - not technically an employee, but definitely part of their public face. I've met a number of players on both sides of the aisle who get that wrapped up and obnoxious - but they aren't representatives of the company.

Perhaps it's that fabled Stiff Upper Lip you Loyal Subjects of Her Majesty are noted for... but 'Mericans be passionate ... too passionate about too much. Which, sadly, generates a lot of "why won't this ass shut up and wander off" moments amidst fandom. 'Course, us 'Mericans don't have much (soccer) football houliganism, either, so we spread it out to everything else.

 

[prosfilaes]

Publishing 3.5 offered players an option too, namely, the option to play that new system. Those who wanted to stick with 3E, and to use d20 material that fitted 3E but not 3.5, were completely free to do so.

What is your point? Are you arguing that Paizo was bad and wrong and WotC was not bad and wrong?

 

[pemerton]

What is your point? Are you arguing that Paizo was bad and wrong and WotC was not bad and wrong?

My point is that you were accusing [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] of inconsistency, by ignoring the effects on other pubishers of WotC's decisions to publish 3E and then 3.5.

Whether or not GMforPowergamers is right, I don't think he is inconsistent at all.

 

[prosfilaes]

My point is that you were accusing [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] of inconsistency, by ignoring the effects on other pubishers of WotC's decisions to publish 3E and then 3.5.

I was accusing him of tossing around "bad and harmful" for things that were a nuisance to him and ignoring things that caused people to lose their jobs and a number of RPG companies to go under. It is not inconsistent necessarily, but it is disproportionate.