|
Guys, don't you think the the premise of the tool gravitate the play? Of course we can rp on anything. Its not the sole property of d&d. Even with any system, it is possible to rp. It is even possible with no system!
Yet we're talking about whether 4e plays like d&d and whether it skew towards rp or mmo or card game or something else. The designers themselves claimed mmo, card, computer, board as this is how they designed it. They wanted to do something different from all previous d&d. They want to do something called their own. They want to break away from the old d&d. These are in the articles and even mentioned in nytimes report n even in wizards. This is a moot point to argue. My goodness, what is the contention point here? Are u guys still trying to beat a confirmed dead horse? How can it still be d&d feel although it is labelled as one and use its logo? Man, its like saying that cos he is germany, then he is a nazi or if the person is a muslim then he must be a terrorist. Of course not!
Yes possibly u play 4E with rp. Possibly u bring rp to your table. Good. U circumvent the designers' main intent and "enhance" it to suit your needs but there is no denying that that wasn't the main objective for 4E. The creators themselves said it. Sheesh.
Enough said. Peace.
Yes possibly u play 4E with rp. Possibly u bring rp to your table. Good. U circumvent the designers' main intent and "enhance" it to suit your needs but there is no denying that that wasn't the main objective for 4E. The creators themselves said it. Sheesh.
I think you're reading what you expect to see. Where did the creators of D&D say that being able to RP wasn't the main objective? (as in a quotation, I mean, not as in "in that article").
Yes possibly u play 4E with rp. Possibly u bring rp to your table. Good. U circumvent the designers' main intent and "enhance" it to suit your needs but there is no denying that that wasn't the main objective for 4E. The creators themselves said it. Sheesh.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what Pathfinder has that enables RP that 4E doesn't have. I mean, they both have a diplomacy and a bluff skill.
Way back when I played AD&D, we didn't even get non-combat abilities like skills. Unless you happen to be a thief.
Where is this quote where the designers said 4E wasn't designed for role-playing?
|
Way back when I played AD&D, we didn't even get non-combat abilities like skills. Unless you happen to be a thief.
Which, in a way, freed everyone up to roleplay their characters however they wanted--free of some "required" skill.
Sure, the 16 CHA Paladin might do the talking, but maybe not, maybe it was the 9 CHA Figher--it didn't really matter all that much as what the player said in character was more important (subjectively) than some wholly arbitrary dice roll.
Now, in PF or 4e, you roll your d20 and hope you do well...I almost think it was better without the skills...
Guys, don't you think the the premise of the tool gravitate the play? Of course we can rp on anything. Its not the sole property of d&d. Even with any system, it is possible to rp. It is even possible with no system!
Absolutley, which is why I equate 4E with D&D, namely because those tools specifically signify for me what D&D is. It's dungeon exploration, it's high fantasy, it's fighting dragons, it's about killing the guy and taking his loot, it's about interesting stories and fabled quests, it's about a quick escape from a Lich that's WAAY to powerful for you to overcome and the DM just likes watching you crap your pants, it's about "wooing" the barmaid for information or using diplomacy to cool down a room of arguing Lords and Counts from having a civil war. Certain editions help with these aspects better than others with the rules, but I've found that 4E does ALL of these pretty well.
Yet we're talking about whether 4e plays like d&d and whether it skew towards rp or mmo or card game or something else. The designers themselves claimed mmo, card, computer, board as this is how they designed it. They wanted to do something different from all previous d&d. They want to do something called their own. They want to break away from the old d&d. These are in the articles and even mentioned in nytimes report n even in wizards. This is a moot point to argue. My goodness, what is the contention point here? Are u guys still trying to beat a confirmed dead horse? How can it still be d&d feel although it is labelled as one and use its logo?
Of course 4E plays like D&D, I don't see how it can't. Deinol said it best, "What is it that Pathfinder does that enables more Role-Play than 4E?" For the life of me I just can't find the reason (or the "feel" apparently). Perhaps it's all the flaws that 4E perceived that, love em or hate em, make D&D what it is. I think people feel that if you don't like Vancian spellcasting, save-or-die spells, horrid grappling rules, a multiclassing system that panders heavily to Min/Maxing, and Lawful Good only paladins then your not "truly" playing D&D. Your playing some other RPG with the same title, but it's not in the "Spirit of the Game" or whatever the hell that means.
Now, granted I do see and recognize that 4E took ideas from MMOs (not cards though, I don't know where they got that from) and used them to fullfill certina character areas. For example, the ability to "Mark" a target and subjet that mark to certain effecst is more of an MMO thing than a pre-4E thing. But we've seen this done in v3.5 builds all the time. The Chain-Gun Tripping Fighter build (v3.5) is the classic example of actually performing what many feel was the Fighter's job in the first place. Yet with v3.5, they had to jump through SO many loops and it requires a specific weapon to accomplish. Might as well just give them a feature that does it automatically.
Lets see, other things that make 4E "feel" like D&D: Auto-hit Magic Missile (even though it's completely pathetic now). Fighters being big strong soldiers that make monsters second guess instead of ignoring them outright. Rangers being mobile attackers with either bow or two-weapons (or a beast companion). Assassins actually a playable class without being an evil d**che. Clerics wading into combat using their weapon or casting offensive spells AND healing in one round. Skill usage. Feats, lots and lots of feats. Epic Play not ridiculously hard to DM. The list goes on but those are at the top of my head.
Yes possibly u play 4E with rp. Possibly u bring rp to your table. Good. U circumvent the designers' main intent and "enhance" it to suit your needs but there is no denying that that wasn't the main objective for 4E. The creators themselves said it. Sheesh.Enough said. Peace.
Personally, I'd like to see quotes of where designers specifically said Roleplaying wan't factored into the design of 4E. Were that actually the case, we would have seen an even smaller skill list. Actually, if anything 4E promotes Role-Playing because you don't need rules to roleplay (you've said so yourself). Why do you need hard, structured rules to make a longsword? Why do you need a chart to tell you how your going to affect a crowd with your dance perfomance (but you can't sing, that requires extra ranks)? Why do you need alignment restrctions for your classes and prestige classes? These aspects, while interesting and often fun, normally don't directly affect the group nor a situation where it could cause life or death. Simply put, if your a 3th level fighter and you want to craft a Longsword, then just roleplay it or have the DM figure out some Ad hoc rules if it makes you feel more accomplished. Seriously, what's the real reason you want to roll a Craft: Weaponsmith check for in that situation? Because you've invested character aspects for that or beause your actually interested in the outcome? I think it's more the former, a sort of "look, I made something because I put ranks there!" type feeling of accomplishment instead of using that skill because your sword broke or because your crafting the finest weapon to impress a lady's father. I've always felt Ad hoc rules always simulated these types better than hard-core "official" rules.
|
|
Diffan, then what is the difference between 2e/3e n 4e if u said everthing else (like adventuring, wooing barmaid which i like etc) is the same? The game system right?
On the same premise, can gurp system do high adventure? Woo barmaid? Can wh rpg? Can pf? If yes, does it mean they are also d&d? So are u making this high and mighty statement that d&d equates rp?
Guys, pls run through this logical thinking n u will know what i mean.
Essentially, yea I'm saying that D&D (what it "feels" to play D&D) transcends the Brand name (obviously, because you prefer Pathfinder and you enjoy playing D&D). The rules only matter if you want them to matter. I don't get some specific feeling from playing a ruleset that instantly forms the notion of "Wow, this really is D&D that I'm playing!".
I'd also like to point that you didn't take the time to answer "how does Pathfinder promote Role-Playing where 4E doesn't?" I guess I just don't put that much emphasis on how the rules interact with what story I'm trying to get across or how my PC meets those demands through the lends of the rules. D&D (the Brand and Feeling) have iconic features that make it inmistakenly "D&D". Those would be some of the things I listed above. Others might include: the Rogue and his ability to deal Sneak Attack damage to creatures under certain conditions. The Druid's ability to change into animals. Paladin's ability to Lay on Hands or cast a few minor healing spells. Perhaps it's the Warlock an his eldritch blast or Wizard schools or the spells Melf's Acid Arrow, Summon Monster, or Cure Light Wounds. Take your pick.
What does D&D mean to you mousey?
|
|
Ah, good question. Let me carefully formulate it as it will also indirectly answer what i will like to see in 5e (but of course i do see that 5e can cover almost all without jeopadizing any).
A few things in mind that i don't like with the 4e system (i emphasize system):
(a) balancing the classes too much especially healing surge
(b) combat system; if character hits, do x damage, push 2 squares, healing
(c) where is my halfling?
(d) unlimited zapping for wizards? No. I prefer my wizard to have only 1 spell n a few cantrips at level 1 n rely on my fighter to survive. I will instead shine in solving brainy problems or arcane expertise.
(e) new races n classes as core
(f) feeling of wham! Bang! Kazaa!
I need more time to formulate more examples n also what i like and want in d&d.
Diffan, we have exchanged several postings. I just hope that u understand i have nothing against 4e. Again, i own all the 4e d&d boardgames n they are my favorites thus far. The rules play well in a adventure crawl with minis, battle tiles n encounter emphasis. There is no dm (as it is cooperativ against a system dm) n we (myself n friends) really enjoyed ourselves. But when we want a adventure that grows into epic proportion (eg. Dragonlance or lord of the rings or playing a rendition of malazan book of the fallen or pathfinder's second darkness or something homebrew theme) with more focus on the flavor, we go for 2e or 3.5 or pf or gurps.
Ps: i didn't say pf promotes rp but the system doesn't overshadow it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, pls run through this logical thinking n u will know what i mean.
Oh internet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, pls run through this logical thinking n u will know what i mean.
I propose a new rule for this forum: You are not allowed to use intarwebz shorthand and "logical thinking" in the same sentence. Please try to be more clear with your posts if you expect to be taken more seriously.
Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.
Probably not. On the other hand it is hard to respond to your points if we can't make sense of them. Coherent sentences would help.
Probably not. On the other hand it is hard to respond to your points if we can't make sense of them. Coherent sentences would help.Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.
Exactly. It's not a "below the belt attack" because frankly, you're an internet stranger to me. I have no reason to attack you. You could be the coolest kid on the block for all I know, and you know nothing about me from one post asking you to type like a rational person.
But it's a major pet peeve of mine when people try and make persuasive arguments, while typing in internet shorthand, 1337 speak, or god forbid, CAPS.
This hobby revolves reading books and reading comprehension, so suffice to say, please do what you can to make your posts at least legible.
|
|
Diffan, I originally planned as promised share more insights into my opinion of what is my take on d&d (actually went through my old d&d materials and did some research into 4e and came up with a list and a scenario) but after writing the prior posting, I decided "what the heck". I am not going to change anything and neither will anyone see things any differently. True. As stated by Scott "Oh internet" - brings the world closer yet so far apart.
You have your background, history and experience with RP gaming. Your feelings for D&D revolves around how you felt then and how it evolved over time till 4E. That shapes how you now perceive 4E. I cannot argue with that and neither can I refute that.
I live half-way around the world from you (in Asia) since I presume you're from the States. Yet strangely we're bonded here by d&d. Whether it is 1e or 3e or 4e or d&d next, that in itself is something.
Peace.
Jerry, I've read postings by others typed with more abbreviation and structured with less sense. I spent the better part of last night writing on the forum, preparing for a gaming session this weekend and had an important management meeting in the early morning. I was tired and in a hurry to complete that posting on an ipad hence the possible poorly structured and abbreviated form of sentencing. Did Scott or Josh know about all this before making those remarks? Did they also realize that English isn't my mother/first language? Whether it is a rude way to snide or as you said, "request for clarity", I'll leave it as it is. I've spent enough time on this forum (as I did in 2008) that which I can spent on work (to get me more money to spend on things that I like) or things that I enjoy.
As for the playtest and request to participate in the "formulation" of 5E, maybe I'll pass too. Everyone in it will come with too much baggage from the past and it'll be more brinestone and fire.
Anyway, cheerio :)
|
|
Probably not. On the other hand it is hard to respond to your points if we can't make sense of them. Coherent sentences would help.Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.
Exactly. It's not a "below the belt attack" because frankly, you're an internet stranger to me. I have no reason to attack you. You could be the coolest kid on the block for all I know, and you know nothing about me from one post asking you to type like a rational person.
But it's a major pet peeve of mine when people try and make persuasive arguments, while typing in internet shorthand, 1337 speak, or god forbid, CAPS.
This hobby revolves reading books and reading comprehension, so suffice to say, please do what you can to make your posts at least legible.
Sure. See you around in Paizo forum then.
Diffan, I originally planned as promised share more insights into my opinion of what is my take on d&d (actually went through my old d&d materials and did some research into 4e and came up with a list and a scenario) but after writing the prior posting, I decided "what the heck". I am not going to change anything and neither will anyone see things any differently. True. As stated by Scott "Oh internet" - brings the world closer yet so far apart.
You have your background, history and experience with RP gaming. Your feelings for D&D revolves around how you felt then and how it evolved over time till 4E. That shapes how you now perceive 4E. I cannot argue with that and neither can I refute that.
I live half-way around the world from you (in Asia) since I presume you're from the States. Yet strangely we're bonded here by d&d. Whether it is 1e or 3e or 4e or d&d next, that in itself is something.
Peace.
Jerry, I've read postings by others typed with more abbreviation and structured with less sense. I spent the better part of last night writing on the forum, preparing for a gaming session this weekend and had an important management meeting in the early morning. I was tired and in a hurry to complete that posting on an ipad hence the possible poorly structured and abbreviated form of sentencing. Did Scott or Josh know about all this before making those remarks? Did they also realize that English isn't my mother/first language? Whether it is a rude way to snide or as you said, "request for clarity", I'll leave it as it is. I've spent enough time on this forum (as I did in 2008) that which I can spent on work (to get me more money to spend on things that I like) or things that I enjoy.
As for the playtest and request to participate in the "formulation" of 5E, maybe I'll pass too. Everyone in it will come with too much baggage from the past and it'll be more brinestone and fire.
Anyway, cheerio :)
This is much better. Thank you.
So, some people on a forum disagree with some of your more heated opinions in regards to personal preference over a game. Certainly not the worst human atrocity mankind has faced, I'm sure all parties involved will survive. For what it's worth, I'm a 3e grognard who's only recently warmed up to 4e, and I agreed with most of your posts(the ones I could read) although I'm not so vehemently anti-4e as you. It's a game. I happen to not play it much. Some even find it fun.
I don't care how busy your personal schedule is, if you have time to post for the "better part of the night" on a gaming forum, you have time to add a couple letters to a few small words for clarity. You can insinuate snide remarks made against you all you want, but...
"speaks volumes of your personality"
...is plenty rude and ignorant in and of itself. Cherrios.
|
|
Agree on your last remark (still penning the last portion on tomorrow's game) about my previous post. Like I said, I formed a pre-conceived notion of what you wrote and your underlying meaning, whether it is with intended sarcasm or merely your writing sytle, without knowing you (again, "oh internet" in my own context). However, when I read Jerry's posting, I realized where I had gone wrong.
So I do agree it is "...plenty rude and ignorant...". Do pardon my remark if it wasn't your intent to insinuate. It was uncalled for.
Cheers!
Scott & Josh, are these remarks necessary or merely an opportunity for a under the belt attack as a form of retaliation? Speaks volume on your personalities.
That wasn't actually a jab at your writing style. Rather, just a wry comment on how you put together a pretty haphazard post and then told the rest of us to just use "logical thinking," as though we'd never really thought to give that a try before.
I mean, I got to your point c) and my reaction was "On page 44 of the Player's Handbook!" (well, okay, I had to look up the page, but the point is that halflings were always in 4e).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who wants a halfling in their party anyway? Vicious little cannibals can't be trusted.
Ok, maybe I've been playing too much Dark Sun…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been years, but as I remember it the Sword & Sorcery Creature Collections were on the shelves within weeks of the 3E release; it's fine to say there was truckload of third party crap (there was), but there were some quality supplements pretty immediately available.
And (broken record warning) Hasbro/WotC seems to have a I-sold-you the-seeds-so-you-owe-me-the-tomatoes idea of profit expectation.
|
|
I can't say that I like 4th Ed. But I can say that most of my dislike does not really have anything to do with the game system it's self.
I don't like trudging along mindlessly slaying monsters with little story involvement, it really to me feels like playing WoW and even the artwork was in my opinion heavily influenced by the artists at Blizzard.
But thats just me, no the real problem I have with 4th Ed was the way I as a customer felt treated by the whole announcement and release of the game. Every thing they did it seemed was like one giant F-You to me, even the cartoons they released while humerous were in-fact pointing to people who liked the older things in the game and laughing at them.
I remember being most annoyed about the announcement that the gnome would now be a monster race and you just had to suck it. The cartoon even mocked the gnome and by extension all the people who really like playing them. And hapazardly threw in a teifling and half dragon race.
Then there was the refusal to release a conversion sheet, as hard as it would have been it would at least have been an olive branch, followed by the not having all the prior base classes in the main release player's handbook.
After a while I refused to buy the books just based on the way I felt treated, not even really based on the fact that I didn't like the system much.
I probably would have played it since at least two of my friends did and the others at least had the books, but by that point I had such a bitter taste in my mouth that when Pathfinder came along I devoured it, and I support it heavily because I don't want it to go away, they seem to me at least to listen to their customers and even request feedback, they really if not in practice at least make me feel like I am being listened to and that they truely want to promote what I already enjoy and make it better, rather than saying we know better and since it is such and such you will buy it so just shut up and buy it already!
Some of my favourite and most frequently used D&D books have been OGL enabled tpp produced;
For example;
The Mother of all Encounter Tables Book by Necromancer Games
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?it=1&products_id=1618
The Mother of all Treasure Tables Book also by Necromancer Games
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=12252
Ptolus by Malhavoc Press
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_Ptolus
Goods and Gear by Kenzer & Co
The Monsternomicon by Privateer Press
Too many other tpp monster manuals, and of course a huge stack of Paizo's Golarion stuff.
Let no one claim the OGL wasn't fantastic for D&D prior to 4e.
|
|
And it really doesn't matter how much anyone says that the OGL was a bad idea. History has proven that incorrect. The market expanded because of it. The explosion in OGL properties led to a number of new game companies, many of whom are still around, and their customers bought the core D&D rulebooks long before they ever bought OGL material. That's why they bought OGL material.
The market share loss said to be a direct result of the OGL did not occur until after the attempt was made to supercede the OGL with the GSL.
The loss of WotC's market share was a direct result of the GSL, not the OGL. History is on the side of that.
The OGL was good for the Industry, definitely true--look at the strength of Pathfinder and other OGL-based systems.
The OGL was not good for The D&D Brand, it didn't profit from the sales of 3PP modules, or of Pathfinder, or UA/UE, etc. In fact, all it did was create competitors for itself in a market it should have dominated when D&D moved on to 4e.
Instead, when people didn't like 4e, then the OGL gave them the end-around to avoid playing 4e altogether--they had plenty of viable options to choose from, all based upon D&D's Free/Perpetual OGL.
Had there been no OGL, and no OGL-based competitors, then D&D as a Brand would have dragged more people with it into 4e, and it wouldn't have had competition to 4e from 3.X OGL-based games--like Pathfinder.
And, in the snapshot of the market today, we've got 4e fighting for position against OGL-based competition, so they are currently losing market share to their dead-edition's OGL.
OGL helped, and is continuing to help, everyone except the D&D Brand itself.
Hitdice is right, Hasbro gave everyone the seeds, expected the tomatoes, and instead got a bunch of flesh-eating monsters that're are still eating D&D's profits and market share.
|
|
OGL was, essentially, delayed poison to the D&D Brand.
Whether it helped, harmed, or did nothing for D&D directly in the 3.X days, its effect on (4e) D&D has been to undermine the brand's position, market share, and image.
GSL may not have been what the fans or 3PP wanted, but it didn't cause the direct damage to D&D's share or profits that their (legacy) OGL has and is doing to them.
Pathfinder isn't a GSL game, it's a product of, and relies fully upon, OGL. And that is why the OGL is, overall, more detrimental to the (current) state of D&D than it was a (net) positive.
GSL is essentially a non-issue since no real GSL-based competitor to the D&D Brand exists.
Thus, OGL is directly responsible for the existence and creation of the D&D brand's biggest headache--Pathfinder.
WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post Resurrection:
Oh, I understand the frustration of marketting. I've drawn the ire of the local powers that be by being critical of some of their marketting.
Still, what I am getting from you is that you don't view the current edition as really "D&D". That it doesn't have the same cows (though some of those weren't even heifers in earlier editions) or feel or whatever.
Ok, but now let's take a step back from the deeply entrenched position of the old school gamers and look at it from an outsiders point of view. This outsider has no idea about spelljammer or darksun or ravenloft or even the forgotten realms. They may vaguely recognize Drizzt, though not know his name, just from seeing the covers of books in the sci-fi/fantasy sections. So many of those cows and true to the past settings and whatever are totally unknown to them. So what is D&D to them? What are their basic ideas about it from what little exposure they have picked up in their life?
1. D&D is a game for geeks.
2. You use dice to play it.
3. You often use little miniature people to play it.
4. It is based on fantasy ideas.
5. You have elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings in it.
6. You have fighters, wizards, thieves/rogues, and a healer in it.
7. You have hps.
8. You have a lot of options on how to build your character.
Does 4e have these things? If yes, then to an outsider, someone who may just now be getting into gaming, that is what they are expecting. That is D&D to them. Not FR, not Darksun, not half-orc barbarians, not gnome illusions, not Gygaxian naturalism, not G-N-S theory. People get so wrapped up in what they have experienced and liked that they forget that very first day they played, before they even knew the rules. They weren't worried about minis or if the realms had been blown up or anything. They just wanted to play a fantasy game where they were a hero, and that is what D&D was for them. 4e, just like every other edition, provides that experience, and that is why it is still D&D.
But thats just me, no the real problem I have with 4th Ed was the way I as a customer felt treated by the whole announcement and release of the game. Every thing they did it seemed was like one giant F-You to me, even the cartoons they released while humerous were in-fact pointing to people who liked the older things in the game and laughing at them.
No, they weren't. It's interesting that you think they were, but they weren't. You were imagining something that wasn't there. And you know how I know this? Because there are tons of people who liked the same things you liked (myself included), and they didn't decide to be offended by the cartoons.
I remember being most annoyed about the announcement that the gnome would now be a monster race and you just had to suck it. The cartoon even mocked the gnome and by extension all the people who really like playing them. And hapazardly threw in a teifling and half dragon race.
If you think the gnome bits of the cartoon were malicious or intended as a slight of any kind towards those who liked playing gnomes, you are mistaken. Period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.
Nope. The OGL worked exactly as it was supposed to.
The Open Game License was specifically and intentionally designed back in 2000-2001 to be an immediate, active poison to all non-Open Game Licensed roleplaying games, with an expected toxicity in direct proportion to how closely the non-Open Game Licensed game resembled D&D. This was explicitly stated by its creator, WotC employee Ryan Dancey, at length. The idea was that, by releasing D&D under the OGL and poisoning everything that wasn't OGL, D&D (and WotC) would prosper.
The tremendous effectiveness of the poison deliberately designed and spread by WotC-2001 was demonstrated at length when WotC-2008 was stupid enough to try releasing a game strongly resembling Dungeons & Dragons under a different license. The OGL worked exactly as intended by WotC-2001; it was WotC-2008 that screwed up by trying to work against the WotC-2001 strategy.
There is one and only one way for D&D 5th to avoid the same poisoning; be released under the Open Game License. If 5th is not, it will be poisoned just as surely as 4th edition was. If 5th is released under the OGL, it will prove to be as immune as 3.x was. Releasing 5th under non-OGL terms will not kill the OGL any more than the release of 4th under non-OGL terms; it will cripple 5th edition the way 4th was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.Nope. The OGL worked exactly as it was supposed to.
I think it's clearly that he simply does not believe us in how we see things. Continuing this seems pointless.
|
|
I think it's clearly that he simply does not believe us in how we see things. Continuing this seems pointless.WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.Nope. The OGL worked exactly as it was supposed to.
The reason I do not share your POV is that market mechanics that work are kept, ones that fail are dropped.
If the OGL was deemed to be a success by Hasbro/WotC for the D&D brand then it would have returned with OGL 2.0 when 4e came out.
Clearly, unlike us, they have access to far more industry data, sales data, market data, and their own P/L sheets. Somewhere in reviewing all of that data they determined that OGL would be replaced by GSL for 4e.
That shift in market mechanics means that WotC/Hasbro/D&D no longer believed that the OGL was in their best interest.
Had it been the overwhelming success for D&D that is being portrayed in this thread then 4e would have kept it.
You don't give up a successful business strategy--therefore they must not have thought that the OGL was working as they had intended/foreseen/hoped.
[Sigh] all you'd like, the evidence of WotC's dislike of OGL and/or its impact is in their very decision to shift from OGL to GSL. They did not want OGL to continue or else they would have continued it...
Let's keep in mind that a reason that Paizo had such a good start was because it had been putting out "Official D&D Content". It was not just another 3PP. Due to putting out Official Content it was able to attract D&D players that didn't give 3PP stuff a second look.
|
|
Let's keep in mind that a reason that Paizo had such a good start was because it had been putting out "Official D&D Content". It was not just another 3PP. Due to putting out Official Content it was able to attract D&D players that didn't give 3PP stuff a second look.
Agreed, and a lot of its core people were already associated with D&D/Dragon/Dungeon in some way or another, which gave it a leg up over "fly by night" or "start up" 3PP.
Somewhere in reviewing all of that data they determined that OGL would be replaced by GSL for 4e.
That shift in market mechanics means that WotC/Hasbro/D&D no longer believed that the OGL was in their best interest.
Yep, they made that determination. And the last four years have proved they were wrong. We have four years of proof that replacing the OGL with the GSL was a disastrously bad idea, a disaster so bad that we don't need any detailed internal reports to see the effect.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. A sane man expects that a release of 5e under something other than the OGL will deliver the same results as the release 4e under something other than the OGL.
Mike Mearls mentioned in a recent interview, when asked about the possible licensing of the next version of D&D, that he has "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" on his shelf at work. He's figured out the wrong decision was made four years ago. It's too bad you haven't, given the same facts staring you in the face. It's good for the future of D&D that he has influence over it and you don't.
|
|
I doubt WotC wants to have a 5e OGL Pathfinder 2e to contend with, especially as 4e is losing market share to a competitor based on the "outdated"and abandoned 3.X platform--just think what a 5e Pathfinder would do to their fledgling 5e sales.
But, we'll have another year before we see if Mearls can persuade WotC's bean counters that a new OGL won't simply help Paizo more than it helps the D&D brand's profits. And given Pathfinder's success staring them in the face that should be an interesting debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt WotC wants to have a 5e OGL Pathfinder 2e to contend with, especially as 4e is losing market share to a competitor based on the "outdated"and abandoned 3.X platform--just think what a 5e Pathfinder would do to their fledgling 5e sales.
First of all, I don't know why Paizo (or anyone) would bother re-releasing a supported ruleset. It would be a bad business decision to do so, considering the other product still exists and is actively being supported, came first, and has rather powerful branding advantage -- people would likely react negatively to what would likely be called a money-grab. Especially since, again, the business model of Paizo is to produce content, and an OGL would let them do just that for 5e.
So, your (repeated, and likely baseless) concern probably wouldn't be an issue until WotC releases a restricted 6e.
You're linking 4e's (relative) failure to the existence of Pathfinder, whereas I (and many) would argue that Pathfinder exists because of 4e's failure to engage many of the old playerbase. (And I, like many, bought the 4e books, played a few times, didn't care for it and sold them). Basically, you've got your cause and effect backwards.
I, personally, would not have been dragged kicking and screaming into 4ed had Paizo not released PF, I would just have kept playing 3.5 (and/or other, smaller systems) and patiently waited to see if 5e, when it came (which I would have expected eventually [though not this soon] considering most of my friends also felt that while 4e could be fun, it was not the same game [which, it wasn't -- look at all the new mechanics], and certainly not our favourite game).
Don't get me wrong - while the clean-up done to make Pathfinder (and the follow-up books) was a nice (and useful) evolution of the 3.5 rules -- Paizo could just have easily not done that and continued to publish 3.5 adventures and settings materials, and I would have bought them.
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks for free (in fact, they had to, since the product is derived from the OGL) via the PRD -- and they're doing quite well for themselves.
So, really, blaming "open gaming" for the failure of 4e seems a little off.
Especially since one of the reasons for the OGL in the first place (admitted quite readily in articles about it by those involved in its creation) was to drive other (smaller) companies out of the market by taking over -- the point of the free D20 ruleset was to make it so that D20 was the default RPG system out there (for all types of settings) -- and, to some extent, it did a very good job of it... (The only reason many of the competitive systems from that time are still around have been because of fans taking over and the lower cost of digital print and print on demand) ...in fact, some would argue (though I won't, because I wasn't there) that one of the reasons they moved to close the system was because they thought that they'd succeeded in that goal and everyone would have to follow -- forgetting that (a) we already own the books and so every new edition must still compete with the older ones, and (b) the SRD was out there on the internet and couldn't be taken back -- meaning so nobody really needed to buy a new rulebook anymore.
|
|
You're linking 4e's (relative) failure to the existence of Pathfinder, whereas I (and many) would argue that Pathfinder exists because of 4e's failure to engage many of the old playerbase.
Don't get me wrong - while the clean-up done to make Pathfinder (and the follow-up books) was a nice (and useful) evolution of the 3.5 rules -- Paizo could just have easily not done that and continued to publish 3.5 adventures and settings materials, and I would have bought them.
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks...
Not quite. I'm saying that while 4e's (relative) lack of dominance in the market the D&D brand created may be attributed to its own (perceived) shortcomings, the situation is exacerbated by the presence of a strong 3.X-based competitor. Paizo is using the "Old D&D" game and player base against the new one and its presence acts as leverage for not accepting 4e ("Why should we switch, when we've got everything we want in PF?").
Further, I'm saying that the OGL ultimately undermined 4e by allowing a 3.X competitor to steal the limelight and market share out from under D&D's newest edition with a re-skinned version of its prior self. And, due to this, I would not expect to see another OGL in the future. I'm saying that WotC learned from that mistake, and will not allow a new OGL to come out with 5e due to the (relative) "damage" the current/past OGL has and is doing to their D&D Brand presence.
Remember, 3.X OGL was, in theory, designed to drive out competition to D&D, not create it.
4e may have failed to engage the old player base, and thus the edition wars were born. However, as is one of my primary points about WotC's future direction, had there been no OGL, and no way to keep 3.5 alive, then there would be no current competitor to "D&D" in the form of Paizo's Pathfinder.
Therefore, the idea that 5e will come out with an open "OGL" instead of a restricted "GSL" style license seems implausible.
Imagine that no OGL existed, imagine that there's no Pathfinder. 3.5e would be dead, and D&D, as 4e, would top the sales and dominate the market for the simple fact that there would be no other game with its resources, presence and player base.
Now, however, the market's two major players are Paizo and WotC, Pathfinder and D&D--where D&D is forced to compete against its former self.
Given the success of Paizo, I doubt WotC is going to recreate a 5e-OGL simply because that would be giving a strong competitor license to compete with D&D 5e with an updated/5e-compatible Pathfinder if they chose to do so.
And, If 5e is compatible with every past edition of D&D, then why wouldn't Paizo take their IP and their fan base over to those who are going to buy/play 5e--especially if WotC gives the core to its system away for free in another OGL. Other than fluff and tweaks, there's no real cost to Paizo to do so.
Monte Cook's latest post says that 5e will allow players of different editions to play at the same table in the same game. And, it would allow players who want heavily customized characters to play with ones who don't--again, at the same table, in the same game.
That level of modularity and compatibility is something Paizo would be remiss to let pass them by--if there was an OGL to let them do so.
Their books are already given away online for free, as you point out, yet their sales are massive enough to dent D&D's. So, the fact that all of Pathfinder is free online seems inconsequential to their sales and market presence and player/fan base--who are still spending money on the "free" system.
So, again, whatever happens with 5e, don't expect to see another OGL come out with it--and that's my (primary) point.
Not quite. I'm saying that while 4e's (relative) lack of dominance in the market the D&D brand created may be attributed to its own (perceived) shortcomings, the situation is exacerbated by the presence of a strong 3.X-based competitor.You're linking 4e's (relative) failure to the existence of Pathfinder, whereas I (and many) would argue that Pathfinder exists because of 4e's failure to engage many of the old playerbase.
Don't get me wrong - while the clean-up done to make Pathfinder (and the follow-up books) was a nice (and useful) evolution of the 3.5 rules -- Paizo could just have easily not done that and continued to publish 3.5 adventures and settings materials, and I would have bought them.
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks...
Again, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make. (Or deliberately cutting it out, based on the edited version of my quote..)
However, what I was saying is that in my case (and I assume that of many others) it's not a matter of money going to Paizo or WoTC. It's a matter of whether I spend money at all or not. If there was not a "strong 3.x competitor" out there at the moment, I would have either (a) continued playing 3.5 since I already own all the books, or (b) explored other "smaller" systems and waited for 5e. (Realistically, probably both -- I'd probably be playing more Earthdawn but also some 3.x). Basically, either way, I wouldn't be spending on 4e past the original purchase (I mean, really, I sold them - I've never done that - I still have my AD&D hardcovers).
In any case, with that being the case, I think we can say that the success of PF isn't clubbing 4e to death -- and, further, I will argue (as many have) that it was the GSL and not the OGL that created the current situation because Wizards tried to put the genie back in the bottle. Without that - with an open 4e - I don't think you'd have seen the 3PPs digging in the way they had to out of necessity.
Now, you're right, had there never been an OGL, things would have been different, however, the D20 system would probably not have done so well for itself either (which is a belief shared by people at WotC) -- it probably wouldn't have gained the same massive segment of the market share against the many other smaller competitors out there -- the number of 3PP things being produced (even if they were crap) kind of made the D20 system the "king" by default -- and I would argue that another huge drive in its market share was was the ability to start playing for free (via the SRD) -- it certainly was one of the advantages I was able to use to get a lot of people into the hobby (many of whom are now proud book owners themselves).
Given the success of Paizo, I doubt WotC is going to recreate a 5e-OGL simply because that would be giving a strong competitor license to compete with D&D 5e with an updated/5e-compatible Pathfinder if they chose to do so.
And, If 5e is compatible with every past edition of D&D, then why wouldn't Paizo take their IP and their fan base over to those who are going to buy/play 5e--especially if WotC gives the core to its system away for free in another OGL. Other than fluff and tweaks, there's no real cost to Paizo to do so.
But, again, I ask you -- if there were an open super-modular 5e, why would Paizo reinvent or republish the whole system (especially, again, since people would see it as an attack on Wizards and the "original" brand, which, deep-down, still means something to a huge part of community) when they could just go back to what they were doing in the first place -- putting out compatible material? Oh, sure, they'd probably make a Pathfinder 5e supplement (for the APG classes, etc.) -- but its very existence would help increase the sales of 5e, which would be win-win and good for Wizards -- just like APs and the like were good for it 6 years ago.
The thing that you're worried about didn't happen back then (you'll note that there was no Pathfinder RPG co-existent with a supported 3.5 -- PF happened in response to the GSL choking the 3PPs and the radical changes of 4e) -- and it would makes little business sense to do so now if 5e is actually open.
I wouldn't call a rpg that was #1 best selling for years and still #2 after pathfinder took the top spot a flop.Once again, i repeat that the facts speaks for itself. They are killing 4E for 5E. Find some old posts when Wizards release 4E. They claimed it is the best of all versions and it is here to stay for many many years! Yet it is going to be replaced soon after what, 3-4 years? Is it a last minute decision or are the signs there since year 1 or 2? Moreover, do you think 5E will take 5 years more to release? If so, they will not announce it now...why impact their sales now? I suspect it is round the corner barring hiccups in their construction.
As i mentioned to Scott, to those who like the game, of course its not a flop. But most importantly to the community as a whole and to hasbro, it is. Moreover, who says it is number 2? In terms of players base? Hasbro don't care. In terms of sales? Hasbro don't care. ROI? Yes. We are here on this thread talking about the future of D&D. Hence, why 5E and what needs to be there. If hasbro retains 4E flavor, then in that perspective, it will definitely still be a flop. Of course, there are still many possibilities of flopping (angering the 4E base, not recapturing the market share, etc).
The amazing thing is, many other companies of rpg manage to churn out systems with less and yet capture significant share. In order for them to survive, hasbro/wotc needs number 1 and by a significant amount or else, improve productivity. Do more with less. Remember the d&d franchise isn't just us rpger. Its more than that. Much much more.
What community as a whole? I wasn't aware we reached a consensuses on 4ed. Wizards of the Coast has decided to do a 5ed. They are doing a open playtest. Those are the only facts we know. We don't know sales figures. We don't know how profit 4ed brought in. We don't know how much say Hasbro has in D&D decisions.
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks for free (in fact, they had to, since the product is derived from the OGL) via the PRD -- and they're doing quite well for themselves.
I don't think this is totally correct. There are certain amounts and certain things that have to be open content, but Paizo doesn't have to make all the rules open content. I don't remember the exact percent of a game product that uses the OGL that must be open content, but it is not 100%.
But, again, I ask you -- if there were an open super-modular 5e, why would Paizo reinvent or republish the whole system (especially, again, since people would see it as an attack on Wizards and the "original" brand, which, deep-down, still means something to a huge part of community) when they could just go back to what they were doing in the first place -- putting out compatible material? Oh, sure, they'd probably make a Pathfinder 5e supplement (for the APG classes, etc.) -- but its very existence would help increase the sales of 5e, which would be win-win and good for Wizards -- just like APs and the like were good for it 6 years ago.
The thing that you're worried about didn't happen back then (you'll note that there was no Pathfinder RPG co-existent with a supported 3.5 -- PF happened in response to the GSL choking the 3PPs and the radical changes of 4e) -- and it would makes little business sense to do so now if 5e is actually open.
Oh, you mean things during 3.x time like Conan and True 20, to name a couple?
And of course Paizo wasn't competing with WotC during 3.x, they were producing OFFICIAL CONTENT! They had the inside track. That is probably one of the main reasons why they were able to explode after 3.5 ended and those other systems did not as much. Because people that were hesitant to try 3PP were fine using Paizo's content from Dungeon and Dragon because it was official content.
Paizo is a full fledged game company now, they aren't going to go back to just producing supplemental products for D&D even if D&D shot back up to the stratosphere.
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks for free (in fact, they had to, since the product is derived from the OGL) via the PRD -- and they're doing quite well for themselves.I don't think this is totally correct. There are certain amounts and certain things that have to be open content, but Paizo doesn't have to make all the rules open content. I don't remember the exact percent of a game product that uses the OGL that must be open content, but it is not 100%.
Actually, the division is: rules must remain open while "product identity" stuff (places, artefacts, setting-specific things, etc.) are yours to keep under copyright. Basically, the difference between the PRD and the Core Rulebook, in fact -- the PRD doesn't discuss the gods of Golarion or what domains they offer under Cleric, for instance.
The thing that you're worried about didn't happen back then (you'll note that there was no Pathfinder RPG co-existent with a supported 3.5 -- PF happened in response to the GSL choking the 3PPs and the radical changes of 4e) -- and it would makes little business sense to do so now if 5e is actually open.Oh, you mean things during 3.x time like Conan and True 20, to name a couple?
And of course Paizo wasn't competing with WotC during 3.x, they were producing OFFICIAL CONTENT! They had the inside track. That is probably one of the main reasons why they were able to explode after 3.5 ended and those other systems did not as much. Because people that were hesitant to try 3PP were fine using Paizo's content from Dungeon and Dragon because it was official content.
Paizo is a full fledged game company now, they aren't going to go back to just producing supplemental products for D&D even if D&D shot back up to the stratosphere.
I didn't say there weren't any variant systems, what I'm saying is that they generally didn't fare very well -- certainly not when compared to the core system -- and that it makes a lot more business sense to hitch a ride on the success of the brand than it does to go against it.
If there's a huge resurgence in support for the D&D brand (and the fact that they were able to announce this in the real media, not just gaming, indicates they'll be pushing hard for marketing), then there's a lot more money in making stuff to support it (eg - one or more Pathfinder "modules" to plug into 5e [say, the APG classes, possibly Ultimates] -- assuming the supposedly "modular" design allows for that sort of thing) than competing against it -- and, in fact, such a thing would help sales for both companies. (I suspect that the players who do feel "betrayed" by Wizards would be way more likely to look at 5e if there's PF support)
Actually, the division is: rules must remain open while "product identity" stuff (places, artefacts, setting-specific things, etc.) are yours to keep under copyright. Basically, the difference between the PRD and the Core Rulebook, in fact -- the PRD doesn't discuss the gods of Golarion or what domains they offer under Cleric, for instance.
I don't think it is as clear cut or complete as you are making it seem. Not all mechanics need be open content. I've seen several open game products that had prestige or base classes for example that were not open content (I think there was an arcane warrior in Blackmoor d20 that wasn't as an example).
I didn't say there weren't any variant systems, what I'm saying is that they generally didn't fare very well -- certainly not when compared to the core system -- and that it makes a lot more business sense to hitch a ride on the success of the brand than it does to go against it.
If there's a huge resurgence in support for the D&D brand (and the fact that they were able to announce this in the real media, not just gaming, indicates they'll be pushing hard for marketing), then there's a lot more money in making stuff to support it (eg - one or more Pathfinder "modules" to plug into 5e [say, the APG classes, possibly Ultimates] -- assuming the supposedly "modular" design allows for that sort of thing) than competing against it -- and, in fact, such a thing would help sales for both companies. (I suspect that the players who do feel "betrayed" by Wizards would be way more likely to look at 5e if there's PF support)
And there are some smaller game companies that could be putting out PF (you know, the big dog at the moment) support material that haven't or have just put out a marginal product in favor of their own system (Goodman and Green Ronin for example).
Actually, the division is: rules must remain open while "product identity" stuff (places, artefacts, setting-specific things, etc.) are yours to keep under copyright. Basically, the difference between the PRD and the Core Rulebook, in fact -- the PRD doesn't discuss the gods of Golarion or what domains they offer under Cleric, for instance.I don't think it is as clear cut or complete as you are making it seem. Not all mechanics need be open content. I've seen several open game products that had prestige or base classes for example that were not open content (I think there was an arcane warrior in Blackmoor d20 that wasn't as an example).
And neither is the Hellknight, technically, because it's tied to Golarion -- but I think you're more than splitting hairs at this point. Classes != rules and mechanics.
If there's a huge resurgence in support for the D&D brand (and the fact that they were able to announce this in the real media, not just gaming, indicates they'll be pushing hard for marketing), then there's a lot more money in making stuff to support it (eg - one or more Pathfinder "modules" to plug into 5e [say, the APG classes, possibly Ultimates] -- assuming the supposedly "modular" design allows for that sort of thing) than competing against it -- and, in fact, such a thing would help sales for both companies. (I suspect that the players who do feel "betrayed" by Wizards would be way more likely to look at 5e if there's PF support)And there are some smaller game companies that could be putting out PF (you know, the big dog at the moment) support material that haven't or have just put out a marginal product in favor of their own system (Goodman and Green Ronin for example).
They could, although, most of them are either keeping their own brands alive, or releasing "generic" D20 system supplements (for instance, Dreamscarred's psionic rules) -- because it allows you to have a wider marketshare than releasing for PF -- especially since the PF brand is part of "product identity" -- just like older supplements couldn't say "D&D Compatible" - they had to say "D20".
In any case, you clearly have your view -- and since Mike Mearls own comments, past experiences, etc, etc all lead you to believe that a new OGL 2.0 (for 5e) will lead Paizo to kill 5e from within (despite it making absolutely no sense, either economically or in terms of the larger gaming community) -- then I see little gain in repeating myself since your mind is clearly set on the matter.