JoeGKushner
First Post
Are you saying there's legitimate beef or can you point to some references online where Paizo employees point out their 'beef' with WoTC?
D&D 5E The OGL -- A Lesson for 5E
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
Are you saying there's legitimate beef or can you point to some references online where Paizo employees point out their 'beef' with WoTC?
JonWake
First Post
Indeed. Once the Open Source Genie is out of its box, you can never put it back.
Look at it this way: even Microsoft is trying to use Open Source software now.
WoTC's mistake with 3e wasn't the SRD, because there is almost no evidence that it had an impact on their sales, but the fact they never completed the cycle. Rather than integrate the best ideas coming out of the OGL era, they kept working on 3.5 in a vacuum, strangling the flow of creativity. Making open source work means that you have to leverage the resources the fans make, rather than stepping away and nodding sagely.
Look at it this way: even Microsoft is trying to use Open Source software now.
WoTC's mistake with 3e wasn't the SRD, because there is almost no evidence that it had an impact on their sales, but the fact they never completed the cycle. Rather than integrate the best ideas coming out of the OGL era, they kept working on 3.5 in a vacuum, strangling the flow of creativity. Making open source work means that you have to leverage the resources the fans make, rather than stepping away and nodding sagely.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
To be fair - there were publishers that believed that the sole purpose of the OGL was to allow WotC to 'steal' ideas. (Chaosium, a company that I very much admire, was among that number - a sign that intelligent companies can come up with some really silly ideas....)
I do think that WotC could have benefited by using OGL material themselves, but by then I think that they feared that adding to and/or using OGC would come back to haunt them.
Paizo, who's rule material is entirely based on OGC, has no such concern, and are quite willing to use OGC, both new and old, and to add to the OGC in turn.
The Auld Grump
JonWake
First Post
That is some 20th century thinking, there.
I agree that WoTC would be held to a higher standard, and if they'd gone the re-purposing route, it would have changed the way people think about game design for good, and brought the perception far more in-line with how games are actually designed.
What's the saying? Amateurs borrow, geniuses steal.
The OP was referring to direct compatibility with OGL game material, not release under an OGL license. From the OP:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Ah, sorry, I was taking your post on its own merits.
I think that an OGL would have done 4e a world of good, but I do not think that it would have needed to be 3.X compatible.
Of course, telling GMs not to bother converting didn't exactly help matters.... Direct compatibility is not required, but being able to convert a campaign is still a good thing....
It added fuel to the claim that 4e was not a new edition, it was a new game masquerading as a new edition.
The Auld Grump
I can look online, but most of these have come over drinks near or at the LGS. Living in Bellevue / the Seattle area often means you end up interacting with many folks on a personal level. (For instance, Chris Sims' brother is a frequent visitor of some of my roommates, and thus, they know Chris as well. The old LGS I used to frequent often led to conversations with Richard Garfield. Etc.)
Maybe I just ran into a few folks who weren't happy about it, and the rest of 'em are cool, but friends who work at the game stores themselves and also have multiple employees as their legitimate friends seem to also hear the same things.
JonWake
First Post
Who would those be?
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Schtum. Schtum. He's on to us.
<-------Did anyone not know my bias or think I was acting as a disinterested third party (publisher)? Show of hands.
I must know too much after following the matter for a decade to be unbiased.
As to dignity? That might be the first time I've been accused of having any.
On the other hand, just who is this "Kynn?" And who might he be Kynn to?
I'm really skeptical that the lack of an OGL is the reason for 4e relatively poor performance.
See, the OGL really means squat to the players. All the OGL does is give people the freedom to publish. We always had the freedom to create, make our own campaigns, play the way we want to, etc. The only benefit the OGL really has is for publishing. And to be honest, not every player or even DM wants to publish their stuff.
I find it a little odd that most of the debate about the OGL is with the fans rather than publishers, and I rarely see any high-tier publishers in the debate. For some, the OGL is a purpose, similar to the philosophy of Open Source, etc, and less about the game itself. I think a lot of people disliked 4e because of it's break with tradition, and I doubt even an OGL version of the rules would have helped.
I'd love to see a good analysis of the pros and cons done by people who actually understand the business--economics who have studied what happens when products become commodities, etc. But that's rare to find here.
In any case, licensing is a business decision and it must be done first and foremost as a business. So I suspect we will get a more traditional license from them--probably not as paranoid as the GSL, but I doubt they'll just license the core rules like the OGL.
See, the OGL really means squat to the players. All the OGL does is give people the freedom to publish. We always had the freedom to create, make our own campaigns, play the way we want to, etc. The only benefit the OGL really has is for publishing. And to be honest, not every player or even DM wants to publish their stuff.
I find it a little odd that most of the debate about the OGL is with the fans rather than publishers, and I rarely see any high-tier publishers in the debate. For some, the OGL is a purpose, similar to the philosophy of Open Source, etc, and less about the game itself. I think a lot of people disliked 4e because of it's break with tradition, and I doubt even an OGL version of the rules would have helped.
I'd love to see a good analysis of the pros and cons done by people who actually understand the business--economics who have studied what happens when products become commodities, etc. But that's rare to find here.
In any case, licensing is a business decision and it must be done first and foremost as a business. So I suspect we will get a more traditional license from them--probably not as paranoid as the GSL, but I doubt they'll just license the core rules like the OGL.
JoeGKushner
First Post
In terms of the OGL and 'high end publishers', WoTC burned their bridges in many ways with this one as well. Green Ronin, Paradigm, Atlas and others suffered fan blowback that they had no control over in terms of their system compatibility. Some like Malhavok and Necromancer used this as a quick opportunity to reprint books that might have gone out of print and updated them or kept moving forward.
Others... well, with the 'glut' and the collapse of Osseum and the switch to 3.5, many of these 'high end publishers' didn't need the OGL for d20 support as they now had several successful brands of their own to support. Green Ronin is probably one of the better known survivors as they were essentially a d20 company upon creation while others like Alderac and Atlas had their own systems to begin with.
Others... well, with the 'glut' and the collapse of Osseum and the switch to 3.5, many of these 'high end publishers' didn't need the OGL for d20 support as they now had several successful brands of their own to support. Green Ronin is probably one of the better known survivors as they were essentially a d20 company upon creation while others like Alderac and Atlas had their own systems to begin with.
As to the loyalty we Pathfinder players/DMs have to Paizo, I think most of us are like me and are still aware of the design problems in the system. We moved to PF because 4E just wasn't it and PF was at least living where 3.5 was dead. We'll easily move to 5E if it's clearly better and still D&D. Some people will be loyal to Paizo, but is it enough of a customer base for something like PF hardcovers?
Nylanfs
Adventurer
While I'm not sure that the PCGen project qualifies as a "publisher", but I'm fairly sure it's fairly clear on what my personal stance is.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Hold the phone, you're a publisher?! I thought the "CMG" was your initials!
TheAuldGrump said:
This is true, but I feel compelled to note that Paizo tends to draw from a relatively small pool of OGC - most of it seems to come from the Advanced Bestiary, the Tome of Horrors, and another monster book that escapes me at the moment.
This is completely understandable, of course, as monsters are self-contained, whereas things like NPCs with levels in new character classes are very difficult to concisely reprint (and even if those resources can be found online, they still seem to consider them dicey - pun intended - if it's not on their PRD).
Last edited:
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Hold the phone, you're a publisher?! I thought the "CMG" was your initials!
Clark Michael Gunken? The bizarro world version of actor Michael Clark Duncan?
Anyway, could you expound here, as a longtime reviewer, on the overall usefulness of the OGL?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I can, but in my experience, most people seem to want objectively-gathered data, usually to not only confirm volumes of sales (or lack thereof), but also to precisely state the reasons for said sales. I don't have any of that.
What I can say is that I've read a large number of truly great OGL products that I don't think would have been produced if not for the Open Game License. Others might still have been produced, but would have been for custom systems, limiting their access and appeal for a lot of gamers.
Now, I know some people think that it's better if every new RPG is invented from scratch, saying that expands overall creativity in the hobby, and I don't disagree that creativity is a good thing. But so is compatibility. I don't have the time or energy to learn myriad new gaming systems, nor do I want to invest the money to do so.
Knowing that something's compatible with the game I already enjoy playing makes me more likely to pick it up. A supplement for game X has no draw for me if I don't play game X. But if I'm already a fan of game Y, and supplement X is compatible with game Y under the OGL, then I'm quite possibly a buyer.
In that regard, the OGL didn't take anything away from anyone - game designers can still make custom systems all they want; it's thanks to the OGL that they have, in many cases, the option to use an existing system, instead of having to reinvent the wheel to market a great new idea.
Likewise, I think that lowering the bar for who can publish new materials is a very good thing. As I said, I've seen a great many products published for the d20 system under the OGL that never would have come out of WotC.
To summarize, I don't see the OGL as having taken anything away from anybody, whereas it's added a great deal for almost everybody.
JoeGKushner
First Post
I know it wasn't directed at me Mark but since I run long at the mouth anyway...
The OGL, especially when combined with the D20 license, allowed a huge volume of material to be published and created jobs, settings, new game engines, great licensed adaptations and more.
It also lead to some of those who were already in official capacity at WoTC, after leaving, to make a living doing products for game engines that they helped to design and push those envelopes further. Note that in some aspects that is fairly important because if these individuals had not had the opportunity to earn a living wage through these games and publications, not to mention help push out the rise of electronic publishing through PDF, they may not have been in position to go back to the official capacity.
Anyone remember Roger Moore of Dragon fame? He was a great writer and very imaginative but has pretty much fallen out of gaming or the gaming publishing aspect.
In addition, it lead to those who were completely unknown to rise to the top not through art, packaging and design, but through growing word of mouth and high end output working for numerous companies until they are right now working in an official capacity.
Those are 'real' benefits. A training ground for new blood that doesn't have to be paid for by the company in addition to a retention ground for those that can be called back on later.
The long range impact of the OGL is not over as Pathfinder is still using it and in my opinion, as a gaming company, using it in a manner that leverages their brand far better than WoTC ever did. By providing spot light information, by selling the products, by continuing to add to the overall pool of OGL rules, Pathfinder keeps things moving forward.
WoTC has tried to 'go it alone' and let's be honest, no one outside of WoTC knows how that's worked for them. But from an outsider's persepctive, no matter how much more I enjoy monster design and NPC creation in 4e, 4e does not appear to have met WoTC needs or we can expect a huge amount of chrun between editions in the future and were lucky to have 3.0-3.5 as long as we did.
