Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6334631" data-attributes="member: 18">Sure there would have been some kind of division, just like every edition. That's not the point, though.There wouldn't have been the same kind of division, not the one Emerikol called rather dramatically "our industries greatest civil war".You can see this pretty easily by imagining a different 4E, AND no Paizo AND no OGL (and thus little/no OSR, which was significantly enabled by the OGL). Whatever it's form, there would have been a division, period, for sure.Let's envision a 4E that was incompatible with 3.XE products in the way 3.XE was with 1/2E ones. Very basic design concept changes. However, it's inoffensive in terms of ability design and so on (akin to Essentials, perhaps, but even less risky, with no treasure packages, fixed monsters and so on - the details don't matter). No matter how inoffensive it is, there will be a division. It will be missing stuff some people want, and have stuff some people do not (you and Emerikol are showing this very clearly with 5E!).Without Paizo, the OSR movement, and the OGL (which is responsible in large part for the former two), that division will be there, but it will be limited. Furthermore, with the lack of an in-print alternative D&D (in the form of PF and OSR games), people who reject it for a year or three will be very likely to try it again after a few years, and may revise their opinion.Now add those three back in to the picture. Paizo eager to leverage the division, seeing their chance at the big time. OGL to help them do it, nasty GSL from 4E discouraging 3PP in general. OSR providing other opportunities to D&D.Even though this 4E is far less inherently divisive, the division will be vastly larger than any previous edition, because of the OGL existing, and because Paizo, let's be real, very much want to use this (as is completely reasonable business practice, to be clear!), esp. as the GSL and incompatibility are causing problems for them, and because the OSR stuff is providing further alternatives for specialist tastes.It would still be "our industries greatest civil war". Smaller? Yeah, maybe. Maybe bigger, because maybe this 4E has less stickiness, less reason to play it over PF!I'll be honest, I think failing to accept the huge role the OGL, and resulting Paizo and OSR situations (and to a lesser extent d20 FRPG in general situation) played in the "civil war" is a real blindspot/oversight, a big one. Of course maybe you're not doing that, it's unclear.That makes zero sense to me. You are responsible for what you post, not WotC. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

Verification